Farmed Fish Story - A Whopper of a Controversy

[www.farmfreshsalmon.org]

Positive Aquaculture Awareness - Anti-aquaculture activist David Suzuki's slanderous remark suggests he has abandoned science for hysteria; PAA demands apology

CAMPBELL RIVER, BC, Sept. 16, 2004

David Suzuki's recent public remark calling farmed salmon a "poison" flies in the face of scientific evidence and is further proof that he and his organization, the David Suzuki Foundation, have abandoned scientific fact for hysterical fiction.

"This latest comment from David Suzuki goes straight to the issue of
credibility. He's supposed to be a scientist, but his remark, quoted in the
Toronto Star, could not have been less scientific - and it's slanderous." said Laurie Jensen, president of grassroots Positive Aquaculture Awareness.

"No less than the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Council on Science and Health, the American Heart
Association, the World Health Organization, the National Fisheries Institute,
Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration have all declared farmed salmon to be a healthy, nutritious food," said Jensen.

"Mr. Suzuki's slanderous remark is an insult to these prestigious
scientific and regulatory institutions, not to mention the thousands of
community and First Nations members who proudly work in the salmon farming industry," said Jensen.

"Mr. Suzuki may be endangering the health of Canadians with this
irresponsible and baseless comment," said Jensen. "He's attacking the only
food that provides consumers with a fresh, affordable source of Omega-3 fatty acids year-round,"

Numerous scientific studies have shown that Omega-3 fatty acids, which
are found in salmon, can help prevent heart disease and Alzheimer's. According to the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization wild fisheries alone will not be able to sustainably meet the increasing demand for affordable, year-round supplies of fish such as salmon.

"Mr. Suzuki needs to make an immediate public apology and retract his
remark calling farmed salmon a 'poison'," said Jensen. "Anything less is
unacceptable, and could negatively impact the health of Canadians," she said.

For further information: Laurie Jensen, (250) 286-8802 (office),
(250) 830-7615 (cell) or; Ian Roberts, (250) 830-8923 (cell),
www.farmfreshsalmon.org


For more about First Nations and Farmed Fish issues, visit . . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-fishfarms.htm

[salmonoftheamericas.com]

New Studies Show PCB Levels in Farmed Salmon Comparable to Wild

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

October 21, 2004

Farmed salmon is okay to eat, says the latest study of levels of PCBs - comparable to wild salmon.

No doubt this will not go down in history as the definitive research about the safety of farmed salmon. However, it is the latest volley fired in the war of words between the aquaculture industry and naysayers - a.k.a die hard wild salmon advocates.

The latest round of PCB monitoring was carried out by Salmon of the Americas /SOTA, and revealed levels of PCBs in farmed salmon at about the same levels as those from wild Alaska Chinook and sockeye salmon.

SOTA says, "This should put to rest any fears that arose from the notorious Hites study which appeared in the journal Science in January 2004, proclaiming farmed salmon to have higher levels of PCBs than their wild cousins".

The SOTA testing found PCB levels in farmed salmon to be 11.5 ppb. These levels are virtually identical to those from the most recent study done by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation /ADEC, which found PCB levels in wild sockeye and Chinook to be 10 ppb and 8.2 ppb, respectively. The FDA tolerance is 2000 ppb per fish. The bottom line?

"The benefits of salmon far outweigh the risks. Salmon is one of the best sources of omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to stave off heart attacks, minimize symptoms of arthritis, help control blood glucose levels and reduce the incidence of Alzheimers. A recent study found that women who ate fatty fish once a week had a 40 percent lower risk of heart disease than did women who ate fish less than once per month."

The debate over farmed versus wild salmon is wide-ranging, with many opposed to aquaculture because of concerns it threatens the wild stock. Interesting that this latest study uses research from Alaska where fish farming is banned, in favour of promoting wild salmon.

BACKGROUND
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-fishfarms.htm

- - - - - - -

Here's the New Data

PRINCETON, N.J., Oct. 21, 2004

Ditch the pills, potions and diets, and eat salmon. This is the clear message based on all we know about this popular fish. And new studies on the PCB levels just reinforce it loud and clear.

The latest round of PCB monitoring carried out by Salmon of the Americas
(SOTA) show levels of PCBs in farmed salmon at about the same levels as those from wild Alaska Chinook and sockeye salmon. This should put to rest any fears that arose from the notorious Hites study which appeared in the journal "Science" in January 2004 proclaiming farmed salmon to have higher levels of PCBs than their wild cousins.

The current SOTA testing found PCB levels in farmed salmon to be 11.5 ppb. These levels are virtually identical to those from the most recent study done by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), which found PCB levels in wild sockeye and Chinook to be 10 ppb and 8.2 ppb, respectively. The FDA tolerance is 2000 ppb per fish.

What's the Real Risk?
PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyls that were used in manufacturing for
almost half a century. When PCBs were found to be toxic, the United States banned their use in 1979. However there is no scientific evidence showing that PCBs in fish or the environment have ever caused cancer in humans. In fact, workers in industrial settings exposed to PCBs on a daily basis show no higher rates of cancer than the rest of the population.

"This fascination with PCBs in salmon is reminiscent of past food scares,"
says Doris Adler, cardiac dietitian with Saint Joseph's Hospital in Atlanta,
GA. The amount of PCBs ingested through salmon is so insignificant that it's not worth fretting over. In fact we eat more PCBs from other foods than we do from salmon. It's unfortunate that coverage generated by the Hites study was so misleading that it drove many consumers away from a heart-healthy food."

According to Eric Rimm, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition
at the Harvard School of Public Health, "The health benefits of the protein
and omega-3 fatty acids found in wild salmon or farmed salmon from Canada or Chile, where the US gets most of its salmon, will almost definitely outweigh the risks for American adults where the leading cause of death is from cardiovascular diseases."

In addition, mercury, which has been a problem for some other fish, is not
a problem in farmed or wild salmon.

Hands Down: The Best for Heart Health
The bottom line? The benefits of salmon far outweigh the risks. Salmon
is one of the best sources of omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to stave off heart attacks, minimize symptoms of arthritis, help control blood glucose levels and reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's. A recent study found that women who ate fatty fish once a week had a 40 percent lower risk of heart disease than did women who ate fish less than once per month.

"In addition to having three to four times the omega-3s of other fish,
farmed salmon is inexpensive and readily available," says Kathleen Zelman, registered dietitian in Marietta, GA. "And perhaps best of all for the diet-weary, it's easy to prepare and tastes great. Eating more salmon is an excellent means of controlling calories in our weight-conscious society while also providing an array of health benefits. It is literally one of the best ways you can protect your heart, and heart disease is the number one killer in the United States today."

For further information: Alex Trent, Salmon of the Americas,
+1-888-511-3070, ed@salmonoftheamericas.com

Web site: http://www.salmonoftheamericas.com

[First Nations and Salmon]

For Immediate Release

December 15, 2004

Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council responds to launch of Pacific
Salmon Forum

ALERT BAY – The Pacific Salmon Forum, launched today by the B.C.
provincial government, is a flagrant attempt to mislead the public into
believing that the Province cares about wild fisheries and a clear case
of too little, too late, says the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council
(MTTC).

The MTTC, whose territory includes B.C.’s Broughton Archipelago, have
clear rights and title to the area. Despite this, they were not consulted or involved in this process. The MTTC have never given their consent for any of the current 27 open netcage salmon farms, implicated in the spread of sea lice among wild juvenile salmon, to be operating in their territory.

The MTTC also points to the existence of other studies which have been
conducted on the future of B.C.’s wild salmon stocks, including the
Salmon Aquaculture Review, completed in 1997, and the Leggatt Inquiry in 2001 – neither of which have been adequately acted upon.

The five million dollars being invested in the Pacific Salmon Forum
could be used to invest in closed-containment aquaculture systems that
don’t harm wild salmon populations, suggests the MTTC.

“The premier is not in touch with the reality of the situation,” says
Eric Joseph, Chief of the Tsawataineuk First Nation. “The people of B.C.
should not be manipulated with pre-election posturing. The only solution
is real change – change to closed-containment aquaculture systems.”

"We will be contacting the Premier and Minister to assure a role on the
Forum and to ensure the process is thorough and acceptable, and to
ensure that the Federal and Provincial Governments act upon this and
previous studies and recommendations,” says Chief Joseph. “We will also
continue to implement our own objectives in protecting wild fisheries
and work with our partners towards alternatives to protect our environment."

For more information, contact:
Eric Joseph
Chief
Tsawataineuk First Nation
250-974-4224

MUSGAMAGW TSAWATAINEUK TRIBAL COUNCIL
P. O. BOX 90, ALERT BAY, B.C. VON 1A0
TEL: (250) 974 - 5516 FAX: (250) 974 – 5466

Email: admin@mttc.ca or CaroleP@mttc.ca

[Fish Farms]

From: Fay Blaney
fayblaney@yahoo.ca

Sunday, January 30, 2005 5:27 PM

Subject: Xwémalhkwu Court Case


Hello Everyone

Just a quick note to say that there is still time to come out and offer support in the court room if you haven't come out yet.

For those of you that have been supporting, we are most grateful. We thank Don Bain and Stewart Phillip for organizing support as well as your presence in the court room.

We thank Dave Porter and Ed John for coming out to the Press Conference, and Collin Braker for organizing support.

And we thank Shawn Atleo, Assembly of First Nations, BC Vice-Chief for coming to that press conference too.

Although BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission was unable to attend, we thank you for sending your support and words of encouragement.

We thank Chief Bill Cramner for your incredible support throughout all of this. Bill was at the Press Conference, the rally on Wednesday and in court for a full 3 days. Thank you very much Bill.

There are many others to thank including my good friends Mary Howard and Betsy Bruyere, Hereditary Chief Glen Williams, Seislom, Eric Blueschke, etc. and we will do that in proper Xwémalhkwu style when this is completed.

As noted above, the case has been extended to be heard on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. And if need be, we will be back in court the following Thursday and Friday, February 10 and 11.

I will not disclose too much information about what has been happening in court in case I jeopardize our arguments. But I will say that we just won another round of Marine Harvest Fish Farm's attempts to lift the injunction. They appealed the injunction on January 14 and lost their appeal. Then on Friday, they argued to replace the injunction with an undertaking not to put anymore Atlantic Salmon in until the end of February. We were very pleased that Justice Power upheld the original injunction, and that will remain in place until he hands down his decision.

If you are forwarding this email to others, I will provide a brief overview of what this case is about. A Fish Farm was placed right in the middle of our Traditional Territory in 2002 - not just in the middle of our territory, but right in front of our village. In April 2004, they applied to replace the Chinook Salmon (that they were originally licensed for) with Atlantic Salmon. Then on December 8, 2004, they got final approval to put Atlantics in. Our case is based on the Haida Gwaii - Taku River Tlinglit Supreme Court of Canada Case on the Honor of the Crown, and it's Duty to "Consult" and to "Accommodate" us - our Aboriginal Title and Rights. Another aspect of our case is based on the Science. There has been some new information coming to light since the original license was given in 2002. We maintain that the Crown did not adequately consult with us, or take our scientific evidence into account, or any other scientific evidence for that matter.

This case is important because it will have an impact on other First Nations. We have gotten a lot of calls of support and encouragement from other First Nations because they too are not consulted on resources activities in their Traditional Territories. The Haida case referred to the "impoverished" honor of the Crown. In Chief Darren Blaney's statement, he refers to this as "sleezy consultation".

Please come out and offer your support. Even if it's just popping in for a half hour. This means a lot to the Xwémalhkwu members who have been sitting in the court room every day last week.

Thank you

Fay Blaney
Xwémalhkwu Treaty Coordinator
fayblaney@yahoo.ca

- - - - - - -

New round in the on-going pros and cons of fish farms in BC . . .

Campbell Government accused of sleazy dealings . . .

"Consultation with Xwemalhkwu First Nation did not even figure in BC's process."

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 26, 2005

Following a Long Live Aboriginal Rights and Title rally, Xwemalhkwu -Homalco First Nation chief Darren Blaney, had some powerful words in a message for the Premier of BC,"This is our opportunity to move beyond the sleezy consultation process you presently engage in. Lets move into something more meaningful that will be respectful to all".

He was speaking at a news conference in Vancouver this week, discussing the recent BC Supreme Court decision ordering Marine Harvest Canada to remove Atlantic Salmon from their fish farm in Xwemalhkwu /Homalco territory. The Court also granted a judicial review of the process that led to the approval of the fish farm in the first place.

The process commenced with a broad base of First Nations support - Vice-Chief Shawn Atleo - Assembly of First Nations, BC Region - Chief Bill Cramner - Namgis First Nation, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council - Chief Stewart Phillip - Union of BC Indian Chiefs - Dave Porter - First Nations Summit - Grand Chief Ed John - First Nations Summit - BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission.

Chief Blaney provided background, "the court case that we are faced with today comes as a result of the BC governments refusal to i. provide us with the information that we have requested - and ii. therefore their refusal to consult with Xwemalhkwu on Marine Harvests application to introduce Atlantic stocks into Church House. I am very disturbed by the level of certainty about Atlantic salmon that the Fish Farm industry had in Bute Inlet, our Traditional Territory.

With MAFF providing summary approval at the initial stages of Marine Harvests application, consultation with Xwemalhkwu First Nation did not even figure in BC's process. This is exactly what the Haida refer to as -BC running roughshod- in the consultation with Xwemalhkwu. Xwemalhkwu First Nation was notified a full week after Marine Harvest began placing Atlantic smolts into the Church House site".

- - - - - - -
BACKGROUND

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Oral Reasons for Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice Pitfield
Pronounced in Chambers
December 24, 2004

BETWEEN:



DARREN BLANEY, CHIEF COUNCILLOR, FLORENCE HACKETT,
BONNIE WILSON, CLYDE LEO, BILL BLANEY, BAND COUNCILLORS,
suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the members
of the HOMALCO INDIAN BAND, and HOMALCO INDIAN BAND

PETITIONERS

AND:

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES
and MARINE HARVEST CANADA

RESPONDENTS


Counsel for the Petitioners:
Peter R.A. Grant
Brian O’Reilly
Lee R. Schmidt



Counsel for the Crown:
Lisa J. Mrozinski

Counsel for Marine Harvest:
Jill M. Shore


[1] THE COURT: This is an application brought by the petitioners for an interim injunction pending the hearing and disposition of their petition filed December 22, 2004.

[2] The petitioners are the Homalco Indian Band, its chief councillor, other councillors and the members of the Band. The respondents are the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia and Marine Harvest Canada.

[3] Marine Harvest Canada is licenced to raise Chinook salmon in facilities at Church House located on Bute Inlet in British Columbia. Those facilities are located on lands or adjacent to lands which the Homalco Indian Band claims to be part of its aboriginal territory.

[4] The dispute which prompts the petition is concerned with the licence which has been granted by the Province to Marine Harvest Canada, and amended to permit the introduction of Atlantic salmon to the facility at Church House.

[5] In the course of these reasons which I am providing orally because of the urgency that surrounds this matter and the shortness of time which has been available to all concerned, whether they be petitioners, respondents or the court, I am not to be taken to be making any findings of fact which should in any way reflect upon or be regarded as findings of fact material or relevant to any aboriginal claims which may have been asserted by Homalco Indian Band in relation to its lands or lands over which it claims an interest.

[6] Nor am I to be taken as having made or making any finding of fact in respect of the principal issues which must be decided in the course of hearing the petition. My only concern today is to determine whether or not there should be an interim injunction, and if so, on what terms, with respect to the farming of Atlantic salmon at the facility in Bute Inlet.

[7] The petitioners say that they have a prima facie case that the Crown has not consulted in relation to the amendment to the Marine Harvest licence, as the Crown is obliged to do, particularly having regard for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced earlier this year in Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004 SCC 73. They say there is a risk of irreparable harm in the event that Atlantic salmon farming is not curtailed at the site, and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim injunction.

[8] The respondent, Marine Harvest Canada, acknowledges for the purposes of this hearing that the petition discloses a prima facie case. They dispute the claim that irreparable harm would result from the introduction of Atlantic salmon fish to the farm at Church House, and they say, for reasons which I will come to, that the balance of convenience does not favour the granting of an injunction.

[9] The provincial Crown takes the position that the material in the petition does not disclose a prima facie case, namely a breach of the Crown's duty to consult with the Band in respect of its aboriginal claims, and say, as does Marine Harvest, that irreparable harm would not result from the introduction of Atlantic salmon to the site in Bute Inlet and the balance of convenience does not favour the granting of an injunction.

[10] The injunction, if it is to be granted, would be granted against Marine Harvest Canada to restrain or restrict its activities at the Church House site. I therefore propose to be governed by its acknowledgment, for the purposes of this hearing, interim as it is, that a prima facie case is disclosed in the petition.

[11] In order that there be no doubt in that regard, I would say absent the admission by Marine Harvest Canada, I would have come to that very same conclusion.

[12] Having said that, I am not to be taken, as I said earlier, in any way, shape or form, and do not want to be taken, as making any judgment or offering any opinion with respect to the substance of the petitioner's claim. I say only that the petition discloses a prima facie case.

[13] Bute Inlet is part of the Mainland Coast of British Columbia, situated, as I recall, somewhat below Knight Inlet, but well up the Coast. It is claimed to be, and has been so claimed for many years, part of or in part the aboriginal territory of the Homalco Indian Band.

[14] The Bute Inlet provides the estuary, I suppose is the best way to describe it, for three rivers: the Southgate, the Homathko and the Orford, each of which, as I appreciate the evidence, is a salmon spawning river.

[15] Church House appears at this point in time to be on the migration route for salmon that return to spawn in any of the three rivers. The approval which was granted to Marine Harvest to create a salmon farming enterprise at Church House was obtained in, I believe it was 2002. It is the only site on Bute Inlet in which salmon of any kind are farmed.

[16] The operation as it was originally put together contemplated and indeed created a farming enterprise for Chinook salmon, one of the species native to the West Coast of British Columbia.

[17] There is a paucity of evidence from which I could conclude that any application was made for approval of an Atlantic salmon fishing enterprise at that site when the original application was made in 2002. There is some evidence to suggest that it may have been in contemplation, but most assuredly, it was not the subject matter of application. I derive that conclusion from the fact that an application to amend the licence that was granted was required.

[18] There is evidence provided by the affidavit of Mr. Graham, Assistant Deputy Minister of Resource Development for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, that Atlantic salmon farming is widespread throughout British Columbia and that the farming of Atlantic salmon constituted 80 percent of total production.

[19] As I say, that appears to be the case in respect of the Province as a whole. The extent to which Atlantic salmon have been farmed in the Bute Inlet area is not in dispute. There has been no farming of that species at all at that location.

[20] When the application for a licence was originally made, the Homalco Band was consulted and in the course of a Federal government review process, was asked of its views with respect to the installation of the farming centre, if you like, at Church House.

[21] The information and their statement of position was sought in the course of the preparation of what is called a "CEAA Screening Report" which is exactly that, a screening report prepared by Fisheries and Oceans Canada reporting on habitat and enhancement aspects of the proposed development.

[22] The review proceeded in the context of an application for the farming of Chinook salmon only. The Band indicated that it did not oppose the creation of the site.

[23] On April 22, 2004, Marine Harvest applied to the Province for an amendment to its licence to permit the placement of Atlantic salmon in the Church House facility. That application was required because of the fact that the licence they held permitted the farming of Chinook salmon only.

[24] The evidence also suggests, and I say no more than that, that the applicant was aware in April 2004 that it would need additional sites at which to farm Atlantic salmon, which it was producing at either or both of two hatcheries which it owns or operates in the Province of British Columbia. It was aware of the need to find a home at sea for fish that were being produced at the hatchery when application was made in April 2004.

[25] Some three months after the filing of the initial application on July 20, 2004, the Provincial government first wrote to the Homalco Indian Band reporting on the fact of the application and asking for the Band's comments.

[26] Homalco, in another context, had provided the government with a submission, with which I need not be particularly concerned in this application, on July 23, 2004, and responded to the licensing proposal as outlined to them by the Provincial government in early August 2004.

[27] Additional correspondence passed from the Band or its solicitors to the Provincial government, at the least on August 11, October 7 and October 28, 2004.

[28] The evidentiary value of some of that which is expressed in the correspondence may be disputed during the course of the hearing of the petition, but for present purposes I remark only that correspondence passed from the Band or its counsel to the government in relation to this issue on the dates I have specified.

[29] The Band asked for particulars of the Marine Harvest management plan, having stated their concerns with respect to the possible transmission of disease, the possibility of adverse effects from sea lice and also the possibility of the Atlantic salmon's capacity to colonize in the rivers which flow into Bute Inlet, namely the Orford, the Homathko and the Southgate.

[30] No substantive response to the submissions or correspondence was made by the government until November 22, 2004. Either in that letter or earlier correspondence, the government advised the Band that it was not entitled to have access to the Marine Harvest management report or management plan, as that was a plan in respect of which proprietary ownership was claimed.

[31] Further correspondence ensued from November 22, 2004, whether by e‑mail or otherwise, between the Homalco Band and the government, with the Band requesting an opportunity to meet, additional time to consult, and expressing its concerns regarding the farming of Atlantic salmon in the lands to which it claimed aboriginal title.

[32] The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries advised the Homalco Indian Band in early December that a decision would be made in relation to the application to amend the licence by December 9, 2004.

[33] The Homalco Indian Band expressed concerns that its interests had not been considered. It continued to express a desire to meet and to be consulted with respect to the granting of the licence.

[34] The Provincial government took the view that it had done what was necessary insofar as the Band's interests were concerned, and concluded it was open to the government to approve the amendment to the licence, which, in fact, it did.

[35] While the Band was advised that the licence would be granted December 9, 2004, it appears in fact to have been actually amended on December 8, 2004.

[36] The day following the amendment to the licence, on December 9th or 10th, fish in the smolt stage were moved by Marine Harvest to the facility at Church House. The promptness with which those fish were moved should be contrasted with the very helpful, and I mean that sincerely, advice I have received from counsel for Marine Harvest. Counsel has responded to questions that I raised in a most forthright manner saying that it would be difficult for Marine Harvest, if it were ordered to do so, to move fish from the Church House site immediately as transfer boats are not available to it.

[37] That advice, received by counsel I assume from the client, is also to be contrasted with other affidavit evidence to the effect that all of the fish which are at the smolt stage in one or other of two hatcheries, must be moved to the Church House site not later than January 10, 2005.

[38] The reality is that from the date on which the amendment was made to December 22nd, when the petition was filed, approximately one‑half of the licenced quantity of fish was moved from the hatcheries to Church House.

[39] In response to the Homalco Band's complaint that the Ministry has not adequately and fully consulted with it, the government has responded saying that it is aware of the Band's concerns regarding Atlantic salmon, and those will be addressed in the course of considering a renewal application, the current amendment to the licence being effective for a period of one year.

[40] Other affidavit evidence indicates that the fish are to be in place at the site for 15 to 19 months. The indications are that the more the fish mature, the more difficult it is to relocate them to any facility. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how, if consultation has not been adequate to this point in time, corrections of a meaningful nature might be made by reviewing and perhaps curtailing renewal of the licence in the fall of 2005.

[41] The situation then is that approximately half of the licenced number of fish is on location, with Marine Harvest ready to move the remainder to the site without delay.

[42] The petition which has been filed by the Band seeks an order quashing the amendment to the licence on the basis that the Crown did not fulfill its duty to consult in the manner required by the Haida decision to which I earlier referred.

[43] The application falls to be determined by reference to three criteria. The first is whether there is a serious question to be tried. That has been conceded by Marine Harvest for purposes of this application, appropriately without any admission regarding the merits. As I have indicated, the petition lays out a prima facie case in any event.

[44] The second point with which I must be concerned is whether or not irreparable harm will result if interim injunctive relief is not granted. In that regard, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. The Attorney General of Canada, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, paras. 58 and 59, as follows is instructive:

At this stage, the only issue to be decided is whether a refusal to grant relief could so adversely affect the applicant's own interests, that the harm could not be remedied if the eventual decision on the merits does not accord with the result of the interlocutory application.

"Irreparable" refers to the nature of the harm suffered rather than its magnitude. It is harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured usually because one party cannot collect damages from the other. Examples of the former include instances where one party will be put out of business by the Court's decision, where one party will suffer permanent market loss or irrevocable damage to its business reputation or where a permanent loss of nature resources will be the result when a challenged activity is not enjoined.

[45] The point that I wish to make is that the test has sometimes been phrased as whether or not the individual or applicant for the injunction would suffer irreparable harm in the event it is not granted. I am satisfied that the test at this point of the consideration must be whether or not there is a likelihood or probability or reasonable possibility of harm. It need not be an absolute certainty.

[46] The question of the degree to which the harm may appear to be a risk is something which is more properly assessed in the context of balance of convenience.

[47] The risk of irreparable harm or threat of irreparable harm which is raised by the Band is, as I have said, the risk of transfer of disease, the risk of the infection of native fish with sea lice, and the possibility that Atlantic salmon will colonize otherwise Pacific‑salmon‑only rivers.

[48] There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the risks exist with the Province and Marine Harvest pointing to the nature and the extent of Atlantic salmon farm fisheries in British Columbia in support of their claim that there is little or no risk at all, and the Band pointing to other material which suggests that the contrary may be true or that the true risk associated with the farming of Atlantic salmon is unknown.

[49] I will quote from a few sources in order to outline the nature of the debate and the concern. I cite first from the CEAA report, the screening report to which I earlier made reference, at the summary in paragraph 6, in the course of which the Canadian government was concerned with the effect of fish farming in Bute Inlet, particularly in relation to the Church House agriculture project.

[50] That report stated at section 6 as follows:

Further research is needed with respect to the finfish aquaculture industry as a whole, to answer many outstanding questions that extend beyond the scope of this project review. More information the needed with regard to transfer of diseases and parasites between wild and farm fish, adaptability of escapees to the wild, genetic impacts of escaped farmed Pacific salmon interbreeding with wild Pacific salmon stocks, among other subjects.

As such, it is difficult to ascertain the severity of some potential impacts of the project and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. It is therefore also difficult to concretely determine the level of overall risk to the environment that will result from the proposed project and the degree to which cumulative impacts from the proposed finfish farm and other developments in the area will occur. As such, an adaptive management approach will be implemented in accordance with DFO's aquaculture site referral process interim operational policy guidelines.

The proponent will be required to monitor some environmental and operational parameters to enable implementation of adaptive management approaches as necessary to that. So that developing environmental impacts can be prevented. Marine Harvest Canada must operate the new site in accordance with the Federal Fisheries Act, provincial performance‑based standards presently being developed under the Waste Management Act and joint agency monitoring protocols, including the federal "HADD Avoidance Mitigation and Monitoring Agreement."

It is therefore considered that given our level of knowledge of the industry at this time, the direct effects of the project on valued ecosystem components and valued social components are not likely to lead to significant environmental effects or significant cumulative effects.

[51] I refer specifically to the fact that the report and conclusions which were provided in September 2002 were based upon then present states of knowledge as stated by the screening agency.

[52] The Provincial government points to material which is appended to the affidavit of Mr. Graham, the Assistant Deputy Minister, in which reference is made to a technical memorandum prepared in September 2001 on the net‑pen salmon farming industry in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

[53] In that report, observations are made or opinions are expressed to the effect that the farming of Atlantic salmon carries little or no risk as a result of escape, whether in the form of the potential for hybridization or colonization, competition with other species, or predation on indigenous species.

[54] I am advised that the State of Alaska may have taken a contrary view and may have proceeded to prohibit the farming of Atlantic salmon within waters of interest to that State.

[55] The Auditor General for Canada and the Province of British Columbia have been involved with the issue of fish farming and appear to have reported in 2004, whether at the federal or provincial level, as follows:

Overall, we are not satisfied with the progress made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in responding to the recommendations made in the three previous audits. While many stocks are abundant, some Atlantic and Pacific salmon stocks are in trouble. We continue to identify significant gaps in managing risks.

[56] Both the Commissioner, which is the Federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and the provincial Auditor General said of the prior audits:

The three audits also found significant gaps in the scientific knowledge about the potential effects of salmon aquaculture.

[57] The Commissioner stated:

Our current audit found that while some research has been undertaken or is ongoing, significant gaps still exist with respect to the needed research on the potential effects of salmon aquaculture in aquatic ecosystems and on wild salmon stocks.

[58] The Auditor General concluded in the 2004 report as follows:

We found that there are gaps and uncertainty in knowledge about the interactions between salmon aquaculture and wild salmon, particularly around topics such as disease transfer, the ability of farm Pacific salmon to interbreed with wild Pacific salmon, the colonization capabilities of farmed Atlantic salmon and the cumulative impacts of salmon aquaculture.

[59] I refer to these texts, and extracts from them, for the purpose of saying that this is not an issue without its difficulties, and it is also an issue in respect of which knowledge and science continue to evolve. At the same time, some of those who are in positions of responsibility are concerned about the extent to which that which is being done in relation to the farming of Atlantic salmon poses a risk to the environment generally and to wild Pacific salmon stocks in particular.

[60] I am satisfied that there is sufficient concern regarding escapement and the possible deleterious effects of escapement on the West Coast salmon fishery, that the creation of risk and the realization of risk could well result in irreparable harm to the fish stocks of Bute Inlet, and particularly the rivers in which fish spawn at its head; namely the Southgate, the Homathko, and the Orford.

[61] I am satisfied, for the purposes of this interim injunction application only, that the test that there be a risk of irreparable harm has been satisfied. The third question with which I need to be concerned is whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction.

[62] The starting point must be, I would suggest, the requirement that the government, be they the Federal government or the Provincial government, has a duty to consult with aboriginals in respect of matters affecting aboriginal lands. The right to be consulted, described and formulated most recently by the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida, does not give any native group a right of veto over any government's management of resources under its jurisdiction.

[63] That said, however, a meaningful opportunity for consultation must be afforded. If in retrospect, one finds that a meaningful opportunity has not been afforded, then failing to provide immediate corrective remedies or to prevent further action under the impugned process or licensing rights, tends to sound a death knell to the consultation process because the harm which could result from it might never be rectified.

[64] The consultation process, if it is to have the meaning which the Supreme Court of Canada says it should have, requires that there be substantive consultation. In the event that the consultation process is challenged, then obviously as the law evolves, means are going to have to be found to determine on a timely basis whether the obligation to consult has been satisfied.

[65] In this case, the result of the grant of the amendment and the supply of fish within a very short space of time, by which I mean a matter of hours, at the most days, to the location, suggests that the Homalco Indian Band at the least has a basis upon which to claim that an injunction should be granted on an interim basis, pending disposition of its substantive claim.

[66] The balance of convenience from the Band's point of view, as I have said, is that the risk of harm to the native fish stocks would be diminished by grant of an injunction, and the consultative rights that it enjoys by virtue of rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada would be respected.

[67] From the company's point of view, the claim is that in respect of the fish that are now there, cost would be incurred in relocating them to another site. The availability of another site does not appear to be an issue. That follows from the fact that there are other sites to which Marine Harvest has said the fish could be moved. There appear to be a number of other sites available, none of them in the Bute Inlet area.

[68] The company is concerned that in the event it is obliged to move the fish at a cost, it would be unable to recoup damages that it might sustain as a result of complying with that order unless an undertaking to pay damages were given and secured by the Band.

[69] The Band has said that it does not wish to provide, and does not feel under the circumstances that it is appropriate that it should provide, an undertaking in that regard.

[70] Another factor in the assessment of balance of convenience is that if the fish that are presently on site must be moved, the likelihood is that they would have to be moved to a site which would have to be made ready for their acceptance. The move might not take place within a short time frame. There is a risk that a significant loss or escapement of fish might occur in the course of transfer particularly in the event adverse weather conditions are encountered. That risk of loss may be greater than the risk of escapement from the present site.

[71] The conclusion that I have reached in this matter is that an injunction should be granted that is not as extensive, perhaps, as the Band would like, but more extensive than that which Marine Harvest would obviously like.

[72] I am going to enjoin Marine Harvest from placing any Atlantic salmon in the Church House site in any number beyond the number that were on site at December 22, 2004, the date the petition was filed.

[73] In the event any fish have been introduced to the Church House site from December 21, 2004 to today's date, they shall forthwith be removed and transported to another location in a number that is exactly equal to the number of fish placed on site from December 22nd to December 24th inclusive.

[74] The injunction prohibiting the introduction of any new salmon to the Church House site will remain in force until January 31, 2005, unless continued, varied or set aside by order of the Court in advance of the close of registry business on January 31, 2005.

[75] I am not prepared to order that the customary practice of requiring the Band to provide an undertaking with respect to the payment of damages as contemplated by Rule 45(6) of the Rules of Court. I consider that the circumstances are such that I should exercise my discretion to obviate the need to provide that undertaking. Those circumstances include the fact that the fish that are there are permitted to remain in place during the currency of the injunction and, on the evidence, there appear to be places to which Marine Harvest may relocate the fish which it had intended for delivery to the Church House site.

[76] Another factor making the undertaking inappropriate is the fact that Marine Harvest appears to have made a business decision, as it was perfectly entitled to do, to proceed with the production of smolts for which it did not have homes or for which it would not have had a home in the absence of the licence amendment. It was fully aware of the circumstances under which it was able to operate its business. In those circumstances, it is not appropriate, in my judgment, for the Band to be required to post a bond.

[77] The matter of costs will be in the cause. With respect to the cause, I propose to now discuss with counsel the fixing of a date for the hearing of the substantive petition, and the scheduling of the exchange of materials.

[78] I will say before closing these reasons that I am going to order that the matter will proceed, subject only to one possible limitation, and that is the inability of the registry to make a trial judge available. It will proceed and be heard over a period of five days commencing January [24], 2005, at the Law Courts in Vancouver.

(DISCUSSION)

[79] THE COURT: If that was not clear, I certainly meant it that way. No more Atlantic salmon may be introduced by Marine Harvest to that site during the currency of the injunction. That number of fish, since it obviously will not be the same fish as were placed there, that number of fish that were placed from December 22nd to December 24th, inclusive, will be removed from the site forthwith. The other fish will remain in place and may remain in place during the course of the injunction.

[80] That concludes then my reasons with respect to the interim injunction.

(DISCUSSION)

[81] THE COURT: I think that that is probably a reasonable request. I will ask Marine Harvest to verify by affidavit to be filed in the court and to be served upon counsel for the petitioners, the numbers and dates and times of delivery of Atlantic salmon to the Church House site. That affidavit should be provided within two weeks of today's date.

(DISCUSSION)

[82] THE COURT: I want Marine Harvest to verify by affidavit whether or not any fish were delivered from December 22nd to December 24th inclusive, and if so, in what quantities. That affidavit is to be provided by counsel for the company to counsel for the Band not later than the close of business on January 7, 2005.

“I.H. Pitfield, J.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice I.H. Pitfield

[Fish Farm Court Decision]

Court rules in Fish Farm Dispute on BC Coast . . .

Xwemahlkwu First Nation wins partial victory . . .

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

March 4, 2005

Fisheries officials are ordered to consult over controversial fish farm decision on BC Central Coast.

Xwemahlkwu First Nation, also known as the Homalco Indian Band won a partial victory in BC Supreme Court.

The First Nation went to court after the BC Government allowed Marine Harvest Canada to raise Atlantic salmon. Although the court has not agreed to a judicial review or ordered the removal of the Atlantic salmon, Chief Darren Blaney called it a victory, "Although Marine Harvest applied in the courtroom, as well as in a separate action, to have the injunction lifted, this injunction remains in place until proper consultation is completed".

Mr. Justice R.E. Powers explained his decision, "I make the following orders . . .

I adjourn the application for judicial review generally

I declare that the Minister had, and continues to have, a legally enforceable duty to the Homalco to consult with them in good faith, and to endeavour to seek workable accommodation between their interests and the long-term objectives of the Crown and Marine Harvest, and the public interest, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. This includes issues surrounding the location and management of the Church House fish farm and the amendment to the existing licence to allow the introduction of Atlantic salmon

The parties are at liberty to apply for further directions if they are unable to agree on a schedule for consultation

Marine Harvest is to participate in an appropriate way in the consultation

Marine Harvest will provide information subject to protection of confidentiality with respect to the fish health management plan and the best management plan.

The parties have liberty to apply if they are unable to agree under the specific terms required to protect the confidentiality of the information

Marine Harvest will not add any more Atlantic salmon to the Church House site until the process of consultation and potential accommodation has been completed, and the Ministry confirms the amendment of the licence, if it does so

The Ministry is to approach this consultation with an open mind and be prepared to withdraw its approval of the amendment if, after reasonable compensation, it determines that it is necessary to do so, or add whatever conditions appear to be necessary for reasonable accommodation of the concerns of the Homalco

The parties have leave to apply for further directions

The Homalco have leave to bring the matter back before the court in the event that they are of the view that further consultation and accommodation are inadequate."

- - - - - - -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Between:

Darren Blaney, Chief Councillor, Florence Hackett, Bonnie Wilson, Clyde Leo, Bill Blaney, Band Councillors, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Homalco Indian Band, and the Homalco Indian Band

Petitioners

And

The Minister of Agriculture Food and Fisheries and Marine Harvest Canada

Respondents

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC0283.htm

The Homalco argued that the only appropriate remedy was for the court to declare that the Ministry failed to properly consult, and an order quashing the approval of the amendment. They said an order should then be made that all of the Atlantic salmon presently at the Church House site be removed until consultation and, if necessary, reasonable accommodation is made for their concerns. They said this is necessary to put them in the position they were in before December 8, 2004.

The Ministry and Marine Harvest argued that such an order is unnecessary and inappropriate in these circumstances. They argued that even on the evidence provided by the Homalco, the risks that they raise regarding potential infringement of their Aboriginal rights are at the low end of the scale. Marine Harvest argued that it would cost them approximately $300,000.00 to move the Atlantic salmon that are presently at the Church House site. They also argued that this would have a significant impact on their potential earnings because they would lose the capacity for rearing salmon that they have at the Church House site. In other words, even if they had somewhere else to place these salmon, they will still lose the opportunity to use the Church House site and profit from the activities there. They estimated that the value of the salmon presently at Church House will be approximately 15 million dollars when the salmon reaches the stage where they are able to harvest them.

The Judge ruled, "I find that it would be unreasonable to order the immediate removal of all of the Atlantic salmon presently at the Church House site".


- - - - - - -

Marine Harvest is the world’s largest aquaculture company, and the largest producer and suppler of farmed salmon. It operates the aquaculture facility which is at the site adjacent to the Church House Reserve and at the mouth of Bute Inlet. The licence was originally granted in 2002, allowing the raising of Chinook salmon. Marine Harvest applied in April of 2004 to amend the licence to allow them to raise Atlantic salmon. The MAFF wrote to Homalco on July 20, 2004 to notify them of the application and to obtain their input. A biologist at MAFF “approved” the application on July 28, 2004.

Marine Harvest placed 700,000 Atlantic smolts in the Church House site.

In their supplemental argument, the Homalco identify what they say are the potential adverse impacts on wild salmon arising from the introduction of Atlantic salmon to include the following:

The potential of farmed Atlantic salmon from their net cages through accident, negligence or force of nature;

The certainty of ‘leakage’ of Atlantic salmon from the aquaculture facility;

The potential colonization of the spawning habitat of wild Pacific salmon stocks by escaped Atlantic salmon and their offspring;

The potential displacement of wild stocks through competition from escaped Atlantic salmon for competition for food and other resources;

The potential spread of diseases such as ISA, IHN and Kudoa from farmed Atlantic salmon to wild Pacific salmon stocks;

The potential spread of sea lice from farmed Atlantic salmon to migrating wild Pacific salmon smolts causing significant declines in those stocks;

The potential adverse impact on wild Pacific salmon stocks arising from the cumulative effect of any of these adverse impacts in the impact such as habitat loss, overfishing and climate change which are already causing a significant decline in wild stocks;

The potential scale effects of the introduction of Atlantic salmon to the facility at issue when taken together with the adverse impacts arising from other salmon farms which may have an impact on the relevant stocks.

Regarding shell fish and other marine life the Homalco argue that the impact is affluent from the farm containing feces, food waste, and chemotheropeutants on nearby clam beds and other aquatic life forms may detrimentally affect their interests.

They also raise the issue of the potential impact on marine mammals which may attempt to feed on the Atlantic salmon at the fish farm and be destroyed in order to prevent that.

- - - - - - -
March 3, 2005

XWEMALHKWU FIRST NATION WIN HISTORIC COURT CASE

VANCOUVER, B.C – Justice Powers, a BC Supreme Court Judge, has ruled
that the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF)
erred in failing to properly consult with the Xwemalhkwu (Homalco) First
Nation regarding the approval of a species amendment to allow Marine
Harvest, the fish-farming arm of Dutch trans-national Nutreco, to
introduce Atlantic salmon smolts into its pens at the mouth of Bute
Inlet. The Xwemalhkwu launched the action on December 22, 2004 (see
attached backgrounder).

Chief Darren Blaney exclaimed, "We’re very pleased with this victory!
Although Marine Harvest applied in the courtroom, as well as in a
separate action, to have the injunction lifted, this injunction remains in place until proper consultation is completed. Justice Power’s wrote, "Marine Harvest will not add any more Atlantic salmon to the Church House site until the process of consultation and potential accommodation has been completed, and the Ministry confirms the amendment of the licence, if it does so;"

In other words, the Church House operation is frozen. This is yet another example of the `Impoverished vision of the Honor of the Crown’. Because the province has such shoddy consultation practices, the courts are now becoming the arena where consultations with First Nations are being managed” continued Chief Blaney.

"Justice Powers has confirmed what the Georgia Strait Alliance has been
saying for over a decade - the salmon farm industry in this province is
operating in the face of significant scientific knowledge gaps and
inadequate regulation," said Eric Blueschke of the Georgia Strait Alliance, "Despite this known reality, the provincial government
continues to increase the cumulative risk and impact on our coastal marine environments by facilitating the expansion of this industry."

Some Reasons for Judgement taken for Justice Power’s decision:

• "...the Minister had, and continues to have, a legally enforceable
duty to the Homalco to consult with them in good faith, and to endeavour
to seek workable accommodation between their interests and the long-term objectives of the Crown and Marine Harvest, and the public interest,
both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. This includes issues surrounding the
location and management of the Church House fish farm and the amendment to the existing licence to allow the introduction of Atlantic salmon;"

• “I would point out, however, that it is not simply direct or immediate
interference which is a concern. It is also indirect and potential
future interference…. The concerns raised by Homalco were not frivolous
or vexatious.”

• "Marine Harvest is to participate in an appropriate way in the
consultation."

• "The Ministry is to approach this consultation with an open mind and
be prepared to withdraw its approval of the amendment if, after
reasonable compensation [sic], it determines that it is necessary to do
so, or add whatever conditions appear to be necessary for reasonable
accommodation of the concerns of Homalco;"

• "The Homalco have leave to bring the matter back before the court in
the event that they are of the view that further consultation and
accommodation are inadequate."

BC and Marine Harvest relied heavily on the 1997 Salmon Aquaculture
Review (SAR) in their arguments, saying that it addressed the concerns
of Xwémalhkwu. The Justice found that, "The thrust of the Salmon
Agriculture [sic] Review is not that its recommendations will address
all of the concerns. The thrust of the review is that its recommendations are important in reducing potential risks, but that further research and ongoing preventative management and review are required." In addition, Justice Powers noted that the SAR does not address the issue of sea-lice, as the problem was not identified in 1997.

Although all the parties agreed that the court should not become the
arbitrator of scientific theories Justice Powers found that, "All of the
scientists and panels involved in studying the issues confirm that there
are serious gaps in knowledge and that research is needed to fill those
gaps."

The Xwemalhkwu First Nation and the Georgia Strait Alliance signed a
protocol agreement in 2004 outlining how the two groups will work
together on marine restoration and protection initiatives in Bute Inlet
and its surrounding waters. The Georgia Strait Alliance is a marine
conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the
Georgia Strait, its adjoining waters and communities.

For more information go to http://www.georgiastrait.org/

-30-

For interviews please contact:

Chief Darren Blaney, Homalco First Nation - 250-287-0204 (cell) or
250-923-4979
Peter Grant, Hutchins Grant and Associates - 604-209-1662 (cell) or
604-685-1229
Eric Blueschke, Georgia Strait Alliance - 250-334-6482

- - - - - - -

BACKGROUND
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =4975#4975

[Wild Salmon - Lice Threat]

March 30, 2005

"There is sufficient scientific evidence to compel precautionary action by regulators. The premise of industrial-scale open net aquaculture in wild salmon habitats needs to be reconsidered and the proposed expansion of the industry throughout BC must be halted until the full ecological costs of this industry are understood. There is a clear potential for severe and irreversible damages to be inflicted upon wild salmon populations and their dependent cultures, ecosystems, and economies."
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/pub ... ochure.htm

Researchers Reveal the Infectious Impact of Salmon Farms on Wild Salmon

Increase in sea lice infections of wild juvenile salmon are potentially deadly and extend for 30 km beyond farm

A new study published in the March 30th (2005) edition of the prestigious scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B (a publication of the UK’s national academy of science) shows that the transfer of parasitic sea lice from salmon farms to wild salmon populations is much larger and more extensive than previously believed.

This quantitative analysis of parasite transfer is a scientific milestone in a contentious debate. It is the first to isolate and measure the impact of a fish farm on sea lice outbreaks in wild salmon. The study combined new field techniques that allowed comprehensive, individual observations of over 5,500 young wild pink and chum salmon over 60 km of migration route; an enormous data set from months of laborious fieldwork; and state of the art models of disease transfer.

“Our research shows that the impact of a single farm is far reaching,” says lead author Marty Krkosek. “Sea lice production from the farm we studied was four orders of magnitude - 30,000 times - higher than natural. These lice then spread out around the farm. Infection of wild juvenile salmon was 73 times higher than ambient levels near the farm and exceeded ambient levels for 30 kilometers of the wild migration route.”

This increase in sea lice abundance is likely to be damaging for already dwindling wild salmon populations in British Columbia, where the study took place.

In Europe, transfer of parasites is generally accepted as a significant threat to adjacent wild populations – although European studies have not measured the direct transfer of sea lice from farms to wild salmon. However, a bitter debate continues in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest as to whether salmon farms are contributing to sea lice infections of wild salmon at all.

“Parasites are a key negative side effect of fish farms on the local fish stocks,” says Andrew Dobson, an epidemiologist from Princeton University who researches infectious diseases in wildlife. “We’re seeing similar effects in Scotland, Norway, and Ireland; in each area parasite amplification on fish farms seems to increase disease levels in the local fish community. However previous studies have not shown nor quantified the direct transmission. This study captures the chain of events.”

“Part of the contentious debate about sea lice is that there hasn’t been this level of precision in the sampling and modeling,” says coauthor Mark Lewis, a mathematical ecologist from the University of Alberta known for his work on West Nile virus and invasive species. “We have worked out the spatial footprint – the data are strong and show that the farms are having a significant impact over a very large area.”

The researchers isolated the effect of the salmon farm by studying the infection levels of migrating juvenile pink and chum salmon as they approached and passed a salmon farm. Within the study area, the salmon farms are anchored in a long thin fjord. Here the wild salmon have no choice but to pass by the farm on their seaward migration.

The scientists developed new, non-lethal sampling techniques that allowed them to examine thousands of the fish for parasites, taking measurements every 2 to 4 km. The fish start in the rivers and head to sea, traveling en masse in large mixed schools. Thus the scientists could see the effect on the salmon as they moved toward the farm. They found that the juvenile salmon carried almost no sea lice prior to the farm but became heavily infected as they approached it.

Unlike other species, pink and chum salmon leave their natal rivers while still much smaller than your baby finger – 3 cm long – and weighing only half a gram. “The youngest fish can be only days old when they encounter a farm,” says Krkosek. “Some of these fish are so young their egg sacks haven’t been fully absorbed – even fish this small are infected.”

The anchored farms, open cages of closely packed salmon, are aquatic feedlots providing the ideal conditions for the breeding and spread of sea lice amongst the adult fish. For the migrating wild salmon, the farm is a concentrated point source of infectious lice larvae.

“We found lice levels exceeded what we would find normally, extending for 30 km – even though the farm is only about 0.2 km long,” says John Volpe, the third coauthor from the University of Victoria. “Conservatively this means that the parasite footprint of the farm is 150 times larger than the farm itself.”

Sea lice can lower the fitness of salmon - and in some cases be lethal - as they create open lesions on the surface of the fish that compromises a fish’s ability to maintain its salt-water balance. When infection rates are high enough, the parasites feed on the fish at rates greater than the fish can feed itself, literally eating the fish alive. Adult salmon can survive sea lice infection, but young salmon are much more vulnerable due to their small size.

Under natural conditions, juvenile pinks and chum do not typically have to contend with sea lice because the adult salmon are far out at sea and are widely dispersed. By the time the migrating pinks and chum normally encounter lice, the juveniles have had the time to put on body mass and build resistance. The location of the farm near the natal rivers undermines this natural coping strategy.

The field study also discovered a new cause for alarm: once the young salmon pass the farm and pick up the sea lice, the migrating school becomes a moving cloud of contagions. Sea lice larvae mature and reproduce on the seaward salmon with each louse producing 300-800 eggs. This second round of lice larvae can re-infect the fish in the school and can spread to other previously unexposed populations coming from geographically disparate regions.

“At about the 30 km mark from the farm, those lice become reproductive,” says Volpe. “In effect, the farm has exported its lice generating properties – a cyclical event establishing the potential for re-infections up and down the coast. As the abundance of lice increases, we are now realizing that lice will attack other species, not only salmon, but other fish such as herring which are the spark plugs of the entire ecosystems – everything depends on them – from salmon to whales to seabirds. Every commercially important fish is either directly or indirectly dependent on herring.”

“Previous studies have been dismissed by industry, but past studies haven’t looked at such large samples or the spatial aspect,” says fisheries biologist Ransom Myers of the University of Dalhousie. “This study goes far beyond a theoretical model. They tested the model in the real world, using an enormous data set, and saw the same patterns. It is a very thorough analysis.”

“We’ve tried to be very careful and conservative – but there is potential for a major impact on the survivorship of the migrating salmon,” says Lewis.

“The next step is to thoroughly investigate the degree of impact on wild populations,” adds Krkosek.

The authors concur that their findings point to a need to reconsider the premise of industrial scale fish farming in wild salmon habits. “There’s a double bottom line here. The full ecological costs of industrial scale salmon farming must be quantified as well as the economic ones,” says Volpe. "For the migratory runs we studied, there may be very little time left.”


Additional information
www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/SeaLice/npSeaLicePub.htm

contact Jessica Brown
Phone 202.497.8375 or
Email jbrown@seaweb.org

[Farmed Fish - BC Election]

NDP's anti-aquaculture platform will decimate sustainable industry and threaten future of BC coastal communities

CAMPBELL RIVER, BC, April 13, 2005

Provincial NDP leader Carole James' party platform, announced today, will result in the decimation of BC's sustainable aquaculture industry, said Positive Aquaculture Awareness (PAA), a grassroots group representing aquaculture workers and their families. "For Carole James to propose a moratorium on new salmon farms is not just irresponsible, it's simply outrageous," said Ian Roberts, President, PAA.

"Aquaculture represents one of the brightest spots in the BC economy," said Roberts. "Coastal communities and First Nations are relying on aquaculture for their future prosperity," he said.

"The NDP's proposed moratorium would prevent this sustainable industry
from growing and the consequences for coastal communities and First Nations would be dire," Roberts added.

The NDP platform also proposes providing tax incentives to encourage
closed containment systems.

"There is not a single closed containment system that is practically or
financially viable," said Roberts. "Providing tax incentives for a system that
simply doesn't work and provides absolutely zero benefit to the environment is tantamount to flushing tax payers' money down the drain," he said. "The NDP platform on aquaculture should be called the David Suzuki Foundation platform on aquaculture," said Roberts.

"Never mind that we've seen above-average pink salmon returns to the
Broughton. Carole James appears to have adopted the David Suzuki Foundation's misinformation campaign wholesale, without any regard for the consequences to hard working aquaculture employees and their families," he said.

"If the NDP's anti-aquaculture platform ever gets adopted, it will likely
mean the destruction of one of BC's most promising and sustainable
industries," said Roberts.

The aquaculture industry employs 4000 people in BC and contributes over
$600 million to the provincial economy.

For further information: Ian Roberts, (250) 830-8923 or
www.farmfreshsalmon.org
Archived graphs from this organization are searchable through CNW Photo Archive website at http://photos.newswire.ca
Images are free to accredited members of the media.

[More Fish Farm Concerns]

Musgamagw Tsawataineuk: Further Evidence of Contaminants Around Broughton Archipelago Fish Farms

"A moratorium must be imposed by the legitimate guardians and locals who live by, and are responsible for protecting our own resources if Premier Gordon Campbell does not immediately implement a moratorium."

For Immediate Release - April 19, 2006

(Kingcome Inlet, British Columbia) The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands recent approval of a new open net pen fish farm at Bennett Point in the Broughton Archipelago to Grieg Seafood’s, and also the findings of elevated mercury concentrations near open net pen salmon farms in British Columbia is testimony of societies tolerance, detachment and disregard to environmental symptoms of global ecological devastation, and catastrophe.

We are very concerned and dismayed with Gordon Campbell and the Provincial Government and the approval of this industry which has had similar adverse effects in many countries. The poor health of our Marine Resources and the risk to the health of consumers from open pen farmed salmon in British Columbia (B.C.) is again testimony of illogical calculative decisions known as adaptive management.

Approval of the Grieg Seafood application is amidst ongoing discussions and forums in British Columbia such as:

• New Relationship Agreement; “…process and institutions for shared decision making…”
• Provincial Salmon Aquaculture Committee
• Pacific Salmon Forum
• Proposed Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council (MTTC) MoU for the Broughton Archipelago.

The mandate from our members is not limited to Political, Legal, Public, Economic and Direct actions. We are prepared to and will have to increase pressure with all these strategies concurrently, and have and will be discussing our strategies with all our allies on the B.C. Coast from the Fraser River to the Skeena River and around the world.

A moratorium must be imposed by the legitimate guardians and locals who live by, and are responsible for protecting our own resources if Premier Gordon Campbell does not immediately implement a moratorium.

Another process recently announced by Gordon Campbell and the Province of British Columbia, is the Great Bear Rainforest protection initiative (or “Great Bear Hug”), from the British Columbia Central Coast (CCLRMP), and also future impleme ntation of Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) which acknowledges the “Precautionary Principle” and higher environmental standards and stewardship. Our Nation (TFN) opposes the stakeholder recommendations as our own Marine and Land Use Vision is not yet complete and also we need to have honorable Government to Government discussions.

Our draft Musgamagw Tsawatainuek Marine and Land Use Vision (MTMLUV) will require greater Marine and Land protection areas then the proposed 1.6% (of our Traditional Territory) by industrial and other stakeholders of British Columbia CCLRMP.

The total area proposed including existing protected areas (3.6%) and parks in our Territory is equal to only 5.2%, which would leave 94.8% of our territory exposed to the status quo of deregulated or poorly regulated industries. This is obviously unacceptable to our Nation, whereas the stakeholder CCLRMP goal was to have approximately 33% protection areas.

Our Draft Marine and Land Use Vision incorporate thousands of years of TFN Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and indigenous values and principles which have formed the basis of indigenous laws, and laws of the land. Our rivers and waters have suffered because indigenous laws have not been respected.

Our Marine and Land Use Vision is testimony of thousands of years of coexistence with the Land and Waters that are inseparable to our way of life. If our way of life is not protected, our environment and our children will continue to suffer from these mistakes which we are witnessing globally.

We ask Canada, the Province of British Columbia and Premier Gordon Campbell to accept what we can offer as proven sustainable solutions not for economic objectives but for the best ecological integrity in the world, “bar none.”

Gilakasla,

Eric Joseph
TFN Chairman

Cell 250.974.4224

- - - - - - -

Tsawataineuk First Nation issues fish farm warning . . .

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy, Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

June 6, 2005

Government officials claim it is not a widespread problem, but that is not known for sure, and the discovery of a cancer causing chemical in farmed salmon, has raised further concerns among some Musgamagw First Nations, about the controversial industry on the west coast of Canada.

An investigation was launched into the discovery in farmed Chinook, of traces of toxic malachite green, a chemical suspected of causing cancer. It is banned, but was discovered in fish at the Stolt Salmon Farm on Vancouver Island. The chemical was used as a fungicide in fish hatcheries, but was outlawed more than a dozen years ago in Canada.

The situation is so threatening, according to one leader that he likens it to mad cow disease. Eric Joseph,Tsawataineuk First Nation Chairman and Co-chair, of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council asked, "What is the difference of the numerous recorded threats and violations past and present, of millions of farmed salmon in comparison to the threat of one mad cow? What will happen if action is not taken immediately for our marine wild stocks, our communities, and way of life for generations to come? Will we change the Campbell River logo to 'Farmed Salmon Capital of the World', and also call our Capital city’s junior hockey team, the 'Victoria Farmed Salmon Kings'? "

Musgamagw Nations are all in agreement on this issue - they are opposed to any open net fish farms in their territories. "Our mandate has always been firm and not limited to actions necessary to protect our way of life. The intent of this advisory is not to bore you with debate or rationalize our position, but to inform the Province, industry and public that enough is enough, and it’s time for us to do what is right for the future of our environment and communities that live here. We have served eviction notices to the two companies in our traditional territories, Stolt Sea Farm Inc. and also Heritage Salmon Ltd."

How and when to enforce those eviction notices to the fish farm industries, is being discussed by leaders. However, Chief Joseph is hopeful the BC Premier will be mindful of a recent document, A New Relationship that his government presented to the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the BC wing of the Assembly of First Nations. It included, "To ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations".

Chief Joseph explained that later this week - On June 9th, 10th, Musgamagw Nations members will be meeting with their Hereditary and elected leaders.

"The issue of our mandate and enforcement of the notice will be calculated and strategies developed."

BACKGROUND
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-fishfarms.htm

- - - - - - -

Tsawataineuk First Nation

Media Release

For Immediate Release

June 4, 2005

Notice to Fish Farm Industry in the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Territory.

It is apparent that the fish farm industry in this Province is controversial, and it is also apparent that 80% people poled did not want open net fish farms even prior to recent findings yet another toxin, malachite green in farmed Chinook salmon produced by Stolt Sea Farm in B.C. Why then does the Province and DFO continue to put marine wild stocks, consumers and our environment at risk? I’m sure 80% of the general public have a similar answer.

What is the difference of the numerous recorded threats and violations past and present, of millions of farmed salmon in comparison to the threat of one mad cow? What will happen if action is not taken immediately for our marine wild stocks, our communities, and way of life for generations to come? Will we change the Campbell River logo to “Farmed Salmon Capital of the World”, and also call our Capital city’s junior hockey team, the “Victoria Farmed Salmon Kings”?

There is no controversy amongst our Musgamagw Nations on this issue as we all have the same mandate against open net fish farms in our territories.

Our mandate has always been firm and not limited to actions necessary to protect our way of life. The intent of this advisory is not to bore you with debate or rationalize our position, but to inform the Province, industry and public that enough is enough, and it’s time for us to do what is right for the future of our environment and communities that live here.

We have served eviction notices to the two companies in our traditional territories, Stolt Sea Farm Inc. and also Heritage Salmon Ltd.

The notice to leave has passed as of December 31, 2004.

Since January 1, 2005, Namgis, Chief Bill Crammer, Kwicksuitaineuk Hereditary Chief, Henry Scow and I have been discussing our mandate and enforcement of our eviction notices to the fish farm industries in our territory.

At a gathering of over 170 Chiefs in British Columbia on March 17, 2005 we asked all the Chiefs to stand if they will support the mandate within our territory and for support of our eviction enforcement measures. We asked them to stand and they all stood. This was one of many forums we asked for the same support and have received unanimous support.

On May 20, 2005, just three days after the provincial election, Premier Gordon Campbell paid a visit to a Joint Assembly in Musqueem (follow up mtg. from March 17, 2005) in which a document called “A New Relationship” was ratified by all the Chiefs in assembly, which represent the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the BC Assembly of First Nations. This document is also endorsed by the Premier, who designated senior staff from his office to establish the new government to government relationship with First Nations document.

The document sets out a vision statement, goals of the parties, principles of a new relationship, and some action plans.

In the document; “Goals and the Strategic vision of the Province for British Columbia is:

To lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality, and the best fisheries management, bar none;

We were told that Premier Campbell specified this in the document.

Another section of the document that the parties agreed to in the same section, reads:

To ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values and that resource development is carried out in a sustainable manner including the primary responsibility of preserving healthy lands, resources and ecosystems for present and future generations;

After the March 17, and prior to the May 17, 2005 Provincial election a lot of the Chiefs were sceptical that this was a pre-election posturing process designed to keep issues (Indians)quiet.

At the May 20 meeting Premier Campbell respectfully showed up, and spoke of the New Relationship document and our endeavours. After speaking he actually left with an applause and his scalp, which would not have happened four years ago.

Considering the current provincial unity of our nations and the joint ratification of the New Relationship document there is still a lot of
“business as usual”, which again begs the question; when is enough, and what will be done if the status quo continues?

On June 9, 10 our Nations members will be meeting with our Hereditary and elected leaders. The issue of our mandate and enforcement of the notice will be calculated and strategies developed.

We will ask the Premier to discuss the importance of this matter with respect to our New Relationship as we believe there are solutions which protect the way of life and the honour of our mutual responsibilities, or we could stay the course which would conflict with his “golden decade” and even the 2010 Olympics.

In summary, we have a responsibility that has been mandated and widely supported, now decisions and actions must happen.


Gilakasla

Eric Joseph

Tsawataineuk First Nation Chairman

Co-chair, Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council

(250) 974-3013, Cell 974-4224

[Conclusive Evidence]

Direct, conclusive evidence of the sea lice impact on young wild salmon
Linked to lice-infested fish farms . . .
http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/sfu_news/arch ... 90611.html

March 2006
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/afrb/v ... tv11n2.pdf
Mortality Rates for Juvenile Pink and Chum Salmon Infested with Sea Lice in the Broughton Archipelago . . .
www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/afrb/afrbabst.php#Vol11_2/

[Salmon Farm Report Card]

Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation Salmon Farm Report Card

"Done properly salmon farming can co-exist with our traditional values." Percy Starr, Chief Councillor, Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation

Klemtu, British Columbia, April 19, 2006 – After reviewing six years of environmental monitoring and reports, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation confirms its belief that salmon farms can be operated in a sustainable manner, and in a way that respects the environment and First Nations traditions.

“It is what we hoped for”, states Percy Starr, Chief Councillor, Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation. “We watch these farms very closely and we know our waters. Done properly salmon farming can co-exist with our traditional values.”

The three salmon farms near Klemtu – 200 km north of Port Hardy – are operated in a partnership between Marine Harvest Canada and the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation. Now entering its seventh year, the partnership came about following the collapse of the commercial fishery in the region. The partnership agreement recognizes traditional territory, environmental stewardship and economic development, and stipulates ongoing environmental research.

The independent fisheries team operated by the Kitasoo Band regularly sends divers down to check the ocean floor and marine life in the sea around the farms and notes that biodiversity and abundance of species have not been significantly affected outside of the footprint of the farm. In addition recent Kitasoo research on sea lice interactions with wild salmon and contaminant sampling on wild shellfish close to farms shows little if any effect to date from the salmon farm activities

A recent monitoring project has been a collaborative effort between university researchers and three First Nations Organizations. The project Fish Farm Contaminant Levels in Traditional First Nations Fish and Shellfish resources, investigates the impact of salmon farms on the local food web, specifically traditional food resources. The first report from the study will be published this week in Environmental Science and Technology.

Larry Greba, fisheries director for the Kitasoo Band states “We can only comment on results from our area but overall they were reassuring. While mercury appears slightly elevated in rockfish - it remains an issue for further investigation, as for other metals such as cadmium and arsenic, results appear normal. We will continue monitoring with the continued support of our partners.” Environment first, economy second – that is how business is done in Klemtu – all partners agree.

-30-

For further information please contact Larry Greba 604-669-9324

[Salmon Farms /Wild Salmon]

RFP-#1-Aqua-2006:

Request for Proposal (RFP)
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture


A SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND PROSPECTS OF THE SALMON FARMING AND WILD SALMON
INDUSTRIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Issue Date: May 8, 2006

Closing Location:
Office of the Clerk of Committees
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Room 224, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C., V8V 1X4
Attention: Craig James, Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees

Closing Date and Time
Proposals must be received by:
5:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) on May 26, 2006

Contact Person:
Craig James
Fax: 250 356-8172
E-mail: Aquaculture@leg.bc.ca

Background
The Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture is an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Parliamentary committees are appointed by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to undertake business on behalf of the Assembly. Committees are comprised of Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Committees derive their powers from the terms of reference provided by the House and must report their findings back to the House.

For further information, please visit our website at: http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/aquaculture

Purpose of the Request for Proposal

The purpose for the request for proposal is to inform potential proponents and to solicit proposals to conduct a survey and assessment of the economic impacts and prospects of the salmon farming and wild salmon industries in British Columbia.

The results of this survey and assessment will be an integral component in the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture’s mandate to examine:

1. The economic and environmental impacts of the aquaculture industry in B.C.

2. The economic impact of aquaculture on B.C.’s coastal and isolated communities.

3. Sustainable options for aquaculture in B.C. that balance economic goals with environmental imperatives, focusing on the interaction between aquaculture, wild fish and the marine environment.

4. B.C.'s regulatory regime as it compares to other jurisdictions.

Project Summary
In accordance with a motion passed by the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, the Committee requests:

Primary Components
1. An economic analysis of the salmon farming industry in British Columbia.
2. An economic analysis of the wild salmon commercial and sport fishery industries in British Columbia.

Secondary Components
3. An economic analysis of other industries impacted by the industries above.
4. An assessment of the economic impacts created by the aquaculture industry on the industries reliant on wild salmon.

It is expected that the proponent will:
• Utilize existing data that has been compiled by businesses, provincial, and federal agencies and other organizations when possible.

• Design a survey instrument to collect scientifically-sound information and data that can be used to quantify all relevant economic activity in the province.
• Provide estimates of the overall expenditures associated with the above mentioned industries.
• Include in the analysis the estimates of the aggregate economic activity, as well as estimates broken down by geographic region.
• Include in the analysis estimates of direct and indirect economic impacts,
including, but not limited to, payroll, employment, employment income, costs, government revenue, and other economic activity.
• Assess the industry’s potential to generate tax revenue and create jobs, based on global markets and competition, existing regulatory limits, and social and environmental constraints to industry growth

Term of Contract
The Contract will be for a period of six months, commencing June, 2006.

Expectation of the Proposal
In describing your approach to each component, please identify the methodology, including the kinds of information you would intend to collect and how you would structure the data gathering and planning process.

In making a proposal, proponents should not feel limited to the above-outlined scope or descriptions of each component. Where appropriate, proponents are encouraged to elaborate on alternative ways of quantitative and qualitative measurement of these components to optimize the outcome of the project.

Your proposal may also choose to address all or some of the components.
When selecting the vendor, particular attention will be given to those who have demonstrated expertise in understanding the structure and dynamics of the salmon farming industry.

Time Frame
May 5, 2006 RFP sent to BC Bid
May 26, 2006 Deadline for proposal submission
May 26-June 2, 2006 Evaluation and short-listing of proposals
June 5, 2006 Consultant will be recommended to the Committee
June 8, 2006 The successful consultant will be contacted and, upon signing
the contract, project work will begin
June-December, 2006 Consultant will complete reviews of the industries
December 8, 2006 Consultant’s report to be deposited with the Clerk of
Committees
December, 2006 Consultant to meet with the Committee to review report and answer questions from the Committee

Administration
The following provisions will apply to this Request for Proposal (RFP) and to any subsequent contract. Submission of a proposal in response to this RFP indicates acceptance of all the following provisions.

Request for Proposal Process
Enquiries
All enquiries related to this RFP are to be directed, in writing, to the contact person identified on this front page of this RFP. Enquiries must be communicated to the contact person at least five days prior to the RFP closing date.
Five (5) complete copies of each proposal must be received by May 26, 2006 at:
Room 224
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Attention: Craig James

Proposals must not be sent by facsimile or e-mail. Proposals and envelopes containing proposals should be clearly marked with the name and address of the proponent, and the words “Proposal for Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture”

Late proposals will not be accepted and will be returned unopened to the sender.

Proposal Preparation
The following format and sequence should be followed in order to provide consistency in proponents’ responses and to ensure each proposal receives fair consideration. All pages should be consecutively numbered.

Title page: Must include a description of the Proponent and its industry experience. This page must also include a contact for all questions and clarifications arising from the proposal. Include the person(s) name, title, Proponent address, telephone, fax and e-mail.
Table of contents: Including page numbers.
Executive summary: Include key features of the proposal and a commitment to meeting project deadlines.
Body: The body of the proposal should include Vendor qualifications, proposed methodology, and details of proposed costs and pricing.

Failure to address all criteria will impair the proposal. The proposal
evaluation team is not obligated to seek clarification of vague or incomplete information.

Prices for the financial statement audit should be all-inclusive, and be firm for the entire period covered by the contract.

Additional Terms
Irrevocability of Proposal
By submission of a clear and detailed written notice, a proponent may amend, or withdraw, its proposal prior to the closing date and time. At closing time, all proposals become irrevocable.

Proposals must be open for acceptance for at least 14 days after the closing date. By submission of a proposal, a proponent agrees that should its proposal be successful the proponent will enter into an Agreement.

Changes to Proposal Wording
A proponent will not be permitted to change the wording of its proposal after closing, and no words or comments may be added to the proposal unless requested by the Committee for purposes of clarification.

Proponents’ Expenses
Proponents are solely responsible for their own expenses in preparing a proposal. If the Committee elects to reject all proposals the Committee will not be liable to any proponent for any claims, whether for costs or damages incurred by the proponent in preparing the proposal, loss of anticipated profit in connection with any final agreement, or any other matter whatsoever.

Further to the preceding paragraph, a proponent, by submitting a proposal, agrees that it will not claim damages, for whatever reason, relating to the agreement or in respect of the competitive process, in excess of an amount equivalent to the reasonable costs incurred by the proponent in preparing its proposal and the proponent, by submitting a proposal, waives any claim for loss of profits if no agreement is made with the proponent.

Acceptance of Proposal
This RFP should not be construed as an agreement to purchase services. The Committee is not bound to enter into an agreement with any proponent that submits the lowest priced proposal or with any proponent.

No proponent will acquire any legal or equitable rights or privileges relative to the services prior to full execution of a written agreement for the services required.

Liability for Errors
While the Committee has spent considerable effort to ensure an accurate presentation of information in this RFP, the information contained in this RFP is supplied solely as a guideline for proponents. The information is not guaranteed, or warranted to be accurate, nor is it necessarily comprehensive or exhaustive. Nothing in this RFP is intended to relieve proponents from forming matters addressed in this RFP.

Modification of Terms
The Committee reserves the right to modify the terms of this RFP at any time in its sole discretion. This includes the right to cancel this RFP at any time prior to entering into an agreement with a successful proponent.

Ownership of Proposals
All documents, including proposals, submitted to the Committee become the property of the Committee. They will be received and held in confidence. The Committee is not subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Confidentiality of Information
This document, or any portion thereof, may not be used for any purpose other than the submission of proposals.

Conflict of Interest
Proponents must fully disclose in writing, prior to the closing date of this RFP, the circumstances of any possible conflict of interest if the proponent were to become the successful contracted party for this project. The Committee may reject a submitted proposal if there is or could be a perceived conflict of interest.

Evaluation of Proposals
Evaluation and Selection
The Committee will first check proposals against the mandatory requirements. Proposals not meeting all mandatory requirements will be rejected without further consideration.

Only the information contained in the proposal will be used to evaluate the
proposal. There will not be an opportunity to make a presentation to the Committee beyond the information contained in the proposal. The Committee may wish to reserve the right to call for a presentation in person for the top finalists.

Unsuccessful Proposals
At the conclusion of the RFP process, all proponents will be notified.

Mandatory Requirements
• The proposal must be received at the closing location by the specified closing date.

• The proposal must be in English and must not be sent by facsimile or email.

[Anti-Fish Farm Message]

BC First Nations Travel to Norway To Deliver Anti Fish Farm Proclamation at World's Largest Fish Farm Operator's Annual General Meeting

PRINCE RUPERT, BC, May 30, 2006

First Nations from Northern British Columbia today delivered an official proclamation at Pan Fish's Annual General Meeting in Stavanger, Norway announcing the Skeena River Watershed, which includes the second major salmon run in the province, a fish farm free zone.

The proclamation came from First Nations all along the Skeena Watershed.

Pan Fish, the world's largest fish farm operator, is awaiting final approval to open a cluster of salmon net cages at the mouth of the Skeena River.

"We've seen the devastation done to wild salmon stocks in the Broughton
Archipelago and other by escapes and sea lice from the salmon farms," said Stan Dennis, who speaks for the Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kw' Alaams. "We won't let the destruction continue North."

Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kwa-mish and Chair of the
five bands of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council in the Broughton Archipelago and Eugene Bryant from Lax Kw' Alaams attended the annual general meeting and will present tomorrow the official declaration to King Harald V of Norway, Prime Minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg and to Jillian Stirk, Canada's Ambassador to Norway.

"Pan Fish's operations are putting our traditional food sources in
jeopardy, such that the effluent from the fish farms is starting to poison out clam beds" said Chief Chamberlin from Norway. "My people rely on salmon for survival. Our governments aren't listening to our concerns, so it is our duty to take these issues directly to the salmon farmers themselves."

The First Nations attended the annual general meeting along with the Pure
Salmon Campaign, a global project of the National Environmental Trust.

At Pan Fish's AGM, the Pure Salmon Campaign introduced a shareholder
resolution asking the company to "undertake the necessary steps to adopt
salmon production techniques so that disease transfer, waste pollution, and
escapes are eliminated, and to make sure that fish feed is sources solely from sustainable fisheries."

For further information: please contact: Chief Bob Chamberlin,
(250) 974-7511 (cell) or 001-202-285-9107; Stan Dennis, who speaks for the Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kw'Alaams, (250) 625-3293; Pure Salmon Campaign, Lynn Hunter, (250) 479-0937, or (250) 888-1700 (cell) and for photos

[Fish Farms Probe]

BC conducts fish farms probe. . .
June 2006

The Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture traveled to Tofino to hold
the second public hearing on June 6.

Approximately 100 people - many of them young men and women and members of the Tla-o-qui-aht and Ahousaht First Nation working in salmon farming and processing attended this session.

Anyone following this public hearing process may find the following
information useful. . .
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/files/06_06_06.htm

[EscapedFarmedFishHarmful?]

Escaped Farmed Salmon Don’t Pose a Threat to BC’s Wild Salmon, According to Researchers. . .
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/re ... =pb&id=846

Release Date: July 26, 2006

Vancouver, BC - Overall, the risk of escaped farmed salmon detrimentally affecting wild stocks in BC is currently low, according to "Escaped Farmed Salmon: A Threat to BC's Wild Salmon?”, released today by The Fraser Institute.

According to government statistics, farmed salmon production in BC has increased by 26 percent in the last 5 years, from 49,000 tonnes in 2000 to 61,800 tonnes in 2004, with a wholesale value of $294 million. These increases have fuelled concerns over the effect that escaped farmed fish could have on wild fish stocks.

“Accidental releases or ‘escapes’ of farmed salmon have been deemed to wreak havoc on wild fish. However, we found that scientific evidence suggests otherwise,” said Dr. Fiona Cubitt, the report’s lead author and a researcher at the Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research at the University of British Columbia.

This study draws on information from an international team, led by scientists at The University of British Columbia, to present the facts behind the issue.

Among the paper’s key findings:

• Although the number of Atlantic salmon produced in BC has increased radically since their introduction to this area, the number of escapes has not.

• It seems highly unlikely that Atlantic salmon have the potential to breed with Pacific species in the natural waters of British Columbia.

• There appears to be little risk of Atlantic salmon establishing viable populations in the Pacific Northwest at this time.

• The number of accidental aquaculture releases is insignificant in comparison to the magnitude of deliberate yearly public hatchery releases.

• The chance of diseased farmed fish interacting with wild fish long enough to transmit disease or surviving long enough to reach spawning grounds is very remote.

The authors concluded that the scientific evidence to date suggests that the potential of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon to detrimentally affect Pacific salmon does not appear to have been realized in British Columbia.

This study is the first in a series of papers investigating the impact of aquaculture on the environment.
- 30 -

Contact(s):
Nicholas Schneider, Policy Analyst
Tel (604) 714-4549
Email: nicks@fraserinstitute.ca

Dr. K. Fiona Cubitt, Research Associate
Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research, Tel (604) 666-6065
Email: kfcubitt@interchange.ubc.ca

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy
organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

[FishFarmsKill Wild Salmon]

Devastation Revealed!
The Debate is Over - Study Proves Fish Farms Kill Wild Salmon

PRESS RELEASE
27 September 2006

Wild Salmon Mortality Caused By Fish Farms
Up to 95 per cent of wild juvenile salmon killed by parasites from salmon farms

Research just published has confirmed that sea lice from fish farms kill wild salmon. Sea lice are natural parasites of fish, but fish farms change the way wild salmon get infected. The result is up to 95 per cent of
wild juvenile salmon are dying. “We know that fish farms raise sea lice levels, and we know that sea lice kill fish,” said the study’s lead author Martin Krkosek, a Ph.D. student at the University of Alberta’s Centre for Mathematical Biology.

“This is the first study to combine field surveys, experiments, and mathematical modeling in one system, to estimate the total impact of the farms.” The primary sea lice hosts are adult salmon. Under natural conditions, the adults are far offshore when the juveniles are migrating out to sea. Fish farms put adult salmon in net pens along the migration routes. The result is a cloud of sea lice through which the juveniles must migrate. “It takes only one or two sea lice to kill a juvenile pink or chum salmon,” said Krkosek. “The juveniles are so vulnerable because they are so
small – only one to two inches long.” “We often worry about wildlife making humans sick, but here is a case where humans are making wildlife sick,” said study co-author Dr. Mark Lewis, a mathematician and biologist at the University of Alberta.

The study found an increasing number of salmon were killed over the migration season, from 9 per cent in early spring when the sea lice population was low to 95 percent in late spring when the sea lice
population was higher.

“Everyone knows that only a small fraction of juvenile salmon survive to return as adults,” said Lewis. “The fish-farm sea lice are reducing that fraction even more.” The research was conducted by a team of biologists and mathematicians working in coastal British Columbia. “We counted sea lice on more than 14 thousand juvenile salmon migrating past fish farms, and conducted mortality experiments with more than 3 thousand fish,” said Krkosek. “We then used mathematical models to combine this information and estimate the total impact of the farms.” “The work is of an impeccably high standard, and will be very difficult to refute,” said Dr. Andy Dobson,
an epidemiologist from Princeton University who specializes in wildlife diseases.

The study’s implications may be severe for wild salmon. “Even the best case scenario of an additional 10% mortality from farm-origin sea lice could push a fish stock into the red zone,” said biologist Dr. John Volpe, a study co-author at the University of Victoria. Although the study was conducted in British Columbia, the results apply globally. “This study really
raises the question of whether we can have native salmon and large scale aquaculture – as it is currently practiced – in the same place,” said Dr. Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University. “It also raises a more distant specter,” said Dobson. “When are we going to see the first human disease caused by aquaculture?”


Background
The study will be published during the week October 2-6 in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America. The research was funded primarily by the National Research Council of Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Further support came from the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Sablefish Association, and the British Columbia Wilderness Tourism Association.
“The analysis in this paper almost certainly underestimates the total mortality of juvenile salmon, ” said study co-author Dr. Neil Frazer, a physicist at the University of Hawai'i. “We considered only the direct
effects of sea lice on fish survival. We did not include the secondary effects of increased predation on infected fish.”

“The debate is over,” said study co-author Alexandra Morton, a biologist with the Raincoast Research Society. “This paper brings our understanding of farm-origin sea lice and Pacific wild salmon to the point where we know there is a clear severe impact.”

###

Additional information and visuals are available at www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/SeaLice.htm.

Author contact information:
Martin Krkosek University of Alberta, (250) 415-7368, mkrkosek@ualberta.ca
Mark Lewis University of Alberta, (780) 492-0197, mlewis@math.ualberta.ca
Alexandra Morton Raincoast Research Society, 250-949-1664, wildorca@island.net
Neil Frazer University of Hawai’i, (808) 956-3724, neil@soest.hawaii.edu
John Volpe University of Victoria, (250) 472-4298, jpv@uvic.ca

Press release by Marjorie Wonham, Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Alberta Centre for Mathematical Biology

Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences
632 Central Academic Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G1 Tel: 780.492.4756 Fax: 780.492.8373 Url: www.math.ualberta.ca/~mathbio Contact: Martin Krkosek, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, (250) 415-7368, mkrkosek@ualberta.ca