Water Blogged

At a loss for words

2012-01-26T13:45:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I read the news and I'm at a loss for words. I simply cannot believe things like this continue to happen and we're expected to believe Enbridge when they say we have no need to worry. Things like what, you're wondering.

The Yokohama, a Liberian flagged vessel, docked in Prince Rupert after encountering hurricane force winds off the North Coast of B.C.

Things like, “29 containers fall overboard en route to Prince Rupert,” the headline of an article that reported:

The container vessel known as the Cosco Yokohama encountered dangerous weather conditions in the Gulf of Alaska last weekend while traveling from Asia to Prince Rupert.

Next thing you know, 29 containers are lost at sea. Due to weather. In winter. Off the North Coast of British Columbia. Imagine that.

So, how can anyone think shipping tankers full of TAR SANDS CRUDE along this VERY SAME ROUTE can POSSIBLY be a GOOD IDEA???

It's flabbergasting.

P.S. My colleague John suggests yelling phrases that include all capital letters. I felt it was appropriate.

Katie Terhune is the Energy Campaign Manager for Living Oceans Society.

Northern Gateway and tanker risks

2012-01-20T13:34:00.000-08:00

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project is about more than just pipelines and tar sands. What sets this project apart from others, is oil tankers. Really big oil tankers.

Northern Gateway is really a tanker-pipeline megaproject. If approved, it will bring 225 crude oil tankers to Canada’s Pacific North Coast for the first time in order to ship the world’s dirtiest oil to markets in Asia. These tankers are the length of three and a half football fields and carry nearly eight times more oil than was spilled by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. Introducing them to Canada’s Pacific North Coast is not a good idea. Why you ask? Here are a few reasons:

Accidents happen
Despite safety plans and modern technology, accidents happen. Think BP. Or, more recently, look at Rena, a container ship currently in two on the rocks in New Zealand, or the cruise ship tragedy currently unfolding on the banks of Italy. Perhaps the CEO of Enbridge, Pat Daniel, has summed up the situation best when he said: “Can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.”

Enbridge has proposed an incredibly challenging route. Hurricane force winds and 10 meter seas are not uncommon. Hecate Strait, a major section of the route, is considered the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world. Tankers would have to navigate through confined channels rife with rocky shoals and unmarked hazards and complete difficult manoeuvres in order to wind their way past the many islands along the route. It’s a task that has failed before. In 2006 the state-of-the-art passenger ferry Queen of the North missed a turn and crashed into Gil Island, a major obstacle in the middle of Enbridge’s proposed path. Tragically, two lives were lost in the incident and the vessel is still leaking fuel to this day.

It would only take one simple mistake in navigation and the coast could be coated in oil for years. The narrow channels in this area (some less than 1.5km wide) don’t allow much room for error. A loaded tanker takes 2km to come to a complete stop, even with the assistance of an escort tug.

We can’t clean up oil spills
When oil spills, it’s near impossibly to completely clean up. Typically only 10 to 15 per cent of spilled oil can be recovered, even in ideal weather conditions, with well-equipped crews onsite. 23 years later, oil is still found on the beaches in Prince William Sound thanks to the Exxon Valdez. Enbridge’s proposed project area is also extremely remote and severe weather is the norm – both inhibiting factors in successful response. What’s worse is that the Canadian Coast Guard, the lead government agency responsible for responding to an oil spill, is not adequately prepared to deal with oil spills. Period.

Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for billions
You’d think that since Enbridge is a multi-national oil corporation they’d have to chip in a few bucks to fund oil spill response. Not so. When it comes to tankers Enbridge has no liability or responsibility whatsoever. Should an oil spill from a tanker occur, Enbridge is absolved from all risk and could happily watch from the shoreline.

It is the ship owner – most likely a company from Asia – that will be responsible for the first $140 million in cleanup and compensation costs. After that, the Canadian government will have to take on responsibility. They can access approximately $1.3 billion dollars from international funds, but once that money is exhausted, the rest with come from general revenue. I.e. tax dollars. $1.3 billion sounds like a lot, but lower estimates for Exxon were $3.5 billion. Some estimates are as high as $9 billion. That’s at least $2 billion dollars that would come from Canada for one spill. $2 billion from our pockets for oil we aren’t even using.

We have a lot to lose
British Columbia has a $1.2 billion-a-year fishery on the coast. There are 11,000 commercial fisheries jobs, and approximately 10,000 jobs in the cruise ship and recreational tourism sectors at risk. In contrast, Enbridge’s project will create approximately 200 long term jobs along the entire pipeline route and at the marine terminal where the tankers will be loaded.

Oh, and of course there’s the tremendously unique, beautiful, awe-inspiring ecosystem that is home to some of the world’s most important bird areas, world-renowned whale populations, thriving wild salmon rivers, Spirit Bears, and the like. What isn’t at risk here?

Katie Terhune is the Energy Campaign Manager for Living Oceans Society.

Enbridge pipeline decision delayed a year? Whhaaat?

2011-12-12T09:48:00.000-08:00

You heard correctly. As reported by the Vancouver Sun, a final decision on whether to approve or reject Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway Pipeline project has been delayed until late 2013 – almost a year later than anticipated.

Why you ask? Because of the unprecedented number of individuals who have signed up to have their voices heard during public hearings for the project.

The original time schedule saw public hearings lasting only a couple of months. Due to widespread public concern regarding Enbridge’s risky project, people came out in numbers to sign up to voice their concerns, and numbers speak.

Instead of getting the speedy process Enbridge was hoping for, the review panel assessing the project will now spend most of 2012 hearing oral testimonies from citizens across British Columbia who do not want to see this project go ahead. Over 4000 individuals have signed up to give oral statements to the review panel, and over 200 additional individuals, organizations and First Nations have signed up to formally participate in the entire review process.

Thank you to the people of British Columbia who are standing up for our coast. Living Oceans is right there with you.

If you did not sign up to speak, please consider sending a written comment to the review panel instead. The more comments the better.

Katie Terhune is the Living Oceans Society's Energy Campaign Manager. To find out more about the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project and the risk of oil spills on the B.C. coast, please visit the Tankers section of our website.

Tankers on our Coast: Public risk vs. Private Gain

2011-12-08T10:26:00.000-08:00

Once in a while, a video comes along that explains, in a few minutes, everything you've been trying to say for years. Two days ago such a video was released by filmmaker Ben Gulliver: Tipping Barrels – Journey into the Great Bear Rainforest. With beautiful footage by Ben Gulliver and Ian McAllister, Tipping Barrels follows surfers Arran and Reid Jackson on a trip into the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest. Anyway, see for yourself:

I love this film because it beautifully illustrates everything that we stand to lose from oil development on this coast. The video also coincides with a report (PDF copy) released last week by the Living Oceans Society, National Resource Defense Council and Pembina Institute, which outlines the considerable risk to local communities, salmon-bearing rivers and coastal ecosystems associated with transporting bitumen along the Northern Gateway Pipeline and connecting tanker route.

The bottom line for projects like the Northern Gateway Pipeline is that the economic benefits go to international oil corporations, but the tremendous environmental costs (such as those associated with climate change, oil spills, and toxic wastes) are felt by those who live in the areas where the projects are built.

For example, who pays for the damage that would result from this oil, spilling say, into the stormy waters of Hecate Strait? Not the company who owns the oil - under Canadian Law, they are no longer liable once the oil leaves the pipeline. How about the owner of the tanker? They are responsible for up to $140 million CAD, according to another report commissioned for the Living Oceans Society (PDF copy). By comparison, the total cost of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 was 3.5 BILLION USD, plus a 2.8 billion USD loss to local industries such as fishing and tourism.

Taxpayers would likely foot the bill for the bulk of any major oil cleanup on the coast, not to mention the long-lasting social and ecological costs. But don't worry, the industry assures us that it has an airtight Oil Response Plan and that these types of major accidents don't happen anymore (except in New Zealand, of course).

Projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline are gold mines for a handful of tremendously powerful oil corporations. Don't let their slick corporate PR machine fool you: they aren't non-profits that exist to put people to work; and they won't lift a finger to address their environmental impacts if they aren't forced to do so (if you want proof of this, just look at the behaviour of these same companies in countries where they are less regulated). They are in the business of making money, plain and simple.

And that's what this battle is about: the lust of a few international oil corporations for profits against the will of the people who live with and love the land, the air, the water, and the living things that are threatened by that insatiable corporate greed.

To learn more about the Northern Gateway pipeline and the risks to our coast from oil spills, please visit the Tankers section of the Living Oceans Society website and check out our Oil and Water Map.

Home from Work

2011-12-07T13:25:00.001-08:00

Will Soltau is local research coordinator for our Salmon Farming Initiative

Ever since I started working at Living Oceans Society after my fishing career, I have been walking to work and home again. It's a short walk and good exercise. There isn't much vehicle traffic and I never succumb to road rage. Most days I walk along First Street enjoying a view of the ocean and the people I meet along the way. In the winter I meet the regulars, the die-hard walkers and their dogs. We usually have a short conversation in passing. In the summer I get to meet new people from all over the place who have come to enjoy a bit of what Malcolm Island has to offer. Many of them are stretching their legs having just tied up at our harbour after a few days on their boats. I get to learn about where they're from and where they are heading. I have a chance to talk about the places I have been on this coast as a fisherman and also about the work I now do at LOS. Sometimes, if the tide is out or if I'm not feeling sociable, I'll walk along the beach below the houses for a change of pace. Walking on beach gravel is a lot tougher than walking on pavement. Being able to enjoy a walk along the shore on one's way to and from work is pretty special, I suppose, but it is an everyday experience for me. Okay, this is starting to sound like an Andy Rooney piece so I'll get to the point.

The other day on my way home I could hear a boat motoring along behind me. It was late afternoon in late fall and the light was beginning to fade. The sound was no big deal and, since boats go by all the time I wasn't paying it much attention until the horn begins blasting. I turn to see that it's a local fishing boat cruising full speed outside the kelp patches just off shore. The next things I hear are children's joyful voices emerging from the house just ahead of me. A small flock of three little kids burst outside and go running down to the beach jumping, waving and shouting at the man on board; “Daddy's home! Hi Dad, hi Dad.” He is waving back to them from the wheelhouse, blowing the horn and flashing his spotlight on and off.

It dawned on me how the image of children at home meeting their parent coming through the door after a day at work has long evoked the concept of loved ones reuniting. Another teaser image that came to mind was the one of a car coming up the driveway creating the expectation of a reunion. But this vignette on the beach goes one step beyond all that. This was more than a loved one coming home from the job site at the end of the day. It was a fisherman coming home from the sea at the end of a trip.

Fishing trips usually last more than a day. They generally last for a few days - sometimes even weeks. More often than not, because of the distance to the fishing grounds, fishermen don't get to come home between trips so they can be away for months. And all trips are like gambling - not knowing what might be caught, what could break down, go wrong or right and how rough the weather will be. All of that adds up to make coming home from work that much more poignant. Fishermen have a well understood phrase to describe their throttle setting for the journey home. It is often heard over the VHF radio. Unfortunately it is not appropriate to use in a “G” rated blog like this one.

I would have missed that reunion entirely if I had driven home from work that day. Walking home that evening made me think about how lucky I am to have those unique fishing experiences as a part of my past and how special this memory will be for the young fishing family. It made me want to work that much harder ensuring those fishing memories can continue to get shared.

Black Friday and the sustainability joke

2011-11-28T10:15:00.001-08:00

I'm an expat American. When I see the media coverage of what has come to be called "Black Friday", part of me becomes even more expat.

I don't want it to be this way, but I just don't understand that aspect of my country. I never have. Now, I'm no saint - I've wandered my share of malls, eaten my share of fast food. But I have never, ever been even remotely comfortable with America's mass consumption culture. And now, when I go back, I feel like a foreigner, like a visitor in a country run by a dictatorship.

Perhaps, if you've never been to the States, you may question the media reports. Can Americans really be that rabid about consuming stuff?

The answer is simple. Yes. Yes they are. Absolutely and without question.

This is why Black Friday is the one honest and unabashedly American holiday. There's no lip service paid to anything unnecessary - only purchasing. Black Friday is the purest distillation of the nation's one true faith, and its mobs, whipped into frenzies by low-cost shit, are simply the most fervent adherents.

So, why am I writing about this here? Well, Living Oceans is an organization that tries to improve the way that humans interact with the ocean. We try to do our part, in other words, to help humans as a whole move towards a more sustainable future.

But you know what? There ain't no sustainable future for us humans as we currently do things. There just isn't. There's nothing sustainable about Black Friday. There's nothing sustainable about a nation that is virtually uniform in its celebration of Black Friday. And there's nothing sustainable about the economic and social landscape that makes Black Friday possible.

Sure hope those TVs are all "Energy Star" rated.
Wait...it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit.

Icy brinicle finger of death video and what warming oceans hold for fisheries

2011-11-23T12:56:00.000-08:00

So it's almost the end of November. If you live in the northern half of the northern hemisphere you've probably already sealed your windows, piled a few more blankets on your bed and paid your gas bill in an attempt to keep the icy hand of winter from creeping into your house and freezing you where you sleep. No? Well maybe that's just my house. At any rate, this is occasionally the fate of sea creatures living beneath the ice of the Antarctic, as you can see for yourself in this incredible time-lapse video from the clever folks at the BBC.

The BBC assures us that this is a production of BBC Nature rather than their special effects department

In contrast to this unusual phenomenon, or rather in conjunction with it, is the ongoing warming of our seas as the result of Climate Change. With only 30 shopping days left until Christmas, warming of the world's oceans may not be at the forefront of your mind. But this gradual change in temperature poses a far greater threat to marine life around the globe than icy destruction you just witnessed above.

A study released last week in Nature Climate Change (co-authored by fisheries economists, biologists, and climate change scientists) shows that our global fisheries, already beleaguered by overfishing, pollution and habitat destruction, are headed for even greater problems as temperatures continue to rise. The study warns that these changes (which are already becoming apparent in warmer areas of the world), could have a serious impact on everything from the number of species in each area to the size of the of the individual fish, all of which will affect the cost of catching these fish and the price at the till (not to mention our ability to feed our growing population). Aside from curbing our carbon emissions, the report suggests immediate action to reduce pressure on global fish stocks as well as adapting our fisheries to prepare for these changes. Perhaps this is another job for marine protected areas. Anyway you can read the full report here.

On a related note, signs of Climate Change's evil twin Ocean Acidification are showing up once again in the northeastern Pacific oyster industry. A recent article in Yale Environment 360 shows that this sinister legacy of the industrial era is already causing tremendous problems for shellfish an forcing those who make a living from them to adapt or sink. And the problem has only continued to worsen and spread over the past half decade since massive die-offs of oyster larvae were first observed at hatcheries in Oregon.

Not to end on a down note, scientists at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) have created a cool new system for studying the effect of acidification on sea creatures that live on the ocean floor. This system (which looks a bit like a component for the international space station) will allow researchers to study these effects a natural environment, rather than trying to duplicate them in the lab.

ISA test results inconclusive

2011-11-08T16:37:00.001-08:00

The BC Salmon Farmers are crowing over today’s media conference announcing the results of further testing for the ISA virus in Pacific salmon. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the salmon farming industry’s public relations division – aka DFO Aquaculture Branch – tried their best to sound neutral and unbiased but were clearly pleased to report their findings to date. But not so fast (spin) doctors.

If you listened to the first few minutes of the media conference call there was nothing but good news. According to Dr. Con Kiley, Director of National Aquatic Animal Health with CFIA, there are no confirmed cases of ISA in either wild or farmed salmon in BC, all the samples received were thoroughly tested, all tests were negative and basically, we can all relax. There is no cause for concern.

That would be great news. ISA in the Pacific ocean could have tragic and truly devastating consequences if the disease were to mutate or prove to be virulent. Today’s announcement from the CFIA, DFO and the BC government was very reassuring – up to about the 10 minute mark.

I started getting very worried again when Kiley noted that “these supplementary results must be considered inconclusive because of the poor quality of the samples.” Say what? Inconclusive?

The spin-doctoring started seriously unravelling when a reporter from the Seattle Times asked if Canadian government officials would be willing to share raw samples with US researchers if they wanted to do their own testing (audio credit: www.ecoshock.net). Hmmm – seems our friends to the south are as suspicious of DFO and CFIA’s cosy partnership with the fish farming industry as Canadians are.

Peter King, who heads up the Moncton DFO laboratory that did the re-testing of the samples responded (and I quote): “For the most part these samples are either partially – and I say over the half way mark – or totally, totally degraded. Sharing those samples would not be good science. They are in poor condition, we received them in poor condition and moving them anywhere else is not going to help anybody.” He talks about the storage of the samples and the degradation of RNA, then goes on to say: “That’s why we call things inconclusive – because the degradation is so bad you cannot form an opinion from a test standpoint as to whether or not you are capable or not capable. The fact that they come up negative doesn’t really mean anything because they are so badly degraded.”

The negative test “doesn’t really mean anything”?

CFIA’s Kiley tries to regain control of the spin: “Or that you get a result that’s positive”

King acknowledges “That’s a possibility too – that’s why we have to go to confirmatory testing...”

So given the huge uncertainty, surely our federal agencies are now working hard to get to the bottom of this? If the samples are poor quality, they must have a plan to immediately secure more and better samples? If the results are inconclusive and they can’t categorically rule out the presence of ISA then they’ll be spending sleepless nights putting together a testing program to make certain our wild salmon are not exposed to this disease.

Dr. Kiley advises DFO and CFIA are “assessing current testing levels for ISA in both wild and aquaculture populations in BC” and will “increase surveillance activities as required”. But they are acting quickly, right? Kiley replies there are ideal times of year for tests and based on the species and where they want to test they will decide what will be done and when.

So the spin will be ‘no ISA in BC’ while the reality is the tests are totally inconclusive, ISA might be present or it might not, the salmon farmers continue to do their own sampling and testing (but are ‘sharing’ the results of their in-house fish health audits with the Province) and the Canadian government agencies are going to move at a glacial pace before doing anything because after all – what’s the rush? It’s only our wild salmon and the continued functioning of our Pacific coast ecosystem that’s on the line.

At the end, a reporter introduces herself as Roxanne from the Yukon News and asks if there is further testing done, would it come north and perhaps include the Yukon River? Dr. Kiley replies: “No, we do our investigation in Canadian waters.” Now I’m reassured – Canada’s best are on the job.

Cath Stewart is manager of Living Oceans Society's Salmon Farming Campaign

Environment Canada lays charges against east-coast salmon farming operation

2011-11-03T15:39:00.000-07:00

There are some things that we all know not to do. You don't tug on Superman’s cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't reveal to the world that the Lone Ranger has poorly maintained eyebrows by pulling off his mask.

And you do not poison lobsters in the Bay of Fundy.

This should be common sense. That is the heart of lobster country, after all. Poisoning lobsters out there would be like knocking over a really long row of Harleys at a biker rally, because:

- People are going to notice, and
- There will be consequences

An east-coast salmon farming company is learning this the hard way, after allegedly releasing into the water an illegal pesticide, resulting in lobster deaths.

Environment Canada has charged Kelly Cove Salmon (a division of New Brunswick-based Cooke Aquaculture), Cooke’s CEO, and two managers with 11 counts each of ‘depositing a substance deleterious to fish into fish-bearing water’, which is a violation of Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. The deleterious substance in question was a pesticide based on a substance called cypermethrin. Cypermethrin is “highly acutely toxic” to aquatic organisms, and as such cannot be applied directly to aquatic environments in Canada.

The allegations stem from an investigation that was triggered by the discovery of hundreds of dead and dying lobsters in lobster traps during 2009. Environment Canada’s analysis of tissue from the lobsters revealed exposure to cypremethrin, and roughly one year ago, they executed search warrants on 8 separate Cooke offices.

Environment Canada now says that they have identified 11 separate release incidents. Each of the eleven counts of the indictment carries a maximum fine of $1 million and three years in prison.

If guilty as charged, why would the company use a banned and highly toxic pesticide on their salmon farms in the first place? The answer lies in the growing resistance of sea lice to the standard treatment - Slice™ (emamectin benzoate). Slice™ is routinely used by salmon farms in BC, the Maritimes and Europe. Problem is, as with most pesticides and antibiotics, repeated use over long periods of time can lead to ‘super bugs’, resistant to the chemical. The treatment loses its effectiveness and the farms turn to other measures. In this case, apparently, illegal measures. A DFO official told Living Oceans that salmon on some of Canada’s east coast farms had up to 300 lice per fish. The fish were literally being eaten alive.

The aquaculture industry in both BC and the Maritimes are now pushing government for a “wider” and “more modern” range of treatment options for sea lice. As long as they are raising hundreds of thousands of fish in the confines of net-cages and exposed to ocean waters, parasite outbreaks are inevitable. So the salmon farm industry is asking our government to please approve a whole new range of toxic paraciticides that can be used in our oceans. It seems industry would rather choose that option than isolate their fish from the parasites by moving them to closed containment.

Hitting close to home: Sointula, Rivers Inlet sockeye, and Infectious Salmon Anemia

2011-10-27T12:19:00.000-07:00

Will Soltau is the Local Coordinator for Living Oceans Society's Salmon Farming campaign

Even though tonight is game six of the World Series, I’m blogging about those Rivers Inlet sockeye that tested positive for the Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISAv). I’m breaking blog protocol with back to back posts on the same subject but since both Blog Brothers (Jake and John) are away, protocol shmotocol.

This news is hitting close to home.

This community - Sointula - has been sustained by fishing for over 100 years. Much of that sustenance came from Rivers and Smith Inlet sockeye.

Our staff photo for a few years back was taken under a mural painted on the wall of the Sointula Co-op. That mural illustrates the heritage of this place, this coast. Those little dories are fishing boats getting ready to be towed up to Rivers Inlet for the salmon season by a packer. They didn’t have engines. They didn’t even have cabins. A tarp was stretched across the gunwales for shelter from the weather. None of them had drums to retrieve the gear; the fishermen pulled their nets by hand. There were certainly no electronics like radar to find one’s way in the fog which is pretty much a daily occurrence during fishing season.

People would go up in the early summer hoping to catch sockeye and come home safely with enough money to make it through another winter. If not, they'd go to work in the woods - as attested to by my friend's nickname, "No Salmon Been Loggin".

Photo credit: J. Salo

Rivers Inlet was the third largest sockeye run in BC after the Fraser and the Skeena Rivers. The inlet was peppered with canneries to process the abundance. The variety of labels on the cans from those plants is a testament to the plenty. But, as the saying goes, good things don’t last forever and the sockeye and fishery declined. Rivers Inlet was closed for commercial sockeye fishing nearly a decade now and it has had a devastating effect on our community. (An internationally renowned sports fishery for the mighty Whonnock River Chinook still remains). After the commercial sockeye fishery closure, dedicated researchers have been trying to decipher why these stocks aren’t rebuilding.

The ISAv finding must have been unnerving for them. Their announcement sent shock waves up and down the Pacific Northwest including Sointula since this was the first report of the virus being detected in Pacific wild salmon. The Canadian government is retesting those samples to confirm the finding. If the virus is confirmed, it begs the question about the virus’ prevalence and distribution in the Whonnock River and Oweekeno Lake system (the Whonnock River Chinook spawn in the same watershed as the sockeye). Are these prized sports fish infected? What about the other salmon stocks in Rivers Inlet or Smith Inlet next door where sockeye there have started showing signs of rebounding?

B.C.’s neighbors to the north and south are keeping a close eye on the developments here and are already planning to ramp up ISAv testing in their wild salmon. If confirmation shows that the virulent European strain of ISAv is present in BC, salmon farmers also stand to lose big time since they still have all their Atlantics swimming around in sieves instead of in closed containment facilities.

There will likely be a big push to eradicate the virus, even though that has not been possible anywhere else in the world. But if hubris prevails, how might it be attempted?

I keep thinking about a trip I took to Norway many years ago to investigate the budding salmon farming industry there. I also met with scientists storing the frozen milt of some wild salmon stocks in liquid nitrogen in order to preserve their genetic diversity. I heard about every aquatic organism in whole rivers being poisoned as a last resort to rid those systems of an alien and unwanted parasite.

If that happens here, it would be hitting too close to home.

Deadly salmon virus found in B.C. sockeye

2011-10-18T10:44:00.000-07:00

The highly contagious virus that wiped out seventy percent of Chile’s farmed salmon industry has now been confirmed in B.C. wild salmon.

The devastating news that Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) is definitely present in B.C. was delivered by Simon Fraser University (SFU) Professor Dr. Rick Routledge, whose research team found the infected sockeye while doing field work in Rivers Inlet on B.C.’s central coast.

This is the first time that ISA has been confirmed in the entire North Pacific.

Routledge, joined by SFU team member Nicole Gerbrandt and activist Alexandra Morton, announced the findings at a media conference in Vancouver and did not downplay the seriousness of the risk.

48 sockeye smolts that were collected by the SFU team as part of a long term study into the collapse of Rivers Inlet sockeye stocks were sent to Dr. Fred Kibenge at the Atlantic Veterinary College in P.E.I.. Kibenge confirmed ISA in two fish, confirmed it was a European strain of the virus and notified the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as is required in the case of contagious and lethal diseases.

The BC salmon farming industry reacted immediately to Routledge’s information, calling the findings “unconfirmed” even though Kibenge’s lab is recognized as an ISA reference laboratory by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). (http://www.upei.ca/avc/oie)

Routledge pulled no punches at the media conference. He said ISA is a deadly exotic disease, it could have devastating impacts on B.C.’s wild salmon and all the species that depend on them, and noted that the only plausible source for the European strain of the virus is Atlantic salmon farms.

Dr. Routledge did stress that now that the virus has been confirmed, B.C. still has the chance to get out ahead of it and control its potentially catastrophic consequences. But that is only possible if our governments act -- and act quickly.

He recommended vigorous efforts to identify the source of the virus, an independent emergency board that will oversee the testing of all salmon farms, wild salmon and herring, a cull of farm fish identified as exposed to infection and finally, fast-tracking the development of closed containment for salmon farming and firm timelines for phasing out open net-cages.

We couldn’t agree more. The lice infestation of wild juvenile salmon, the waste dumped in our oceans, the escapes of thousands of non-indigenous salmon, the routine killing of marine mammals are argument enough to get these farms out of our waters and into closed containment. The appearance of ISA in our wild salmon should be the tipping point that finally moves debate to action.

Will our government act – or turn a blind eye to the potential for disaster? One thing is clear – Members of Parliament will only act if they hear from voters. That’s you. Call your MP’s constituency office today. You can find the phone number here: http://bit.ly/rdK6N2

Cath Stewart is Living Oceans Society's Salmon Farm Campaign Manager.

Breaking up is not so hard to do

2011-10-12T15:25:00.000-07:00

Just ask Rena. She's Liberian (not to be confused with librarian), a real looker, and a bit of a mess. She also happens to be the source of New Zealand's worst marine environmental catastrophe in history.

Last week the container ship Rena ran into Astrolabe Reef off the coast of New Zealand at full speed. She's now leaning precariously, perched on the top of a rock, being battered by an onslaught of high winds and waves determined to bring her down, as a growing crack spreads up her side. Rena is breaking up, and she's not holding it together very well. So far she's lost 70 of her cargo containers (don't worry, none of the 11 containers carrying toxic chemicals have fallen overboard yet), at least 350 tonnes of bunker fuel oil, and all crew who were evacuated due to her extremely dangerous position. 1,700 tonnes of fuel remain onboard, ready and waiting for the open ocean or the tank of a salvage vessel (whichever comes first), and her beloved captain and first mate have been charged. It's looking like Rena may have found her final resting place.

The container ship Rena is reported to be breaking up after she and her crew ended up on the rocks.

It's mildly ironic that Rena sits where she does. Astrolabe Reef is indeed named for the ancient astronomical device used for maritime navigation prior to the days of the sextant and GPS. You'd think they would have seen it coming on their chart plotter or at least radar. It's clearly visible during the day for Pete's sake, regardless of modern or old-school navigation equipment (Okay. Okay. They ran into at night). Yes, the ship was two miles off course. Yes, there really isn't an answer as to how a ship with modern technology could run aground going 17 knots. Yes, the crew may have been celebrating the captain's 44th birthday. But alas, when have well-known, visible reefs stopped collision courses before? Think Pathfinder. I think the crew there was playing video games.

All joking aside, the grounding and currently in-progress breaking up of Rena is no laughing matter (although sometimes laughing is the last emotion available in situations like these). While the aptly named Bay of Plenty and surrounding area are threatened by a growing oil slick and the cargo carnage, the cries we hear are not surprising. Fishermen are concerned about their catches, residents feel they have lost their piece of paradise, dead animals are washing up on beaches, and everyone is wondering who will clean up the mess.

I can't help but look at the dire scene in New Zealand and do some horrifying forecasting if the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project goes ahead on the British Columbia coast. If approved, the project will bring 225 crude oil tankers per year to the waters washing against the shores of the Great Bear Rainforest, to ecosystems unlike anywhere else on earth. Each ship will be able to carry up to 285,000 tonnes of crude oil. Rena, in comparison, only had approximately 2,000 tonnes of oil onboard. And as the Rena has shown us, containment and clean-up of oil in such cold, treacherous seas is next to impossible most times of the year.

The incident in New Zealand is a stark reminder of the risks we take when transporting cargo by sea, what we are willing to lose for ever more consumption of goods, and unfortunate proof that accidents do happen. While the cause of Rena's demise is still unknown, I'm guessing that the finger pointing will be to the crew. Approximately 80 percent of oil discharges into the sea are said to be cause by human error. Eighty percent! No amount of planning or technology can change the fact that humans make mistakes.

Despite Enbridge's promises and the most advanced risk reduction measures and safety plans available, if the proposed Northern Gateway project is approved, a major spill will not be so much a matter of likelihood as a matter of time. Accidents happen. They are an inevitable part of shipping. Look at Rena. Think about what we stand to lose from an oil spill. Do we really want her oil-carrying cousins sailing our waters? I think not.

Katie Terhune is the Living Oceans Society's Energy Campaign Manager. To find out more about the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project and the risk of oil spills on the B.C. coast, please visit the Tankers section of our website.

Red tide, biolumenescence, and just where do you find sustainable Canadian seafood?

2011-10-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

There are some pretty cool things living in the ocean. There are some pretty cool videos of things that live in the ocean, too. For instance, this video from Science News of sea urchin larvae developing into adults is pretty amazing. And in case you haven't seen it already, check out beautifully put-together video of bioluminescence in the waves near San Diago:

The light show that you see above is the result of millions of dinoflagellates (tiny marine algae) that washed ashore after a large algae bloom along the west coast. These blooms, which usually happens after an upwelling of nutrients form the deep waters off the continental shelf, is often called red tide as the algae are actually dense enough to change the colour of the seawater over a huge area. To get an idea of exactly how large an area, have a look at this satellite image of the waters off Vancouver Island in the fall of 2004. Just as these algae can change the colour of the water by day, they can also light them up by night by producing a chemical with one most wicked names known to science: LUCIFERIN.

This chemical, which in dinoflagellates is thought to be a modified form of chlorophyll, reacts in the presence of oxygen (and the catalyst, luciferase) to produce light, as below (click on the image to learn more about the chemistry):

Bioluminescence of luciferin (courtesy of Biological Science - UC Santa Barbara)

All this leads to one question: where can you buy buy sustainable local seafood, anyway? At least, that's the question on our collective minds here at Water Bloged.

The reason for this is that sustainable, locally-caught seafood is... well... bloody difficult to find at times. In fact, it's often much easier to find cheap, imported seafood options than sustainable, Canadian-caught fare. This not only frustrates sustainable-seafood lovers, but results in billions of dollars each year going to often environmentally-destructive foreign industries instead of local fishermen (many of whom fish in a responsible, sustainable fisheries).

So what's the solution? Well, Living Oceans Society has been working on the idea of a community-supported network that will allow producers of sustainable seafood to connect directly to Canadian seafood consumers. We even have a name for this endeavour: Sea to Fork.

Sound good? Good, because this is where you come in: we have registered this idea in the Aviva Community Fund, to help secure funding for this exciting project. We need as many people as possible to vote for this idea each day over the next two weeks, so that we can get into the next round. It will take you mere moments to help us make this idea a reality.

PNCIMA – A Betrayal of Public Trust

2011-09-28T16:30:00.000-07:00

Public Trust: it's the cornerstone of democratic government; the concept that power held by elected officials is entrusted to them by their constituents to use in the best interest of the people they represent. Betrayal of this trust can take the form of bribery and corruption, as these result in individuals or groups gaining special access to power that rightfully belongs to the whole electorate.

Of course, it isn't always that black and white.

Take PNCIMA for example. It's pronounced pen-SEA-ma, and stands for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area. If you read this blog on a regular basis, you've no doubt read a post or two about this unusual term that refers to both a spectacular region of the BC coast and a process on the cutting edge of marine conservation.

Even if you don't follow the blog, you may have heard about PNCIMA in the news over the past month under headlines like Federal government scraps PNCIMA funding agreement, NDP cries foul and Ottawa threatened by oceans planning. These news headlines arose because the version of PNCIMA that we on BC's North and Central Coasts have come to know over the past half-decade is no more, and those of us who have invested time and effort into this process are now reeling, having had the rug pulled out from under us by Ottawa. Just listen to the CBC Daybreak interview with Des Nobles, who represents the Central Coast Regional District in PNCIMA, to get a sense of the disappointment this has caused.

The decision by the federal government to scale back the process by withdrawing from a funding agreement that was supporting this process is, in fact, nothing short of a betrayal of the aforementioned public trust. Up until three weeks ago, the people of Canada had a process that was being informed by coastal communities and regional stakeholders (fishing, tourism, conservation, First Nations, industry, regional districts, etc.) and by an independent scientific team. Now, the collective voices of our coast no longer have an avenue for dialogue, as the regional forums, workshops, and working groups have been canceled. Not only will this lack of depth and width of opinion weaken the final planning product tremendously, but it also decreases the odds of public support for what will now be a top-down plan imposed on the coast by Ottawa (see my post on public engagement in marine protection).

Enter the shipping industry, which has been looking for a way to quash PNCIMA from the start. They peddled conspiracies about biases in the process (that don't deserve repeating and would have put some of the anti-Obama 'birther' theories to shame). Shipping lobbied for additional seats in the Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee (IOAC), the stakeholder group set up to inform the PNCIMA process, and Enbridge was given a spot as an alternate despite not being an ocean-based stakeholder. The Port Authority of Prince Rupert was later granted a seat on the Steering Committee, which oversees the whole process. All of this seat grabbing in order to compensate for a perceived bias.

Meanwhile, if this were not enough, Stephen Brown, president of the BC Chamber of Shipping and representative of the shipping industry at the IOAC, registered as a lobbyist with the federal government to ensure his sector was not impacted by any decisions to come out of the PNCIMA process. In the world of collaborative processes, as in football, this would be known as an “end run”.

You might wonder why the shipping sector was so scared of PNCIMA that it needed to see it get erased. Steven Brown wrote all about it an article (PDF copy) for the BC Shipping News (an industry periodical). He suggested that the involvement of private funding in the process was connected to US financial interests who wanted to use the PNCIMA process to restrict the export of Tar-Sands oil to anywhere other than the US (I’m not making this up, folks). The article is filled with dubious sources, illustrations taken out of context, and what could only be considered deliberate misinformation.

The picture below is a microcosm of the inaccuracies found in the article. Note the resort and marina that have "suddenly appeared" on the Scott Islands which are home to one of the most significant sea bird colonies in Canada, but not (to my knowledge) to any permanent human settlement.

'Scott Island', near Ladysmith in the southern Gulf Islands (not to be confused with the 'Scott Islands', off the northwest tip of Vancouver Island)

As the article winds down, Mr. Brown states “...the marine industry in B.C. feels entirely justified in raising its concerns to the highest levels of government...” which it would appear is exactly what they did. Two weeks later, DFO announced that it was pulling out of the funding arrangement and, well here we are.

Welcome to PNCIMA-Lite: Brought to you by the same government who only last week reaffirmed their commitment to expanding infrastructure on Canada's Pacific Coast to ship goods to Asia. Oh, and with the Keystone XL pipeline debate heating up and threatening exports of Tar-Sands oil to the US, Canada is increasingly eying-up markets overseas (more specifically, over the Pacific Ocean). Ironically, in scaling back PNCIMA the federal government may have opened a whole other can of worms for Canada's export of oil to Asia, but I'll let my fellow blogger, Andrew Gage, make that case.

What is particularly sad about this scenario is that the PNCIMA process was actually about healthy oceans, communities, and economies for our coast. The coastal communities finally had a process through which they could make regional decisions about fisheries and marine protected areas, locating alternative energy sources like wind and tidal energy, community economic development, the creation of standards and thresholds for pollution and mechanisms to address species at risk. It was never about Enbridge. The Joint Review Process was always the battleground for that initiative (and if you want to provide an oral statement on your opposition to the pipeline you can sign up to do so before Oct 6th, 2011).

It would appear that the real threat to the shipping industry and their clients in the Tar Sands comes from allowing coastal community residents to provide input into an integrated marine plan. As a result of industrial lobbyists, the Prime Minster has effectively denied the Canadians from the North and Central coast a voice about what is allowed to occur in their waters.

So if you've read this far and you are as disheartened as I by this subversion of democracy, please send the Prime Minster a message.

Finally, for those who still believe that an investment of a few million dollars in the marine environment of BC constitutes foreign interference in Canada's self-governance, consider the $15 BILLION that Chinese petroleum companies have sunk into the Tar Sands over the past year and a half. No significant foreign influence there.

More to come on that issue in future posts.

Here's how not to promote a salmon farming event

2011-09-27T13:35:00.000-07:00

Will Soltau is local research coordinator for our Salmon Farming Initiative

A dead and bloated Harbour Seal entangled in a net attached to unused fish farming equipment near Port Hardy.

In the lead-up to the BC Salmon Farmers Association’s first-ever Aquaculture Awareness Week a lot of media reports and even one or two clever cartoons were generated. They must be disappointed that most of the coverage was in response to our media release about predator control activities at BC salmon farms during the first quarter of 2011 being reported publicly for the first time.

Members of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) have been advocating for more transparency around activities at BC salmon farms for a long, long time because very little information has been offered up voluntarily by industry or government. When a CAAR member’s Freedom of Information requests for fish health audit data were rebuffed by the province they went to appeal and won. Together with our supporters CAAR pushed hard for better public reporting on site-by-site impacts in the marine environment to become part of the new aquaculture regulations when the jurisdictional responsibility for management in BC was handed over to the federal government. We were heard and now everyone will have access to information on incidental catch, marine mammal interactions, site-by-site sea lice counts, escapes, egg imports and licensing information. Our EcoJustice lawyers for the Conservation Coalition at the Cohen Commission of Inquiry fought for the release of fish health data at all salmon farms along the migration route of Fraser River sockeye over the objections of industry and government. We won and now those data have been entered into evidence for all to see. What is still not clear from DFO’s new web page is how they will report out future disease information they collect from salmon farmers.

The reason Living Oceans Society and CAAR have been fighting hard to advance the cause of transparency is because, in the end, the more British Columbians and Canadians know about the practices and impacts of farming salmon in open net-cages, the more pressure there will be on our elected officials to clean up the industry and transition it to closed containment.

The People of the Broughton Helping Heal the Ocean

2011-09-21T16:51:00.000-07:00

This is the third and final update from the Broughton Archipelago by Jodi Stark, winner of Living Oceans Society's Way I See It contest.

My trip to the Broughton Archipelago was a short but powerful one. It was rich with experiences and learning and it really crystallized some ideas and perspectives, of which I’d like to share a few.

I have long believed that our way to healthy oceans is through the people in our coastal communities. The true stewards of the ocean are those who live there and interact most intimately with the surrounding sea. This has never been more evident to me than on this trip.

As someone who is quite knowledgeable about ocean issues, policy and management, I was humbled by the depth and layers of ‘real’ understanding of the place, its wildlife and issues by the people that call this place home. Below are just a few examples of these people who are doing what they can, in their own way, to protect their life support system.

I came home and was faced abruptly with the reality that the promises made by our government to include these people in management and conservation decisions are devastatingly hollow. The federal government recently pulled out of a funding arrangement to advance the PNCIMA process. This is wrong in so many ways, but after this trip, to me the part that was most offensive is the top-down decisions about our oceans coming from the Prime Minister’s office with a disregard for the people in coastal communities who have a lot more valuable contribution to marine-use decisions than most bureaucrats or politicians in Ottawa.

***

These are but some of the local ambassadors of the Broughton Archipelago whose work to help heal and protect the sea continues to inspire me:

Our Captain, Kevin Smith for years worked on the central coast "Great Bear Rainforest" land use plan, as well as working as a BC government steward of the marine parks of northern Vancouver Island. His first-hand accounts of the area and its wildlife and colourful characters were rich and personal.

Will Soltau came onboard as we anchored off Malcolm Island to tell us about his work with the Living Oceans Society. As a fisherman and coastal resident he has a great depth of understanding and respect for the ocean which he’s now using to fuel his salmon farming campaigns.

We stopped in at Billy Proctor’s Museum, and though he wasn’t
there, we got a glimpse into his life of collecting ocean gems and stories. After years of watching what overfishing, pollution and logging has done, Billy’s a conservationist and writer inspiring his museum visitors and readers.

The same bay as Billy’s Museum is where Alexandra Morton spent many years admiring and researching orcas and is where her organization, Raincoast Research Society is based. We didn’t have a chance to meet Alex but I saw her the following week testifying from the heart alongside Cath Stewart at the Cohen Commission.

We did get to meet Alex’s neighbour, Theda Pheonix who played us a song about social and environmental change and reminded us that artists play an important role in healing the ocean too.

I had a short visit with my friend Megan Baker before I headed out on the trip who is working for Straightwatch. Straitwatch educates boaters and coastal residents about marine species at risk, highlighting conservation issues and providing solutions to decrease impacts on marine mammals.

We visited the OrcaLab where Dr. Paul Spong and his dedicated volunteers have been studying orca vocalization for 40 years in the Broughton Archipelago. With underwater microphones, OrcaLab studies Orcas 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without interfering at all with the animals. They can identify distinct pods based on their dialects. This is the most unintrusive way to study and 'follow' the orcas, and with it Paul has made an contribution to the knowledge base and the scientific understanding of the whale populations.)

We didn’t get to meet Jackie Hildering, but I reveled in her photographs and stories when I got home when I met up with her at the Cohen Commission. The work that she does as the Marine Detective is key in sparking people’s interest and curiosity.

Jennifer Lash, the tireless founder and leader of Living Oceans Society, is another driving force for conservation in the region. Though we didn’t get to spend time with her on this trip, her continued commitment to ocean conservation in the region is strongly felt.

A warm thank you to all of these people who despite frustrations and set-backs in progress in marine conservation, continue to work in the best way they know how to heal our ocean. We can’t do it without them. Now…how do we make sure that Ottawa knows that?

Should Future Generations be represented today?

2011-09-19T12:47:00.000-07:00

So, I had an idea for a new kind of special-interest group the other day:

Future Generations.

Sounds facetious? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure myself. After all, the wants and needs of future generations of humans are barely considered in our political or economic decisions today, and you have to admit that this is a bit of a shortcoming.

Plus, the flux capacitor technology required for time travel has been available since 1985, so that's not an issue.

Take politics. We have instituted electoral timelines that punish politicians for taking actions that impose short-term costs in order to yield long-term benefits. One of the most infamous examples of this comes from the United States, where all aspiring politicians live in mortal fear of being "the next Jimmy Carter" - of proposing honest and sensible and mildly inconvenient solutions to long-term problems and, as a result, being destroyed in the next election by a belligerent doofus. In U.S. political circles, this is known as the Carter/Reagan Transformation,

Jimmy Carter + fuel crisis + "Turn down the thermostat, put on a sweater" = Ronald Reagan

We may force our politicians to be shortsighted to survive, but the business cycle is even faster and more severe in its treatment of its players. The fortunes of businesses change so rapidly that the executive arriving at the high-rise office via chauffeured limousine at 10:00 am may well have crushed that same limousine with his penniless body by 4:00.

In short, our political and business systems are set up such that their focus is on maximizing the good times in the present and near future, with scant regard given to the implications of their actions over a long time frame. If you are slated to be born in 2025 or 2045 or 2100, you may not necessarily agree with decisions made under such a circumscribed sense of time.

Consider the current battle over the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would send Alberta tar sands bitumen down to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Some of the major concerns swirling about the proposed pipeline include the potential for massive pollution of the largest aquifer in the United States, and the enabling effect that the pipeline would have on the development of emissions-heavy tar sands oil resources. Those folks who will be around when those issues become manifest, whether in 2050 or 2100, will probably wish they had the chance to chime in to our discussions on the pipeline today. After all, while the current generation stands to abscond with the profits if the Keystone XL pipeline does go through, it's the souls in the generational on-deck circle who will have to bear its substantial costs.

And that gets to the critical point: actions that are economically beneficial in the immediate future are not necessarily economically beneficial when viewed in the context of the next 10, 50, or 100 years. Over time, as the ecological (and economic) bills come due, the costs of something like Keystone XL will inexorably creep up, while the bulk of the economic benefit, whatever it may be, will have long since been dispersed into bank accounts, investments, yachts, and gin.

On the other hand, conservation actions that may have short-term economic impacts today may yield substantial and sustained economic benefits over the longer term. Take fisheries. To a person born in 2100, it may be very economically beneficial if those of us in 2011 develop, say, a sound network of Marine Protected Areas here in the Pacific. Some fishermen may grumble today, but the fishermen of tomorrow would likely cheer us on.

So, who knows? Maybe it is a good idea to have special interest groups that are devoted to representing (or doing their best to represent) the interests of Future Generations. After all, the good folks who are going to be drinking the water, breathing the air, or catching the fish of 2100 or 2200 are going to be affected by what we're doing today, so perhaps they deserve to have a say as we make those decisions.

Plus, it would just be cool to be in a meeting and to hear the chair say "The gentleman from the year 2150 has the floor".

- It should go without saying that this is not the official stance of Living Oceans Society on the question of whether or not the yet-to-be-conceived should be considered legitimate stakeholders. In fact, I don't think that this topic has ever arisen in our meetings. -

Ocean Exposures: Because summer isn’t over yet, dang it!

2011-09-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

Sea lions and starfish, sculpins and seagulls, ships and surfers. You've may have seen one or more of these in your summer travels. You may even have taken pictures of some of them. You may even, like many others this summer, have shared some of those in our 2011 Ocean Exposures Photo Contest. Like this one:

Discovering Anemones - 2010 contest winner in the Ocean People Category.

Check out our Flicker page for several more fine examples.

But wait, you haven't entered any photos? Not to worry! You still have a couple weeks left to do so, as our contest doesn't close until September 30th. Now I know what you're thinking: “October's only two weeks away? C'mon! Summer just started, man!” No? Oh right, the other thing – “What's in it for me?”

Well, aside from the notoriety of having your photos featured on our website (and yes, maybe even on our blog) you stand to win a Nikon Coolpix digital camera! Just enter your photos into one of our two categories, Ocean Ecosystems and Working on the Ocean. You can't do anything about summer going away so fast, but maybe you can help us keep it alive in digital form a little while longer.

Now, here's the fine print:

No purchase necessary. Contest open to Canadians excluding Quebec residents. There are two first place prizes: two Nikon Coolpix L24 cameras, retail value $110 each, and two second place prizes: two LOS Seahugger T-shirts, retail value $25 each. Contest closes on September 30, 2011. The winner will be announced on October 18, 2011.

Deep sea species and ecosystems: worth saving?

2011-09-09T10:45:00.000-07:00

Is the deep sea worth saving? Living Oceans Society thinks so, and we'll punch you in your glasses if you disagree.

Did you know? When confronted by danger, the roundnose grenadier's only

defense is to secrete a thick, sticky layer of pathos.

OK, we won't actually punch anyone, but we're still serious about saving the deep sea. This is why we're a part of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC). Thanks to the work of the DSCC, you and I have an opportunity to tell the United Nations that yes - the deep sea is worth saving. Read the following message from the DSCC, to learn more.

----------------------------

For the first time ever, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) will conduct an open review of national and regional actions to protect those deep-sea species and ecosystems that are beyond national jurisdiction from the harmful impacts of bottom fishing. This open review is scheduled to take place at UN headquarters in New York, on 15-16 September, 2011.

There's a lot of history behind this review. Back in 2006, the UNGA considered a moratorium on all bottom trawling in the high seas. Ultimately, they did not take this approach, and instead opted for a compromise. As part of that compromise, and following global concern over the destructive impacts of bottom fishing on the high seas, two resolutions calling for urgent action have already been adopted by the United Nations in 2006 and again in 2009. Full implementation of the resolutions, however, would result in area closures whenever bottom trawling would cause significant impacts.

After an initial review in 2009, the 2011 UNGA is looking to make further recommendations for action, which will specifically evaluate the extent to which the two previous resolutions have been implemented by high seas fishing States and regional fisheries management organizations (RMFOs). High seas bottom fishing States include, among others: Australia, China, France, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the Russian Federation and South Korea.

The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) has assessed compliance with the UNGA resolutions on high seas bottom fishing, and has engaged with world renowned scientists and other partner organizations to carry this out. The results of this assessment– contained in various other reports– will be released at the 2011 UN review.The initial conclusions indicate that high seas fishing States are, with few exceptions, failing to live up to the provisions of UNGA resolutions (61/105 and 64/72), and as a result, many deep sea species are increasingly overfished and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) continue to be significantly damaged.The

DSCC therefore, also as part of their ‘Worth Saving?’ campaign, urges the General Assembly to call for:

The immediate cessation of high seas bottom fishing except where conservation measures consistent with UNGA resolutions 61/105 and 64/72, and any subsequent UNGA resolutions, are in force and have been effectively and fully implemented;

The protection of all VMEs as identified in FAO Guidelines on Deep Sea Fisheries (paragraph 42), including long-lived fish species, spawning areas on the high seas and unique habitats such as seamounts and canyons; and,

The designation of high seas bottom fishing as Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing when it is conducted in contravention of international instruments, including UNGA resolutions 61/105 and 64/72, regional measures, such as UNGA compliant conservation and management measures adopted by regional fisheries management organizations, or UNGA compliant national rules.

Want to help policymakers make the right decisions on the deep sea? Check out our 'Worth Saving?' campaign, which seeks to protect the highly threatened roundnose grenadier – which can live at depths between 700m-10,000m and may live up to 80 years– and thousands of other deep sea species and ecosystems at risk. And check out our website and blog for more information.

Deep sea may be out of sight, but the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition keeps it in our minds

2011-09-08T10:51:00.000-07:00

"Out of sight, out of mind".

If this statement has any truth to it, then there is perhaps no part of earth that is more out of humans' minds than the deep waters of the high seas.

The high seas, of course, refers to the vast ocean expanses that are beyond any nation's jurisdiction. While the concept of the 'high seas' has long been a reliable source of inspiration for shore-bound romantics, the people who have actually been drawn to them have often had less-than-lofty aims in mind. In particular, the high seas' aura of lawlessness has drawn people and entities seeking to do things that they simply could not do in places with stricter oversight. This unfortunate tradition continues even today, in the form of high-seas bottom trawling.

Canadians on the west coast are no strangers to the perils of unregulated high-seas fishing: the words "high-seas driftnet fishing" still resonate here, nearly two decades after a moratorium on this practice that caught North American salmon on the high seas of the North Pacific. While this infamous example of destructive high-seas fishing has been stopped, the same cannot yet be said for unregulated high-seas bottom trawl fisheries.

Deep-sea bottom trawlers scour far-flung networks of undersea mountains, known as seamounts, in search of deep-sea fish. By operating in areas with minimal or no oversight, these vessels are free to catch whatever they want, throw back whatever they want, and to damage and destroy fragile habitat with no fear of repercussions.

Since the deep waters of the high seas are about as far out of sight as it's possible to get on this earth, the impacts of these unregulated deep-sea fisheries would likely never enter our collective mind if it weren't for the efforts of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition.

Move over, pandas and sequoias: the DSCC is going
to make the mighty roundnose grenadier a household name

The DSCC is comprised of more than 70 environmental organizations from around the world (Living Oceans Society is a member). Led by a steering group composed of several intrepid individuals, the DSCC works to improve the the conservation of deep sea species and ecosystems on the high seas. They do this by attending, and contributing to, meetings of the United Nations and the many regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) that manage fishing in vast stretches of the high seas.

The DSCC, effectively, is a very small group of individuals who are devoted to the health of the world's most far-flung ecosystem. You know how we always assume that 'somebody' is making sure that things are going well? Well, the DSCC is the very small handful of 'somebodys' for deep-sea ecosystems on the high seas.

And now, the DSCC is putting out the word: they need your help. This September, the United Nations General Assembly is set to conduct the first-ever review of the measures that nations and RFMOs have taken to protect deep-sea communities on the high seas. The DSCC has conducted its own review and has found major gaps in protection, and it is calling on the UN and nations to take 5 steps necessary to protect deep-sea ecosystems in the high seas.

Tomorrow, look for a guest blog post by Mark Gibson, who will discuss this effort in more detail. Until then: take a moment to think about the deep seas. Try to envision an area where light never penetrates, where fish can be decades old and corals can be centuries old. Try to imagine the chains of towering, hidden mountains that are home to coral and sponge gardens, and countless organisms that neither you or I, nor any human, have ever seen. Try to imagine the vastness of the challenge of protecting these distant, remote areas, and then spare a thought for the good people at the DSCC, who work tirelessly for this very reason.

Prisoner of Hope

2011-09-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

The following is a post from Cath Stewart, Living Oceans Society's Salmon Farming Campaign Manager. Cath will be on the stand at the Cohen Commission September 7 and 8.

“I’m not an optimist, I’m a prisoner of hope”. Those words from Archbishop Desmond Tutu have been the signature line on my emails in recent months. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a total pessimist. I couldn’t do this work if I didn’t believe change is possible. I do have moments of optimism and opportunities to celebrate when the small steps forward by my amazing colleagues at Living Oceans help to turn the tide of harm to our oceans.

But mostly, I’m just a prisoner of eternal hope.

It’s just as well that I am, because there’s probably never been anything better designed to shatter optimism than the federal Cohen Inquiry into the missing Fraser River sockeye.

I expected the mountains of evidence documenting lax enforcement of the open net-cage salmon farms by both levels of government. I expected records of disease outbreaks in the pens would, despite entrenched opposition from industry and government, eventually make their way into the public record – and they have.What has surprised me, however, is how the process is set up to minimize the amount of evidence that can be entered into the public record, forestalling attempts to dig for truth.

When witnesses such as the former Director General of Aquaculture Management for DFO or the provincial veterinarian charged with oversight of the health of farmed fish take the stand, they are first questioned by counsel for the Commission, followed by the federal then provincial government lawyers. Each have a full hour to interrogate the witnesses. Counsel for the Commission does occasionally ask some challenging questions. The government’s lawyers use their hours to lob softballs asking the government witnesses whether the government is doing a stellar job.

But then, finally, the lawyers for the participants get their turn to pitch. They’ve come armed with fast balls, curve balls, tough questions and a mountain of documents they would like to get entered into evidence and put on the public record. They each have 30 minutes, but sometimes they get only 20. And in some cases – they only have five. Five minutes to ask all their questions.

The team from Living Oceans and the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform have been poring over the Inquiry database, unearthing evidence of non-compliance, disease, and close cooperation in the 500,000 DFO emails, ministerial briefings, reports, industry data and correspondence. But none of it can be discussed publicly until it is formally entered into evidence at the hearings. As “participants” in the Inquiry, we have all signed legal undertakings that bind us to secrecy. So our lawyers spend a good chunk of their 30 minutes getting that evidence on the record. The Inquiry clerk has to find the document and label it with an exhibit number. Sometimes there is confusion: was it already entered in a previous session, is this a later draft of a document, does it need a new exhibit number? Time ticks by as the ‘process’ sorts itself out. Finally our lawyers have a few minutes for hard, challenging questions. Just as they are getting into the substance their time runs out.

The real value of this Inquiry will be in the evidence entered as exhibits. That’s where you’ll find shocking emails documenting problems on the farms, the disease databases, the DFO ‘draft’ communications plan outlining how the department can help the salmon farming industry combat the weight of evidence of the harm being done by open net-cages and their eroding social licence. In the end, value may also come from Justice Cohen’s final report and recommendations. Whether those recommendations will be strong remains to be seen. Whether government will act on them – well – I’m not an optimist, but I’m a prisoner of hope!

I’ll be on the stand for two days this week (Sept. 7 and 8), on a panel with Marine Harvest, a former Grieg Seafoods rep who now works for DFO (cozy), and Alexandra Morton. If the governments have questions for Alex and I, I suspect this time they won’t be lobbing softballs.

An iPod in the whale kingdom

2011-09-06T09:00:00.000-07:00

This is the second update from the Broughton Archipelago by Jodi Stark, winner of Living Oceans Society's Way I See It contest.

Out at sea on the Maple Leaf, we saw the iPod playing and splashing and jumping around. An iPod? What?

Each pod of resident orcas in BC waters is given a letter for easy identification. Long before the popular music player, this particular pod was dubbed the I-Pod. They surrounded us and put on quite the show- big bursting spouts through their blowholes, playful tail slaps and curious spyhops. It was another magical experience for us this week.

These whales are fish eaters and seemed to be happily feeding around these waters of the Broughton Archipelago. In fact, the wildlife here has been so abundant that, without being able to see underwater, we can only assume there is a plethora of fish, seaweed, plankton and invertebrates feeding the whole system.

It's easy to see how this region has captured the hearts of so many people who are working hard to ensure that this area continues to thrive in face of its many threats.

Last week I went to the Cohen Commission Inquiry to learn about disease affecting wild salmon. This is an important judicial inquiry and much will be learned, analyzed and hopefully concluded about the cause of the decline of the Fraser River Sockeye salmon.

Research and analysis are an important part of marine conservation. But it's these inspiring moments out at sea surrounded by orcas, humpbacks, seabirds, salmon and sea lions are where ideals, beliefs and perspectives get crystallized.

All of us onboard, young and old, are going home with a new appreciation and love for the Broughton Archipelago and a respect and admiration for the world's oceans and its wildlife.

IMPRESSIVE. MOVING. AWE-INSPIRING

2011-09-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

This is the first update from the Broughton Archipelago by Jodi Stark, winner of Living Oceans Society's Way I See It contest.

It’s only the 3rd day of our sailing trip on the Maple Leaf through the Broughton Archipelago and already there are so many stories, photos and videos that I’d like to share that I’m practically bursting at the seams.

For today, I’ll share just one from a very special place called the Ahta River Valley.

Yesterday, under a towering Sitka spruce we witnessed hundreds of coho, chum and pink salmon huddled together at the base of 40-foot cascading waterfalls. There are few things I’ve experience that are as impressive, moving and awe-inspiring as salmon on their spawning ground.

It’s a truly incredible feat for each one of those salmon to make it there. Each one of them made it past numerous fish farms (risking sea-lice infections while out-migrating to the open ocean as juveniles) and later migrating as adults up the river against rushing water, over rocky uphill terrain and past hungry grizzlies (we saw lots of evidence of them around) to make it back to the very site they themselves hatched in up to 4 years ago.

Because of this, salmon symbolize determination to me. They also embody a spirit of giving and teamwork because after spawning they die and their nutrient-rich flesh feeds many animals and fertilizes our west coast temperate rainforest. Salmon are a linchpin in this ecosystem and it’s hard (and terrifying) to imagine what things would be like without them.

I have been equally moved and inspired by the amazing girls and women on this trip from 8 years old to over 80. We hiked together through rough terrain, rolled up our pants and crossed a frigid river to go admire the salmon and pay our respects to their generous feat of determination. How many 8 and 80 year olds do you know that would be game for such an adventure?

The crew of the Maple Leaf have been fostering this spirit of adventure and helping us feel at home on this incredible ship. I had no idea when I was embarking on this journey that it was all happening on a 104 year old luxury sailboat with so much history that it deserves a whole blog post on its own (and very well might get one at a later date).

Everyone has come with a keen spirit of adventure, desire to experience BC ocean wilderness and an openness to step outside their norm into something different. This has inspired me as much as magical scenery and wildlife that we’ve seen so far.

I have many more stories to come including a swimming black bear and a breaching humpback. This place is magical and I feel so fortunate to be here.

Building a case for marine protected areas

2011-08-29T14:01:00.000-07:00

Back in January, David Shiffman of the ever insightful Southern Fried Science came out with an interesting post which begged the age-old question 'Can marine protected areas save the ocean?' Actually, the question was more like 'Can no-take areas save fish stocks?' The conclusion he reached was that yes, maybe, in some cases, if everything is done right, it would probably help. Of course, he put it much more eloquently than that and also used this wonderful cartoon, which I have shamelessly reposted (courtesy of NOAA):

Fast forward to the present (well, let's say two weeks ago), and the publication of a paper in PLoS ONE: Large Recovery of Fish Biomass in a No-Take Marine Reserve. 'A paper', you say, 'What gives?' True, I lured you in with the hot fudge sundae of marine humour only to serve you the cold goulash of peer-reviewed literature. But not to worry, I will summarize.

The study took place in Cabo Pulmo National Park, marine reserve on the south-east tip of the Baja California Sur in Mexico. The reserve includes a large 'no-take' area (or 35 % of the total area) that was closed to fishing. The park was surveyed in 1999, four years after it was established, but no significant difference was found between the biomass (the total living mass) of the fish there and and surrounding areas where fishing was permitted. However, the reserve was surveyed again ten years later and this time there was a large difference.

How large, you ask? Over those 10 years the fish biomass in the park had increased 463 %, while there was no significant change in surrounding areas. Not only that, but the biomass of top predators, such as sharks, had increased by an astounding 11 times. In fact it was the largest recovery recorded for any marine reserve in the world!

There have been many other examples of success in marine reserves around the world. California's Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary for instance, a network of marine protected areas which includes 10 strictly no-take reserves, was shown to have produced many benefits after the first five years. The diversity of species and number of fish had increased, particularly near the center of the reserves, and another recent paper (Mmm... goulash) showed the biomass of fishes targeted by fishing had almost doubled. You can read several other success stories on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) webpage: Protecting the oceans makes economic sense.

But why was there such great success in Cabo Pulmo?

Of course, there are many reasons. The reserve was much larger than many areas that had been studied in the past, which allowed protection of many fish species with large home ranges. The area is very productive and its coral habitats were intact when the reserve was established. The length of time since the reserve was established likely also played a role, as a recent large-scale study of marine reserves found that it takes 13 years on average to see the full effect of protection on all species in these areas.

However, the main reason behind the success of Cabo Pulmo was local leadership and the support of the broader community. Local boat captains, dive masters and residents helped to enforce the regulations of the reserve, monitor important sites, and clean the beaches and oceans. In other words, those people who relied on this corner of the ocean for their livelihood bought into the idea of protecting it, and took on part of the responsibility for doing so themselves.

Planning for marine protection can take place at many levels, from the international commitments that countries make to protect a certain percentage of their oceans by a particular year, to discussions with local industries, governments and aboriginal groups about where and how this protection will be put in place. Cabo Pulmo shows us that the key to this protection in the long term rests with the people who work on the water and live in the local communities.

Video: Gwaii Haanas - Journey from mountain top to sea floor

2011-08-26T11:05:00.000-07:00

Just over a month ago my manager, Kim Wright, shared some pictures of her recent trip to Gwaii Haanas. Today, I thought I'd share a video with you a video that Parks Canada put together on the marine portion of the park - Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA).

When Gwaii Haanas NMCA was established in July of last year, the area became the first area in Canada to receive some degree of protection from mountaintop to sea floor. While the park is an important step towards protecting the marine environment and wildlife of the area, covers a relatively small area of the waters on Canada's Pacific coast.

As Kim mentioned in her post, the reason for her visit to area was a meeting to help create a plan for the rest of the ocean from northern Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. This marine region, dubbed the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), covers over 102,000 km² of ocean from the edge of the continental shelf to the shores of the Great Bear Rainforest. This is another opportunity to create an area that has some degree of protection from the highest peaks to the deepest depths, not only for the marine life and their homes but also for the coastal residents who live and work on this amazing part of the coast.

To learn more about PNCIMA and find out how you can get involved, visit the new PNCIMA Matters website. There you can also see more videos of the area or add you own, as well as stories and upcoming events in the region.