Topic
Love The Tyee? We need your support. Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
Why give BC's collapsed runs a sustainable seal of approval, critics ask.
Sockeye salmon: BC's catch to be approved by Marine Stewardship Council
There's a federal judicial inquiry underway to find out why British Columbia's Fraser River sockeye salmon runs collapsed in 2009, but an international organization is within weeks of certifying the sockeye fishery as ecologically sustainable.
And while an industry spokesperson said the certification will help improve the fishery, critics say it points to what's wrong with the certification process.
The Marine Stewardship Council, based in England, works, according to its website, "with fisheries, seafood companies, scientists, conservation groups and the public to promote the best environmental choice in seafood."
After a nine-year process, the certification body, Nova Scotia's TAVEL Certification Inc., has determined B.C.'s sockeye fishery should be certified to be in accordance with the MSC standard. Anyone who objects has 15 working days to file a statement with the MSC.
Enviro groups 'strongly' object
Early indications are that the MSC will hear some objections.
Even before the MSC had posted its sockeye decision on its website (and it still wasn't up as of this writing), four B.C. environmental organizations said they would be "objecting strongly" to the announcement. Representatives of the David Suzuki Foundation, Skeena Wild Conservation Trust, Headwaters Initiative and Watershed Watch Salmon Society were all available to comment.
"It's irresponsible to certify the Fraser above all when we've got a judicial inquiry into its management," said Vicky Husband, a senior adviser to the Watershed Watch Salmon Society. The MSC should at least withhold its certification until after the inquiry is complete, she said.
MSC's announcement comes just a few months after Fraser River sockeye returns collapsed from an expected 10 million fish to around one million. In November, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called a federal inquiry into the collapse.
Said Husband, "It is unimaginable that any fishery targeting Fraser sockeye could be considered sustainable at this time."
The Skeena, Nass and Barkley Sound sockeye are doing better than the Fraser, she said, but the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's needs to commit to a stronger plan to rebuild the stocks and to keep harvest rates low enough to protect endangered stocks before it will get support from conservation organizations like hers.
"MSC certification of B.C. sockeye fisheries is corporate eco-fraud," Husband said. "It's credibility will be lost to its consumers and markets." The MSC process appears to be more about certifying fisheries than about conservation, she said. "From its inception the MSC process has been a failure."
Husband said she fears the certification will be granted regardless of any objections raised with the MSC. "Our experience in looking at objections is they never overrule."
A call to TAVEL's Steve Devitt was not returned by publication time.
Fishery responsibly managed: SFU experts
"2009 wasn't a very pretty picture, that's true," said Christina Burridge, who led the certification effort as a consultant to the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council.
To put it in perspective though, the escapement, or number of young salmon that went out to sea, was the 14th lowest in the last 40 years, she said. It was a bad year, but not desperate, she said.
A Simon Fraser University think tank on the fishery decided there were a range of possible factors that depressed the run, including a combination of environmental factors and the effect of fish farming, but found management of the fishery wasn't one of them, she said. "They agreed the fishery has been managed responsibly."
The question, as far as the MSC is concerned, is what happens when runs decline, she said. If returns shrink DFO has committed to closing the fishery, she said. "If 2010 looks like 2009 there won't be any fishing and there won't be any fish bearing the label," she said. "There'll be no fishing."
MSC's certification will help improve management of the sockeye fishery, she said. The certification comes with 43 conditions that DFO has to put in place over the next five years, she said. They are the kind of conditions conservation groups want to see, she said.
"This certification delivers that and it delivers the accountability that that actually happens," she said. "I would see it myself as a victory for the fish."
Certifiers try to stay up with shifting facts
It's difficult to manage a fishery when the returns are so unpredictable, said Mike McDermid, the Ocean Wise program manager at the Vancouver Aquarium.
Right now there's little but speculation about what happened to the "missing" fish, he said in an email. "I think this really speaks to our inability to accurately predict salmon returns," he said. "This creates some serious concerns with respect to the fishery because decisions need to be made in advance whether or not an area or fishery will open to commercial or recreational fishing."
It is good news that the managers of the fishery are willing to shut it down when returns are low, he said. "This is a very important step for solid management and one that governments have been reluctant to do in the past because of the repercussions of public and industry pressure."
Ocean Wise, whose advice is used by restaurants, recommends choosing wild B.C. and Alaskan salmon over salmon farmed in open-net pens, he said. But things change so fast and the issue is so complex that they produce seasonal recommendations that vary as the season progresses.
"This allows us to make recommendations on fisheries, populations (specific runs or stocks) right down to the boat level in order to ensure that people are supporting sustainable fisheries and populations," he said.
He said he hadn't yet looked closely enough at the MSC pre-assessment documents to comment on how they would affect the fishery, but added, "I do feel there is a need to better understand the populations [stocks/runs] involved and there is a need to fine tune rather than broad stroke assessments of fisheries with regards to their ultimate sustainability."
With some populations strong and others weak it is difficult to make a reccomendation across the whole fishery, he said.
Watershed Watch's Husband said several B.C. conservation groups will file a formal objection to MSC's certification of the B.C. sockeye salmon fishery.
"The fact that a fishery as unsustainable as the Fraser can be certified as sustainable under the MSC label highlights just how broken and corrupt the MSC process is," she said. "The MSC is not only failing its mandate, but also fooling consumers around the world into believing they are making a good choice by purchasing MSC products which will be sourced from collapsing fisheries and endangered populations." ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
25
Login or register to post comments
happy (not verified)
3 years ago
How very odd
One of the gauranteed Tyee "hot button" issues, the salmon fishery, has been posted for a number of hours now and zero comments, while even the article about Oprah is logging its fair share.
Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest this might be due to the mention of the Great Traitor Suzuki?
What a conundrum.
freebear
3 years ago
Commented already on similar article somewhere else
What happens when consumers switch to fish from a 'sustainable' fishery?
Price goes up; consumers switch back to 'unsustainable'; but 'cheaper' fish species...
Or,
In order to meet increased demand, 'sustainable' fishery increases harvest; no longer 'sustainable'...
Or,
Shift to aquaculture fishery at the expense of wild fish species' ecosystems.
We are mining the oceans!
freebear
3 years ago
Found it!
From the 'Hook'
freebear
Few, if any, modern human activities are actually sustainable.
Eco-certification is Campbell like greenwash.
Certified, so people only consume certified; supply goes down from more demand; supply is increased or price is increased.
Result no longer sustainable as only rich can purchase and those tat can not afford-switch to other fish species!
We can not keep 'mining' planet Earth!
Illahie
3 years ago
I find it very odd
The Marine Stewardship Council has recognized a very serious problem, one that is very important, yet hugely under reported.
The problem: many of the fisheries of the world are being very poorly managed, causing serious and possibly irreversible damage, resulting in the destruction of many of the worlds fisheries.
The MSC tries to do something helpful and positive, encourage people to behave in a responsible manner by encouraging seafood consumption from sustainable stocks.
MSC does this through their certification process.
The odd and ironic part of this is that the "environmentalists" should be cheering wildly, yet appear to be the source of the protests about the process.
The environmental crowd should bow their heads in shame.
The Fraser River Sockeye stocks were almost wiped out by the Hells Gate slide in 1915. DFO has been working hard to rebuild these stocks, to the point where the runs are now approaching the pre-slide levels.
It is ironic that the huge 138 million Sockeye out migration of 2007 may have caused the Sockeye crash of 2009. It is quite possible that so many juveniles went to sea that the zooplankton stocks of the Gulf of Georgia were overwhelmed, resulting in the destruction of the stocks, and the poor returns in 2009.
Illahie
3 years ago
The Hells Gate slide
Was in 1913, not 1915
Bustagrill
3 years ago
misinformation
Illahie, you are on thin ice about the huge number of smolts contributing to the crash by "overwhelming" zooplankton in the Gulf. Sounds like the biased fuzzy thinking of industry person. How come DFO's smolt surveys in the Gulf in 2007 (the same year those 130 million smolts swam to sea) showed that Harrison fish had survived so well? The world is changing, the productivity (recruits per spawner) of Fraser sockeye is plummeting, yet some stocks are doing better than ever. It is a fool's game to point to easy, convenient answers. And it is a fool's game to manage fisheries based on forecasting techniques that are based on the assumption that environmental conditions for salmon are constant.
It was almost a blessing that so few fish showed up in 2009. If just a few more fish had showed up, or if they had showed up just a week or so earlier, it would have unleashed very aggressive fishing plans that would have aggressively overharvested endangered stocks such as Cultus Lake sockeye.
Not opening the fishery due to an absence of fish is not evidence of sustainable management.
You say "many of the fisheries of the world are being very poorly managed, causing serious and possibly irreversible damage, resulting in the destruction of many of the worlds fisheries." As if this isn't happening right here in BC. Overfishing is rampant on our coast. Pull your head out of the sand.
Illahie
3 years ago
Bustagrillse
What is known is that there was a huge out migration of Sockeye smolts from the Fraser in 2007. 137 million of the 138 million Sockeye died. The largest risk to survival happens in the first 30 days in the ocean. DFO testing in the lower Straight of Georgia in 2007 found only 157 smolts when they should have found many thousands.
The timing and migration of the Harrison stocks are different. Good luck for them I expect.
A basic rule of survival is if you do not eat you die. The demise of millions of smolts in the lower gulf may have nothing to do with food. It may have everything to do with food.
What is very well understood is that there has been a chronic problem with ocean survival of Sockeye since the mid 1970's.
The crop of zoo-plankton follows the growth of phytoplankton. The phytoplankton bloom varies from year to year. If the Sockeye smolts do not have anything to eat when they hit the ocean they will surely die.
What is known is that these fish died in the lower Fraser river or the lower Gulf. It may have been due to a chemical spill or predation or some other cause.
DFO do not walk around with halos on their heads. The rockfish fishery will probably never recover. Coho have been decimated in the waters facing the Straight of Georgia. There are many problems in fisheries management
Jerry Munro
3 years ago
Unhappy...
"...has been posted for a number of hours now and zero comments, while even the article about Oprah is logging its fair share." Happy observes.
Sometimes folks, self included, just get over dosed on our own sometimes self-indulgent talk, which sometimes... just never seems to go anywhere or resolve anything. It has to do, I think, with the underlying bullshit nature/content of our "democracy, so-called.
And sometimes the brain just needs to take a break... until it gets really pissed again.
Think I'll take a wee break myself. :-)
Bustagrill
3 years ago
more misinformation?
Illahie, could you please explain this statement:
"The Fraser River Sockeye stocks were almost wiped out by the Hells Gate slide in 1915. DFO has been working hard to rebuild these stocks, to the point where the runs are now approaching the pre-slide levels."
Fraser sockeye returns for the past 3 years have been absolutely horrible. Not saying its all due to overfishing - warming river temperatures have taken their toll on spawners, and ocean conditions are not favourable to the smolts. But certainly the weaker stocks have been harvested year after year at rates routinely exceeding their maximum sustained yield. And fisheries have been allowed to occur year after year on those weak stocks despite DFO knowing full well that the target escapements would not be met. So... to say that DFO has worked hard to rebuild the Fraser sockeye stocks to nearly pre-slide levels seems like a pretty outlandish claim.
Illahie
3 years ago
Bustagrillse
It seems that the ocean survival of sockeye has a lot to with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. During the period from the 1940's to about 1977 the PDO was in cooling mode. This was a very good time for Sockeye production. From the mid 1970's until recently the PDO was in warming mode. The last 30 or so years have been very poor for oceanic Sockeye survival. Despite the very adverse conditions over the last 30 or so years, the Sockeye fishery has survived.
The PDO has now changed to cooling mode. This will probably be very good for Sockeye in the future, or not, we are in uncharted territory. The future is not yet written.
If history is our guide, the Sockeye fishery should do well. Of course there is the pestulance, plague, drought, disease, flood, heat stress, cold, spawning success, lake rearing success, juvenile migration success, outward migration success, ocean survival success, return migration sucess, spawning and mating success to worry about.
I am sure that there is nothing to worry about.
ME2
3 years ago
Illahie
The thing to worry about Illahie, will happen if DFO, Gov't and Industry take "Eco-system Certification" for Sockeye under their wing and contrive the same kind of "Ecosystem Based Management" they've come up with in Forestry.
Bustagrill
3 years ago
nice duck, Illahie
I asked you to explain how DFO's routine overfishing of endangered sockeye stocks over the years jives with your ridiculous claim that DFO has "worked hard to rebuild the stocks".
You want to talk about the PDO. Fine let's do that. While the PDO now appears to be in a cooling phase, we are also in an era of unprecedented global warming (caused by humans), and the productivity of Fraser sockeye (the number of adults that come back for every spawner from the last generation) is in the gutter. The worst it has every been.
I'm glad you're optimistic that everything will be OK for Fraser sockeye. But I happen to think that overfishing weak, endangered sockeye stocks is absolute folly, because as the climate changes we don't know which of those stocks will be best equipped to deal with the new conditions. That is why we need to preserve that biodiversity.
But don't take it from me. Take it from North America's leading fisheries scientists: "the biocomplexity of fish stocks is critical for maintaining their resilience to environmental change"
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6564.abstract
KWD
3 years ago
continued growth makes sustainability impossible
Sockeye, and indeed all salmonid survival rates, are inversely proportional to the growth rate of human activities that interfere in the salmonids ability to follow the (evolutionary) survival script that has been written for them.
Salmon numbers have fluctuated in the past. If we believe early ethnographers, dramatic fluctuations occurred prior to contact. However, human population densities, the level of technological development and superstition, prevented total elimination of salmon runs.
Not so today. On top of the gauntlet of so-called “natural” obstacles salmon now face their most serious threat to survival: the fisheries manager.
These are folks that are governed, not by what’s best for salmon, but by what’s best for humans. They do whatever is necessary (and call it a "trade off") to increase salmon population numbers (lake fertilization programs and hatcheries are prime examples) to ensure human needs are met.
Unfortunately, they’re running out of enhancement options that will actually meet human demands without destroying equally important links in the ecological web.
The extinction of salmon runs, and the advent of salmon farming and ranching are logical outcomes.
The fact that fisheries folk actually consider shutting down a fishery is not only a testament to their inability to put salmon survival at the top of their to-do list, it’s a testament of failure.
If history is our guide, sockeye numbers will continue their downward trend.
Illahie
3 years ago
Broken Grilse
I find myself lacking in the skills necessary to teach you about fisheries management.
I am sorry.
It is my fault, not yours.
Jerry Munro
3 years ago
ideologies and "reasoned" population controls...
"...continued growth makes sustainability impossible
Sockeye, and indeed all salmonid survival rates, are inversely proportional to the growth rate of human activities that interfere in the salmonids ability to follow the (evolutionary) survival script that has been written for them." wrote KWD.
Over my lifetime, we have cast various villains as the cause for salmon decline, starting with seals through everything just about, BUT growth in human population density linked with pollution and over-fishing demands. In my vierw, it is the millenia old problem of humans thinking everything is the problem but themselves, and hence they never get to the real issue or solution, at least many times.For to address this will require addressing the really, really hard issues... everything from the Roman Catholic sanctity of HUMAN LIFE ideological tenets, insisted upon by a "presumed" chaste/virgin priesthood that is often a closet for pedophiles and other hetero-sexual haters, and or to an out of control, never ending growth and development capitalism.
In the end, we humans are going to have to address and deal with our own population and its density issues, or lay the foundations, as we are, for ourt own extinction.
Good one that cuts to the nub of it, KWD.
shepsil
3 years ago
Illahie needs to convince, he has shown he has nothing teach.
With such a patriarchal attitude, Illahie needs to learn to listen and not pretend he can teach us anything. A common mistake that patriarchs make all the time.
Illahie, I forgive you for being so presumptuous.
Its not about fault.
KWD
3 years ago
various villans
As usual folks manage to drag a net around the easy-to-catch enemies of sockeye and, indeed, all wild salmon. And, at the end of the day, no one should be surprised to find habitat loss (marine and fresh water), fish farms, climate change, ocean acidification, predation and over fishing, along with the bound and gagged bodies of DFO and our politicians squirming on the inquisition’s deck.
But, as coyoteman claims, the reluctance “to address and deal with our own population and its density [related] issues”, shows through in our failure to troll deep enough to catch the real culprit: human population growth which is supported and encouraged by capitalism’s growth-at-all-costs cornerstone.
The planet has a limited supply of resources and many, not just salmon, have peaked in terms of satisfying human demands.
We can contain fish farms; we can cut back on commercial fishing; we can cull predators; we can change our behaviour to reduce pollution, habitat loss and anthropogenic climate change, but unless we face up to the fact that capitalism encourages too many people to continue chasing too few resources, we face levels of catastrophe way beyond the loss of wild sockeye.
The time has come to question our belief that more is better. The time has come to question the politics of growth-at-all-costs and the nonesense of manufactured sustainability. The time has come to have the church explain why it wants so many to suffer.
BTW, the loss of sockeye in the Fraser system will turn our politicians into 'smilies' ... it simply opens the door for further hydroelectric development.
dloewen
3 years ago
MSC credibility?
Posted a similar comment on the related article to this one.
I've made some comments on the soon-to-be MSC certification fisheries on my website and other salmon-related issues:
http://salmonguy.wordpress.com/
Comments, directly linked to MSC's credibility. The organization has an entire page dedicated to explaining their credibility. However, last time I checked credibility is like trust - it's not one of those things you explain or demand - it's something you earn.
The SFU "salmon think tank" was mentioned in other comments. In their documents they have some stunning graphs of catch data. It paints a clear picture of the concept of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) hard at work.
MSY as a dominant practice of fisheries management since the 1930s has most likely led to the UN suggesting 70% of world's fisheries are in trouble.
In the case of BC's salmon, MSY has allowed salmon fisheries to catch 80% of the estimated population and therefore expected 20% of runs to reproduce in perpetuity (as well as feed all the other critters that depend on salmon returns - e.g. bears, eagles, and so on).
The graphs of the 'think tank' show these levels of catch. And yet, they also have graphs of the reproductive rate of adults dropping dramatically in recent years.
A few years ago (2001) a researcher in Washington State, Bilby looked at the impact of salmon carcasses on the food for salmon fry. His study suggested that stomach contents of young salmon are often 40-60% comprised of the marine-based nutrients brought upstream by their parents. Either as a direct result of feeding on carcasses, or the insects and larvae that fed on carcasses, etc.
At some point, something had to give. Ocean conditions, fish farms, or whatever other potential culprit - if you skim off 80% of any population for decades, the tipping point towards crash will be reached. Especially if you're consistently stripping away an essential food source for the next generation of salmon.
I've also commented on my website today on how these eco-certification programs are unfortunately becoming like underwear:
http://salmonguy.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/eco-certification-programs-are-becoming-like-underwear/
Bustagrill
3 years ago
Illahie
It's ok, it's not your fault. It's hard to teach objective fact and industry spin at the same time. It makes my poor ignorant head hurt just thinking about it. Don't worry, you made a good effort.
ME2
3 years ago
Guess why there's DFO supporters here?
Wow, excellent commentary in these last dozen comments, which get to the nitty-gritty of fisheries management, all of which concerns the conflict between environmental and economic priorities.
These key issues become clear in the paper David Loewen refers to - Peter Larkin's paper, "The failure of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) in the Fisheries." (1977}. Despite Larkin's obvious logic, Fisheries managers have instead succumbed to social / economic priorities, resulting in the current mess we see in the fisheries, just as the same priorities have scuttled our forest industry.
We avoid dealing honestly with Nature only at our own peril.
Bustagrill correctly lays the blame upon DFO, since as everyone knows, the Feds have ALWAYS prioritised economics over sustainability (East Coast Cod fishery), and have relented only when the evidence can't possibly be denied, viz stonewalling re West Coast Fish Farms.
Both he and Illahie mention the absolute necessity for diversity in fish stocks. We know enough now about heritability to be aware that within the genetic complement of those different fish provide mechanisms of various kinds to cope with environmental changes. Lose the fish, and you lose that irreplaceable capability for coping. Gaining those genes have required thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation to changes in climate. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO they refer to (El Nino and La Nina are minor changes within it) show the need for such adaptation.
Even though it’s off-topic, I can’t resist suggesting to Warmists that if they can stand that that sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach - that one might be wrong - they should risk some researching re the PDO. :- ) Yup, it’s Climate Change, alright. !!!
Everyone here, notably including Coyoteman and KWD, acknowledges that our environmental ethical system is out-of-whack, and everyone has different blamees or variations on why. But the truth is that it is us to blame, and has been for all our species’ time on Earth. We have correctly assumed that group survival has depended upon constant growth in population and resource use. However, we now live in a global village where the resources are rapidly running out, setting the stage for the arrival of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
There is at present no ethic that can lead us away from that end, except Deep Ecology, and it’s high time we started thinking seriously about its precepts and devise ways to follow them.
Most of us, of course, will continue to scoff at that a illogical utopianism, but sorry, guys, you’re going to have to bite the bullet – and soon.
Jerry Munro
3 years ago
ME2...
Well said, brother.
In my look back, there were two major failures of conception to the socialism/communism of my young manhood years. One was, a consequence of what was called "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which was narrowed down in actual practise to mean the "dictatorship of a one party elite" systm with absolute power. (A full discussion of which would sidetrack us here.) But the main consequence of which was a failure to develop or understand the full importance of the need to expand political democracy beyond capitalist models, but also and especially the need for economic democracy.
But most important to our discussion here, for socialists/communinists still place too much importance on "The State" in my view, is that this all led to, virtually, the full adoption/continuation by these State/Party elites, of the endless growth economics value system of capitalism. All that had really changed with their revolutions, so-called, or the election to governance in the West of even "more moderate" left social-democrats, was the facade of the State or "formal"power, with some more humanitarian "welfare" policies, which became the norms of the times everywhere, even within most of capitalism.
The endless growth and "wealth accumulation" value system of capitalism simply carried on over into the "New Order", and likewise the continued real powerlessness of the working class. We had no real greater "power" over the economy and the conditions of our lives after than before "the revolution". Not really. And in many ways, they were even worse.The power of the individual Capitalist had merely been exchanged for the power of The State.The working class still just got up every morning, went to work and came home with no greater sence of democratic participation or influence over anything. He/she just continued to do as they were told, and to genuflect to the assigned value system of "others".
My point being that if we are going to truly transform the economic value system, either in relation to the mass of people or the environment, along with the "formal" value system changing, the condition of their lives within the economy is also going to have to change. They are going to have to be made responsible themselves for what goes on there, and have the ability to actually control what goes on there. And if they fail, they are going to have to pay the price of their own failure.
Whereas now, they are but passive participants, with no real power, and they know it, simply being dragged along by the greed system of capitalism and its elites that rule over them. This has to change as the fundamental first step of a value system change within society. Everyone has to come to see themselves as having a real power share, not a bullshit share, over the consequences of their lives, and the consequence outcomes from our collective activiy within the economy and its interface with nature.
My view.
RougePierre
3 years ago
Re: How very odd
To: happy
By what criteria do you label Dr. Suzuki "traitor"?
Please try to keep your reply, if any, civil and as logical as possible.
happy (not verified)
3 years ago
Certainly
Why wouldn't I?
I don't label Suzuki a traitor myself. I don't think about him much one way or the other. But most NDP supporters here on the Tyee went ballistic when he supported the hated Liberal government when the carbon tax was introdued and still does. The invective has been loud and long.
So I was just being a little sarcastic about the pickle this creates here.
Suzuki good or Suzuki bad?
Jerry Munro
3 years ago
Tasty Pickles...
"So I was just being a little sarcastic about the pickle this creates here.
Suzuki good or Suzuki bad?" writes the unhappy Happy.
Which is why these rightist dingbats like Unhappy, by and large, especially the one line "grunters" amongst them, should simply be ignored. They really have nothing of value or substance to say. They are just here, as Unhappy says himself, removing the pickle from his butt long enough to speak, to be "sarcastic".
Fish-counter
3 years ago
Are we counting the number of Fraser Sockeye smolts accurately?
From what I hear, we are not. There are more "models" than hard counts. Counting smolts is a lot harder than most people can imagine. It is easy on small rivers, but the Fraser watershed is another matter.
The fisheries management process DID work well last year. As soon as it was realised we were in for a crappy return, the fishery was effectively shut down. The surviving fish did very well and the only losers were us.
As far as the Blame Game goes, consider this:
1. Lion's Gate and Iona sewage treatment plants are primary treatment only. The other three GVRD plants have secondary treatment. In the 1990's it was said that BC would have secondary sewage treatment in every major city. We are still a million miles from there. The $5 billion for the Winter Olympics would have done the job nicely for Vancouver and Victoria. It will be at least another five years before our two largest cities have secondary sewage treatment.
The Fraser River receives more than its share of agricultural, industrial and urban runoff. we would never drink the water, but we expect the fish to live in it. There is a huge disconnect between how British Columbians see themselves, and how we actually are and we are the last to see it.
2. The Resident Orcas in the Strait of Georgia are the most polluted marine mammal in the ocean, and on Earth. Resident orcas eat salmon, so it must be the salmon that are the source of that toxic orca blubber.
In 1993, three national medical conventions were scheduled for Victoria, and they were all cancelled because the folks in Seattle (quite rightly) told the organisers that Victoria was still pumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Let's be honest, if the shoe were on the other foot, we would be howling too. Canada is socailly backward. Our sewage treatment engineering is an international disgrace. we need to clean up our act. Don't expect the Fraser River Sockeye to return as long as we are polluting their habitat.
If we don't GET that, we are just plain stupid and we do not deserve to have salmon on the menu.