MSC Certification

All will be well if, and this is a big IF, the political meddling is removed. Gordo's government and Harper's is well rehearsed in meddling. Witness the headlines from Ottawa on a almost daily basis and our own Provincial ROR hydro power and other messes the Liberals have caused. Unless this happens, the MSC will become an organ of the government and perpetuate the reduction of wild stocks of salmon for the benefit fish farms. I know its cynical but this is the current reality.

MSC Regional Director

A well written article for sure but you better check out her biography, looks like a professional spin doctor to me. This subject needs full and proper scientific scrutiny not more spin from industry. The main concern has to be the fish and their habitat for without fish there is no fishing industry. Much like our forest industry where they have lost the focus on forests, the jobs and investment disappear with the disappearing forests. The management style of our natural resources have common philosophies that are not serving the province well. They are all treated separately whereas they are intricately tied together. Our planning has to be focused on the long term not on the next five year plan. What kind of a mess are we leaving for our kids to clean up, let's leave them something we can be proud of!

MSC certificaion will promote farming and ranching

If we believe that “Commercial fishing pressure is not the cause for these [wild sockeye] declines since breeding stock levels were high in the years that spawned the fish now returning in low numbers”, then there must be other factors at play.

Given that our best and brightest have admitted that they haven’t got a net around, much less understand, all of these factors … that’s why “{t)here's a federal judicial inquiry underway to find out why British Columbia's Fraser River sockeye salmon runs collapsed in 2009” … the logical outcome of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification will be the elimination of the wild salmon fishery.

The focus of fisheries management is to keep the commercial fishing industry alive, not wild salmon. When it becomes obvious, to everyone, that the cost of keeping wild salmon at “sustainable” harvest numbers outweights the benefits, the pressure to save wild salmon will drop, thereby opening the door for expanding salmon ranching and farming.

In other words, if “sustainability is MSC’s guiding principle … where sustainability is defined as, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs … and we admit that we don’t really understand why wild salmon are disappearing, and the cost of protecting wild salmon becomes onerous, the outcome is clear: we meet humanities growing demand for fin fish by increasing artificial production methods.

Hmmm!

Here's Mark Hume's G&M update on this story. I'd ask readers to read what Ms Coughlin says about the fact the Federal Report isn't in yet before you take much notice of what she's trying to sell here:

Kerry Coughlin, Regional Director, Americas, for the MSC, said the organization felt it wasn't necessary to wait for the results of the judicial inquiry, or for the COSEWIC study, because any findings could be considered later.

“There is always data coming in . . . and our system is set up to take that into account, but at some point, if you continue to hold for more data and more data it becomes completely endless," she said.

“If a fishery becomes certified then there are required annual audits . . . so what information that does come out of this federal inquiry will be taken into account," she said.

Referring to the collapse of sockeye stocks on the Fraser, Ms. Coughlin said the MSC process assesses how a fishery is managed, not at how stocks vary from year to year.

In that regard, she said, the closure of all fishing on the Fraser last year was a sign of appropriate management. In an unsustainable fishery, she said, fishing would have been allowed to continue.

That last peragraph, in my view, contains an illogical conclusion which puts all of her reasoning and conclusions on quicksand.

If that's what she believes, the public has the right to conclude that she's into deception and magical thinking...and to draw their own conclusions about her truthfulness and her loyalties.

6 of one isn’t half a dozen of the other

First Nations salmon missing while exported salmon certified?

When commericial fishing is an integral component of this certification, the process is flawed.
People will eventualy have to sacrifice commercial fishing for the future of the fish and possibly for years-if it's not too late already.
This is comparable to the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society using their catch and release industy figures to support the future - of the industry, while doing so risks the future of sturgeon.

Given the present reality and future outlook, any statement of well being on behalf of any fish is negligent and no doubt self-serving.

What Exactly is the Beef?

Can someone please tell me what certification of a fishery means? Approval of fishing, or approval of the regime overseeing the fishing?
The only argument I’ve heard against the MSC certification is that the salmon population is dwindling, so those overseeing the fishery must be incompetent. That plays well in the media, with the public jumping to the seemingly obvious conclusion that a fishery allowing ANY salmon fishing is at fault.
Is that what those who oppose certification are saying -- that there should be NO fishing? Or is their point that it could be managed better? If so, what specifically is wrong with the current management of the fishery, and how could it be done better?
Or is this just a fishing/no fishing debate?

djordan89

I think it's more than that.

And I think you have to look at what certification is 'meant' to indicate.

Seems to me there is really only one way to deal with natice salmon shortages...and that's by stopping all fishing until (if that's even possible) the stocks recover.

Certification purports to 'tell' the public that buying and eating 'certified' fish is okay...

I think that has not been proved and, given what's happened to cod stocks on the east coast, I'm not at all sure the same thing isn't happening here nor am I at all sanguine about paying much attention to any organization that is not independent from one or the other of the interested parties in the debate.

From my observations, the MSC has none of the attributes of 'real' independence which would lead me to accept their recommendations or certification with any confidence. Further, their spokeswoman - who wrote the piece above, doesn't come across as an expert in fisheries management - in fact, quite the contrary.

more green washing?

I’ve been reading the “MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing”. I had some interest in these Principles, as the Bruntland Report from the 1980s suggests: In 1979, total volume of fish captured in the world’s oceans was more than 70 million tons. The report stated: "With conventional management practices, the growth era of fisheries is over."

Yet, the world fishery has doubled since 1979: from 70 million to over 141 million tons captured in 2005. So, personally, the words “sustainable” and “fisheries” can sometimes begin to ring oxymoron-ish – especially industrial-scale fisheries. It’s not to say that sustainable industrial fisheries may not be possible; and really at some point they will truly have to be. Furthermore, at one time in the past they were.

Marine Stewardship Council Principle 1: "A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery."

If a population is depleted (e.g. Fraser sockeye)–then it must be fished in such a way that “leads to recovery”? These are diametrically opposed ideas, and are they not fundamentally opposed to the idea of “sustainable”? If a population is “depleted” killing any more of it is not really “sustainable”? Even in the most skewed definitions of the word.

I am all ears if there are examples out there of “depleted populations” being harvested in such a way that leads to population recovery. My guess is that realistic economic returns and depleted populations being harvested are not two things that exist in the same sentence (other than the one you just read).

"Once upon a salmon" (post on my website): in 1902 the Canadian Minister of Fisheries reported that over 30 million Fraser River sockeye were canned that year and that 30 million more sockeye could have been canned if the canneries had had the capacity.

So, MSC, and independent scientific review board, and independent certifying body, and Ms. Coughlin – you all rightfully recognize that there are some issues with Fraser sockeye (and I might add the other three sockeye river fisheries included in this eco-certification), such as: endangered species listings, and a little over 1 million sockeye showing up this past season – what sort of numbers are we suggesting for these particular “populations that are depleted” and what sort of “fishery [will] be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery”?

Are we talking 1902 numbers of Fraser salmon “recovery” – or 1850 numbers of “recovery” – or 1491 numbers of “recovery”?

I suppose catching one sockeye a year is still considered a “fishery”….

If interested, check the full post at my website - and other posts related to the MSC from a little over a week ago.

What exactly is the beef?

djordan89,
couple of things to consider with certification: the MSC evolved from the Word Wildlife Fund and Unilever (one of largest sellers of seafood in the world).
Last week Target - massive U.S discount retailer announced it will stop selling farmed salmon in its outlets (it sells salmon in something like 1500 stores across the U.S.).

However, Target’s statement suggested they would be selling "wild-caught" salmon instead. Read a bit further into that - why not just say "wild". "Wild-caught" ties into the Alaskan practice of salmon-ranching. Alaska pumps out over 2 billion salmon fry a year - these get caught as returning adults to the tune of approximately 30-40% of the Alaskan fishery. The Alaskan salmon fishery is huge - and certified by MSC.

Around the Pacific Rim over 5 billion salmon fry get pumped out in salmon ranching and enhancement programs. That means lots of feed (made from other fish) and lots of salmon that never see a stream – or feed the hundreds of critters on streams that depend on this yearly nutrient influx (bears, wolves, eagles, other fish, etc.)

The market for "salmon" has tripled in the European union in the last 15 years (from 200,000 metric tonnes to over 600,000 tonnes), tripled in the U.S. and over quadrupled in other nations (from less than 100,000 tonnes to close to 500,000 tonnes). A huge amount of this is farmed salmon - for example three quarters of U.S. market. The debate wild vs. farmed is a hot one.

With mass retailers like Target and Wal Mart in the game of trying to sell low cost "wild" or "wild-caught" products (salmon being a massively growing market) means economics may guide fisheries a heck of a lot more (or already does?) than biology and environmental considerations.

Certification schemes are also guided by economics - they have to be. If they aren't "certifying" anything they have no reason for existence and will have a tough time securing funding to support all those staff.

Not to say that these so-called eco-certification schemes are not bad or effective in some instances - they just require a large spotlight on practices and principles instead of little headlamps that only illuminate so much of the fog...

I have some posts on my website www.salmonguy.org related to the economics of this and some other thoughts to ponder.

no mention of sea lice from farmed fish

While I realize the article was dealing with a certification process I fail to see how there can be any talk of declining native(wild)salmon without mention of the many reports blaming salmon farms and the sea lice they perpetuate.While no one has said they are singly responsible the wild stocks have been declining steadily since these pens were placed right in line with the fry's migration.

Sustainability!

Am I missing something here? Are any of our activities sustainable?
If any of them are, like a particular "fishery", as the population increases, more urban development, more pollution, more habitat destroyed, more pine beetle forest downed leading to more small streams drying up, more toxic golf courses, more transoceanic ships bringing cheap crap from china, more flights with cheap toxic bananas, more cruise ships, more "personal water craft" not to mention "climate change":
Please, someone tell me how we can declare anything but environmentally friendly burials of vegans (organic only) as sustainable? Bewildered in Lanztville
Dirk

Don't worry, there won't be another Sockeye fishery ever again

The Fraser River Sockeye just went the way of the Georgia Strait Coho. We just haven't got the message yet, is all. No fishery in three years, eh?

In 1995 they called it The Coho Crisis. It is now the Official Coho Collapse.

Meanwhile, Iona and Lion's Gate sewage treatment plants still release raw sewage after only primary treatment. That has been illegal in Europe and in the States for decades.

Read the book, "King of Fish - the 1,OOO-Year Run of Salmon" by David Montgomery. The first royal restriction on salmon fishing was introduced by Malcolm II of Scotland in 1130 A.D. Since then there have been dozens of royal enquiries and commissions, and none have had the slightest effect. We have systematically driven down salmon stocks everywhere we go. The next commission will spend $2 million with absolutely no benefit to the fish or the fishery. It might as well be spent on a good night's drunk for all the good it will do.

If you take a boat to sea in the Strait of Georgia, there is nothing to catch. The rockfish and lingcod are closed to fishing and there are no bluebacks left.

How many of the fishermen who filled their boats in the 1970's ever put on a pair of waders and worked on cleaning up a salmon stream? Not even 1%. It is all about take, take, take and now there is nothing left. British Columbians are a disgrace.

Pretty soon, saltwater sportfishing will be closed except for under 16's and over 65's, and that will be catch-and-release.

Aye, but the crab fishin' is great, lads. Arrrr.

Fish-counter

Cheer up my friend.

The 2009 Sockeye collapse was not due to poor fisheries management, but due to poor ocean survival. The 138 million Sockeye smolts migrated to sea in 2007 was a huge success not a failure. The fact that nearly all of them died certainly sucks.

Unfortunately, the traditional method for measuring the carrying capacity for a fishery is to fish to stocks to the point of collapse. After the collapse, if a fishery recovers, fishery managers then start to manage the fisheries in a sustainable basis.

The Gulf herring fishery was fished to collapse, it has now recovered, and is doing well, and is now properly managed.

The Pacific Halibut fishery was fished to collapse in the 1950's, and has recovered and is now managed well.

The Pilchard fishery collapsed, almost to the point of extinction, but has suprisingly recovered.

Pink and Chum stocks are well managed, and may yet be certified as such.

The rockfish are gone, and will likely never return, but the DFO stragegy of no fish areas is the proper response to this fishery.

The bright side of the rockfish collapse is that they are not chewing on prawns anymore, and so the spot prawn fishery is doing very well.

The Lingcod fishery did collapse, but they are recovering at a rapid rate.

The Sablefish fishery has always been well managed, probably because the fishery is outside of the mainstream

Bluebacks should never have been fished in the first place. We should let them grow up before we eat them.

The Gulf Coho have been decimated, due in large part I think to habitat loss. Coho do not survive well in the middle of a subdivision. When more water licences are let than there is water in the creek, we cannot expect good rearing success. The future for Gulf Coho I think is bleak. The massive habitat loss due to residential construction will doom this fishery I think.

is it spin?

Not sure I agree with the earlier thought that Fraser sockeye issues are just ocean survival. Yes, it is certainly having an impact, and a pretty big one. However, there's a lot more going on than just that.

Personally, I find sloughing the issues off to only poor ocean survival (like Ms. Coughlin and like the current Fisheries Minister Shea - and many others) - and then suggesting that it's a "mystery" - is kind of like saying the dodo bird went extinct because it couldn't fly.

No, it was not the missing wings - that was a factor; it was the folks clubbing the crap out of them and eating them because they were easy to catch.

Might be some parallels there with salmon? the easy to catch, not the lack of wings....

138 million sockeye smolts leaving - that's worrisome. As mentioned in an earlier comment and on my website www.salmonguy.org - just over a hundred years ago we had well over 60 million sockeye adults returning to the Fraser.

How many sockeye smolts leaving does it take to produce 60 million returning adults...?

As we seem to be learning - take adult salmon out of a freshwater system, or just dont' let them get there (fishing, declines, etc.) and the productivity of the system declines. Salmon are mass pulses of nutrients; not just for bears, eagles and the like, but also the streams and lakes that baby sockeye hang out in for awhile.

Reduce the nutrient pulses - reduce productivity. Continue to take 80% of a population and expect 20% to reproduce a similar size run (Maximum Sustainable Yield, which has dominated salmon management in Canada since the 1930s) - eventually something has got to give.

Throw in confounding factors like lower ocean productivity, habitat loss, fish farms on migration routes, decadal oscillations (and whatever other ocean factors that can be dreamed up), pollution, river water siphoned out of rivers for agriculture, hatcheries, and illegal high sea fisheries.

And Houston, we have a....

The spin coming from DFO, organizations like the MSC, and some others is unfortunate.

As pointed out in the comment before mine - the history of "fisheries management" over the last several decades, if not century - is brutal.

Thus, a nine year assessment by MSC that suggests the Fraser sockeye fishery is "sustainable" and therefore should have the benefit that comes with "eco-certification" logos - especially in retailers or suppliers such as Unilever (one of the co-founders of MSC and world's largest seafood suppliers), Target (over 1700 outlets) and Wal Mart.

Could it be spin?

dloewen

Under normal conditions it would take 600 million smolts to produce a return of 60 million adults.

So 138 million is in the ballpark.

Good Read for people that wonder what Eco Labels mean?

If you are interesting in eco labels but are seriously confused as to what they actually mean like me please have a read of these two articles:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/02/01/MSCDefence/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527425.000-beware-of-bluewash-which-fish-should-you-buy.html

They really spell out what is happening from people that do not benefit from the process.

To me the timing of MSC seems off, have you ever had a company solicit you for a reno to your building when you are struggling to make the payments? Telling you that it will add value later. This seems like that kind of timing.
Another step in the process for the poor fisherman to get approval by MSC. A 'for profit' organization that is not global recognized or enforced. I would rather a non profit organization that is not subsidized by the industry that benefits from the certification. Also a photo of a accredited Dr in the field of their specialty rather than a nice glossy picture of Kerry (no offense) would help my decision too.

Fraser River Sockeye, a Historical Perspective

http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/FraserRiverSockeye_1999_0_Complete.pdf

1902 Thirty fifth annual report - Report of Deputy Minister

Thanks for the info Illahie,
One of the things I have been looking for is information prior to 1948 - which is the year that "comprehensive data" was started on the Fraser (at least "scientific" DFO data).

yet there is other data out there - such as the report from 1902 that I mentioned in an earlier comment.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/199732-1902.pdf

From what i can see in those records, there are cannery records going back into the mid-1800s. Those might assist in giving a little more perspective.

The problem with only looking at 1948 on, is by that time Fraser commercial fisheries had already been hammering stocks - i.e. the 30 million sockeye captured (for canning only) in 1902.

There was a paper in 2000 by Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich and P. Schoonmaker.
"An estimation of historic and currrent levels of salmon production in the northeast Pacific ecosystem"

It used to be available online easily, but I couldn't find a specific link this afternoon - could be found using a public library access to online databases of academic papers, etc.

In their abstract to the paper they state:

"We have estimated the historic biomass of salmon returning to the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California) to be 160–226 million kg. The number of fish now returning to these rivers has a biomass of 11.8–13.7 million kg. These numbers indicate that just 6–7% of the marine-derived nitrogen and phosphorous once delivered to the rivers of the Pacific Northwest is currently reaching those streams."

The numbers weren't quite as dour for B.C. - but still significant.

Alaska looked a bit better, but then add in salmon ranching - and maybe not so good, as the salmon ranching means no salmon actually live and die in streams.

I have also posted on my website a longer response to the Coughlin article - (little bigger than the 3000 characters permitted here...)
www.salmonguy.org

Sockeye and sustainable label

For another take on this:

Vanishing sockeye shouldn't be labelled "sustainable"

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly01281001.asp

Ian Hanington
The David Suzuki Foundation

Lets look at the facts

Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see there are some serious credibility issues with MSC. Those of us working on this issue don't want to destroy MSC, we want to save it. But, as of now it has all the appearance of being Industry led, self serving greenwashing and eco bumpf.

To even suggest that the Fraser is a well managed or sustainable fishery is absurd. The MSC process utterly failed on the Fraser to no ones surprise. As Ms Coughlin posits it, they would have likely certified the Northern Atlantic Cod fishery before it collapsed. It too was supposedly a science based fishery. What's next? Swordfish? The Tropical reef dynamite fishery? Or perhaps the bleach fishery for Octopus?

dloewen

There is a note on the PSC response to the IUCN's assessment of Fraser Sockeye that has a chart of marine survival of sockeye since 1952 on page 6.

http://www.psc.org/pubs/IUCN/IUCN_QA_Final.pdf

DFO has spawning information on Rivers Inlet Sockeye stocks going back over a century. Back in those days, industry was invited to be part of the spawning assessment process.

There is a chart of sockeye runs from the Fraser since 1901 on in this paper.

http://www.mrcmekong.org/Catch-Culture/vol15_1May09/Hydropower-fraser.htm

The reaction of the David Suzuki Foundation is strange

I find the reactions of the David Suzuki Foundation to be quite strange. Even a cursory review of the BC Sockeye stocks shows that DFO has worked hard to rebuild the Sockeye stocks to historic levels.

The fishery has suffered from a brutal marine survival rate for at least the last decade or two, which is clearly shown in the marine survival chart above.

The Suzuki foundation must not have done much research before issuing their objections.

Fraser sockey numbers and Pacific Salmon Commission

thanks Illahie again for the links - good additions to the conversation.

The link to the graph for the Fraser stocks is one of the first I've seen going back that far. Unfortunately that paper from Asia doesn't source the graph (that I noticed) so I'm not sure where it's from.

Plus the numbers don't match the 1902 report I linked to on DFO's website in an earlier comment. As mentioned, in 1902 the federal Ministry of Fisheries reports 30 million sockeye were canned (that's just canned, not fresh and aboriginal fisheries, etc.) - and that the sockeye run was so big they could have canned another 30 million.

"The fishermen could consequently during this period fish for only a short period each day. During the height of the run they dare not put more than a small length of their net in the water. In some cases nets were sunk and lost from the weight of the fish."

The graph in the Mekong report suggests total salmon runs of only about 25 million Fraser sockeye in 1902. Whomever prepared the graph, either hasn't seen the 1902 Fisheries report - or has chosen to show the wrong numbers.

Furthermore, that 2009 paper states:
"Gradually, Fraser sockeye and pink salmon began to increase in abundance and reached historic levels in the 1990s. Despite a slight recent decline in some species (sockeye and coho salmon), today the Fraser River salmonid fishery is one of the most productive fisheries in the world."

"Slight decline" hmmm.I guess when they wrote this paper the sockeye numbers for this past year weren't out yet.

Plus "historic" meaning over what period - and who's numbers? Which is the same question I have about your reference to "historic" levels?

It is suggested by DFO numbers, Pacific Salmon Commission numbers and graphs, etc. that the high sockeye numbers of the 1990s were "historic highs" - not even close if we step outside of the 1948 onwards records...

The Mekong report fits with the Pacific Salmon Commission link (which I refer to in a posting on my website yesterday www.salmonguy.org )
They stick very hard to the numbers from 1948 on - i.e. "50 yr data set".

Canneries have been hammering Fraser sockeye since the mid 1800s - so when the PSC quotes historic maximums do they have a longer outlook past 1948?

MSC, PSC, IUCN... apologies for the acronym train.

Couple of other thoughts, the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) never even touched the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listings of some Skeena River sockeye populations as "endangered" or Nass River populations.

The MSC chose to only look at the Babine sockeye stocks in the Skeena assessment. These are entirely enhanced and have engineered spawning channels (Fulton and Pinkerton).

Whereas, other Skeena sockeye stocks (the actual wild populations) the Morice (Bulkley River), Nanika, Sustut and other Skeena sockeye stocks have been devastated. Part of the reason - mixed stock fisheries, which the PSC insists are not the problem....

Lastly, as I pointed out in a post on my website yesterday. The Marine Stewardship Council and Pacific Salmon Commission have fisheries mandates. The IUCN has a species and biodiversity mandate.

The old cliche... comparing their assessments is a bit of that old apples and oranges thing.

As has been mentioned in another comment here the MSC could be a good tool and a good organization. It has "eco-certified" over 60 fisheries in its ten year existence. Maybe some of those fisheries are truly sustainable and have benefited fisherfolks in various parts of the world?

In this case the MSC are doing a fine job of destroying their credibility of which they dedicate an entire page of their website. (Although last I checked credibility is one of those things you earn - not state. Kind of like trust...)

Illahie, you are absolutely right in the poor marine survival - it's been tough in the North Pacific for many salmon stocks.

All the more reason that "eco-certifying" fisheries on salmon populations that are facing threats on all fronts (especially Mother Nature) is absolutely ludicrous.

Worse yet, if marine conditions remain poor - some little blue "eco-label" is not going to bring runs back to any semblance of "historic".

How MSC Works.

We appreciate the opportunity to engage with MSC even if it is through the media. In addressing Ms. Couglin's points it is useful to describe how the MSC certification process works.

The salmon processing sector is the proponent, or client, and pays for the certification. The processing sector chooses, hires and pays the “Independent” certifier. And this “Independent” certifier reports to the salmon processing sector.

The Certifiers job is to achieve MSC Certification for the Client. It takes evidence supplied by the Client and writes a detailed report that scores the evidence against MSC's Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The job of the Certifier is to ensure the scoring of the fishery exceeds MSC's minimum thresholds.

The salmon conservation community has had two separate 30 day periods to provide written input into the certification. There has been no ongoing feedback or dialogue to ensure our concerns were included in the final Report, and most of our concerns were not incorporated in the final report.

The objection process Ms. Coughlin refers to is a quasi-judicial arbitration and decision making process that begins with a detailed and comprehensive Notice of Objection. This Notice of Objection must be based on the information contained in the final report. BC's NGO's must accomplish all this within 15 working days. The group(s) objecting are also responsible for paying costs up to $25,000, not including any costs they may incur developing the Notice of Objection or appearing before the arbitrator.

No fishery has ever been denied certification because of an objection. Mrs. Coughlin says the Certifier doesn't agree with the methodology the IUCN used to describe vulnerable, threatened and endangered populations in the Fraser. She doesn't say that there are no endangered sockeye populations. Neither did she attempt to refute the IUCN's contention that overfishing in mixed stock fisheries is a significant threat to endangered populations.

The Certifier, the same body that certified the fishery in the first place, performs the annual audits. The audits are paid for by the Client.

What about the Canadian Government's Judicial Inquiry? Ms. Coughlin introduces the subject but never deals with it in her commentary. The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry go right to the heart of DFO's management of the Fraser River sockeye fishery. We are only asking that the findings of the Inquiry be included in the final Report, which would mean delaying the certification of the Fraser by one year.

Will the MSC Certification as it is currently written guarantee you, the consumer, that you will not buy a sockeye that comes from a critically endangered population? No.

David Suzuki Foundation
Headwaters Initiative
Skeena Watershed Conservation Trust
Watershed Watch Salmon Society

dloewen

One thing to keep in mind when comparing modern returns with historic returns is that in the historic returns there was one massive return year which coincided with the 1901 cohort, followed by three years of meager returns, followed by another year of massive returns, and three years of meager returns.

In the modern fishery, the returns have tended to be more balanced, with larger returns during the off peak years.