BioNews v.20 1

Publications mail agreement # 40028792

Return undelivered copies to: Suite 205 - 733 Johnson Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3C7

BioNews is a production of the Association of Professional Biologists of BC

Editor: Megan Hanacek

Staff: Simon Woo

BIONews Volume 20. Number 1

February 2010

Suite 205 - 733 Johnson Street Victoria, BC V8W 3C7

(250) 383-3306 Web site:

http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL

BIOLOGISTS

In this issue (highlights):

APB President’s Message

Annual Conference Agenda And Schedule

Annual Conference Registration Form

APB Scholarship Information

Perspective Articles: Fin Fish Aquaculture

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) has a very short body, small tail, long legs and black-tipped tail. Their fur coat is usually thick, long and grey in the winter and short, thin and light brown in the summer. Photo contributed by John Deal, RPBio.

Contents

BIONEWS VOLUME 20. NUMBER 1

PRESIDENT Gerry Leering

VICE-PRESIDENT Megan Hanacek

SECRETARY/TREASURER Debbi Stanyer

PAST PRESIDENT Eric White

DIRECTORS Domenico Iannidinardo, Al Peatt, David Polster, Astrid van Woudenberg, Pamela Zevit

______________________________________

STAFF

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Linda Michaluk

REGISTRAR Linda Stordeur FINANCIAL OFFICER Kelly McLaughlin

OFFICE ADMINISTRATION Simon Woo

Perspectives

Background—Fin Fish Aquaculture 7

First Perspective—Alex Morton, RPBio 7

Second Perspective—Sharon DeDominicis, RPBio 14

APB President’s Message 3

APB Scholarship Program 4

APB Scholarship Application form 5

Page of Remembrance—I. Fraser Russell, RPBio (Ret) 142

6

Annual Applied Biology Conference Registration form 22

Pre & Post Conference Sessions 23

5th Annual Applied Biology Conference Agenda 24

Association of Professional Biologists

Welcome all paid members of this Association into the new decade and our new beginning! Your Board greatly appreciates the strength of your endorsement now being confirmed with your paid support. We look forward to 2010 with our continued growth and service to you, our members.

The Board of Directors met in late January to discuss our next steps and endorse our ongoing committee works. We will be sending out ballots for your support to our new name. There were several options posted last fall for member discussion and input. We need a new name to reflect our growing membership of professional technologists. A 75% approval is required so be sure to return your positive support.

Your strong show of support to the Association has also been acknowledged by College Council. Long time members will recall that when the College came into being, the APB membership voted to transfer a GIC to the College to enable the College to undertake their business. Now, in order to assist the APB move to full financial independence from the College, the College Council, at their January meeting passed a motion to transfer the remaining balance of that GIC to the APB on separation. The Presidents and Treasurers of both organizations are meeting to finalize the details.

The final steps to independence will be further evidenced by our advertising for an Executive Director and bookkeeper. Both positions are required to keep this Association strong but initially are seen as part-time positions. The successful candidates will be critical to advancing this into full time opportunities as we continue with growth and service to our membership. We hope to announce these competitions shortly, and have them filled before Easter!

Please work with us as we continue our transition to complete independence. How you may ask? Consider volunteering your time. Nominate a colleague to the Board of Directors. Or perhaps consider becoming a mentor to an awaiting protégé - see: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/mentorship/ . You may also be of service on any of our many committees - see: http://apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=18 .

This year the membership will have the opportunity, for the first time, to take part in on-line voting for the Board of Directors, although members will be able to vote with the traditional mail out ballot if they so choose. More information will be available on this soon. In terms of the elections, members will have the opportunity to ratify the Board appointment of Domenico Iannidinardo to replace Mel Kotyk on his resignation last fall. We are hopeful that enough candidates come forward to offer there services to require additional ballots to the Directors’ opening this year. Again, check this issue out elsewhere to see what’s needed and how to serve.

The Conference Committee has been extremely busy finalizing the annual program for Kelowna May 5-8, 2010. The Coast Capri has adequate conference space to hold a trade show as well. Participation is high and more details will be out soon on our web page. Some vendors are offering pre-conference order discounts! Be sure to check this site out! We will also have a special area devoted to posters from students and other professionals showing their research studies.

Members - please be sure to look into your affinity benefits, they have been recently expanded - see: http://apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=27.

In closing, as we advance further into transition, I would like to thank staff for their support along the way. I know that we will miss them - but it’s a needed split to advance all our interests more fully.

Make your plans now for I hope to see you at the Annual General Meeting on May 6th at the Coast Capri in Kelowna! Be sure to check out the pre and post conference opportunities too! http://apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=61

Gerry leering, R.P.Bio. #1153

APB President


APB President’s Message

Earn CPD credits! Promote our profession!

We are currently looking for mentors for our new APB mentorship program!

The program is self directed with opportunities to share your knowledge/expertise with other fellow members. Mentorees welcome at any time as well! www.apbbc.bc.ca/mentorship

http://apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=27

http://apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=61


The APBBC will fund up to two scholarships of $1000 each year. The selection committee reserves the option to create graduate and undergraduate categories, and provide one scholarship for each (total of two), if the applications warrant this segregation. This is intended to provide undergraduates with an equal opportunity to compete for a scholarship with their undergraduate peers.

Applicants must be enrolled in an Academic Program, similar to those in the membership guidelines. Further guidance is listed below:

Eligibility includes son or daughter, spouse, niece, nephew, granddaughter or grandson undergraduate or student biologist who is entering the third or fourth year of an undergraduate program in biology (or a closely related area as specified in the membership guidelines).

Eligibility includes a BIT or an R.P.Bio entering post-graduate studies in a program that leads to a degree that will be used as a practicing biologist (biology or a closely related area as specified in the membership guidelines).

Winners will be expected to pursue or continue a career as a professional biologist.

Applicants will be eligible to re-apply for the scholarship in subsequent years. However, an applicant will only be eligible to receive a scholarship for a maximum of two years.

The final date for applications for the scholarship shall be July 31 of the year in which the student will be starting her/his third or fourth year or entering a post-graduate program.

Selection shall be an assignment of points for each of the application, with the top scorer being awarded the scholarship. In case of a tie, the committee may interview the applicants by phone, review the applications, check with references or they may choose to divide the scholarship between the two students.

Scoring:

Each application will be evaluated on a scale of 50 points:

The transcript of marks will be evaluated out of 20 points;

The letters of reference will be evaluated out of 10 points; and

The personal information will be evaluated out of 20 points.

Please refer to the APB web site for complete details on the Scholarship and application form go to: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=37

APB Scholarship Program

Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica) is a medium sized member of the loon family. The Pacific loon’s most notable feature is its vibrant purple throat.

Photo contributed by John Deal, RPBio

http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=37

Scholarship Application

Name: _______________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________ Phone Number (home): ___________________ (work):________________________ Email:_________________________________________________________________ Are you a member of the APBBC: Yes No If not please list parent’s or relative’s name who is a member:_______________________________ University currently attending:________________________________________________________ Program currently enrolled:__________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Checklist for applicants: ________ Personal statement as outlined in the instructions ________ CV ________ Original transcripts ________ Letters of reference

Mail to: The Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia

Suite 205-733 Johnson St.

Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C7


Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia In accordance with Sec. 28 of the APB Constitutions and Bylaws, resolutions are being solicited for discussion and action at the 2010 Annual General Meeting of the Association of Professional Biologists to be held in Kelowna, BC. Submissions should be outlined in the following form: A. In that (outline issue of problem) B. Be it resolved that (state the resolution) C. Discussion (present points concerning the need, logic or benefit of the resolution).

Resolutions must be received by no later than 4:00 PM, APRIL 7th, 2010 Gerry Leering, R.P.Bio.,

Association of Professional Biologists #205-733 Johnson Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 3C7

Email: [email protected] Fax: (250) 383-2400

Third Call for Resolutions

Innes Fraser Russell died Wednesday June 17, 2009 after a brief struggle with cancer. Fraser was born in Dunfermline, Scotland and grew up in Vancouver and Kelowna. He was a Professional Biologist, Professional Forester and sought-after expert on the flora of Southern B.C.

Fraser has been a member of the Association of Professional Biologists of BC since 1983.

“He was a Registered Professional Forester [and a Registered Professional Biologist] for many years and thoroughly enjoyed the natural world. He could always be counted on to tell us what species or plant or animal we were looking at on a walk in the outdoors.” Hilary Russell

Page of Remembrance for I. Fraser Russell, RPBio (Ret) 142, RPF

Russell, I. Fraser —2009

Electronic Ballots

Please watch your mail for the APB passwords for your electronic ballots.


First Perspective-Alex Morton

Bio for Alex Morton, RPBio

BSc. American University (Magna Cum Laude). Employed by Naval Oceans System Center, San Diego Museum, Marineland of Pacific all on cetacean acoustic research. Arrived in Broughton 1984 to conduct long-term orca natural history/acoustic study. Experience with fish farms includes: resident/neighbour, employee, biologist on the grounds, published researcher, met with: shareholders, government, stock analysts, international scientists, wrote 10,000 pages of letters, participated in every review process, worked for CAAR (Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform), laid legal challenges.

Perspectives

The Association of Professional Biologists of BC would like to introduce “Perspectives”, a new section in BioNews designed to provide the opportunity for members with demonstrated relevant expertise in a given area to initiate open, informed and transparent dialogue on issues relevant to biology professionals and the interests of the Association of Professional Biologists (APB) of British Columbia.

This month the topic is the finfish aquaculture industry in coastal British Columbia and what might be done to improve the existing situation so that the province can have a sustainable industry meeting its obligations in economic, environmental and social aspects of its business. Although, as professional biologists, we typically have knowledge in the biological and natural environmental areas, more and more we need to include and facilitate discussions involving both economics and social sciences. It is to this end we would like to encourage learned discourse on a variety subjects of interest to members.

Background

The controversies surrounding fin fish aquaculture in coastal British Columbia waters has been building momentum since the early 1980’s when the BC government encouraged Norwegian investment in the development of salmon farming in British Columbia. Since lifting of the moratorium on new farmed salmon sites in coastal BC in September of 2002, the industry has been further involved in a series of controversies regarding siting, potential environmental impacts, spreading of sea lice, potential effects on wild salmon stocks and the safety of its products. A great deal of scientific research has been done, and two provincial inquiries (i.e., the Special Legislative Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, and the recent Pacific Salmon Forum) have been commissioned to sort out many of these issues and recommend solutions. More recently, a decision by the Supreme Court of BC (the Hinkson Decision) awarded regulatory oversight of the industry to the federal government, and the Department of Fisheries & Oceans. Implications of this latest court action are still being determined.

As a number of Association of Profession Biologist (APB) members are actively involved in this sector whether as government, in the aquaculture industry, private consultants or concerned public citizens, the Communications Committee thought it timely to invite biologists who are knowledgeable in this area to provide their insights by answering a set of questions we have provided and invite their written responses. There answers should help other members in understanding the complexities involved, and hopefully provide some clarity to the issues at hand.


1) What are the key issues surrounding open water finfish aquaculture (fish farming) on B.C.’s coast?

Salmon farming requires a large wild fishery to feed their fish. So globally, the issue is whether it is ethical to take fish, transport them the length of the globe, add grain crops and throw them back in the water to produce less food. On a local scale, the first order of problems is the conflicting Federal policy to both promote aquaculture ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2007-2008/inst/dfo/dfo01-eng.asp ) and protect wild fish. It is my experience that this conflict has prevented straightforward acknowledgement of the issues in the field. This has to be reconciled with a firm hierarchy of mandates. On the biological front the problems are the scale of operations, siting, and the permeable barriers (nets). These issues would be solved with solid wall containers.

Holding large schools of salmon stationary breaks down several of the biological mechanisms that work to limit disease proliferation (Bakke and Harris 1998), and mutation (Pulkkinen et al. 2009). Using nets as the barrier allows wild pathogens to flow into these feedlot-type environments, while preventing essential disease-control predation. As a result, pathogens are free to multiply and then flow unimpeded back out into the precisely balanced wild system at amplified levels.

Salmon farms can use over a ton/day of food and this is excreted through the fish and carried out of the pens by the currents. While most fish farms are sited where this waste will be transported off-lease it is collecting elsewhere (Morton in progress).

The brilliant grow-lights used at night and the broadcasting of fish food into the ocean attracts wild fish to and into the pens, (pers. obs.). This not only attracts wild fish to swim through the nets into the pens, it perturbs the natural

distribution of wild prey and predators (personal observation). Once wild fish enter the pens their fate ranges from temporary exposure to predation and artificial feed, to permanent removal from the wild populations through predation by farm salmon and harvest procedures. The reports of wild salmon, herring, rock cod, black cod, Pollock and other species trapped by salmon farms may represent sizeable illegal possession (Morton vs M.V. Orca Warrior and Marine Harvest Canada Inc Port Hardy 14790-1) and population impact.

Atlantic salmon schools of over 600,000 (Marine Harvest Canada website) – 1 million fish, are now sited at interval on nearly every south-coast salmon and herring migratory corridor on both sides of Vancouver Island ( www.livingoceans.org/maps/ ). This management regime ignores reported impacts associated with salmon farms worldwide (Ford and Myers 2008) and risks far too great an area of the BC coast.

The pathogen dynamic between wild and farm salmon is plainly evident in sea lice (L. salmonis). When sea lice hatch they must spend 2-3 days adrift prior to developing capability to attach to a fish host. Thus, in the wild, host attachment success rate is low and the parasite is rated benign. In confined schools however, we find lice larvae are concentrated around the farms (Morton et al. in press). Once attached, sea lice molt rapidly for 30 days allowing for infection point source identification. These point sources are consistently and exclusively stocked salmon farms (see references for the 12 papers I have co-authored on this).

In addition, salmon farms eliminate the pathogen intergeneration temporal isolation barrier caused by post-spawn mortality. Thus outbound juvenile salmon are now challenged by amplified parental generation pathogens at a critical life phase – ocean entry. In 2002/3, IHN virus infected a fish farm in eastern Johnstone Strait. From there the industry

spread the virus via smolt packers to 22 farms reaching Klemtu (Saksida, 2006). The 2003 juvenile Fraser sockeye out-migration swam through water that had passed through the gills and digestive tracts of 12 million IHN infected farm salmon. This generation failed, except for the Harrison stock, which flourished, like this year.

2) Where do you think there is room for improvement in regards to fish farm management in coastal British Columbia by all sectors involved?

First we must objectively examine the question: is it biologically realistic to expect large feedlot and free-ranging populations to survive pathogen exchange? The science of epidemiology suggests not (Daszak et al. 2000). Farm and wild animals are not sympatric and must be physically isolated from each other because the farm environment will always stimulate pathogen amplification and the wild populations are not equipped to survive this. We are managing these two populations as if this dynamic does not exist, without a stated hierarchy of conservation priorities. As a result every issue becomes a test of will, not science, or even public interest.

A 1989 MOU gave the provinces regulation of fish farming, in absence of responsibility for wild fish. DFO signs off on every licence, and has stood down on enforcement. Thus on every issue DFO responds that the Province is in control and the province will respond that DFO okayed fish farming. As a result, no agency takes responsibility for impacts outside the leases. Morton vs. Marine Harvest struck down provincial regulation as unlawful as per the Canadian Constitution which considers all in the ocean to be federal jurisdiction. When this takes effect one agency will be responsible for fish farms and their effect outside the pens. This is not ideal, but better than previously.

Provincial regulation caused blind spots. For example, farm sediment monitoring is limited to on-lease. But tons of feed are going in daily

Perspectives cont’d.


so tons of waste must be coming out. DFO will have to find and assess toxicology and biological impact of each dumpsite.

Regarding sea lice. While the public concern is number of lice/wild smolt, the province picked an indefensible number of allowable lice/farm fish. DFO will have to manipulate the number of lice/farm fish to attain a viable number of lice/wild salmon (as per Holst et al. 2003). The Pacific Salmon Forum made this recommendation, but it has not been applied.

The SFU Fraser sockeye think tank (Dec 2009) noted that the ability to model Fraser sockeye returns has eroded over the last decade suggesting novel variable/s have entered the system. While the size and abundance of smolts and ocean variables were all favorable for the 2009 sockeye, what these models may lack is the viral and bacterial presence in farm salmon schools that the Fraser salmon encountered. DFO will have the power to use this disease information to forecast sockeye returns.

DFO will have to address the high bio-security threat of transmission of Norwegian strain Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISAV) to BC. Dr. Are Nylund, U. of Bergen reports BC is “guaranteed” to be contaminated if we continue importing salmon eggs from the Atlantic. “Far from coming under control the virus continuously eludes preventative measures, passing through the safety net of the most stringent control measures in the world” (The Fish Site, Jan 2009). Currently, egg import continues because the Fisheries Minister believes there is “no strong evidence” of transmission via eggs. Please read: Vike S., S. Nylund and A. Nylund. 2009. ISA virus in Chile: evidence of vertical transmission. Archives in Virology 154, 1-8.

Population scale effect of by-catch of wild - salmon, herring, rock cod, black cod and Pollock by fish farm nets has to

be assessed, similar to many commercial fisheries.

Removing fish farms from critical migratory corridors would defuse conflict, test for response in wild salmon and has been requested by the SFU think tank. Removing farms has benefited troubled populations (Beamish et al. 2006, http://www.petitiononline.com/seatrout/petition.html ). Closed containment would address the environmental issues while continuing social benefits.

Whether the goal is survival of farm salmon or wild salmon, pathogen interchange must be halted. Note, however, wild salmon can only move via extinction.

3) Can you suggest specific measures or steps which can be taken to resolve this debate before another decade goes by?

When I met with the executive director of Marine Harvest, Åse Aulie Michelet, in Norway she was clear that Marine Harvest would only follow the laws of the host country, not best practices from Norway, that it was not their responsibility to design the BC regulations.

“We are very strict about the quality and the environment questions. Therefore, some of the fish farmers went to Canada. They said we want bigger fish farms; we can do as we like” (John Lilletun Norwegian Parliamentary Committee on the Environment HANSARD 12-9-1990)

I have participated in every government process on fish farms. Every one of these made recommendations that would have helped, but have been ignored.

The 1989 Coastal Resource Interest Study designated fish farm-free zones in

Broughton, and then fish farms were sited in those zones (map available). The 1995 Salmon Aquaculture Review study made 49 recommendations most of which were shelved, the 2007 Provincial Legislature study called for moving the industry to closed tanks within 5 years, and the 2008 Pacific Salmon Forum called for lice management based on wild fish infection levels. The public has already paid millions for these studies and I think they should be dusted off and put to work to resolve this thing.

Promotion of fish farming has to be taken away from DFO because it leads to situations like the following: When the Fraser sockeye crash was announced DFO’s Pacific Regional director, a biologist, felt compelled to publish letters in newspapers saying:

“We also know that the sea lice species found on juvenile sockeye in the Strait of Georgia are not the same species that typically infect farmed salmon.” (North Island Gazette, Sept 1, 2009). He is referring to Caligus clemensi.

However, in June/July 2007 when these sockeye were swimming through the Discovery Islands Marine Harvest reported on their website that Caligus were found in 90% of their farms there. http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/farming_farm_locations.php

The DFO statement is thus inaccurate.

The salmon farming industry and DFO should refrain from selectively citing science. Specifically, the results in Jones et al. (2006, 2008), are distant outliers to Morton et al. (2005), Morton and Routledge (2005), Krkosek et al. (2009), Finstad et al. 2000. This is not the forum to critique Jones (DFO), but the opposite results likely stem from measurements of exposure vs. actual infection. Industry must acknowledge the range of findings.

If enhancement hatchery, spawning channel,


http://www.petitiononline.com/seatrout/petition.html

http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/farming_farm_locations.php


wild salmon and farm salmon stocking and disease records were compared in space and time we might better understand the dynamics and impact presence of Atlantic salmon schools.

But we are moving in the opposite direction. The just released amendments to Health of Animals Regulations astonishingly does not include the ISA virus as a reportable disease even though it is appearing worldwide in Norwegian salmon farms. http://www.canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-12-19/html/reg1-eng.html#reg . This has to change. If ISA enters BC action must be swift to prevent its spreading coast-wide as has occurred elsewhere. Please Google ISA Chile

Twenty-one fjords in Norway have been designated closed to salmon farms to protect the wild stocks. http://www.fisheries.no/aquaculture/Sustainability/protected_areas/

Emerging drug resistance in sea lice is now threatening eastern Canada and Norway. Dr. Tor Einar Horsberg, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science reports, "The harsh treatment that is needed to reach lice limits will lead to more resistant and multi-resistant lice. There is a dramatic development, and I'm worried how this will end": http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utskriftsvennlig/?artId=588564

4) How would you suggest ways in which biology professionals can become better informed and involved in addressing fish farm issues?

A good review is (Huech et al. 2004).

The most frequent criticism of my work is that the extinction prediction we made in SCIENCE (Krkosek et. al 2007) did not occur. Our prediction was based on the current salmon farm management, which did not include annual delousing

drug treatments. Widespread, prophylactic drug use has now suppressed sea lice and the pink salmon have responded spectacularly, but the warnings from other areas strongly indicate we will lose this arms race against sea lice. We have also published rebuttals to the criticisms:

“We show that the assessment by Brooks and Jones (2008) is thoroughly mistaken and that their conclusions are based on a combination of obfuscation, misrepresentation, and fundamental misunderstandings” (Krkosek et al. 2008).

BC biologists could assemble the data on localized patterns of salmon productivity and list the procession of variables in each system. We might significantly advance our understanding of what is happening to wild salmon and learn what is working and not. This could expedite management decisions. I don’t think we have time for avoidable mistakes.

The 2009 south coast sockeye localized return pattern is remarkable. There were higher than expected returns to US and Canadian rivers that enter the open ocean directly. Most sockeye runs from the Fraser River and Lake Washington, that entered via the inside waters of south Vancouver Island, failed except for the highly anomalous productivity by Harrison sockeye, which have been observed migrating to sea via Juan de Fuca (Tucker et al. 2009). These patterns are a wellspring of information that should be scrutinized and we hold much of the information.

I strongly urge biologists to participate in the Judicial Inquiry http://www.cohencommission.ca/

5) How do you envision fish farming being part of the future economic, environmental and social fabric of BC's coast?

Salmon farming has given British Columbia two significant assets; hundreds more people trained in salmon biology and state-of-the-art fresh fish processing and delivery infrastructure. But it is 92% Norwegian – owned. My town of Echo Bay has 23 fish farms and zero local employment by the industry. Jobs decreased even as fish farms increased production and mechanization is ongoing.

I see the future in reinventing the industry as a closed containment Canadian industry. Start building facilities on land and farming a range of non-carnivorous species with freshwater so the water source can originate above the tanks. The www.aquaculturebc.com association has been in existence for 60 years and are successful, but the province will not acknowledge them (testimony DFO meeting, Campbell River Dec. 2009). These facilities create permanent infrastructure as opposed to the disposable floating pens, benefit job-starved communities like Port Hardy, keep profits in-country and stimulate development of world-leading technology.

We could adapt the farm processing plants and their efficient fresh fish delivery infrastructure to add value to productive local fisheries such as shrimp and pink salmon. Work to market farmed and wild fish to the benefit of both rather than driving down wild products with farm production.

Restore wild salmon using: their own biology and ability to rapid-evolve, small teams to keep monitor as many rivers as possible. Acknowledge that the smaller creeks are essential creating higher diversity and simply give the salmon what they need. Form local councils and thread them together to share information and techniques.

Reinvent DFO, removing science from political interference as per the Fisheries Research Board. Impress upon the federal government that wild salmon are much more valuable than simply adding up revenue from commercial licenses as is currently done (pers. com. Brian Riddell).


http://www.canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-12-19/html/reg1-eng.html#reg

http://www.fisheries.no/aquaculture/Sustainability/protected_areas/

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utskriftsvennlig/?artId=588564


The debate in Norway is turning a new corner with an article titled “Let wild salmon die – farmed salmon more important?” http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/innenriks/velger-oppdrett-foran-villaks-3045428.html

But Norway and Chile, the strongholds of farm salmon productivity, are increasingly biologically hostile to farm salmon populations. Both lice drug resistance and disease pandemics are aggravated by crowded host conditions. However, to meet shareholder demands the industry must relentlessly place more fish somewhere, no matter the future consequences. There are applications to increase the size of BC salmon farms coast-wide and to approve new farms. My observation is this will destroy both the wild and farm salmon and the rural BC economy.

In closing.

“Obviously the industry and some bureaucrats went political because in 1986 Pat Chamut, Regional Director General DFO and I were explicitly directed by our respective Deputy Ministers to allow import of eggs…I have carried a burden of deep concern ever since… We are playing Russian Roulette,…. Risking introduction of viral strains…I am left wondering that the issue has not been vigorously embraced by the professional biologists of British Columbia?” (Dave Narver R.P. Bio. Bioline 1995 vol. 14 No. 1).

Government processes on salmon farming

Coastal Resource Interest Study 1989 – Province of BC

Salmon Aquaculture Review 1995 – Province of BC

Federal Auditor General’s audit - 2000

Leggatt Inquiry - 2001 David Suzuki Foundation

Standing Senate Committee of Fisheries report – 2001

Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council Advisory- 2002

Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture – 2007 Members of Legislative Assembly

Pacific Salmon Forum – 2009

Recommendations of all these available at: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/page/history

References:

Bakke, T.A. and P.D. Harris 1998. Diseases and parasites in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55 (Supplement 1), 247-266.

Beamish, R. J., S. Jones, C. E. Neville, R. Sweeting, G. Karreman, S. Saksida, and E. Gorden. 2006. Exceptional marine survival of pink salmon that entered the marine environment in 2003 suggests that farmed Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the Pacific coast of Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63:1326–1337.

Daszak, P., A. A. Cunningham and A. D. Hyatt. 2000. Emerging Infectious Diseases of Wildlife -- Threats to Biodiversity and Human Health. Science 287/ 5452, pp. 443 – 449.

Finstad, B., P. A. Bjørn, A. Grimnes and N. A. Hvidsten. 2000. Laboratory and field investigations of salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis Krøyer) infestation on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) postsmolts. Aquaculture Research. 31:1–9.

Ford J.S., and R. A. Myers (2008) A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS Biol 6(2): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

Gargan, P., O. Tully and W.R. Poole The Relationship Between Sea Lice Infestation, Sea Lice Production And Sea Trout Survival In Ireland, 1992-2001. Proceedings of The 6th International Atlantic Salmon Symposium Edinburgh, UK, 16th - 18th July 2002 Atlantic Salmon Trust/Atlantic Salmon Federation. In. Salmon on the Edge (Ed. D. Mills) Chapter 10, pp. 119-135.

Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Vancouver, UBC Press.

Holst, J.C., Jacobsen, P, Nilsen, F, Holm, M, Asplin, L, Aure, J., 2003. Morality of Seaward- Migrating Post-Smolts of Atlantic Salmon Due to Salmon Lice Infection in Norwegian Salmon Stocks. In: Mills, D (Ed.), Salmon at the edge. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 136-137

Huech, P.A., P.A. Bjorn, B. Finstad and J. C. Holst 2004 A review of the Norwegian ‘National Action plan against salmon lice on salmonids’: the effect on wild salmonids. Aquaculture. 246, 79–92.

Johnson, S. C. , and L. J. Albright. 1991. Development, growth, and sur vival of Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Copepoda: Caligidae) under laborator y conditions.

Jones, S. E. Kim and S. Dawe 2006. Experimental infections with Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) on threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L., and juvenile Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. J. of Fish Disease 29. 489-496

Jones, S., E. Kim and W. Bennett 2008. Early development of resistance to the salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer), in juvenile pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum). J. Fish Disease 10. 1365-2761


http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/innenriks/velger-oppdrett-foran-villaks-3045428.html

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/page/history


Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom 71:425– 436.

Krkosek, M., M. A. Lewis, J. P. Volpe and A. B. Morton. 2006. Fish Farms and sea lice infestations of wild juvenile salmon in the Broughton Archipelago - A rebuttal to Brooks (2006). Reviews in Fisheries Science. 14: 1-11.

Krkosek, M. J. S. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele and M. A. Lewis 2008a. Sea lice and pink salmon declines: a response to Brooks and Jones. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16(4): 413-420.

Krkosek, M., J. S. Ford, A. B. Morton, S. Lele and M. A.Lewis. 2008b. Response to comment on 'Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon'. Science. 322, 1790-1791.

Needham, T. 1995. Management of furunculosis in sea cages. Bulletin of the Aquaculture Association of Canada.

Pulkkinen, K., L.-R. Suomalainen, A. F. Read, D. Ebert, P. Rintamäki, and E. T. Valtonen 2009 Intensive fish farming and the evolution of pathogen virulence: the case of columnaris disease in Finland Proc. R. Soc. B published online before print October 28, 2009, doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1659

Saksida, S.M. 2006 Infectious haematopoietic necrosis epidemic (2001to 2003) in farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in British Columbia. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 72: 213-223

Traxler G.S., M. L. Kent, and T.T. Poppe. 1998. Viral Diseases. In Diseases of Seawater Netpen-reared salmonid fishes. Ed Kent M.L, and Poppe T.T. Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 138pp.

Tucker, S., M. Trudel, D. W. Welch, J. R. Candy, J. F. T. Morris, M. E. Thiess, C. Wallace, W. Crawford, E.V. Farley Jr. and T.D. Beacham 2009. Seasonal Stock-Specific Migrations of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon along the West Coast of North America: Implications for Growth. Transactions American Fisheries Society, 138: 1458-1480

Vike S., S. Nylund and A. Nylund. 2009. ISA virus in Chile: evidence of vertical transmission. Archives in Virology 154, 1-8

Morton References pertaining to fish farms

Morton, A. B., 1986. Sound and behavioral correlation in captive Orcinus orca. In: Kirkevold, B.C. and Lockhard, J.S. (eds.) Behavioral biology of killer whales. Alan R. Liss, Inc. New York. Pp. 303-333.

Morton, A.B. 1990. A quantitative comparison of the behaviour of resident and transient forms of the killer whale off the central British Columbia coast. Report of the International Whaling Commission. (special issue 12): 245-248.

Morton, A.B. 2000. Occurrence, photo-identification and prey of Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhyncus obliquidens) in the Broughton Archipelago, Canada 1985-1997. Marine Mammal Science. 16(1):80-93.

Morton, A.B. and Symonds, H.K. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 59: 71-80

Morton, A.B. and Volpe J. 2002 A description of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar captures and their characteristics in one Pacific salmon fishery area in British Columbia Canada,

in 2000. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin, 9: 102-109.

Ford, J.K.B., G. Ellis, L. Barret-Lennard, A.B. Morton, R. Palm and K.C. Balcomb. Diet Specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British Columbia and adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 21: 603-618.

Morton, A.B., and Williams R . 2003 Infestation of the sea louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) on juvenile pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum) in British Columbia, Canadian Field Naturalist, 117: 634-641.

Morton, A.B., Routledge, R., Peet, C. and Ladwig, A 2004 Sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, infection rates on juvenile chum and pink salmon in the nearshore marine environment in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 61: 147-157.

Blaylock, R. B. Overstreet, R.M. and Morton, A.B. 2005 The pathogenic copepod Phrixo-cephalus cincinnatus (Copepoda: Pennelli-dae) in the eye of arrowtooth flounder, Ather-estes stomias, and rex sole, Glyptocephalus zachirus, from British Columbia. The Euro-pean Association of Fish Pathologists, 25: 116-123.

Ford, J.K.B., Matkin, D.R., Balcomb, K.C., Briggs, D. Morton, A.B., Killer whale attacks on Minke Whales: prey capture and antipredator tactics In Press, Marine Mammal Science 21: 603-618.

Morton, A.B., Routledge, R, and Williams R. 2005 Temporal patterns of sea lice infestation on wild Pacific salmon in relation to the fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms. American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25: 811-821

Krkosek, M., A. Morton, and J.P. Volpe. 2005. Nonlethal Assessment of Juvenile Pink and Chum Salmon for Parasitic Sea Lice



Infections and Fish Health. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 134: 711-716.

Morton, A. B. and Routledge (2006) Mortality rates for juvenile pink and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha and keta) infested with sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) in the Broughton Archipelago. Alaska Fisheries Research Bulletin. 11:2, 146-152.

Morton, A.B. and Richard Routledge (2006) Fulton’s Condition Factor: Is it a valid measure of sea lice impact on juvenile salmon? North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26, 56–62.

Krkosek, M., Lewis, M.A., Volpe, J.P., & Morton, A.B. 2006. Fish Farms and sea lice infestations of wild juvenile salmon in the Broughton Archipelago - A rebuttal to Brooks (2006). Reviews in Fisheries Science. 14: 1-11.

Morton, A.B. and Williams, R. 2006. Response of the Sea Louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestation levels on juvenile wild Pink, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, and Chum, O. keta, salmon, to arrival of parasitized wild adult salmon. Canadian Field Naturalist. 120:2.

Krkosek, M., Lewis, M., Morton, A. Frazer, N., and Volpe, J. 2006. Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103: 15506-15510.

Krkosek, M., Ford, J. S., Morton, A.B., Lele, S., Myers, R.A., & Lewis, M.A., 2007. Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon. Science. 318, 1772-1775.

Krkosek, M., Ford, J. S., Morton, A.B., Lele, S., & Lewis, M.A., 2008. Response to comment on 'Declining wild salmon

populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon'. Science. 322, 1790-1791.

Krkosek, M., Ford, J. S., Morton, A.B., Lele, S., & Lewis, M.A., 2008. Sea lice and pink salmon declines: A response to Brooks and Jones. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 16, 413-420.

Morton, A.B., Routledge, R. and Krokosek, M. 2008. Sea lice infestation of wild juvenile salmon and herring associated with fish farms off the east central coast of Vancouver Island, BC. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28, 523-532.

Krkosek, M., A. Morton, J. Volpe, & M.A. Lewis, 2009. Sea lice and salmon population dynamics: Effects of exposure time for migratory fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. In press.


Black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani) are large (~45 cm tall) wading birds feeding mainly on mollusks, crabs, and other small marine invertebrates.

Photo contributed by John Deal, RPBio.


Second Perspective-Sharon DeDominicis, RPBio Bio for Sharon DeDominicis

Sharon DeDominicis is the Environmental Sustainability Manager for Marine Harvest Canada, the largest salmon aquaculture company in British Columbia and the world. She has a Bachelor of Science degree (Ecology) from the University of Calgary and has been a Registered Professional Biologist since 1991 (Province of Alberta, then British Columbia). Over her 25 year career she has authored more than 200 environmental impact assessments for a variety of resource sectors, focusing exclusively on aquaculture since 2001. In addition to managing provincial and federal regulatory compliance, she represents Marine Harvest Canada on several technical advisory boards, including the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Technical Working Group and the Province of British Columbia Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation Advisory Group, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Monitoring, Inspection and Auditing Technical Committee. Scope of work includes active engagement with environmental groups such as the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), World Wildlife Fund and First Nation collaborative projects, and collaborative projects with academia and government researchers. Sharon has been the recipient of several awards including the Outstanding Woman of Honor – Aquaculture Sector (2007) from the Women of Resource Communities, and has been nominated for environmental manager of the year (Aquaculture Sector) in 2007 and 2008.

Question 1. What do you think are the key issues surrounding open water fin fish aquaculture (fish farming) on B.C.’s coast?

From the perspective of a professional biologist working in the fin-fish aquaculture sector, I see three over-arching challenges for the sector: business related (meeting global demands for the product), biological performance (stock health, environmental impacts), and public perception. Effectively reducing public concern related to environmental impacts associated with fish farming is critical for the success of the industry. Salmon farming needs to incorporate a variety of ideological perspectives to focus on environmental solutions, engage public interests and communicate well to secure its social license.

The global demand for finfish and shellfish is growing by about 9 percent a year (FOC 2009) applying considerable pressure to the world’s capture fisheries. According to the United Nations Food

and Agriculture Organization, by 2005 75% of the world’s capture fisheries were at – or near – their maximum harvest rates (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0699e/A0699E05.htm ). Aquaculture is an important part of the world’s food supply and by 2020 will likely provide quantities of fish comparable to wild fisheries. Canada, with the world’s longest coastline, has a huge potential for aquaculture, yet in 2006 it ranked 23rd among world aquaculture producers and contributed less than 0.3% of the total global output (FOC 2009).

Modern salmon culture in the Pacific region includes stock enhancement, farming and ranching - tracing its origins to hatchery technology developed to mitigate stock impacts to Pacific Northwest riverine systems, from anthropogenic activities such as the construction of hydroelectric dams. This eventually evolved into enhancement and ranching programs that currently release more than 5 billion fry into the wild environment from Canada, Russia, Japan and the United States every year (Beamish et al. 1997). Many of these fish are later captured by commercial and recreational fishermen as ‘wild’ salmon. Up to 80 % of the juvenile coho salmon in



southern BC coastal waters have been attributed to enhancement projects (Noakes et al. 2000). Commercial salmon farming shares the same genesis and much of the same technology; the main difference being, the stock is held captive throughout its life cycle.

From an animal husbandry perspective, raising stock in an uncontrolled environment such as marine areas requires extensive knowledge of the ocean and health requirements of the species or stock. Over the past 30 years, considerable strides in understanding ocean hydrodynamics, marine chemistry, phytoplankton, salmonid pathogens (viral and bacterial), external parasites, marine engineering and infrastructure have been made. Fish health research has provided techniques for rapid disease diagnosis and treatment. Vaccines have been developed for the most common bacterial (and even for some viral) agents. Advances in adult salmon fish health management and nutrition along with success in maintaining healthy, disease free stocks of fish have been well documented in the animal science literature. Unfortunately, because this is such a specialized industry, substantive improvements in marine husbandry are not well understood and/or well known, particularly by the general public or by the salmon enhancement sector. Reducing stock mortality during occasional periods of critically low dissolved oxygen and/or during harmful algae blooms continues to be a principal challenge facing the Pacific coast industry.

It is appropriate for the public to hold any industry or sector accountable for any negative impacts to public resources used in the course of their operations - in this case ocean water, the soils beneath the cages and wild fisheries resources. At the same time it is important these same citizen interests be made aware of the management actions taken to address these issues and the progress made towards mitigation/reduction/elimination of these concerns. The inability to effectively communicate technological

and environmental gains has been a marked failure of the industry.

For example the view presented by some sources and widely covered by the media holds that sea lice from farmed salmon are a significant factor in the disappearance of Fraser River sockeye salmon. Yet, even a superficial examination of the state of knowledge here reveals much information that questions this assertion. This includes: i) no research has yet demonstrated sea lice infestation to cause morbidity or mortality to juvenile sockeye salmon; ii) the weight of research findings into the impact of sea lice on wild pink salmon feared to be significant, even leading to extinction, have not found an effect at the population level (BC PSF 2009); iii) salmon farms can currently control the numbers of sea lice on their stocks to ensure that they remain at or below the ambient levels in the marine environment; and iv) the species of sea lice most commonly reported on juvenile sockeye (Caligus clemensi) is not specific to salmon and has a low abundance on farmed salmon. While this information may provide balance when reviewed and understood in its totality, the message most frequently offered by mainstream media is that of uncontrolled harm.

Question 2. Where do you think there is room for improvement in regards to fish farm management in coastal British Columbia by all sectors involved?

Industry success will be determined by its economic, social and environmental sustainability. Economic and environmental sustainability require regulatory certainty and consistency, science and innovation. Political stability is fundamental to build industry and public confidence. The British Columbian aquaculture industry is currently experiencing a change in regulatory authority following a British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) decision in February 2009 that ruled that the activity of aquaculture is a fishery

which falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to sub-section 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries. In 2008, the federal government announced of a $70 million 5-year plan to support aquaculture innovation ($25 million), improve governance ($13 million), advance regulatory science ($22 million) and facilitate certification and market access ($10 million) (DFO October 2008).

Management of the sector is likely to improve with an expanded focus on collaboration amongst First Nations, environmental groups, governments, academics, industry, local communities and interested parties. Emergence of this approach to governance can be demonstrated in examples such as the Framework for Dialogue agreement struck between the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) and Marine Harvest Canada (MHC) in January 2006. The agreement provides opportunities for discussion around a number of matters of mutual interest including collaborative research on sea lice, sustainable technology innovation and public communication. Demonstrated value of the relationship is evidenced in the joint support of a Coordinated Area Management Plan (CAMP) for the Broughton Archipelago, where salmon production is coordinated to create fallow routes for juvenile wild salmon migrating from their natal streams. A key element of CAMP is the establishment of a collaborative monitoring/research program to ascertain the effectiveness/biological utility of the out migration corridors and related management activities.

Progressive industries recognize the value in investments in innovation. Although there are currently no viable commercial-scale closed containment systems for rearing salmon operating anywhere in the world, advances in technology may make closed containment systems viable in the future. We have completed a number of pilot projects here in British Columbia and continue to invest in joint ventures and studies to measure success and weigh all environmental factors. Two problem areas with current closed containment systems are the use of fossil fuels to maintain water temperature, growing conditions and associated fish health impacts. For a report analyzing more than 40 closed containment



systems from around the world please see http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/Publications/SAR-AS/2008/2008_001_e.htm

Question 3. Can you suggest specific measure or steps which can be taken to resolve this debate before another decade goes by?

Unfortunately, at present, the dialogue on the risks and benefits of farming fish is mired in polarized debate with positional language and accusations serving as the foundation for discussion rather than development of science-based discussions. Historical evidence suggests that it often takes decades for applied science to resolve issues, especially with regard to emerging industries and technologies. As information builds the debate continues on finer and finer areas of knowledge, and the initial hypotheses continually evolve and refine.

Growth of the Canadian aquaculture sector has been slow compared to other jurisdictions largely due to divergent opinions on the sustainability of the newly emerging agribusiness. The differing opinions arise in part from the newness of the industry along the coastline (where fish harvesting has been dominated by wild and enhanced stock capture) and also due to the lack of locally relevant science assessing the potential impacts of the industry. In 1984 there were 10 salmon farms operating on the British Columbia coast, by 1988 there were 101 salmon farming companies and 118 active farms (Peter Robson 2006). By 1992, about half of the companies had disappeared from the coast due to technical challenges growing the stock, financial instability, poor site selection and a drop in salmon prices in the marketplace. The rapid growth in the industry occurred in the absence of a coordinated regulatory system. Increasing public concerns about the effects of the industry on the marine environment and on other coastal users led to a provincially mandated moratorium on expansion in 1986 and

again in 1995 while complex multi-stakeholder environmental assessments of the industry were completed (Gillespie Enquiry 1986, Salmon Aquaculture Review 1997).

There have been three science-based reviews of the industry: Gillespie Enquiry, SAR, and the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2001. The over-arching conclusion was that the salmon farming industry, at the time of review, presented a low overall risk to the environment. Continued regulatory and public focus on aquaculture led to the broader based Legislative Assembly of British Columbia Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture (November 2005 to May 2007) and another science-based review conducted by the Pacific Salmon Forum (December 2004 to January 2009) www.pacificsalmonforum.ca

In response to continuing public uncertainty provincial and federal regulatory agencies have adopted a precautionary approach to managing the industry - while investing considerable resources into research projects to further the body of BC specific science. Research includes studies on sea lice, benthic monitoring, feed conversion ratios, fish health, and closed containment systems. A list of studies can be found at http://www.salmonfarmers.org/studies_and_publications.php or on government websites (DFO, Ministry of Environment, MAL).

Management of the fish farm industry has been in a evolving since farms first appeared on the coast. The British Columbia salmon farming industry is subject to 52 separate provincial and federal statutes, regulations, policies and guidelines, as well as numerous municipal and regional district land use and development regulatory instruments. A regulatory comparison chart can be found at

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/Finfish/cabinet/Summary_Table_BC-World_Aqua_Regs.pdf

Since 2003 the industry has been monitoring and reporting sea lice information to government authorities as part of a broader program known as the Provincial Sea Lice Management Strategy. The results are publically available on the MAL website (http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/sealice_monitoring_results.htm ) and at some company websites (example, www.marineharvestcanada.com ). In addition to regular monitoring, treatment trigger levels were established in 2003 which are comparable to other international jurisdictions. Serious health and growth performance issues associated with sea lice infestations have plagued the salmon farming industries in Europe and eastern North America. This has not been the case in either Japan or Canada’s west coast (Johnson et al. 2004). Heavy infestations resulting in mortality or damage to farmed Pacific or Atlantic salmon stocks from sea lice infections are rare in BC.

Over the past 7 years (2003-2010) our knowledge of sea lice biology (life history, distribution, abundances, tolerances) and the susceptibility and resistance of salmonids to lice has substantially improved. Significant findings relevant to the BC situation are listed below.

1. There are several different species of sea lice that infect salmonids in the marine waters of British Columbia, the two most common are Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Caligus clemensi. Most of the ‘sea lice debate’ focuses on the interactions between farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), juvenile Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and L. salmonis.

2. Recent studies have found significant genetic differences between Pacific and Atlantic L. salmonis, suggesting the two groups may be different species, which may explain the different clinical presentation of sea lice impacts in farmed salmon internationally (Todd et al 2004; Yazawa et al 2008).

3. Resistance to sea lice varies between


http://www.salmonfarmers.org/studies_and_publications.php

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/Finfish/cabinet/Summary_Table_BC-World_Aqua_Regs.pdf


salmon species. Studies report that when Pink salmon weighing less than 25g were exposed to > 200 L. salmonis/salmon about 50% became infected but there was no death or signs of sickness and within 3 weeks post infection most of the infected fish had shed the lice. By contrast, 100% of Atlantic salmon became infected, and died or were seriously sick within 12 days post infection when similarly infected (50g fish) (Ross et al 2000; Jones et al 2007; Wagner et al 2007;Jones et. al 2008).

4. Pink salmon appear to be highly resistant to sea lice infections. In fact, very little mortality was associated with laboratory studies on fish larger than 0.7g (Jones et al 2008b). It has been estimated that Pink salmon immunity to sea lice is fully developed by the time Pink salmon are less than 1.0 grams in size and appears to coincide with changes to the skin, including the start of scale development (Jones et al 2008b).

5. Both laboratory and field studies have demonstrated the ability of Pink salmon to shed lice. One study found that this ability was not compromised even when salmon were held on reduced ration to the point that they were smaller and skinnier than the controls (Jones et al 2008a).

6. Recent research by Fisheries and Oceans Canada has shown that the proportion of wild Pink salmon juveniles at risk from sea lice declined from 4.5% to 0% between 2005 and 2009 in the Broughton Archipelago region. In the spring of 2008, there were no recorded lethal infections of L. salmonis on Pink salmon less than 0.7 grams in this region (lethal size thresholds based on published trials). In 2009, similar observations show that no Pink salmon less than 0.7 grams were at risk to L. salmonis.

7. When wild juvenile pinks were surveyed off the north coast of BC, (a region devoid of salmon farms) prevalence of all lice on the wild salmon was found to be over 13% (i.e. 13% of fish carried lice), and intensity averaged 1.2 lice/fish. C. clemensi were more predominant than L. salmonis (Gottesfeld et al. 2005). Similar results were found in wild juvenile pink salmon surveyed in the midcoast of BC, another region with a few salmon farms. In this region, prevalence and intensity were 18% and 2 lice per fish respectively (Butterworth et al. 2007). However in this study more L. salmonis than C. clemensi were observed.

8. Farming companies continue to refine management techniques in response to research results. Sea lice management (monitoring and treatment) is intensified during the critical outmigration period when wild salmon are at their smallest (March – May). There has been a steady decrease in farm sea lice numbers since 2007 in the Broughton (http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/sealice_monitoring_results.htm ).

9. Management practices and production tonnage in the Broughton Archipelago have been relatively consistent from 2003-2009, yet pink salmon returns continue to be as variable as they have been historically (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aquaculture/pinksalmon-saumonrose/results-resultats/index-eng.htm ).

10. Peak pink salmon returns occurred in 2009 in the Broughton (and elsewhere along the coastline). Historical highs were also reported 1975, 1993 and 2001 in the archipelago. Conversely, historical lows were reported 1953, 1969, 1991 and 2002

(http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc%20stad/bulletins.htm ).

11. Even with all the monitoring and management, the farms are administering very few treatments (normally no more than 1.5 treatments/crop cycle) (Dr. Sonja Saksida personal communication; http://www.marineharvestcanada.com )

Question 4. How would you suggest ways in which biology professionals can become better informed and involved in addressing fish farm issues?

Websites and blogs devoted to salmon farming issues tend to be either pro (example: company or farming association sites www.marineharvestcanada.com ) or con (example: www.farmedanddangerous.org ) regarding the issues of concern and progress made to address concerns. Frequent reviews of these sources will make an interested biologist aware of the current state of debate around salmon farming but may be repetitious with respect to narrow source material or may not provide the desired level of information balance. The recent report by Pacific Salmon Forum with its appendix of research findings is a timely and concise reference www.pacificsalmonforum.ca . Of course, a good source of information can be colleagues working directly in the field.

Much of the BC environmental impact research has been conducted by biologists who are CAB members and enquiries made through the APB list serve may elicit private responses and communication with professionals who were directly involved in the field work and data analysis. Similarly many of those given the responsibility for monitoring the performance of this industry to the targets and thresholds established in regulations for environmental sustainability are CAB professionals.

Employment opportunities exist through various avenues including government, universities, advocacy groups and industry. Institutions and agencies involved with salmon aquaculture include but are not limited to:



Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, Vancouver Island University, Center for Aquatic Health Sciences (Campbell River) and the Pacific Salmon Foundation. Opportunities for upgrade training in salmon aquaculture are available through many post secondary teaching institutions.

Salmon farm tours are available each year from July to September through the BC Salmon Farmers Association http://www.salmonfarmers.org/tours.php

Formal Dialogues provide another opportunity for biology professionals and multiple stakeholders to work towards common goals and understanding. These dialogues also allow interested parties to contribute to global initiatives that are working to build a more accountable, and therefore stronger, salmon farming industry. Such is the case with salmon aquaculture’s involvement with the World Wildlife Fund’s Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue (http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/dialogues-salmon.html ) and Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Global Aquaculture Standard.

Question 5. How do you envision fish farming being part of the future economic, environmental and social fabric of BC’s coast?

Farmed salmon is already British Columbia’s largest agricultural export, employing over 6,000 people in production and supply and services (Price Waterhouse Coopers 2008 report).

http://proxy.baremetal.com/salmonfarmers.org/attachments/2008_IndustryProfile_PWC.pdf

Future developments will build upon the current 80,000 metric tonne annual production base and allow fish farming in British Columbia to achieve its full potential of contributing 150,000 to 200,000 tonnes to domestic and

international markets. At this scale of production, BC would see benefit from the expansion of associated spin off industries such as net and cage manufacturing as well as boat building.

In British Columbia, net-pen based salmon farming has demonstrated that it can contribute as a desirable component of the modern coastal economy and form a cornerstone of survival for remote communities. The Kitasoo Xai’xais First Nations and Marine Harvest have celebrated a decade of cooperative success bringing significant benefit to the community of Klemtu and representing a positive model for other First Nations groups in coastal BC. The Quatsino and Kwakiutl First Nations have also experienced similar successes with salmon aquaculture.

Continued focus on problem solving through innovation will likely realize further reductions in the risks of stock mortality and improved environmental management. Similarly, advancements leading to reduced costs of operation will allow the advent of closed system aquaculture or full recirculation plants that will be located near sources of three phase electricity and likely closer to larger population centers.

Species diversification remains an area of strong interest in BC aquaculture with the potential for several high value species still in the experimental stages. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (where more than 1 species is grown together) is currently emerging on the coast.

References:

Beamish, R.J., Mahnken, C., Neville, C.M. 1997. Hatchery and wild production of Pacific salmon in relation to large-scale natural shifts in the productivity of the marine environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 1200-1215.

BC Pacific Salmon Forum. 2009. BC Pacific Salmon Forum Final Report & and Recommendations to the Government of British Columbia January 2009.

Butterworth,K.G., Cubitt, K.F., McKinley, R.S. 2007. The prevalence, density and impact of Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Kroyer) infestations on juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) from the central coast of British Columbia, Canada. Fisheries Research 91: 35-41.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009. Federal BC Aquaculture Regulation & Strategic Action Plan Initiative. Discussion Document. Prepared by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. November 2009.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008. Sustainable Aquaculture Initiative. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sustainable-durable/sustainable-durable-eng.htm

Gottesfeld, A.S., Ryan T., Rolston D., Proctor B. 2005. Sea lice and Pink salmon smolts on the North Coast of British Columbia. Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://www.skeenafisheries.ca/Publication_04-05_salmon_&%20Sea_lice_report.pdf .

Johnson, S.C., Treasurer, J.W., Bravo, S., Nagasawa, K., Kabata, Z. 2004 A review of the impact of parasitic copepods on marine aquaculture. Zoological Studies 43: 299-243.

Jones, S.R.M, Fast, M.D., Johnson, S.C., Groman, D.B. 2007. Differential rejections of sea lice by pink and chum salmon: disease consequences and expression of proinflammatory genes. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 229-239.


http://proxy.baremetal.com/salmonfarmers.org/attachments/2008_IndustryProfile_PWC.pdf


Jones, S.R.M., Fast, M.D., Johnson, S.C. 2008. Influence of reduced feed ration on Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestation and inflammatory gene expression in juvenile pink salmon. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 20: 103-109.

Jones, S.R.M., Kim, E., Bennett, W. 2008b. Early development of resistance to the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Koyer) in juvenile pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum). Journal of Fish Diseases 31: 1365-2761.

Noakes, D.J., Beamish, R.J., Sweeting, R., King, J. 2000. Changing the balance: interactions between hatchery and wild Pacific coho salmon in the presence of regime shifts. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 2: 155-164.

Peter A. Robson. 2006. Salmon Farming

– The Whole Story. Heritage House Publishing Company Ltd. Surrey BC. 271pgs.

Ross, N.W., Firth K.J., Wang Al, Burka J.F., Johnson, S.C. 2000. Changes in hydrolytic enzyme activities of Naïve Atlantic salmon Salmo salar skin mucus due to infection with the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis and cortisol implantation. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 41: 43-51.

Todd, C.D., Walker, A.M., Ritchie, M.G., Graves, J.A., Walker, A.F. 2004. Population genetic differentiation of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) parasitic on Atlantic and Pacific salmonids: analysis of microsatellite DNA variation among wild and farmed hosts. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1176-1190.

Wagner, G.N., Fast, M.D., Johnson, S.C. 2008. Physiology and immunology of Lepeophtheirus salmonis infections of salmonids. Trends in Parasitology Volume 24 No. 4.

Yazawa, R., Yasuike, M., Leong, J., vonSchalburg, K.R., Cooper, G.A., Beetz-Sargent, M., Robb, Al, Davidson, W.S., Jones, S.R.M., Koop, B.F. 2008. EST and Microchondrial DAN sequences support a distinct Pacific form of salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis. Marine Biotechnology 10: 741-749.


Black scoters (Melanitti nigra) are frequently seen wintering along coastal BC. Photo contributed by John Deal, RPBio

Moving?

If you are then please notify the office, so that you don’t miss an issue of BioNews (or other Association mailings.)

If you have any comments or suggestions for the BioNews or would like to submit materials for future issues of BioNews, please contact the Office of Applied Biology

Consultant’s Web Page Membership Benefits!

As a Professional Biologist and member of the APBBC, you are have the opportunity to advertise, free of charge, on the Consultant’s Page on the APB website. To view a current listing of members who have taken the opportunity to do this go to: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/consultant_search.php?service=&secondary_service=&location=&all=Show+All

If you would like to take advantage of this membership service go to the signup form at: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/consultant_signup.php

If you have any questions regarding this or other services (affinity programs) provided by the APBBC don’t hesitate to contact the office or go to: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=27

All clip-art used in BioNews are from Corel Gallery and follow their guidelines for use.

BioNews Notification

If you wish to receive an email notification of new issues of BioNews instead of a paper copy, please contact the office at: (250) 383-3306. (BioNews will only be mailed in plastic wrappers when there are inserts.)

Paid Advertisement

Correction: The third author of the BC’s Important Bird Areas was incorrectly listed as “Peter Davidson, RPBio” on page 13 of the last issue of BioNews (Dec. 2009—Vol. 19. No.4).

The third author was another “Peter Davidson” (a non-RPBio). Our apologies to both Peter Davidsons for the confusion. The online version has been changed.

Canadian Water Resources Association 63rd Annual National Conference

June 15-18, 2010

Vancouver, BC

Investments in science, monitoring, infrastructure and watershed management can create a legacy of understanding, healthy ecosystems and robust economics in a watershed. The 63rd Annual CWRA National Conference in Vancouver will provide a forum for exchange of knowledge and discussion on how we should promote effective water management through the current economic challenges while striving for a sustainable future. The CWRA solicits oral and poster presentations on a wide selection of topics related to watershed management, aquatic habitat, modeling and analysis, project and infrastructure, and policy development.

For conference registration and more information, visit the CWRA conference website www.cwra.org/national_conference.html

Archives

Starting with the Oct. 2006, (Vol. 16, No. 3) issue, the online version of BioNews was created in colour; but due to the increased costs, it was only printed in black-and-white (with a colour cover starting in the Oct. 2007 [Vol. 17, No. 3] issue). If you wish to see BioNews in colour, or if you have missed a previous issue, please visit the BioNews archives at:

http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/page_loader.php?page=23

BioNews Advertising Rates

Quarter page $250—Half page $500—Full page $800—20%

Discount for 2 or more consecutive issues. Preferred format for black-

&-white ads is jpeg (min. resolution 300dpi), but “press-

quality” pdfs may be considered.

BioServe Reminders Members posting to BioServe, who would like a direct reply, should include their email address in the body of their posting. And anyone wanting to reply to a posting (without posting a message to BioServe) are reminded to send an email directly to the person posting. (If you hit “Reply” the message will be automatically sent to the Registrar only and when you hit “Reply All” the message will be sent to everyone on BioServe!) To post a message onto BioServe, send the posting as an email (with or without attachments) to [email protected] . Members are also reminded that non-members (including employees or co-workers) are not allowed to post to BioServe. Members are also reminded that they can change their settings on BioServe (to “daily digest” or “unsubscribe”) by going to the link provided on the bottom of every BioServe message: http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/bioserve If you have lost your BioServe password (it was sent to you in the “Welcome to BioServe” introductory message), you can retrieve the password by going to: http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/options/bioserve and entering your email and clicking on “remind”. Members can also unsubscribe or switch to “daily digest” by contacting the office. (It is not necessary to post an unsubscription request to everyone on BioServe.)

The Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is the largest woodpecker in BC. This juvenile was spotted on Quadra Island feeding on insects in the Douglas-fir bark. Photo contributed by John Deal, RPBio.

apb Serving and Supporting Applied Biology and its Professionals

5th annual applied biology conference

Water, Wind and Wildlife May 5 – 8, 2010

Coast Capri Hotel, Kelowna, BC REGISTRATION FORM

Name_________________________________Company______________________________ Email ______________________________ Address_____________________________________________City_________________ Postal Code _________Phone _______________ Please check the appropriate program boxes

APB Members

Non-Members

Until April 7 After April 7 to April23rd *Conference Package (May 5 – 7) • Includes Ethics, Proceedings, Breaks, Lunches, Wine & Cheese, and Banquet

Ethics: AM or PM Does not include other pre/post conference sessions

$ 250.00

$ 275.00

$ 350.00

Thursday Only - Includes Proceedings, Lunch & Breaks - Does not include Banquet $ 100.00 $ 125.00 $ 150.00 Friday Only - Includes Proceedings, Break, & Lunch $ 90.00 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 AGMs ONLY College Association Both N/C N/C N/C

Wednesday, May 5 Ethics Course Only: AM or PM $40.00 $60.00 $ 75.00

Wednesday, May 5 Fundamentals of Consulting: AM or PM $75.00 $85.00 $ 100.00

Wednesday, May 5 Range Monitoring Course – includes manual and box lunch $ 175.00 $ 185.00 $ 195.00

Wednesday, May 5 Kelowna Habitats Field Tour - PM Only $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 35.00

Saturday, May 8 Endocrine Disruptors & Pollution Source Control – includes lunch $150.00 $160.00 $ 175.00

Saturday, May 8 Habitat Restoration for Biologists – includes manual and lunch $ 125.00 $ 135.00 $ 150.00

Saturday, May 8 Natural History and Wine Tasting Tour – includes box lunch Companion ticket (APB member’s companion gets the member’s rate)

$ 90.00 $ 90.00

$ 95.00 $ 95.00

$ 105.00 $ 105.00

Additional Lunch Ticket - each $ 35.00 $ 40.00 $ 45.00

Additional Wine & Cheese Ticket - each $ 50.00 $ 55.00 $ 60.00

Additional Banquet Ticket - each $ 85.00 $ 90.00 $ 95.00

*Take 15% off any Wednesday or Saturday training/events with full conference package

Sub Total

Add voluntary Natural Capital Project tax deductible donation from below:

TOTAL

Conference Registration deadline is Friday, April 23th, 2010

Members in the student category of the APB may be eligible for a reduced registration package—call the office at 250-383-3306.

If paying by cheque, make cheque payable to the Association of Professional Biologists, print this form & send the cheque & form to: APB Office, 205 - 733 Johnson Street, Victoria, BC, V8W 3C7 To pay by Visa or MasterCard, phone 250-383-3306, or fax this form to 250-383-2400 Visa or MasterCard Number ________________________________exp date____/____ No refunds after April 7, 2010. Images and recordings of the conference may be used for future APB purposes.

For conference rate accommodation call the Coast Capri Hotel, 1-800-716-6199 by April 7, 2010 – reference the Applied Biology Conference – Hotel Website: http://www.coasthotels.com/hotels/canada/bc/kelowna/coast_capri/overview --------------------------------------*staff will tear off here to forward to The Grasslands Conservation Council of BC (GCC)*-------------------------------- Build local opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint! This year, conference participants have the opportunity to support a local project working to reduce human impacts to the biosphere. The Grasslands Conservation Council of BC’s (GCC) Natural Capital Project evaluates the capacity of temperate grasslands for carbon storage and assesses the potential for increased carbon sequestration through improved management. Our conference is located in the heart of BC’s southern interior grasslands. Why not contribute locally to conserving critical ecosystems, biodiversity and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions? Help lead the way with a 2010 tax-deductible donation to the GCC as part of your registration. $ 25.00 $ 35.00 $ 50.00 Other Amount: $____________ The GCC will use this form to issue you a tax receipt after the conference. Visit www.bcgrasslands.org for more information.

Name: __________________________ Address: ___________________________________________

City: _______________________ Prov: ________ Postal Code ________ Contact Phone: (_____) _____ -_________


5th annual applied biology conference Water, Wind and Wildlife

May 5th – 8th, 2010 Coast Capri Hotel, Kelowna, BC

PRE & POST CONFERENCE SESSIONS* May 5th Fundamentals of Management Consulting: Professional biology is founded on the ability of those with specialized knowledge being able to communicate their opinions to managers and decision-makers.This half day course will help you improve how you give and receive consulting advice. Learn the fundamentals of management consulting; how to help clients assess their current situation, develop strategies for business improvement and address change. The course will review the consulting process and the deliverables associated with that process. Instructor: Canadian Association of Management Consultants. Choose either AM or PM. Lunch is not included. 4 CPD Credits May 5th: BC Grasslands Conservation Council Range Monitoring Course: Maintaining healthy, reliable grass from year to year while dealing with fluctuating climatic conditions and shifting operational needs can be challenging. Whether grasslands are on Crown or private lands, monitoring is a useful way to measure change. This all day course (2 hours classroom; remainder in the field) will provide a systematic approach for recording changes that are currently occurring on the land, and the changes that can be expected based on continued management practices. Includes box lunch and field session (bring appropriate outdoor wear). Instructors: Ken MacKenzie & Wendy Gardner. Course may be limited to 25 participants. 8 CPD Credits May 5th: APB Ethics Course: This half day course is structured to meet the College of Applied Biology’s requirement that new members complete an ethics seminar within three years of registration and the College’s recommendation that every RPBio include ethics-related CPD hours in his/her professional development at least once in every three year period. Instructors: Megan Hanacek & Eric White. Offered AM or PM; Lunch is not included. 4 CPD Credits May 5th: Kelowna Habitats Field Tour. This informal half day tour will visit habitat mitigation projects and sites of ecological interest in the Kelowna area. Sites include the WRB Floating Bridge lakeside wetland compensation and mitigation project, a previously-enclosed but newly-exposed (day-lighted) stream restoration project, a barley conversion plant and, time-allowing, a community streamside trail system with interesting methods of instream restoration. Leaders: Darryl Arsenault and Paul Christie. Offered PM Only; Lunch is not included. 4 CPD Credits May 8th Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals and Pollution Source Control Course: Many organic chemicals found in everyday household products are discharged to air and water and persist in the fatty tissues of prey organisms in the ecosystem. This all day course will provide an overview of persistent organic pollutants that are endocrine disruptor chemicals. It will include a description of the sources, properties, and mechanism of action, exposure pathways and potential impacts for fish and humans. This course will also provide an overview of source control methods, including regulatory bans, stormwater management techniques, and other impact-reducing actions. Instructor: Dr. Frances Solomon. Lunch is included. 8 CPD points May 8th Ecological Restoration for Biologists: Natural processes have been “restoring” natural disturbances since the beginning of time. This all day workshop will explore how these natural processes can be applied to the restoration of human-disturbed sites. We will look at the processes of erosion and how natural systems solve erosion problems. We will also explore the natural processes that provide nutrients and nutrient cycling and how these can be re-established. In many cases the systems and processes that naturally reclaim disturbed sites can be established on anthropogenic disturbances easily and at a lower cost than using traditional reclamation techniques. Instructor: Dave Polster. Lunch is included. 8 CPD points May 8th Natural History and Wine-Tasting Tour of the South Okanagan: This full-day narrated bus tour with renowned naturalist and author Dick Cannings will explore natural history and land-use issues including geology; land developments; wildfire; deer and sheep winter range; rattlesnake management; wildlife movement corridors; antelope-brush ecosystems; wetlands; and more. You will visit Vaseux Lake bird sanctuary; the Okanagan River restoration project; enjoy a box lunch, desert walk, displays, special show and wine-tasting at the Okanagan First Nation Nk’mip Desert Cultural Centre & Winery; and you’ll see snake-fencing and dryland restoration among other sustainable practices—including more wine tasting—at Tinhorn Creek Vineyards. Primary Tour Guide: Dick Cannings. Tour is limited to 46 participants. Lunch is included. Wear appropriate outdoor clothing and footwear. Bring binoculars if you have them. 8 CPD points *These sessions will only proceed if there are sufficient registrants by April 7, 2010


5th annual applied biology conference Water, Wind and Wildlife

Wednesday, May 5th

*Will only proceed with sufficient registration by April 7, 2010

Thursday, May 6th Trade Show - all day 7:30 – 8:30 CAB AGM Breakfast Meeting 2 9:00 – 9:15 Welcomes and Introductions 1 9:15– 9:45 Stewart Guy – Env. Assessment &

Biologists: Gov’t Perspective 1

9:45– 10:05 Mike Wise – IPP Project Development: Industry Perspective

1

10:05 – 10:15 Question period 10:15 – 10:45 Networking Break 10:45 – 11:05 Charlie Palmer – Biological

Challenges for Wind Energy EAs 1

11:05 – 11:25 Eric Miller & Doug Hurst – Low Impact Hydro Development Planning

1

11:25 – 11:45 Elke Wind – Run-of-River Hydro Power and Tailed Frogs

1

11:45 – 12:00 Question period 12:00 – 12:30 Premier Gordon Campbell

(or designate)

12:30 – 1:30 Vintners Lunch Buffet 1:30 – 1:50 Rhonda Millikin – Remote Sensing

of Night Migrant Bats and Birds 1

1:50 – 2:10 Rob Barclay – Bats & Wind Turbine Management

1

2:10 – 2:30 Dale Seip – Caribou & Wind Farms in North-Eastern BC

1

2:30 – 2:40 Question period 2:40 – 3:00 Don Gosnell – Mountain Pine Beetle

& BC’s BioEnergy Initiative 1

3:00 – 3:05 Question period 3:05 – 3:30 Networking Break 3:30 – 5:30 APB AGM 2 6:30 – No Host Bar and Awards Banquet –

Dr. Brian Riddell, Politics and Pacific Salmon

Friday, May 7th 8:00 – 9:00 Registration & coffee CPD 9:00 – 9:05 Welcome 9:05 – 9:25 Larry Bailey – Business of

Restoration 1

9:25 – 9:45 Nancy Newhouse – Columbia Valley Local Conservation Fund

1

9:45 – 10:05 Brian Wilkes – BC Collaborative Watershed Governance Initiative

1

10:05 – 10:15 Question Period 10:15 – 10:45 Networking Break 10:45 – 11:05 Steve Mathews – Okanagan River

Restoration 1

11:05 – 11:25 Paul Askey – Fish-Water Decision Tool

1

11:25 – 11:45 Howie Wright – Sockeye Re-introduction in the Okanagan

1

11:45 – 12:00 Question period 12:00 – 1:00 Vintners Lunch Buffet 1:00 – 1:20 Alexandra de Jong-Westman –

Pesticides: Why Frogs Croak! 1

1:20 – 1:40 Jamie Slogan – Marine Habitat Compensation

1

1:40 – 1:50 Question Period 1:50 – 2:10 Matt Austin – Conservation

Framework Pilot: Approach to Decision Making

1

2:10 – 2:30 Lisa Scott – Invaders Make Bad Neighbours: Invasive Plants

1

2:30 – 2:40 Question period 2:40 – 3:00 2011 Conference Planning

Adjourn

Saturday, May 8th

* Will only proceed with sufficient registration by April 7, 2010

8:00 – Registration & coffee CPD 8:30 – 12:00 *Ethics AM 4 8:30 – 12:00 *Management Consulting AM 4 8:30 – 4:45 *Range Monitoring Course 8 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch is not included in Ethics,

Management Consulting or Tour

1:00 – 4:30 *Ethics PM 4 1:00 – 4:30 *Management Consulting PM 4 1:00 – 4:45 *Kelowna Habitats Tour – PM Only 4 5:00 – 6:30 Wine & Cheese/TRADE SHOW

8:30 – 4:30 * Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals and Pollution Source Control

8

8:30 – 4:30 * Habitat Restoration for Biologists 8 8:30 – 5:30 * Natural History and Wine-Tasting

Tour of the South Okanagan 8

BioNews v.20 1

Documents

Transcript of BioNews v.20 1