Dog Apparel: It's A Dogs Life

I don't usually spend much time promoting "stuff to buy" on this blog, but today I just had to "break the rules." Zazzle, an online POD site that has the artistic community in a creative frenzy,  has recently begun showcasing a new line of apparel for man's best friend- and their ever cheeky designers have stepped up to the challenge. If you love dogs, you just have to check out some of these absolutely ADORABLE pup related clothes and designs- some of them had me rolling on the floor laughing this morning! Enjoy some light humor this Saturday morning while we wait for the whales to return (hopefully later today!!!)

DOG APPAREL THAT IS TOO CUTE TO MISS

I've shown the dogs wearing them in the first row only, but all are actually dog shirts!! LOL

		FETCH! Dog Shirt by

Custom Stamps for All Occasions!: Damask Diva Custom Wedding Stamps and Stickers Now Online!

Custom Stamps for All Occasions!: Damask Diva Custom Wedding Stamps and Stickers Now Online!

Action For Salmon Restoration Initiative

Neither the 20th century nor the last half of the 19th have been kind to Pacific Northwest salmon runs. The Columbia-Snake Basin was once the most productive salmon watershed in the world, but today salmon returns number just 1% of its historic salmon and steelhead populations — severely reducing fishing opportunities and fishing economies for scores of communities across the Pacific Coast and inland West. Overfishing, degradation of habitat and the building of the Columbia River system dams have all helped devastate not only the salmon but concurrently, the entire natural ecosystem. For too long the fate of salmon and the salmon economy has been in the hands of a federal bureaucracy that has been unwilling to consider many options for recovering the various endangered species of Pacific Northwest Salmon, even going so far as to ignore science, filter results and establish means by which to ignore both the endangered species act and citizens concerns. In the interim, salmon and the region have continued to pay the price.

This year, many have looked toward the Obama administration to craft an effect plan to reverse this alarming trend. And in a potentially historic move this week, the federal government has sought a delay of up to two months as it develops a plan to save salmon in the Columbia River Basin from extinction.  In a letter to a federal judge, the Obama administration said top officials want more time to "more fully understand all aspects" of the salmon restoration and recovery plan.

The Northwest and the nation need a new way forward for Columbia & Snake River salmon that will restore science to decision-making, protect the integrity of the Endangered Species Act, and wisely invest American taxpayer dollars into revitalizing our communities. A lasting solution will recover salmon, create jobs, and help build a clean energy future. With science leading the way, the hope of real salmon abundance can be realized.

Organizations such as Save Our Wild Salmon, have been leading the way in the fight to save the Pacific Northwest Salmon since 1991. A nationwide coalition of conservation organizations, commercial and sportsfishing associations, businesses, river groups, and taxpayer advocates make up this group, working collectively to restore self-sustaining, abundant, and harvestable populations of wild salmon and steelhead to rivers, streams and oceans of the Pacific Salmon states.

With the Obama Administration clearly indicating they want the time to review the science to develop appropriate protocols going forward, now is the time to impress Washington with the plight of the salmon.  You can click here to TAKE ACTION or read the letter below being circulated by conservation organizations.

"Wild pacific salmon are a national treasure - an awe-inspiring symbol of healthy rivers, good jobs, nutritious food, and thriving communities. The Snake and Columbia Rivers were once home to the largest salmon populations on the planet.

Today, however, many of these populations are facing extinction. The latest federal plan for the Columbia-Snake Basin perpetuates decades of ineffective federal policies and billions of taxpayer dollars that have failed to protect salmon and steelhead from declining toward extinction. We are in urgent need of a new approach that is firmly grounded in both good science and fiscal responsibility. 

Four federal dams on the lower Snake River prevent salmon from surviving to return to some of the biggest, wildest, highest, coldest, healthiest and best-protected habitat remaining in the continental United States. These dams make the downstream migration of young salmon an untenably lethal one, killing as much as 90% of these Snake River fish before they ever reach the Pacific Ocean.

The science and economics are clear: any effective salmon plan must include the removal of these costly and out-dated dams. The federal government's current approach, which ignores the science supporting lower Snake River dam removal as part of a comprehensive suite of recovery measures, fails endangered salmon, fishing communities, and American taxpayers. 

I strongly urge your leadership in Congress to craft legislation authorizing the removal of the four lower Snake River dams. This action must be part of a scientifically sound and fiscally responsible plan that will restore wild salmon, create jobs, save taxpayer dollars, revitalize communities, and ensure the survival of this national treasure for future generations. I look forward to hearing from you about your efforts to safeguard imperiled wild salmon. Thank you."

Subscribe in a reader

San Juan County Transfer Station Decision- Hot off the Presses

County council votes 4 to 1 for Sutton Road site for SJI transfer station

posted 04/29/2009
San Juan County Council voted 4 to 1 with Bob Myhr absent and chose the current Sutton Road property as the site for the the new San Juan Island Transfer station. Councilmember Richard Fralick favored the Beaverton Valley site because of co-location and elimination of uncertainties. He said he couldn't tell his constituents I looked "at other alternatives I chose a site more expensive that doesn't allow co-location, will cost more for building and in tipping fees."

Councilmember Gene Knapp wanted an independent cost analysis done before anything else was done bur ended up being the deciding fourth vote.

Councilmember Rich Peterson said a powerful arguement was the fact neighbors of the Sutton Road property moved in knowing the landfill was there.

Councilmember Lovel Pratt made the motion which ranked the sites as Sutton Road first, Beaverton Valley second and Daniel Lane third. She cited traffic concerns, neighbors' expectations, recouping the expenses of temporarily fixing the current site.

Councilmember Howie Rosenfeld said, "We can make Sutton Road work." The description of the town-owned contaminated property as a "time bomb" by citizens during the public hearing made him more convinced of his decision to chose Sutton Road, the former town councilmember said.

Update on the Navy Sonar In The San Juan Islands

UPDATE TO MY LAST POST

Throughout the night of April 7th, anyone listening to the hydrophones at Lime Kiln State Park heard 8 uninterrupted hours of underwater voices followed by echoing pings of military sonar every ten minutes.  You can listen to a clip of the recorded exercises by clicking this link, but be sure to TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME.

According to Dr. Val Veirs, president of The Whale Museum board and professor emeritus of physics at Colorado College, decibel levels of sonar pings recorded off the west side of San Juan Island April 7-8 may have been the same level as sonar pings implicated in the deaths of several beaked whales in the Bahamas in October 2003. “The received levels of the signals at Lime Kiln Lighthouse were about the most intense sounds that the hydrophones there have recorded in the past several years of continuous operation,” he said. "The highest received levels came from sonar pings and were approximately 140 dB re 1 microPascal." This is approximately the same as the most intense sonar signals recorded in May 2003 when the (USS) Shoup transited the waters of Haro Strait. Biologists on the water at the time reported that killer whales seemed to be fleeing from the sound. Since then, Navy ships are required to receive permission from fleet commanders before operating sonar in Puget Sound. That was in 2003.

"The garbled voices we heard today were communications between the submarine and a surface tender," Veirs said. "We estimate that the distance between our hydrophone at Lime Kiln Lighthouse and the submarine was in the neighborhood of 10 nautical miles and for our hydrophones to pick up the strong signals that they did, the submarine was emitting sound with source level in the range 175 dB to 225 dB re 1 microPasca1.”

Veirs said the sounds were heard for many miles in a variety of underwater locations — from the east at Whidbey Island to the north of San Juan Island and out toward the ocean in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. And of significant concern was the fact the sonar was taking place where there were reports of Transients, a minke, & 2 gray whales only hours before the episode began.

By 8:00pm on the 8th, Navy spokeswoman Sheila Murray confirmed that the fast-attack submarine USS San Francisco, accompanied by a surface ship, was operating its sonar last night as it passed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The sub was conducting “required training dives” and did not enter Haro Strait, she said. The Navy undertakes precautions to protect marine mammals, she noted.  The full story has been covered locally and throughout the Pacific Northwest- you can click HERE for more details.

This past December, The Navy and several plaintiffs, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Cetacean Society International, the League for Coastal Protection, the Ocean Futures Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a worldwide challenge to the Navy's testing and training with mid-frequency active sonar. The settlement essentially adopts the long range program for environmental analysis and research , forcing the Navy to continue to implement a variety of protective measures in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That agreement does not require any additional mitigation measures. General Counsel for the Navy, Frank Jiminez commented after the settlement, "The Navy welcomes an approach that relies more upon scientific research than litigation."

Just this week, researchers issued a study indicating sonar causes temporary hearing loss in dolphins. Findings show that when the dolphins were exposed to progressively louder pings of mid-frequency sonar up to 203 dBs, neurological data showed the mammal had become deaf, for its brain no longer responded to sound.

While concerns are heightened right now, it is important to stress that the Navy has been proposing a substantial increase in these types of exercises throughout the Pacific Northwest. Plans to expand operations such as adding dummy minefields, scheduling hundreds more training flights and warfare simulations over land and sea, and increasing the use of sonar are scheduled, adding potential threats to endangered and threatened whales and other marine mammals throughout the region.

The Navy says that the pending increases in warfare activities are necessary and their draft environmental impact statement, released Dec. 29, concludes (with no surprise) that expanded training won't harm marine life or the public. But environmental groups, fishermen and some politicians are wary, stating that the military sprang the 1,000-page environmental review of its increased training plan with little notice and has provided only minimal assessment periods or input from residents.

At risk are the southern resident orcas and nine marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered, including seven whales. And thanks to George Bush and more recently, The Supreme Court, it certainly appears as though the Navy's plans may go completely unchallenged despite the incongruity of the situation at hand. There is hope, however. The comment period, once limited to a couple of weeks between January 27 and mid-February, has now been extended to April 13, 2009, to allow for additional public input. Should you be so inclined, please take a look at the Draft Impact Statement (as ugly as it is) and send your comments to the Government. You can also send an email or fill out a comment form online. 

Subscribe in a reader

Sonar Heard For Six Hours in The Salish Seas

Following a magnificent day in the Pacific Northwest- temps in the 70's and hours spent watching a shiny ball of heat in the sky which we rarely see but is apparently known to others as "the sun," (smiles) I snapped this photo just as the sun fell fell behind the profile of Vancouver Island at 7:02pm. All was right with the world- spring temperatures had welcomed back a myriad of frogs and it was to their chorus I that I fell asleep.

This morning, however, I was forced to see the other side of what had been my reality only hours beforehand; underwater, the night had not been so peaceful. Logging on to Facebook (feel free to add me as a friend if you'd like!) I was astounded by what I was seeing and hearing. As you already know, if you have read this blog before, we have been actively advocating public response to proposed increases in military training exercises planned in and around the area as well as trying to focus efforts on public awareness- explaining impacts on this tenuous marine environment called the Salish Sea.

Last night proved the efforts must continue. Listeners tuning in to the Lime Kiln Hydrophones  anytime after 6:55 pm were afforded the chance to acoustically engage in active military training for six +hours. While listening, one could have enjoyed listening to repeated sonar pings and underwater voices emanating from Navy vessels training exercises in the area, exercises which later confirmed by the military as having taken place in these waters. Jeanne Hyde provided an overview of the events as they occurred on her blog, staying up through the morning hours to follow it. Scott Viers, lead instructor and acoustics expert at Beam Reach, a Marine Science and Sustainability School, also tracked this event and provides a significant story HERE. So, if you're curious about what it sounds like, LISTEN HERE but beware, there are loud pings of sonar on the soundclip- TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME.

Which brings up back to the ocean inhabitants that are being further stressed in their already deteriorating environment. Just yesterday, transient killer whales were seen throughout the afternoon right in the same area where the exercises were being conducted- within hours of one another.  

Some excellent further reading on the issue if you are still on the fence about sending your thoughts to the Navy:

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL PUBLIC STATEMENT

GREAT ARTICLE INTERVIEW OF NAVY

ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY OCEAN NOISE OVERVIEW : SCIENCE, POLICY LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

AEI FACTCHECK

Bottom line: Navy: Clinging to exceedingly hard line as it embraces stewardship

The Navy seems truly mystified at the uproar being made over sonar training, given the very few incidents over the past decades of mid-frequency active sonar deployment. Many seem to feel that judges who imposed additional safety measures did not really understand the modeling of impacts and scientific minutia used by the Navy and NMFS in designing current safetey measures. There really is a sense within the Navy that this is not a huge problem, thought it clearly deserves attention, and that their famous "29 Measures" are sufficient to minimize future risk. Whether the adoption of these formal standards emerged from within after the Bahamas and later incidents, or was triggered by the outside scrutiny spurred by NRDC and others, there appears to be an authentic desire to do what needs to be done to protect whales. We can assume additional mitigation measures suggested by others, and even those adopted by allies, are truly considered to be excessive and of little practical value in protecting whales from harm.

Even if all this is true, there remain a few areas in which the Navy's approach to the issue leaves much to be desired.

First is the focus on being satisfied with avoiding physical injury, which leads inevitably to discounting behavioral disruption as a cause for concern.

Second is the seeming deaf ear the Navy turns to any suggestion that it put some areas off-limits to sonar training. Look again at the map near the beginning of this report; can it really be true that every square mile of all those ranges off the US east coast contains crucially unique training opportunities, and that putting biologically rich or seasonally important areas off-limits would cripple our training abilities? This attitude cannot help but undermine the public's faith in the Navy to make balanced, prudent decisions on its own.

Third is the vagueness contained in the 29 Protective Measures concerning changes in procedure when the Bahamas-like "contributing factors" are encountered. As noted above, the language here does not inspire confidence that the Navy is taking the threat of injury seriously even in the one very specific set of circumstances that it is convinced is the only situation in which sonar can kill whales. The lack of extended aerial surveys prior to powering up sonar is especially troubling, since beaked whales are so difficult to spot at the surface. Most likely, the Navy simply feels that the likelihood that whales will be present is so low that it does not justify exerting the effort to look for them, or it trusts that in nearly all cases, the whales will hear and avoid the sonar without injury. Even if they are correct in these assumptions, this is a key place where going the extra mile would indicate a level of good faith that is sorely needed to build confidence in their commitment to safe practices.

Related to this is the small size of the US Navy's safety zones, compared to those used by other Navies. As noted above, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in deferring to the lower court's increase of the shut-down zone from 500 yards to 2000 meters, noted that "NATO imposes a 2,000 meter shutdown zone when a marine mammal is detected–the same zone that the district court’s preliminary injunction requires. The Australian Navy goes farther, mandating a shutdown of activities if a marine mammal is detected within 4,000 yards of a sonar-emitting vessel," and further calculated that the 2000 meter zone would only lead to one or two shut-downs per week of training, hardly crippling training preparedness.

Finally, the Navy's reluctance to encourage more investigation—or even acknowledge enduring ambiguity—of stranding events that do not fit the current clear-cut model of sonar-induced stranding is short-sighted, also undermining pubic confidence in its commitment to do its best. While it is difficult to ever really know what caused many—perhaps most—strandings, the Navy seems too eager to brush aside questions about events that don't fit its simple, specific picture. Acknowledging our uncertainty about the ways that animals may react to sonar, and so treating some of the ambiguous events as possibly sonar-induced, would certainly complicate things for the Navy, but it would not tie them to making operational changes based on these uncertain events. It would, however, show that the Navy is authentically considering the full spectrum of possible impacts that its activities may be having, and would allow the Navy to engage more honestly with scientists and environmental advocates as we slowly unravel some of the mysteries and uncertainties that currently limit our understanding.

This last point was starkly highlighted during a June 2008 press event in which the Navy took reporters and several scientists on a sonar training exercise off Virginia. In its briefings, the Navy repeated its well-known mantra: Only five stranding events have been "linked scientifically" with sonar since its inception in 1939....No strandings have been "linked scientifically" to the U.S. Navy since 2000....And, finally, "No scientific evidence exists proving mid-frequency active sonar has ever killed any marine mammals as a direct and sole cause of death." (i.e., they are injured by the changes in their dive patterns, and/or by being tossed about on the beach after stranding, rather than by direct acoustic impact/trauma). Even the scientists that were hand-picked by the Navy to participate in this PR exercise could not abide the stridency of the Navy's message: Nina Young, of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (a multi-agency coordinating group) said the Navy uses uncertain cause of death rulings to downplay possible links between sonar and mammals. "It's unfortunate that the threshold for the Navy seems so absolute, and the burden of proof so high, that it undermines efforts to engage in a productive discussion," she said, while Andrew Wright, a marine mammal scientist who has worked for the Marine Mammal Commission and NOAA, said definitive proof of sonar's effect on whales didn't exist until recently. "We've only really known about the problem since 2000, 2002. We don't have long-term information, even on humans. There's so much uncertainty around this, and it all depends on where you place the burden of proof."

Remembering the crucial point that routine use of active sonar far exceeds the use of sonar in training situations, the Navy could dramatically advance its own cause by being less adament in all these ways as it conducts its training missions. Of course, that would require a long-term institutional commitment to minimize potential harm; and indeed, there are many within the military with authentic desires to work constructively with scientists, regulators, and other civilians, as well as in balance with Congressional and judicial oversight. So far, however, the decision-making apparatus, appears to remain in the hands of those more commited to maintaining the Pentagon's autonomy in the face of public or judicial opinion.

For more information, see AEI Special Report: Active Sonars - Includes continually updated news items, tracking of range-specific EIS releases, technology descriptions, current deployment, and links to military, agency, and NGO websites. [GO THERE]

You can read the Proposed EIS Plan or go directly to the comment page here.

An Interview With A Whale Named Mike

Courtesy of The San Juan Journal

 J-26 tells all in interview; voice-recognition software enables orca to share views with humans

By SCOTT RASMUSSEN

Journal of the San Juans Reporter
Today, 9:41 AM · UPDATED

Voice-recognition software has been developed that enables researchers at The Whale Museum to translate Southern resident orca dialect into English.  For the first time, researchers employed the technology to conduct an interview with a killer whale — and get answers to age-old questions.

J-26 will now take your questions.

?“What time do the whales go by?” — Barry Thick, 55, Bellevue.

J-26: Thursdays at 2:45 p.m. Just kidding, Barry. The answer is whatever time we damn well please.

“Do orcas eat only chinook salmon? — Natasha Pollock, 30-something, Everett.

J-26: It’s like choosing between filet mignon and top sirloin. They’re meatier and juicier and really yummy. So kings are generally our first choice. But we’re at the top of the food chain so, well, you get the picture. Personally, at my age, I snack a lot on rockfish because of the fiber.

“Do you feel harassed by all those boats?” — Megan Propwash, 12, Orcas Island.

J-26: It’s no picnic. Imagine a bee or a mosquito constantly buzzing in your ears while your pushing a shopping cart down the aisle at the grocery store. But we’re highly-evolved marine mammals, so we adapt.

Frankly, I don’t get it. It’s not like we’ve got Brad Pitt or Britney Spears in our pods. And don’t get me started on that Navy sonar.

“Does sonar hurt?” — Lt. Monica Ping, 33, Oak Harbor.

J-26: Are you kidding? Think fingernails on a chalkboard, times 100. The real irony is that even with sonar, helicopters and night-vision goggles, the U.S. and Canada are completely unaware of all those Iranian nuclear-powered submarines going in and out of Puget Sound almost every month.

“What’s it like being so full of toxic chemicals?” — Melvin Isotope, 28, Friday Harbor.

J-26: It’s like drinking way too much coffee on an empty stomach. Try it sometime.

“Where do you guys go for the winter?” — Jack Frost, 87, Shaw Island.

J-26: We’ve gone to a lot of different places over the years. The youngsters like Disneyland but personally, I’m fond of the Bay Area. Pier 39 at Fisherman's Wharf is my favorite. We hung out around Astoria this past winter but a bunch of snarky sea lions were there pestering us. They can be a real pain in the dorsal.

“What do you think about those AIG bonuses?” — Alan Blackeyespan, 89, St. Croix.

J-26: Humans ... give ’em an inch and they’ll take your portfolio. In our world, we’ve got a way of dealing with sharks. I’m happy to hear some have given back their bonuses. Honestly though, there are bigger fish to fry.

“Did you know that you’re in danger of extinction?” — Jessie Endoveittall, 10, Lopez Island.

J-26: Come again? Do you mean extinction, as in forever? We’ve had our ups and downs but that’s the first I’ve heard about that. I’ll have to get back to you on that one.

“Ginger or Mary Ann?” — Bob Brawny, 42, Concrete.

J-26: “Mary Ann. She’s cute, sincere, and she adopted an orca.”

Reporter Scott Rasmussen can be reached at srasmussen@sanjuanjournal.com or 360-378-5696.

Update From Alexandra Morton About the Salmon Farming Efforts

OVERVIEW:

Lice that flourish on salmon farms are infesting juvenile wild salmon as they journey out to sea. The problem is pretty simple actually. Sea lice usually only infects salmon out at sea and dies off as adult fish make their way into fresh water where the lice cannot survive. Juvenile salmon are protected from contact with lice until they are out at sea where they are bigger and stronger. The large farms close to river mouths are exposing the juveniles to lice when they are too small to survive an infestation and wild populations are declining rapidly as a result. Read the full story HERE. And the LA Times did a great piece on farmed salmon which is a must read for anyone concerned about what we're eating and the impact on our environment- CLICK HERE for the story.

UPDATE ON EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE

British Columbia Fisheries critic, NDP MLA Robin Austin tables Letter addressed to Federal Minister of Fisheries and Premier Campbell demanding Fisheries Act be applied to salmon “farms.”

March 27, 2009- Hot Off The Wires

Letter written by wild salmon biologist Alexandra Morton, signed by 9,758 citizens in less than one month

(March 26, 2009, Victoria, B.C.) Robin Austin MLA for Skeena and Opposition Critic for Fisheries “tabled” a letter today in the Legislature calling on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada the Honourable Gail Shea and Premier Gordon Campbell to apply the Fisheries Act to the salmon net pen facilities. The letter states:

Wild salmon are the backbone of the BC Coast. On February 9, 2009 BC Supreme Court ruled that salmon farms are a fishery and a federal responsibility. The science is in. The feedlot fishery is damaging wild salmon stocks worldwide (Ford and Myers 2008). Fraser sockeye and all southcoast BC salmon and steelhead are now at risk as a result of the Provincial policy of allowing the feedlot fishery to use Canada's most valuable wild salmon habitat.

We the undersigned demand that Fisheries and Oceans Canada apply the Fisheries Act to this industry and immediately:

· Place observers during feedlot salmon harvest to assess unlawful by-catch;

· Examine feedlot salmon as they are cleaned for presence of wild fish in their digestive tract;

· Licence vessels transporting aquaculture salmon like all other

commercial fishing vessels;

· As per Pacific Fishery Regulation "Prohibited Fishing Methods" ban grow lights on fish feedlots to end wild prey species attraction into the pens;

· Remove the marine feedlot industry from wild salmon migration routes.

The landmark BC Supreme Court decision states, “The inclusion of fisheries in s. 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 was a recognition that fisheries, as a national resource, require uniformity of the legislation”.

We insist that the Fisheries Act be applied to the salmon feedlot fishery immediately.

Standing by, Alexandra Morton

Marine Harvest has appealed this decision, reportedly because the court does not recognize their fish as private property. The Campbell government has filed an “appearance” and so will be part of this process. If Marine Harvest is successful, they become “farms” again, enjoying the large tax breaks this brings and the ability to privatize fish and fish habitat.

Austin is no stranger to the issue. In 2007, NDP MLA Austin led the Special Legislative Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture which recommended fish farms move into tanks by 2012.

Ms Morton welcomes more signatures because “we don’t know how many are required to bring reason to this situation. The governments involved should always have applied the Fisheries Act fair and square on the salmon feedlot fishery,” states Morton, “just like every other marine user.” Morton first sent the letter on February 23, 2009. When there was no answer she asked 100 fishermen to join her in signing. “Now I have read thousands of angry emails from people throughout BC and Canada who are taking a stand to protect their communities and the future of this country.” Ninety-eight percent of the signers feel Campbell’s government has not done a good job of managing this industry.

“This is not about just another pretty fish. In the global economic storm, this is about economic and food security, our communities, politics and the law,” says Morton. “The court said they are a fishery, there is no plausible reason they should remain exempt from the Fisheries Act.”

To add your signature to the letter, see the signatures or learn more about this issue go to www.adopt-a-fry.org 

OR SIGN THE PETITION HERE

http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cEkxX3p3MGFBbWNVVGNVU3lxQnBwQmc6MA..

Update from Alexandra Morton About the Salmon Farming Efforts

This week, I received an update from Alexandra Morton regarding the efforts to better manage the Canadian Salmon Farming in the Pacific Northwest. Efforts are underway but she needs more help. You can read the entire story here.  

Alexandra Morton's Message:

Dear Folks

Our letter has become too big to send to all of you, I will try to post it later today on www.adopt-a-fry.org. This email below and the letter went to the Minister and the Premier a few minutes ago.  Please see the Globe and Mail article below. I believe we will need 2-3 times the signatures we have now to move government to do the right thing.

My deepest thanks to all of you---

alexandra

__________________________________________________

Dear Minister of Fisheries the honourable Gail Shea and Premier Campbell:

As noted in the Globe and Mail this morning, I have been sending you this letter for a month with no reply. What began with 100 signatures from local fishermen has grown to 7,309 signatures from around the world, but predominately British Columbia (5,785).

Premier Campbell, your government has allowed this industry to expand in the face of the most alarming wild salmon declines we have ever seen on this coast.

Minister Shea, this is not a situation of your making, but you have the opportunity to bring reason to this mess.

I will continue to take signatures to help you move past status quo and bring salmon “farming” into compliance with the laws of Canada. BC Supreme Court ruled they are no longer “farms,” they are a fishery. There is debate now as to whether Marine Harvest and the other salmon “farming” companies actually own their fish when they put them into Canadian waters,

All we are asking is for the Fisheries Act to be applied to this industry. As wild salmon decline all the other related fisheries have been increasingly restricted.....except the marine feedlot fishery. 

This is a threat to our coastal communities and the economy of British Columbia.

Standing by,

Alexandra Morton

To sign the petition to apply the Fisheries Act to fish farms the way it is applied to fishermen please click on the link below.

SIGN THE PETITION LINK

The Globe and Mail

Fisheries ignored 500 names. Can it ignore 5,000?

by Mark Hume

March 23, 2009

VANCOUVER -- The form letter that Premier Gordon Campbell and federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea keep ignoring is just getting longer.

In circulation for only a few weeks, it already has nearly 5,000 signatories, and more names are being added daily as it circulates on the Web.

When it first went to the politicians, 500 names were affixed. It was ignored, so it went back into circulation and soon was resubmitted with 2,000 names, then with 4,000. It's making the rounds again this week, and is still growing.

Started by research scientist and fisheries activist Alexandra Morton, the letter asks the government to take decisive action to protect wild salmon from the threats posed by salmon farms.

One of the key requests is that salmon farms be moved away from wild salmon migration routes because of the transmission of sea lice from caged fish.

The people who signed the letter worry that salmon farms are an unacceptable risk to wild stocks.

And that fear is about to be heightened by a study being released today that shows juvenile sockeye from the Fraser River are encountering fish farms at an alarming rate.

Michael Price, a biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation, and Craig Orr, executive director of Watershed Watch, studied 800 wild sockeye collected in 2007-08 in northern Georgia Strait.

About 70 per cent of those fish had one to 20 sea lice attached to them. And the fish caught near farms were the most likely to be infected.

"The lice levels appear to be higher near farms," said Mr. Price, who is still analyzing the data.

Past studies by Ms. Morton have documented the spread of lice from farms to wild pink and chum salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, an area off Vancouver Island's northeast shoulder.

But the study by Mr. Price and Dr. Orr looks at sockeye, and for the first time uses DNA analysis to trace the infected fish to their watershed of origin.

The researchers conclude most of the sockeye they caught migrating near salmon farms (60 per cent in 2007 and 99 per cent in 2008) came from the Fraser River.

Sockeye are the most valuable of all salmon species because they draw a higher price on the market and because they are the fish of choice for native food and ceremonial fisheries.

Mr. Price and Dr. Orr have now linked the most valuable fish, from B.C.'s most important salmon river, to farms and lice.

Mr. Price said juvenile sockeye can follow three routes as they migrate through Georgia Strait on the outward leg of their journey to the Gulf of Alaska.

"But all these routes converge before the Broughton Archipelago [at the north end of Georgia Strait] where there are a dozen farms," he said.

"It's clear that no fish can make this journey without encountering a farm."

Mr. Price said studies have shown that one to three lice can kill a juvenile pink salmon, so it's fair to assume sockeye are dying as well.

Could this help explain the collapse of Fraser River sockeye stocks?

Some people will no doubt find this an alarming possibility.

The form letter, triggered by concerns about pink and chum, describes wild salmon as "the backbone of the B.C. Coast," and urges both Ms. Shea and Mr. Campbell to protect migrating wild stocks from fish farms.

So far, the politicians have been able to ignore the ever-growing letter. But the new study can only ratchet up the pressure.

Now that people know it's not just pink salmon, but Fraser River sockeye stocks that are at risk, one has to wonder how many more names will get added to that letter.

Northwest Navy Training Range Comment Period Extended to APRIL 13

The Northwest Navy Training Range Comment Period HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY EXTENDED TO APRIL 13TH DUE TO PUBLIC INTEREST!!!

For information on the project, and ways to provide public comment, visit http://www.NWTRangeComplexEIS.com/. 

Want more information about the draft and the proposed impact in the Pacific Northwest and the Puget Sound? CLICK HERE.

We're having an impact, folks!!!! Please take some time to send your thoughts to the military by clicking THIS LINK.

Petition to Protect Wild Salmon written by Alexandra Morton

Since the mid 1970's Alexandra Morton has become famous for her career in whale and dolphin research, pioneering (some will say) the recording of orca vocalizations by utilizing hydrophones to record their calls and actually learning about "dialects" indigenous to pods of killer whales. As the decades passed, however, the whales, once a source of joy, began to decline in population, forcing her to begin focusing her efforts exclusively towards the cause of the decline in the populations. The answer became clear when the focus turned towards fish farms and sea lice.  Over the years, Morton and a group of salmon-farming opponents have been striving to increase public (international) awareness about alarming concerns regarding salmon farming, which threatens wild salmon, orcas and other predators.

Today, she hardly uses her hydrophone. "There's no point," she says, "since my subject is so rare now." These days, when Ms. Morton noses her workboat away from her dock here, she is on a crusade, seeking not orcas, but evidence against the salmon farms she believes drove most of the killer whales away, in part by infecting the wild salmon the whales eat with parasites called sea lice. Her work is a challenge to the salmon farm industry and to the Canadian and British Columbia officials who regulate it. And we are talking about a large scale industry ---more than 40 percent of the world's seafood is farm-raised and one of the largest centers for farming salmon is British Columbia, Canada. According to the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association, salmon farms produce $450 million worth of Atlantic salmon a year in British Columbia. At any given time, 70 to 80 farm sites operate in provincial waters, perhaps 29 or so in the Broughton, a hardly inhabited area across Queen Charlotte Strait from the north end of Vancouver Island. Typically, each installation has a collection of net pens, usually crossed by metal walkways, floating in a cove or bay. Individual sites typically contain 500,000 to 750,000 penned fish.

As tiny young wild salmon, smolts, pass by these pens on their way to sea, they can pick up so many lice they die, Ms. Morton and other researchers have reported. And the impact is devastating to the pacific Northwest Salmon- click on this link to read more about the impact. You can also read Ms. Morton's book entitled Stain Upon the Sea: West Coast Salmon Farming- a must-read for anyone concerned with the quality of the food they eat and the environmental health of the planet. Not surprisingly, Farm operators like Marine Harvest, a Norwegian concern that is a major presence in salmon farming here, concede that penned fish are vulnerable to microbes and parasites but say drugs and pesticides minimize the problem, virtually eliminating the risk to wild fish stocks. 

Just last month, the Canadian Federal government was awarded exclusive jurisdiction over the management of salmon farming in a ruling that was hailed as a landmark decision and a victory for the future of wild stocks. The court ruled salmon farms are fisheries, rather than farms, and therefore should be managed by the federal government. The ruling determined that "fish farms are not farms at all. They are fisheries. There is no private right of fishery in the ocean. These [farms] occupy areas that are meant for the rearing of wild salmon -- and that can only be authorized by the federal Parliament."

Sadly, this week British Columbia's biggest producer of farmed salmon, Marine Harvest Canada, (who, on their website boasts to producing one third (45,000 tons) of the world's farmed salmon and trout at facilities in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Canada, Ireland and the Shetland Islands) served a notice of intention to appeal the ruling of Justice Hinkson in BC Supreme Court. The company says it is concerned that Hinkson’s findings did not recognise the private property rights of salmon farmers. The company states that "their salmon" are private property, and are not part of the fishery as a public resource.

So the battles continue to the detriment of the orcas and the salmon alike. While the stalling continues in the courts, please take the time to review Alexandra Morton's petition directed to The Fisheries Minister and the Premier of British Columbia stressing the importance of applying the few means available to mitigate the impact on wild salmon wrought by the farmers. Please take a moment to check it out and sign if you agree that our wild salmon stock is worth saving in the Pacific Northwest.

Subscribe in a reader

Deadline for Comment Period on Increased Naval Presence in the San Juan Islands Coming up Shortly- MARCH 11

Postcards From Friday Harbor: Postcards From Friday Harbor: NAVY Plans to Increase Training Exercises over the San Juan Islands