The Hypocrisy of David Suzuki

As appearing in the Courier-Islander;

An open letter to Dr. David Suzuki published here by request.

Scientist or paid mouthpiece?

I recently attended your presentation to Campbell River Chamber members on March 6th, 2009, the first talk in a series entitled “Inspiring Success”. I find it necessary to comment and question a few statements you had made in regards to salmon farming in British Columbia.

You made a very good point about the importance of wild salmon that return to their streams to fertilize the coastal ecology. I agree that we need to increase public awareness of this and ensure we conserve wild salmon stocks.

You also acknowledge that “aquaculture is absolutely necessary”, but that salmon isn’t a species that we should be farming because we shouldn’t be “growing carnivores in the water”.

But while you seem to condemn farming salmon, you actually promote Alaska salmon ranching (“David Suzuki Reader”, page 368). Ranched salmon are raised in hatcheries and net pens and then released into the ocean basin to compete for food with wild salmon. Few of these fish get to streams to fertilize the west slope watersheds. Even worse, the general public is being deceived into thinking wild Alaskan salmon stocks are flourishing due to a large commercial harvest. They’re not!

When ranched salmon return to their hatchery of birth, they are taken by commercial fishing vessels, sport fishers and the hatchery itself. These fish are not wild.

To be clear, neither salmon ranching nor salmon farming is meant to enhance natural stocks of wild salmon. Both farming and ranching grow salmon for the same purpose – for human benefit. So if you take issue with “growing” salmon, why do you attack one producer and promote another?

It’s important to note that salmon farmers in BC have made great strides to reduce the amount of fish meal and fish oil used in salmon feed. In fact, these improvements may be due in part to pressures from ENGOs like the David Suzuki Foundation. A past criticism was that it took three pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of farmed salmon. This may have been true 10-15 years ago, but not today. Thanks to efficient feed management and new diets, including vegetable proteins and oils, it now takes less than 1.7 pounds of wild fish to produce one pound of salmon. It’s expected that within two years, new diets will be a “net producer” of fish. In other words; less than one pound of wild fish needed to grow one pound of salmon.

But instead of acknowledging this achievement, you stated on March 6th, “The Japanese have shown that by the time you get up to 15% of (feed) pellets being vegetables, those salmon don’t taste like salmon anymore.” This statement is completely false and isn’t based on science, but on subjective taste.

I am disappointed that you continue to express your opinions, while omitting important information that may help your listeners create their own views. I look forward to your response to my concerns.

Craig Sherman,

Saltspring Island

Should Alaska’s salmon be MSC certified?

Who needs stinkin’ certification anyways? Well, apparently Alaska salmon fishermen don’t think they do. This appeared today on Callander McDowell’s website.

Just another lobby group?

Alaska thinks their salmon product is so sustainable that consumers just know it. They don’t need certification. So, in a strange turn of events, the Marine Stewardship Council’s US office is now asking consumers to “lean” on the Alaskan industry to make them renew their certification.

Why does MSC need Alaska so bad? Well, of all 2000 MSC certified products, 1500 are Alaskan fish and 700 are specifically Alaskan salmon.

Maybe MSC will finally start to look at other parts of the world for sustainable seafood and stop being lobbyists for everything Alaskan.

To view the entire article, click here.

Blogfish: Wild fish vs. Farmed fish

We have been following a blog called “Blogfish” for a while now. Good stuff to check out. In a past blog, they’ve written about Alaska’s “half-farmed salmon”. Today, they have a great post about the efficiency of farming fish – in relation to the amount of protein used. This information is relevant to our blog as we have continued to point to the fact that “farming” fish is much more efficient than “ranching” them.

As posted on Blogfish:

Time for a battle royal, a smackdown over who’s the real sustainable source of fish, fishing or fish farms.

Right now, fishing has the moral high ground with stories on contamination in farmed fish and ocean harm from fish farms. But aquaculture is making a strong push with economic clout and improving technology, and the acccurate pitch that the world needs farmed fish.

Now a fish farming business is making a run at the moral high ground of sustainability, with a striking new argument that actually rings true to me.

To read more, click here.

Finally, some “Intelligence” about Alaska ranched salmon

The Truth About Alaska Salmon is pleased to see that Seafood Intelligence dot com is providing it’s readers some insight into Alaska’s ranching program. As described below, we find the unwillingness for promoters of Alaskan salmon to even discuss its salmon ranching program astonishing. Thankfully, there are journalists within Seafood Intelligence that will keep asking the questions until someone provides answers! 

Posted March 6, 2009, by Seafood Intelligence dot com.

We publish today the third part (out of 6) of a Seafood Intelligence investigation on issues relating to the sustainability and traceability of fish feeds used in Alaska’s ‘wild’ salmon hatchery programmes. Our interest for this issue was prompted by three events: 1) the 2007 melamine-in-feed food safety crisis (the largest in the FDA’s history), 2) the June 2007 ruling by a US federal court judge in Washington that “a healthy hatchery [salmon] population is not necessarily an indication of a healthy natural population.” [Thus that hatchery salmon cannot “necessarily” be considered as ‘wild’ when it comes to seeking protection for the species under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA)]; and 3) the WWF-initiated ‘Stinky Fish’ campaign, which was scaled-down only days following its launch after creating a huge ’stink’ and being criticised for its bias. Our questions are all the more relevant that the Alaska fisheries authorities are at odds with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) as they strenuously argue that MSC certification for AK salmon should be “either for the entire state, or not at all.” Even Wal-Mart (which will soon only sell MSC-labelled seafood in its stores) has been pulled in on the topic… It is noteworthy that many fishermen’s organisations failed to answer our questions; so did many of the staunch critics of salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest, as we challenged the very notion of (some) Pacific salmon’s wilderness and redefined arguments in a debate too often simplified into a counter-productive wild-vs.-farmed opposition… “In Alaska, hatchery fish are carefully differentiated from farmed fish and are promoted as wild even though they are not ‘truly wild’.” wrote the Management of the WWF Global Marine Programme in a detailed response to Seafood Intelligence.

For more, click here.