March 27, 2003

To the Editor: 

I have grave concerns about the “environmental foundations” that are so vocal about how things should proceed on our coast. Do  “environmental foundations” really have benevolent agendas? 

The “big money” supporting most environmental foundations is American. For example, follow the money:

Ø       The Pew Foundation (American) gave over $108 million to the “Tides Foundation” (1990-2002).

Ø       The “Tides Foundation” (American) gave over $7.7 million to the SeaWeb project (American) (1996-2000).

Ø       One of SeaWeb’s team members is Dr. Carl Safina -- Director and founder of the National Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program

Ø       The Audubon Guide to Seafood (recommended by the David Suzuki Foundation) “black lists” all salmon, with the exception of Alaskan (American) caught salmon. See the Audubon Guide to Seafood.

 (http://magazine.audubon.org/seafood/guide) 

OUR salmon migrate through Alaskan waters! 

Ø       Are our Canadian wild salmon are being caught in Alaskan waters and sold with blessings from environmental organizations, while our own BC salmon, both wild and farmed are “black listed” all across America?

Ø       Is it a coincidence that Tony Knowles, Governor of Alaska is on the Pew Oceans Commission…  Pew, that very same “big money” mentioned at the start?

Ø       Should “environmental” organizations, which divert our attention by targeting our local salmon farms and who are promoting the demise of our wild stocks for American profit, have our “ear” or our respect?

Ø       Is this an environmental agenda or is it a political/financial agenda?

Ø      Is it not time we began questioning the ethics of these “environmental foundations”?

Ø       Do your own research… follow the money.

April 4, 2003

To the Editor, 

The Audubon Society  & The David Suzuki Foundation both recommend seafood watch cards which tell people that Alaska wild caught salmon are an environmentally friendly ‘buy’ while “black listing” our BC salmon, wild or farmed. Even the editor of one Campbell River newspaper described Alaska’s salmon ranching as having “been extremely successful with our neighbors to the north”.  

In response I would like to direct people’s attention to the report produced by the “Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage”.  This report discusses the many concerns about Alaska’s salmon ranching program. http://www.tu.org/newsstand/library_pdfs/AKhatcheries.pdf

Here are a couple of excerpts: 

Ø      “Competition for resources between hatchery and wild stocks has become a significant concern.”

Ø      “This report concludes that industrial-scale hatchery salmon production, which releases billions of smolts into the North Pacific Ocean could be jeopardizing Alaska’s wild salmon.”

 Trout Unlimited criticizes Alaska’s vast salmon ranching programs saying, “Trout Unlimited recommends that the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute should be truthful about the salmon it markets as ‘wild’ and acknowledge that hatchery fish comprise up to 80% of the catch of some of the salmon fisheries.”

 Also Jan Konigsberg, Director of the Trout Unlimited Alaska office said, ‘On the basis of the ENRI paper, Trout Unlimited believes Alaska’s hatchery program has been the catalyst in an unfortunate biology experiment in which hatchery-created salmon in the free-range pose a greater threat to Alaska’s wild salmon that do escaped Atlantic salmon from salmon farms to the south.’

Who do you believe? A scientific study by the University of Alaska or the media.

Vancouver Sun 

To the Editor:

Re: Letter to Editor by Otto Langer (June 30/03)

I am so tired of people calling for assessments and reviews of our Aquaculture industry. It has been “assessed” and “reviewed” to death, more so than any other industry in BC. BUT because none of the “reviews” have come up with the negative results that the Suzuki Foundation and their activist friends want to hear…. they call for another review… and another review… and another review...

Can’t people just accept the truth that Aquaculture is environmentally sustainable?

Mr. Langer refers to “last year’s catastrophic loss of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago”, betraying his total ignorance of the historical fluctuation of the pink runs. But is it genuine ignorance or selective use of data to further his own agenda? Those of us who have lived and worked on this coast all our lives and whose father’s have worked here, know that the small run of pinks last year was part of the normal run of things. Especially seeing that in spawn year for that run, there was an over spawn in the river. When too many fish return to spawn in a river the spawn collapses. Of course, Suzuki & Langer don’t want anyone to know about that. How could they make people blame fish farms, if they actually knew the truth?

Sandi Berti