Direct link to latest edition of Pool 32 Mag - click on this image

What is Pool 32 Mag all about ?

Pool 32 Mag is a new fly fishing e-magazine for everyone who loves fly fishing, and wish to follow environmental issues as well.

The best part is that it's a totally FREE e-mag and it can be downloaded by anyone, anywhere on the planet.

Check it out, sign up or send it on to a friend who is just as crazy about fly fishing as we are.


If you chose to scroll further down you will find the Pool 32 Blog

"our cyber world of fishy stuff".


We HATE spam mails, so we will of course

handle your mail info's according to our very strict privacy policy.


Copyright © Mark Wengler

No photo reproduction of any kind without prior written


"Fly fishing isn't just a sport - it's a state of mind!!"

Check out earlier issues of Pol 32 mag

November 30, 2011

You are what you eat - think about what you buy

In Denmark we have a saying and it goes like this " You are what you eat" - so in the light of that very relevant line of words, you should think about what you put into your system.

The next couple of videos show how much shit we buy and eat - don't forget that "consumer power rules" - if we don't buy all these things - they will not produce and sell them.
I know two of these videos are VERY long - but take the time to see them - it will change your eating habits forever - hopefully!!!




... and this one which is really long but never the less very educating - and scary at the same time...


November 29, 2011

State of the Steelhead - rapport


This is very interesting reading by Dyland Tomine 
accomplished by Jeff Brights fantastic pictures.

Click this link State of the Steelhead

November 28, 2011

WSC Film Premier Raising Money for Wild Fish


WILD STEELHEAD COALITION is hosting the Washington premier of Connect, a fly fishing film by Confluence Films. The film documents the experiences of traveling anglers around the world, from the Yukon to Tanzania, Africa.

November 25, 2011

Drilling through the lies



Blogpost by Simon Boxer







Brazil’s first taste of a deepwater oil drilling blowout this week has demonstrated one thing above all else – just like you can’t trust the nuclear industry neither can you trust the word of big oil.
Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company intending to drill for oil in up to 3100 metres of water off New Zealand’s East Cape, is the part-owner of the affected oil field northeast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the oil blowout has occurred.
On the 8th November a deepwater drilling rig (SEDCO 706) being operated by US oil giant Chevron was drilling an appraisal oil well in 1,150 metres water depth. It appears that the drilling operation over pressurised the well and fractured the surrounding rock which opened up cracks in the sea floor that oil started to flow through into the Atlantic ocean.
But the oil industry did not announce to the public that they had caused a blowout – they kept silent. It wasn’t until the non-governmental organisation, SkyTruth revealed on the 10thNovember that they could see a 35 mile oil slick on the ocean surface, that the story started to come out.
But rather than own up to their actions, Chevron, initially claimed that the spill was a natural event! It took a strong statement by the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to pressure the industry to come clean. Chevron stuck to their ‘it’s a natural seep’ line until November 14th until the evidence was overwhelming that this was a misleading claim.
Now Chevron is under pressure to come clean about the real quantity of oil being released by the blowout. The oil company has been saying that the amount of oil leaking is between 27 – 45 tonnes of oil each day – but SkyTruth has calculated that it is in fact 10 times higher at around 512 tonnes each day based on the size of the surface oil slick. That’s potentially over 2,000 tonnes of oil leaked since the 8th November – and we know what only 350 tonnes of oil looks like thanks to the Rena disaster here. It's devastating and, once the oil is in the water, the damage is done. Recent estimates reveal up to 20,000 seabirds may have been killed by the toxic Rena oil spill in the Bay of Plenty.
Like BP did with the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico (also in deep water at about 1500m), Chevron is now trying to fill the well with cement - but so far the oil continues to leak from the cracks in the ocean floor.
This is the reality that New Zealand is facing thanks to the National Government’s obsession with opening up deepwater oil drilling no matter what the risks. In fact even as oil was washing up on the Bay of Plenty coast from the Rena, a new deepwater seismic survey ship arrived in Taranaki to survey a huge area off the Raglan coast with water depths upto 1,800 metres. The company that is planning to drill in this area is Texan oil giant Anadarko – a part owner of the Deepwater Horizon, the rig which exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico last year, spilling 660,000 tonnes of oil. Anadarko have stated that they expect to start deepwater drilling off Raglan and Canterbury this time next year.
Unless public pressure brings the Government’s deepwater oil drilling plans to a halt then this could very well be the last summer New Zealanders can enjoy their pristine beaches and marine environment before big oil leaves its disastrous calling card in our backyard.
Take Action:
-          If you have a high visibilty road frontage and you’d like to host one of our signs email your name, address and phone to oil-signs@greenpeace.org.nz
Click on this petition and sign up 

Get an action pack from Greenpeace and support this cause.
Click on this picture to get right to it.



Mail from Alexandra Morton - IS BC an ISA virus suspect area?


IS BC an ISA virus suspect area?

Dear Dr. Bernard Vallat
I am writing to request clarification. Is British Columbia a suspect area for the ISA virus?
Can you define what constitutes a “suspect” case. Reading your OIE ISA information (Download OIE ISA1.pdf (298.8K)) it appears BC may be a suspect region, but I do not see it listed on your WAHID site. Such a designation might help mobilize effective response based on the negative experience other regions of the world have suffered due to spread of ISA virus. There seems an initial grace-period during which the virus remains low-virulence, after which time it has become highly virulent, contagious and damaging.
Can you advise on what exact steps we should take to better understand if ISA virus is in BC waters and how we can best protect this region from the type of epizootic that occurred in Chile? I feel there is a valid urgency to address whether preventative measures should be initiated. Reports on the Chilean experience where some people thought ISA virus was present, but it was not confirmed and then became a serious epidemic serve as a warning.
Can you also confirm that Dr. Fred Kibenge’s lab in Canada remains a reference lab for Infectious Salmon Anemia virus?
Thank you,
Alexandra Morton

PS. read the next blog post following right after this one...

Mail from Alexandra Morton - Open Letter to Minister Ashfield

Open Letter to Minister Ashfield


I would suggest you stop treating us like fools. Your attached letter is grossly inadequate.Download Initial Request for 2011-001-03100.pdf (440.4K) Show us your Moncton test results because your lab is the only one that cannot find ISA virus. I would also suggest you stop obsessing over the quality of the River Inlet samples and go out and get your own samples. You have an entire department at your disposal.
Yesterday I received yet another set of positive ISAv results for salmon of the Fraser River.Download Report231111[13].pdf (15.9K)
You can stop calling the 1st Norwegian tests a "negative" result. Be more accurate and call them what they are - a weak positive. Download Report 021111.pdf (22.0K) You can't wave a magic wand and make black white.
I want to see Dr. Gary's Marty's PCR results. Don't just tell us he tested 5000 fish and got a negative, you need to tell us what segment and what probe, we need details because you are risking our fish with your actions.
As for Dr. Laura Richards, she personally petitioned to waive the Canadian Fish Health Protection Regulations in 2004 so Atlantic salmon eggs could pour in from an unapproved hatchery. That is why her words are meaningless to me. Download 2004 Fish Health1[1].pdf (2176.3K)
There is no reason BC would not have been contaminated by ISAv. Your department left the door wide open! You did not include ISAv on the hatchery import forms, likely because no one can actually sign a document saying there is no ISAv in Atlantic salmon eggs - the virus is that widespread. Your department did not even make ISAv a reportable disease in salmon farms, even as the same companies as use BC waters triggered a massive ISAv epidemic in Chile. This is unconscionable.
Shame on you. As we face grave uncertainty over introduction of the most lethal salmon virus known, you give the salmon farming industry a million dollars to go to trade shows so they can peddle their wares while we pay for the consequences.
In my opinion, Mr. Ashfield you, predecessors and key members of your department belong in court for reckless behaviour risking the most generous gift the people of British Columbia receive every year. You are not here to see communities of people, whales, eagles, bears come to life when the salmon come home. They are much too valuable to be risked by vacuous statements by the likes of you. Either stand up strong and fight for our fish or step down Mr. Ashfield.
Hundreds of British Columbians go into the rivers every year to fight for the wild salmon. We work for the wild salmon because we understand their value and we are not going to let you take this away from us. As hundreds of thousands of sockeye salmon died every year in the Fraser River, before spawning, your department would not give your own scientists the money to find out why and when they came up with a very strong theory you starved them further for funds and locked their voices away from the media. And yet you throw money to the foreign owned salmon feedlot industry.
Please resign and take your senior Pacific Region staff with you. Remove the Pacific Biological Station from political clutches so that they can do the work that needs to be done. We need some people at the helm who want wild salmon to survive and you sir have shown no such ability. Step away from our fish.

Dr. Alexandra Morton
U:wsockeyesun
IMG_6867
Picto fish

November 23, 2011

November 20, 2011

Easing the pressure from fishing

We must suffer short-term economic pain to make our seas sustainable
Easing the pressure from fishing and shipping will hurt – but collapse of our oceans will hurt a great deal more....

By Paul Gompertz

Our marine environment is facing a defining moment. We are an island nation set in the midst of what were once some of the most productive seas on the planet. But a report earlier this year from the Independent Panel on the State of our Oceans (IPSO) warns us that the decline in the vitality of our oceans is in fact worse than our direst predictions. The pressing question is – what are we going to do about it?
Fishing used to be a battle against the elements in which every success was hard won and most fish escaped. While it can still be a battle against the elements, improved catch techniques and equipment mean that most fish don't escape. We may be getting better and better at catching, but it is taking more and more effort – about 17 times morethan at the end of the 19th century, when the downward trend in fish stocks began in earnest.
But hugely reducing the fish stocks isn't the only thing we have done over the past 100 years. We have also disturbed vast areas of sea bed and destroyed rich habitats which has further reduced the productivity of the seas. We have poured effluents and pesticides and mining residues into the sea via our estuaries. We have removed gravel and oil and sand and gas. We have caused the temperature of our seas to rise, disrupting marine systems. In short, we have exploited the sea mercilessly and everywhere. This once huge larder, climate regulator, heat exchanger and absorber of carbon is stressed beyond endurance.
There is only one sensible answer for a human race intent on surviving as long as possible. We must nurse it back to health and productivity – we must manage it sustainably.
One vital step in that management is to create marine sanctuaries, places where damaging human activity is not allowed. Who would argue against the idea that 25% of the sea should largely be left to its own devices, with human beings "only" allowing themselves exploitation of the remaining 75%? We have one last chance to get this right; can't we, in the interests of future generations and the health of our planet, confine ourselves to three-quarters?
It would seem not. The proposal before the UK government to establish a network of marine protected areas covering 22% of our inshore waters is being undermined from every direction, largely on the grounds that short-term human self-interest is more important than long term sustainability.
There are two broad threads to this argument. One says that we don't have enough evidence to define protected areas accurately, so until we can we should carry on as before. Damage until you can manage. However, the reverse now needs to be true. If we don't know enough about an area to exploit it without damage, we should keep out. If you can't manage, don't damage. At least one-quarter needs to be protected urgently, to avoid disaster. So let's protect the quarter currently being proposed, and then seek to refine the network of protected areas as more evidence becomes available.
The other argument – one which is being advanced by some MPs in the south-west – says that some of the sites selected require too much human sacrifice – mainly economic sacrifice – to be realistic. This is perpetuating the very thinking which brought us to our current state of imminent collapse. There must be change, we must exploit less, we must ease the pressure on our seas. This means that some activities will be reduced. Less pressure from fishing, less pressure from shipping, less pressure from extractive industries. There are bound to be places where this will hurt. But it is manageable hurt. Collapse of our oceans is not manageable and will hurt a great deal for a great many people. We must choose the lesser of two evils now, while we still have the chance.



November 19, 2011

Why Are We Killing Coral Reefs



(PS. click on this NRDC logo an it will bring you right to this great article by David Newman.)






Why Are We Killing Coral Reefs?

Coral reefs are likely to become the first ecosystem completely destroyed by humans, predicts Dr. Peter Sale, a leading United Nations ecologist.  His new book, Our Dying Planet, explains:
“It is not pollution, or overfishing, or mass bleaching, or climate change, or any of the other factors I have mentioned that is killing our coral reefs.  It is all of these factors together.  Or, to put it more plainly, the cause of the destruction of coral reefs is us.”
Sale's conclusion echos the immortal words of cartoonist Walt Kelly, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”  The only possible silver lining is that we still have the power to reverse course and save at least some of these magical living communities.  But, change must come quickly.
While the extinction of an entire type of ecosystem sounds terrible, what are some of the specific ramifications?  In other words, why should we care?  Well, for one thing these beautiful ocean oases teem with some of the most stunning and fascinating creatures on the planet. 
Ever hear of the reef stonefish (Synanceia verrucosa) (above left)?  It’s the mostpoisonous fish in the sea, equipped with 13 venom-filled spines.  Camouflaged to blend into the surrounding reef, the stonefish waits for its prey to unwittingly swim past and then strikes with incredible speed.  You don’t want to step on this mottled creature.  
You may have spotted a mandarinfish (Synchiropus splendidus) (above right) on a dive trip or in a fish tank.  They’re tiny creatures, measuring only an inch or two.  But, what they lack in size, they certainly make up for in beauty and charisma.  Females often congregate in groups of three to five just before sunset, as interested males come by and strut their stuff.  When a match is made, the female balances on the male’s pelvic fin and the joined pair rises in the water above the reef, climaxing in a cloud of eggs and sperm.
On the other end of the size spectrum are the giant groupers (above left), which can grow to over 800 pounds.  Check out my earlier blog on these amazing behemoths
Another fascinating beauty is the queen parrotfish (Scarus vetula) (above right), which change color and gender over its 20-year lifespan.  Its bedtime ritual includes coatingitself in a clear cocoon of mucus secreted from an organ in the fish’s head.  It’s believed that the bubble masks the parrotfish’s scent allowing it to sleep free of the fear of predators.  
Coral reefs are one of the most biodiverse marine ecosystem on the planet – even more than tropical rainforests.  Although they only cover about 0.2% of the world’s oceans, they’re home to about one quarter of all marine fish species.  This dense biodiversity offer a treasure trove of life-saving medicinal compounds.  The active ingredients of some recently-approved drugs were discovered from organisms living within coral reefs, including Halaven, a drug to treat breast cancer that was derived from sponges (below left) found in coral reefs off the coast of New Zealand, and the prescription pain medication Prialt, which was derived from the cone snail Conus magus (below right) found in tropical reefs worldwide. 
    Around the world, an estimated 275 million people depend on coral reefs for sustenance and jobs, with estimated economic benefits ranging from $30 to $375 billion per year.  Coastal populations also depend on healthy reef structures to protect them—studies have shown that healthy coral reefs provide twice as much protection from tsunami waves as dead ones, since healthy reefs are better able to absorb pressure from the waves.  More than 90,000 miles of shoreline in 100 countries benefit from this protection. 
    Despite these benefits, our addiction to fossil fuels is releasing unprecedented amounts of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, which in turn is causing temperature rises that lead heat-sensitive reefs to bleach and eventually die.  Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is being absorbed by the oceans, causing the pH balance to become more acidic than many organisms are adapted to (see more on ocean acidification here, including NRDC's award-winning film Acid Test).  Overfishing, land-based pollution, and habitat destruction are further stressing already weakened coral reefs.
    So, what can we do to avert catastrophe?
    The dual threats of bleaching and ocean acidification require comprehensive climate change solutions, including renewable energy policies that reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.  Here are ways you can help.  As far as overfishing goes, in U.S. waters, the Magnuson-Stevens Act now requires strict, science-based catch limits to prevent overfishing, although these provisions are also under assault (see my blog describing the threat).  Globally, overfishing in and around coral reefs is an even bigger problem.  In addition to calling for improved fisheries management, we can all take immediate action to stop eating unsustainably caught seafood (visit our sustainable seafood guide to learn more).
    We need to act now so that our children aren't left without the splendor of this invaluable ecosystem.

    Photo Credits (from top to bottom and left to right): 1. Orange-lined triggerfish (Balistapus undulatus), humbug damselfish (Dascyllus aruanus); and blue-green chromis (Chromis viridis) by Jan Derk, Fihalhohi, Maldives, March 2006 (Wiki Commons); 2. Reef stonefish (Synanceia verrucosa) by Richard Ling, Ribbon Reefs, Great Barrier Reef, December 2006 (Wiki Commons); 3. Mandarinfish (Synchiropus splendidus) by Luc Viatour,www.Lucnix.be, Aquarium-Muséum Liège (Belgium), March 2008 (Wiki Commons); 4. giant grouper (Epinephelus lanceolatus) by Diliff, Georgia Aquarium, January 2006 (Wiki Commons); 5. Queen parrotfish (Scarus vetula) by Laszlo Ilyes, laszlo-photo, April 2006 (Wiki Commons); 6. Sponge (Halichondria okadai), http://kanagawa-yc.jp; 7. Conus magus by Richard Parker, November 2009 (Wiki Commons).

    Premier Clark promoting B.C. seafood in China





    GUANGZHOU, CHINA - Premier Christy Clark is building on record-setting 2010 sales of B.C. agrifood products to China by promoting seafood to about 100 seafood industry representatives and buyers as part of the largest-ever B.C. seafood delegation to China.
    The Premier spoke to the seafood industry representatives in Guangzhou on the second full day of her Jobs Trade Mission to China and India. The major seafood importers, wholesalers, processors, and hotel and restaurant buyers are a significant part of China's multi-billion dollar seafood sector, with distribution networks throughout southern China.
    "B.C. exported $80 million of seafood to China in 2010, and that number is only going to grow as we build relationships that expand the market for B.C.'s seafood products," said Premier Clark. "The representatives of B.C. seafood companies are excited about the success they are having here, and that excites me because it means more new dollars are headed to B.C. coastal communities."

    Read the whole article by using this link - click HERE

    November 18, 2011

    5 Fish You Should Never Eat





    Eat This, Not That








    Not all fish are good for you.

    Last year, the USDA increased its seafood recommendation to 8 ounces per week, and that has led many to believe that all fish are equally smart choices. But some are so high in contaminants like mercury that their health benefits are outweighed by their health risks. Others are flown in from halfway around the world, but given labels that make you think they were caught fresh earlier that morning. And still others are raised in filthy, overcrowed pools and loaded up with chemicals to keep them alive.  

    So let me shed light on some very rough waters. Put these fish at the top of your don't-eat list and you'll avoid most of the troubles of the world's fishing industry.


    #1: ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA



    Why It's Bad: A recent analysis by The New York Times found that Atlantic bluefin tuna has the highest levels of mercury of any type of tuna. To top it off, bluefin tuna are severely overharvested, to the point of reaching near-extinction levels, and are considered "critically endangered" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Rather than trying to navigate the ever-changing recommendations for which tuna is best, consider giving it up altogether. But if you can't . . .

    Eat This Instead: Opt for American or Canadian (but not imported!) albacore tuna, which is caught while it's young and doesn't contain as high levels of mercury.
    YOUR NEW SHOPPING LIST! There are more than 45,000 options in the average supermarket. Some will wreck your waistline; some will shrink it. The easiest way to choose: Go ahead and put anything from our newly updated list of the 125 Best Supermarket Foods in your shopping cart—and watch the pounds melt away! (And check out Cook This, Not That! Easy & Awesome 350-Calorie Meals to save time and money!)

    #2: ATLANTIC SALMON (Both Wild-caught and Farmed) 

    Why It's Bad: It's actually illegal to capture wild Atlantic salmon because the fish stocks are so low, and they're low, in part, because of farmed salmon. Salmon farming is very polluting: Thousands of fish are crammed into pens, which leads to the growth of diseases and parasites that require antibiotics and pesticides. Often, the fish escape and compete with native fish for food, leading to declines in native populations.
    Adding to our salmon woes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is moving forward with approving genetically engineered salmon to be sold, unlabeled, to unsuspecting seafood lovers. That salmon would be farmed off the coast of Panama, and it's unclear how it would be labeled. Currently, all fish labeled "Atlantic salmon" come from fish farms. And, as you know if you follow me on Twitter, they're fed pellets that contain pink dye—that's how they get their color. Gross!
    Eat This Instead: Opt for Wild Alaskan salmon.



    #3: ATLANTIC FLATFISH


    Why It's Bad: This group of fish includes flounder, sole, and halibut that are caught off the Atlantic coast. They found their way onto the list because of heavy contamination and overfishing that dates back to the 1800s. According to Food and Water Watch, populations of these fish are as low as 1 percent of what's necessary to be considered sustainable for long-term fishing.

    Eat This Instead: Pacific halibut seems to be doing well, but the group also recommends replacing these fish with other mild-flavored white-fleshed fish, such as domestically farmed catfish or tilapia.
    CHANGE YOUR PLATE, LOSE WEIGHT: People using paper plates tend to eat more later because they consider those meals as just "snacks." For more of the nutrition and weight loss tips like this every day, sign up for the FREE Eat This, Not That! newsletter!


    #4: IMPORTED KING CRAB


    Why It's Bad: The biggest problem with imported crab is that most of it comes from Russia, where limits on fish harvests aren't strongly enforced. But this crab also suffers from something of an identity crisis: Imported king crab is often misnamed Alaskan king crab, because most people think that's the name of the crab. And supermarkets often add to the confusion by labeling imported king crab "Alaskan King Crab, Imported." But Alaskan king crab—crab that actually hails from the great state of Alaska—is a completely separate animal and is much more responsibly harvested than the imported stuff.

    Eat This Instead: When you shop for king crab, whatever the label says, ask whether it comes from Alaska or if it's imported. Approximately 70 percent of the king crab sold in the U.S. is imported, so it's important to make that distinction and go domestic.



    #5 IMPORTED SHRIMP


    Why It's Bad: Imported shrimp actually holds the designation of being the dirtiest of all the seafood we looked at. (For our full list, check out 12 Fish You Should Never Eat.) Problem is, 90 percent of shrimp sold in the U.S. is imported. Imported farmed shrimp comes with a whole bevy of contaminants including antibiotics, residues from chemicals used to clean pens, E. coli, mouse hair, rat hair, and pieces of insects. Yum! Part of this has to do with the fact that less than 2 percent of all imported seafood (shrimp, crab, catfish, or others) gets inspected before its sold, which is why it's that much more important to buy domestic seafood.
    Eat This Instead: Domestic shrimp. Seventy percent of domestic shrimp comes from the Gulf of Mexico, which relies heavily on shrimp for economic reasons. Pink shrimp from Oregon are another good choice; the fisheries there are certified under the stringent Marine Stewardship Council guidelines.
    One of the best things about the brand-new Eat This, Not That! 2012 is that it helps you find fat-fighting food no matter where you are: movie theater, coffee shop, vending machine. We've also identified the most bloating beverages in gas stations, bars, smoothie counters, and coffee shops across America. Click through the Worst Drinks in America to see what drinks are safe to sip—and which you should skip.
    Additional reporting by Emily Mainhttp://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/5-fish-you-should-throw-back?page=2





    A direct link to this article from Yahoo Health  - CLICK HERE


    November 13, 2011

    Pure Salmon Junk

    I've had the pleasure to create a photo essay for Steffen and Kåre - alias the Salmon Junkies -  in one of the Pool 32 Mag issues. They decided afterwards to use my front page from this essay about Salmon Junkies as a part of their logo and marketing expression, so somehow you can say that Pool 32 have had a indirect effect on these heavily addicted guy's - but I'm afraid that this won't cure these guy's at all - they are really nice guy's, but also very lost and desturbed souls!! Sadly but surely, here is some more prof which shows that these guy's is hopeless addicted on

      "PURE SALMON JUNK"!!

    (WARNING!! - watching these videos is highly addictive!!)

    Salmon Raw from Kåre Lundquist on Vimeo.

    Do you feel the addiction sneaking in on you slowly - well then use this "panic link" which will bring you right to the 
    Salmon Junkie website 

    November 9, 2011

    Why are British Columbia's salmon dying?






    by Elizabeth Cunningham Perkins 


    British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen has been reviewing stacks of evidence, much of it conflicting, in the vast "crime scene" of the Province’s missing millions of salmon, and focusing on five environmental culprits in a complex scenario.
    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper tasked Cohen with investigating the steady decline since the 1990s and catastrophic collapse in 2009 of the Fraser River's tens of millions of sockeye salmon, a primary native food source and commercial fishing mainstay, that migrate as one-year-olds every spring out of the river, but then have gone missing by the millions instead of returning to spawn, despite there being no signs of massive die-offs along their migration itinerary, the The Globe and Mail reported.
    As evidentiary hearings in the special inquiry wrapped up, witness testimony and documentation, including scientific findings, appeared to point to five main factors that may have interacted in the massive fish disappearance:
    Sudden, extreme changes in the salinity, temperature, density, windiness and flora in the marine environment along the migration route may have weakened, then killed many salmon.
    Diseases, both identified and mysterious (awaiting further research) and an unprecedented lethal Atlantic salmon virus jump to Pacific fish, appear to have caused significant numbers of in-river and pre-spawn salmon deaths.
    Experts disagreed vehemently about the roles of government fish hatcheries and commercial fish farms in originating, spreading or boosting the diseases that affected migrating salmon.
    Pollutants that harm fish, such as phosphorous, arsenic, chloride, nitrite, selenium and various hydrocarbons, were found in the Fraser, and probably contributed to the salmon population crash, without being a primary factor.
    A gradual warming of the ocean and river may be lowering the overall survival rate and triggering early returns to the freshwater environment of the river where the salmon are more vulnerable to pathogens.
    In related news, ScienceDaily reported in March that University of British Columbia scientists found certain populations of Fraser River sockeye salmon with extra-challenging migration routes had developed into hardier, more adaptable "superfish."

    Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313975#ixzz1d2aw1GSC


    November 8, 2011

    One of Mother Earth's beautiful wonders

    When I see this little video I just feel a strange kind of inner peace. It's just such a beautiful and peaceful part of this fantastic planet we live on - and now these magnificent creatures are under a very serious treat because of the worldwide fish farming industry. We are a strange race to ignore the importance of this natural food recourse - compared to harvested fish filled with chemicals, color and antibiotics - very strange endeed!!
    If this huge "natural protein pump" freely given to us all by the oceans disappears - then it will be forever........



    And what will the bears, killer whales, eagles and First Nations etc. feed from if these salmon disapears ??? - such a huge mistake to let this beautiful fish die in a nearby future.

    November 7, 2011

    Wild Salmon Threatened by New Virus




    The source to this article comes from SOFTPEDIA


    A heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) was reported to affect farmed salmon In Norway, in 1999. This fatal disease can now be found in 417 fish farms in Norway and in the United Kingdom. It has become a threat for the farmed fish industry, but the even more concerning problem is that the disease can spread to wild fish getting too close to marine enclosures or from fish escaping them.



    One of the growing important food sources nowadays is farmed fish. 100 million tons are produced every year and these figures have a growth rate of 8 percent a year. The problem is that epidemics are becoming a threat for this flourishing industry, mostly for the very popular farmed Atlantic salmon. The HSMI destroys heart and muscle tissue and infected fish have a death rate of over 20 percent.


    Evidence that this disease might be caused by an unidentified virus has been found by an international team of scientists. Team leader by W. Ian Lipkin, MD, the John Snow Professor of Epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health has used the latest molecular techniques to identify this unknown virus. Apparently it has similarities with reoviruses (double-stranded RNA viruses that can infect a large amount of vertebrates) already known to science, without being identical with them.


    454 high throughput DNA sequencing and bioinformatics were used by the Columbia U team, for the identification of this virus. This included a new tool called Frequency Analysis of Sequence Data (FASD), invented by Columbia's Department of Biomedical Informatics' Raul Rabadan. Afterward, in Norway and the US, investigators searched for viral sequences in samples from the hearts and kidneys of 29 salmons with three different HSMI manifestations and from 10 healthy fish. The results were positive: 28 of the 29 infected salmons were infected and all of the 10 specimens were in good health.

    Gustavo Palacios, the first author of the study and an assistant professor of Epidemiology in the Center, confirmed that HSMI is associated with infection coming from a new sort of reovirus. And even if there is no proof that this virus could spread to humans, it remains a big threat for fish farming and there is a risk of spreading to wild salmons, adds Dr Lipkin.
    Future research will be made to confirm that this new reovirus is actually the cause of HSMI, but until then, Norwegian scientists have already begun research for a new vaccine that will protect the farmed Atlantic salmon.

    November 6, 2011

    Is the ISA virus affecting our herring - or humans too??


    Is the ISA virus affecting our herring - or humans too??

    My heart is bleeding - shame on you Norway!!! Stop fish farming NOW - what guaranty do we have that this isn't spreading to humans.... farmed fish has become a huge part of your everyday food source. Maybe we humans deserve it, and maybe an outbreak of that kind is what is need to finaly stop this kind of sceintiffic madness from this industry.

    Angela Koch's Photos

    Is ISA affecting our herring too...or is this bleeding fins some new mutation of another exotic fish farm disease?...if we lose our herring the entire west coast is screwed....I don't care how much $$$ the fish farms are making with their abominable operations, nothing, absolutely nothing can compare to this loss! Shame on you Norway....Shame on you Canada!
                                                                                  Angela Koch

    November 5, 2011

    New great edition of Catch is out now



    New really great edition of Catch is out now - don't hersitate check it our HERE 

    Here is couple of great shots from this edition