Sea lice treatment kills adult lobsters on east coast

High-profile drama seems to always surround B.C. open net-pen salmon aquaculture, so it's easy for West Coasters to sometimes forget that there are open net-pen salmon aquaculture operations in Atlantic Canada as well. We should definitely be paying attention to what's been going on out there in the past few days, though, where an outbreak of sea lice has precipitated a flurry of activity.


The short story: last week, Health Canada gave an emergency go-ahead (with conditions attached) for salmon farmers to use the pesticide deltamethrin to kill sea lice, even though lobstermen and others were worried that the stuff would kill lobsters. Late this week, Environment Canada found that deltamethrin, when used in net-pens, indeed does kill adult lobsters, and as a result the use of the stuff has been restricted to 'well boats' that are closed to the ocean.

So that's where things stand at the moment: a pesticide approved for use by one branch of government to kill bad crustaceans (sea lice) has been found by another branch of government to kill good crustaceans (lobster).

Just need DFO in there for the full effect

Finally, to add to the drama, a number of individuals and organizations concerned about the impacts of aquaculture on fisheries and the marine environment announced that they were forming the Atlantic Coalition for Aquaculture Reform. Of particular concern are the impacts of salmon farms on the lobster fishery, which has tremendous social, cultural, and economic value to the east coast.

So that's the week that was in salmon aquaculture back east. And now, I hope you'll excuse me because I'm about to go on a short and polite rant.

Hang your head in shame, anonymous CBC reporter, for the reporting in this article. Hang your head, for you repeat industry propaganda by reporting that "less than a shot glass" of the pesticide is used per salmon pen. By doing so, you fell for - and repeated - one of the oldest and most disingenuous tricks in the book: the "look at how little we're using, it can't be that bad" argument. This argument is meant to do only one thing: reassure people via false assumption. Different substances have very different potencies - indeed, the more potent something is, the less has to be used to achieve the effect. After all, you don't want to drink 'only a teaspoon' of dioxin, nor do you want to be in the vicinity of 'a few kilos' of uranium undergoing nuclear fission. You, as a CBC reporter, should have known better than to so credulously repeat the 'less than a shot glass' storyline, because it's nothing but a misdirection play meant to soothe people via a false assumption.

So says I.

Merry weekend, everyone.