About the Summit
Schools
Forums
Journal
          

       

Between October 8, 2001 and February 22, 2002, panelists representing different perspectives from Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington were available to answer students' questions related to salmon biology on the Salmon Summit Web site. In selecting participants for the Salmon Summit panel, we tried to choose panelists with different opinions and different backgrounds. The opinions expressed by the panelists were their own. They may not agree with those of other panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 7th Floor Media.

The panelists are not currently online. However, you will find the questions submitted by the students and the responses received from the panelists, below.



Brent Davies Adele R. Merchant Steve Seymour Scott Walker
Catherine Stewart Michael Maudlin Jesse Brown David Coopersmith
Q - Are fish farms a threat to salmon habitat? If so, why?
Q - Are fish ladders a solution to the problems caused by dams? Do we need more fish ladders?
Q - Is the temperature at which Alaskan salmon are comfortable different than the temperature at which salmon from British Columbia or Washington are comfortable?
Q - What are the main salmon spawning rivers on the north Pacific coast?
Q - What is the difference between fish farming and fish ranching?
Q - Are there any fertilizers that are harmless to salmon?
Q - What are the concerns from the Canadian environmentalists involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty?
Q - What do you think will happen to Pacific Salmon as a result of Global Warming?
Q - Why don't people use pacific salmon in fish farms?
Q - Are Canadian environmentalists concerned about ocean habitat?
Q - Are fish farms a threat to salmon habitat? If so, why?
A - Fish farms and habitat: Well lets see. Fish may be raised in marine net pens in sheltered bays of the ocean or Puget Sound. In shallow water conditions, the pen could shade out beneficial plants (sea weed, eel grasses etc.) Excess feed and fecal matter from the fish could cause degradation of the ocean bottom beneath the pen.
--  Steve Seymour
A - Fish farms pose potential problems for wild salmon. On the pacific coast most fish farms raise atlantic salmon. When atlantic salmon escape from farm pens they hold a genetic advantage over wild salmon. While wild pacific salmon spawn once and die, atlantic salmon spawn and return to the ocean to spawn again. Atlantic salmon can also spread disease that pacific salmon are unable to protect against.
--  Scott Walker
A - Open system fish farms do have some inherent risks for pacific salmonids. There are a couple of points that need clarifying. Open system fish farms are defined as any aquaculture method in which the farm has been place in an environment that has links to, or is directly in, native fish habitat; an example of an open system is an ocean based fish farm. A closed system is a fish farm that has been placed in an environment that has no links or is not in fish habitat; an example of a closed system is a land based fish farm. Closed system fish farms are not a risk to pacific salmonid habitat.

The majority of ocean based fish farms in Canada raise atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Atlantic salmon are not a native species on the west coast and if they escape to the wild they can displace or out compete pacific salmonids. Last year approximately 500,000 atlantic salmon escaped from fish farms in B.C. With intensive aquaculture come the risk of parasites and disease. Consequently, the fish in fish farms are given large doses of anti-biotics and chemicals are used to kill any parasites on the fish. Unfortunately, in an ocean pen you cannot isolate the pen from the outside environment. The result has been large infestations of parasites, such as sea lice, in wild populations that migrate past or spawn near fish farms. Lastly, since ocean pens have no bottom (other than net) any food that is not consumed by the fish in the pens falls onto the ocean floor. Ammonia, a biproduct of the decomposition of the fish food, at relatively low levels, is lethal to fish and other denizens of the sea.
--  Jesse Brown
A - For more information about farmed salmon, I thought I'd refer you to an article by my friend Seth Zuckerman, "Behind That Farmed Salmon Steak."
--  Brent Davis
A - Further to the use of antibiotics in fish farms, traces of residual antibiotics have been found in wild shellfish near salmon farms. Also of concern is the emergence of anti-biotic-resistant disease strains. An outbreak of furunculosis on a B.C. fish farm was found to be triple-antibiotic-resistant — in other words, the three antibiotics most commonly used to treat this disease were ineffectual. This type of occurrence is resulting in the use of ‘off-label’ prescriptions — farm managers are resorting to treatments not designed for use in aquatic environments in a desperate attempt to treat drug-resistant disease strains.

Fish farms also threaten the health and stability of marine biodiversity through their use of predator control devices and kill permits. Farms use ‘AHDs’ — Acoustic Harassment Devices - to blast sound waves underwater in an effort to deter marine predators. These devices disrupt the migratory and feeding patterns of whales and other species. Furthermore, B.C. farms are issued predator control licenses, allowing them to shoot seals and sea lions attempting to snatch fish from the pens. Endangered Steller sea lions are among the species killed, and anecdotal evidence suggests fish farms have also shot otters and bears.
--  Catherine Stewart
Q - Are fish ladders a solution to the problems caused by dams? Do we need more fish ladders?
A - Fish ladders are a part of the solution for helping fish migrate past dams. Fish ladders allow adult salmon to get past the dams on their return journey to natal spawning grounds. In the Columbia and Snake River Basin, the large hydroelectric dams that provide fish passage have adult fish ladders that work very well. There is no need for more fish ladders at these dams. Several of the big hydro dams in the Columbia/Snake system, however, block fish passage: Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River, Dworshak Dam on the Clearwater, and the Hells Canyon Complex on the Snake River. For these dams, adult fish ladders don't work because these are "high head" dams with a several hundred foot drop from the top to the bottom of the dam. Other solutions have been tried--for example, adult fish can be trapped and moved past these dams--but no feasible solution has been found to the problem of how to collect juvenile fish in the huge reservoirs and get them downstream.

In the Columbia/Snake hydro dams that provide fish passage, challenges remain in helping juvenile fish get past the dams. Juvenile fish can pass a dam in several ways: through spillways, through turbines, and through bypass systems (designed to guide the fish away from turbine passage). Some juvenile fish are collected for transport past the dams in specially equipped barges or trucks. Many improvements have been made in juvenile fish passage in the last couple decades, and survival has improved measurably. The region continues to seek more improvements to fish passage at the dams.
--  Adele R. Merchant
A - Dams and fish ladders. Yes ladder do help salmon migrate over dams... But dams also create a number of other problems for salmon besides blocking passage. Dams create lakes or impoundments behind the dam which flood out the once fast flowing reaches of the stream which supported spawning. The lake water may get too warm for salmon and/or support predator species such as squaw fish which prey on young salmon. The dam traps sediments and large logs which, prior to dam construction flowed thru the river system to help maintain salmon habitat. Water spilling over high dams is driven deep below the surface of the water on the other side of the dam and in doing so gases in the water are compressed or become supersaturated ( somewhat like a bottle of pop). As the water and fish living in the water rise to the surface, gases expand (think about when you open a bottle of pop) and cause air bubbles in the blood vessels of the fish.
--  Steve Seymour
A - Fish ladders will not solve the problems with dams. Young fish leaving the river and heading out to sea can not always find fish ladders. These juvenile fish end up going through the dam turbines. New technology is needed to guide fish to existing ladders if existing fish ladders are going to work. More fish ladders are not the answer. It may come down to the decision, do we want dams or fish?
--  Scott Walker
A - Fish ladders allow access for pacific salmonids to areas that have been cut off by dams. However, since dams have changed the morphology of the streams (ie. turned them into lakes) the spawning or rearing habitat that the fish used prior to the dam's construction may no longer exist. As a result, providing access may be a moot point. However, assuming habitat still exists that is beneficial to fish, the construction of the fish ladder is very important. A straight concrete channel with regular steps does not provide fish with suitable cover. While travelling through ladders, fish become an easy source of food for eagles, kingfishers, gulls etc. A better option is creating a channel that closely resembles a natural stream with deep pools, large woody debris cover etc. This method of construction will provide cover for fish and increase their chances of reaching the habitat above the dam. Fish ladders are no substitute for the habitat that dams have destroyed. While ladders can be a good option for fish trying to get above the dams they are not very successful at getting fish that are trying to go down past the dam. The majority of these fish end up going through the turbines or spillways of the dam resulting in fish mortalities.
--  Jesse Brown
A - Fish ladders can help salmon swim over dams, and I would say they are a part of the solution caused by dams but not THE solution. The big issue for salmon caused by dams, besides blocking their path, is the disruption dams cause to the natural flow and processes of rivers. Dams prevent the natural flow of organic material through a system. Organic material in rivers is vital to salmon survival. Organic material, such as woody debris, leaves, and bugs, creates complexity in a river and provides food for fish and places for them to take cover from predators. Dams also regulate how much water flows in a river and prevent seasonal variation in water levels, which salmon have evolved with for thousands of years. For example, in the spring when rivers rise from snow melting off of mountains, smolts take advantage of this flow and head to sea.
--  Brent Davis
Q - Is the temperature at which Alaskan salmon are comfortable different than the temperature at which salmon from British Columbia or Washington are comfortable?
A - Pacific salmon as a species can tolerate tremendous temperature variations. River temperatures vary considerably from stream to stream. Temperatures from the ocean to freshwater also vary according to many factors. I have not seen any information that would suggest that water temperatures are different in British Columbia than in Washington.
--  Scott Walker
A - All pacific salmonids prefer the same temperature ranges (within their species). However, due to global warming the ocean temperature is increasing. The increase in ocean temperature has been blamed as one of the main contributers to the decline in pacific salmonids. It is hypothosized that the strong stocks of Alaskan salmonids is due to the lower ocean temperatures and consequent higher ocean survival.
--  Jesse Brown
A - Great question. Yes, juvenile Alaskan salmon are adapted to colder temperatures than salmon from rivers further south. Because of the colder temperatures, and therefore, the shorter growing season, juvenile salmon in Alaska generally take two years to reach the stage where they are prepared to migrate out to sea. Salmon in Washington and Oregon, on the other hand, generally are ready to go to sea in one years time. If you were to try and move juveniles from a stream in Washington up to Alaska, they would not survive because these fish are not adapted to such cold waters.
--  Brent Davis
Q - What are the main salmon spawning rivers on the north Pacific coast?
A - Rivers of the pacific coast. I live in Bellingham WA on Puget Sound. The main rivers around here are, from North to South, The Fraser, the Nooksack, Samish, Skagit, Stiillaquamish, Snohomish, Green, Cedar, Puyallup and Nisqually. For a complete list and real time flow information check out the USGS site at http://water.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current/?type=flow
--  Steve Seymour
A - The Columbia River, Frasier River, Nass River, Skeena River, Unuk River, Stikine River, Taku River, Copper River, Susitka River, Kuskokwim River, Kvichak River, Nushagak River, and the Yukon River.

One big misconception is that the bigger the river the more fish are produced. The Yukon River gets about 3,000,000 salmon on average. A much less known river, the Kvichak River gets over 14,000,000 sockeye not counting other species. We have small streams in Southeast Alaska that get 500,000 plus pink salmon on good years. Some of these small streams are tiny compared to the mighty Yukon River.
--  Scott Walker
A - The major salmon rivers are often the longest unimpounded rivers. Salmonids will use these rivers to access spawning habitat as far away as 1,500 km from the ocean. However, in some of these systems the main river is just used as a highway to get to more suitable spawning habitat in other smaller rivers. An example is the Fraser River. Numerous salmonids use this river to access spawning habitat in the interior of BC, such as the run of Adams River Sockeye. While the Adams River Sockeye use the Fraser and Thompson River they actually spawn in the Adams River. Therefore, the most important spawning rivers on the Pacific North Coast based on pure numbers would be rivers in Alaska and Northern BC.
--  Jesse Brown
A - Colleagues of mine have studied salmon use of watersheds up and down the Pacific Northwest coast and have come up with a ranking system for rivers up and down the coast in terms of their priorities for restoration and protection. To view a map of "High," "Medium," and "Low" priorities please see Salmon Strategy: Regional Priorities for Restoration.
--  Brent Davis
A - This question becomes even more intriguing if we ask .what major salmon systems have been degraded or destroyed’? The Rivers Inlet/Oweekeno Lake system on B.C.’s central coast once produced in the neighbourhood of 1-2.5 million sockeye. In recent years, the sockeye count has hovered around the range of 2,500 fish. Grizzly bears in the adjacent watersheds are starving due to lack of salmon, and have had to be shot as they marauded through the small First Nation village of Rivers Inlet seeking food in garbage cans and stealing dog food from house porches. How could such a major collapse have happened? Two factors have contributed to the decline of Rivers Inlet sockeye — years of overfishing and clearcut logging destroying spawning habitat.
--  Catherine Stewart
Q - What is the difference between fish farming and fish ranching?
A - In the strict sense of the word, ranching is where a grower raises the small salmon to smolt size (a fish ready to go to sea)then releases them. The small salmon go out to sea and feed on critters mother nature has produced. In 3-5 years, depending on the species, the salmon have grown to an adult and return to the release site where they are captured, processed and sold.

Farmed fish on the other hand are kept the whole time at the farm, this may be a tank, pond, net pens in the sea etc. Fish are fed fish food, typically pellets made from other fish products, shrimp, soy, etc. When fish reach a market size, they are processed and sold.
--  Steve Seymour
A - Fish Farms raise fish from fry stage to adult completely in captivity: Raised entirely for commercial sale, farmed fish are kept permanently in ocean pens or land based structures and are never purposely released into a wild environment.

Fish Ranching holds fry/smolts at the mouth of a stream for enough time to pass (3 weeks to 2 months) to allow the juvenile fish to recognize (imprint) the stream and hopefully return to that specific creek or area after they mature to spawn. The fry/smolts are released into the wild environment to complete the rest of their ocean life cycle. After 2 to 4 years (depending on the species) the adults return to the stream where they were held as fry/smolts and can be netted for commercial sale. Fish ranching should only be practised on systems that do not have a population of wild fish (of the specific species being ranched) that could accidentally be commercially caught with the returning ranched fish.
--  Jesse Brown
A - Fish Ranching is where fish are raised by humans and are released into the ocean. The fish spend their life at sea and return where the fish are harvested.

Fish farming is when young fish are placed into floating pens in saltwater and are grown to adult size. The fish never leave the enclosure until they are harvested.
--  Scott Walker
Q - Are there any fertilizers that are harmless to salmon?
A - Fertilizers are generally composed of phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium. These are all elements that naturally occur in streams. Phosphorus and nitrogen are very important components for the health and welfare of salmonids. Phosphorus and nitrogen increase the primary productivity of a stream, which in turn increases bugs (benthic invertebrates) and feeds salmonid fry and smolts. In the Pacific Northwest (coast) most streams are actually nutrient poor. The decline in historical salmon runs has resulted in a decrease of available phosphorus and nitrogen and, consequently, a decrease in the carrying capacity of many of the rivers. Therefore, many streams in the Pacific Northwest are actually now being fertilized in order to increase salmon stocks. Where the problem with fertilizer comes in is two fold: contaminants and areas where there is too much fertilizer.

First: Most fertilizers come from an inorganic source (mined). Mineral deposits of phosphorus can also contain other contaminants such as Copper, Cadmium or Mercury. When fertilizing streams we are always very careful to use "food" grade fertilizer. Unfortunately, this means that the fertilizer is generally very expensive. Most household or industrial fertilizers contain heavy metals. If we start seeding the rivers with heavy metals it would mean that the fish would be toxic to consume.

Second: In some areas such as the mid Coast US states and the interior of BC many of the streams have lower gradients, are slower moving and (seasonally) warmer. The result is that these rivers are often not limited by phosphorus and nitrogen. Many of these systems are actually over-fertilized. The result of over fertilization is, again, a huge increase in primary productivity. However, a stream has only so much habitat for bugs and other grazers that consume the plankton, algae and plants that are stimulated by the fertilizer. After a certain point the plants will just grow and die and begin decomposing on the bottom of the stream. Decomposing vegetation requires oxygen. In slower moving, warmer streams there is generally less oxygen available than small steep coastal streams. Very quickly some of the large, warm, slow moving streams can get to a point that there is no longer enough oxygen to support salmonids.
--  Jesse Brown
A - Fertilizers harm salmon in at least two ways.

1 Fertilizers in salmon streams are harmful to salmon by directly destroying tissue and inhibiting oxygen intake. This is similar to humans breathing polluted air.

2 When fertilizers enter salmon streams, they disrupt normal water balance and promote tremendous growth of other species that remove oxygen from the water that would normally be available for salmon. This increased growth can make the water more acidic or alkaline.

Since fertilizers cause abnormal growth of organisms found in salmon streams it would be very difficult to find one that would not harm salmon. Fertilizers that break down prior to entering salmon streams would be the most harmless to salmon.
--  Scott Walker
A - Fish and fertilizer. The safest fertilizers come from returning adult salmon. These fish are composed of 3% nitrate and less phosphate and bring these nutrients back to the stream when they return to spawn. Trees and riparian vegetation also help replenish the nutrients in the nearby soils and water. Alder trees fix nitrogen in the soils and leaves falling in the water add important nutrients to the water to help feed all the critters living in the water. Commercial fertilizers probably are not good for the stream since they may contain a number of heavy metals depending on where they were mined from. Some of the purest fertilizers come from Africa. In Canada high quality, pure fertilizer is used to improve fish production in lakes and some streams.
--  Steve Seymour
Q - What are the concerns from the Canadian environmentalists involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty?
A - Simply from a biological perspective, politics aside, one of the greatest threats to salmonids is ocean survival (from the point which they leave the river to the point when they return). Salmonids do not recognize international boundaries; their life cycles carry them from Oregon to Alaska and out into international waters.

I have three major concerns with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Firstly, the agreement can lapse and both countries (Canada and US) continue fishing without a clear stock management agreement (as in 1997). Second, even under an existing treaty catch limits may not be observed. Lastly, the treaty is weighted more heavily in favour of politics rather than biology. Consequently, there exists the potential for detrimental effects to salmonid populations. Salmonids are a communal resource of the pacific coast of North America. Ocean survival, habitat degradation and over fishing have resulted in significant declines in southern stocks since 1947. Without a well thought out and concerted management program, pacific salmonids could be extirpated from their historical systems, as they have been in many California, Oregon and Washington streams. The Pacific Salmon Treaty is not plastic enough to protect salmonids.

An example of a system that could offer more regional control would be river mouth fisheries conducted by people living in the watershed. This would allow people in coastal communities to harvest and manage the resources that provide capital for their communities. Along with river mouth fisheries (or terminal fisheries) would be a cooperative agreement between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) and the Environmental Protection Agency (US) on salmonid management strategies that would be based on the biological needs of salmonids. A coordinated program for a shared resource would offer pacific salmonids the best chance of recovery to historical levels.
--  Jesse Brown
A - Among major concerns is the fact that salmon have been used as a political bargaining chip in the event of disputes between our two nations. There is a long history of both nations targeting and/or over-harvesting at-risk stocks to bring pressure to bear on treaty negotiations or to retaliate for perceived unfavorable allocations. Alaska intercepts B.C. stocks. B.C. retaliates by targeting Washington-bound salmon runs, intercepting fish from runs on the brink of extinction. Washington retaliates by targeting salmon bound for the Fraser River system as they dip below the border, intercepting endangered B.C. runs.

Terminal, or river-mouth, fisheries would help to address these interception fisheries that threaten at-risk stocks. The adoption of highly selective gear such as fish wheels and beach seines also allows the separation of endangered stocks from abundant runs.
--  Catherine Stewart
Q - What do you think will happen to Pacific Salmon as a result of Global Warming?
A - The question of the global warming effects on Pacific Salmon is far too complex for a simple answer. I think that the only thing that we can say for certain is that it will affect them, and everything else in the system. In order to predict this, we would need to know what will happen to mackerel and herring populations (the main food sources for ocean salmon) in the open ocean, and to their major predators such as Orca, seals and sea lions. Its like dropping 1000 quarters on the floor at the same time, and trying to predict how each and every one of them will land, heads or tails. We know on average that 1/2 will be heads and 1/2 will be tails, but which specific coins? Our ability to predict with certainty is unbelievably small (we will be correct 1/2 the time with 1 coin, 1/4 the time with 2 coins, 1/8 the time for 3 coins. How many times will be correct with 1000 coins?) And, if I can be a little humble in the face of complex ecosystems, may I suggest to you that the behavior of an entire ocean, with thousands of individual species, all interacting over a massive geography, is far more complex than simply dropping 1000 coins on the floor. So, no, I would not expect any person or computer to be able to either predict or model how these populations will react to large increases in atmospheric and ocean temperatures.
--  David Coopersmith
Q - Why don't people use pacific salmon in fish farms?
A - People do use pacific salmon in fish farms. The most popular pacific salmonids are chinook and coho. The reason that this is not widely embraced is that most of the technology on ocean fish farming has been developed by the Norwegians for Atlantic salmon. Consequently, it is easier and more cost effective to focus on time tested and proven technology rather than dealing with raising a species that does not have the cultivation history. Also, fish farm operators have spent a great deal of time and money promoting Atlantic salmon and have consequently developed a market for their product. It is always easier to exploit an existing market than to develop a new market.
--  Jesse Brown
Q - Are Canadian environmentalists concerned about ocean habitat?
A - I would have to say that the answer to this question is undoubtedly yes. Students would be much too young to remember this incident, but Greenpeace was born in Vancouver. The first big protest organized by Greenpeace, in the early 1970's, concerned the American nuclear bomb testing in the Aleutian islands, west of the mainland of Alaska. The main nuclear test site, on an island call Amchitka, was the first time that Greenpeace sailed into international waters to fight for the environment.

Other BC environmentalists have lost their lives fighting for ocean habitats. Paul Watson, one of the founding members of Greenpeace, was classified as an international terrorist after he and members of his organization, the Sea Shepherd Society, went to Norway and sank boats that belonged to the Norwegian whaling fleet. They snuck onto the Norwegian whaling ships in the middle of the night, and opened the bottom drains, allowing the ocean to come in through the bottom of the boats. The Norwegians at the time were one of only 3 nations that were still harvesting whales, including the sperm whale, which was on the endangered species list at the time. Paul's boat, the Rainbow Warrior was later blown up by French special forces while it was in the harbor at Auckland, New Zealand. The crew of the Rainbow Warrior was planning to sail into the French nuclear test zone (I believe that this was in the Murror Atoll, north of New Zealand) to protest the nuclear test program that was being carried on by the French government. One of the crew members of the Rainbow Warrior was trapped below decks by the explosion and was drowned, which led to an international protest from both the Canadian and New Zealand governments to the French government. France admitted the attack, but never apologized for it.

These are the most obvious and well publicized "concerns" that have made the international press. However, and I think much more importantly, there are literally thousands of Canadians scattered at universities around the globe doing research on the effects of global warming, water pollution, sewage treatment, over fishing, whaling and drift nets on world oceans. One of the leading scientists investigating the disappearance of tropical reefs (probably the most significant effect that is currently being attributed to global warming) is a friend of mine from UBC. I would term each and every one of these scientists as an environmentalist, even though they lack the publicity of Paul Watson and Greenpeace.

Canadians are some of the brightest and best educated academics in the world. We come from a society that has been blessed, far more than most people in the world. Because we live in one of the most special parts of the world, I think that we are much more sensitive to the damage that can be done because of carelessness. This is why I think that you see so many Canadians, and so many British Columbians investigating the effects of human impacts on world oceans.
--  David Coopersmith
A - Absolutely! Environmental groups from Nova Scotia to British Columbia are battling the impacts and expansion of the fish farm industry, fighting for sustainable management regimes and selective gear in the commercial fishing industry, and struggling to limit the discharge of toxins into the marine environment. Climate change is a major concern, and its’ impacts on marine ecosystem health are a focus of the Canadian environmental community.

The next big campaign looming in B.C. is the fight to maintain the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploitation. For decades, offshore drilling has been banned in B.C. waters. Now the newly-elected provincial government wants to lift the moratorium and allow drilling in some of the most dangerous and biologically rich waters in the world. The oil deposits are found in Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance — bodies of water in an earthquake zone, subject to massive storms and .weather bombs’ that bring with them some of the largest waves on the planet. Rigs would be located in the .tsunami zone’ — an area that could be subjected to enormous rogue waves resulting from seismic activity in the Aleutian Islands or earthquakes deep in the Pacific. The exploration, drilling and shipment of oil in these waters poses a serious risk to the long term health of B.C.’s coastal ecosystems — both marine and terrestrial.

As noted by David Coopersmith, Greenpeace was indeed founded in British Columbia and is now one of many environmental groups active in the province. I appreciate David’s posting on Greenpeace, but would like to correct one or two errors in his text. Paul Watson left Greenpeace in the mid-1970s and started his own organization, the Sea Shepherd Society. He has his own ship(s), but none of them are named ‘Rainbow Warrior.’ The Rainbow Warrior was - and is - the Greenpeace flagship. Thus, the Rainbow Warrior was not involved in Sea Shepherd’s anti-whaling activities in Norway. And when the French secret service blew up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, it was a Greenpeace ship that was attacked — not one of Paul Watson’s or Sea Shepherd’s vessels.

Greenpeace has since built a new Rainbow Warrior, which continues to sail the world’s oceans campaigning for a green and peaceful planet.
--  Catherine Stewart
  

 
created by 7th Floor Media  
 Biology

 Habitat

 Culture

 Fisheries

 Treaties