Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

The Broadcast with Jane Adey
An investigation into when the public should have been told about 2 million dead salmon
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radi...ut-2-million-dead-salmon-lake-monster-cressie

The mass deaths of 2.6 million farmed salmon on the south coast is now the subject of an investigation by the information and privacy commissioner. Michael Harvey is reviewing whether public interest disclosure provincials in the access-to-information act should have applied in this case. NTV’s David Salter reports.
http://ntv.ca/information-commissio...-should-have-applied-to-farmed-salmon-deaths/
 
Last edited:
Southeast stakeholders take aim at sea otters
November 2nd 1:51 pm | Laine Welch

A 2011 McDowell report showed that otter predation cost region's economy nearly $30 million over 15 years

They are certainly cute but the voracious appetites of sea otters continue to cause horrendous damage to some of Southeast Alaska's most lucrative fisheries.

How best to curtail those impacts will be the focus of a day-long stakeholders meeting set for Nov. 6 in Juneau.

"All of the people who have anything to do with the otters, hopefully, will all be in the same room at the same time," said Phil Doherty, co-director of the Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA) based in Ketchikan.

A 2011 report by the McDowell Group showed that otter predation on sea cucumbers, clams, urchins, crabs and other shellfish cost the Southeast economy nearly $30 million over 15 years. And their population has skyrocketed since then.

Four hundred otters were reintroduced to Southeast by the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game from Amchitka Island in the 1960s after nearly being wiped out by fur traders at the turn of that century. The otters, which rose to nearly 26,000 in the latest assessment updated in 2014, are under federal protection and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The animals can grow up to 100 pounds and typically eat the equivalent of a quarter of their weight each day.

Last year, at the urging of 20 Southeast towns, organizations and Native groups, the Alaska Senate passed a resolution asking for the state to take over otter management and to provide for more protections.

"If the population continues to go unchecked, predation from sea otters inevitably threatens the future of dive and crab fisheries, jeopardizing hundreds of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in economic activity," Sen. Bert Stedman (R-Sitka) wrote in a statement.

One suggested solution has been to allow increased hunting by Native Alaskans, the only people allowed to do so, and lowering the Native blood "eligibility" to one-quarter of a percent. But Doherty said at a growth rate estimated at between 12% and 14% a year, hunting can't keep up with the population. Another problem is restrictions on what Natives are allowed do with the otters they hunt.

"The Marine Mammal Protection Act clearly states what Alaskan coastal Natives can do with sea otters," Doherty explained. "They have to produce a finished product that is in the tradition of Native art and how they've used them over the years. They cannot harvest sea otters and sell just the pelt on the open market."

Patrick Lemons, Alaska chief of marine mammal management for the USFWS said last year that the Marine Mammal Protection Act limits the agency's response and they cannot intervene to protect commercial fisheries until a species is at "optimum sustainable population."

The agency recently put the Southeast region's otter carrying capacity at 77,000, Doherty said.

"Until we're at that carrying capacity, they will manage the sea otters in a very conservative mode. And once we get to 77,000 otters, we can kiss some of these industries goodbye - and it is not just the dive fisheries. The Dungeness crab fishery here in Southeast is being severely impacted and otters eat king and Tanner crab, so there's going to be impacts on all of the shellfish fisheries."

While the upcoming meeting will provide a valuable exchange, Doherty is not optimistic about the outcomes.

"Because the otters are so protected within the Marine Mammal Protection Act, I don't think anything is going to change the tide of the sea otter population here in Southeast Alaska."

The Nov. 6 otter meeting will take place at the Andrew P. Kashevaroff Building in Juneau. It is free and open to the public.

Pebble hearing in DC

Threats posed to the Bristol Bay watershed by the proposed Pebble Mine took center stage in Washington, D.C., at a hearing last Wednesday of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Opponents are hopeful the hearing might help put the brakes on the Pebble permitting process.

"If Pebble is developed, there is no doubt it will forever change who I am, who my people are, where I come from. And it will rob our children's children of their right to continue being Native people as we have for thousands of years in Bristol Bay," said Alannah Hurley, executive director of United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Alaska Public Radio's Liz Ruskin was at the hearing and reported that Pebble Partnership CEO Tom Collier, the only witness to support the mine, "tilted back in his chair and looked at the ceiling as Hurley spoke."

Alaska Congressman Don Young, who has not taken a position on the mine, criticized the witnesses for "not being scientists."

In a video of the hearing, Young said: "You're not listening to the science. You are saying a lot of what ifs. Can and cannots. Should we or shouldn't we. And this committee has a responsibility to review those that are directly involved. Not those that may be affected about it. It's about science."

Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), an outspoken Pebble critic, questioned the permitting process. He had especially harsh words about the way in which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is assessing the project, which many have criticized as being rushed and sloppy.

"What I first want is a proper review and a proper comment period, and I don't believe the Corps is doing either of those things," he said at the hearing. "And I'm going to push them very hard to push back, even if Donald Trump is pushing on the other side."

DeFazio was referring to pullback of special protections the EPA had placed on the Bristol Bay watershed in 2014. The restrictions were abruptly lifted this year on July 30 after Trump had a brief meeting with Gov. Mike Dunleavy who supports the Pebble project. That EPA pullback has prompted three lawsuits against the EPA by nearly 20 diverse groups.

Last week's hearing is "typically the first step before an investigation on the permitting process is launched," said Molly Dischner, communications director for United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

The Pebble Partnership has spent over $2 million on federal lobbying so far this year according to public disclosure forms, Liz Ruskin reported.

A preliminary final environmental impact statement on the project is expected in January.

Fish game changer

Just as farmed salmon grown in sea cages toppled markets for wild fish a few decades ago, land-based farming is set to change the game again over the next decade.

It will come in the form of recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and will cause even more disruption to world markets. That is the conclusion of Rabobank, a Netherlands-based leader in food and agriculture financing that is among the 30 largest groups in the world.

A Rabobank report this month identified more than 50 RAS proposed projects around the world with an estimated output to equal 25% of current salmon production by the year 2030.

That totals roughly 550 million pounds of fish. In comparison, Alaska's 2018 salmon catch produced 605 million pounds of salmon.

The report said most of the land-based farms are planned in Norway, but proposed production volumes are highest in the U.S. where six farms are planned.

In the U.S., Maine is taking the lead where Portland-based company Whole Oceans has received two leases alongside and underneath the Penobscot River. It plans to break ground on a $180 million RAS facility next year and begin output of 11 million pounds of Atlantic salmon annually.

The report said RAS could disrupt traditional ocean-based fish farming over the next 10 years adding "it's not a question of if, but of how much."


Blue opportunity

The Alaska Ocean Cluster, an arm of the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, is seeking a manager for its Blue Pipeline Incubator (BPI) in Seward.

"This is a blended position made possible through a partnership between the Ocean Cluster, the city of Seward, the Seward Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Development Center," said Casey Rangel, program manager.

The BPI manager will oversee all operations of the incubator and will act as the liaison to Seward's ocean-based industries.

Requirements include a bachelor's degree in business administration or a related field. Salary is $65,000-75,000 commensurate with experience. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Learn more at www.alaskaoceancluster.com/about/employment.

Laine Welch is a Kodiak-based journalist who writes a weekly column, Fish Factor, that appears in newspapers and websites around Alaska and nationally.
 
Hi All, no intent to derail this thread - especially not with a bunch of links. BTW, the last link I put up was a study/paper on comparing salmon ranching to salmon farming - I guess that is way off-topic. Umm - the thread is titled Aquaculture improving. It seems it has been turned into solely a link about the East Coast salmon die-off. Maybe Fogged In can start another thread specifically for that as that is the sole focus of some of the posters.

I am trying to understand if:

A) FF's are getting safer?
B) If they are not, should we shut them all down?
C) If we shut them down, what is the cost? (has anyone assessed this?)
D) If we shut them down, will we see abundant salmon returns - inevitably, I would think this is the most important point of all the forums here - how do we get are salmon returns to come back?
E) If we don't see appreciable salmon returns, what is plan B?

I have no problems answering any questions about my motivations - trust me - it is not to deflect from FF issues etc. I am really concerned about the lack of evidence proving that FF's are a major source of salmon stock destruction. Sino mentioned in previous posts that 90% of the smolts passing by a FF became infected with sea lice - this would really be amazing proof of how a salmon stock has been devastated in the presence of FF's. I haven't been able to find this - maybe just a bit of hyperbole and wasn't supported, okay we all do that. Can anyone shed light on any of the questions?

AA, appreciate the insight I am trying to derail the thread, perhaps after reflecting on post 307 you might also follow that advice.
 
https://www.saltwire.com/opinion/lo...-offers-up-some-propaganda-of-his-own-362857/
Nature abhors a vacuum, as the saying goes, but by golly you can always count on a politician to wade right in to fill those knowledge gaps with chatter.

Enter Gerry Byrne.

The provincial fisheries minister put himself in the middle of things this week when he commented on CBC coverage of the cleanup of dead salmon at an aquaculture operation on the south coast.

Byrne compared reporter Chris O’Neill-Yates’ photos of water tinged pink from salmon pigment being poured into the ocean to the images of dead seals on bloody ice that were often used as an emotional lever by animal welfare groups during the height of opposition to this province’s seal hunt.

“I’ve seen some very, very emotive issues when it comes to the seal hunt which do not reflect the realities,” Byrne said on CBC Radio’s “The Broadcast.”

“So I would caution, before anyone draws a conclusion.… Just think through how certain industries have been victimized by the production of images which may be far in excess of what is the truth of what’s happening here.”

CBC must have some kind of new-fangled fantastical cameras if they can produce images “which may be far in excess of what is the truth.”

Last I heard, none of my media colleagues were using augmented reality technology.

In late September, Byrne was trumpeting the province’s new “strong, public reporting policy that enhances industry accountability and public trust,” and said the province has also adopted “Policies that focus on… environmental stewardship, and best practices that adhere to, or exceed, industry standards.”

Well, where are those policies now? Where is the public reporting, when neither the provincial nor the federal government, nor the salmon farm company is willing to say how many fish have died. All we have is the company’s word that all those floating bits of fat and other decomposing salmon detritus in the ocean on the south coast aren’t harming the environment.

Byrne tweeted on Oct. 2: “A specific number cannot be provided by the company, by DFO or mother nature at this point as de-population continues & survivorship rates are established. A full report will be given. Is there something about this which is unclear.”

Yes. There is much that is unclear. The company knows how many salmon were in the cages. It should know by now — more than 40 days later — roughly how many survived and thus how many died, where all those dead fish will end up after being rendered, and in what form. And what exactly is in the pigment and water mix that was dumped into the ocean?

This is no slight against aquaculture. It’s simply the absence of information leading to public conjecture. It’s a simple fix, though: the company and the government could just offer up more information. If it’s all harmless and no fishers’ livelihoods or marine life are under threat from what’s in the water, then let’s see some evidence of that.

Byrne’s comment about the CBC images broadcast from the site was obviously intended to be disparaging, suggesting somehow that the images painted a false picture.

It reminded me of the Stephen Harper era, when reporters were kept away from the planes arriving with the bodies of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as if somehow the lack of news coverage would lead to — what? The public perception that Canadians weren’t being killed in the line of duty?

Byrne says we have a strong provincial public reporting policy when it comes to aquaculture.

Let’s see that in action.

Pam Frampton is The Telegram’s managing editor. Email pamela.frampton@thetelegram.com. Twitter: pam_frampton
 
and shifting the burden of proof is yet another deflection commonly used by FF pundits (thanks again Stephen - right on cue). I think Pam Frampton - The Telegram’s managing editor said it best above: "If it’s all harmless and no fishers’ livelihoods or marine life are under threat from what’s in the water, then let’s see some evidence of that."...
 
and shifting the burden of proof is yet another deflection commonly used by FF pundits (thanks again Stephen - right on cue). I think Pam Frampton - The Telegram’s managing editor said it best above: "If it’s all harmless and no fishers’ livelihoods or marine life are under threat from what’s in the water, then let’s see some evidence of that."...

AA, not really wanting to discuss this with you. It feels like it is better to just end our discussion then I wind up getting kicked out. I asked you a few questions, you won't answer any of them. The quote you bolded above is exactly what I am trying to understand. I don't think my questions could have been any clearer. How is asking "are FF's are getting safer" and "if not, should we shut them down" and "what would it cost" a deflection? Again, maybe I am too simple-minded for this group. I like Wildmanyeah's post because he is at least introducing new info on the FF topic. I opened a thread for you on the FF debacle on the East Coast. Hopefully, you can post all your links there so that us folks who are trying to understand the issue of FF's can get more out of a Forum than the government of NFLD is in the bag with the East Coast FF'ing industry and Gerry Byrne is a fool. Got it the first ten times.
 
There have been some groups exploring putting massive net pens out in front of the fraser river and ranching some fraser stocks.

The wild salmon policy is now the major roadblock to all thoes efforts.
 
AA, not really wanting to discuss this with you. It feels like it is better to just end our discussion then I wind up getting kicked out. I asked you a few questions, you won't answer any of them. The quote you bolded above is exactly what I am trying to understand. I don't think my questions could have been any clearer. How is asking "are FF's are getting safer" and "if not, should we shut them down" and "what would it cost" a deflection? Again, maybe I am too simple-minded for this group. I like Wildmanyeah's post because he is at least introducing new info on the FF topic. I opened a thread for you on the FF debacle on the East Coast. Hopefully, you can post all your links there so that us folks who are trying to understand the issue of FF's can get more out of a Forum than the government of NFLD is in the bag with the East Coast FF'ing industry and Gerry Byrne is a fool. Got it the first ten times.
You could always start your own thread pointing out all the issues with Open Net Cage Fish Farms like sea lice attaching to Wild Salmon smolts migrating past the cages, viruses and diseases being spread to anything swimming by them.
 
There have been some groups exploring putting massive net pens out in front of the fraser river and ranching some fraser stocks.

The wild salmon policy is now the major roadblock to all thoes efforts.
Would it work if we did it? I would think we would see more salmon come back to the Fraser. Seems like any human intervention will be met with resistance in Canada.
 
You could always start your own thread pointing out all the issues with Open Net Cage Fish Farms like sea lice attaching to Wild Salmon smolts migrating past the cages, viruses and diseases being spread to anything swimming by them.
Well, I guess I get that the sea lice and diseases caused by FF's are real, just can't understand the quantitative effects. I would probably be in favour of mitigation of FF'ing if it really helped the wild salmon. After watching the Patagonia video on another thread, yikes, they certainly see the problem way beyond just FF's.
 
Opened a new thread - just for me? Gee thanks, Stephen. Very kind of you.

Think I'll stick with this one. I'll tell you why:

This story is not finished, yet. It's just starting. The ISAv story is the real story here. It has yet to be fleshed out.

At first my suspicions that there might have been an ISAv outbreak that was covered-up rather than a warm water die-off was attacked by the FF pundits that troll this forum.

After the real story ISAv story broke - or was just acknowledged - Dave - to your credit - apologized for being wrong in attacking me for that. Thank you Dave - that was both mature and professional.

So - the issue around parasite and disease transfer and amplification since the methodology for growing farmed fish uses the "Open" net-cage is unresolved - as are the issues around lack of appropriate oversight and disease reporting since the promoters of the industry are also it's protectors and boosters - is also unresolved.

I agree that Gerry Byrne is a fool, and not an effective spokesman for the industry at this point. I also consider him to be a dangerous ignorant and egotistical fool - and is supposed to regulate the industry & protect the public's resources rather than respond with antagonism and belligerence. It'll take more than ten news articles to change that situation - which is my focus.

I know it is likely frustrating to FF pundits when the messaging goes off script - like ISAv and Gerry Bryne and this latest debacle - but this is - as I see it - an opportunity to highlight what is wrong in regulating this industry - the same things I have been saying for some years now. And I will keep doing so.

Maybe it is better to just end your attempt to distract from the issues I keep pointing-out before you wind up getting kicked out. That is your decision as to what you want to do. You are a smart guy Stephen. You'll figure it out eventually. I have faith in you. Make no "bones" about it...
 
Last edited:
So where are all these ISA outbreaks here on the west coast agent? An ISA outbreak is mandatory to report on any salmon farm in BC and Canada for that matter, is it not?
 
ISAv pacific.png ISAv2.pngIn October 17, 2011 ISAv was found in River's Inlet stocks for the 1st time - and there were other years/sampling results afterwards. However, the lab that 1st produced those results (Fred's lab) got it's OIE certification yanked after "Canada" (CFIA & DFO) gave the OIE $2M - because CFIA was protecting trade - rather than wild stocks.

The proper, responsible response would have been to retest - but *NOT* destroy the samples and deny, deny and deny - and punish Fred - which is what the CFIA actually did. The CFIA NEVER went to River's Inlet to retest the wild salmon population - but these researchers did:
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/fish-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-40

in 2016 - ISAV was reported again:
http://huffstrategy.com/MediaManager/Media/Text/1452187964_Salmon+virus+in+BC+news+release+Final.pdf

Charlie, Whole in the Water, GLG substantially added to that 2011 forum conversation - while Charlie even started the thread. Worth a re-read under the context of substituting the focus now on Prv instead of ISAv.

In 2018, PRv was reported found in River's Inlet and also see this blurb on ISAv on page 106 at:
http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/18614/etd19862.pdf

Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus
In sockeye salmon, the overall proportion testing positive for ISAV in 2014 was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.13-5.6%) (Figure B1). In 2015, this proportion was slightly higher at 3.1% (1.2-6.7%) (Figure B2), and in 2016, 0.88% (0.09-4%) tested positive for ISAV (Figure B3). The ISAV positive proportion was driven by sockeye fry in 2014 (3.8%, 0.416.6 %); smolts (3.8%, 1.1-9.7 %) and adults (4.9%, 1.0-14.7 %) in 2015; and smolts (0.88, 0.09-4%) in 2016 (Figures B1-B3).

No trout tested positive for ISAV in 2014 (0, 0-12.8%) (Figure B1) and none were screened for this virus in 2015 or 2016. Likewise, none of the spawning Chinook sampled in 2014 tested positive for ISAV (0, 0-11%; Figure B1), although 5% (0.5421.1%) of spawning Chinook tested positive for ISAV in 2015 (Figure B2). ISAV was not assessed for Chinook in 2016. Wanukv (Rivers Inlet) eulachon were only assessed for ISAV in early 2015 (Figure B2) and 7.4% returned positive results (95% CI: 1.6-21.7%). Klinaklini River eulachon showed a 5.3% positive rate for ISAV (95% CI 0.6-22%) (not shown).


Co-incidentally - as well as sockeye - Eulachon have also been depressed in River's Inlet and most of the Central Coast for some years...
 
wowa AA stay on topic and listen to Elmo, PRV is what we need to focus on and it causing HSMI.


Who did the sampling?

Also isn't there a new lab in campbell river that can test for all this.
 
View attachment 48868 View attachment 48869In October 17, 2011 ISAv was found in River's Inlet stocks for the 1st time - and there were other years/sampling results afterwards. However, the lab that 1st produced those results (Fred's lab) got it's OIE certification yanked after "Canada" (CFIA & DFO) gave the OIE $2M - because CFIA was protecting trade - rather than wild stocks.

The proper, responsible response would have been to retest - but *NOT* destroy the samples and deny, deny and deny - and punish Fred - which is what the CFIA actually did. The CFIA NEVER went to River's Inlet to retest the wild salmon population - but these researchers did:
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/fish-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-40

in 2016 - ISAV was reported again:
http://huffstrategy.com/MediaManager/Media/Text/1452187964_Salmon+virus+in+BC+news+release+Final.pdf

Charlie, Whole in the Water, GLG substantially added to that 2011 forum conversation - while Charlie even started the thread. Worth a re-read under the context of substituting the focus now on Prv instead of ISAv.

In 2018, PRv was reported found in River's Inlet and also see this blurb on ISAv on page 106 at:
http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/18614/etd19862.pdf

Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus
In sockeye salmon, the overall proportion testing positive for ISAV in 2014 was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.13-5.6%) (Figure B1). In 2015, this proportion was slightly higher at 3.1% (1.2-6.7%) (Figure B2), and in 2016, 0.88% (0.09-4%) tested positive for ISAV (Figure B3). The ISAV positive proportion was driven by sockeye fry in 2014 (3.8%, 0.416.6 %); smolts (3.8%, 1.1-9.7 %) and adults (4.9%, 1.0-14.7 %) in 2015; and smolts (0.88, 0.09-4%) in 2016 (Figures B1-B3).

No trout tested positive for ISAV in 2014 (0, 0-12.8%) (Figure B1) and none were screened for this virus in 2015 or 2016. Likewise, none of the spawning Chinook sampled in 2014 tested positive for ISAV (0, 0-11%; Figure B1), although 5% (0.5421.1%) of spawning Chinook tested positive for ISAV in 2015 (Figure B2). ISAV was not assessed for Chinook in 2016. Wanukv (Rivers Inlet) eulachon were only assessed for ISAV in early 2015 (Figure B2) and 7.4% returned positive results (95% CI: 1.6-21.7%). Klinaklini River eulachon showed a 5.3% positive rate for ISAV (95% CI 0.6-22%) (not shown).


Co-incidentally - as well as sockeye - Eulachon have also been depressed in River's Inlet and most of the Central Coast for some years...
So where are all these ISA outbreaks here on the west coast agent?


Gotcha, so no ISA outbreakouts on the west coast of bc on salmon farms, on the east coast, ISA outbreaks are not too uncommon. So a guy is obviously going to wonder if your theory holds water since there are plenty of atlantic salmon farms on the bc coast to put you ideas to the test. And a friendly reminder: Atlantic salmon are very venerable to ISA in case you oppsied and conveniently forgot. lol
 
Ya venerable enough to die on mass, birdie. I think the only ones conveniently forgetting that are Northern Harvest...

I guess this is where I am supposed to type "LOL" - but somehow - I don't find it as funny...and to be honest - I don't know why anyone would.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top