Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread
- Thread starter islandboy
- Start date
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
says it all....
https://seawestnews.com/fact-checking-fin-on-alaskan-salmon-ranching
"Recently, 19 conservation groups petitioned the Alaskan Board of Fisheries to stop the expansion of its industrial salmon ranching operation until more is known about the implications for wild salmon.
Scientists studying the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) last year stumbled on a startling, statistical link between hatchery pinks and fading runs of wild sockeye salmon, Craigmedred.news said in an earlier report.
In a peer-review study published at PLOS-One, the scientists reported they could find no sign of lasting damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the Sound, but they found significant damage caused by pink salmon.
“All sockeye salmon stocks examined exhibited a downward trend in productivity with increasing PWS (Prince William Sound) hatchery pink salmon returns,” they wrote.
The bottom line here is that there are many reasons from climate change to ocean pollution as to what ails our wild stocks.
Despite any credible scientific evidence to back their claims, the Canadian anti-fish farm lobby wants you to think that removing salmon farms restore Pacific salmon stocks to historic high levels, which it will not."
https://seawestnews.com/fact-checking-fin-on-alaskan-salmon-ranching
"Recently, 19 conservation groups petitioned the Alaskan Board of Fisheries to stop the expansion of its industrial salmon ranching operation until more is known about the implications for wild salmon.
Scientists studying the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) last year stumbled on a startling, statistical link between hatchery pinks and fading runs of wild sockeye salmon, Craigmedred.news said in an earlier report.
In a peer-review study published at PLOS-One, the scientists reported they could find no sign of lasting damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the Sound, but they found significant damage caused by pink salmon.
“All sockeye salmon stocks examined exhibited a downward trend in productivity with increasing PWS (Prince William Sound) hatchery pink salmon returns,” they wrote.
The bottom line here is that there are many reasons from climate change to ocean pollution as to what ails our wild stocks.
Despite any credible scientific evidence to back their claims, the Canadian anti-fish farm lobby wants you to think that removing salmon farms restore Pacific salmon stocks to historic high levels, which it will not."
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
https://seawestnews.com/as-canada-dithers-the-world-moves-on-with-aquaculture/
"As Canada dithers about growing salmon in the seas, countries around the world are increasing ocean-based aquaculture production for long-term sustainable food and nutrient security.
From China to India, Iceland to America and across Europe, governments are working with industry, conservationists and coastal communities to boost sustainable aquaculture as the United Nations keeps warning that over 90% of fisheries in the world are either fully exploited or overexploited.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the expected growth in demand for fish and fish products needs to be largely met from aquaculture.
In Canada, however, the newly-minted Liberal minority government has fallen prey to a coalition of activists based in urban centres, to declare that it will transition salmon farming in British Columbia out of the oceans and into closed containment systems by 2025.
Global aquaculture experts, scientists and the industry have labelled this move as unrealistic, reckless and destructive because growing the global supply of salmon on land would require the same amount of energy per year needed to power a city of 1.2 million people and contribute to higher CO2 emissions.
Raising land based Atlantic salmon also costs 12 times more than ocean farming."
Looks to me like it will be a non-starter.....
"As Canada dithers about growing salmon in the seas, countries around the world are increasing ocean-based aquaculture production for long-term sustainable food and nutrient security.
From China to India, Iceland to America and across Europe, governments are working with industry, conservationists and coastal communities to boost sustainable aquaculture as the United Nations keeps warning that over 90% of fisheries in the world are either fully exploited or overexploited.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the expected growth in demand for fish and fish products needs to be largely met from aquaculture.
In Canada, however, the newly-minted Liberal minority government has fallen prey to a coalition of activists based in urban centres, to declare that it will transition salmon farming in British Columbia out of the oceans and into closed containment systems by 2025.
Global aquaculture experts, scientists and the industry have labelled this move as unrealistic, reckless and destructive because growing the global supply of salmon on land would require the same amount of energy per year needed to power a city of 1.2 million people and contribute to higher CO2 emissions.
Raising land based Atlantic salmon also costs 12 times more than ocean farming."
Looks to me like it will be a non-starter.....
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
ok - so you disagree with the conservation groups and the peer reviewed study.... Neat! Not saying it isn't a pro industry article, but not sure how you justify the contents as being worthless... Probably a double standard, but if you don't have a problem - fine by me.
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/disease/pdfs/fish_disease_book.pdf
July 2019: Government of Alaska
II. Host Species PRV is reported from Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Chile, Japan and the Pacific Northwest (WA, AK, BC, Canada) infecting Atlantic salmon, Pacific salmon and trout (cutthroat, steelhead, sea-run brown). In Alaska, PRV was sequenced from three stocks of coho and one stock of Chinook and unconfirmed in one stock of chum salmon.
VI. Prognosis for Host Rarely, 20% mortality from HSMI has occurred in Atlantic salmon smolts 5-9 months after transfer to seawater. However, high levels of PRV genetic material are detected in asymptomatic wild and cultured salmonids with no evidence of HSMI disease. In one experiment, PRV was infectious for Chinook and sockeye salmon and persisted but did not cause fish mortality or HSMI, or other apparent disease. Testing of archived tissues from BC indicated PRV was present in asymptomatic wild and farmed Pacific salmon since 1987, possibly as early as 1977 before Atlantic salmon were imported for aquaculture. The ubiquity of PRV, apparent historic presence in wild Pacific salmon stocks in the PNW and lack of clear association with disease suggest the virus is of low risk to wild species of Pacific salmon.
July 2019: Government of Alaska
II. Host Species PRV is reported from Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Chile, Japan and the Pacific Northwest (WA, AK, BC, Canada) infecting Atlantic salmon, Pacific salmon and trout (cutthroat, steelhead, sea-run brown). In Alaska, PRV was sequenced from three stocks of coho and one stock of Chinook and unconfirmed in one stock of chum salmon.
VI. Prognosis for Host Rarely, 20% mortality from HSMI has occurred in Atlantic salmon smolts 5-9 months after transfer to seawater. However, high levels of PRV genetic material are detected in asymptomatic wild and cultured salmonids with no evidence of HSMI disease. In one experiment, PRV was infectious for Chinook and sockeye salmon and persisted but did not cause fish mortality or HSMI, or other apparent disease. Testing of archived tissues from BC indicated PRV was present in asymptomatic wild and farmed Pacific salmon since 1987, possibly as early as 1977 before Atlantic salmon were imported for aquaculture. The ubiquity of PRV, apparent historic presence in wild Pacific salmon stocks in the PNW and lack of clear association with disease suggest the virus is of low risk to wild species of Pacific salmon.
https://sportfishing.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Case-for-Caution.pdf
In our analysis, we find that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has effectively abandoned its constitutional mandate to protect fisheries and oceans by, among other things, failing to adopt a precautionary approach in its regulation of open net-pen aquaculture, in order to promote and develop the salmon farming industry.
Examples of this are:
Good read - thanks for the link, CE!
In our analysis, we find that Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has effectively abandoned its constitutional mandate to protect fisheries and oceans by, among other things, failing to adopt a precautionary approach in its regulation of open net-pen aquaculture, in order to promote and develop the salmon farming industry.
Examples of this are:
- without explanation, departing from the International Standard for diagnosing Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI) in farmed Atlantic salmon, in favour of its own diagnostic approach – an approach that allows DFO to deny that HSMI has been present in B.C. salmon farms since at least 2011;
- failing in its 2016 management approach to the piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) to test Atlantic salmon smolts for PRV prior to transfer into open net-pens, contrary to the 2015 court decision in Morton v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)and its duty under the Fisheries Act; and
- failing to comply with s. 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations by setting a risk threshold that only triggers harm reduction at a threat of species-level extinction.
Good read - thanks for the link, CE!
Last edited:
I am careful about what I read. There is a lot out there, so I read from what I can consider to be a reputable source. I agree, that there is BS at the far end of both sides so I stay away from some of the garbage stuff in regards to the anti FF just like I do with the pro FF. Seawest is a paid extension if you will, for the Fish Farmers. Fabian has his little forum there too where only pro FF stuff can be written. Go against that narrative and you are banned very quickly. So basically, he is left with just a FF forum that is only frequented by FF's. To me and many others, considering where the money comes from for that site and who pays him, that site is just junk if you are looking for real info. The only purpose it serves is to make it look like it is impartial and make it look like it has credibility to muddy the waters and confuse the stink out of people less informed. But he has struggled to gain credibility.
On his web page for his media outlet business, he states that he would write articles for you and visit popular forums to push the agenda as part of his services.
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
So, in summary: (as of July 2019) PRV has been in the northwest all along and other governments (non-FF) are stating it has a low risk to wild species. If we remove the farms, PRV will remain. Sorry Kristi, that might not support your narrative.
It seems that we will never economically compete if we move the farms onto land and the green's will go after them anyway on climate as soon as it happens. So what is the answer? Looks like the industry is working hard at addressing concerns and continues to improve. Why can't there be a happy medium of having the anti-FF advocates concede all is not lost with FF's and look at the entire issue from a global perspective. We need FF's and the world needs FF's, so lets be the best at it (this might already be the case) and employ as many people as is sustainable. Another 7000 people thrown onto the unemployment lines for (at best) incomplete or incorrect science is a fools pursuit. There are much bigger issues at play here and virtue signaling never solves a damn thing.
It seems that we will never economically compete if we move the farms onto land and the green's will go after them anyway on climate as soon as it happens. So what is the answer? Looks like the industry is working hard at addressing concerns and continues to improve. Why can't there be a happy medium of having the anti-FF advocates concede all is not lost with FF's and look at the entire issue from a global perspective. We need FF's and the world needs FF's, so lets be the best at it (this might already be the case) and employ as many people as is sustainable. Another 7000 people thrown onto the unemployment lines for (at best) incomplete or incorrect science is a fools pursuit. There are much bigger issues at play here and virtue signaling never solves a damn thing.
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
I hate to admit it but I mostly agree with you. You see posting after posting on this forum with links to sites and articles that are equally biased. If you hate Seawest you should similarly instruct the anti-FF group that there posts can also go into the dumpster fire. Oops, Alexandra Morton and David Suzuki are not going to like that. Actually, I think it can be illuminating to read the far left and the far right as both will parse factual info to try and support a non-scientific based agenda. In the end, though, we are left with real science that actually supports this industry. Not a fish farmer, not involved in the industry but all of the info I have read is we are after the wrong guys and this attack is on our industry and on many of the First Nations who are making a living off farming.
They will compete just fine. Farming on land is being done all over the world. A good article from DC says he's found 300 functioning and profiting on land CC aquaculture operations. Yes, some of them are even doing Atlantic Salmon. We have an opportunity to get onboard early and be a leader in the world instead of playing catch up. Soon, huge operations will be up and running in Closed Containment, and our industry will likely fade out if they don't respond. The heads of these companies don't care anyways. They are sitting in Norway collecting cash and they'll ride the status quo as long as possible.
We don't really need fish farms anyways as its producing protein at a net loss so we are actually better off without them. The claim of 7000 jobs is an industry claim number, but its not the real number. More than 10,ooo jobs rely on wild fish, so I would put more importance on saving what we have rather than promoting FF's at any cost.
We don't really need fish farms anyways as its producing protein at a net loss so we are actually better off without them. The claim of 7000 jobs is an industry claim number, but its not the real number. More than 10,ooo jobs rely on wild fish, so I would put more importance on saving what we have rather than promoting FF's at any cost.
For example this reputable source. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/f...maacfa-2017-docs/dr_marvin_rosenau_-_bcit.pdf Conclusions: • multiple lines of evidence strongly that where juvenile salmonids migrate through areas of concentrated fish farms in southwestern British Columbia, there have been largescale collapses over many different species, and populations, for Gulf of Georgia, Fraser River and some west coast Vancouver Island watersheds. • this has been the most catastrophic aquatic ecosystem collapse in the history of British Columbia and the evidence points to the proliferation of fish farms, in timing and location, in southwestern British Columbia.
Last edited:
Like I said in my post, if its too far on either end I disregard. I especially don't like Seawest for a bunch of reasons. Fabian is a little hotheaded, a bit of a baby and could really use a lesson on how to talk to people who disagree with him.
Take away both ends of the spectrum, and the meat left in the middle shows that there is some serious concerns over the open net pen industry having harmful effects on our wild fish. All you guys have agreed, Fish Farms have an effect on wild populations. Fish Farms have agreed that their industry have a negative effect on wild fish populations and the environment in which they operate. So I don't understand why you guys continually argue for the industry, unless you are somehow involved then I understand the purpose of self preservation.
The only question is how much impact? Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to quantify, and the FF's know this. That's why they keep their narrative at "if we are killing fish, how many?" They know no one can answer that because there are so many variables. I can tell you Norway and Scotland now believe that the FF's impact is a lot more than just a little bit. They are beginning to move in another direction, but why do that here in BC if they are not pushed? Its not their environment, its not their wild fish, its not even their people. So with little to no risk, they'll just keep going status quo until we get our act together. Its a win win for them, I'm sure they cant believe what the are 'legally' getting away with here in BC.
Lets talk Clayoquot here as an example. It is widely known now that the sea lice issue in the sound has been up to 30x the threshold at times of allowable sea lice on the FF's there. A high percentage of out migrating smolts have perished. Returns are crashing there. But the FF's only response is 'how many, numbers or percentage have died'? How on earth will we get an accurate number on that? Its a ridiculous question, and nothing changes. Its really sad what is happening there and completely irresponsible of the operations there to keep going.
By the way, the Hydro Slicer did squat and the problem persists.
Last edited:
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
Now we disagree - pretty much all opinion here with lots of finger pointing. At least we know where you stand, thanks for complete clarification.
I want to save our salmon too which is why I keep harping about this being the wrong target. Again, I think even the anti-FF folks will agree that if we eliminate all the salmon farms in BC, the impact will be minimal on our salmon returns (lots of scientific posts above confirm this). This isn't the problem and I think most of you know it (in fact, it is likely not even in the top ten of factors effecting our salmon).
Maybe we should just ranch the hell out of the salmon until we have none left - heck, why not have a few billion ranched each year - we will see more returns. 18 million smolts for salmon farming - we need to think big - like 18 BILLION smolts for salmon ranching. Guys, these are the types of numbers being battered about. It could permanently destroy our salmon, but hey, get it while we can.
So you claim I am all opinion with lots of finger pointing, then you follow up with 'I think" twice, 'maybe' once and a bit of finger pointing yourself? Thanks for your complete clarification.
That's a good point Dave, but there would still be variables in place that would make the claim difficult to hold. As I see it anyways.
I have read claims of up to 90% losses.
Similar threads
