Federal government petition to end salmon farming in Canadian waters

[TheBigGuy]

well done mcallagan! this is my only site, but I do hope others will take the same action. There is lots of time before the petition closes.

I also made a similar post on another local fishing forum I am a member of. Hopefully word is starting to get out about this petition. Anyone who can make similar posts online would help immensely. Especially on forums in other Canadian Provinces.

 

[capncrunch]

I was up in rivers inlet a couple of years ago and was disgusted with the number and size of all these nasty pens.
Thanks for the post. I did sign.

 

[agentaqua]

I was up in rivers inlet a couple of years ago and was disgusted with the number and size of all these nasty pens.
Thanks for the post. I did sign.

no fish farms in Rivers Cap'n - but some near Hardy on the way.

 

[Kisinana]

Signed

 

[bigdogeh]

I was up in rivers inlet a couple of years ago and was disgusted with the number and size of all these nasty pens.
Thanks for the post. I did sign.

I've never been to rivers inlet but I've always had that location on my bucket list and hoped to go soon. I was hoping it had been untouched from the farms. sad to hear it's affected (infected) also... that incredible run of salmon I was hoping at least would have been left alone... I guess nothings sacred to the powers that claim to run (ruin) this province. saddening and sickening at the same time.

 

[ziggy]

I've never been to rivers inlet but I've always had that location on my bucket list and hoped to go soon. I was hoping it had been untouched from the farms. sad to hear it's affected (infected) also... that incredible run of salmon I was hoping at least would have been left alone... I guess nothings sacred to the powers that claim to run (ruin) this province. saddening and sickening at the same time.

The Province is part of the equation but the Federal government could shut farms down anytime it chooses to!

 

[bigdogeh]

good catch ziggy.
although the silence from our provincial government and their seemingly increasing absence of environmental morals leads me to believe that they also wholeheartedly support these farms.
In my view I hold both governments equally accountable.

 

[agentaqua]

Some of the threads related to this topic with more background on these issues include:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...n-disease-the-w-t-o-and-fish-economics.52875/
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...sh-lab-loses-international-credentials.53914/
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...he-salmon-feedlot-industry-part-1-of-2.55108/
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...he-salmon-feedlot-industry-part-2-of-2.55109/

and especially:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/no-isa-in-bc-cfia.59119/

 

[agentaqua]

A high-tech salmon tagging project may help resolve one of the vexing unanswered questions of the Cohen Commission report on the decline of the Fraser River sockeye.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...estions-about-salmon-migration-and-fish-farms

 

[TheBigGuy]

I think that new tagging study is a step in the right direction. I see more than a few problems with it though.

The number of tagged survivors may not be large enough to give a real indication of the percentage of fish actually passing Salmon farms on their outmigration.

The tagged fish that do pass Salmon farms that subsequently suffer mortality can easily be attributed to natural predation.

It all depends how the numbers are spun by the person writing up the conclusions of the study. When the BC Salmon Farmer's association is one of the major funders of the study, one might question how independent this study is. Maybe it's just me, but to be considered an independent unbiased study should the fish farming industry really be involved. Seems a bit too akin to having the Fox watch the hen house.

 

[terrin]

I think that new tagging study is a step in the right direction. I see more than a few problems with it though.

The number of tagged survivors may not be large enough to give a real indication of the percentage of fish actually passing Salmon farms on their outmigration.

The tagged fish that do pass Salmon farms that subsequently suffer mortality can easily be attributed to natural predation.

It all depends how the numbers are spun by the person writing up the conclusions of the study. When the BC Salmon Farmer's association is one of the major funders of the study, one might question how independent this study is. Maybe it's just me, but to be considered an independent unbiased study should the fish farming industry really be involved. Seems a bit too akin to having the Fox watch the hen house.

My thoughts exactly why take money from the salmon farmers? If it smells bad it's probably bad and the optics are not good.

 

[shuswap]

I think that new tagging study is a step in the right direction. I see more than a few problems with it though.

The number of tagged survivors may not be large enough to give a real indication of the percentage of fish actually passing Salmon farms on their outmigration.

The tagged fish that do pass Salmon farms that subsequently suffer mortality can easily be attributed to natural predation.

It all depends how the numbers are spun by the person writing up the conclusions of the study. When the BC Salmon Farmer's association is one of the major funders of the study, one might question how independent this study is. Maybe it's just me, but to be considered an independent unbiased study should the fish farming industry really be involved. Seems a bit too akin to having the Fox watch the hen house.

I didn't want to reply to this thread anymore but this post perked my interest. First, these tags are not cheap so tagging thousands of fish is not realistic. Second, the ability to meet their tag target can be challenging as not every smolt encountered is tagged. Researchers need to be selective to ensure (the best that they can) that tagged smolts they are releasing are as vigorous as possible. Just tagging the 300 hundred or so they are doing is hard enough.

Natural predation is possibility amongst others. That's where other information comes into play.

I can assure you and the members on this forum that the people involved in this work (tagging of Sockeye smolts done by UBC) are not into "spinning" anything here and any funding from sources mention will have no bearing on their objectivity and dedication. This is Scott Hinch's group at UBC involved in this work and their resume on salmon migration and physiology is second to none. Scott Hinch was an expert witness at the Cohen Inquiry. This type of work is not inexpensive (i.e. the tags) so having industry stepping up and getting involved financially should not be discouraged. The Pacific Salmon Foundation or PSF (not PSC in the article....that is the Pacific Salmon Commission) is administrating this project so I am confident that it has the appropriated oversight. No, I don't think it's just you, but I hope I assisted in alleviating some of those concerns.

 

[agentaqua]

Don't worry Shuswap - the thread is pinned. Whether or not we continue the dialogue - the thread will stay on the 1st page at the top...

I don't think I would question the quality of the field work. I am sure it is professional.

Where the potential bias creeps in - is in the approval of the scope, and methodology of the research.

Approval of things like looking at "Fish Condition Factor" to look at stress and effects from sea lice - as but one example - instead of looking at effects expected to be found in blood cortisol. Approval of testing wild stocks caught in the adult fishery - rather than around fish farms - as another example. Testing for IHN but ignoring PRv - as but another example. Looking for sea lice on sticklebacks and afterwards floating a trial balloon saying that they could be a "source" of sea lice rather than the adjacent fish farms - and deliberately ignoring the alternative "sink" hypothesis - as yet but another example. Terminating your experiment before lice reach their most destructive stage - the motile stage - and then saying that the lice had no noticeable effect - would be yet another example.

How does this happen?

The make-up of both the Technical Review Committee and the funding board. Industry frequently employs blockers on funding boards to approve/disapprove projects that might put their industry in good/bad light dependent upon scope and intent and methodology. The Technical review Board after guides the research activities - if the project is approved. Industry can pull out anytime they want if they don't get their way in the prior approved projects and the project crashes. No report generated and no unflattering data is published.

That's why DFO requires 3rd party monitoring in every other commercial fishery - but the fish farms are exempted. How strange is that?

 

[TheBigGuy]

I didn't want to reply to this thread anymore but this post perked my interest. First, these tags are not cheap so tagging thousands of fish is not realistic. Second, the ability to meet their tag target can be challenging as not every smolt encountered is tagged. Researchers need to be selective to ensure (the best that they can) that tagged smolts they are releasing are as vigorous as possible. Just tagging the 300 hundred or so they are doing is hard enough.

Natural predation is possibility amongst others. That's where other information comes into play.

I can assure you and the members on this forum that the people involved in this work (tagging of Sockeye smolts done by UBC) are not into "spinning" anything here and any funding from sources mention will have no bearing on their objectivity and dedication. This is Scott Hinch's group at UBC involved in this work and their resume on salmon migration and physiology is second to none. Scott Hinch was an expert witness at the Cohen Inquiry. This type of work is not inexpensive (i.e. the tags) so having industry stepping up and getting involved financially should not be discouraged. The Pacific Salmon Foundation or PSF (not PSC in the article....that is the Pacific Salmon Commission) is administrating this project so I am confident that it has the appropriated oversight. No, I don't think it's just you, but I hope I assisted in alleviating some of those concerns.

Your reply seems to address a few concerns Shuswap. I'm glad to hear that it is the Pacific Salmon Foundation involved in sponsoring the study (misquotes do happen).

However, as another poster mentioned the optics are not good with the fish farming industry involved.

How much credence would you give to an American study on murders involving firearms if you knew the NRA was a major contributor to the study.
I think when you look at it in that kind of comparison, even you can admit that it taints the study to some degree.

After all, there are many ways to interpret data. Could a death where a murderer is not apprehended at the scene have been a possible suicide. What about deaths where there where other contributing factors such as lacerations, contusions, or fractures. Is the death a result of a murder committed by a firearm, or is the exact cause of death inconclusive. A smoking gun found on the scene would be enough for most people to find the firearm directly responsible.

When it comes to fish farms it's seems a smoking gun is never good enough. There are many ways to interpret data, and it all depends on who's doing the interpreting. That's why it doesn't look good having the fish farming industry involved.

You claim the fish farming industry is simply being a good corporate citizen by contributing to this study, but it smacks of corporate interference. I would be a lot more sympathetic if they had simply made a $150,000 donation to wild Salmon enhancement. That would never be criticized by anyone.

There's an old saying, "you don't get nothing, for nothing". Most of these types of contributions have some types of strings attached. Invisible or not, there is usually an attachment all the same.

 

[Birdsnest]

I have read agent anonymous and a few others on this forum insist that it is industries responsibility to prove they are having minimal effect on salmon populations and the environment. How are they to do this without spending money? Its hard for me to imagine a better 3rd party than PSF. Of course I suspect that some here would be more than happy to have "dr" lol Morton do this work in the name of science.

 

[TheBigGuy]

I have read agent anonymous and a few others on this forum insist that it is industries responsibility to prove they are having minimal effect on salmon populations and the environment. How are they to do this without spending money? Its hard for me to imagine a better 3rd party that PSF. Of course I suspect that some hear would be more than happy to have "dr" lol Morton do this work in the name of science.

I hear what you are saying birdsnest. It is just more than a little disconcerting to many after almost a decade of the Harper govt putting an official gag on any scientists reporting anything that reflects negatively on industry. Business interests were paramount under the Tory regime, and envonmental concerns were totally dismissed. The government may have changed, but anyone involved in the testing and review process saw what happened if they released any information that was not to the government's liking.

It's fantastic that there has apparently been a change of the official policies regarding gagging and disciplining of anyone involved with environmental testing and review process. Unfortunately, the damage can not be so easily undone over night.

Governments come and go, and anyone left involved knows full well that the Conservatives may be back in power again in a few years. The lesson left with people involved in this field is that if you don't wish to be disciplined, fired, lose your certification, or future govt contracts you'd best not report findings damaging to industry..

So, many people are still justifiably concerned that environmental protection can be counted on to be put ahead of business interests. The past decade has shown that business came first with governments in Ottawa, and here in BC as well.

It will take more than few months of a new government to prove to many that envirmental protection is being taken seriously again for the long term. Until many involved in environmental protection feel they can report on environmental concerns without jeopardizing their career or future contracts the whole process is still compromised. The Conservatives may be officially gone, but their legacy still remains. Many of the Conservative appointees are still in upper echelon positions in many departments, and it's going to take more than lip service to prove to many that they can actually do their work without fear of repercussions.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Just ask any of the employees that lost their jobs, or certifcations, or simply just had to quit their jobs because of government interference. Some scientists felt so oppressed they actually had to move to other countries where they could do their research without fear of government interference or reprisals.

That type of institutionalized reppression is not dispelled over night. Hopefully things have turned the corner with regards to environmental protection, but it is far to early to say things have really changed.

So excuse some of us, if we find it a little bit too soon to have any confidence in the powers that be that environmental protection is being done in an unbiased way.

 

[shuswap]

Don't worry Shuswap - the thread is pinned. Whether or not we continue the dialogue - the thread will stay on the 1st page at the top...

I don't think I would question the quality of the field work. I am sure it is professional.

Where the potential bias creeps in - is in the approval of the scope, and methodology of the research.

Approval of things like looking at "Fish Condition Factor" to look at stress and effects from sea lice - as but one example - instead of looking at effects expected to be found in blood cortisol. Approval of testing wild stocks caught in the adult fishery - rather than around fish farms - as another example. Testing for IHN but ignoring PRv - as but another example. Looking for sea lice on sticklebacks and afterwards floating a trial balloon saying that they could be a "source" of sea lice rather than the adjacent fish farms - and deliberately ignoring the alternative "sink" hypothesis - as yet but another example. Terminating your experiment before lice reach their most destructive stage - the motile stage - and then saying that the lice had no noticeable effect - would be yet another example.

How does this happen?

The make-up of both the Technical Review Committee and the funding board. Industry frequently employs blockers on funding boards to approve/disapprove projects that might put their industry in good/bad light dependent upon scope and intent and methodology. The Technical review Board after guides the research activities - if the project is approved. Industry can pull out anytime they want if they don't get their way in the prior approved projects and the project crashes. No report generated and no unflattering data is published.

That's why DFO requires 3rd party monitoring in every other commercial fishery - but the fish farms are exempted. How strange is that?

Oh I am indifferent if it's pinned or not....so I am not worried...lol.

The methodology of this research is being proposed and carried out is being done by very competent individuals that likely know more than you and I on this topic. The Pacific Salmon Foundation is as independent as you are going to get on this and they have a good track record already with the work they have done to date and the working relationships they have with community groups, government agencies, stakeholders, local business, industry and environmentalists. How can work like this be carried out without industry being involved? Personally, I find this collaboration a better thing to do than to have rogue activists carrying out questionable scientific work without having those links to the individuals mention in the Vancouver Sun story recently posted. I suggest to you that you may be jumping to conclusions too soon. When no report is generated and this scientific filibuster by industry occurs then we can cross that bridge.

 

[shuswap]

Your reply seems to address a few concerns Shuswap. I'm glad to hear that it is the Pacific Salmon Foundation involved in sponsoring the study (misquotes do happen).

However, as another poster mentioned the optics are not good with the fish farming industry involved.

How much credence would you give to an American study on murders involving firearms if you knew the NRA was a major contributor to the study.
I think when you look at it in that kind of comparison, even you can admit that it taints the study to some degree.

After all, there are many ways to interpret data. Could a death where a murderer is not apprehended at the scene have been a possible suicide. What about deaths where there where other contributing factors such as lacerations, contusions, or fractures. Is the death a result of a murder committed by a firearm, or is the exact cause of death inconclusive. A smoking gun found on the scene would be enough for most people to find the firearm directly responsible.

When it comes to fish farms it's seems a smoking gun is never good enough. There are many ways to interpret data, and it all depends on who's doing the interpreting. That's why it doesn't look good having the fish farming industry involved.

You claim the fish farming industry is simply being a good corporate citizen by contributing to this study, but it smacks of corporate interference. I would be a lot more sympathetic if they had simply made a $150,000 donation to wild Salmon enhancement. That would never be criticized by anyone.

There's an old saying, "you don't get nothing, for nothing". Most of these types of contributions have some types of strings attached. Invisible or not, there is usually an attachment all the same.

Well, you can believe what you want I guess. That's fine. I am not offended (seriously)...lol. I am very familiar with some of the people involve and know their experience level so I am not surprised that my opinion will differ from yours on this. There will always be skeptics of this research and supporters of it as well as no end of airchair biologists at their computers with Google at hand who believe they can do a better job. Ebb and flow.

Well, if we are going to be critical of contributors to these studies then we should include other industries to be fair. Results of this nature may shine light on other stakeholders so if they contribute are they involved in some sort of interference? Or do with just draw the line at aquaculture companies because all this work is about aquaculture anyway (hint: it is not)?

The BC Salmon Farmers Association would be criticized whether they donated $150,000 to wild Salmon enhancement or if they donate to this study in question. They would also be criticized if they didn't donate - being accused of making millions of dollars on the backs of wild salmon and not giving anything back.

 

[agentaqua]

I agree with your assessment of the PSF Shuswap. I was speaking in broader terms of past funding sources and history...

 

[TheBigGuy]

The BC Salmon Farmers Association would be criticized whether they donated $150,000 to wild Salmon enhancement or if they donate to this study in question. They would also be criticized if they didn't donate - being accused of making millions of dollars on the backs of wild salmon and not giving anything back.

Shuswap I was thinking your posts were finally starting to be a little more rational, then you come out with a statement like that.

Seriously, this is a fishing forum. I would be shocked if anyone on this forum would condemn the fish farming industry if they had made a $150,000 contribution towards stream reclamation, or any of the many other mitigation and enhancement efforts that desperately require funding.

The Devil himself could have made a contribution of that size to wild Salmon enhancement and I would shake the Devils hand and thank him if that were the case.

Obviously this is a very profitable industry if they have that kind of money to toss around to help improve their poor public image. With the money they are making perhaps the profits should be getting reinvested in closed containment systems in our Province, rather than just in Norway where most of these companies are from.

If that were the case there would be no need for this petition in the first place.