fish farm siting criteria & politics

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

I know you may find this hard to believe, but I agree with your last post. DFO cannot be the regulator and promotor at the same time. Ag Canada would be probably the best agency, given that it is farming. Funny part is that you feel that DFO have done too much for the industry, and most industry types think they could have done more.

What does result is a wishy washy implementation of the fisheries act.

 

[agentaqua]

AND a wishy washy environmental investigation...

 

[sockeyefry]

Yes, but Ag Can also has a right to farm legislation. It would have been an interesting regulatory debate. Usually agriculture is allowed to take place within boundaries set under the applicable areas of the fisheries act. I have seen stream courses altered under the guise of erosion control.

 

[Nimo]

In my opinion and we all know what that's worth: It needs to be provincial and not under the current regime - as it would simply be sold to the highest bidder. The issues are not specificaly fisheries or agriculture, it's environmental. We need to have an organization in charge of the marine environment that cares enough to ensure that it is not compromised.

Fish farms are a man made environmental disaster.

 

[agentaqua]

Sockeyefry - you bring-up an interesting parallel and contrast when you compare terrestrial farming verses aquatic farming using open net-pens.

With terrestrial farming, livestock are more-or-less (usually more) enclosed and separate from wild stock than in the aquatic environment (i.e bison do not float above, below and through the enclosed cattle herd). In the situations where there is potential for wild/cultured stock interactions - Ag Canada (through CFIA) does a risk analysis using data on wild stock habitat usage and migration routes, and creates buffer zones where cattle ranching is prohibited.

Examples include the interactions between bison and cattle in Alberta and NWT:
http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/status/bison/lim.html

and between domestic sheep and goats and Dall sheep in the NWT:
http://www.ccwhc.ca/Publications/NWT_Dall_Mtn_goats_Domestic_sheep_goats_RiskAssessment.pdf

READ THE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT ON SHEEP ABOVE AND NOTE THE SIMILARITIES WITH POTENTIAL DISEASE AND PARASITE TRANSFER BETWEEN FARMED AND WILD SALMON!!

THIS RISK ASSESSMENT IS NOT DONE WITH WITH OPEN NET-PEN SALMON FARMING. Why not?

 

[sockeyefry]

If an area has a disease, and a farmed animal catches it, it this the fault of the farm?

There always exists the risk of a disease being intorduced along with the introduction of new organisms. This exists with sheep, fish, humans etc... There are precautions that can be taken to limit any such intro.

Fish are much easier to limit this intro with because of their life histories. There are well documented procedures for the transport and quarantine of fish eggs which work quite well, and are in place in BC. These procedures have been in place for 50 years. DFO limits the introduction of eggs from outside BC. Only a few such transfgers have occured in the last 10 years, and all have been under strict control & quarantine.

Warm blooded animals are much more difficult, because the detection is more difficult, and there is not a stage such as eggs, ehich can be tested and disinfected.

The 2 papers relate to fish only in that there exists the potential risk of disease intro. Because the physiology of warm blooded animals differs from fish, so to does the ability to detect and prevent disease transfers.

All diseases which infect farmed salmon in BC have come from wild sources. All diseases have been documented to occur in wild salmon long before farming began.

I do agree that someone not playing by the rules could introduce a disease to BC, as there are some which do not naturally occur here. This would not be in the farmers best interest as it will ultimately impact the farmed fish to a far greater degree than the wild. ISA (and I am not saying it was introduced as the NB strain is differemnt from the Norwegian strain) in New Brunswick decimated the farmed Atlantic salmon, but in wild salmon there were no mortalities found. It is also possible that ISA exists everywhere, but need certain conditions to cause epidemics. The farms provide the oppurtunity for disease outbreaks, but they do not create the disease themselves.

This same disease transfer can occur when an angler takes baitfish from one lake and uses them in another. VHS is being spread around Michigan in this manner. So any anglers should be made aware of their possible impact in this regard.

In addition, boaters can bring disease organisms from lake to lake in water from bilges etc...

 

[agentaqua]

This talk of similarities and contrasts between terrestrial farming and open net-cage salmon farming in an aquatic environment – also brings-up other glaring inconsistencies – how Section 35(2) And 36(3) of the Fisheries Act are applied to other industries; but not open net-pen salmon farming.

First, what is Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act?

Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act states: “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” such as: “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend” is prohibited.

What is Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act?

Section 36 (3) of the Fisheries Act states: “Subject to subsection (4), no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water”.

A "deleterious substance" is then defined as:

• any substance that, if added to any water, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or to the use by man of fish that frequent that water” which would include anti-louse treatments and anti-fouling chemicals for nets such as tin and copper compounds, or
• “any water that contains a substance in such quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any other water, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or to the use by man of fish that frequent that water”.

Sea lice and their free-swimming juvenile stages, as well as other disease vectors are a “biological attribute” of fish habitat, and an increase in background levels that affect the long-term health of one or more fish stocks would be at the very least a “harmful alteration” or even a “destruction”, dependent upon scope and longevity of the problem. Krkosek's and Ford's peer-reviewed scientific papers prove this (yes they do sockeyefry).

It is routine that DFO inspects and often charges various industries that destroy habitat or release deleterious substances into fish-bearing waters. Mines sites, pulp mills, construction zones, and forestry harvest areas are frequently visited and all of these industries have been charged under sections 35(2) or 36(3); as applicable, when necessary:

http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat_policy/enforcing_the_act_e.htm

Yet the open net-cage salmon farming industry - the only industry IN THE WATER – is the only industry which has not yet been successfully charged under sections 35(2) or 36(3). Why?

Why is it if you let clean rinse water from a net-washing operation leach into a creek, you are in contravention of section 35(2) (HADD) and/or Section 36 (3) (deleterious substance), while if you load it up with dripping, fresh toxic chemicals; it’s okay to set it out front of that same creek in the ocean on a pen, with thousands of more interactions, risk and impacts to deal with?

Why is it that to date, this has not happened with the open net-cage operations for sea lice releases or toxic chemical releases? Why has “HADD” not been applied there?

Maybe it is because if a “HADD” is triggered by the review of the site application by FOC managers, a Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) is initiated – a full assessment, or even a panel review with mandatory public involvement and scoping (determining geographic boundaries of impacts) during the assessment process.

DFO managers are however, required to review the following when reviewing aquaculture tenure applications:

1. Is fish habitat present at the project site or in an area potentially impacted by the project?
2. Could the proposed project cause of “Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction” (HADD) of fish habitat?
3. Can the impacts to fish habitat be fully mitigated?
4. Should the HADD be authorized?
5. Can the HADD be compensated?

Fish habitat is then defined as “those physical, chemical and biological attributes of the environment (e.g. substrate type and structure, aquatic macrophytes, water depth, water velocity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, riparian vegetation, etc.) which are required by fish to carry out their life processes (e.g. spawning, nursery, rearing, feeding, overwintering, migration)”.

Although not defined in the Fisheries Act, HADD of fish habitat is defined in the “Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat” as:

“any change in fish habitat that reduces its capacity to support one or more life processes of fish. In assessing a project proposal for its potential to cause a HADD, habitat managers identify changes to the bio-physical attributes that would be of a type and magnitude sufficient to render the habitat less suitable, or unsuitable, for supporting a fish’s life processes.”

There are also additional relevant sections within the Fisheries Act:

Section 78.2 of the Fisheries Act states: “Where a corporation commits an offence under this Act, any officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for the offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted.”

Section 32 of the Fisheries Act states: “No person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing except as authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act”.

Appendix 6 of the Fisheries Act Guide identifies unacceptable HADDs for which DFO would not issue a subsection 35(2) Fisheries Act authorization’s for habitat such as spawning areas, or restricted migration routes, etc. Migratory routes are not identified in the current CEAA screening process. Why?

I guess the aquaculture bunch within DFO has noticed this embarrassing contradiction. Their first recommendation is to:

“It is recommended that the federal government establish regulations pursuant to S. 36 of the Fisheries Act to authorize the deposition of deleterious substances in relation to aquaculture operations under prescribed circumstances and protocols.”, see: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Aquaculture/ref/Recommend_e.htm#3a

The auditor General is also very concerned about this process:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/esd_pet_054_e_28761.html

I believe we have a bunch of criminals in DFO reviewing the site applications and “managing” the industry. Anyone else similarly shocked?

 

[agentaqua]

quote:If an area has a disease, and a farmed animal catches it, it this the fault of the farm?

No - but it's definitely the fault of the fish-framing industry that applies political pressure within DFO to not perform risk analysis before expanding their industry. I would say it is criminal how certain people high-up within DFO force their office to accommodate the industry.

Since the Auditor General recommended that DFO clarify its fisheries management objectives and develop a sustainable fisheries framework that incorporates the biological, economic and social factors that affect the fishery; DFO has institutionalized Objectives-Based Fishery Management.

DFO endorsed the precautionary approach, adopted risk management and ecosystem-based management, with the passage of the Oceans Act and the new Species at Risk Act.

The process for developing these fishing plans is:

1. Defining the Conservation Limits for the target species and ecosystem properties,
2. Establishing the Fisheries Management Objectives based on the biological and socio-economic aspects of the fishery,
3. Developing the Fisheries Management Strategies to facilitate compliance with the Conservation Limits and achievement of the Fisheries Management Objectives.
4. Identifying the Performance Management indicators.
5. Developing the Fisheries Management Operational Plan.

In other words, DFO:

1. Set limits to fishing that won’t harm the stocks or the ecosystem,
2. Set management objectives based on the biological and socio-economic aspects of the fishery,
3. Develop a strategy to get there,
4. Identify some indicators that provide a report card of whether objectives were met,
5. Develop the fishery plan.

Has DFO done this for aquaculture risks? Why not? What is the Conservation Limits for the target species at risk - pinks with migratory routes that interact with open net-pens?

quote:There always exists the risk of a disease being intorduced along with the introduction of new organisms. This exists with sheep, fish, humans etc... There are precautions that can be taken to limit any such intro.

Ya - like stop using open net-cages.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

I agree with you regarding DFO. That they wear too many hats, and really cannot serve the aquaculture industry or the fisheries act properly. They should do one or the other and not both.

In addition to your comment of "political" interference by the farm industry. This is not new, and political interference on behalf of the Commercial fishing industry brought about the demise of the Codfish. It is also eveident in how they are managing the pacific stocks as well.

I was wondering what makes you sure that DFO did not do risk assessment?

I also did not think that Pink salmon were classed as a species at risk?

I do not think that sea lice larva or fish poop qualifies as a deleterious substance. In addition, all outfalls from cities and human activities would be deleterious substances. You can't pick and choose what you consider acceptable.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:In addition to your comment of "political" interference by the farm industry. This is not new, and political interference on behalf of the Commercial fishing industry brought about the demise of the Codfish. It is also evident in how they are managing the pacific stocks as well.

Was there pressure to keep fishing on the Atlantic cod stocks coming from the commercial fishing sector while that debacle panned-out to a moratorium in 1992 - yes.

However, most of that pressure was actually from the large fishing companies (esp. Fisheries Products International Ltd.) that owned processing plants - not really from the owner/operator small boat fleet. The small boat fleet was among the first to question why was DFO allowing it to happen; stating their opposition to that management and assumptions as early as 1981.

John Crosby (from NFLD) was the fisheries minister at the time. He silenced his scientists who initially disagreed with the decision to fish the same levels, even though the science was indicating a huge problem. We are seeing the same thing here with fish farms.

See:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-10/ns_jr.html
http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover3.html

and

Hutchings, J., C. Walters and R.L. Haedrich. 1997. Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 1198-1210.

quote:I was wondering what makes you sure that DFO did not do risk assessment?

Because they don't? Ask them why.

quote:I also did not think that Pink salmon were classed as a species at risk?

They have not been desginated as a "species-at-risk" under the qualified definition within the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

However, pink stocks that migrate by adjacent open net-cage farms are at risk (see Krkosek's work and others). There is more than 1 stream where DFO has to do risk assessments: SARA is only 1 stream.

I already listed the now common steps that DFO is suppossed to perform risks on stocks through commercial fishing (i.e. setting Conservation Limits through to setting fishing plans).

The other type of legislated risk assessment is a disease/parasite transfer risk analysis as performed by CFIA for terrestrial wild/cultured stock assessments. I already listed this, as well.

NONE OF THESE RISK ASSESSMENTS ARE LEGISLATED FOR USE ON AQUATIC WILD/CULTURED STOCK INTERACTIONS. It's simply not done. Why?

quote:I do not think that sea lice larva or fish poop qualifies as a deleterious substance.

Well, that's 1 opinion. If you were a pink juvenile with a big honking sea lice attached to you - you may have a different opinion.

quote:In addition, all outfalls from cities and human activities would be deleterious substances. You can't pick and choose what you consider acceptable.

You're right - and it's an issue. Environment Canada's answer is to legislate that all recreational vessels now need to have holding tanks - so that when they get into the next port; their sewerage can be pumped ashore first before it is directly pumped back into the ocean untreated using the sewer pipes from a city, rather than being directly pumped overboard from the boat.

I don't consider that acceptable either; esp. considering what we know now about environment estrogens (i.e. birth control pills and related chemicals) in sewerage and their effects on aquatic biota.

 

[Red Monster]

Oh, but salmon poo is natural, don't you know?

I don't understand how all the crap from fishfarms is acceptable. If the tons of crap from fishfarms in no big deal, why worry about boats? This is a crazy state of affairs.

Of course, whatever you put in the water does matter in all kinds of ways that are not understood. This is reason enough to pull the fishfarms, the just not knowing their potential for harm. And from what is already known about the harm caused by fishfarms, it's a crime not to put an end to them. [}]

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Yes it was the large companies (FPI, NatSea) I think that it started much before Crosby though. Wasn't he the one who had to impose the moratorium?

The pinks are at risk in your opinion. They are not as you state under SARA. Population studies in the Broughton indicate healthy populations. Krkosek et al research is not conclusive, and they even say so in their own papers. Unfortunately this never gets the headline.

Red Monster

If we accept as a society poop from cows on fields, or poop from sewage outfalls, then we accept a certain amount of poop from fish farms.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Yes it was the large companies (FPI, NatSea) I think that it started much before Crosby though. Wasn't he the one who had to impose the moratorium?

Yes - the exact timing depends on when you deceided there was a big enough problem to take notice and act. Crosby was the last fisheries minister who eventually had to act, even though he stalled for some time - due to the perceived backlask from the fishing companies and loss of employment. Again - shades of the fish farming industry expansion.

quote:The pinks are at risk in your opinion. They are not as you state under SARA. Population studies in the Broughton indicate healthy populations. Krkosek et al research is not conclusive, and they even say so in their own papers. Unfortunately this never gets the headline.

Well, as much as I'd like to get credit for this assumption - It's not really "just my opinion". There is enough science out there to invoke the precautionary approach.

Krkosek's work is not "conclusive" from the point of proving 1 sea louse from a farm got on a single fish. That's because there is so much interaction between wild and cultured stocks - DNA evidence is inconclusive. You can't tell the lice apart - to tell which ones came from the farms.

However - the data is conclusive enough to tell there is a population-level impact from adjacent fish farms on adjacent wild stocks. The only ones in denial about this is the fish farming industry - not the science community. It really reminds me of the global warming argument and the response of the big oil companies.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

I really do not think that the science has shown the causal link between sea lice from farms and a decrease in Pink poluations. First of all, the pink populations are not in decline, and secondly lice are a fact of nature, which occur in the presence or absence of the farms. The farms may increase the loading in a particulat area, simply by an increase in numbers. That this increase has had a negative effect on wild populations is purely speculative, and river return data suggest otherwise. The papers you present have only suggested the causal link, but failed in proving it. Can you please provide a paper which does quantify the population impacts?

 

[agentaqua]

quote:I really do not think that the science has shown the causal link between sea lice from farms and a decrease in Pink poluations. First of all, the pink populations are not in decline...

I'm assuming the populations of pink salmon you refer to are the ones in contact with fish farms - like in the Broughton. In which case - I think that your assumption is wrong, if you look at the naturally-producing streams in the region

As an example, 85% of the 2005 Broughton return was from the artifically-enhanced Glendale, and a further 12% was from artifically-enhanced Kakweiken - so that 97% of the total run size came from these 2 artifically-enhanced rivers. Look at:

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/?action=d7_article_viewer_get_first_file&Join_ID=99075

In 2002, the The Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (PFRCC) found:

"unprecedented declines in numbers of returning spawners in 2002 with returns between a hundredth and a thousandth of the parental year.

"In numerical terms, the number of pink salmon spawners in the Broughton Archipelago decreased from 3.615 million fish to 147 thousand fish.

"Pink salmon populations do experience fluctuations, marked at times, and some have argued that the declines were consistent with past observations.

"In fact DFO and Council analyses confirm that the magnitude of decline and occurrence in several streams was beyond what has been previously observed and very unlikely to have been caused by chance alone.

"While scientific certainty is not absolute, European research does indicate that sea lice abundance can be associated with salmon farming. Given this evidence, combined with the presence of sea lice on Broughton Archipelago pink salmon smolts, and the fact the decline in numbers was limited to Broughton Archipelago fish, the Council believes that sea lice were associated with the decline observed in the Broughton Archipelago."

See:
http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/SalmonAquaculture-Broughton-Advisory_2002_0_CompleteR_20.pdf

quote:lice are a fact of nature, which occur in the presence or absence of the farms. The farms may increase the loading in a particulat area, simply by an increase in numbers. That this increase has had a negative effect on wild populations is purely speculative, and river return data suggest otherwise. The papers you present have only suggested the causal link, but failed in proving it. Can you please provide a paper which does quantify the population impacts?

Sea lice are "natural", and normally found on both juvenile and adult salmon at rates (as percentages of infected, and amount of lice on a fish in relation to it's size or weight) that do not cause population level impacts.

The problem with open net-pen salmon salmon farming is that it disrupts this balance by infecting the smallest juvenile salmon at a time when they would have miminal interaction and infection from returning adult salmon.

Orr (2007) found that: "Sea louse egg production [from Atlantic salmon farms of Stolt Sea Farms] peaked during winter–spring in both years prior to the seaward migration period of the area’s small and vulnerable juvenile pink salmon and chum salmon O. keta. Marine Harvest Canada salmon hosted over 6 million gravid sea lice that produced 1.63109 eggs during 2 weeks in the winter of 2003–2004." See:

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/documents/Orr_2007.pdf


Morton et al. (2004) found that 90% of juvenile pink and chum salmon sampled near salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago were infected with more than 1.6 lice·(g host mass)–1, a proposed lethal limit when the lice reach mobile stages. see:

http://www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/pdf/cjfasmortonetal.pdf

Krkosek et al. (2007) found that salmon populations exposed to increased L. salmonis exposure, would collapse at one to five motile L. salmonis per juvenile pink salmon. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17939989


There's some quantities for you. The Flat Earth Society is still accepting applications - if you're interested.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Where's Wolf at when you pitch the sarcasm and juvenile comments?

Again you have put up a lot of papers which suggest a connection, but none actiually quantify anything.

2002 was a crash year for pinks, and all you antis refer to it. You don't refer to the other worse years in the 50's and 60's. Guess you are in denial as well.

"the Council believes that sea lice were associated with the decline observed in the Broughton Archipelago." Again it believes, it does not know.

"Morton et al. (2004) found that 90% of juvenile pink and chum salmon sampled near salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago were infected with more than 1.6 lice·(g host mass)–1, a proposed lethal limit when the lice reach mobile stages. see: "

Morton did not prove the source however. Yet another piece of inconclusive science.

"Krkosek et al. (2007) found that salmon populations exposed to increased L. salmonis exposure, would collapse at one to five motile L. salmonis per juvenile pink salmon. "

A mathematic model predicting Biological impact. These are not used in drug testing because they are not reliable. That's why we use lab rats. There also has been no testing to validate his mathematic model. He arrived at a lethal loading mathematically.

Again, very nice array of science made to grab the headline and infuriate people. They have learned well from Suzuki and Moore. No where is this "Science" is there any shred of factual information which indicates any problems with salmon farming. It is all conjecture, and beliefs, opinions and carefully constructed models designed to reach and predetermined conclusion.

As for the Flat Earth Society, maybe we should both get a memebership, cause you are just as bad as me.

 

[finaddict]

round and round we go. I'm gettin dizzy. [xx(]

 

[agentaqua]

Fin, you only get dizzy after reading the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) website.

Which reminds me – sockeyefry - I noticed your mantras of

1/ “no cause and effect relationship has been identified between sea lice, salmon farms and wild salmon”, and
2/ your assumptions about pink escapement

straight off the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) website at:

http://www.salmonfarmers.org/articles/08_16_06.php
AND
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/articles/09_21_06.php

You talk about inconclusive science, and bring up a valid point about not knowing what the exact mortality limits from sea lice are on outmigrating pink smolts.

Although, we know enough about lice limits on other salmonid species to understand what our precautionary limits we should use using the precautionary approach - I find the lack of this specific information more than a little odd.

Funded through BCARDC and Aquaculture and Environment Fund monies, Kevin Butterworth and Scott McKinley of UBC were supposed to assess in 2005:

“the impact of differing sea lice loads on the physiology, performance and stress of pink salmon smolts at the West Vancouver Laboratory. These data will be used to develop a standard to which sea lice loads in the wild can be compared.”

See page 7 in:

http://www.aquacultureassociation.ca/RandD/RD-2005low1.pdf

Yet, at the end of 2006, Butterworth goes on to write a report for the Fraser Institute called “Sea Lice: The Science Behind the Hype” that states:

“ It is not known at this time what intensity (concentration) of sea lice has an effect on the health of Pacific salmon, nor what level would cause mortality”

See:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/publication_details.aspx?pubID=3168



Excuse me – didn’t UBC’s Centre for Aquaculture and the Environment, with Kevin G. Butterworth and Scott McKinley gobble-up public monies to specifically answer this question? How much money was mispent?

What happened? Were the results too embarrassing, or were the researchers incompetent? Talk about inconclusive science, sockeyefry.

Oh wait, in 2006, the Pacific Salmon Forum gave the same Kevin Butterworth and Scott McKinley of UBC additional monies so that were supposed to monitor the health risks of sea lice from laboratory based studies to provide data on the effects of sea lice infestation on the health of coho and Chinook. They also gave monies to a project headed by Simon Jones of DFO to examine the effect of prior exposure to L. salmonis on the establishment and outcome of subsequent infections, and are differences in susceptibility between species related to differences in how L. salmonis responds to the different host

See: P. 31 – 33 - APPENDIX: Research Contracts in:

http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/pdfs-all-docs/PSFannualreport.pdf

HMMM – Was the results inconclusive – or just too damn conclusive. Why are we giving these researchers public monies for inconclusive results? Is that because their real objective is to block other researchers from getting monies to find the truth?

Kevin Butterworth and Scott McKinley of UBC from 2004 to 2007 were also co-authors and co-researchers for the 2004 AquaNet project on the “Development of a Risk Factor Model to Estimate the Impact of Sea Lice Infestation from Fish Farms on Native Stocks” in the Hardangerfjord system

In it are these statements:

p.4 – “Given the frequently high numbers of gravid salmon lice carried by the large numbers of cultured fish throughout the year, it is likely that the development of an aquaculture industry has lead to changes in the natural host-parasite relationship, and made possible the production of large amounts of infective dispersal lice stages. “

p.4 - “Based on the evidence collected during the 1990’s and later, salmon lice must therefore at present be regarded a major factor limiting the production potential of many wild Norwegian salmon and sea trout stocks.”

p.4 - “In the Hardangerfjord system where the study is planned, a widespread and pronounced decrease in wild stocks of salmon and sea trout has been recognized for about a decade. Due to a generally low level of monitoring activity of wild stocks, the decline has primarily been detected through reduced river catches, but also through low counts of spawners in a couple of rivers.”

p.4 - “Simultaneously, very high infection levels of salmon lice have been recorded on sea trout in the area from 1994, which is shortly after the increase of fish farming in the area. These observations led to a strong concern about the wild stocks in the fjord, and a suggested a causal link between salmon farming and the decline in the wild stocks.”

See Final report for NFR-project no. 163869: “The Hardangerfjord salmon lice project – 2004-2007 at:

http://www.fiskerifond.no/files/projects/attach/552242.pdf

I couldn’t understand this incongruity until I read that:

1/ "on November 2001, the B.C. Liberal government had eliminated Fisheries Renewal B.C., a Crown corporation that funded the restoration of wild salmon habitat and stock enhancement, amongst other endeavors".

2/ "On September 12, 2002, following the meeting with Little and Grydeland, the government announced that the Aquaculture and Environment Fund administered by the Science Council would receive $3.75 million in provincial funding. Of that funding, $2.75 million came from Fisheries Renewal. (Another $1.25 million in residual Fisheries Renewal funding went to the University of B.C. to establish a research chair in Aquaculture and Environment)."

3/ "In short, taxpayer money once earmarked to support wild salmon runs and other wild fisheries needs was redirected to support the fish farming industry".

See:

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/?action=d7_article_viewer_get_first_file&Join_ID=83604

 

[wolf]

OK sock I am here you still want to poke the grizzly!!!!!!!!!

I have been guiding up in knight inlet for the past 15 years every summer and every year a new farm magicly appers I have travelled ALL over the knight inlet and surrounding waters extesively.what do you do for a living ??? do you guide???do you even own a boat???or are you like some here I call arm chair fisherman???I am out there living the dream of accually know the waters and fishing them. the fish that swim up to glendale cove and the kakweiken and other creeks and rivers dont have a hope n hell to make it out there is a farm in almost every bay,sound,channel now!!!!!!!!!!

And you say there is no link between the farms and the pink decline come on man give you head a shake. I have seen personally the decline in the stocks as "I" am there seeing it first hand for the last 15 years. these farms not only effect just fish as they are in the food chain the loss effects all of the players in the food chain and most of all the grizzly bears in glendale.

There were some great people that made some major repairs to fix the gravel beds for the pinks to spawn in the cove area making beds and channels and cleaning up debris it was painstaking and back breaking work I am sure and my hats off to those who did the work.

Sock you have your opnion but until you walk a mile in my shoes(good luck size 13)and see what I have seen and done, you only put out speculation not knowledge until you do I wont consider you a great source of info sorry little fellow I speak the truth.

Sorry again if I have hurt your feelings or offended you!!!!

Wolf

 

[sockeyefry]

Wolf,

Last time I checked this was a free country.

Just because you can't catch fish, doesn't mean there are no fish there.

Stock assessments in the Broughton indicate that the last 20 years have seen the highest number of average spawning pink returning to the area. The big 2002 crash which brought out the chicken little's, was not the worst. There were 5 worse years in the 50's and 60's.

Now Agent's going to suggest that the pinks are enhanced and he is right, but these fry have to run the same as you suggest gauntlet if farms that the wild stocks do, and take the same suggested if not higher mortality. This would indicate that there should be a downward trend in the returns, but they continue their up down cycle of odd and even years, and average higher than the previous 20 years. The conclusion could be drawn from this data that the farms have actually helped the pinks. How about that? Probabaly didn't enter your mind did it, because you are so convinced that farms are bad, that you have stopped thinking.

There are no reports that agent has produced which conclusively point to a direct cause and effect. They merely suggest that there might be, and through carefully worded abstracts and sunmmaries grab the appropriate headlines for their agendas. Hey if Agent can conspiracy theory so can I.

Wolk take any report from Morton or Krkosek, and actually read the thing, from start to finish. Don't stop at the summary, but read the discussion and conclusions. Here you will find the real meat of the study, which often include the phrase: "while no causal link could be found"
This means that they could not find any direct link between farms and wild decline to support their conclusions.

The Pacific Salmon Foundation is trying to make sense of this whole mess of dueling scientists by putting together guideline for lice research. This is to try and standardise the methods used so that the studies meet the first cirteria of repeatablilty.

I think that this issue is too important for you to brfush it off as the farmns fault. Have you ever stopped to consider what if it isn't? If you succeed in removing fish farms and the salmon start to decline because of some other factor that was ignored by over zealous scientists. Doesn't this worry you?

Now Agent is taking the comnspiracy route with his last post. Sounds a bit Paranoid to me, but has it occurred to him that the research was inconclusive, or is ongoing, and a concrete conclusion has not yet been reached? Unlike Morton and KRkosek, real science does not the headline, and can wait for concrete results.