fish farm siting criteria & politics

[handee]

Cuttlefish,

There has been several offshore aquaculture conferecnes and you can find them by googling. You'll see the state of the technology for yourself- pretty rinky dink and not for salmon. The most succesful has been the impounding of tuna by tying the geodesic pens to our of service oil rigs. there is also one for high end fish in Hawaii.

The considerations of how to design it for salmon boggles the mind. You have to sink the pens quite far under the surface to survive the weather. most days you cannot reach the pens to feed them. feeding and tending the fish is tricky but how do you let them gulp the air they need occasionally for their swim bladders? fish without swim bladders seem to be the only candidates eg Atlantic cod.

Iam not sure what is uncivilized by suggesting we ban fishing and embrace farming. abandoning slaughtering wild stocks for fun and profit has been the normal course of human history. thats civilized, killing wild stock is what we used to do when we were UNcivilized. from buffaloes to cows to pigs to chicken to catfish to carp to salmon. you name it- even veggies and fruit we stopped harvets wild and transferred to farming. iam just stating the bleeding obvious.

iam not saying we farm salmon solely because they are endangered, any more than our commercial and professional sportsfishers head out for the pure thrill lof slaughter. iam saying we should embrace salmon farming in open netpens because , unlike SEP and ocean ranching it has proved the least harmful way of getting our salmon from the sea.

surely that's not a difficult concept to grasp. you seem to be okay with killing salmon directly for profit (commercial and sportsfishing are huge industries) so it stands to reason that you would encouarage an industry that takes pressure off the wild stock you cherish. All Pacific stocks are rated as fully- or over exploited by the FAO. the ethical thing to do is eat ONLY farm salmon. isnt that just sooo obvious?

the real paradox is not presented by me, but by those who express their love for the wild salmon by a) killing them as a sport or a job and b) demonizing the only logical way to raise them for food.

 

[agentaqua]

Handee,

You wining and finger-pointing about commercial and recreational fisheries killing wild salmon is - to me - an attempt to absolve your industry of it's negative effects on adjacent wild stocks.

As I wrote to sockeyefry when he also tried to spout the fishfarm rhetoric on this topic at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=18

"...You can devalue the true worth of wild salmon stocks so that they don't reflect the values they should have in society. Unfortunately, the world does depend upon money as the justification for doing business.

Therefore, whole fishing communities (commercial- and sports-) depend upon the financial value placed on wild salmon; while the freshwater and marine ecosystems depend upon salmon as a vehicle that transports energy and nutrients from the marine environment back to the freshwater hatcheries.

If we financially devalue that service provided to us - which we do - we don't have as rigid stewardship of that resource. It's only pinks - some say.

That's because - paradoxically – valuing wild salmon and encouraging stewardship also depends upon the value that fishermen are paid for their catch.

If commercial fishermen are only paid ~$0.20-0.40/lb for chum, and ~$0.10-0.20/lb for wild pink salmon – while open net-pen salmon farms consistently get paid $2.25+/lb for their farmed Atlantic salmon - what does that say about our values as a society? Where is the incentive to conserve wild stocks – if the money is in farmed salmon?

It's not the killing of animals for food that's the issue - mankind has done that for thousands of years - it's the management of the resource using greed as a surrogate for sustainability that's the issue. It's the corporate influence on our democracy that's the problem. I spoke of this earlier on these postings.

So - yes - wild eating salmon does increase it's market price, and increases the incentive to conserve wild stocks.

The next question - is that done sustainably?

Often not.

However, salmon from suppliers certified (http://www.msc.org/html/content_484.htm) through the Marine Stewardship Council (http://www.msc.org/html/content_462.htm) often is. There is a push for all capture fisheries to go through this process."

 

[cuttlefish]

Hey handee,
I thought your suggestion was that this thread was quite civil, which is, in my opinion, way different from whether the harvest of wild salmon is civilized. However, to clarify my position, I believe that harvesting of anything wild and natural, whether it be animals or plants, is civilized as long as it is done as respectfully as possible. Whomever does the harvesting does so while taking into consideration the needs and requirements of the species being harvested and all who depend on that species before considering their own needs. This, I believe is the same path that earlier societies who have had successful relationships with the natural environments in which they existed have taken. I don't with you that our society has reached the point that we can no longer respectfully and successfully harvest wild creatures. I agree that we can't feed the world on wild salmon, but I disagree that we should abandon the practice of harvesting from the natural world and embrace practices that disrupt the balance of nature which I believe open net cage salmon is guilty of. Anyway, enough of my opinion, I took your advice and googled "offshore aquaculture". Here is what I found. It doesn't sound too rinky dink, as you say, to me. Of course, this information is now five years old, which means that these European examples have now been successful for more that 25 years.
_______________________________________________________________________
Semi-submersible offshore cages

Johan Olbing 1 and Lars Henriksson*2

1 FARMOCEAN INTERNATIONAL, P.O. Box 101 54, S-434 22 Kungsbacka, Sweden

2 NORDITRADE, 132 Banff Rd, Toronto, ON, M4P 2P5, Canada

Offshore aquaculture is still in its infancy in North America. Some research projects have been initiated, but offshore aquaculture still doesn’t play a commercial role in North America. At the same time, there is a lot of interest in the concept. Most people involved see the potential in offshore aquaculture.

In Europe, the situation is somewhat different. Offshore aquaculture installations have been in commercial operation for close to 20 years. While the environment might differ from North America, a lot of the findings from Europe are of great value to the future development along the Canadian and American coastlines.

In this presentation, the authors will discuss among other things how offshore aquaculture developed in Europe, the experience so far, what spices that have been commercially successful, and requirements on the equipment used. The authors will also present how the European experience can be transferred to North America; thereby enable North American fish farm operators to reach a commercial stage sooner."
______________________________________________________________________
BTW, This was a Canadian symposium. Here's the link;
https://www.aquacultureassociation.... Canadian waters: legal issues and challenges

 

[agentaqua]

'Hand over sea lice data' fish farm critics demand Environmental group wants official numbers for lice infestations in B.C.
Kris Schumacher. Daily News. Prince Rupert, B.C.: May 27, 2008. pg. 1

(Copyright 2008 The Daily News (Prince Rupert))


The T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation is continuing a four-year battle against the province to obtain records of sea lice infestations that the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has gathered during visits to British Columbia salmon farms.

The Foundation filed a legal submission to B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner through Ecojustice this month, claiming the government is wrongly putting commercial secrecy before the public's right to know about the extent of sea lice infestations on sites owned by Mainstream, Canada's second-largest salmon farm operator.

Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund) Executive Director Devon Page said the government information data would help conservation groups determine whether farm operations are spreading disease and parasites into B.C.'s natural waters, what the magnitude of the problem is, and what can be done about it.

"The B.C. government has assured the public that salmon farms are not harming wild salmon, yet it refuses to release the data that would allow the public to judge that position, and does not even want the public to know results of environmental sampling conducted by public servants," said Randy Christensen, a staff lawyer with Ecojustice.

While Canada's largest salmon farm operator Marine Harvest voluntarily releases some of its sea lice data to the public, the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation says Mainstream has consistently refused to. The T. Buck Suzuki Foundation's Executive Director David Lane is adamant the provincially collected data should be available, and was in Norway last week to present a resolution to Mainstream's parent company Cermaq at their Annual General Meeting.

Representing the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), Lane made a request to Cermaq and its controlling shareholder, the Norwegian government, asking for full compliance with Norwegian state policies on sustainability for state corporations.

"It's outrageous that the Norwegian government professes to run sustainable state-owned companies, yet their salmon farms in B.C. are causing serious environmental harm and operate in a manner that would not be allowed in Norway," said Lane.

"The Norwegian government must take immediate action to ensure Mainstream Canada stops harming the B.C. environment and putting B.C. wild salmon runs in jeopardy."

CAAR maintains that Mainstream open net-cage salmon farms in the United Nations Biosphere Reserve in Clayquot Sound, the Northern Georgia Strait, and the Broughton Archipelago are depressing wild salmon runs and putting some stocks at risk of extinction.

Credit: The Daily News

 

[agentaqua]

'Hand over sea lice data' fish farm critics demand Environmental group wants official numbers for lice infestations in B.C.
Kris Schumacher. Daily News. Prince Rupert, B.C.: May 27, 2008. pg. 1

(Copyright 2008 The Daily News (Prince Rupert))


The T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation is continuing a four-year battle against the province to obtain records of sea lice infestations that the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has gathered during visits to British Columbia salmon farms.

The Foundation filed a legal submission to B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner through Ecojustice this month, claiming the government is wrongly putting commercial secrecy before the public's right to know about the extent of sea lice infestations on sites owned by Mainstream, Canada's second-largest salmon farm operator.

Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund) Executive Director Devon Page said the government information data would help conservation groups determine whether farm operations are spreading disease and parasites into B.C.'s natural waters, what the magnitude of the problem is, and what can be done about it.

"The B.C. government has assured the public that salmon farms are not harming wild salmon, yet it refuses to release the data that would allow the public to judge that position, and does not even want the public to know results of environmental sampling conducted by public servants," said Randy Christensen, a staff lawyer with Ecojustice.

While Canada's largest salmon farm operator Marine Harvest voluntarily releases some of its sea lice data to the public, the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation says Mainstream has consistently refused to. The T. Buck Suzuki Foundation's Executive Director David Lane is adamant the provincially collected data should be available, and was in Norway last week to present a resolution to Mainstream's parent company Cermaq at their Annual General Meeting.

Representing the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), Lane made a request to Cermaq and its controlling shareholder, the Norwegian government, asking for full compliance with Norwegian state policies on sustainability for state corporations.

"It's outrageous that the Norwegian government professes to run sustainable state-owned companies, yet their salmon farms in B.C. are causing serious environmental harm and operate in a manner that would not be allowed in Norway," said Lane.

"The Norwegian government must take immediate action to ensure Mainstream Canada stops harming the B.C. environment and putting B.C. wild salmon runs in jeopardy."

CAAR maintains that Mainstream open net-cage salmon farms in the United Nations Biosphere Reserve in Clayquot Sound, the Northern Georgia Strait, and the Broughton Archipelago are depressing wild salmon runs and putting some stocks at risk of extinction.

Credit: The Daily News

 

[agentaqua]

Sea lice numbers down; reason under debate
Dan MacLennan. Courier - Islander. Campbell River, B.C.: May 30, 2008. pg. 14
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. May 30, 2008


Sea lice don't appear to be turning up on young salmon in local waters in the numbers expected by some groups, but possible reasons remain wide open to interpretation.

"It should be one of the more infected areas if we are going to find infected fish because there's more farmed fish in that (Okisollo) channel," says Jody Eriksson, a local fisherman hired to catch the young fish for a research project sponsored by the Raincoast Conservation Society of the Coastal Alliance on Aquaculture Reform. "But this year, for a number of different reasons, there does not seem to be anywhere near as many sea lice on the fish as there has been in the last four years."

The Broughton Archipelago has been the centre of the debate over the effects of fish farm sea lice on wild juvenile salmon, but the focus spread south to the waters of the Discovery Islands in April when a scientific paper from Alexandra Morton, Dr. Richard Routledge and Dr. Martin Krkosek looked at 4,700 young wild salmon near and distant to fish farms in 2005 and 2006 throughout the Discovery Islands.

"We found four times as many wild juvenile salmon were infected with sea lice near fish farms than distant from the farms," Morton said in a news release. "Then in 2006 when most of the farms were empty, the sea lice declined."

The study found sea lice on juvenile pink, chum and sockeye salmon, as well as larval herring in the Discovery Islands.

"This is the northern Georgia Strait and this is an area that we're concerned about," said Ruby Berry of the Georgia Straight Alliance, earlier this month. "We kept hearing from all kinds of directions that it was a Broughton-specific problem and that it was somehow related to the geography of the Broughton. We were seeing a lack of fish, the same kind of population of fish farms in the area and we were pretty sure we were going to be seeing the same kind of problems. Everywhere that there are farms there's been sea lice. If you don't know that there are sea lice near farms, generally it means it just hasn't been studied. No one's actually got in the water and looked."

But ongoing sampling doesn't appear to be finding the same numbers of sea lice, or juvenile salmon. Berry said could be good news, but she's not sure.

"We're really happy to hear that because it means that the juveniles that are going out have a much greater chance of survival as a result, but our fear is that it's a circumstantial cyclical thing - it's because there are fewer fish in some of the farms, some of the farms have juvenile salmon in them which don't carry the same loads of lice or that they're being treated with the same pesticide Slice so you don't see as many sea lice on the salmon," she said.

She said she's happy to see the lice load is smaller, but she fears the condition may be temporary and she's "not entirely sure that the problem's been solved."

Not surprisingly, Marine Harvest Canada communications manager Ian Roberts has a different interpretation.

"Salmon is cyclical; sea lice is cyclical, some years it's up and some years it's down," he said. "As a salmon farmer I've known that for 15 years. When we see high levels of sea lice on farmed salmon, we also see it on wild salmon. When we see low levels on farmed salmon, we see low levels typically on wild salmon as well. I don't believe that's causal, correlative data, I just think that's natural cyclical levels. You see what you see on the farm usually in the wild because it's inherent in the wild.

"It's one of those years that seems to be low, so that's good news for us, it's good news for wild salmon, but next year might be different."

He said Marine Harvest's Okisollo Channel farm at the north end of Quadra Island was treated with Slice in late January so it has very low lice levels.

"It's important to note that when our fish go in salt water from our fresh water hatcheries, they are sea lice free," he said. "We know that we get sea lice transferred from wild sources to our farm salmon, but it's our responsibility to make sure that during the critical out-migration period from March to June, that we are making sure that our levels are low."

He said Marine Harvest has been very open with its sea lice data, posting figures on its web site and is collaborating with researchers.

Credit: Dan MacLennan; Courier-Islander

 

[agentaqua]

Sea lice numbers down; reason under debate
Dan MacLennan. Courier - Islander. Campbell River, B.C.: May 30, 2008. pg. 14
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. May 30, 2008


Sea lice don't appear to be turning up on young salmon in local waters in the numbers expected by some groups, but possible reasons remain wide open to interpretation.

"It should be one of the more infected areas if we are going to find infected fish because there's more farmed fish in that (Okisollo) channel," says Jody Eriksson, a local fisherman hired to catch the young fish for a research project sponsored by the Raincoast Conservation Society of the Coastal Alliance on Aquaculture Reform. "But this year, for a number of different reasons, there does not seem to be anywhere near as many sea lice on the fish as there has been in the last four years."

The Broughton Archipelago has been the centre of the debate over the effects of fish farm sea lice on wild juvenile salmon, but the focus spread south to the waters of the Discovery Islands in April when a scientific paper from Alexandra Morton, Dr. Richard Routledge and Dr. Martin Krkosek looked at 4,700 young wild salmon near and distant to fish farms in 2005 and 2006 throughout the Discovery Islands.

"We found four times as many wild juvenile salmon were infected with sea lice near fish farms than distant from the farms," Morton said in a news release. "Then in 2006 when most of the farms were empty, the sea lice declined."

The study found sea lice on juvenile pink, chum and sockeye salmon, as well as larval herring in the Discovery Islands.

"This is the northern Georgia Strait and this is an area that we're concerned about," said Ruby Berry of the Georgia Straight Alliance, earlier this month. "We kept hearing from all kinds of directions that it was a Broughton-specific problem and that it was somehow related to the geography of the Broughton. We were seeing a lack of fish, the same kind of population of fish farms in the area and we were pretty sure we were going to be seeing the same kind of problems. Everywhere that there are farms there's been sea lice. If you don't know that there are sea lice near farms, generally it means it just hasn't been studied. No one's actually got in the water and looked."

But ongoing sampling doesn't appear to be finding the same numbers of sea lice, or juvenile salmon. Berry said could be good news, but she's not sure.

"We're really happy to hear that because it means that the juveniles that are going out have a much greater chance of survival as a result, but our fear is that it's a circumstantial cyclical thing - it's because there are fewer fish in some of the farms, some of the farms have juvenile salmon in them which don't carry the same loads of lice or that they're being treated with the same pesticide Slice so you don't see as many sea lice on the salmon," she said.

She said she's happy to see the lice load is smaller, but she fears the condition may be temporary and she's "not entirely sure that the problem's been solved."

Not surprisingly, Marine Harvest Canada communications manager Ian Roberts has a different interpretation.

"Salmon is cyclical; sea lice is cyclical, some years it's up and some years it's down," he said. "As a salmon farmer I've known that for 15 years. When we see high levels of sea lice on farmed salmon, we also see it on wild salmon. When we see low levels on farmed salmon, we see low levels typically on wild salmon as well. I don't believe that's causal, correlative data, I just think that's natural cyclical levels. You see what you see on the farm usually in the wild because it's inherent in the wild.

"It's one of those years that seems to be low, so that's good news for us, it's good news for wild salmon, but next year might be different."

He said Marine Harvest's Okisollo Channel farm at the north end of Quadra Island was treated with Slice in late January so it has very low lice levels.

"It's important to note that when our fish go in salt water from our fresh water hatcheries, they are sea lice free," he said. "We know that we get sea lice transferred from wild sources to our farm salmon, but it's our responsibility to make sure that during the critical out-migration period from March to June, that we are making sure that our levels are low."

He said Marine Harvest has been very open with its sea lice data, posting figures on its web site and is collaborating with researchers.

Credit: Dan MacLennan; Courier-Islander

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

Handee,

You wining and finger-pointing about commercial and recreational fisheries killing wild salmon is - to me - an attempt to absolve your industry of it's negative effects on adjacent wild stocks.

As I wrote to sockeyefry when he also tried to spout the fishfarm rhetoric on this topic at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=18

"...You can devalue the true worth of wild salmon stocks so that they don't reflect the values they should have in society. Unfortunately, the world does depend upon money as the justification for doing business.

Therefore, whole fishing communities (commercial- and sports-) depend upon the financial value placed on wild salmon; while the freshwater and marine ecosystems depend upon salmon as a vehicle that transports energy and nutrients from the marine environment back to the freshwater hatcheries.

If we financially devalue that service provided to us - which we do - we don't have as rigid stewardship of that resource. It's only pinks - some say.

That's because - paradoxically – valuing wild salmon and encouraging stewardship also depends upon the value that fishermen are paid for their catch.

If commercial fishermen are only paid ~$0.20-0.40/lb for chum, and ~$0.10-0.20/lb for wild pink salmon – while open net-pen salmon farms consistently get paid $2.25+/lb for their farmed Atlantic salmon - what does that say about our values as a society? Where is the incentive to conserve wild stocks – if the money is in farmed salmon?

It's not the killing of animals for food that's the issue - mankind has done that for thousands of years - it's the management of the resource using greed as a surrogate for sustainability that's the issue. It's the corporate influence on our democracy that's the problem. I spoke of this earlier on these postings.

So - yes - wild eating salmon does increase it's market price, and increases the incentive to conserve wild stocks.

The next question - is that done sustainably?

Often not.

However, salmon from suppliers certified (http://www.msc.org/html/content_484.htm) through the Marine Stewardship Council (http://www.msc.org/html/content_462.htm) often is. There is a push for all capture fisheries to go through this process."

agentaqua,

Iam not sure why my suggesting that killing wild salmon is abd for wild salmon is called by you "whining and fingerpointing"> meanwhile you are swallowing the junk science being produced by BC activists and ignoring the science done by Order of Canada recipients. its almost as devoted as how Moron, i mean Morton, ignores the record breaking pink salmon returns to focus only on the years where returns were low.

so let me follow your argument:

we need to put a monetary value on wild salmon and to do that we need to kill them?

the reason pinks and chums fetch a low price is because pinks are slimy and soft and small with a short shelf life. the reason chums fetch a lowprice is because they dont taste that good. Their nicknames being dogsalmon and louse pinks ("lousy" because they taste gross, they are covered and louse and there were tons of them)respectfully.

The price of wild salmon chinooks, sockeye and coho have been rising relative to farm salmon (you conveniently over looked these species). the reason being is that they are increasing rare (due to killing, so i guess you are right, you could kill them off and theoretically the prce would go through the roof) and have a preferred taste. the price has also gone up due to the success of a "Buy wild campaign" on the back of a anti salmon farming campaign.

So agentaqua, you can stand down, killing wild salmon wont help increase their value and thereby save them. not killing them will result in less of them being dead.

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

Handee,

You wining and finger-pointing about commercial and recreational fisheries killing wild salmon is - to me - an attempt to absolve your industry of it's negative effects on adjacent wild stocks.

As I wrote to sockeyefry when he also tried to spout the fishfarm rhetoric on this topic at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=18

"...You can devalue the true worth of wild salmon stocks so that they don't reflect the values they should have in society. Unfortunately, the world does depend upon money as the justification for doing business.

Therefore, whole fishing communities (commercial- and sports-) depend upon the financial value placed on wild salmon; while the freshwater and marine ecosystems depend upon salmon as a vehicle that transports energy and nutrients from the marine environment back to the freshwater hatcheries.

If we financially devalue that service provided to us - which we do - we don't have as rigid stewardship of that resource. It's only pinks - some say.

That's because - paradoxically – valuing wild salmon and encouraging stewardship also depends upon the value that fishermen are paid for their catch.

If commercial fishermen are only paid ~$0.20-0.40/lb for chum, and ~$0.10-0.20/lb for wild pink salmon – while open net-pen salmon farms consistently get paid $2.25+/lb for their farmed Atlantic salmon - what does that say about our values as a society? Where is the incentive to conserve wild stocks – if the money is in farmed salmon?

It's not the killing of animals for food that's the issue - mankind has done that for thousands of years - it's the management of the resource using greed as a surrogate for sustainability that's the issue. It's the corporate influence on our democracy that's the problem. I spoke of this earlier on these postings.

So - yes - wild eating salmon does increase it's market price, and increases the incentive to conserve wild stocks.

The next question - is that done sustainably?

Often not.

However, salmon from suppliers certified (http://www.msc.org/html/content_484.htm) through the Marine Stewardship Council (http://www.msc.org/html/content_462.htm) often is. There is a push for all capture fisheries to go through this process."

agentaqua,

Iam not sure why my suggesting that killing wild salmon is abd for wild salmon is called by you "whining and fingerpointing"> meanwhile you are swallowing the junk science being produced by BC activists and ignoring the science done by Order of Canada recipients. its almost as devoted as how Moron, i mean Morton, ignores the record breaking pink salmon returns to focus only on the years where returns were low.

so let me follow your argument:

we need to put a monetary value on wild salmon and to do that we need to kill them?

the reason pinks and chums fetch a low price is because pinks are slimy and soft and small with a short shelf life. the reason chums fetch a lowprice is because they dont taste that good. Their nicknames being dogsalmon and louse pinks ("lousy" because they taste gross, they are covered and louse and there were tons of them)respectfully.

The price of wild salmon chinooks, sockeye and coho have been rising relative to farm salmon (you conveniently over looked these species). the reason being is that they are increasing rare (due to killing, so i guess you are right, you could kill them off and theoretically the prce would go through the roof) and have a preferred taste. the price has also gone up due to the success of a "Buy wild campaign" on the back of a anti salmon farming campaign.

So agentaqua, you can stand down, killing wild salmon wont help increase their value and thereby save them. not killing them will result in less of them being dead.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:..you are swallowing the junk science being produced by BC activists and ignoring the science done by Order of Canada recipients....

I know why you're called "handee" - you're handy for kick-starting stale and boring debates on this forum. That's largely a good thing - although hearing some of the same old sing-song - even after we already debated and debunked some of the same pro-industry complaints - gets a little tiring.

Just because you disagree with some of the assumptions that a report's author uses, and don't look-at or acknowledge the data presented - does not make it "Junk Science". That's just a handle used to try and discredit the reports implications. There a place for scientific debate - and it's posting a scientific review or comment back in the journal that originally published the article.

That's how it has been done between articles published by Marty Krkosek and other pro-industry scientists (such as Ken Brooks, and Simon Jones) and Krkosek. It gets talked-out - and the BS falls out. Sort-of like the long debate me and sockeyefry are having hear and you're reading at the end of it.

I TOTALLY recommend every one read through the scientific exchange between Krkosek and his scientific critics. Krkosek has those links and explanations on his web page at the bottom:
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/Criticisms&Responses.htm

Make sure you read both the review and Krkosek's response - especially
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/BJ_vs_MKetal_RevFishSci08.pdf

quote:we need to put a monetary value on wild salmon and to do that we need to kill them?

Isn't that what farmers do - even fish farmers?? Duh? What's the matter mr. fish farmer - you don't want any fish killed? Or maybe only your farmed ones and not wild ones? No competition that way?

quote:the reason pinks and chums fetch a low price is because pinks are slimy and soft and small with a short shelf life. the reason chums fetch a lowprice is because they dont taste that good. Their nicknames being dogsalmon and louse pinks ("lousy" because they taste gross, they are covered and louse and there were tons of them)respectfully.

Guys - he's slamming wild salmon here.</u> Don't know whether anyone else on this forum that loves wild salmon will also want to get in on this feeding frenzy...Where does one begin to start here...
Actually - the price paid to each fishermen is not set by the fishermen - it is set by the fishing companies. The same companies that also are co-owners in stock of fish farm companies.

Geee - isn't that convenient?

Ya - and I know - you prefer the taste of your salmon - and anyone buying salmon for the first time and knows no better only has to ask you...(right)

quote:The price of wild salmon chinooks, sockeye and coho have been rising relative to farm salmon (you conveniently over looked these species).

No - I was pointing-out how out-of-sync the financial system is from the ecological one using a keystone species such as pinks as a comparison.

Let me ask you this question: Will the environment survive a collapse in the financial market? Most probably and thrive.

Okay: Will the financial environment survive an environmental collapse. Not well, and neither will we.

Okay - so what's really more important?

quote:killing wild salmon wont help increase their value and thereby save them. not killing them will result in less of them being dead.

Total BS Handee. Okay - I guess killing farmed salmon won't increase their value, either? Maybe we should let them all go free too. First saving "Free Willy", and now free the farm salmon!!!

You are good for a laugh...

 

[agentaqua]

quote:..you are swallowing the junk science being produced by BC activists and ignoring the science done by Order of Canada recipients....

I know why you're called "handee" - you're handy for kick-starting stale and boring debates on this forum. That's largely a good thing - although hearing some of the same old sing-song - even after we already debated and debunked some of the same pro-industry complaints - gets a little tiring.

Just because you disagree with some of the assumptions that a report's author uses, and don't look-at or acknowledge the data presented - does not make it "Junk Science". That's just a handle used to try and discredit the reports implications. There a place for scientific debate - and it's posting a scientific review or comment back in the journal that originally published the article.

That's how it has been done between articles published by Marty Krkosek and other pro-industry scientists (such as Ken Brooks, and Simon Jones) and Krkosek. It gets talked-out - and the BS falls out. Sort-of like the long debate me and sockeyefry are having hear and you're reading at the end of it.

I TOTALLY recommend every one read through the scientific exchange between Krkosek and his scientific critics. Krkosek has those links and explanations on his web page at the bottom:
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/Criticisms&Responses.htm

Make sure you read both the review and Krkosek's response - especially
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/BJ_vs_MKetal_RevFishSci08.pdf

quote:we need to put a monetary value on wild salmon and to do that we need to kill them?

Isn't that what farmers do - even fish farmers?? Duh? What's the matter mr. fish farmer - you don't want any fish killed? Or maybe only your farmed ones and not wild ones? No competition that way?

quote:the reason pinks and chums fetch a low price is because pinks are slimy and soft and small with a short shelf life. the reason chums fetch a lowprice is because they dont taste that good. Their nicknames being dogsalmon and louse pinks ("lousy" because they taste gross, they are covered and louse and there were tons of them)respectfully.

Guys - he's slamming wild salmon here.</u> Don't know whether anyone else on this forum that loves wild salmon will also want to get in on this feeding frenzy...Where does one begin to start here...
Actually - the price paid to each fishermen is not set by the fishermen - it is set by the fishing companies. The same companies that also are co-owners in stock of fish farm companies.

Geee - isn't that convenient?

Ya - and I know - you prefer the taste of your salmon - and anyone buying salmon for the first time and knows no better only has to ask you...(right)

quote:The price of wild salmon chinooks, sockeye and coho have been rising relative to farm salmon (you conveniently over looked these species).

No - I was pointing-out how out-of-sync the financial system is from the ecological one using a keystone species such as pinks as a comparison.

Let me ask you this question: Will the environment survive a collapse in the financial market? Most probably and thrive.

Okay: Will the financial environment survive an environmental collapse. Not well, and neither will we.

Okay - so what's really more important?

quote:killing wild salmon wont help increase their value and thereby save them. not killing them will result in less of them being dead.

Total BS Handee. Okay - I guess killing farmed salmon won't increase their value, either? Maybe we should let them all go free too. First saving "Free Willy", and now free the farm salmon!!!

You are good for a laugh...

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

quote:..you are swallowing the junk science being produced by BC activists and ignoring the science done by Order of Canada recipients....

I know why you're called "handee" - you're handy for kick-starting stale and boring debates on this forum. That's largely a good thing - although hearing some of the same old sing-song - even after we already debated and debunked some of the same pro-industry complaints - gets a little tiring.

Just because you disagree with some of the assumptions that a report's author uses, and don't look-at or acknowledge the data presented - does not make it "Junk Science". That's just a handle used to try and discredit the reports implications. There a place for scientific debate - and it's posting a scientific review or comment back in the journal that originally published the article.

That's how it has been done between articles published by Marty Krkosek and other pro-industry scientists (such as Ken Brooks, and Simon Jones) and Krkosek. It gets talked-out - and the BS falls out. Sort-of like the long debate me and sockeyefry are having hear and you're reading at the end of it.

I TOTALLY recommend every one read through the scientific exchange between Krkosek and his scientific critics. Krkosek has those links and explanations on his web page at the bottom:
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/Criticisms&Responses.htm

Make sure you read both the review and Krkosek's response - especially
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/BJ_vs_MKetal_RevFishSci08.pdf

quote:we need to put a monetary value on wild salmon and to do that we need to kill them?

Isn't that what farmers do - even fish farmers?? Duh? What's the matter mr. fish farmer - you don't want any fish killed? Or maybe only your farmed ones and not wild ones? No competition that way?

quote:the reason pinks and chums fetch a low price is because pinks are slimy and soft and small with a short shelf life. the reason chums fetch a lowprice is because they dont taste that good. Their nicknames being dogsalmon and louse pinks ("lousy" because they taste gross, they are covered and louse and there were tons of them)respectfully.

Guys - he's slamming wild salmon here.</u> Don't know whether anyone else on this forum that loves wild salmon will also want to get in on this feeding frenzy...Where does one begin to start here...
Actually - the price paid to each fishermen is not set by the fishermen - it is set by the fishing companies. The same companies that also are co-owners in stock of fish farm companies.

Geee - isn't that convenient?

Ya - and I know - you prefer the taste of your salmon - and anyone buying salmon for the first time and knows no better only has to ask you...(right)

quote:The price of wild salmon chinooks, sockeye and coho have been rising relative to farm salmon (you conveniently over looked these species).

No - I was pointing-out how out-of-sync the financial system is from the ecological one using a keystone species such as pinks as a comparison.

Let me ask you this question: Will the environment survive a collapse in the financial market? Most probably and thrive.

Okay: Will the financial environment survive an environmental collapse. Not well, and neither will we.

Okay - so what's really more important?

quote:killing wild salmon wont help increase their value and thereby save them. not killing them will result in less of them being dead.

Total BS Handee. Okay - I guess killing farmed salmon won't increase their value, either? Maybe we should let them all go free too. First saving "Free Willy", and now free the farm salmon!!!

You are good for a laugh...

Hi AA,

im glad you appreciate me to some extent. iam also glad you posted the exchange between the activists and 20 of their peers. It really does separate the men from the mice.

Can I also add the reason why pinks and chum are gross and fit only for canning and smoking is because they are not fresh. farm fish die relatively calmly and are processed and on the shelf within 24 hours. Farm fish are more in demand, available all year round and larger making tehm good for value adding- and therefore they fetch a higher price.

morton andkrkosek have bene earning their sheckles from the alaska fish farmers because pinks and chums that used to go for dogfood are now fetching a higher price because they are "wild".

the price is always set by teh market agent aqua.

your example of pinks to describe financial markets and the environment being out of synch is, well, ok. I'd argue the two are at odds sure. By defaming farm salmon you drive the price of lousy pinks from 5 cents a pound to a whopping 15 cents a pound. this shows that its working, people are eating and therefore killing more wild salmon. congratulations.

krkosek and morton are increasing demand for wild salmon, thats what their funders want, and i guess if you are a fisherman who makes money killing wild salmon then thats good news and the system is working.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:im glad you appreciate me to some extent. iam also glad you posted the exchange between the activists and 20 of their peers. It really does separate the men from the mice.

Like I said - if you discuss these topics w/o the personal attacks, slander, and hate mongering (which I hope you decide to drop) and USING THE AVAILABLE SCIENCE - the BS drops-out.

That's why I believe people should read-up - especially on the scientific debates (while leaving-out the vitriol and hate). People who wish to get educated can then do so.

I think we will all appreciate it when you change your modus operandi and start debating the science rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

If you think that a number of scientists signing a letter adds credibility to a point of view - then maybe you should read the open letter, sent earlier to Prime Minister Stephan Harper and Premier Gordon Campbell of Canada, and signed by 18 respected scientists and researchers at:
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=30410872596

quote:Can I also add the reason why pinks and chum are gross and fit only for canning and smoking is because they are not fresh. farm fish die relatively calmly and are processed and on the shelf within 24 hours. Farm fish are more in demand, available all year round and larger making tehm good for value adding- and therefore they fetch a higher price.

I agree that the fishing companies have not been as proactive nor as successful as the fish farm companies at delivering a quality, high-end market product.

However, that does not mean that marine-caught and bleed and properly refrigerated wild salmon products are not high-quality fish. I can say from my own experience that a marine-caught and cared for pink (or chum, or coho, or chinook, or steelhead, or sockeye) is way better tasting and quality than farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

I can only say that if you have not had that experience - then too bad for you. people raised on McDonald's food (or Mc-salmon) have no baseline for comparison - and they think that food quality is normal.

quote:the price is always set by teh market agent aqua. br]

No, no, NO</u>. I can see you are unfamiliar with commercial salmon fishing.

Unlike the farm fish market - the price that a commercial fishermen receives for his product is set by the fishing company and/or the processor/offloader (often the same thing).

The price that the commercial fishermen receives for almost all species of salmon (exception trolled springs) has stagnated and is virtually the same or less than they got 20 years ago.

Yet, all license, operating and maintenance costs (esp. fuel) have skyrocketed since then.

Most commercial fishermen believe that DFO is trying to get rid of them, and the fishing companies (with substantial interests in farmed salmon) want to undervalue their product so that at the end of the day only farmed salmon is left - which works well if you want to dam rivers for hydroelectric power and water to send southwards to the US.

quote:There has been no correlation between salmon return rates and sea lice abundance. Do you get that?

Actually - NO, I do not "get that". I just showed you a correlation at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9573&whichpage=2

Just because you keep saying the earth is flat - does not make it so, Handee. Re-read the report and my posting.

quote:another assumption they make is that they should ignore the Glendale river system from whence 80% of pinks originate in the Broughton. why? because it has a fish ladder.

handee - do you know the difference between a ladder, and a spawning channel with enhanced runs?

Obviously not.

Maybe - being a landscaper/handyman you have ladders on the brain, but this is a ladder:

I'm sure you recognize it. It helps human who are gravitationally challenged.

These are pictures of fish ladders:

It helps fish get over dams that humans have put in their way.

these are images of different fish fences:

They are used to temporarily hold-back fish so accurate counts or returning spawners or outmigrating smolts can be made.

These is an image of a constructed spawning channel:

their purpose is to artificially increase the numbers of fish through artificial increases in spawning habitat. The Glendale has one of these.

Okay - Sesame Street here - one of these things are not like the other - can you guess which ones?

Maybe you could stop your uneducated critique of excluding the Glendale now? It's getting embarrassing, isn't it?

quote:In Beamish's peer reviewed published study he looked at DFO sea lice surveys, fish farm biomass and salmon returns spanning 3 years.

Ah yes - the oft-mentioned by pro-farm advocates - the "Beamish" study. Did you read this one, Handee?

Firstly - Beamish is part of PBS Nanaimo - which gets hundreds of thousands of $$$ every year from the fish farm industry and from industry/public funding sources to do "targeted" research for the aquaculture industry. Would you kill your golden cow?

Beamish is thus severely compromised by conflicts of interests - but he is smart enough to throw red herrings around in order to create doubt and give desperate fish farmers a lifeline.

His study? You mean the 2006 Exceptional marine survival of pink salmon that entered the marine environment in 2003 suggests that farmed Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the Pacific coast of Canada study?

Okay - here's some critiques:

In Beamish's own words (p.1329): "Glendale Creek and Kakweiken River, had artificial spawning channels added in 1988 and 1989, respectively, which presumably improved freshwater production, making it problematic to compare escapement estimated before and after this date."

what was your critique about Krkosek not including Glendale Creek, again, Handee. refresh my memory...

Want some more lies and half-truths, Concerned Angler?

Beamish goes on: "the biomass of farmed salmon reared in the Broughton Archipelago has remained almost constant since 1999.".

So what? It's the numbers of hosts that counts - multiplied by the number of infective "gravid" female lice that supplies the infection potential. Why aren't these numbers presented (You can't tell me Beamish didn't have these numbers available) ???

That's because the truth about the fallowing (i.e. that it worked and proved that the farms have a population-level effect) would detract from the claim (by pro-industry pundits) that the fallowing did not work (which is what the pro-industry pundits want you to believe - not what happened).

Beamish concedes that they used a large trawl net and vessel to capture the larger smolts that survived the mortality from the sea lice plumes from the open net-pens - way offshore in Queen Charlotte Strait.

This effect of selectively sampling the survivors is called "survivor bias", and is a common topic in introductory ecology/fisheries and economics and health sciences texts. You can't tell me Beamish doesn't know about this. he does even have a PhD - does he not?

Here's a shocker - they looked at sea lice on the trawled fish by "examine fish for skin damage caused by sea lice" (Methods, page 1330: Trawl survey for older juvenile pink salmon) - not by IDing the lice on individual fish. That's because they couldn't using that trawl net - it abraids and knocks lice off. They were purposely using the wrong methodology. The whole study falls apart on this point alone.

quote:before i get called a liar again could someone please point out a single "lie" I have told.

I'll let others answer this one.

 

[cuttlefish]

DFO’s Simon Jones (identified earlier by agentaqua as a critic of Krkosek) recently published a paper showing mortality rates of 37% for pink salmon between 0.3 and 0.7 grams weight in the lab. You can find the abstract at;
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/do...evelopment+of+resistance+to+the+salmon+louse)

If you have trouble with the link, here is the abstract as copied from the Blackwell-Synergy.com website;

Dr S Jones, Pacific Biological Station, 3190 Hammond Bay Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, V9T 6N7, Canada
(e-mail: joness@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca)
Abstract

This study examined the effect of fish weight on the susceptibility of post-emergent pink salmon to Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer). Three trials were conducted, each with two stocks of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum), at starting weights of c. 0.3, 0.7 and 2.4 g, respectively. In each trial, duplicate tanks of fish were exposed to 0, 25 (only in Trial 1), 50 or 100 copepodids per fish. Mortality in Trial 1 was c. 37%, regardless of stock following exposures to 50 or 100 copepodids. Mortalities occurred up to 26 days after exposure, and more than 80% of the lice on the dead fish were chalimus stages. Infections with adult or preadult lice were observed on c. 35% of fish surviving to 37 days after exposure. Mortality was 5% in Trial 2 and there was no mortality in Trial 3. The abundance of L. salmonis was lower in Trial 3 compared with Trials 1 or 2. Histological changes in the skin coincident with fish growth included a thickening of the epidermis, infiltration of the dermis with fibroblasts by the end of Trial 1 and the first evidence of scales by the end of Trial 2; scales were evident throughout Trial 3. These results showed that the previously reported innate resistance to L. salmonis displayed by pink salmon develops in fish heavier than 0.3 g and appears to be functional by 0.7 g. This resistance coincided with changes to the epidermis and dermis, including the formation of scales. The present results indicate that elevated risk associated with L. salmonis infection among migrating post-emergent pink salmon may occur during a relatively brief period before the fish reaches 0.7 g.

That was a DFO lab test. I would asume that in the wild, the mortality would be higher due to predation and risk of infections from other diseases due to lowered fitness from sea lice infection. According to Jones, 0.3 grams is the average size of pinks as they emerge from fresh water and it takes 16 days of average growth for them to reach 0.7 grams. I don’t know the average distance that a 0.3 gram pink salmon travels in a day. If that was known, then one could calculate how many fish farms a post-emergent pink salmon would pass while being at an elevated risk of mortality from sea lice infection.
If one could calculate the distance that a post–emergent pink salmon would travel while it developed the necessary resistance to mortality from sea lice infection, then one would know the minimum distance offshore from the point of pink salmon emergence that an open net cage salmon farm would have to be to avoid lethal infection of those post-emergent pink salmon from the farmed salmon sea lice. This could mean a move to offshore salmon farming, especially if land based is not economically feasible.

An Israeli Company has a system it is already producing.
http://www.subflex.org/subflex/

The company showcased the technology at a recent aquaculture trade show in Spain.
http://www.fishfarmingxpert.no/index.php?page_id=76&article_id=81672

According to the article, there appears to be a high level of interest for the technology in Europe.

 

[handee]

[/quote]That was a DFO lab test. I would asume that in the wild, the mortality would be higher due to predation and risk of infections from other diseases due to lowered fitness from sea lice infection. [/quote]

Cuttlefish, your assumption is the problem. The lice levels on salmon farms are lower than background levels. The lice levels in the lab experiement are 10x natural levels. the fish in the wild have opportunities to knock off lice that lab fish do not have eg moving to freshwater. And finally, the lowered fitnness in nature can lead to the sea lice infection not necessarily vice versa. In fact to look at a sick fish with sea lice on it and assume the sea lice caused the sickness is exactly what a layman would do- mix up the cause with symptoms.

and you are quite right to question if the fish could even reach its first salmon farm before it made it to the 0.7 gram size. in other words by the time it got downstrean of a salmon farm in order to get infected it would already be over the .7gram size. Keep in mind again, the farms have extremely low levels of sea lice and the Jones stduy exposed the test fish to levels of sea lice 10x that found on the wild stocks.

ok, now off to see what agentaqua has to say I think he called me a liar again. master of debate that he is.

 

[agentaqua]

cuttlefish - great posting!!! Thanks for the update.

your question:

quote:I don’t know the average distance that a 0.3 gram pink salmon travels in a day. If that was known, then one could calculate how many fish farms a post-emergent pink salmon would pass while being at an elevated risk of mortality from sea lice infection.

The only problem with that type of modeling you suggest - is that there is an assumption that it is the movement of the fry (only) - is what determines the risk of interaction with sea lice copepodites (or aged nauplii).

However, the ocean is very dynamic - and not only pushes small, pink smolts around - but sea lice as well.

One really needs to understand 1/ sea lice, 2/ pink smolt migration and 3/ the oceanography all together; rather than just how fast pink smolts migrate.

See the postings on this by Agentaqua on page:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=8

Fjord oceanography, sea lice phototaxis, and smolt migration are discussed.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:The lice levels on salmon farms are lower than background levels.

Whos background? The farms? the pristine ocean? What is the densities and extent of a sea lice plume from a farm? Just saying it does make it true. Krkosek's modelling finds farms increase the background levels something like 75x.

quote:The lice levels in the lab experiement are 10x natural levels.

Got any science to back that claim up? What's natural? What's the density of a sea lice plume from a fish farm?

quote:the fish in the wild have opportunities to knock off lice that lab fish do not

And that's a problem - because they flash doing that - and every predator within range is attracted.

quote:the lowered fitnness in nature can lead to the sea lice infection not necessarily vice versa.

Lice still have to find the smolt. That's the most important point. If farms chug-out sea lice plumes when small, vulnerable smolts are migrating past - they get hit.

quote:In fact to look at a sick fish with sea lice on it and assume the sea lice caused the sickness is exactly what a layman would do- mix up the cause with symptoms.

Another thing laymen do (you just demonstrated) is mixing-up what is a parasite with a disease. Sea lice drain valuable resources from it's host - and if there are many lice or the host is small - they can either kill the host outright, or cause sub-lethal effects. A sea louse on a small pink fry will probably kill it. That sub-lethal effect may include the louse making entrance wounds in the fish for other viral or bacterial agents to cause further diseases.

However, the main point is: a motile louse on a small smolt is enough to kill it. Even Simon Jone's work concurs with this. Lets not try to confuse the issue by taking about symptoms and disease and lice. A louse is enough to kill - it's simple and uncomplicated logic.

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

quote:im glad you appreciate me to some extent. iam also glad you posted the exchange between the activists and 20 of their peers. It really does separate the men from the mice.

Like I said - if you discuss these topics w/o the personal attacks, slander, and hate mongering (which I hope you decide to drop) and USING THE AVAILABLE SCIENCE - the BS drops-out.

&gt;&gt; "separate men from mice" thats an attack? jeez, im brutal[/size=2]!

That's why I believe people should read-up - especially on the scientific debates (while leaving-out the vitriol and hate). People who wish to get educated can then do so.

&gt;&gt; where's the vitriole and hate? you dont say very nice things about Beamish (see below)

I think we will all appreciate it when you change your modus operandi and start debating the science rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

&gt;&gt; Iam not shooting the messenger iam identifying the messenger. they have websites making it very clear they were biased long before the sea lice debate came up, their CV shows they have no experience or background in the fisheries science field. they are loud and proud activists. objectivity is important in this field and Iam making it clear they are anything but. If the DFO scientists hosted pro salmon farming websites and workshops before they studied sea lice id say they were suspect too. But look as hard as you like thye were just being world fisheries experts while a american rich kid was trying to find a way to attack the fish farms in her newly adopted back yard-psycho NIMBY.[/size=2]

If you think that a number of scientists signing a letter adds credibility to a point of view - then maybe you should read the open letter, sent earlier to Prime Minister Stephan Harper and Premier Gordon Campbell of Canada, and signed by 18 respected scientists and researchers at:
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=30410872596

&gt;&gt; quality, not quantity. the letter you refer to is signed by physiscists, whale researchers and frikkin david suzuki-maybe they got their family doctors to sign too. you can impress laymen with a bunch of PHd signatures, but thats not peer review and you know it. Iam saying 18 experts in the field of study of the published research carries more weight.

quote:

The price that the commercial fishermen receives for almost all species of salmon (exception trolled springs) has stagnated and is virtually the same or less than they got 20 years ago.

Yet, all license, operating and maintenance costs (esp. fuel) have skyrocketed since then.

Most commercial fishermen believe that DFO is trying to get rid of them, and the fishing companies (with substantial interests in farmed salmon) want to undervalue their product so that at the end of the day only farmed salmon is left - which works well if you want to dam rivers for hydroelectric power and water to send southwards to the US.

quote:There has been no correlation between salmon return rates and sea lice abundance. Do you get that?

Actually - NO, I do not "get that". I just showed you a correlation at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9573&whichpage=2

&gt;&gt; I'll give you this one AA. I thought fresh wild coho and chinook got a higher price than farmed salmon. frozen salmon and slimy pinks and chum are good for smoking and thats about it. i'd take a fresh farm salmon over a frozen endangered one any day. Farm salmon often beat wild salmon in blind taste tests- less fishy for the urban palate. Id also take a fresh farm salmon over a fresh chum any day.


Just because you keep saying the earth is flat - does not make it so, Handee. Re-read the report and my posting.

another assumption they make is that they should ignore the Glendale river system from whence 80% of pinks originate in the Broughton. why? because it has a fish ladder.

handee - do you know the difference between a ladder, and a spawning channel with enhanced runs?

Obviously not.

Maybe - being a landscaper/handyman you have ladders on the brain, but this is a ladder:

&gt;&gt; Nice one Aqua- ladder or channel doesnt matter the only way the returning fish would not get counted is if the river mouth was blocked. If the offspring were being killed by lice you would see a poor return 2 years later. You'd be comparing Glendale to Glendale and thats scientifically sound. And as you know irregardless of farm biommass or even return salmon numbers on streams with or without laddders/ channels no correlation can be shown. and as you know Krkosek chose to keep a river with a ladder/channel in his study


Ah yes - the oft-mentioned by pro-farm advocates - the "Beamish" study. Did you read this one, Handee?

Firstly - Beamish is part of PBS Nanaimo - which gets hundreds of thousands of $$$ every year from the fish farm industry and from industry/public funding sources to do "targetedh for the aquaculture industry. Would you kill your golden cow?

&gt;&gt; oh please, DFO scientists get paid every 2 weeks fish farm or not. If anything fish farms have made it harder for them to get $$ for things they know are of great concern to the wild stock. The corporate enviro machine created the golden cow and real scientists have to watch with horror as the money goes to sea lice instead of real, clear present threats to wild fish. think of the stream rehabs that could have been doen with the millions spent so far.

Beamish is thus severely compromised by conflicts of interests - but he is smart enough to throw red herrings around in order to create doubt and give desperate fish farmers a lifeline.

&gt;&gt; good one. his true love is lampreys. hes got the order of Canada for crissake, hes got nothing to prove and nothing to gain, he's practically tenured. unlike Morton he was had dozens of peer reviewed published studies in Fisheries before the sea lice "issue" came along. Morton had a string of unsucessful attacks on fish farmers that were laughable and showed her to be a laymen even in the basics of biology (whales dying from eating sick escaped farm salmon, superbugs, whale distributions effected by farms etc).

His study? You mean the 2006 Exceptional marine survival of pink salmon that entered the marine environment in 2003 suggests that farmed Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the Pacific coast of Canada study?

Okay - here's some critiques:

In Beamish's own words (p.1329): "Glendale Creek and Kakweiken River, had artificial spawning channels added in 1988 and 1989, respectively, which presumably improved freshwater production, making it problematic to compare escapement estimated before and after this date."

&gt;&gt; yes he identified one of many variables which made comparisons problematic. this does not prevent comparing glendale to glendale. It also makes an argument that large amounts of river systems data has to be pooled, not cherry picked. this is not an argument to IGNORE the river system producing 80% of the pinks? Nor did he publish thi spaper and launch a global media campaign saying he had PROVED this or that. H epublished a peer reviewed article and his conclusions are anchored by his results. He did not misrepresent his findings. real scientist do not make huge claims based on a single study. mortons own published 2001 study stated "this study establishes no causal link between salmon farms, sea lice and pink returns"- she stated the PRECISE OPPOSITE in the media-over and over: "my research proves</u> that lice from salmon farms are killing the wild stocks- all fish farms must go or the pink salmon will not return in 2005". Despicable and you can google your fingers off you will not see a DFO scientists doing this, certainly not Beamish



what was your critique about Krkosek not including Glendale Creek, again, Handee. refresh my memory...

Want some more lies and half-truths, Concerned Angler?

&gt;&gt; you havent pointed out a lie Ive told yet AA. You have pointed out that Beamish considered and acknowledged all the variables. 18 experts pointed out that Krkoseks study ( which was a computer program- I guess they saved money instead of doing real research) was based on faulty assumptions.

Beamish goes on: "the biomass of farmed salmon reared in the Broughton Archipelago has remained almost constant since 1999.".

So what? It's the numbers of hosts that counts - multiplied by the number of infective "gravid" female lice that supplies the infection potential. Why aren't these numbers presented (You can't tell me Beamish didn't have these numbers available) ???

That's because the truth about the fallowing (i.e. that it worked and proved that the farms have a population-level effect) would detract from the claim (by pro-industry pundits) that the fallowing did not work (which is what the pro-industry pundits want you to believe - not what happened).

&gt;&gt; Please explain why 10 fish on a large salmon is better than 10 lice on 10 small salmon? i would think that the former better supports your fish-farms-are-lice-reservoirs hypothesis. fallowing did not "work" or "fail" it simply did not occur and the sea lice levels fluctuated as they do everywhere and always.

Beamish concedes that they used a large trawl net and vessel to capture the larger smolts that survived the mortality from the sea lice plumes from the open net-pens - way offshore in Queen Charlotte Strait.

This effect of selectively sampling the survivors is called "survivor bias", and is a common topic in introductory ecology/fisheries and economics and health sciences texts. You can't tell me Beamish doesn't know about this. he does even have a PhD - does he not?

&gt;&gt; sea lice are knocked off using any method. he's not conceding anything. Morton used a dipnet and didnt renounce the practice until her study had been thoroughly panned by her peers. she of course still stands by her conclusions based on the erroneous methodology. when morton does a seine and she catches a whole bunch of fish of different species, she puts them in a bucket and counts all the lice on each fish. in the bucket, after all the fish are out, there is a bunch of sea lice in there. she does not ID them, she assumes they came off the salmonids only. Beamish knocked some lice off and still counted between 40-50 lice per salmon, 100% infection. Surveys of wild salmon in the broughton have been 2 or 3 and on farm fish about .2-.3. (in some post somewhere someone was asking me about background lice levels these are the numbers I meant (see MAL website, MHC website and DFO surveys) Beamish demonstrated you dont need a lot of wild resident salmon to create a over wintering resrvoir of sea lice because wild salmon hang around along time and they carry ALOT of sea lice [as do stickleback]. this is significant because it shows that the hypothesis by Morton that fish farms are the ONLY host, and a significant one at that, is not supported.


Here's a shocker - they looked at sea lice on the trawled fish by "examine fish for skin damage caused by sea lice" (Methods, page 1330: Trawl survey for older juvenile pink salmon) - not by IDing the lice on individual fish. That's because they couldn't using that trawl net - it abraids and knocks lice off. They were purposely using the wrong methodology. The whole study falls apart on this point alone.

&gt;&gt; see above, some lice get knocked off no matter what sample method is used. But ALOT stay on. Morton and Beamish acknowledge this.

The precautionary principle says we should stop fishing immediately of all salmon wherever there is a concern. There is stil no evidence that farm salmon produce significant amounts of sea lice or that sea lice even play a major role effecting wild fish health

before i get called a liar again could someone please point out a single "lie" I have told.

I'll let others answer this one.

&gt;&gt;AA why are you trying to say my counterpoints are lies, i am saying I disagree with you, Im not saying you are a liar.[/size=2]

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

quote:The lice levels on salmon farms are lower than background levels.

Whos background? The farms? the pristine ocean? What is the densities and extent of a sea lice plume from a farm? Just saying it does make it true. Krkosek's modelling finds farms increase the background levels something like 75x.

&gt;&gt; Krkoseks modelling is based on ridiculous assumptions- e.g ild fish are distributed evenly throught the study area, sea lice dont die, only salmonids host lice, lice species is ignored, ignored published results on the farm infection level near zero, presumes a bogus mortality rate based on a bogus Morton result etc) and therfore what it predicts is bogus

quote:The lice levels in the lab experiement are 10x natural levels.

Got any science to back that claim up? What's natural? What's the density of a sea lice plume from a fish farm?

&gt;&gt; yup published results of sea lice surveys show typical infection rates of about .2 on farm and 2-3 on wild and Jones used about 30.

quote:the fish in the wild have opportunities to knock off lice that lab fish do not

And that's a problem - because they flash doing that - and every predator within range is attracted.

&gt;&gt; the fish do not have to flash to not move into saltier water

quote:the lowered fitnness in nature can lead to the sea lice infection not necessarily vice versa.

Lice still have to find the smolt. That's the most important point. If farms chug-out sea lice plumes when small, vulnerable smolts are migrating past - they get hit.

&gt;&gt; if they are in the ocean they get "hit" because thats where sea lice live. and hit does not mean hurt. all fish in the sea long enough are infected by a louse- there are hundreds of species. if infection meant disease the ocean would be fish free.

quote:In fact to look at a sick fish with sea lice on it and assume the sea lice caused the sickness is exactly what a layman would do- mix up the cause with symptoms.

Another thing laymen do (you just demonstrated) is mixing-up what is a parasite with a disease. Sea lice drain valuable resources from it's host - and if there are many lice or the host is small - they can either kill the host outright, or cause sub-lethal effects. A sea louse on a small pink fry will probably kill it. That sub-lethal effect may include the louse making entrance wounds in the fish for other viral or bacterial agents to cause further diseases.

&gt;&gt; nice hypothesis, not supported. dozens of sea lice can live on a fish and have no measurable effect. jones showed that under artificial conditions at artificially high doses he can measure an effect from lice if its under .3 grams and has no means of avoiding the louse. at levels found to date in surveys of the broughton wher e the intensity of infection is 10x lower he cannot infect a .3 gram smolt.

However, the main point is: a motile louse on a small smolt is enough to kill it. Even Simon Jone's work concurs with this. Lets not try to confuse the issue by taking about symptoms and disease and lice. A louse is enough to kill - it's simple and uncomplicated logic.

&gt;&gt; no, it doesnt say this. it says that only under artificial conditions can an unnaturally large amount of sea lice effect a smolt and ONLY if its exposed to these artificial doses with no means of escape and only if the fish is under 0.3 grams.

to extrapolate this to the wild is stupid and is exactly what Morton did in her first paper where she mis-cited Bjorn and Finstead that 1.6 live/gram is enough to kill. She, like you of Jones, ignored the author's clear message: the lab results cannot be directly compared to in situ. to say the dynamics of the lab reflects what happens in the wild is idiocy or perhaps just wishful thinking. if anything Jones showed that, based on current knowledge of natural lice levels observed to date, there is no threat to wild salmon even those under .7 gram because it is very difficult to infect a pink fry.

 

[Dave H]

"there is no threat to wild salmon even those under .7 gram because it is very difficult to infect a pink fry."


Tell me handee, are your pants actually on fire when you write crap like this or does that happen later?

Thanks for the comedic relief tough.

What a joke!

Take care.