fish farm siting criteria & politics
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
Just thought I'd share a little story. My girlfriend's sister was in Vegas last week and she ordered salmon at a restaurant. She asked if it was wild and she was told yes, but when she tried some she noticed right away something was wrong and demanded to talk to the chef. Eventually he admitted it was farmed and offered another free meal which she declined. Anyways, I thought it was interesting how quickly she could tell it was a farmed fish - she said it was quite mushy in comparison.
Captain Dudds
Captain Dudds
The Times Colonist, 5th October 2008
Fishery needs better supervision
We wrote last week that it's hard to imagine a fishery where government regulation has done more harm than the wild salmon industry. But a lawsuit in the B.C. Supreme Court goes further.
The suit, filed by environmental activist Alexandra Morton, raises serious questions about fish farms. In effect, it alleges there is no coherent oversight at all.
The issue dates back to a memorandum of agreement signed by Ottawa and B.C. in 1988. By this agreement, the federal government delegated responsibility for fish farms to the province.
But the deal said nothing about wild salmon. Those remained in Ottawa's bailiwick.
Splitting the jurisdiction like this might be fine if there were no overlap between the two fisheries. But there's increasing evidence to suggest that fish farms do affect wild salmon.
Recent studies appear to show that sea lice from fish pens are escaping into open water. The pens are located in bays and inlets, where young wild salmon congregate before heading out to sea.
Researchers at the University of Alberta found that 80 per cent of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, northeast of Vancouver Island, have been killed by infestations of lice. There are also concerns that other wild species, including halibut and sablefish, may be affected.
And the problem isn't confined to sea lice. Fish pens are full of nutrient-rich water where a variety of parasites and toxins can flourish.
There's talk now of giving medicated food to farmed salmon to combat this danger. But if the drugs get into surrounding seawater, as seems likely, that may cause additional harm.
Whether these concerns are real is of vital importance. If the University of Alberta study is correct, wild salmon runs affected by sea lice could be wiped out in four generations -- about eight years from now.
Government officials dismiss the threat. They believe fish farms can operate safely, and that worries about sea lice are overstated.
As things stand, these views are incompatible. Someone has to be wrong.
But here is the issue. The two levels of government have divided things up so each can avoid taking responsibility.
Any harm that results to the wild salmon fishery is not, legally speaking, the province's concern. By the same token, whatever problems arise in the fish-farming industry are not, strictly viewed, Ottawa's problem.
Moreover there are big bucks at stake -- easily enough to overcome the qualms of scientists. By one estimate, the province stands to gain $1 billion a year and 9,000 to 12,000 new jobs from fish farms and other types of aquaculture. Most of these benefits will be felt in hard-hit coastal communities.
In comparison, revenues from the wild salmon fishery have declined precipitously. In 2005, the industry brought in only $33 million.
There's nothing unique about a conflict of interests. Governments face them all the time.
The problem here is that no public body has a mandate to resolve the dilemma. In fact, the opposite is true. The jurisdiction has been muddled up sufficiently to make oversight impossible.
At a minimum, that invites confusion. And it guarantees a chorus of opinions when what we need is one authoritative voice.
It might be the threat to wild salmon is exaggerated. It's also quite possible the benefits from fish farms are considerable. But on a matter of such critical importance, we have a right to expect the broadest possible consensus.
The matter is urgent. There are already close to 30 fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago and several have applied for new or expanded licences.
Neither Ottawa nor the province should wait for a court ruling. We need one unified authority for the entire West Coast fishery, and we need it now.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimes....html?id=c56b5801-e0e2-4a87-9438-f53015b6f390
Fishery needs better supervision
We wrote last week that it's hard to imagine a fishery where government regulation has done more harm than the wild salmon industry. But a lawsuit in the B.C. Supreme Court goes further.
The suit, filed by environmental activist Alexandra Morton, raises serious questions about fish farms. In effect, it alleges there is no coherent oversight at all.
The issue dates back to a memorandum of agreement signed by Ottawa and B.C. in 1988. By this agreement, the federal government delegated responsibility for fish farms to the province.
But the deal said nothing about wild salmon. Those remained in Ottawa's bailiwick.
Splitting the jurisdiction like this might be fine if there were no overlap between the two fisheries. But there's increasing evidence to suggest that fish farms do affect wild salmon.
Recent studies appear to show that sea lice from fish pens are escaping into open water. The pens are located in bays and inlets, where young wild salmon congregate before heading out to sea.
Researchers at the University of Alberta found that 80 per cent of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, northeast of Vancouver Island, have been killed by infestations of lice. There are also concerns that other wild species, including halibut and sablefish, may be affected.
And the problem isn't confined to sea lice. Fish pens are full of nutrient-rich water where a variety of parasites and toxins can flourish.
There's talk now of giving medicated food to farmed salmon to combat this danger. But if the drugs get into surrounding seawater, as seems likely, that may cause additional harm.
Whether these concerns are real is of vital importance. If the University of Alberta study is correct, wild salmon runs affected by sea lice could be wiped out in four generations -- about eight years from now.
Government officials dismiss the threat. They believe fish farms can operate safely, and that worries about sea lice are overstated.
As things stand, these views are incompatible. Someone has to be wrong.
But here is the issue. The two levels of government have divided things up so each can avoid taking responsibility.
Any harm that results to the wild salmon fishery is not, legally speaking, the province's concern. By the same token, whatever problems arise in the fish-farming industry are not, strictly viewed, Ottawa's problem.
Moreover there are big bucks at stake -- easily enough to overcome the qualms of scientists. By one estimate, the province stands to gain $1 billion a year and 9,000 to 12,000 new jobs from fish farms and other types of aquaculture. Most of these benefits will be felt in hard-hit coastal communities.
In comparison, revenues from the wild salmon fishery have declined precipitously. In 2005, the industry brought in only $33 million.
There's nothing unique about a conflict of interests. Governments face them all the time.
The problem here is that no public body has a mandate to resolve the dilemma. In fact, the opposite is true. The jurisdiction has been muddled up sufficiently to make oversight impossible.
At a minimum, that invites confusion. And it guarantees a chorus of opinions when what we need is one authoritative voice.
It might be the threat to wild salmon is exaggerated. It's also quite possible the benefits from fish farms are considerable. But on a matter of such critical importance, we have a right to expect the broadest possible consensus.
The matter is urgent. There are already close to 30 fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago and several have applied for new or expanded licences.
Neither Ottawa nor the province should wait for a court ruling. We need one unified authority for the entire West Coast fishery, and we need it now.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimes....html?id=c56b5801-e0e2-4a87-9438-f53015b6f390
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
All I can is thank goodness for this court case and I truly hope Morton, et al, win their case! It is shameful how both our Federal and Provincial governments have given up their stewardship responsibilities of this great natural resources that belongs to every Canadian for short term economic gain of few (even worse, a few multi-national corporations). Wild salmon used to and can continue to provide more direct and indirect economic benefits then any salmon farming industry IF we as a society decide to deal with the numerous problems facing wild salmon today (i.e habitat destruction, overfishing, marine fish farming and climate change). I look forward to the day when all salmon farms are in tanks and/or on land so we can reduce this obvious threat to wild salmon. Listening to the pro-salmon farming agruments here reminds me of the endless rhetoric from the tobacco companies over the decades saying that smoking isn't a cause cancer and that there is no definitive proof or studies that prove the link between smoking and cancer. Wake up, smell the coffee, and farm fish in a less harmful manner. That's my 2 bits worth.
Sharp hooks and full traps!
Sharp hooks and full traps!
Blah blah blah. This court case is not going anywhere this is more hyperbole from Ms Morton and company. The woman loves the sound of her own voice and will stop at nothing to see her picture in the paper. Sadly she has sold a lot of people a story that will not stand up to any serious scrutiny. The courts want the whole truth not half truths and junk science that meets ones own agenda. I am angry about this simply because it is pulling very valuable resources away from valuable research that could find the real cause of salmon populations crashing all over the world.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
When you make a reply like you just did Barbender, it truly shows how ignorant and intolerant you are of other people's opinions. It also displays that the true motive of your actions here is not a well reasoned exchange of ideas and information (in hopes of finding the truth of the matter), but rather to simply promote your industry's cause at any cost. Your comments in this thread would indicate that you are just another close minded, farm fishing industry lackey. I hope others here see your arguments for what they really are, just the desperate, dogmatic fumings of someone whom overtime, (like the tobacco lobbyists) will be shown to be narrow minded, foolish and utimately irrelevant. That's my 2 bits.
Sharp hooks and full traps!
Sharp hooks and full traps!
Yes of course. We all can't be as tolerant and open minded as you so called "guardians of the wild salmon". I love how anyone that dares contravene your rhetoric suddenly becomes a lackey that gets lumped in with the tobacco industry. It must be hard being so self rightous. Of course being so closed minded would also explain why none of the anti farming groups would consider other reasons for salmon disappearing all over the world. Of course hard facts and real science have no place in enviromental movements. At least we both agree on that.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Ohh Barbender you are a tiresome one. If you read and thought about what I said and not just knee jerk react you would see that I attribute much of the decline of wild salmon to:
1) overfishing (i.e. both inshore and offshore)
2) habitat destruction (e.g. logging, agriculture, urban development etc.)
3) environmental changes (e.g. climate and ocean current and temp changes, etc.
4) open pen fish farming (e.g. pollution and sea lice infestation, etc.
I will say it again so you can get it. We need to decide as a society that IF we want sustainable populations of wild salmon we need to do something to reduce the negative impact of the above factors. If not, then we should be prepared to live with less wild salmon and undoubtedly more farmed salmon (hopefully raised in contained pens). Which in my opinion would be just as sad as living in a world were many of the wild animal species can only be found in a farm to be consumed, or caged in a zoo to be gawked at. That's my 2 bits.
Sharp hooks and full traps!
1) overfishing (i.e. both inshore and offshore)
2) habitat destruction (e.g. logging, agriculture, urban development etc.)
3) environmental changes (e.g. climate and ocean current and temp changes, etc.
4) open pen fish farming (e.g. pollution and sea lice infestation, etc.
I will say it again so you can get it. We need to decide as a society that IF we want sustainable populations of wild salmon we need to do something to reduce the negative impact of the above factors. If not, then we should be prepared to live with less wild salmon and undoubtedly more farmed salmon (hopefully raised in contained pens). Which in my opinion would be just as sad as living in a world were many of the wild animal species can only be found in a farm to be consumed, or caged in a zoo to be gawked at. That's my 2 bits.
Sharp hooks and full traps!
Stop talking to my wife. That is playing dirty. Now that we got that out of the way I agree with all your points. What I dont agree with is people saying that Farms are the reason for the whole collapse of the west coast fishery. That kind of statement is irresponsible and does not take into considerations so many other factors. Yes I believe in Aquaculture if done properly. Never denied that. Then again I also believe politicians have our best interest at heart....sigh.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Reported on Intrafish today was the following:
The 3 sub populations of the Skeena sockeye wre listed by the International Conservation Union as being endangered. They are the Morice - Nanika (critical), the Upper Skeena (endangered), and the Lower Skeena ( Vulnerable). The IUCN Salmonid Specialist Group (12 scientists from the US, Canada & Russia) looked at 80 sub populations around the Pacific Rim and found over half of them to be threatened by:
1) Climate Change impacts on Ocean and River Habitats
2) Freshwater Habitat degradation
3) Mixed Stock Commercial fisheries.
4) Enhancement through hatchery production and artificial spawning habitat.
Funny White water, I don't see fish farms on their list? Maybe Barbender has a point in that we shouldn't blame it all on farms and maybe start focussing our energy on the real reasons.
I can't provide a link to the Intrafish site, because you must be a subscriber to read the articles, but I am sure that as important as this discovery is, it will be picked up on all networks and printed media with the same fervor as Morton's press releases.
The 3 sub populations of the Skeena sockeye wre listed by the International Conservation Union as being endangered. They are the Morice - Nanika (critical), the Upper Skeena (endangered), and the Lower Skeena ( Vulnerable). The IUCN Salmonid Specialist Group (12 scientists from the US, Canada & Russia) looked at 80 sub populations around the Pacific Rim and found over half of them to be threatened by:
1) Climate Change impacts on Ocean and River Habitats
2) Freshwater Habitat degradation
3) Mixed Stock Commercial fisheries.
4) Enhancement through hatchery production and artificial spawning habitat.
Funny White water, I don't see fish farms on their list? Maybe Barbender has a point in that we shouldn't blame it all on farms and maybe start focussing our energy on the real reasons.
I can't provide a link to the Intrafish site, because you must be a subscriber to read the articles, but I am sure that as important as this discovery is, it will be picked up on all networks and printed media with the same fervor as Morton's press releases.
There are no fish farms at the mouth of the Skeena. They stopped them, unlike the Broughton. You forgot to mention that one, sockeyefry.
This does not mean that:
1/ Fish farms are the only reason for population-level impacts on salmon stocks,
2/ Fish farms have no impacts, or
3/ that all these effects don't work together - called cumulative effects - to have severe repercussions on our salmon resource.
In the case of the Broughtons; I believe that impacts from fish farms are the proverbial straws that can break the camels back due to their placement adjacent to important salmon migratory routes. This thread describes those potential and real impacts.
Save Our Rivers Society, 8th October 2008
Video on Collapse of Salmon From Fish Farms - Glendale Grizzlies: In the Absence of Salmon
Save Our Rivers Society is pleased to present a new film by POWERPLAY producer Damien Gillis, teaming with Save Our Rivers official spokesperson and longtime wild salmon advocate Rafe Mair.
The film, "Glendale Grizzlies: In the Absence of Salmon" is a preview of a forthcoming series, S.O.S.: The State of Our Salmon, that will discuss the importance of salmon for our environment, economy, and cultures - as well as examining historic impacts on our wild salmon, culminating in fish farm devastation on the coast, and new threats on the horizon, including the pine beetle and private river power projects on potentially hundreds of our rivers and streams.
Watch Video (Flash) - click on: http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/14-videos/218-glendalegrizzlies
The collapse of our wild salmon should be both a federal and provincial election issue - at the top of the agenda. Losing our salmon and the indigenous communities who depend on them would represent one of the greatest political failures in Canadian history - for all levels of government. Ask your candidates in the federal, municipal and provincial elections where they stand stand on fish farms and protecting our wild salmon, rivers and environment.
http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/14-videos/218-glendalegrizzlies
Also watch Watershed Watch's film "Wild Salmon in Trouble" via: http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/14-videos/216-watershedwatch1
Video on Collapse of Salmon From Fish Farms - Glendale Grizzlies: In the Absence of Salmon
Save Our Rivers Society is pleased to present a new film by POWERPLAY producer Damien Gillis, teaming with Save Our Rivers official spokesperson and longtime wild salmon advocate Rafe Mair.
The film, "Glendale Grizzlies: In the Absence of Salmon" is a preview of a forthcoming series, S.O.S.: The State of Our Salmon, that will discuss the importance of salmon for our environment, economy, and cultures - as well as examining historic impacts on our wild salmon, culminating in fish farm devastation on the coast, and new threats on the horizon, including the pine beetle and private river power projects on potentially hundreds of our rivers and streams.
Watch Video (Flash) - click on: http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/14-videos/218-glendalegrizzlies
The collapse of our wild salmon should be both a federal and provincial election issue - at the top of the agenda. Losing our salmon and the indigenous communities who depend on them would represent one of the greatest political failures in Canadian history - for all levels of government. Ask your candidates in the federal, municipal and provincial elections where they stand stand on fish farms and protecting our wild salmon, rivers and environment.
http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/14-videos/218-glendalegrizzlies
Also watch Watershed Watch's film "Wild Salmon in Trouble" via: http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/14-videos/216-watershedwatch1
The Times Colonist, 8th October 2008
Killer whales threatened by salmon shortage
Lack food may be reason for changes in behaviour
Judith Lavoie
Killer whales in waters off southern Vancouver Island and Puget Sound are losing blubber and developing strange behaviour patterns because of a shortage of salmon, whale experts say.
Some endangered southern resident killer whales are developing "peanut heads," showing they are not getting enough food, said Howard Garrett of Washington-based Orca Network.
"They are looking sick. There is usually a thick layer of blubber just behind the skull, and that seems to be the first place to be drawn from when they need to draw down blubber," he said. "In some of them, there's a dip right behind the blow-hole and, when you see that, you know the whale has been hungry."
The Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor is having difficulty finalizing numbers for the three resident pods this year because the whales are so spread out.
Researchers have tentatively set the number of southern residents at about 87.
Unusual liaisons are happening as the whales search for elusive chinook salmon, Garrett said.
"A small group from L Pod have been traveling with J Pod all summer long, and twice J Pod has split into two completely separate groups, out of acoustic range from each other," he said. "It's an indication that they are searching high and low and in every nook and cranny for fish."
Today, environmental groups and Lance Barrett-Lennard, co-chairman of the federal government's Resident Killer Whale Recovery Team, are holding a news conference in Vancouver. They will "announce an explosive new strategy to challenge the federal government's failure to protect the endangered southern resident killer whales and threatened northern resident killer whales," says a news release from the environmental group Ecojustice.
The whale recovery team worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to produce a killer whale recovery strategy, which was finalized earlier this year.
"There are ongoing scientific concerns about conservation of the species, particularly in light of the fact that killer whales are not looking good this year," Barrett-Lennard said.
The strategy's objectives are to ensure the whales have an adequate and accessible food supply, that chemical and biological pollutants and disturbance from human activities do not prevent recovery and that critical habitat is protected.
John Ford, marine mammal scientist at DFO's Pacific Biological Station, is an expert on the eating habits of resident killer whales. Ford wrote last year in a University of British Columbia paper, that "resident killer whales may be dependent on chinook salmon, and the abundance of this prey species may have a direct effect on their survival."
Diane Lake of DFO communications said scientists will not grant interviews during the election campaign.
In the U.S., Garrett has firm ideas on what should be done to save the orcas.
"There is already a lot of effort to restore salmon on the U.S. side, and we need to tie orca recovery to salmon recovery every step of the way," he said.
That means tighter fishing restrictions, buffer zones around salmon streams and the removal of dams on the Elwha River and the Snake River in Washington state, Garrett said.
jlavoie@tc.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=82ffec21-a2ef-488a-b16b-385da014c34f
Killer whales threatened by salmon shortage
Lack food may be reason for changes in behaviour
Judith Lavoie
Killer whales in waters off southern Vancouver Island and Puget Sound are losing blubber and developing strange behaviour patterns because of a shortage of salmon, whale experts say.
Some endangered southern resident killer whales are developing "peanut heads," showing they are not getting enough food, said Howard Garrett of Washington-based Orca Network.
"They are looking sick. There is usually a thick layer of blubber just behind the skull, and that seems to be the first place to be drawn from when they need to draw down blubber," he said. "In some of them, there's a dip right behind the blow-hole and, when you see that, you know the whale has been hungry."
The Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor is having difficulty finalizing numbers for the three resident pods this year because the whales are so spread out.
Researchers have tentatively set the number of southern residents at about 87.
Unusual liaisons are happening as the whales search for elusive chinook salmon, Garrett said.
"A small group from L Pod have been traveling with J Pod all summer long, and twice J Pod has split into two completely separate groups, out of acoustic range from each other," he said. "It's an indication that they are searching high and low and in every nook and cranny for fish."
Today, environmental groups and Lance Barrett-Lennard, co-chairman of the federal government's Resident Killer Whale Recovery Team, are holding a news conference in Vancouver. They will "announce an explosive new strategy to challenge the federal government's failure to protect the endangered southern resident killer whales and threatened northern resident killer whales," says a news release from the environmental group Ecojustice.
The whale recovery team worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to produce a killer whale recovery strategy, which was finalized earlier this year.
"There are ongoing scientific concerns about conservation of the species, particularly in light of the fact that killer whales are not looking good this year," Barrett-Lennard said.
The strategy's objectives are to ensure the whales have an adequate and accessible food supply, that chemical and biological pollutants and disturbance from human activities do not prevent recovery and that critical habitat is protected.
John Ford, marine mammal scientist at DFO's Pacific Biological Station, is an expert on the eating habits of resident killer whales. Ford wrote last year in a University of British Columbia paper, that "resident killer whales may be dependent on chinook salmon, and the abundance of this prey species may have a direct effect on their survival."
Diane Lake of DFO communications said scientists will not grant interviews during the election campaign.
In the U.S., Garrett has firm ideas on what should be done to save the orcas.
"There is already a lot of effort to restore salmon on the U.S. side, and we need to tie orca recovery to salmon recovery every step of the way," he said.
That means tighter fishing restrictions, buffer zones around salmon streams and the removal of dams on the Elwha River and the Snake River in Washington state, Garrett said.
jlavoie@tc.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=82ffec21-a2ef-488a-b16b-385da014c34f
S
sockeyefry
Guest
C,mon Aqua,
What I want you to admit is that there are real impacts to the wild salmon, and none of these real impacts which have the ability to have the widespread consequences on the populations have nothing to do with the point impact of a salmon farm. The study indicates that there are real problems facing wild salmon populations around the Pacific and it has nothing to do with the farms. Your Straw really is the cumulative effect of all the impacts mentioned in the article. You just conveniently use the farms as your reason because you do not want the farms. What will be your excuse for the populations continuing to crash after you have succeeded in getting the farms out of the water, because you and I both know that they will?
What I want you to admit is that there are real impacts to the wild salmon, and none of these real impacts which have the ability to have the widespread consequences on the populations have nothing to do with the point impact of a salmon farm. The study indicates that there are real problems facing wild salmon populations around the Pacific and it has nothing to do with the farms. Your Straw really is the cumulative effect of all the impacts mentioned in the article. You just conveniently use the farms as your reason because you do not want the farms. What will be your excuse for the populations continuing to crash after you have succeeded in getting the farms out of the water, because you and I both know that they will?
Nowhere's on this forum have I ever said that fish farms are the sole source of population-level impacts on salmon stocks. Other impacts include (to name a few of the most important ones):
* Excess extraction on some systems from sports-, sports-commercial-, commercial-, and First nations-harvesting,
* Impacts of global warming which include earlier emergence and potentially less food (esp. for chum stocks which are 1st out-the-gate),
* instream habitat and water quality changes from urban development or past logging practices in some areas, and
* Extensive open-net-cage salmonid farming in areas in BC such as the Broughtons and the Discovery Islands.
All of these impacts are well known and recorded and accepted as serious, population-level impacts on certain watersheds.
In order to tie together and apportion-out what impacts are more serious to each separate watershed - one has to be familiar with the lifecycle of each species, and it's associated migratory paths and freshwater and marine rearing habitats.
Jennifer Ford did a statistical analysis using escapement data, and this was discussed earlier on this thread - as you all will either remember or be able to reference.
The brunt of Ford's analysis was that reductions in wild salmon survival due to the establishment of intensive open net-cage salmon farming represented greater than 50% of the variability in the increase in mortality rates - or (in other words) that at least 50% of the population-level impacts are due to salmon farming world-wide. See:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033&ct=1
We discussed this already. Did you forget?
The reason that open net-cage salmon farming has such a huge potential impact on adjacent wild salmon stocks has also been discussed at some length also earlier on this thread - but is due to the fact that these open net-cage developments are so close to the marine migration routes of small, juvenile salmon - thereby amplifying and transferring diseases and sea lice back onto the outmigrating vulnerable salmon smolts.
Look at the picture of sockeye salmon smolt migratory paths in relation to open net-cage sites on the preceding page.
The reason that this is so important is because population-level mortality is most often set during the first few weeks of marine life history for most species and stocks.
Anything that affects their growth and survival during this vulnerable time as ocean-going smolts has significant population-level impacts that are felt during the next anticipated arrival as spawning adults (i.e. there is a time-lag).
Again, none of this is rocket-science or difficult to understand - even to fish farmers. I just wish they would stop denying the issue, and stop attacking people who are concerned for the survival of their fisheries-dependent communities.
The Courier-Islander, 10th October 2008
Pink salmon run collapse is a catastrophe
My name is Derek Kyostia, a former consultant-based Salmon Stock Assessment Biologist and now employed as an Interpretative Naturalist on Northern Vancouver Island.
For nearly six years, I have had the distinct pleasure of introducing international clientele from around the world to a very unique area on the adjacent Mainland that boasts (or should I say formerly boasted?!) one of the densest concentrations of grizzly bears on the coast.
In the six years that I have had the privilege to frequent this area, salmon populations have fluctuated from year to year as one might expect. However, this year I have witnessed what could only be described as a catastrophic collapse of the pink salmon return.
Less than 10,000 pink salmon returned this year to a system that, within the last decade, has hosted an annual escapement of nearly one million fish! Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, this event was not forecast, nor has it been exclusive to this locale, but rather coast wide.
For several weeks following historically observed return dates, we continued to lead ourselves to believe that the situation couldn't possibly be this bad and, as a result, perhaps it didn't receive the media attention that it deserved. However now, with the termination of our season imminent, we have come to realize that the situation is indeed this bad. The prognosis for this winter's survival and next year's recruitment into the bear population is nothing short of critical.
Pink salmon, the smallest, and historically the most abundant of the five pacific salmon species, could be described as the sacrificial lamb of the coast, providing fodder for the countless fauna and fertilizer for the diversity of flora that inhabit our coastal watersheds.
Salmon are a keystone species, the blood vein on which the vitality of our delicate West Coast food web depends. The repercussions of a West Coast salmon collapse are far beyond the inconvenience of our not enjoying sustenance from the sea, but rather the continued survival of flagship species such as orca, eagles, wolves and sea lions in addition to the plethora of less-recognized species that reside below them.
How long are we going to continue to play politics with this invaluable resource?
I understand that the issue is currently overshadowed by a potential global economic crisis and election campaigns on both sides of the border, but this is undoubtedly a timely matter. It would be naïve to think that commercial fish farm operations are solely responsible for this cataclysmic decline. However, in addition to former years of ill-practiced forestry; a blatant mismanagement of the fishery; impending climate change; pollution; and natural climatic phenomenon such as El Nino and La Nina, if there is any doubt as to the contribution of fish farms to this decline, then why isn't the government reacting?
It would seem to me that the simple solution is immediate implementation of closed containers which would effectively serve to eliminate escape of these exotic species into our waters; minimize chemical and fecal pollution to the environment; reduce the senseless destruction of what are perceived as predators in the vicinity of the farms; and, finally, remove any potential for cross-contamination of sea lice onto juvenile wild salmon as they migrate seasonally from their natal streams to offshore waters.
This issue is a needless embarrassment to this country and one of great importance for the biological and socio-economic longevity of this province.
Kudos to Alexandra Morton and others like her who have a sound appreciation for what is truly at stake and have thus dedicated their lives to this cause, particularly at such great personal sacrifice.
http://www.canada.com/courierisland...l?id=49e5b66b-9532-48ad-9edb-b2c6ed79450e&p=2
Pink salmon run collapse is a catastrophe
My name is Derek Kyostia, a former consultant-based Salmon Stock Assessment Biologist and now employed as an Interpretative Naturalist on Northern Vancouver Island.
For nearly six years, I have had the distinct pleasure of introducing international clientele from around the world to a very unique area on the adjacent Mainland that boasts (or should I say formerly boasted?!) one of the densest concentrations of grizzly bears on the coast.
In the six years that I have had the privilege to frequent this area, salmon populations have fluctuated from year to year as one might expect. However, this year I have witnessed what could only be described as a catastrophic collapse of the pink salmon return.
Less than 10,000 pink salmon returned this year to a system that, within the last decade, has hosted an annual escapement of nearly one million fish! Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, this event was not forecast, nor has it been exclusive to this locale, but rather coast wide.
For several weeks following historically observed return dates, we continued to lead ourselves to believe that the situation couldn't possibly be this bad and, as a result, perhaps it didn't receive the media attention that it deserved. However now, with the termination of our season imminent, we have come to realize that the situation is indeed this bad. The prognosis for this winter's survival and next year's recruitment into the bear population is nothing short of critical.
Pink salmon, the smallest, and historically the most abundant of the five pacific salmon species, could be described as the sacrificial lamb of the coast, providing fodder for the countless fauna and fertilizer for the diversity of flora that inhabit our coastal watersheds.
Salmon are a keystone species, the blood vein on which the vitality of our delicate West Coast food web depends. The repercussions of a West Coast salmon collapse are far beyond the inconvenience of our not enjoying sustenance from the sea, but rather the continued survival of flagship species such as orca, eagles, wolves and sea lions in addition to the plethora of less-recognized species that reside below them.
How long are we going to continue to play politics with this invaluable resource?
I understand that the issue is currently overshadowed by a potential global economic crisis and election campaigns on both sides of the border, but this is undoubtedly a timely matter. It would be naïve to think that commercial fish farm operations are solely responsible for this cataclysmic decline. However, in addition to former years of ill-practiced forestry; a blatant mismanagement of the fishery; impending climate change; pollution; and natural climatic phenomenon such as El Nino and La Nina, if there is any doubt as to the contribution of fish farms to this decline, then why isn't the government reacting?
It would seem to me that the simple solution is immediate implementation of closed containers which would effectively serve to eliminate escape of these exotic species into our waters; minimize chemical and fecal pollution to the environment; reduce the senseless destruction of what are perceived as predators in the vicinity of the farms; and, finally, remove any potential for cross-contamination of sea lice onto juvenile wild salmon as they migrate seasonally from their natal streams to offshore waters.
This issue is a needless embarrassment to this country and one of great importance for the biological and socio-economic longevity of this province.
Kudos to Alexandra Morton and others like her who have a sound appreciation for what is truly at stake and have thus dedicated their lives to this cause, particularly at such great personal sacrifice.
http://www.canada.com/courierisland...l?id=49e5b66b-9532-48ad-9edb-b2c6ed79450e&p=2
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Yes agent, I do rememeber the Ford study. And I do remember that she and Ransom Myers compared River systems to determine the impacts. However, the rivers chosen were not comparable, and she failed to determine all causes of population decline. In otherwords, she was out to prove an agenda, not find scientific fact.
This is the problem with you antis. You have an agenda, which is to see salmon farming shut down, and you use all your energy finding the reasons to shut it down, even if yuou have to make some of it up. In addition you ignore studies which may suggest the real declines may be due to something other than what is on your agenda.
The problem with this approach is that because you are so wrapped up in your agenda driven crusade, that you may ignore, and cause others to ignore the real reason for population declines. In short you hurt a lot of people and salmon due to your short sightedness. Have you ever thought what happens if you succeed and salmon farms are removed, and the populations still decline? Maybe you really don't care, because the real target is farm removal, and you will use any and all means to achieve your goal.
You make reference to other causes .1% of the time, while 99.9% are anti farms. Don't try to suggest that you don't concentrate on anti farming rhetoric. Just look at the last post. This guy is publishing his opinion, not facts. much the same way we are here. His letter to the editor (You forgot to mention that) is being presented as fact here by you to forward your agenda.
This is the problem with you antis. You have an agenda, which is to see salmon farming shut down, and you use all your energy finding the reasons to shut it down, even if yuou have to make some of it up. In addition you ignore studies which may suggest the real declines may be due to something other than what is on your agenda.
The problem with this approach is that because you are so wrapped up in your agenda driven crusade, that you may ignore, and cause others to ignore the real reason for population declines. In short you hurt a lot of people and salmon due to your short sightedness. Have you ever thought what happens if you succeed and salmon farms are removed, and the populations still decline? Maybe you really don't care, because the real target is farm removal, and you will use any and all means to achieve your goal.
You make reference to other causes .1% of the time, while 99.9% are anti farms. Don't try to suggest that you don't concentrate on anti farming rhetoric. Just look at the last post. This guy is publishing his opinion, not facts. much the same way we are here. His letter to the editor (You forgot to mention that) is being presented as fact here by you to forward your agenda.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
sockeyefry you said;
Do you have a rebuttle paper or link that you could point us to showing that the Ford and Meyers peer reviewed study is out to lunch or is your statement just your opinion?
BTW, this thread was started to discuss the siting of open net cage salmon farms, so it is no wonder that 99.9% of the discussion centers around salmon farming. I'm sure many on here are concerned about other negative impacts to wild salmon and wish to address them also, but this is not the right thread to focus on those other causes. It's about locations of open net pen salmon farms.
Do you have a rebuttle paper or link that you could point us to showing that the Ford and Meyers peer reviewed study is out to lunch or is your statement just your opinion?
BTW, this thread was started to discuss the siting of open net cage salmon farms, so it is no wonder that 99.9% of the discussion centers around salmon farming. I'm sure many on here are concerned about other negative impacts to wild salmon and wish to address them also, but this is not the right thread to focus on those other causes. It's about locations of open net pen salmon farms.
Similar threads
