fish farm siting criteria & politics

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Gun

Here ya go. This is from the Positive Aquaculture Awareness website:

www.farmfreshsalmon.org. You can go there verify, and maybe learn something.

Like learn how to lie, you mean? Her ya go _ RIGHT!! Come-on, sockeyefry - this is your "scientific proof"? Everything they say has to be "positive" about aquaculture since it's their economic meal ticket - look at their name. Give me a break.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

MYTH #4
It takes 3-4 kilograms of wild fish, such as herring and anchovy, to make the feed necessary to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon. The result is a net loss of edible animal protein worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Facts:
The myth that people are losing valuable animal protein worldwide because it is being used for fish feed relies on the assumption that had this feed not gone to fish, it would have gone to humans. The assumption is false; the fishmeal fed to farmed salmon is made from trimmings in fish processing plants, from fish that are not suitable for human consumption, and from fish that humans do not desire to eat.
If there were a demand for direct human consumption of the fish used to make fishmeal, it is likely the fish would be delivered to those markets. Fish used directly for human consumption is always more valuable than fish used for meal.
Historically the Peruvian anchovy and Chilean mackerel fisheries – where a significant percentage of fish feed is derived – could not find a suitable market for their product in any form other than as fishmeal for animal feed.
The fish used for fishmeal production are caught in sustainably managed fisheries; the Chilean anchovy fishery, for example, is one of the world’s most highly regulated.
Farmed fish grow very efficiently compared to other farmed animals. This is because they don’t need to use energy to counter-act gravity as land animals do. Further, they are cold-blooded and therefore don’t need to expend energy to stay warm. By comparison, chickens and pigs - which are also fed large quantities of fishmeal - grow less efficiently than do salmon. If activists were really sincere about the need to conserve “animal protein worldwide” they would be highlighting chicken and pig farming, not fish farming.

Click for larger image
Calculations based on the actual conversion of fish meal to farmed salmon indicate that it actually takes 1.2 – 1.5 kilograms of wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of farmed salmon, not the 3 – 4 kilograms claimed by activists. By comparison, it takes about 5 kilograms of small wild fish to produce 1 kilogram of wild codfish. The fact is, on the issue of conversion, farming in general is more efficient than the wild.

We already discussed this exact issue i year earlier on the forum at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=2
near the bottom of the page.

In it Agentaqua already debunked the cr@p offered by the PAA website by stating "globally, the fish meal industry has an enormous impact. Carnivorous finfish species consumed 52.8% and 81.9% of the total fishmeal and fish oil used in global aquafeeds in 2003. "

AND

"Up to the 1990’s - a typical average composition for Atlantic salmon feed is 35% fish meal and 25% fish oil. The current feed conversion ration (FCR) on British Columbia salmon farms can vary from 1.3 to 1.7 (ie: 1.3 to 1.7 tonnes of dry feed to make 1 tonne of farmed salmon for market), depending on farm efficiency and type of feed used. But what amount of wild fish is needed to make this quantity of dry feed?

It takes about 4.7 tonnes of wild fish to make one tonne of fish meal. At 35% fish meal content, a tonne of dry feed contains 350 kilograms fishmeal. Therefore, 1.65 tonnes of wild fish is needed to make the fish meal used for one tonne of feed. However, it takes 8.3 tonnes of wild fish to make one tonne of fish oil (5). To make the 250 kilograms of fish oil found in one tonne of feed requires 2.08 tonnes of wild fish.

At this point one must be careful not to double count the amount of wild fish used, since a given amount of wild fish will supply both fish meal (mainly protein) and fish oil (mainly fat). In the above example, the 2.08 tonnes of wild fish used to make the fish oil in one tonne of feed is more than enough to supply the fish meal component as well (only 1.65 tonnes of wild fish required for that). At 25% fish oil content then, it is the oil that determines how much wild fish is consumed to make the dry feed.

Since a salmon farm in BC currently uses between 1.3 and 1.7 tonnes of dry feed (ie: FCR of 1.3 to 1.7) to make one tonne of farmed salmon, then the total amount of wild fish used to make one tonne salmon is between 2.7 and 3.5 tonnes (ie: the FCR multiplied by 2.08).

Let's say then, 3 tonnes wild fish = 1 tonne of farmed Atlantics. This feed conversion ratio (FCR) estimation compares well to the FAO (2005a) FCR of 3.1-3.9 for salmon. Interestingly, the FCR of the non-carniverous tilapia is given as 0.23-0.28.

Since the global world production of Atlantic salmon is some 1.5 MILLION tonnes - then 4.5 MILLION tonnes of wild forage fishes (~20% of the worlds fishmeal/fishoil supplies) are used to make that feed which makes 1.5 MILLION tonnes of Atlantic salmon.

In other words, the global footprint of the carniverous salmon fish farming industry means 3 MILLION tonnes of fish protein are lost EACH YEAR in the conversion to salmon. This is not taking the pressure off the world's oceans - nor is it feeding the world's poor and needy.</u>"

Now, the Oceana group, and the lead authors of their new report Hungry Oceans agree. Unlike sockeyefry and the Orwellian-named "positive" Awareness Group; in it they use scientific literature.

One example (p.11) is the statement: "Penguins, cormorants, terns, and other bird species are currently threatened by a developing anchovy fishery in the Patagonian ecosystem (Skegwar et al. 2007)."

download the Hungry Oceans report at:
http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Hungry_oceans/hungry_oceans_OCEANA_Embargoed.pdf

and read it for yourselves, especially the section on aquaculture beginning on page 18...

 

[sockeyefry]

AA,

So your website is okay because it agrees with you, and mine is crap because it doesn't, is that it? I fail to see the difference between the 2.

Have you done the how many wild fish does it take to grow a chicken?

 

[sockeyefry]

AA,

So your website is okay because it agrees with you, and mine is crap because it doesn't, is that it? I fail to see the difference between the 2.

Have you done the how many wild fish does it take to grow a chicken?

 

[Gunsmith]

As you say I am more interested in getting the farms in a location were they can be productive and have a very low impact on the environment.We always let these thing get a foothold without a proper study of all potential impacts. I am focusing on the fish farms because of the locations they are in. They do provide a good supply of fish to the market it definitely would be more costly but there is money to be made even this way.

 

[sockeyefry]

Gun,

It is difficult question to answer irregardless of what it is because all human activity has impacts. The important thing I think is to do the least harmful ones, and when the harmful ones are identified then they should be removed. The problem has always been in identifying what an acceptable activity is, and by whose starndard.

Do you think it would have been possible to find out what impacts a farm could have without actually having farms?

I think the truth in the farm debate is somewhere in the middle. It is not as rosy as portrayed by the farm lobbyists, and it is not as bad as the anti farm people would let every one believe. It would be helpful if both sides could seek a compromise. If both sides could partcipate in studies to prove the impact, not to prove which side is right or wrong, but to simply prove what the effect is and then act accordingly. Remove all the rhetoric and settle it.

For what it's worth, farm companies have been trying to develop on shore farming systems for decades, with limited success. The reason the companies want to be onshore is that it is a more predictable farming environment, which allows for greater controls over yields. However, the cost of recreating the tidal flush using pumps has proven very costly. Maybe someday technology will allow for this to occur. 20 years ago recirculation aquaculture was a labratory hobby. Now it produces tens of thousands of tonnes of product each year. It may prove to be the tech break through that is needed for salmon farm to exist on shore.

 

[Gunsmith]

We could stab each other to death will all points made and still be nowhere. We need a bridge in the middle where positive changes can be identified and enacted. I have said enough without really getting anywhere so I am standing aside and will be looking for groups with a chance of effecting change to support. Getting angry and name calling does nothing to change what is happening.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

AA,

So your website is okay because it agrees with you, and mine is crap because it doesn't, is that it? I fail to see the difference between the 2.

You fail to see the difference when someone uses data and scientific reports in order to assess an issue - verses blind belief based on media releases from corporately-sponsored PR firms???

Wow - Orwell would have fun with that defensive response. Sounds like a new novel to me.

The report in question uses nearly 200 peer-reviewed reports (eg. Tacon et al) and data to answer these issues.

PAA by contrast, reference no peer-reviewed science in their defense of the industry in this regard.

I shouldn't have to explain the difference in credibility to you.

Any scientist or those with scientific backgrounds would instinctively understand the lack of scientific credibility exhibited by the PAA website, and the industry in general.

 

[sockeyefry]

Gun,

I copuldn't agree more. What is needed to resolve the issue is for a third party, without any interest or agenda to study the problem with proper methodology, and decide from there. Kind of like an arbitrator. You and I exchanging opinions, and yes some name calling, may be fun for others, but it is not solving the problem, and in fact is making it worse. There exists a great mistrust on each party's side with regard to the other and their agendas.

I would hope that some one like the PSF with Government support could put together the team of investigators to find the answers in short order. The problem of course is having everyone buy into the result as binding.

 

[Gunsmith]

I'll drink to that.hic!

 

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:I am more interested in getting the farms in a location were they can be productive and have a very low impact on the environment

You mean closed containment?

Take only what you need.

 

[Gunsmith]

That sounds like a good excuse to drink.

 

[sockeyefry]

I am not opposed to closed containment as an option where feasible, and necessary both from an economic and environmental standpoint. It does get the pens out of the water, but also creates a bunch of problems and issues, so it is not the magic bullet that it is portrayed to be.

I think the answer to the question Can you grow fish in closed containment? is yes. The important question from a companies standpoint is can you make money in closed conmtainment? The answer to this question depends on a lot of factors some of which are quite site specific, and complicated. As an example, the tidal range has a great impact on the required pump size. The pump has to be able to pump the required amount of saltwater at low tide, with a large pumping height. This means however, that it is over sized and pumps too much when the tide is high. For this and other reasons I think the answer lies in Recirculation technology.

 

[cuttlefish]

Sockeyefry, Here's s couple responses to points you made recently and a news story.
You said;

quote:The important thing I think is to do the least harmful ones, and when the harmful ones are identified then they should be removed. The problem has always been in identifying what an acceptable activity is, and by whose starndard.

Do you think it would have been possible to find out what impacts a farm could have without actually having farms?

I agree with your first sentence. It's the last one that is hard to swallow. It is directly opposite to the precautionary principle. It is government's responsibility to determine what level of risk is acceptable. Canada supports the statement in Principle 15 of the "1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development": "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." It was possible to proceed slowly with salmon farming in BC, learning from experiences gained here and abroad. Unfortunately, the history of the industry here (and abroad) has been akin to a government sponsored gold rush. And now government is reluctant to admit that this may not have been the most prudent approach. The mistakes made in Chile are now proving to be costly as the news article below points out. Hopefully we can learn from that.

Next point:

quote:
I copuldn't agree more. What is needed to resolve the issue is for a third party, without any interest or agenda to study the problem with proper methodology, and decide from there. Kind of like an arbitrator...I would hope that some one like the PSF with Government support could put together the team of investigators to find the answers in short order. The problem of course is having everyone buy into the result as binding.

The auto industry refused to put in seat belts, catalytic converters or air bags until legislated to do so. Why would anyone expect Norwegian multinationals to act any differently unless there was money to be made, or lost? I suggest that if farms were required to prove no harm before proceeding, then the issue would be resolved a whole lot more quickly than in the current scenario where farmers just keep on farming until the harm is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This approach would also go a long way to eliminate the denial, delay and defamation that fans the flames of controversy.



And finally in today's news: The salmon farming industry (same Norwegian multinationals that operate in BC) has arrived at the point where big investment is now required to clean up the mess created by lack of government oversight and regulation as well as from their own sloppy, cost-cutting methods. Please note the statement about the need for water recirculation farms to solve the problems there.

Intrafish, 4th March 2009

Chilean government to approve financial guarantees for troubled salmon firms

Paula Carvajal

This should be the week Chile's federal government delivers financial
guarantees to salmon companies to help them pay for necessary investments
to fight the infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus.

One of the key issues for salmon companies to be able to win the battle
against ISA is to improve various of their current production systems.

They need to invest in sanitary issues, water recirculation farms, new
harvesting systems, but this takes money, and some companmies say they
can't afford the cost.Complicating matters, banks increasingly consider
the salmon farming sector as risky and are not giving loans.

The government announced this week the treasury might sign off on the bill
review and grant the financial guarantees for the salmon farming industry.
These amount to $120 million (€95 million). That will enable loans up to
$450 million (€358 million). The government will make the money available
through the Economic Development Agency (CORFO).

“Companies now have to make investment to be able to fight ISA and the
banks are not giving them the loans they need, so the government has
offered guarantees through the CORFO to share the risk," Manuel Bagnara,
director of the Region 10 CORFO, told IntraFish.

"Assets are no longer any guarantee for the banks, so the CORFO will
provide guarantees of 50 percent with a limit of $8 million (€6.4
million).”

According to Chile’s financial newspaper, El Diario Financiero, it is
estimated salmon companies owe the banks more than $2.5 billion (€1.9
billion).

Meanwhile, forecasts say the output of the salmon farming industry will
plunge 50 percent in 2009.

Read also

- Dramatic downturn in releases of Chilean smolt

- Major layoffs continue at Camanchaca plant in Chile


Copyright 2005 IntraFish Media AS - All rights reserved.
http://www.intrafish.no/global/news/article242140.ece

 

[agentaqua]

Petition from B.C. fishermen demands feds enforce rules for aquaculture farms
The Canadian Press, 5th March 2009

VANCOUVER, B.C. — B.C. fishermen are demanding the federal government take responsibility for the salmon farming industry, and start applying the same rules to the controversial operations as they apply to the commercial fishing sector.

A petition signed by hundreds of fishermen has been sent to Fisheries Minister Gail Shea and Paul Sprout, the Pacific director general of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The petition notes last month's B.C. Supreme Court ruling that salmon farms should be regulated by the federal department, not the province as they are now.

"Now that the regulatory agency is supposed to be the federal government, we're saying that the regulations that apply to the commercial sector should also apply to the farm fish sector," said Joy Thorkelson, with the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union.

"It's a question of fairness, but more than that, it's also a question of what is necessary to protect wild salmon stocks."

Fish farm critics say sea lice from the open net-cage farms have been killing wild salmon who migrate past them.

The fishermen say they have complied with increasing regulation and restrictions but are still seeing stocks decline.

"We believe that there are huge negative impacts that fish farms have on wild stocks and we want those negative impacts to end," Thorkelson said in an interview.

The fishermen want the federal department to enforce the Fisheries Act and require observers and cameras during off-loading of aquaculture salmon to watch for by-catch.

The group is also calling for examinations of farm fish as they are cleaned for the presence of wild fish in their digestive tract, and wants vessels transporting aquaculture salmon to be licenced like commercial fishing ships.

In addition, Thorkelson said the fishermen are demanding that submerged and above water lights be removed from aquaculture facilities to prevent wild prey and predator species from being drawn to the open-ocean pens.

She said the fisheries department strictly regulates commercial fishermen but while fish farms are known to impact wild stocks, they have never been regulated to the same degree.

But fisheries spokesman Andrew Thomson said the salmon farming industry is regulated in a very comprehensive manner both federally and provincially.

Thomson said measures implemented include assessments for impacts to fish and fish habitats, environmental studies, and regulation of fish before they're put into farm sites.

Supreme Court Justice Christopher Hinkson ruled in February that Ottawa has 12 months to bring in new legislation so fish farms can be licensed by the federal Fisheries Department.

Ottawa delegated responsibility for licensing fish farms to the provinces in the late 1980s.

Ian Robertson, spokesman for Norway-based Marine Harvest Canada, which operates fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago in B.C. as well as elsewhere in the world, said at the time of the ruling that the company looked forward to working with government regulators to further the sustainability of the business.

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g8bI41PE5-cRYJWG4wy6wciXIWSQ

 

[Island Fish Lifter]

This can't hurt.----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:15 PMSubject: FW: [fishermenlist] Letter to DFO &gt; Please consider signing this letter and ask anyone you know who cares &gt; about&gt; the future of our fish resources to sign. Send the info requested below to&gt; this e-mail address ASAP wildorca@island.net. The list is actually now &gt; over&gt; 1000 names. Lets help send a message here.&gt; Thanks,&gt; Shaun.&gt;&gt; -----Original Message-----&gt; From: Alexandra Morton [mailto:wildorca@island.net]&gt; Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:03 AM&gt; To: fishermenlist@lists.onenw.org&gt; Subject: [fishermenlist] Letter to DFO&gt;&gt; Hello&gt;&gt; Thank you for signing on to this letter. There are 158 signatures. I will&gt; be sending this letter on Monday. If more people sign on after that I will&gt; resend it, but it would be great to get a few more before then. The &gt; salmon&gt; "farmers" are likely uncomfortable with the recent court decision that &gt; made&gt; them a public fishery and so I can only imagine that the door on this &gt; window&gt; of opportunity is being pushed shut. It is so incredibly difficult to &gt; make&gt; any real, in the water, progress on this issue that I am hoping we can use&gt; this moment to make it clear to government that this industry must comply&gt; with the Fisheries Act like everyone else involved with a fishery on this&gt; coast.&gt;&gt; If you decide to forward this to others please ask that they send me their&gt; info below and I will put their name on the document&gt;&gt; Name&gt; Fishery&gt; Town&gt;&gt;&gt; Standing by,&gt;&gt; alex&gt;&gt; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1988 - Release Date: 03/06/09 19:17:00

 

[The Fish Assassin]

That's one Public Resource Fishery you can have!!!

Take only what you need.

 

[agentaqua]

Walter Cordery: We're stealing from the oceans to feed farmed fish

Walter Cordery, The Daily News


Slowly but surely, we humans are depriving future generations of wild salmon and tuna by taking their food supply to feed to farmed fish.

That's not me saying it, it's from a United Nations report called "Hungry Oceans."

"We've caught all the big fish and now we're going after their food," said Margot Stiles, a lead author of the report.

"We're stealing the ocean's food supply; these are fish that we basically never used to eat."

And here is where I disagree with Stiles. Much of the food farmed salmon eat comes from small fish like sardines from places like Chile where people rely on them. Scientists are finding those fish stocks are being decimated to feed farmed salmon. When fish stocks decline, that poses a potential problem for poorer people around the world.

"The question is whether per capita supplies of fish for human consumption will remain steady or peak in the near future and then start to fall," the UN food organization asked in a report on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture.

In the last three decades, aquaculture has grown rapidly, from about 6% of fish available for human consumption in 1970 to about 47% in 2006, the UN organization said.

Stiles' report flies in the face of what Nanaimo-Parksville MLA Ron Cantelon told my colleague Robert Barron in April of last year.

Cantelon told Barron fish farms are being unjustly blamed for a number of problems in the commercial fishing industry, like causing sea lice infestations on wild salmon stocks that are decimating them. He then suggested "bigger events are at work" like global warming and shifting migration patterns could account for a decline in wild stocks.

Note to Mr. Cantelon; If you leave the fish in the wild fish alone, Mother Nature will restore their stocks, but by taking away one source of protein for fish and humans so huge companies can feed farmed salmon, we are changing the balance of nature.

I had a discussion with Cantelon about salmon farming shortly after the newly-named minister of agriculture (which includes aquaculture) voiced his displeasure with the findings of the NDP-dominated legislative committee on sustainable aquaculture. He was vice chairman of that committee.

Cantelon made my jaw hit the floor when he told me that he was more educated when it came to fisheries than Alexandra Morton. This was after the peer-reviewed biologist and 17 other scientists sent a letter to Prime Minister Harper and Premier Gordon Campbell making it clear that lice from fish farms are slaughtering migrating salmon smolts. This issue has been accompanied by egregious deceit by the federal and provincial governments and has caused the loss of millions of wild pink and chum salmon.

Whatever anybody thinks of Morton, she's courageous if nothing else.

For years, she has been testing and reporting on the impact of aquaculture on pink and chum salmon runs in the Broughton Archipelago. Her findings have been repeatedly proved by independent scientists. People like Dr. Dan Pauly of UBC, called by Time Magazine one of the top 50 scientists in the world; Dr. Patrick Gargan, one of the leading experts on the impact of lice on salmonids; Dr. Neil Frazer and Dr. John Volpe, British Columbians and fish biologists have not only agreed with her but have said the situation is even worse than she has outlined.

I have to agree with outspoken environmentalist Rafe Mair that when it comes to fish farming: "The fish farming companies, in my view, are utterly heartless and care not a whit for our environment. I believe that British Columbians have been systematically lied to."

And now with the economic downturn the country is facing, I fear governments will latch onto any hair-brained scheme -- like fish farming -- they can to increase economic opportunities for the citizenry, regardless of the environmental impacts. Nobody has the guts to question whether the financial payoff from this industry is worth the environmental risks it poses.

Nobody, that is, except Alexandra Morton.

Walter Cordery's column appears regularly in this space. To comment on his opinion, write to: letters@nanaimodailynews.com
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/story.html?id=b8980890-50cd-4f04-92f4-a1cdaf159a26

 

[sockeyefry]

Only the small-plot tofu farmer is safe
By Bruce Lloyd - North Island MidWeek


Published: February 16, 2009 1:00 PM


“Everyone wants to save Earth – no one wants to help Mom do the dishes!”

– P.J. O’Rourke

They’re a new type of ”

They have all the answers and can tell you why it’s bad for the earth. Any sort of project or activity at all, apart from small-plot tofu farming, will result in the destruction of our planet and should be banned.

If you beg to differ then you are an enemy of this – the inevitable, forthright approaching and ever mandatory – Fourth Reich!

I’m speaking of hyper-environmentalism. You know the kind that takes the formerly good word “Green” and turn it into a dirty word among all but the fully brainwashed.

Last year I was in Kauai and sat amused as I heard of how one ferry was going to destroy the entire state of Hawaii should it be allowed to travel on occasion between three islands. Yup, many of the eco-phobic claimed a midsize ferry, able to deliver about 200 or so cars to an adjacent island, would cause an eco-apocalypse to be sure! Gee, I thought, I guess we here are living in the worst part of the planet then, given our 30 or 40 ferries that curse this B.C. landscape?

And on an on it goes.

Now we find that those “horrific” plans by the Klahoose First Nation and Plutonic Power Corp are not only going to destroy our coastline with the horrors of hydro power lines – something, I guess, we have never seen before – but will also inevitably destroy the fisheries for an eternity...even though run of the river projects like these are typically far removed from fish-bearing waters.

Yes, I say, if there is a project that varies from the standard “above fish habitat waters” and which goes beyond the typical minority quantity diversion in the lower waters, then maybe we should have a second look at such.

But it would seem that most of these projects do not fall astray of “run of river” guidelines. Thus, when local “green” and partisan groups write such unwarranted hyperbole to the effect that Plutonic’s plans will “destroy our culture” etc. ad nauseam, should we make a few dams and minor diversions, one is left scratching his head.

It would seem we are up against some sort of neo-pagan fanaticism to be sure. I make the horrifying suggestion that we “unenlightened” folk can safely harness such energy and all live to tell about it!

Rember those young eco-stooges, the “Squamish 5,” who blew up a tower or two of the old and venerable Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line in its infancy, circa 1982?

After more than 25 years those hydro lines hasn’t brought us anything but good clean power to our outlets and definitely not “eco-armaggedon.”

I can only hope the Squamish 5 all grew up and realized they had been young idealists duped by the enviro-industry with its heavy emphasis on funding and sound bites, eh.

And it’s the same with the fish farm debate. Despite the fact that our commercial fishery deeply damaged the salmon fishery due to increased capacity, poor regulation and abuses of various kinds, we NOW find that there is no one any “greener” than our out-of-work commercial fishermen!

Yesiree Bob, those guys that used to sink their boats with fish, mash the bottom levels of their catch in their holds from far too much fish upon fish, and in general wreak havoc on the salmon schools, have become our idle-time “David Suzukis.”

Over-fishing was never as hard on fish stocks as farming them, eh? Never mind that in 1995, I rode aboard the Gikumi out of Telegraph Cove and witnessed the salmon fleet, or rather flotilla, awaiting the fish and marveled at its immense “grandeur!”

We saw ship after ship with massive nets out, so unending that it seemed that if a single salmon was able to get through these multiple nets it would have probably been depth-charged to ensure it wouldn’t escape to spawn in the Fraser River.

But now the men who fished them mercilessly claim such scarcity is the result of a number of scattered salmon farms up the Broughton and away from those famed narrow killing grounds far south. And they say this with straight faces!

“Of course the fleet wasn’t responsible for any dearth of salmon thou silly knaves,” we are told.

Ditto that tune from the fishing lodges who take a massive toll including those “oh-so-green” catch-and release operators who repeatedly hook, display and then flop the objects of their torment back into the chuck for another round.

No, it hast the fish farmers without a doubt – though they be the only ones that at least own up to perhaps being a part of the problem, and then doing something about it.

Yes, it’s a wonderful world our Fourth Reich envirophobic lot live in. One could also wish it were a halfway truthful one, eh?

 

[scott craven]

It's all B.S. just like global warming...
humans are to blame for everything we do that upsets nature.
the more humans on the planet, the more out of sync nature gets.
the commercial fishing, the sportsfishing, the native fishing,
and the fish farms are all examples of humans abusing the resource.

I know, i'm one of them.[B)]

 

[agentaqua]

To facilitate public understanding of the science concerning sea lice and Pacific salmon the Forum published a comprehensive review by BC scientist Dr. Brian Harvey in March 2008 entitled Science and Sea Lice: What Do We Know? This review summarized over 85 peer reviewed scientific papers published between 2004 and 2008, mainly from British Columbia . The Forum is now releasing an update to this report – Sea Lice and Salmon Farms: A Second Look.

“Once again, Dr. Harvey has provided us with a highly readable report,” said Forum Chair John Fraser , “that provides us with an overview of 31 scientific papers published during 2008.”

In his new report, Dr. Harvey makes the point that he believes the scientific and social backdrop for this update has changed since the earlier report. Some changes he noted include:

· In the fall of 2008 even though total Pacific salmon catch was at an all-time high, dramatic declines in returns of many Pacific salmon population presented such a chaotic picture of salmon survival that experts were often at a loss to explain why some stocks were healthy and others (including the enhanced Glendale River pink salmon stock in the Broughton Archipelago) collapsed;

· Louse prevalence on wild juvenile salmon in the spring in the Broughton also declined in 2008, as it has been doing since 2004 – although spikes later in the summer were still confusing;

· The scientific literature on fish in general contained more references to climate change in 2008, the long-term effects of which on Pacific salmon may overwhelm concerns about sea lice;

Dr. Brian Harvey is an independent biologist based in Victoria and specializing in conservation of endangered fish species. Since 1982, he has managed a number of fisheries projects around the world and edited or co-authored five scientific books. He has published more than 50 peer-reviewed articles and presentations as well as many scientific reports for national and international organizations, including the World Bank and various United Nations agencies. His new book, The End of the River, was published by ECW Press in 2008.

Sea Lice and Salmon Farms: A Second Look is now available on the BC Pacific Salmon Forum’s website at http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/pdfs-all-docs