fish farm siting criteria & politics

A notable quote from this PSF-funded "Sea Lice and Salmon Farms: A Second Look" report:

"So my conclusion a year ago was “The science isn’t clear.” This didn’t mean there wasn’t evidence that lice from the farms caused harm, just that scientists didn’t agree on how big the effect was. It certainly didn’t mean that we should wait for consensus before taking action (although quite a few people interpreted it that way). "
 
Agent,

Good posts.

One problem I am grappling with is how do you prove a negative? By this I mean how do the farms prove that they are mot having any effect, or that the effect if any is so small as to be of little consequence. By saying this, I am not suggesting that there is or isn't an effect, it just what level of proof is required for people to determine that there is no effect? What would be acceptable, because it is very hard to prove that something will never happen, as never is a very long time.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

Good posts.

One problem I am grappling with is how do you prove a negative? By this I mean how do the farms prove that they are mot having any effect, or that the effect if any is so small as to be of little consequence. By saying this, I am not suggesting that there is or isn't an effect, it just what level of proof is required for people to determine that there is no effect? What would be acceptable, because it is very hard to prove that something will never happen, as never is a very long time.
Good question, sockeyefry.

However, I'm not sure I would have phrased it about "proving a negative".

Instead, I would have phrased it as: "At what level of risk do we apply the precautionary principle?" - because that's what we should be doing - risk management rather than ignoring or denying the problem.

I would say that where there is risk of substantial (i.e. population-level) impacts; we need to act proactively and reverse harm before it is unrepairable.

The precautionary approach: "recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone decisions where there is a threat of serious or irreversible harm."

In our case; we do not need absolute proof that fish farms cause population-levels impacts to adjacent wild stocks - rather, we need to know the likelihood of that happening and the potential consequence of those impacts in order to legislate and plan to mitigate those risks.

From that perspective - it is really quite logical and easy (and commonplace in most industries) to plan ahead (which we have not yet done, although the PSF is on the right track with recommendations for baseline sea lice levels on wild smolts).

We need to look at other jurisdictions for what their history is to gauge risk, and Ford et al. already has done this. That's risk assessment.

Then there is the management side of things. We need to develop indicators that are sensitive enough to respond in an appropriate spatial and temporal scale - against which that risk is assessed and monitored.

Sea lice levels on outmigrating smolts is one such indicator, as is accurate enumeration of adjacent wild salmon stocks. Then we monitor these indicators and shut-down industry when these indicators are past the normal background values (i.e. a threshold).

None of this methodology is new, or unknown - just purposely ignored by our government (and those promoting the industry within government) as they pander to the interests of big business in the hopes of stalling the hard decisions until after the next election.

In fact, under Sec. 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act - DFO has never needed absolute proof to shut-down any fishery or industry (which they often have) citing the precautionary principle - with the sole, notable and glaring exception being salmon farms.
 
quote:Originally posted by r.s 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)]

well then smarten up..... Just kidding good post. I'm a guilty party butt well..[B)]
 
Agent,

While we do not require absolute proof, I would hope that we would strive to find out to the best of our abilities. I don't think that a human activity should be shut down on a whim, or on opinion. The science is incomplete, and the farms are in existence, something which happened 20 odd years ago. I think that we should investigate properly with a concerted effort like what the PSF is trying to do. I feel that there is too much emotion and agendas involved.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

While we do not require absolute proof, I would hope that we would strive to find out to the best of our abilities. I don't think that a human activity should be shut down on a whim, or on opinion. The science is incomplete, and the farms are in existence, something which happened 20 odd years ago. I think that we should investigate properly with a concerted effort like what the PSF is trying to do. I feel that there is too much emotion and agendas involved.
Good post, sockeyefry.

I agree with virtually everything you said.

However, I was not talking about "whims" - but instead utilizing the best science we have available along with risk management - and not waiting for impacts to be proven with "absolute" proof before taking actions to mitigate the damage, including of course shutting down the open net-cage salmon farms.
 
Agent,

I am in agreement with you. I think that its a case of risk management vs an oppurtunity lost. There has to be an acceptable compromise in there somewhere. I personally think that both sides in this argument are so entrenched that it is going to require a third party such as the PSF to finally determine what impacts if any are existing, how the can be mitigated, which could include removal
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

I am in agreement with you. I think that its a case of risk management vs an oppurtunity lost. There has to be an acceptable compromise in there somewhere. I personally think that both sides in this argument are so entrenched that it is going to require a third party such as the PSF to finally determine what impacts if any are existing, how the can be mitigated, which could include removal
I liked what you said about 3rd parties. I believe that is what is missing with DFO's and government's combined approach to both regulating AND</u> promoting the industry at the same time.

It's a huge conflict of interest.

Even small boat commercial fishermen have to pay out of their pockets for a 3rd party observer on their boats and on the dockside while offloading - fish farms have NO</u> 3rd party monitoring on site.

Seems really lop-sided, and unfair to me.
 
Agent,

Yes, I also feel that DFO is in a huge conflict of interest position as the regulator and promoter. Alot of Farmers feel that aquaculture should be under Ag Canada as it is inspite of what Hinkson says, a farmed product not the result of a fishery.

Yes there should be some form of third party audit, as in the Fishery observer. It may go some to clear the air surrounding farms, in that it may be demonstrated that they are not as bad as portrayed, or it shows that particular farms in certain location are having an unacceptable impact and should be nitigated or removed.

Hey agent, just look at the progres we made.
 
Sockeyefry, you said;
quote:Yes there should be some form of third party audit, as in the Fishery observer. It may go some to clear the air surrounding farms, in that it may be demonstrated that they are not as bad as portrayed, or it shows that particular farms in certain location are having an unacceptable impact and should be nitigated or removed.

So what's the hold up? The BCSFA could set up such a program with Archipelago Marine Research or JO Thomas at any time. Are they waiting to be regulated to do this?
 
Cuttlefish,

I believe they already do have 3rd party monitoring, but it is for reporting to government. In addition, the monitoring is already legislated, and is performed by government. I believe what Aqua is saying is that the government monitoring may not be acceptable or believeable due to the conflict position of regulator and promoter. I don't think that it is a case of whether there is monitoring or not, but who actually does it.

The BCSFA does offer farm tours, and has a strict code of practice which is in excess of the gov. requirement. I believe, but could be mistaken that some farm companies have attained iso 14000 ratings. Most farm companies do allow farm tours, but would like to atleast receive the courtesy of scheduling an appointemtn rather than just showing up demanding a tour. No business should receive this kind of treatment, nor would they tolerate it.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Cuttlefish,

I believe they already do have 3rd party monitoring, but it is for reporting to government. In addition, the monitoring is already legislated, and is performed by government. I believe what Aqua is saying is that the government monitoring may not be acceptable or believeable due to the conflict position of regulator and promoter. I don't think that it is a case of whether there is monitoring or not, but who actually does it.

The BCSFA does offer farm tours, and has a strict code of practice which is in excess of the gov. requirement. I believe, but could be mistaken that some farm companies have attained iso 14000 ratings. Most farm companies do allow farm tours, but would like to atleast receive the courtesy of scheduling an appointemtn rather than just showing up demanding a tour. No business should receive this kind of treatment, nor would they tolerate it.
The monitoring and reporting that I am aware of consists of 3 main venues:

1/ Voluntary self-reporting to government on numbers of escapees.

I turn you back to the conversation I had earlier on this thread at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=5 and my response Posted on 03/22/2008 : 13:41:11:
"Ever wonder why BC is reporting the lowest escapee rate in the world? Better-than-average fish husbandry you counter?

Well reporting escapees is voluntary, and exceeding these "guidelines" can mean fines for that net-cage operation, but there is no third-party on-site monitoring and enforcement.

Let me ask you this question: Did you ever speed in your life? Were you ever late for a meeting, and go a few miles over the speed limit, especially when you were in the middle of nowheres without any cops in sight? I think most of us all have.

Now - show of hands everyone - who has then voluntarily checked themselves in at the local cop shop to get a $180 fine for speeding. Thought so. Point made.
"

This is NOT 3rd party monitoring.</u>


2/ Sea lice monitoring.

the so-called "independent" Provincial MAFF staff check on sea lice numbers on cultured fish (only - and not adjacent wild salmon smolts). These checks happen periodically (~once a month) on something like 25% of the fish farms during 3/4 of the year. The other quarter (springtime), the percentage checked goes up to 50%. As sockeyefry mentioned - BC MAFF staff call and arrange times before visiting each farm, so the farm gets a chance to ensure it will meet requirements.

This is NOT 3rd party monitoring.</u>

The rest of the time - it is up to the fish farms themselves to do the sea lice checks and report these levels to BC MAFF. BC MAFF then reports condenses these sea lice levels and reports these data as sea lice numbers for a whole fish health zone - and not by site by site numbers.

This last point is important - since then point-source loading on adjacent wild salmon stocks cannot be determined through this aggregated reporting format. BC MAFF and the industry then claim "intellectual property" for not releasing these numbers on a site-by-site basis.

I think this excuse stinks, as they don't want any smoking guns left in their holsters.

Then the trigger limits for sea lice treatments are woefully inadequate. </u>

Pink fry average 33mm and 0.25 grams as they outmigrate from the creeks. By contrast, wild Atlantic smolts have a mean length of 158 mm and a mean weight of 40g. That’s 160 times larger than pink smolts by weight.

Lice mortality depends upon the weight of the fish. Therefore pink smolts are 160 times more susceptible to lice mortality than Atlantic smolts.

Therefore, trigger limits for lice treatments on farm fish to protect nearby outmigrating pink smolts should be 160 times less than those set for the larger Atlantic smolts in Europe. Makes sense, eh?

What are the sea lice trigger limits in Europe?

With some 1200 times less salmon than BC and hence 1200 times less potential for wild/cultured salmon interactions than BC (so European limits are not really adequate) - Norway’s fish farm sea lice trigger limits are 0.5 adult females (which Norwegian researchers say may still be too high of a trigger level) or 4 mobile lice for the 6 month period between December and June, while in Ireland, sea lice must be treated once levels hit 0.3 - 0.5 female lice/fish.

What are the mandatory trigger limits here in BC on farm fish to protect nearby outmigrating pink smolts?

The provincial “Action Levels for Management” is 3 motile lice/farm fish during smolt out migration and 6 for remainder of year. Yet strangely, no treatment levels are prescribed specifically for adult female lice which produce eggs.

The PSF is recommending some monitoring of wild smolts, but only up to a certain small size. BC MAFF has not of yet incorporated these recommendations.

In January 2004 (as an example), the average number of motile lice in the Broughton exceeded this management level as averages rose to 9 motile lice/fish and 5 female lice per fish the month before the pink smolts entered the marine environment. This is 10 times the legal limit for female sea lice in Europe.

Since pinks smolts are 160 times more susceptible to sea lice mortaility than Atlantic smolts, levels should 160 times less than Europe, or 0.025 mobile lice and 0.003 female lice/fish for the period when the pink smolts outmigrate.

What was the levels in the Broughton in 2004 when the pinks were outmigrating?

9 motile lice/fish and 5 female lice per fish, or 360 and 1600 times higher than it should be to protect the smaller pink smolts.


3/ The ISO series of certification (e.g. ISO 9000, ISO 14000, etc.)

This is NOT an "environmental" certification (from the perspective of impacts of fish farms on adjacent wild stocks) - but rather an industrial certification. This certification process is used to satisfy quality requirements and to enhance customer satisfaction in supplier-customer relationships. Most importantly, the ISO series does not specify levels of environmental performance.

The ISO certification enables organizations of any size or type to:

* identify and control the environmental impact of its activities, products or services, and to
* improve its environmental performance continually, and to
* implement a systematic approach to setting environmental objectives and targets, to achieving these and to demonstrating that they have been achieved.


In the case of fish farms, they look at: Cage technology; Aquaculture environmental management; Aquaculture technology; Food safety for aquaculture farms; Traceability of fishery products; and Environmental monitoring on the seabed's impact from marine finfish farms.

None of these ISO certifications address such things as:

* monitoring background levels of sea lice on adjacent wild salmon stocks,
* identifying migratory patterns of outmigrating wild salmon smolts and modelling risk assessment and specifying fallowing,
* Enumerating runs of adjacent wild salmon stocks,
* the effects of slice, and
* the appropriateness of the open net-cage technology
 
Agent,

There is more reporting and monitoring, but not by 3rd parties. The farmers are complying with what is expected and asked of them by the regulators.

I do agree with the 3rd party monitors, but who would do it? This I think is the sticking point. Finding one entity to do the monitoring who would be acceptable to all involved. Someone hired by either the NGO's or the companies would not be seen as independent, and any involvement by goverment would also seem tainted. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions?
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

The farmers are complying with what is expected and asked of them by the regulators.
yes they are - so I have no quarrel with the fish farmers on that.

However, their lobby groups (e.g. BC salmon farmers assn, positive aquaculture awareness, greenspirit strategies, etc.) are very political, vocal, connected and effective in ensuring the pressure stays on both the legislators and regulators so that the open net cage technology can be accommodated - no matter the consequences to the adjacent wild salmon stocks.

I have a problem with that.

As an example of this interference - in the posting above, I went over how the sea lice monitoring and treatment levels are ineffective.

I have a problem with that - as well.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

I do agree with the 3rd party monitors, but who would do it? This I think is the sticking point. Finding one entity to do the monitoring who would be acceptable to all involved. Someone hired by either the NGO's or the companies would not be seen as independent, and any involvement by goverment would also seem tainted. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions?
yes I do

3rd party monitoring is something the commercial fishing industry has already dealt with. DFOs website on at-sea monitoring is at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2007/observer-eng.htm

On the East Coast of Canada - there are a number of fishing industry/fishing community organizations that do monitoring (e.g. JAVITECH, GTA CONSULTANTS, .biorex, etc). On the west coast, there's 2-3 consulting firms - J.O. Thomas, Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., and 1 smaller one (name eludes me).

Even the small boast fleet has to pay for observers - both dockside and at-sea. Fish farms and fishing lodges do not.

This issue is totally resolvable.
 
The Globe & Mail, 23rd March 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090323.BCHUME23/TPStory//BritishColumbia/
Salmon stocks: Fisheries ignored 500 names. Can it ignore 5,000?

MARK HUME

VANCOUVER -- The form letter that Premier Gordon Campbell and federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea keep ignoring is just getting longer.

In circulation for only a few weeks, it already has nearly 5,000 signatories, and more names are being added daily as it circulates on the Web.

When it first went to the politicians, 500 names were affixed. It was ignored, so it went back into circulation and soon was resubmitted with 2,000 names, then with 4,000. It's making the rounds again this week, and is still growing.

Started by research scientist and fisheries activist Alexandra Morton, the letter asks the government to take decisive action to protect wild salmon from the threats posed by salmon farms.

One of the key requests is that salmon farms be moved away from wild salmon migration routes because of the transmission of sea lice from caged fish.

The people who signed the letter worry that salmon farms are an unacceptable risk to wild stocks.

And that fear is about to be heightened by a study being released today that shows juvenile sockeye from the Fraser River are encountering fish farms at an alarming rate.

Michael Price, a biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation, and Craig Orr, executive director of Watershed Watch, studied 800 wild sockeye collected in 2007-08 in northern Georgia Strait.

About 70 per cent of those fish had one to 20 sea lice attached to them. And the fish caught near farms were the most likely to be infected.

"The lice levels appear to be higher near farms," said Mr. Price, who is still analyzing the data.

Past studies by Ms. Morton have documented the spread of lice from farms to wild pink and chum salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, an area off Vancouver Island's northeast shoulder.

But the study by Mr. Price and Dr. Orr looks at sockeye, and for the first time uses DNA analysis to trace the infected fish to their watershed of origin.

The researchers conclude most of the sockeye they caught migrating near salmon farms (60 per cent in 2007 and 99 per cent in 2008) came from the Fraser River.

Sockeye are the most valuable of all salmon species because they draw a higher price on the market and because they are the fish of choice for native food and ceremonial fisheries.

Mr. Price and Dr. Orr have now linked the most valuable fish, from B.C.'s most important salmon river, to farms and lice.

Mr. Price said juvenile sockeye can follow three routes as they migrate through Georgia Strait on the outward leg of their journey to the Gulf of Alaska.

"But all these routes converge before the Broughton Archipelago [at the north end of Georgia Strait] where there are a dozen farms," he said.

"It's clear that no fish can make this journey without encountering a farm."

Mr. Price said studies have shown that one to three lice can kill a juvenile pink salmon, so it's fair to assume sockeye are dying as well.

Could this help explain the collapse of Fraser River sockeye stocks?

Some people will no doubt find this an alarming possibility.

The form letter, triggered by concerns about pink and chum, describes wild salmon as "the backbone of the B.C. Coast," and urges both Ms. Shea and Mr. Campbell to protect migrating wild stocks from fish farms.

So far, the politicians have been able to ignore the ever-growing letter. But the new study can only ratchet up the pressure.

Now that people know it's not just pink salmon, but Fraser River sockeye stocks that are at risk, one has to wonder how many more names will get added to that letter.

mhume@globeandmail.com
 
I could also argue that the CAAR, Living oceans, Suzuki, et al are highly political lobby groups, with the talking heads like M. Hume who are very vocal in putting their opinion forward in the media to shut down the net pen farms, without considering the consequences of putting thousands out of work.

I think that both these groups and the BCSFA are a large part of the problem, by taking such opposing views into the court of public opinion. Since each are trying to win a media war, they tend to embellish the truth on both sides to make each sound more plausible.

WRT sealice treatments, farms do not want lice either, and would actively treat to reduce numbers in the absence of any wild interractuion. The frequency of these treatments may not be as often if the focus was on preventing lice loads during the time of out migration of wild smolt. I do not have a pro0blem with a farm sited in areas considered to be sensitive to have to adopt more strict lice control measures, not only treatment, but managment as well. Are you willing to accept licensing more sites to allow for effective protection of ther wild smolt, and the farms to continue with uninterrupted harvest plans? I am not suggesting more sites for more production, just the ability to fallow areas by moving salmon to less sensitive areas for continued grow out.

The fact that the farms are in public areas I would figure should come with the monitoring as a cost of doing business, much the same as the commercial fisherman catching fish from a public resource. I would have no problem with the third party monitoring to ensure compliance and best practices are followed.

Personally I feel that the articles like the one you just posted only serve to drive the wedge between both sides even deeper. I would like to see the petition and Mark Humes energy go toward a compromise resolution based on a common goal which can include properly done farming and wild salmon survival. Problem is how do we go about that when so much negativity already exists?
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

I could also argue that the CAAR, Living oceans, Suzuki, et al are highly political lobby groups, with the talking heads like M. Hume who are very vocal in putting their opinion forward in the media to shut down the net pen farms, without considering the consequences of putting thousands out of work.
Could argue? I think you did.

But yes - that is the sticky political issue - and why (I believe) that the farms have not yet been shut down. It's the same story for western Scotland and New Brunswick - where the employment from these farms outweighs what the (now) low levels of wild salmon can provide for employment.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE IN BC WITH RESPECT TO WEIGHING EMPLOYMENT FROM THE WILD SALMON STOCKS.

With the sportfishing and commercial salmon fisheries combined - there is nearly 1 BILLION $$$ annually going back into the economy, and put at risk by anything that impacts the wild salmon stocks, including open net-pen salmon farming; while open net-pen salmon farming contributes something like a few hundred million in revenues.
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

WRT sealice treatments, farms do not want lice either, and would actively treat to reduce numbers in the absence of any wild interractuion. The frequency of these treatments may not be as often if the focus was on preventing lice loads during the time of out migration of wild smolt. I do not have a pro0blem with a farm sited in areas considered to be sensitive to have to adopt more strict lice control measures, not only treatment, but managment as well. Are you willing to accept licensing more sites to allow for effective protection of ther wild smolt, and the farms to continue with uninterrupted harvest plans? I am not suggesting more sites for more production, just the ability to fallow areas by moving salmon to less sensitive areas for continued grow out.

Unfortunately more production is ultimately what does happen - look at how BC production has increased over the past 20 years or so - with little increase in numbers of farms. The yearly onsite production (AND associated biomass, and numbers of caged fish with lice) has increased.

I am not at all convinced that the open net-cage technology can in fact insure robust adjacent wild salmon stocks. In fact, I believe the opposite - that the open net-cage technology ensures substantial, population-level impacts to the adjacent wild salmon stocks. Just re-read the past few hundred postings on this thread for peer-reviewed science to support this suggestion.

In fact - look at the last posting of the article by Hume. If researchers are finding levels of sea lice infections on migrating juvenile sockeye salmon caught adjacent to salmon farms in the Broughton are 3 to 6 times more sea lice (that's 300 to 600%, not even just 30 or 60% more) than that of other juvenile sockeye salmon found elsewhere in BC that are free of fish farms - then one would suggest that during periods of lower ocean survival (say where ocean survival rates are from 3-5%) - sea lice impacts from open net-pens are having huge and very significant population-level impacts on Fraser stocks of sockeye salmon.

Even wonder why Skeena sockeye salmon stocks are often okay enough to commercially fish; while Fraser sockeye stocks are out-of-synch with other large sockeye rivers so much that commercial fishing is closed while DFO claims the fish predicted to return are now "missing"?

It's likely that many juvenile sockeye from the Fraser get killed when they pass-by the Broughtons and get loaded by sea lice from the fish farms.
 
Also, from the Fraser R./Broughton sea lice on sockeye study - DNA testing show that affected populations include the world famous Adams River and highly threatened Cultus Lake sockeye salmon runs. Besides the precautionary principle, the regulations in the Species at Risk Act should kick-in here.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that article refers to preliminary data from a study in progress, and you should know the dangers of drawing conclusions before the completion of any study.

Did they determine if the lice loadings were from farms and did they kill the fish? Just because a fish has lice doesn't mean thay are going to be harmed by them.

You cannot compare the Frasr which flows through the most heavily populated area in BC, and therewfore receiver of the most human impact, with the Skeena. Besides which there are years when the Skeena Sockeye experience low poulation levels.

I think you mised the point regarding additonal farm sites comment. I am not suggesting an increase in production, and if it occurred in the past then the regulators should have acted. Since they did not, then the increased production must have been part of the licence. What I am saying that increased production not be part of the licence, and any overage should be prosecuted by forced removal and losing the site.

I believe that the net pens do not cause the damage that has been stated, and that the problems with wild salmon populations are far greater impacted by bigger issues than a few salmon farms. I think that alot of energy is spent trying to prove salmon farms cause a problem, which is so small that it is difficult to get a conclusive result. I feel this energy would be better spent finding out the real issues behind salmon survivals and how we can mitigate. Rather than driving an anti farm agenda, maybe a more effective way would be to open a dialogue with the goal of coopertaion regarding how all sides can be satisfied. As supporting evidence I cite the population fluctuations experienced in areas without salmon aquaculture, such as California, Oregon, Alaska. I also cite the population fluctuations of pink salmon in thwe Broughton before salmon farming began, during which time frame the lowest runs on record occurred, and the greatest runs occurred during the period in which farms were present in the Broughton. Based on this data how come no one has drawn the conclusion that the farms were good for the pinks?
 
Back
Top