fish farm siting criteria & politics

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

What she said was that by the time thwe sockeye from the Fraser reach the first farm, they are large enough for lice to have little or no effect.

Lice from farms is NOT the cause of this population fluctuation. It is a good thing that more learned people at DFO are ignoring the drivel from the ENGO "scientists" and are trying to find the real cause. These people whiom you have posted should keep their BS opinions to themselves and let the real scientsist find out what is happening if anything.

Have you read the report from the Clayquot sound Sea Lice Working Group? Funny you haven't posted it. Oh that's right, it doesn't fit in with your agenda. It found amomngst other things that sea lice prevalence was more related to salinity than proximity to farms. Wasn't this one of the areas which Morton claimed destructive farm forces were at work?

Here is the Summary:

Sea Lice Monitoring:

The Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Working Group is a collaborative monitoring effort between salmon farmers and local First Nations environmental stewards. Since 2004, the Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Working Group has been monitoring the prevalence and density of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Caligus clemensi) on wild salmonid smolts throughout Clayoquot Sound. The results of these studies revealed the prevalence of sea lice on chum salmon was fluctuated between 7 % and 20% from 2004 to 2007, and overall, the prevalence of sea lice in the Clayoquot Sound did not vary significantly from year to year. In addition, further analysis of these data suggested that salinity was a greater factor in determining the distribution of sea lice than the geographic location of the sample sites or proximity to salmon farms.

Although there is no evidence at this time that the sea lice levels are effecting the survival of wild salmon populations in Clayoquot Sound, the Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Working Group will continue to work together to
proactively monitor sea lice levels on the wild migrating salmon smolts and examine these data for any significant changes.

For details, read the Clayquot Sound Sea Lice Working Group Report (pdf).
Also, read the Press Release: Sea Lice in Clayoquot Sound (pdf)
http://www.uuathluk.ca/activities.htm#i

Agent,

They studied it for 5 years. It is a group of scientists along with first nations. It is a real study with real results. They have found no evidence that lice levels are hurting the wild salmon in Clayquot. How did Morton find her evidence here that there was an impact? Did she really find any evidence, or did she manufacture it so she could keep her gravy train rolling? The people doing the stucy did not have a vested interest in what their findings said. Morton does have a vested interest. Without the dire predictions she is out of a job. Start facing the facts Agent, Morton is falsifying her evidence. Her reports are what the whole house of cards surrounding the sea lice controversy is based on. All subsequent articles of opinion have been re hashing of her original findings, which no one seems to be able to duplicate. The couple of articles you have just posted are simply that. She has not produced any new information in years.

 

[Peahead]

Hello All

Every time I send an email out to this list you ask what can you do. I am sorry for so many emails, but time is of the essence. As our wild salmon stocks suffer an enormous setback, the Minster of Fisheries is in Norway with a large delegation promoting Canada to the Norwegian fish farming industry. An organization called Pure Salmon (www.puresalmon.org) is there and will be delivering all 300 pages of our letter to Fisheries Minister Shea at the Aqua Nor tradeshow. Pure salmon has sent a letter to the King of Norway which I signed and have have pasted below.

Vancouver filmmaker Damien Gillis is showing this film in Norway asking them to stop killing our salmon.
http://in.sys-con.com/node/1073790

When I was in Norway last spring it was clear that Norway has no idea how Canadians and Americans feel about their industry. With our top Fisheries representative telling Norwegian fish farmers that Canada is open for business, this is not surprising. There are 10,000 emails on this list. If you want to set the record straight yourself - here are the people in Norway to contact:

The royal palace of Norway: post@slottet.no

The Norwegian Fisheries Minister, Helga Pedersen: helga.pedersen@fkd.dep.no

The Norwegian Prime Minister's: postmottak@smk.dep.no

Pure Salmon: lkaran@pewtrusts.org

Canadian Minister of Fisheries: Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca




King Harald V
The Royal Palace
Drammensveien 1
N-0010
Oslo
Norway


14th August 2009

Your Royal Highness,

Protecting wild salmon from open net cage salmon farms

Further to our letter of 15th December 2006 (re-enclosed here), we appeal to you as the King of Norway to stop the killing of wild fish by Norwegian-owned open net cage salmon farms. We ask that you take time during your visit to Trondheim on 18th August when you will be opening the Aqua Nor trade show1 to watch the new film “Dear Norway – Help Save Canada’s Wild Salmon” produced by Damien Gillis.

Your visit to the Trondheimsfjord area – one of only two fjords in Norway where salmon farming is completely banned under the Laksfjord regulations – represents an opportunity to hear how Norwegian companies are operating to lower standards in other regions. We think it is important that Norwegians understand their impact on temperate coastal countries worldwide – especially in British Columbia where the Norwegian companies Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg control 92% of salmon farming production2 . We expect a country such as Norway who signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 20073 and who published a white paper on Corporate Social Responsibility Abroad in 20094 to respect the rights of First Nations whose culture depends upon healthy wild salmon populations.

Since our letter to you in 2006, the situation has deteriorated and the weight of scientific evidence linking open net cage salmon farms with declines in wild fish is now overwhelming5. Canada’s largest wild salmon runs are failing every year while in neighbouring Alaska where salmon farming is banned they are harvesting record runs. Another film by Damien Gillis – “Aquacultural Revolution: The scientific case for changing salmon farming”6 – presents the scientific perspective and is recommended viewing in advance of your trip to Trondheim. You may also be interested in watching a sea lice animation recently released by Norges Jeger-og Fiskerforbund7.

In May this year, the Pure Salmon Campaign brought a delegation of First Nation chiefs, scientists, wilderness tourism, labor union, fishing and environmental leaders from Chile, Canada, Ireland, Scotland and the United States to Norway to bear witness to the problems of Marine Harvest and Cermaq in particular8.

You may have read Alexandra Morton’s passionate plea published in Bergens Tidende in May which ended with:

“It's still not too late to stop the collapse of wild salmon and social decay here in western Canada. But to do so, it will take the efforts of concerned citizens working across borders, to make it clear to the Norwegian government that salmon farms must not destroy the wild salmon arteries flowing into the coast of British Columbia. In today’s world such behavior is an act of inexcusable immorality as future generations will need life on earth to survive.

And you may have read about our visit to Preline’s closed containment farm in Hardangerfjord10. Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kwa-mish First Nation, who delivered letters to you in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and visited Norway again this year, said:

“It is difficult to put to words how I felt standing on an operating closed containment fish farm, watching Atlantic salmon swimming inside. It was an amazing circumstance for me to speak with the owner of Preline who has developed the closed containment system, and both of us needing something to give hope for our individual yet intertwined dreams”11.

Bergens Tidende also featured the Preline closed containment system in an article published in June12. Representatives from Preline – together with other closed containment companies – will be in Trondheim for the AquaNor trade show and we encourage you to explore these technologies which can protect wild fish from the spread of sea lice and escapes from salmon farms.

During his visit to Norway in May, Chief Robert Joseph of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council said:

“The demise of wild salmon is tantamount to genocide because it reflects the demise of our culture, way of life and spirituality. Since the advent of salmon farming in our territories we have seen an apocalyptic decline in the state of our wild salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago. And because Norway is the world leader in salmon farming and the Norwegian Government is the leading shareholder in Cermaq we are asking for their moral leadership to bring about best practices and to mitigate environmental degradation”13.

Public opposition to Norwegian-owned salmon farming companies operating in British Columbia is building with negative press coverage of ‘rapacious Norwegians’ in the international media14 as well as at home in Norway15. You may be aware that this issue was raised in the Norwegian Parliament in May this year via a Parliamentary Question tabled by Heikki Holmås MP with a reply from Helga Pedersen, Norway’s Fisheries Minister16. Public comments were also made in the Norwegian media by several MPs including Peter Gitmark from Hoyre17, Ola Borten Moe from Senterpartiet18 and Heikki Holmås from Sosialistisk Venstreparti19.

Cermaq – whose largest shareholder is the Norwegian Government – is now the subject of a complaint filed with the OECD in May by Norges Naturvernforbund and ForUM20. In the same month, Norway was criticized by First Nations groups for failing to adhere to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with respect to Cermaq’s operations in Canada21. In October 2008, Cermaq’s operations in Canada were criticized for blatantly violating their licences after years of over-production22. And NRK reported only yesterday that Cermaq was encountering local opposition in Norway with a petition signed by 6,000 people objecting to expansion in Ofotfjorden23.

Marine Harvest’s operations in Canada have also been subject of growing controversy and legal action in the B.C. Supreme Court24. Grieg’s plans to expand in the Georgia Strait in British Columbia have angered local residents, fishermen and tourist operators alike25. And in June, the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform called for the emergency closure of five farms operated by Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg to protect migrating wild salmon26. The issue will only continue to heat up at the expense of Norway’s reputation.

Nor is Canada the only region where Norwegian-owned companies are experiencing local opposition. In Ireland, where Marine Harvest control over 50% of production, Salmon Watch recently filed a complaint with the European Commission contending that salmon farms are responsible for the generation of high levels of sea lice infestation in juvenile salmon migrating from rivers to their feeding grounds in the sea27. And in the UK where Norwegian-owned companies control in excess of 80% of salmon farming production, the Salmon and Trout Association (whose patron is Prince Charles) have organized a petition calling on the Scottish Government to move salmon farms away from the estuaries of major rivers28.

We hope that you agree with John Fredriksen, owner of Marine Harvest, who in July 2007 when he was fishing on the River Alta called for salmon farms to be moved out of the path of wild salmon29. In September 2007, over 30 fishing and environmental groups including Norsk Lakseelver, the Norwegian Salmon Association, Granvin Fiskarlag and Nausta Vernegruppa, wrote to Marine Harvest urging them to follow Mr Fredriksen’s wise advice30.

As both the King of Norway and a wild salmon angler on the River Alta yourself31, Your Royal Highness surely has an interest in protecting wild salmon both in Norway and internationally as well as preserving Norway’s international reputation. The 2010 Winter Olympics will be held along the shores of the Fraser River where the wild sockeye salmon that run past Norwegian-owned fish farms have been closed to fishing again this year. Yesterday’s Globe & Mail newspaper in Canada reports that “the Fraser River is experiencing one of the biggest salmon disasters in recent history with more than nine million sockeye vanishing”32 with The Straight newspaper reporting that “fish farms could be a contributing factor”33. Today’s Globe & Mail also featured the issue34.

When you meet with Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg, the Norwegian Minister of Fisheries, Helga Pedersen, the Canadian Fisheries Minister, Gail Shea, and Scotland’s Minister for the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham, during Aqua Nor we therefore encourage you to ask why Norwegian companies are still being allowed to kill wild fish not just in Norway but also in Canada, Scotland and Ireland. And if you have time to view the new film “Dear Norway – Help Save Canada’s Wild Salmon” please come and visit the Pure Salmon Campaign at booth # B-111C at Aqua Nor to arrange a private viewing.

Yours sincerely,




Bob Chamberlin, Chief of the Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kwa-mish First Nation and Chairman of the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council, Canada

Alexandra Morton, Director of the Salmon Coast Field Station, Canada

David Suzuki, Executive Director of David Suzuki Foundation, Canada

Brian Gunn, President of the Wilderness Tourism Association of British Columbia, Canada

David Lane, Executive Director of the T Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, Canada

Damien Gillis, Save Our Rivers Society, Canada

Darren Blaney, Homalco First Nation, Canada

Geoff Meggs, Councillor, City of Vancouver, Canada

Valerie Langer, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Canada

Rafe Mair, Official spokesperson for Save Our Rivers Society, Canada

Shannon Ellis, Bella Coola Grizzly Tours, Canada

Steve Lawson, National Coordinator, First Nations Environmental Network, Canada

Des Nobels, Chair of Friends of Wild Salmon, Canada

Blake Covernton, President, Wild BC Salmon, Canada

Michael Price, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Canada

Evan Loveless, Executive Director of the Wilderness Tourism Association of British Columbia, Canada

Terry Anderson, Canadian Wild Salmon Alliance Society, Canada

Luanne Roth, Marine Director of the Prince Rupert Environmental Society, Canada

Geoff Senichenko, Research Director of the Wilderness Committee, Canada

Craig Orr, Executive Director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Canada

Stan Proboszcz, Fish Biologist, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Canada

Ruby Berry, Salmon Aquaculture Program Coordinator, Georgia Strait Alliance, Canada

Michelle Young, Salmon Aquaculture Campaigner, Georgia Strait Alliance, Canada

John Volpe, Professor, University of Victoria, Canada

Corey Peet, David Suzuki Foundation, Canada

Lawrence Dill, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Catherine Stewart, Salmon Farming Campaign Manager, Living Oceans, Canada

Kim Petersen, co-editor of Dissident Voice, Canada

Tiffany Hilman, Markets Campaigner, Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, Canada

Susanne Hare, Tofino citizen, Canada

Mat Lawson, B.C. citizen, Canada

Misty Lawson, B.C. citizen, Canada

Quoashinis Lawson, B.C. citizen, Canada

Oren Lawson, B.C. citizen, Canada

Peter Dimitrov, lawyer and concerned citizen, Canada

Kevin Bruce, Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Canada

Tom Rivest, Great Bear Nature Tours, Canada

Leonard Ellis, Bella Coola Grizzly Tours, Canada

Vegard Heggem, wild salmon conservationist, Norway

Geir Kjensmo, Chairman of the Norwegian Salmon Association, Norway

Sondre Båtstrand, Spokesperson for the Norwegian Green Party, Norway

Frode Strønen, Marine Spokesperson for the Norwegian Green Party, Norway

Lawson Devery, Scottish Field Officer, the Salmon and Trout Association, Scotland

Bruce Sandison, Scottish Sporting Services, Scotland

Colin Kirkpatrick, Environment Committee Chairman, Orkney Trout Fishing Association, Scotland

Brian Fraser, ghillie from Wester Ross, Scotland

Fiona Cameron, Sea Trout Group, Scotland

Frank Buckley, Society for the Protection of Salmon and Sea Trout, Scotland

Andrew Graham-Stewart, Writer on wild salmon conservation issues, Scotland

Jenny Scobie, Rhidorroch Estate, Scotland

Niall Greene, Chair, Salmon Watch Ireland, Ireland

John Mulcahy, Save The Swilly, Ireland

Noel Carr, Secretary, Conaidhm na Slat Iascairi Bradan & Breac Geal (Federation of Irish Salmon & Sea Trout Anglers), Ireland

Bill Bakke, Executive Director, Native Fish Society, United States of America

Anne Mosness, Go Wild Campaign, United States of America

Neil Frazer, Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa, United States of America

Bartlett Naylor, Capital Strategies Consulting Inc., United States of America

Don Staniford, Global Coordinator, The Pure Salmon Campaign, United States of America



Cc:

Her Majesty The Queen

His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

Crown Prince Haakon of Norway

Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister of Norway

Helga Pedersen, Fisheries Minister of Norway

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

Gail Shea, Fisheries Minister of Canada

Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia

Trevor Swerdfager, Director General, Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Jillian Stirk, Canada’s Ambassador to Norway

Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland

Roseanna Cunningham, Minister of the Environment for Scotland

Heikki Holmås, Member of the Norwegian Parliament

Ola Borten Moe, Member of the Norwegian Parliament

Peter Gitmark, Member of the Norwegian Parliament

Hallgeir Langeland, Member of the Norwegian Parliament

 

[sockeyefry]

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RETURNS
The situation on the Fraser River this year is unfortunate, with returns of summer-run sockeye at historic lows (Fisheries Catastrophe, Fraser Rivers’ salmon stocks beyond a crisis…, Aug. 13, 2009). There is no question that the low returns of sockeye will affect First Nations communities, as well as commercial and recreational harvesters. There also seems little question that the cause of the low returns has been the poor marine survival of sockeye, which has made the already complex science of forecasting salmon returns even more challenging.
It is also clear that sea lice from fish farms are not the explanation for the extremely poor marine survival of Fraser River sockeye. This is supported by the fact that sockeye returns to the Skeena River in northern B.C. were also significantly lower than anticipated this year, and the migration route of juvenile sockeye from this river system does not take them anywhere near fish farms. We also know that the sea lice species found on juvenile sockeye in the Straight of Georgia are not the same species that typically infects farmed salmon.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working closely with commercial harvesters, First Nations and the recreational fishery to support the conservation and sustainable use of the sockeye resource. The right approach under the circumstances this year is to manage fisheries in a sustainable manner that puts as many fish on the spawning grounds as possible. The conservation and long-term sustainability of sockeye is our first priority in managing fisheries.
Paul Sprout
Regional Director General, Pacific Region
Fisheries and Oceans Canada

 

[rico]

you are both idiots, soc and the dork who wrote that!

 

[Little Hawk]

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AGENT!

Sooner or later common sense, good judgment, and JUSTICE will prevail and each and every one of these scoundrels (Harper, Campbell et al) will get theirs' and the Norwegian's will be sent packing to find someone elses back-yard to ****-in!

 

[sockeyefry]

Hawk,

You look for common sense? There is no common sense in the NGO rhetoric surrounding salmon farms. They ignore simple facts such as:

2003 largest pink run in the Broughton occurrs. Salmon farming active in the Broughton.

1980's Lowest Pink salmon runs. No salmon farming in area.

Lowest runs of all time occurred in the 1950's and 60's, yet there was no salmon farming activity on which to blame the low runs. What happened during these period of low runs without salnmon farms? Aren't you the least bit curious? Maybe you also stand to gain from the reduction of salmon farming?

Morton and her crowd are against salmon farming not because it is bad for wild salmon, but because their employers require them to say it is. They have an agenda to reduce the economic viability of salmon farming to allow competitors to monopolise the salmon market.

Wake up Hawk, it has nothing to do with wild salmon preservation, but cold hard economic reality. There's your common sense.

 

[sockeyefry]

Just cause we disagree eh Rico

 

[cuttlefish]

quote:LETTER TO THE EDITOR
FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RETURNS
The situation on the Fraser River this year is unfortunate, with returns of summer-run sockeye at historic lows (Fisheries Catastrophe, Fraser Rivers’ salmon stocks beyond a crisis…, Aug. 13, 2009). There is no question that the low returns of sockeye will affect First Nations communities, as well as commercial and recreational harvesters. There also seems little question that the cause of the low returns has been the poor marine survival of sockeye, which has made the already complex science of forecasting salmon returns even more challenging.
It is also clear that sea lice from fish farms are not the explanation for the extremely poor marine survival of Fraser River sockeye. This is supported by the fact that sockeye returns to the Skeena River in northern B.C. were also significantly lower than anticipated this year, and the migration route of juvenile sockeye from this river system does not take them anywhere near fish farms. We also know that the sea lice species found on juvenile sockeye in the Straight of Georgia are not the same species that typically infects farmed salmon.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working closely with commercial harvesters, First Nations and the recreational fishery to support the conservation and sustainable use of the sockeye resource. The right approach under the circumstances this year is to manage fisheries in a sustainable manner that puts as many fish on the spawning grounds as possible. The conservation and long-term sustainability of sockeye is our first priority in managing fisheries.
Paul Sprout
Regional Director General, Pacific Region
Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Hey sockeyefry,
What paper did you get Sprout's letter from? I can't help but read between the lines and add some comments. Given that Skeena sockeye returned lower than expected and given that there are no salmon farms near the Skeena, one can conclude that there was no sea lice impact from salmon farms on Skeena sockeye. One cannot necessarily conclude that because Skeena sockeye returns were low, that sea lice from salmon farms did not have an impact on Fraser sockeye. That is not a logical conclusion.
Also given that harvest exploitation has been reduced to zilch, I can't help but wonder what Sprout's next management priority will be to ensure the conservation and long-term sustainability of our sockeye.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

What she said was that by the time thwe sockeye from the Fraser reach the first farm, they are large enough for lice to have little or no effect.

That's strange, sockeyefry, because she is quoted in a number of newspapers as saying:

“In the case of Fraser River sockeye, since the closest salmon farm is over 110 kilometres away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for out-migrating Fraser River salmon fry to come in contact with farmed salmon during their critical early life stages and; therefore, no chance for sea louse transmission to occur,”

Assuming that she was misquoted, and instead said: "that by the time the sockeye from the Fraser reach the first farm, they are large enough for lice to have little or no effect." (as you suggested) - she is still damn wrong, AGAIN.

Lice mortality is dependent upon:
1/ the size (weight) of the host fish,
2/ the total number of lice (expressed as per gram of host fish weight), and
3/ the stage of lice (motile stages are very virulent and damaging, attached chalmus stages not very).

SO, I call BS on Walling AGAIN. Any fish could die from lice if it had a big enough lice load. Either she is too inexperienced and misinformed to know this (in which case she shouldn't be taken seriously for any rebut); or she does know better (as should you, sockeyefry), and she is okay with lying again in order to protect her industry's impacts.

Which is it, sockeyefry?

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,
Have you read the report from the Clayquot sound Sea Lice Working Group? Funny you haven't posted it. Oh that's right, it doesn't fit in with your agenda.

Actually, I have skimmed through it. I wonder if you actually have, or are just spouting Walling's BS again. Because if you had, you should have noticed that:

1/ Numbers of species like Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, as well as Stickleback were too low in Clayoquot Sound to have any real statistical significance in the study, so the findings are only relevant to Chum salmon.
2/ The study also found that the fluctuation was dependent on how salty the water was and did not seem to be affected by water temperature - not a surprising "new" find since we already knew that "sea" lice are found in the "sea", otherwise they'd be called river lice.
3/ there were many limitations to the study, including difficulty in doing regular site sampling, difficulty in comparing data because in the early stages they did not differentiate between fish species (2004-2006).

But the most serious limitations of the study were:

4/ there is also no analysis of differences between numbers of lice near and distant to fish farms in the report. Information from the fish farm companies was not used, like which farms were active at the time of the studies, the age of the fish in the active farms and if and when they were actively using toxic chemicals to reduce the sea lice on their fish, and also missing are the sea lice levels of farmed fish, AND

5/ there is no baseline data from Clayoquot Sound, pre-fish farms, available to compare.

Who's "agenda" does this fit into again, sockeyefry?

Who's the Partners on this study, sockeyefry? Refresh my memory...

 

[rico]

i actually believe that soc knows what really needs to happen. He seems smart enough to know........i think. However, he has a personal interest in the farms, that is why he defends them. I don't run around biting the hand that feeds my family, and neither does he. At some point though, he knows, as well as all of us know, that he will need to retrain to do something else for a living. Or, at the very least, raise little mutant salmon that are gross in closed containment. Oh yah, by the way, only eat 1 per month because they will kill you! mmmmmmmm, sounds yummy!

 

[sockeyefry]

Okay,

Cuttle,

Yes I agree, that you cannot necessarily draw the conclusion that there is no effect. However,if you accept your logic, then you must also discard most of the NGO rhetoric against salmon farms. The Myers Ford study is now out the window, as well as most of Volpe and Orr's work. So which is it?

Agent,

Yes with enough lice even adult salmon perish. However, the data indicate that lice loadings near farms are lower than the lethal level for fry of the size at which the sockeye would have passed the farm. Is that clear enough for you?

So how come the reasons you dismiss this study don't apply to the Broughton work of Morton?

There was no base line data pre salmon farms there either, yet you seem hell vent to accept the Morton studies.

I think the take home message from this study is that sea lice levels are dependent on a lot of factors, and are not necessarily linked to the presence of a salmon farm.

You can look up the Partners of the study yourself you ole conspiracy theorist you, but then include industry, First Nations, DFO, Rec Fish. and other interested parties.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

Yes with enough lice even adult salmon perish. However, the data indicate that lice loadings near farms are lower than the lethal level for fry of the size at which the sockeye would have passed the farm. Is that clear enough for you?

So how come the reasons you dismiss this study don't apply to the Broughton work of Morton?

Pretty lame rebuttal, SF.

Whay are the studies different? Okay, let's go through it point-by-point, then:

1/ Morton has good numbers of most species over a number of sites over many years, especially juvie pinks and chums. She speciated her juvies.

2/ Morton and Krkosek analyzed differences between numbers of lice near and distant to fish farms in their reports. Information from the fish farm companies was used, where and when available - but often fish farmers are unwilling to give this info up, and the government is unwilling to force them too. Craig Orr did get some numbers and crunched them into a peer-reviewed report that we discussed earlier on this forum.

Since industry was involved in this Clayquot study - those numbers should have been readily available to these researchers in Clayquot. Since the farm numbers were not looked-at, I can only conclude that collusion of denial is the reason for this working group and this superficial study. That's why Morton's work is more thorough, SF.

3/ there is no baseline data from the Broughton's - pre-fish farms, available to compare, either. For that we have to blame the regulators (DFO and BCMAFF). However, Morton has gotten numbers compared (and published) between farm and non-farm areas on the BC coast. Again, that's why Morton's work is more thorough, SF.

You're making this too easy for me, SF.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

You can look up the Partners of the study yourself you ole conspiracy theorist you, but then include industry, First Nations, DFO, Rec Fish. and other interested parties.[/i]"

Would you really expect salmon farmers to blow the whistle on themselves, SF? the First Nations get employment from these farms, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that the band councils get their cut from the companies, either. Why would they kill their cash cow, either?

Originally posted by sockeyefry

Cuttle,

Yes I agree, that you cannot necessarily draw the conclusion that there is no effect. However,if you accept your logic, then you must also discard most of the NGO rhetoric against salmon farms. The Myers Ford study is now out the window, as well as most of Volpe and Orr's work. So which is it?

Good post and rebuttal, cuttlefish.

SF - the best description I can use, now is: huh?

I can't wait to hear why you think that we must discard Volpe's, Orr's and Ford's work...

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

What she said was that by the time thwe sockeye from the Fraser reach the first farm, they are large enough for lice to have little or no effect.

WRONG!!!

On the BC salmon gropers page: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/attachments/060409_SLManagementWorks.pdf - There is a letter with the BC salmon gropers logo, and signed by Walling that states: "As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle."

Want to back-peddle on your comments, now?

So, which is it AGAIN, sockeyefry? Either she is too inexperienced and misinformed to know this (in which case she shouldn't be taken seriously for any rebut); or she does know better (as should you, sockeyefry), and she is okay with lying again in order to protect her industry's impacts.

 

[sockeyefry]

Now you are picking on semantics Agent?
You know exactly what she meant by the statement.

Krkosek's work was purely mathematical based on Morton's initiall work which was discreditted. No field observations were performed.

Why do you need the farms numbers? The wild salmon either have the lice or they do not. They found that there was NO correlation between lice numbers and proximity to the farm. Do I have to make it any clearer. In spite of your futile attempts to discrediot the research, the study simply states that sea lice prevalence is not related to farms.

I say futile because the grounds on which you discreidt this study you must also discredit all of Morton's "studies". In other words, the same argument could be used to discredit either pieces of research.

You should know aqua, that you cannot compare two separate areas for a biological effect. Without baseline data pre farms, no valid comparison can be made. Morton simply cannot pick the area she wants to compare to the Broughton, she must compare the Broughton to the Broughton. That is why the Ransom & Myers "study" is completely invalid. They were slective in which areas they compared. almost certainly guaranteeing an effect.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Now you are picking on semantics Agent?
You know exactly what she meant by the statement.

So, let's see if I have this right, so far:

1/ You first deny Walling said something so fundamentally stupid as that fish don't swim from the mouth of the Fraser to the Broughtons - something even you must acknowledge as simply but massively wrong,

2/ When confronted with the fact that your facts are wrong vis-a-vis Walling's comments - instead of acknowledging that error, you whine about me "picking on semantics" as if it doesn't really matter if:

a) either fish swim long distances, or
b) instead are large enough to take a number of lice

Any queries to determine the validity of Walling's comments are instead: "picking on semantics".

I'll say it again; HUH???

You think other's on this forum can't see through this, too SF?

 

[sockeyefry]

Okay now I get what has you confused.

Walling said this:

"As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle."

You think she is saying the fish don't swim the 110 kms to the Broughton, or are incapable of this feat.

Okay, I'll explain what she is saying:

Because the nearest farm is 110km away from the Fraser, by the time the fry get to the first farm they have grown to a size at which they are not as susceptible to sea lice levels measured in the Broughton. She is not saying that the fish bnever swim to the Broughton, just that they are of a larger size when they get there.

Got it now Agent. Oh yeah, I never whine. Unless there is cheese involved. Also: What happens when you step on a grape?

It lets out a little whine!

 

[agentaqua]

Richmond News, 21st August 2009

Fish farms louse up wild stocks: Biologist

DFO denies sea lice from fish farms the cause of declining Fraser River sockeye

Nelson Bennett

It is being described as the West Coast's equivalent of the collapse of cod stocks on the east coast.

Roughly ten million Fraser River sockeye were expected to return this year. Now just one-tenth of that is expected to return. Both the commercial and aboriginal food fisheries have been closed for Fraser River sockeye.

"It's disappearing before our very eyes," said Conservative MP John Cummins, who is calling on his own government to make good on a promise to hold a judicial inquiry into what is beginning to look like a collapse of Fraser River sockeye.
"This is the third run in a row now that has been decimated and the same guys are still in charge. Who the hell is holding these guys to account?"

Scientists are scrambling to explain what has happened to the Fraser River sockeye. Many theories -- commercial over-fishing, high river temperatures, poor escapement and poaching -- have been seriously called into question or dismissed outright. Cummins, who in the past has blamed poaching by native fishermen for the collapse, shares the growing suspicion that sea lice and other diseases from fish farms may be to blame for dwindling Fraser River sockeye stocks.

Although he believes poaching occurred in 2005, Cummins concedes that cannot explain this year's poor return because there was an abundance of fish that made it to the spawning grounds.

In the past, warm river temperatures, low escapements and over-fishing have all been blamed for low returns. The Pacific Salmon Commission has ruled out all three in accounting for this year's low returns.

Something happened to the fish between the time they left local rivers in 2007 and the time they were supposed to return in 2009, the commission concludes.

As for ocean conditions, Alaskan sockeye have returned this year in record numbers, which raises questions as to why Fraser River sockeye have done so poorly.

A DFO spokesperson said in the past, when Alaskan sockeye numbers were low, Fraser River sockeye numbers were high -- a seesawing that would suggest the two nations of fish are competing for food.

But Alexandra Morton, an independent biologist who stumbled onto the sea lice problem while studying whales in the Broughton Archipelago nearly a decade ago, believes the evidence is overwhelming that sea lice and other diseases from fish farms are killing juvenile sockeye salmon.

"The cataclysmic loss of these fish smacks of disease," she said. "I've been doing this work for nine years and it's just like clockwork. If there's lice in the juveniles, they just don't come back. For me, the pattern is just so clear."

Cummins thinks she is onto something and wants DFO to take a serious look at the issue.

"That theory needs to be investigated," he said.

Juvenile sockeye leaving local rivers must migrate past fish farms in the Straight of Georgia, where Morton believes sea lice, bacteria and viruses from salmon pens infect wild salmon.

In 2007, she checked 350 Fraser River sockeye (the same population that is supposed to be returning to the Fraser River this summer).

"The vast majority of them had sea lice," she said. "They had up to 28 lice each."

Spokesmen for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- which is mandated to promote fish farms -- have already publicly declared that sea lice are not to blame for this year's collapse, something both Morton and Cummins find astounding.

"Where's the evidence that it wasn't?" said Cummins, who does not believe DFO has done the research needed to substantiate such claims.

Sea lice occur in wild salmon, so DFO scientists insist there is no proof fish farms are responsible for sea lice infestations among wild salmon. But when fish farms are left empty during the migration of certain salmon stocks, something interesting occurs: Those salmon thrive.

That was the case in 2003, when fish farms were fallowed. That run came back in abundance, Morton said. Sockeye in the Somass River on the west coast of Vancouver Island are also coming back well, Morton said, adding there are no fish farms in that area.

Ocean temperatures have been blamed for poor survival rates. But Alaskan sockeye, which swim in the same ocean, have come back in record abundance this year.

Morton said DFO scientists will tell her, off the record, that they agree sea lice from fish farms are a serious threat. Publicly, however, they refuse to criticize fish farms. "There's something very, very wrong going on here because this is easy stuff," Morton said.

Morton and Cummins both point out that DFO applies the precautionary principle and shuts down commercial and even native food fisheries to protect threatened species like Cultus Lake sockeye, but fail to apply the same principle to fish farms.

At a recent meeting in Quebec, the union representing B.C. fishermen issued an emergency resolution calling on the federal government to take action on the fish crisis.

However, the federal minister responsible for taking such action -- Gail Shea -- was not available to respond to the call. She was in Norway, where the world's biggest fish farming companies are based.

"She's over there saying we're open for business for fish farms," Morton said.

http://www2.canada.com/richmondnews/news/story.html?id=28073d42-7d92-41e7-97cb-5df07e358c5e

 

[sockeyefry]

Hey Agent,

How do you account for the huge runs of Pinks returning to Campbell River if sea lice from fish farms are the reason why populations collapse?

I'll tell you how... You ignore facts which don't fit into your agenda, just like Morton. Bet she didn't mention that little nugget of truth to Cummins.

Article is more unsubstantiated drivel from Morton.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Hey Agent,

How do you account for the huge runs of Pinks returning to Campbell River if sea lice from fish farms are the reason why populations collapse?

Well, first-off - I am not claiming lice loading from fish farms are the only factor in the significant and unpredicted loss of returning salmon to the Fraser River.

However, it seems likely that lice loading from fish farms could be a significant factor. How significant is that factor is unfortunately hard to judge, by either camp (despite DFO's Paul Sprout blindly defending the farm industry w/o any science behind him, as usual and expected) - but the suggestion/hypothesis that Fraser River smolts are impacted by lice from fish farms is plausible given the lice loadings found on outmigrating juvenile sockeye.

To answer your other question "How do you account for the huge runs of Pinks returning to Campbell River if sea lice from fish farms are the reason why populations collapse?" may well have something to do with how juvenile salmon migrate.

Juvenile pinks; unlike juvenile sockeye - hug the shores as the outmigrate.

These very small (~0.25 gram and 35 mm long) and vulnerable fry do not linger long in estuaries with the numerous piscivorous predators; but instead migrate at night out of the estuaries straight to the salt chuck.

They then begin forming schools as the river runoff velocities decrease, and the visibility increases - and slowly migrate (~2-5 km/day) along the nearest adjacent coastline until they reach something like 24 ppt salinity.

They then hold-up at prime feeding sites near points that have shear zones and eat until they become something like 70mm long and 2-3 grams in size, and then they move outside of the kelp beds, and begin migrating again along the coast until ~30 ppt is reached.

At that time they have reached ~100mm in length, and up to 20 grams in weight, and are no longer constrained by their requirement for shallow depths (of 1-2m) and substrate. They now are pelagic, and will swim along the outside coast for Alaskan waters, and ultimately North to the Alaskan Gyre.

The Fraser River is on the North side of the Straits of Georgia, and I would expect that the vast majority of outmigrating pink stocks migrate close along the North side of the Strait of Georgia, probably many pass close by Thormamby Island and Welcome Passage, onwards to Malasipina Strait and the East side of Texada I (1 farm here), pass Powell River and Hernando Island (3 farms just inside at Desolation Sound), to Cortez (1 farm here) and Read Island (1 farm here), Cordero Channel (7 farms in and around here), Thurlow Islands (6 farms here), Hardwick Island, into Johnston Strait, and finally to Cracroft (3 farms here), Harbledown (2 farms here), Swanson (2 farms here), and Hanson Islands. The Hanson/Swanson Island area would most probably be their jumping-off spot, where they go pelagic - and they would be expected to hold there before they go for the big swim.

So there's something like 25 farms that Fraser River smolts would be expected to interact with before they reach Queen Charlotte Strait.

Campbell River pink juveniles, on the other hand - would have a much shorter migration and would be expected to migrate North up the East side of Vancouver Island, through Discovery Passage (2 farms here) and the West side of Quadra Island, then directly into Johnstone Strait (4 farms here), and probably would hold near Port McNeil and Malcome Island before going pelagic.

That's a total of 6 farms for Campbell River stocks, verses 25 for Fraser River stocks.

Good question, though SF. Not too tough to answer if you know migratory routes and holding habitat. It would be interesting to compare lice loadings on the pink juvies between the 2 stocks, as well as adult escapement reductions/gains.