Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[rockdog]

They play the 'gee, I'm new to all this, and I'm just trying to form my opinion. By looking at all the evidence, I really feel FF's are a good thing' card. Bones did the exact same thing when he/she first came on board. Its the bonus of an Anonymous posting forum. You can say whatever you want, but its pretty clear what side you are on.

Its a tactic trying to show that hey, I'm just a regular person.

But reality is that they are employees in some fashion, whether current or past, and have a vested interest in the status quo.

 

[agentaqua]

Well, WMY - if anyone is attempting to discredit these independent researchers - instead of being responsible and accepting the implications of their findings and working towards mitigating these types of potential impacts - I would have to say that - to me - it is proof that that person does not have the best interests of our legacy of healthy wild salmon in that rationalism. I find that unfortunate, unprofessional, and disappointing - but not unfortunately not unexpected for the supporters for an industry that refuse to accept new information about the accumulated impacts of the open net-pen industry. Again and again, and again...

so - AGAIN - that is why the supporters should NOT be the regulators....

 

[bones]

I dont think anyone is here to discredit anything..... Your science isn't complete or has holes in it. Like how many salmon die to fish farms every year? What endangered salmon stocks do they influence? You need to show the burden they have. So far independent research doesn't answer these important questions.
When you cant answer the question you attack the person asking trying to discredit the person instead of answering the question.

AA you are clearly a anti fish anything activist. What activist company do you work for? You don't fish, you don't eat salmon, you do not participate in any other area of this site. What kinda work field are you in?

 

[cuttlefish]

Key Facts

• 2017 US research (Gustafson et al. in press), suggests that 3.4% of the wild Salmonid population (returning results sampled in Washington and Alaska) are infected with PRv. Coho and Chinook are the most frequent carriers.
• In BC, prevalence of PRv in wild salmonids is between 0 – 20% (Miller et al., 2014 and Marty et al., 2015. • Research conducted by Garver et al shows that In fitness tests, PRv did not impact the maximum oxygen carrying capacity, or affect the ability for oxygen to bind to red blood cells, in Atlantic or sockeye salmon
• Causal relationship between PRV and HSMI – Between 2010 and 2016 PRv became associated with HSMI, and in 2017, it was shown to cause HSMI in Norway. This could not be replicated with the BC strain in a laboratory setting.
• PRv is common amongst the populations of salmon on farms in B.C, this has been well known for some time and is the subject of a very active field of research. To date, it is very rare to see PRv associated with any sickness of salmon on farms here.

I have a couple of questions. I'll go through point by point from the above quoted Key Facts;
1.) I thought papers in press are not to be shared until published.
2.) I could not find the Graver et al paper that includes fitness tests. Is there another paper regarding PRv other than Garver et al, 2016a or Garver et al 2016b that I missed?
Any help,with the answers would be appreciated.

 

[rockdog]

I dont think anyone is here to discredit anything..... Your science isn't complete or has holes in it. Like how many salmon die to fish farms every year? What endangered salmon stocks do they influence? You need to show the burden they have. So far independent research doesn't answer these important questions.
When you cant answer the question you attack the person asking trying to discredit the person instead of answering the question.

AA you are clearly a anti fish anything activist. What activist company do you work for? You don't fish, you don't eat salmon, you do not participate in any other area of this site. What kinda work field are you in?

Seriously? You haven't seen any proof? C'mon man, post after post contained research studies that show proof. Even your brothers from Norway have studies that show proof, they know open pen is not a good thing.

You guys actually remind me of Gary Bettman whenever he sits at the podium and says, 'no, the NHL has not seen any proof that multiple concussions is bad for the brain and causing problems for x players'. Right after 30 concussion studies show it's not a good thing and there are problems. He just looks plain silly. Much the same as here. Lol

 

[spopadyn]

With all the media reports, opinions and contradicting science, it is not hard to see why Fish Farms are so controversial in British Columbia.

Let’s review what we know about Fish Farms

We know we have over 100 active open net-pens Fish Farms in B.C.

We know that in 2016 B.C. Fish Farms produced 92,800 Metric Tons of salmon, 21,6493,958 pounds @ 10 pounds per fish, over 2 million Atlantic Salmon

We know the majority of those Atlantics have PRV a virus linked to HSMI

We know that Dr. Gary Marty stated 1 – 3 Atlantics per 1,000 have HSMI, (no doubt a conservative estimate) Which indicates, according to Dr. Marty, we have up to 6000 Atlantic Salmon with HSMI virus in a concentrated area where Wild Salmon smolts frequent

We know that HSMI is highly contagious and can be lethal to wild salmon

We know that Fish Farms have a serious sea lice problem.

We know that Fish Farms have stated they try to time the treatment of their Sea Lice to coincide with the passing of wild salmon smolts. One can only assume to reduce the wild salmon mortality rate due to the concentration of their sea lice in the area.

We know that Fish Farms are not the only problem our wild salmon must face and are not the exclusive reason for the wild salmon runs that are in decline.

We know that wild salmon run returns from year to year will vary with or without Fish Farms.

We know that regardless of the evidence and history of Fish Farms world wide, there is no guarantee our politicians have the will to have them removed.

We know that most (not all) wild salmon runs in B.C. are in decline.
In Alaska on the other hand, where there are no Fish Farms, the 2017 harvest was 224 million wild salmon
Forrest Bowers, Deputy Director of the Division of Commercial Fisheries characterized the 2017 Alaska salmon season as a banner year for the industry

What we don’t know is exactly how many B.C. wild salmon die because of Fish Farms in our waters.

The people who work for Fish Farms and or related business who post on this site on a regular basis will go on aggressively defending Fish Farms. This is not hard to understand as their livelihood may depend on it.

Others will decide for themselves whether the number of Wild Salmon that Fish Farms are killing is significant or insignificant and if Fish Farms should be forced to move to dry land or be permitted to continue and expand with more open net-pens in our ocean.

But we do know this - the major problem facing our salmon stocks today is climate change, destruction of habitat and over fishing. This is not really anything new to you and you know that most scientists have agreed that these stressors are the largest determining factors of salmon survival rates. This isn't even debated. Lets be clear, FF's for certain have an effect on wild stocks. But, like many above, if it was determined that FF's affected a smaller percentage of the the wild salmon stocks than say, sport fishing, what should our position be? As long as we are truthful and honest, if the science tells us "sporties" are killing more than FF's, it can only lead to the conclusion that we need to ban sport fishing.

When I asked AA for how many fish are killed by FF's, he claimed 50% - then supplied a research study that showed nothing of the sort in BC waters. Never provided a rebuttal to his own rebuttal.

GLG went on about how he was working with the Coho spawning on some stream and the numbers were down dramatically. I asked him by how much and how many - went silent.

Fogged In decided the Cohen Commission was stale and dated, then provided headlines about the decimation of the sockeye runs. Those same headlines all lead to the identical conclusion that ocean temperatures are having the single largest affect on our salmon populations.

We need to get serious but I am afraid that sites like this and the news media are so salacious they only want click throughs and views. It doesn't matter what is fact or fiction. I have no doubt that the anti-fish farm advocates are well intentioned people who care for the salmon. I also believe the FF advocates are similarly well intentioned who believe that FF's are the future to saving the salmon. If we remove all FF's, it will have zero effect on ocean temperatures. GLG asked a good question, do the Harrison Sockeye migrate past FF's? I don't know but we do know that many of the sockeye have different migration routes that perhaps avoid warmer waters. Could be the FF's kill all the others but for certain genetic strains, but I doubt it.

We also know that the Alaska returns are abundant and increasing (at least this year). We don't know that this isn't simply because the ocean temperatures are colder off the coast of Alaska. Simply stating the conclusion is because Alsaka has no fish farms is ridiculous. We can pick to support what ever cause we want, but what we can't do is to pick our facts or make them up.

 

[fogged in]

and I repeat
The people who work for Fish Farms and or related business who post on this site on a regular basis will go on aggressively defending Fish Farms. This is not hard to understand as their livelihood may depend on it.

Others will decide for themselves whether the number of Wild Salmon that Fish Farms are killing is significant or insignificant and if Fish Farms should be forced to move to dry land or be permitted to continue and expand with more open net-pens in our ocean.

 

[agentaqua]

When I asked AA for how many fish are killed by FF's, he claimed 50% - then supplied a research study that showed nothing of the sort in BC waters. Never provided a rebuttal to his own rebuttal.

post #699, p. 35: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-35#post-854997

And finally – no – there is no standard “50%” reduction in wild stock survival rate due to FF impacts – it varies wildly – but as mentioned numerous times already – is site and species and cohort-specific.

Doesn't matter to me whether you read my posts or anyone else's spopadyn.

However, if you wish to be taken seriously - and with credibility and honesty - you may wish to at least quote people accurately and honestly.

 

[Admin]

Time for another reminder to everyone in this thread that is spinning into the personal side of the debate. Do not speculate and bring personal accusations about what another member does or does not do in their spare time as it is not relevant and will likely lead to the disintegration of the thread. Also, do not make assumptions and label people into one group or another as it also will lead to issues eventually. Stay on topic and if you don't have anything to add to the conversation other than to involve someones personal likes, dislikes, alignments, etc. Don't bother posting.

 

[agentaqua]

I dont think anyone is here to discredit anything..... Your science isn't complete or has holes in it.

Well - it's not "MY"science, bones - it is peer-reviewed science - the creditably of the accuracy is the responsibility of the journal - just like any science - pro or con. AND - by-the-way - if it is incomplete - how about speaking to that?

 

[spopadyn]

and I repeat
The people who work for Fish Farms and or related business who post on this site on a regular basis will go on aggressively defending Fish Farms. This is not hard to understand as their livelihood may depend on it.

Others will decide for themselves whether the number of Wild Salmon that Fish Farms are killing is significant or insignificant and if Fish Farms should be forced to move to dry land or be permitted to continue and expand with more open net-pens in our ocean.

So - Fogged In - do you believe ocean temperatures have any impact on the salmon population? Are you a climate denier? You posted a news article that claimed the biggest problem facing salmon populations was ocean temps. Was that a mistake or are you willing to admit you just try to mislead people with headlines?

 

[bigdogeh]

So - Fogged In - do you believe ocean temperatures have any impact on the salmon population? Are you a climate denier? You posted a news article that claimed the biggest problem facing salmon populations was ocean temps. Was that a mistake or are you willing to admit you just try to mislead people with headlines?

another deflection? come on guys... does the merry go round for you guys ever stop? nothing new?
yes again, there are a lot of factors contributing to the demise of our salmon runs, including fish farms (which could easily be solved), the topic of this thread...

mislead people with headlines? lol,
You may want to check out post #828 again... just sayin.

 

[spopadyn]

post #699, p. 35: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-35#post-854997

Doesn't matter to me whether you read my posts or anyone else's spopadyn.

However, if you wish to be taken seriously - and with credibility and honesty - you may wish to at least quote people accurately and honestly.

how about post 657?

"If we average these impacts over time and geographic area - a trend develops - where Ford and Myers (2008) found: "reductions in survival or abundance are greater than 50%" on wild salmon from farmed salmon operations: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

A responsible regulator would take these findings with the seriousness they deserve..."

Maybe I took liberty in you claiming when you were giving credit to another paper (largely based on European experiences). I guess if you post it, you should own it. Not sure why you took the effort to quote and highlight the numbers but, I can only assume it was meant to obfuscate and mislead.

As a person with a scientific understanding, you are certainly aware how this will affect credibility. So let me ask you this: do you agree with the scientific consensus that the three major stressors affecting the salmon population are: rising ocean temperatures, destruction of habitat, and over fishing? A simple yes or no will suffice - just curious as to whether the folks on this forum will actually agree with real scientific data or not.

I am not asking whether or not FF's affect salmon - they do - just want to see if we can get a consensus on the big three for a sake of context.

 

[spopadyn]

another deflection? come on guys... does the merry go round for you guys ever stop? nothing new?
yes again, there are a lot of factors contributing to the demise of our salmon runs, including fish farms (which could easily be solved), the topic of this thread...

mislead people with headlines? lol,

really? So you don't believe that we should be trying to come up with a plan to address more than one issue surrounding the decline in salmon? Are we not capable of thinking about more than one thing? This isn't a deflection - it is a question. If you choose not to answer - that is the deflection. So - do you agree that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines? - Yes or no?

 

[fogged in]

[QUOTE="spopadyn, post: 855637, member: 4993So - do you agree that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines? - Yes or no?[/QUOTE]

No I do not believe "that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines" and you will have a hard time finding scientific evidence that is the #1 cause for salmon decline
Have you happened to notice the posts regarding the increased returns in the Cowichan River Chinook over the last two years?

 

[spopadyn]

[QUOTE="spopadyn, post: 855637, member: 4993So - do you agree that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines? - Yes or no?

No I do not believe "that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines" and you will have a hard time finding scientific evidence that is the #1 cause for salmon decline
Have you happened to notice the posts regarding the increased returns in the Cowichan River Chinook over the last two years?[/QUOTE]
Awesome - now we are getting somewhere... We are going to have some fun trying to figure out why this is the case. What about habitat destruction or over fishing? Are these both smaller or in consequential when compared to FF's?

 

[fogged in]

[QUOTE="spopadyn, post:
Awesome - now we are getting somewhere... We are going to have some fun trying to figure out why this is the case. What about habitat destruction or over fishing? Are these both smaller or in consequential when compared to FF's?[/QUOTE]

Nothing we can do about the warm blob in the Pacific which has now receded, resolving Global Warming is a tough long term battle with many still in denial, we are better at looking after habitat then we used to be, but more needs to be done, we on Southern Vancouver Island have been slapped with salmon fishing restrictions and may face more this spring AND we need to address the number of salmon killed by Fish Farm disease and Sea Lice...something we can do something about!
To deny Fish Farms negative impact on wild salmon is akin to denying Global Warming.
No one on this site has ever said Fish Farms were the only problem wild salmon face!

 

[wildmanyeah]

[QUOTE="spopadyn, post: 855637, member: 4993So - do you agree that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines? - Yes or no?

No I do not believe "that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines" and you will have a hard time finding scientific evidence that is the #1 cause for salmon decline
Have you happened to notice the posts regarding the increased returns in the Cowichan River Chinook over the last two years?[/QUOTE]

How can you use Cowichan. River chinook as an argument against climate change not eff ct salmon and then you say ff are hurting all wild salmon.

Cowichan river dumps it’s smolts out in the heart of the cook fish farm area. Shouldn’t Cowichan River then be used as an example of fish farms not hurting wild salmon.

Sheesh lol

 

[spopadyn]

[QUOTE="spopadyn, post:
Awesome - now we are getting somewhere... We are going to have some fun trying to figure out why this is the case. What about habitat destruction or over fishing? Are these both smaller or in consequential when compared to FF's?

Nothing we can do about the warm blob in the Pacific which has now receded, resolving Global Warming is a tough long term battle with many still in denial, we are better at looking after habitat then we used to be, but more needs to be done, we on Southern Vancouver Island have been slapped with salmon fishing restrictions and may face more this spring AND we need to address the number of salmon killed by Fish Farm disease and Sea Lice...something we can do something about!
To deny Fish Farms negative impact on wild salmon is akin to denying Global Warming.
No one on this site has ever said Fish Farms were the only problem wild salmon face![/QUOTE]

How about I start with the World Wildlife (or the WWF). This is a quote from there website:

"Climate change is arguably the most desperate threat to sockeye salmon. One way this manifests is through “The Blob,” a large mass of warm water of the northwest coast of North America that is attributed with causing some of the unusual weather conditions recently experienced along the Pacific Coast. Nutrient poor and unusually warm, the Blob has negatively affected marine life and may confuse salmon trying to find their way inland. Also, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and in the ocean as a result, is causing ocean acidification, which significantly impacts the salmon’s food chain."

or, how about this quote from Yale Scientific

"In the summer of 2015, the majority of the 500,000 migrating sockeye salmon in the Columbia River died while returning to their spawning grounds, an event many federal and state fisheries biologists attribute to unusually warm waters. Mary Peters, a microbiologist who works for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told The Seattle Times, “The water temperatures in the Lower Columbia are physiologically unsustainable for salmon […] It’s crazy"


here are a couple more docs for your reading enjoyment - t

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/4...-BIOP-Lit-Rev-Salmon-Climate-Effects-2015.pdf

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Special Publications/LRMP_Synthesis.pdf


There are absolutely tons of scientific research papers. In fact, the effects of ocean temperatures are playing havoc with.....Alaskan salmon as well (no FF's to blame for that one). Fogged In, you seem like a good guy so you should read about this because you are an outlier if you don't accept the fact that ocean temps are far and away the number one problem facing salmon.

Now, you are also right in that we probably can't do a thing about it. I just find it interesting that we can be accusers and deniers simultaneously.... BTW, this has nothing to do with the veracity of claims about FF's.

 

[GLG]

GLG asked a good question, do the Harrison Sockeye migrate past FF's? I don't know but we do know that many of the sockeye have different migration routes that perhaps avoid warmer waters. Could be the FF's kill all the others but for certain genetic strains, but I doubt it.

I asked the question to see if you were curious enough to find the answer. Most of us know the answer is yes they do leave through the JDF. As far as I know they are the only Fraser River sockeye run that does.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_in_the_Fraser_River_British_Columbia_Canada