Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[terrin]

I think the Anti-FF contingent is actually running out of any real science and just blindly charging off a cliff.

We already know that the first land locked salmon system in Canada is bankrupt and needs additional government funds or it closes its doors. Likely, this technology, while attractive, is still uneconomic.

IS it acceptable to interbreed different strains in order to enhance a sockeye run? I know they return to wherever they have been transplanted, but if the placed a Harrison or Lake Cowichan fry in a system of collapses, would it return to that system but follow its normal migration route?

The lack of responsible data - and the lack of interest in generating those data - only benefits the status quo for the open net-cage industry and fails to professionally and responsibly deal with the debate. "

it is actually a joke. On behalf of all the industry supporters I can only say "We care about our salmon and kids just as much as you do". Now put away your sanctimonious babble and man (or woman) up.

Fish Farms get enormous amounts of Government (taxpayer) Handouts so before you actually start knocking the one type of Fish Farm we all support (Kuterra) I suggest you guys stop taking handouts and put that money towards closed containment. Open net Cage Fish Farms will never be acceptible from an environmental perspective so its time you guys moved onto land. The Canadian government is investing C$3.2 million in the development of an environmentally friendly and economical process to remove sea lice from farmed salmon which is being undertaken by Cooke Aquaculture.
The documents describe a race against the clock as Kinsman tried to convince insurers that more than 500,000 fish at Hospital Island and a nearby site at Hog Island needed to be killed to prevent the spread of the infestation to other areas.

Kinsman had been informed by insurance adjuster Greg Potten of a provision in the insurance policy against "intentional slaughter" that would prevent coverage for the loss of the fish.

In an email to Potten, Kinsman describe a potential "environmental disaster" if the fish were not pre-emptively killed, "with 600 tons of rotting biomass washing up along the Saint Andrews sea shore line, resulting in unsightly and unbearable odours that will affect the seaside vacation townships."

Without a green light from the insurer and with sea lice counts quickly climbing at the two cage sites, Kinsman went ahead with arrangements for contractors to collect and kill the fish.

A fast-spreading sea lice outbreak killed nearly half the salmon last summer at two farm sites on Passamaquoddy Bay near Saint Andrews. (CBC)

Another letter, from the Department of Aquaculture's chief veterinarian, suggested the company should go even further and pre-emptively kill all fish at all three Gray-owned farm sites in the bay.

"With great certainty, as the Chief Veterinarian Prov. of NB, I can attest that all of the fish at the three indicated sites will expire within the next 30-60 days," wrote Michael Beattie.

Not to kill the fish now, he suggested, would be to create a "catastrophic event."

Kinsman hired contractors with pumper boats to collect the live salmon at the Hospital Island and Hogg Island farms, but the workers discovered nearly half the fish, or 252,000, had already died from the sea lice infestation.

The remaining fish were "euthanized," although the report does not say how that was done.

'No one had any knowledge of this whatsoever.'- Doug Naish, mayor of Saint Andrews
The effort managed to contain the sea lice problem, fish at the third Gray farm, near Simpson Island were sold in September of 2016.

Saint Andrews Mayor Doug Naish says neither he nor town staff were aware of problems last summer at Hospital Island, which is visible from the popular tourist town.

"No one had any knowledge of this whatsoever," Naish said.
OTTAWA — The federal government quietly paid $4.1 million in compensation to two Norway-headquartered aquaculture companies operating in B.C. that had to destroy fish hit by a deadly virus in 2012.

The payments came from a program that has paid out $94 million since 2011 — mostly to East Coast fish farmers — to cover losses from exposure to disease.

 

[fogged in]

The two key pivotal problems regarding Fish Farms and their threat to our Wild Salmon are Sea Lice and Disease.
These problems have been well documented worldwide, but due to our abundance of Wild Salmon, nowhere is there more at stake then right here in British Columbia!

Sea Lice
The traditional method of treating Fish Farm salmon with “Slice” has become ineffective and locally Fish Farms are asking permission to use a concentration of Hydrogen Peroxide pumped into the ocean to kill Fish Farm Sea Lice.
Fish Farm Sea Lice continues to kill wild salmon smolts and a proven permanent solution has not yet been found.

Disease
The main Fish Farms disease problem currently known is PRV and it is closely aligned with the HSMI virus.
Fish Farms have finally conceded after years of denial that their Atlantic Salmon are infected with the HSMI virus.
Fish Farm pathologist Dr. Gary Marty has stated the HSMI virus did not exist on the West Coast prior to the arrival of Atlantic Salmon Fish Farms.
Most will agree that Sea Lice and the HSMI virus are a real threat to our wild salmon.

The Fish Farms now know it, the scientists now know it, the public now know it and so does DFO and our Government.

When faced with the reality of this problem on this forum Fish Farm supporters simply ignore the question (see my question from yesterday #890 and I am still waiting to see a reply) and move on or change the subject, which you no doubt have noticed from recent Fish Farm supporter’s posts.

Thanks to the efforts of so many, it does appear that after years of denial finally some progress is being made in recognizing the very real danger that Fish Farm Sea Lice and Disease present to our wild salmon!

 

[salmonkiller01]

Once it is known that salmon feedlots from the west coast of canada are infected with disease and being sold on store shelves the consumer will be the driving force for open ocean net pens to leave.

 

[GLG]

By admission in the results and conclusion and discussion of the paper which states that pvr infection MAY effect salmon fitness. The term "may" also means "may not". This is my point about all of their work. There is no arguing a result that states maybe for its fairly self explanatory. The same can be said for most of their other papers which again lack information in terms of probability or quantification.

I can't agree with you that terms "may" also means "may not" but I get your point. I would have been much better if they would have used terms expressed in a number with a confidence level. That would have been helpful and I can understand your frustration with that. I'm sure that this paper will spark more research so we can get to the bottom off all this. For others that maybe reading this I think this is the part that is at issue.

"This study provides the first evidence that (i) exposure to farmed Atlantic salmon is associated with infection of wild Pacific salmon with PRV, a virus of significant concern to both the aquaculture industry and wild fisheries management, and (ii) that PRV infection may impair the capacity of wild salmon to complete a challenging spawning migration, with the potential for population-level impacts. The evidence, based solely on molecular screening tests from this observational study, and constrained by limited access to farmed Atlantic salmon samples of known provenance, cannot be definitive. Nonetheless, we view it as providing an early warning sign of a potentially serious problem that warrants immediate and ongoing research. Research into the fitness impacts to wild Pacific salmonids of farmed salmon pathogens is needed in wild fish populations in addition to controlled laboratory environments, and could provide valuable insights useful for the management of critically declining wild salmon populations."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793#sec014

 

[GLG]

AA,

GLG already stated that a FF only a few KM away does not have an impact on wild stock returns such as cowichan chinook. Now you want us to believe that FF thousands of KM away are having an effect on alaska wild salmon returns.

was GLG wong in what he stated then?

That's not what I said so don't go there please.

 

[GLG]

When the Barkley Sound salmon returned in 2016 to record numbers all the while the Fraser sockeye didn't show up, the issue of migrating past FF's as the cause was irrelevant (we all know it was a temperature blob). There are FF's right at the top of the Alberni Inlet and yet that (albeit man made) sockeye run remains really strong.

There is a problem with your argument on this one. There are no fish farms at the top Alberni Inlet or in Barkley sound for that matter. Does this change your view?

 

[GLG]

In the meantime, how can we replenish the wild stocks that have been decimated by the other factors. I not really sure what the answer is, but I think there are some solutions.

Habitat restoration is successful and we can all support and get behind this. In fact, many times when salmon habitat is restored, the result is even better then the previous undisturbed numbers. Maybe programs to augment habitat (they are doing this in Alaska) that isn't disturbed but has a positive impact should be considered (maybe it already is).

We have been doing this for 30 years here in BC this is nothing new and what PSF is all about. What is new is we are moving out into the estuary and also restoring kelp beds.

As GLG stated, salmon are all pre-wired to follow specific migratory paths. IS it acceptable to interbreed different strains in order to enhance a sockeye run? I know they return to wherever they have been transplanted, but if the placed a Harrison or Lake Cowichan fry in a system of collapses, would it return to that system but follow its normal migration route?

I have no idea if you can interbreed different runs but do know that just because you can transplant eggs from one system to another does not mean that you can establish a run by doing that. There are examples of DFO doing this in the past that took many attempts with chinook that never worked till they found the right ones. Currently DFO has a wild salmon policy (WSP) that IMHO is the way to go. It protects the genes of the run as they are what makes the salmon successful given the conditions of the river/lake system.

Over fishing is easy - but needs better predictive models and testing for us to get to the point where we are confident that the fish removed from the wild system by sport or commercial means is not damaging.

Not so fast as we have tried this experiment with wild coho for over 15 years here in the SoG and it has not worked.

It is without a doubt that FF's carry pathogens and likely spread disease to wild stocks. I don't have any issue accepting this. But, I also believe that FF's serve a greater good and addressing all of the concerns raised by the conservationists, while essential to survival, doesn't preclude their existence.

Point taken.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Not so fast as we have tried this experiment with wild coho for over 15 years here in the SoG and it has not worked

Absolutely, why many are now advocating for a complete closure to chinook fishing. Need to save them for SRKW. The old timers will soon remember the good old days of slot limits when the new full closures are in place.

Once fish farms are removed and stocks still collapsing do to climate change closures will all but be certain.

And when people want fish farms to raise chinooks to the age of 3 or 4 so the whales can eat them and sports fishermen can fish for them.

They will all but be a thing of the past and banned.

My personal opinion of course.

 

[Birdsnest]

I can't agree with you that terms "may" also means "may not" but I get your point. I would have been much better if they would have used terms expressed in a number with a confidence level. That would have been helpful and I can understand your frustration with that

Well I’m not suffering any emotional reaction really at all but thanks for you empathetic consideration. Your remark I have made bold is ecxcaxly my point I have been trying to get across about quantification and probability. I’m not sure why I had to endure your accusations of ad homonym attacks to get to this point in the discussion but I’m glad we are here never the less. I’m glad we agree on the lack of numbers and confidence in the study. Even with this lack of numbersif you look at the studies on pvr here and abroad it’s a random shot in the dark to suggest we are sitting on a ticking timebomb here in BC. But we will see but given what we know now I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

 

[GLG]

Well I’m not suffering any emotional reaction really at all but thanks for you empathetic consideration. Your remark I have made bold is ecxcaxly my point I have been trying to get across about quantification and probability. I’m not sure why I had to endure your accusations of ad homonym attacks to get to this point in the discussion but I’m glad we are here never the less. I’m glad we agree on the lack of numbers and confidence in the study. Even with this lack of numbersif you look at the studies on pvr here and abroad it’s a random shot in the dark to suggest we are sitting on a ticking timebomb here in BC. But we will see but given what we know now I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

In one paragraph you have stated it is difficult to quantify. A moment later you state its a fact that ff kill many. Can you show some info that shows that other than papers similar to mortons last art piece that the same old statician is involved with that results in only might, maybe and may with no quantification of probability?

Perhaps it was your choice of words that got me....

Regardless I think the study was clear that they were not trying to quantify the amount of risk only to say there is a risk. There are important reasons to make sure we have healthy wild salmon and if there is a chance that FF are threatening that, well .... I'll stand up for them as you should too.

"The results of this work suggest that exposure to salmon farms has a strong association with increased risk of PRV infection in wild salmonids, and that the proportion of PRV-infected wild vs. farmed salmon can vary synchronously between years. In addition, the decline in PRV infection between the low and high migration challenge groups suggests that PRV infection may reduce a host’s capacity to complete a challenging upriver migration, thereby reducing reproductive fitness. We stress the correlational nature of the present findings, but believe, in keeping with the Precautionary Principle, that they warrant further research attention due to the high ecological, economic, and cultural value of wild Pacific salmon."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793#sec014

 

[Birdsnest]

Perhaps it was your choice of words that got me....

Regardless I think the study was clear that they were not trying to quantify the amount of risk only to say there is a risk. There are important reasons to make sure we have healthy wild salmon and if there is a chance that FF are threatening that, well .... I'll stand up for them as you should too.

"The results of this work suggest that exposure to salmon farms has a strong association with increased risk of PRV infection in wild salmonids, and that the proportion of PRV-infected wild vs. farmed salmon can vary synchronously between years. In addition, the decline in PRV infection between the low and high migration challenge groups suggests that PRV infection may reduce a host’s capacity to complete a challenging upriver migration, thereby reducing reproductive fitness. We stress the correlational nature of the present findings, but believe, in keeping with the Precautionary Principle, that they warrant further research attention due to the high ecological, economic, and cultural value of wild Pacific salmon."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793#sec014

They could have easily included some quantification of risk if they had included everything we currently know about prv to date however they have conveniently chosen to leave that information out of the picture and steer attention to other portions of the study that suits their purpose sacrificicing the opportunity to quantify risk. This is why I make comment s about creativity.

 

[Birdsnest]

I don't think shuswap will mind me posting his comment on the study from another site. This is what he had so say and I found it pretty interesting.


How many farm critics here actually read the study? Or did most just default to the red meat media version? I think for most it was the latter. Shocker.

The BC Salmon Farmers press release makes some good points, but one just has to read the study to find out that the claims made are sketchy at best. First, it was a very poor sample size with very unequal representation. Look at the raw data provided to see where the samples were from within the Fraser watershed - those upstream and downstream of Hope. Most are downstream of Hope. Look at the data in the columns. Of course infection rate is greater in the lower regions if that’s where most of the samples are from. Within those catch areas the fish could have all been handled differently if caught by recreational anglers and First Nations. In order to make broad population inferences one should do a more extensive, structured surveillance of wild salmonids which the authors admitted was lacking in their study.

Second, the authors categorizing of “significant migratory challenges” is too vague and incomplete and doesn’t address WHAT THE ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE AT THE TIME. Nowhere in the study do the authors put context to their findings by saying what the Fraser River conditions were during the sampling period in 2012 and 2013. Also, those conditions can change within the migration from month to month, from run timing group to run timing group. For instance, Early Stuart Sockeye can typically face some significant migratory challenges in some years through Hell’s Gate in June and July due to much much higher discharge following spring freshet. Early Summer to Summers Sockeye can experience higher water temperatures some years, but Late Summer Sockeye can avoid those late on in September and October.

In a nutshell, there’s variability. But what might be a major migratory difficulty one year might not be so much the next. Yes, places like Hell’s Gate and the other migratory bottlenecks can be difficult places for salmon migration, but it depends on what the river discharge and water temperatures are at the time. Pacific salmonids have water discharge and temperature thresholds where migration can be difficult, but not so much below those levels. Some years had very high water temperatures in the Fraser but that didn’t necessarily translate into major prespawn mortality. Instead, the authors make it black and white (i.e. challenged or not) which in reality isn’t what its really like.

Third, what are these PRV infected salmon relative to what actually escaped to the spawning grounds in 2012 and 2013 if we are looking at the adult samples. In 2013, some Fraser CUs that escaped to the spawning grounds did better than cycle year averages. Yet the authors claim that PRV infected salmon could be experiencing migratory difficulties due to bad hearts. Well the spawning ground escapements for many CUs don’t appear to corroborate those claims in both 2012 or 2013. Can’t take the number of samples they did and start making those claims - especially at the population level. Statistics are great but they should be ground truthed.

Lastly, HSMI has not been documented in wild salmon in BC or even in Norway. The authors even state:

However, HSMI has not been reported in wild or captive Pacific salmon.

How many of the samples in the study were examined for HSMI? Apparently, PRV is this very deadly virus to wild Pacific salmonids and no testing for the disease, HSMI. I know the answer why not and so do you.

Happy Holidays!

 

[Birdsnest]

The answer is the authors know fair well that they will not find hsmi and that does not fit in to their narrative. Yet if you ask me it's just another "missed" opportunity to apply some quantification to the results but again they chose not to do so. The reason is obvious.

 

[fogged in]

The answer is the authors know fair well that they will not find hsmi and that does not fit in to their narrative. Yet if you ask me it's just another "missed" opportunity to apply some quantification to the results but again they chose not to do so. The reason is obvious.

GLG, Agentaqua and Birdsnest will have to explain to me what the information and link below means , as I am not a scientist.
I do understand however that Dr. Gary Marty did say HSMI has been found in B.C.Fish Farm Atlantic Salmon and that it might be hard to find HSMI in wild salmon if they die at sea or eaten by predators or even harder yet to find if you do not test for it.

Fish Disease Causing Economic Impact in Global Aquaculture
Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) was first observed in Norway in 1999 (Kongtorp et al. 2004a), and since then the number of cases diagnosed peaked at 162 per annum (pa) in 2007 and 2011 (NVI 2012) but has remained above 130 cases pa since 2007. HSMI is usually observed as a clinical disease in marine-stage salmon 5–9 months after transfer to sea. Affected fish exhibit anorexia, lethargy and increased mortality which can vary from less than 1–20 % in affected pens. The pathology associated with the disease appears limited to the heart and skeletal muscle where epicarditis, myocarditis, inflammation and degeneration of myocytes in the red skeletal muscle are the main findings (Fig. 1.4) (Kongtorp et al. 2004b).

Histopathological section of red skeletal muscle from Atlantic salmon affected by heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI)

HSMI has been demonstrated as an infectious disease and is strongly associated with the piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV), a recently discovered virus identified through high-throughput pyrosequencing of serum from HSMI-affected fish (Palacios et al. 2010). PRV is a double-stranded RNA virus and belongs to the Reoviridiae family and appears to be most close to the genus Orthoreovirus. HSMI as a disease has also been reported in Scotland (Ferguson et al. 2005) and Ireland but PRV appears widespread in farmed fish in Norway, Scotland, Ireland and Chile but is present in healthy farmed and wild salmon as well as the cases of HSMI in Norway and Scotland. As shown by Løvoll et al. (2012), the PRV load increases after transfer of smolts to sea, and the cases of HSMI in Norway are associated with high levels of virus, but the observations indicate that environmental factors associated with the seawater locations may be more important than PRV status. Recent research has also demonstrated that PRV resides in the erythrocytes of salmon with up to 50 % PRV positive in individual fish (Finstad et al. 2014). The appearance and investigations of PRV in the erythrocytes have shown strong similarities to the viral disease previously described as erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome (EIBS) (Leek 1987). There are no vaccines for HSMI nor any specific treatment, although there is one report of a reduction impact of clinical disease through the feeding of tetradecylthioacetic acid (a synthetic fatty acid) (Alne et al. 2009).in

Here is the link for the whole study…..One all three of you have already seen, no doubt.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-0980-1_1

 

[happy hooker]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...m_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1

 

[california]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...m_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1

Really good news, hopefully the first fish farm domino to fall in WA. That farm is located near Ediz hook, not too far from and within the smolt migration routes for the Elwha river, which had it's two dams removed to allow fish passage after being blocked for a century. Hopefully this will help the Elwha recovery as well.

 

[GLG]

I don't think shuswap will mind me posting his comment on the study from another site. This is what he had so say and I found it pretty interesting.


How many farm critics here actually read the study? Or did most just default to the red meat media version? I think for most it was the latter. Shocker.

The BC Salmon Farmers press release makes some good points, but one just has to read the study to find out that the claims made are sketchy at best. First, it was a very poor sample size with very unequal representation. Look at the raw data provided to see where the samples were from within the Fraser watershed - those upstream and downstream of Hope. Most are downstream of Hope. Look at the data in the columns. Of course infection rate is greater in the lower regions if that’s where most of the samples are from. Within those catch areas the fish could have all been handled differently if caught by recreational anglers and First Nations. In order to make broad population inferences one should do a more extensive, structured surveillance of wild salmonids which the authors admitted was lacking in their study.

Second, the authors categorizing of “significant migratory challenges” is too vague and incomplete and doesn’t address WHAT THE ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE AT THE TIME. Nowhere in the study do the authors put context to their findings by saying what the Fraser River conditions were during the sampling period in 2012 and 2013. Also, those conditions can change within the migration from month to month, from run timing group to run timing group. For instance, Early Stuart Sockeye can typically face some significant migratory challenges in some years through Hell’s Gate in June and July due to much much higher discharge following spring freshet. Early Summer to Summers Sockeye can experience higher water temperatures some years, but Late Summer Sockeye can avoid those late on in September and October.

In a nutshell, there’s variability. But what might be a major migratory difficulty one year might not be so much the next. Yes, places like Hell’s Gate and the other migratory bottlenecks can be difficult places for salmon migration, but it depends on what the river discharge and water temperatures are at the time. Pacific salmonids have water discharge and temperature thresholds where migration can be difficult, but not so much below those levels. Some years had very high water temperatures in the Fraser but that didn’t necessarily translate into major prespawn mortality. Instead, the authors make it black and white (i.e. challenged or not) which in reality isn’t what its really like.

Third, what are these PRV infected salmon relative to what actually escaped to the spawning grounds in 2012 and 2013 if we are looking at the adult samples. In 2013, some Fraser CUs that escaped to the spawning grounds did better than cycle year averages. Yet the authors claim that PRV infected salmon could be experiencing migratory difficulties due to bad hearts. Well the spawning ground escapements for many CUs don’t appear to corroborate those claims in both 2012 or 2013. Can’t take the number of samples they did and start making those claims - especially at the population level. Statistics are great but they should be ground truthed.

Lastly, HSMI has not been documented in wild salmon in BC or even in Norway. The authors even state:

However, HSMI has not been reported in wild or captive Pacific salmon.

How many of the samples in the study were examined for HSMI? Apparently, PRV is this very deadly virus to wild Pacific salmonids and no testing for the disease, HSMI. I know the answer why not and so do you.

Happy Holidays!

It would be interesting if this was posted on the site where the paper was published. Perhaps the news release pdf should be posted also to give their side of the argument. That way the authors of the paper or others in that field would have a chance to respond. That would be helpful to many of us that are watching this unfold because it seems that industry is just trying to convince the public and us anglers that they present no harm. They should be trying to convince the scientific community as this is mostly a matter of science.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793

 

[cuttlefish]

It would be interesting if this was posted on the site where the paper was published. Perhaps the news release pdf should be posted also to give their side of the argument. That way the authors of the paper or others in that field would have a chance to respond. That would be helpful to many of us that are watching this unfold because it seems that industry is just trying to convince the public and us anglers that they present no harm. They should be trying to convince the scientific community as this is mostly a matter of science.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793

I totally agree. Take it up with the authors by publishing a formal rebuttal.
I did read both the paper and the BCSFA press release. I posted some questions regarding the science referenced in the press release. No answers were forthcoming here. I have contacted the BCSFA.
My take on the paper (not the press release) was that fewer samples collected above the migratory restrictions tested positive for PRv than below those restrictions thereby suggesting reduced fitness. As long as all samples were collected in the same year, it really has nothing to do with actual environmental conditions at the time.

 

[bigdogeh]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...m_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1

Wow, what a breath of fresh air. Regulators doing their job and protecting the environment.
Guess that multi-billion dollar company didn't have quite enough money to keep it's infrastructure in shape or environmentally friendly. Or maybe it was waiting for a government grant....

 

[spopadyn]

There is a problem with your argument on this one. There are no fish farms at the top Alberni Inlet or in Barkley sound for that matter. Does this change your view?

It will change my view if you agree this will change your view:

https://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/cermaq-ca/cermaq-canada/our-company/locations/barkley


Cermaq Canada believes they are farming fish here - maybe they are wrong?

Government seems to think there are fish farms there as well

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/bc-cb/docs/maps-cartes/mar-eng.pdf

Looking forward to your new and improved explanation....