Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This feature letter to the editor is in today’s Times Colonist…..sorry I couldn't figure out how to copy the link to the single story
Research will tell you and the Fish Farms are well aware of it, that the headline of a story will have the greatest impact in influencing the opinion of the average person. Nice headline eh!
· JOHN VOLPE John Volpe is an associate professor in the School of Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria.

The science is in …..
salmon farms need to be out
The salmon-farm debate has come full circle with the recent escape of nearly 200,000 potentially invasive farmed Atlantic salmon 33 kilometres from B.C. waters in Washington state.

Over the years, public outrages associated with this industry have unfolded like so many layers of a rotten onion: sea lice, viruses, organic pollution, 10 times the carcinogens in the flesh of farmed salmon versus wild, legal shooting of seal and sea lion “pests,” whales entangled in nets and anchor lines — and the list goes on. This is all unfolding against a backdrop of vehement objections from First Nations.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence of ecological and social destruction, decision-makers in Victoria and Ottawa have remained shamefully silent for decades. Is it any wonder First Nations feel the only way to make their voices heard is through direct action with members entering their third month of occupation of a B.C. farm? But before these and other serious issues cameto light, the escape of farm salmon into the wild was the first to galvanize public opposition to this deeply flawed industry.

On the East Coast, farm-escaped Atlantic salmon freely hybridize with endangered wild Atlantic salmon. In so doing, they obliterate what little remains of 10,000 years of wild genetic diversity.

Such biodiversity was the raw material of adaptation and evolution, and its loss greatly increases the likelihood of wild Atlantic salmon succumbing to the threat of rapid climate change. This prediction appears to be coming to fruition most obviously in New Brunswick’s Magaguadavic River where only farm-escaped salmon, not wild salmon, are ascending to spawn this fall.

In B.C., where the majority of Canadian farmed salmon is produced (nearly all Atlantic salmon), escapees successfully reproduce in coastal rivers. So numerous are escapees that the hunt for a same-species mate appears easily accomplished. The threat of colonization and the panoply of ensuing negative effects is ever present. Indeed, it might well be underway, since as we have recently learned, the utter absence of oversight in the vast majority of West Coast rivers has rendered fisheries managers blind to such potential events.

The mental images of hundreds of thousands of potentially invasive salmon invading B.C. has struck a chord and reinvigorated the escapes debate. However, focusing exclusively on the fate of these particular fish and the myriad effects they might unleash misses the point. Escapes — like all of the other issues — are simply the consequence of farming salmon as cheaply as regulatory authorities will allow.

Indeed, the link between profitability and ecological damage is well documented throughout the industrial fish-farming world. As long as profit is the exclusive driver of policy, the race to the bottom means that the needs of our ecological and social systems will fall by the wayside.

For instance, escapes do not have to happen, it is just that 100 per cent containment costs more than the escaped fish are worth, so there is profit in leaky farms. As the value of salmon declines — the result of global overproduction — the profitability of escapes increases. So long as regulators prioritize private industry profits over environmental health and public interest, we can expect more of the same.

And who profits? The great majority of farms operating in Canada are Norwegian-based, greatly diminishing the industry’s contribution to the Canadian economy.

An ironic twist to the Washington state escape story is that technology developed on Vancouver Island renders old-tech open-net pens obsolete. Land-based recirculating systems entirely remove farm salmon — along with all of their environmental baggage — from the ocean. This technology is rapidly being adopted all over the world — profitably.

This advancement not only eliminates virtually every environmental issue associated with conventional farmed salmon, but also delivers significant benefits. Animal welfare is improved (fish are not harassed by predators day and night), while the embedded carbon footprint declines precipitously.

A key market advantage of farmed salmon is that it is available fresh all year. Given that coastal farms might be thousands of kilometres from major markets, air freight is the norm. Thus, 95 per cent of farmed salmon’s carbon footprint is in transportation, not production. Farming salmon near major markets therefore comes with a significant carbon reduction, in addition to neutralizing the menacing array of environmental damages.

Across the globe, this made-in-Canada technology is revolutionizing aquaculture, everywhere but in Canada. It is high time decision-makers make good on promises to regulate salmon farming to maximize benefit to all Canadians, not just foreign-based conglomerates.

Salmon farming in Canada is at a crossroads. Either we can leverage the potential of our own ingenuity and lead the world in a new Blue Revolution or we can stay the course of flawed economics and political cowardice, and destroy our oceans.
 
Thats a funny article seeing how John Volpe's "science" has been "in" for 15 or more years. lol Suggesting there has been a recent breakthrough is laughable.
 
Thats a funny article seeing how John Volpe's "science" has been "in" for 15 or more years. lol Suggesting there has been a recent breakthrough is laughable.
The breakthrough is the momentum that is gaining traction to finally remove open net fish farms off the ocean. It's Sunday and the Farmers need to let the hurting stop and the healing begin.
 
ya - I really don't think it is a "game" wrt protecting wild stocks - although that may be the perspective for industry pundits and PR people. Which people do you identify as "moving-on" over FF impacts - the FF people? certainly not the many hundreds of researchers which I posted their peer-reviewed results on this thread. So far you have provided exactly ZERO contradictory science. can't say I believe that will change much, neither.
So still decline on commenting on the salish sea science papers. Cant say sea lice kills salmon when they can't get out of the estuary?
 
We already covered those topics a number of times, bones:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-as-many-as-you-want.67264/page-5#post-844901
I find it strange that you are asking that question, bones - if you have been following the numerous threads debating this topic. I can only assume that you are reiterating the answer to that question - to the rest of the readership by asking that question.

Yes of course - is the obvious and short answer.

Every year/season is a complex interaction between location, time, impacts and patterns - a "box of chocolates" (thanks, Tom Hanks/Forrest Gumps).

Wrt impacts from open net-cages - they are numerous - and the scope and range of those interactions depends upon location, time, impacts and patterns. I believe for some years - there is enough "surplus" in recruitment so that those effects might not be noticeable against other background impacts. In other years - not so much.

If - for example - ocean survival rates of outmigrating smolts is in the toilet (like 2-3% or less) - another 1/2-1% mortality might crash that cohort. Extra juvie mortality matters when the stocks get down that much.

In addition - closed containment is something we can do something about...

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...h-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-9#post-852036
1stly - what DFO/CFIA should have done was to retest immediately - if that was possible. If not then those watersheds should have been thoroughly sampled esp. for resident salmonids - and the very next season - outmigrating smolts should have been tested. They weren't because DFO & CFIA wanted this to all quietly go away.

2 - None of those smolts sampled using CFIA methodology would necessarily test positive for ISAv - EVEN IF THEY HAD IT - considering CFIAs flawed confirmation methods. This was discussed at length at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...sent-bc-salmon-farms.64482/page-4#post-821997

3 - The issue around impacts from viruses or any potentially disease-causing organism has to do with fitness of the host and that potential extra mortality which is related to both the virulence of the virus and the physiological effects on the host. In short: if populations are barely hanging-on on in decline with only a 2-3% ocean survival rate for smolts to adults - adding another 0.5% mortality could have disastrous effects - no matter the source. So - that's what I believe can and occasionally does happen some years - that "extra" mortality is too much - whether from viruses, sea lice - or some other non FF-related impact. If we did proper environmental assessment, proper approvals, proper science, even - we could protect against some of the worst sited FF and their impacts. I'd rather see CC made mandatory - but in the interim - I'll settle for protecting the wild stocks.

I mean are you ok w pretending that salmon swim only 0.99km? Seriously, Dave.

How come the ISAv was of European strain, Dave? Where do you think that came from? Pacific salmon?
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...de-the-truth-forever.64361/page-5#post-805936
I think as valid as comments are about impacts and NIMBYs - I think there are some additional points to add to that discussion:

As fish habitat becomes more fractured and impacted - the MORE important the remaining habitat becomes - not LESS. That's the same old, tired argument that industry spokespersons frequently use to justify their planned and actual impacts on things like port development. That's the kind of irresponsible, detached perspective one would expect from people either unaffected from those activities, and/or thinking the money they get paid to frequently lie is the only justification they need.

That leads to the next point: NIMBYs.

Yes - nobody wants to see the areas they care about get decimated. That - in itself - does not invalidate their concerns. Yet again - the PR teams for various industrial development trot-out this response to mitigate concerns - valid or not.

This is not the kind of perspective I would expect from responsible, accountable regulators that are supposed to uphold the Fisheries Act, the Precautionary Approach and wild salmon as their priorities and focus.

Yet again - I am constantly disappointed and frustrated by the narrative developed and maintained with particularly the Aquaculture Branch of DFO - where many of the staff (often ex-industry workers) support hatchery operations and interact with those hatchery staff - perpetuating and disseminating many unsupported myths often strait from the PR firms supporting the open net-pen industry.

The lead to the last point(s) I want to make: Interannual variation and ocean survival.

Yes - it is true that there are many potential and realized impacts to wild fish stocks. It is true that the numerous impacts generated using the open net-cage technology may or may not have a significant impact on adjacent fish stocks - and that every year - the combinations of competing and synergistic impacts change. I believe that in some years with robust ocean survival - those same fish stocks can withstand some additional impacts like impacts from sea lice and disease - while other years - no - not so much.

Over time - those repeated, cumulative impacts are having some impact on wild stocks.

If the baseline work was done beforehand - one could better assess and apportion those impacts more accurately.

But - due to the denial machine generated by many industries - including the open net-pen industry - this was not done. That is not a responsible - nor a defensible position to always reverse the burden of proof onto those who commonly do not have the ability nor access to prove the impacts. That is - as always - industries burden to prove they are not having an impact and/or mitigate and compensate for those impacts.

BUT... the open net-pen industry has been exempt from environmental assessments - so they have never been held to task on disproving impact claims. So, workers and support personnel in this industry think this is normal - despite other industries having to undergo environmental assessments.

I believe that this situation was developed by a combination of a long-term legal strategy against other industries (commercial, recreation and FN fishing) either generating or receiving (Privacy Act) the data to prove these impacts and sue the aquaculture industry - and strait-up corruption in our federal and provincial governments.
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/sea-lice-and-fish-farms.64546/#post-807091
Well The Norwegians (not exactly AM-loving eco-freaks) decided in 1997 (National Action Plan Against Salmon Lice on Salmonids) to adress impacts from sea lice from their farms on their wild Atlantics:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860500030X
http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300994991
http://www.int-res.com/articles/aei2011/1/q001p233.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/25560441/A_...ice_on_Salmonids_The_effect_on_wild_salmonids
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Publications_&_Documentation/docs/pdf/revue_plurithematique/2015/09112015-00070-EN-Pettersen.pdf
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/old/dirnat/attachment/2158/Notat 1999-7b Environmental objectives for Norwegian aquaculture.pdf

Doubt if they did that because they were bored.

To directly answer your question: I believe some years we have robust enough ocean survival that wild salmon populations might be able to withstand extra population-level impacts from all sources - including sea lice and diseases from FFs. Other years - not so much. If we did a better job publicly reporting and investigating things like disease outbreaks - and had more money to spend on stock assessment - maybe we wouldn't be stuck in this debate...

I am assuming you can read as well as I can - and your search button works the same as mine.

By-the-way: still awaiting your peer-review research that states that FFs DON'T affect wild salmon - something that contradicts the many hundreds of other researcher's data/findings.
 
sure but the salish sea project is on going......you can read as well as i can right? no comments on the 2015 reports? none of which show fish farms have anything to do with the wild salmon decline.
it does show that smolts are eaten in river and out in estuary. as well they show two types of main predators, in close and out in deeper waters.
does your peer reviewed papers take into account these facts?


does your peer reviewed papers take into account the lack of zooplankton in the ocean?,
does it take into account the lack of diet available in the river systems?
there are acoustic arrays (69khz) in the strait of georgia at the top of Texada island and again near port hardy in the Queen Charlotte Strait, does your science papers show out going smolt pit tag results through this hot zone? in other words you say the evidence sinks but were is the data showing they disappeared in this hot zone?
there are a half dozen acoustic (69/180khz) right in the discovery islands, does your science papers show out going smolt pit tag results through this hot zone? in other words you say the evidence sinks but were is the data showing they disappeared in this hot zone? studies show with pit tagging that smolts on the cowichan are being eaten in huge quantities by herons?
does your science take into account the harmful algal blooms in the spring? 2014, 2015, 2016 tests show that Long & persistent high concentrations of mechanically harmful Chaetoceros convolutus?
does this science take into account that there are as of 2017 13.2 seals per km squared and outside the SOG its only 8.1 ?
does your data show how many smolts were affected by trawl survays? they have been conducted annually since 1998 june/july and sept/ oct
if 100's of scientists contributed to the study of fish farms relationship with wild salmon then where is the presentation? where is the say the power point presentation to the canadian government and the public? i mean you yourself said that this isnt "funny". if its so serious then show me something other than studies done on studies and the closest offender is a farm.


if you lobby to have fish farms removed from the ocean then as a tax payer that will be on the hook to pay for relocating these farms to non offending areas then show me something other than paper. i have the right as a taxpayer to see this and so far all it is is science papers.

at least the other scientists show the public professional presentations, power point or videos.....
https://www.psf.ca/blog/seals-taking-bite-out-salmon-survival
https://www.psf.ca/blog/seal-predation-juvenile-salmon
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...tating-west-coast-salmon-runs/article4352730/
(60-70 fry per minute eaten by seals)
http://vancouversun.com/news/seals-...nile-salmon-stocks-in-strait-of-georgia-study
http://marinesurvivalproject.com/research_activity/list/predation/
(The movie above shows mergansers feeding in Cowichan River)

the list just goes on and on

http://mmru.ubc.ca/2017/08/into-the-field-harbor-seals-prey-on-salmon-smolts/
http://www.vancouversun.com/lice+outbreak+shows+links+salmon+farming+report/11728714/story.html
https://www.eopugetsound.org/magazine/is/predators-chinook
https://www.researchgate.net/public...arget_juvenile_salmon_of_conservation_concern
.......
.......


there is a ton of evidence that shows the complete opposite of what you are saying, notice all the evidence is from around 2005 and current. so far you haven't sold me or any of my aquaculture friends.
 
Not trying to sell you anything, bones - just providing you the opportunity to broaden your horizons and embrace the science on FF impacts. It seems odd to me that you embrace the science about other impacts - but not the rather obvious and plentiful science focused on FF impacts.

PS - it's not "MY" science but rather that of hundreds of other researchers. It's unfortunate to me that you choose to view it as one team verses another - rather than accepting the science.
 
i would gladly chip in to see them moved. i feel i already am and will continue to do so until they are moved out of the ocean.
 
i don't think anyone here is on any one team just following the science like you've said to do, and in resent years the science has gotten better and bigger, seems the pursuit of fish farms did it... has moved on.
 
i don't think anyone here is on any one team just following the science like you've said to do, and in resent years the science has gotten better and bigger, seems the pursuit of fish farms did it... has moved on.

Lice-June2005.jpg
We are on team Wild Salmon. Fish farm sea lice kill salmon smolts.

6a0120a56ab882970c0148c6b87007970c-800wi
 
Dead fish swimming.
Long video but well worth the watch.
 
Thanks GLG for the post. I think Bones is right in that we have all "moved-on" from the argument about whether or not the open net-pen industry has effects on wild salmon a long time ago. We are onto what those effects are - even though the industry has tried to hide information critical to assessing those impacts for years. Thanks goodness for Kritii Miller and other non-industry researchers.
 
At the end of the video a question was asked about dfo relies heavily on industry about disease and pathogens.
Here is a link to that senate testimony.
 
My digital edition of todays Times Colonist has not been posted yet , buy just got mine delivered to the door.
Page 1 story headline
"Fish farm admits to plastic-bag spill"....goes on to say it happen Oct. 18.
Page 11 Executive Director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association, Jeromy Dunn claims
"Science continues to show BC salmon farms are safe"
and three letter to the editor from private citizens with headlines saying:
"Salmon farms don't belong in open waters" .....JG Walton from Chemainus
"Farmed salmon contain unwanted substances".... from Brice Morrison from Colwood
"Put salmon farms away from the ocean" ...C Scott Stoger from Victoria
 
Last edited:
If the broken barge had an oil tank, the Coast Guard might have considered it more than "low environmental risk".
Still, a plastic bag is made from hydrocarbons and, IMHO, thousands of them strewn on the beaches are an oil spill in solid form.
Isn't Omega Pacific the same outfit that operates the chinook hatchery on Great Central Lake?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top