B
bones
Guest
There's a map for the acoustic locations if you need it
Fish Farm trouble in BC.
- Thread starter Chuck
- Start date
- Status
Well - you sure are predictable - if nothing else, bones.
As you get called on your obvious errors in reasoning/logic - as I interpret it - you shift what you claim as it is proven wrong - in the hopes that just maybe there is a glimmer of hope that your naive (IMHO) beliefs wrt no impacts from FFs - are hopefully correct - somewhere.
So, now you have shifted your unsupported claims from:
to "Lol there called local stock" - meanwhile ignoring both the links and questions I posted wrt why they are looking at lice on smolts in the Broughtons - and while we are at it - ignoring the obvious risk and evidence of other impacts like disease transfer.
OK - then - lets see your DNA evidence of your claims, then! (that Fraser stocks do not migrate through the Brougtons - or are protected from FF impacts).
A "LOL" posted in your response does not invalidate any posted science or risks to wild stocks - and if FFs impact wild salmon stocks from any watershed - it is still a FF impact on wild stocks.
Last edited:
B
bones
Guest
You know AA could you answer DFO's question? No.....? Then fish farms are here forever.......sorry.
You do know most of what I have posted is right from the salish sea project.......I guess what there doing on the straight is ******** like you've said many times over..... Look into the salish sea project is there anything about fish farms? ......nope
You do know most of what I have posted is right from the salish sea project.......I guess what there doing on the straight is ******** like you've said many times over..... Look into the salish sea project is there anything about fish farms? ......nope
Nice try Bones my post at #452 was refering to the videos you posted dated 2010,11 and 12. The above info states what they did after 2015 to address the fact that there were NONE between Array H (Northern Straight of Georgia) and I (Queen Charlotte Straight) as I indicated to you at post #475. Lol
GLG
Well-Known Member
Here let me help you with this.
From this website...
http://marinesurvivalproject.com/research_activity/list/juvenile-salmon-studies-ca/
Notice that those are the same locations that are in this video?
http://kintama.com/animator/dep/Chilko2017_sockeye/
Now stay on point. Why did they all disappear in 2017?
Since it appears to me bones that you are either reluctant to post any information to support your (what I consider) illogical claims - or else incapable of finding any supporting information - let me help you. This one is from Tucker's work (Tucker et al., 2009) at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-211.1?journalCode=utaf20 Figure 4 page 1465:
Last edited:
B
bones
Guest
Just answer one question AA? I posted it above and many times over. You keep dodging by picking apart what I say. This I why you only post link to studies its so you cant get picked apart. Could you answer the question? I've asked many times.....
Does it really matter, it shows smolt migration thru Johnson strait which is what I said. If you need more information you could just look up the paper. Why did they die at the top of texada, look up the blooms thru 2014-2016 or 2017 if you have seen the latest release on the salish sea.
Does it really matter, it shows smolt migration thru Johnson strait which is what I said. If you need more information you could just look up the paper. Why did they die at the top of texada, look up the blooms thru 2014-2016 or 2017 if you have seen the latest release on the salish sea.
They passed the top of Texada and were recorded as doing so they did not make it passed the Lice infested Fish Farms so were not recorded at the Queen Charlotte Straights.
It's called accountability, bones - it's what should happen in say - and environmental review - that the open net-pen industry has unfortunately successfully avoided through collusion and corruption. I post the link - so you and any other interested posters can look it up. That's what the peer-review process is about - checks in accountability.
Weell, bones - if you had truly been looking at the data - even from the Kintama videos you posted - you would also have seen the video that GLG posted on where the fish disappear - mostly after the Discovery Islands - as far as marine mortality. I think it is both logical and responsible to assume that some of that extra mortality may well have been from impacts from either the fish farms in either the Discovery Islands and/or the Broughtons (i.e. in Johnson Strait to Queen Charlotte Sound). It certainly does not support your unfortunately naive view (IMHO) that FFs have no impacts on wild stocks.
In addition to proximity effects of the physical location - there is also the fact that juvenile salmon stop and grow bigger in the marine environment near where many FFs are placed (e.g. see purse seine set map Fig 4A-E from my post #410 on page 21 showing high juvie densities in the Discovery Islands area) - and the water itself actually flows some distance (even dozens of kilometers) from the FF sites (e.g. see copepidite sampling map Fig 17 from my post #410 on page 21) - carrying with it both disease vectors and parasites. That is both the problem AND reality of the open net-pen system - water flows both in AND out of the pens.
If Fraser smolts go more westerly - they could potentially avoid some of the effects of the inner (but not the outer) Broughton FFs - but in any event - as you mentioned - local stocks will be still be at risk of Broughton FF operations - and the Fraser stocks cannot evade the Discovery Island FFs - which you have neglected to mention - are also on their migration route. Any effect to any smolt from any FF anywhere - is still an effect of FFs on wild stocks.
And - as always - it is the responsibility of any industry (including their defenders & PR people) to prove they are NOT having any site-specific impacts of the wild stocks - not mine to prove that they are - although I have posted quite a bit of peer-reviewed science of this thread already wrt impacts other researchers have found already - including the Broughtons and elsewhere on this planet. It's all there in previous pages on this thread - for those who wish to pursue their own investigation of the truth.
Last edited:
F
fogged in
Guest
Had a look at your questions from JUST FROM THIS MORNING.
Which question are you wanting answered?
bones,Today at 8:52 AM
How many farms in Johnson strait?
How is it fish farms are killing smolts on migration
What stocks and salmon runs are being effected by fish farms
bones,Today at 9:54 AM
What stock are effected by fish farms and how much damage to inventories?
How can smolts damage inventories when stock isn't even there?
How much more proof do you need?
bones,Today at 9:58 AM
scientists agree that most smolts travel through Johnson strait. AA called ******** prove it....... Is this not proof?? Yes or no
bones,Today at 10:30 AM
Look up how many transceivers there are......(sort of a question)
bones,Today at 10:41 AM
Lol look it up and get back to me.
bones,Today at 1:32 PM
keep looking try POST....
bones,Today at 2:26 PM
Look into the salish sea project is there anything about fish farms?
bones,17 minutes ago
Could you answer the question? I've asked many times.....
Does it really matter, it shows smolt migration thru Johnson strait which is what I said. If you need more information you could just look up the paper. Why did they die at the top of texada, look up the blooms thru 2014-2016 or 2017 if you have seen the latest release on the salish sea.
B
bones
Guest
Second question. What stocks and salmon runs are being effected by fish farms?
What stock are effected by fish farms and how much damage to inventories? Would you care to explain or answer there question? Or are you going to spin this again?
What stock are effected by fish farms and how much damage to inventories? Would you care to explain or answer there question? Or are you going to spin this again?
B
bones
Guest
You didnt look hard enough
F
fogged in
Guest
B
bones
Guest
Lol
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
Must have hit a nerve with that hites study in Science mag. interesting what comes up when browsing the net. That hites study must have really pissed the fish farm industry off...
https://www.academia.edu/2939514/Spinning_farmed_salmon
quite a long read but quite interesting...
GLG
Well-Known Member
This may be helpful to answer your question.
It's from 2011 and a lot more information has been learned since......
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Open net pen aquaculture, as currently practiced in British Columbia, has the potential to
create problems for wild salmon populations because the pens are open to the
environment, allowing wastes, chemicals and pathogens to move freely back and forth.
Indeed, wild salmon populations have tended to decline wherever this form of
aquaculture is practiced, although the reason for this is not always apparent. In one of the
best studied cases, wild Pacific salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, BC appear to have
been negatively impacted by sea lice from fish farms.
Declines in Fraser River sockeye salmon returns, and in particular the spectacular crash
of 2009, have led many to wonder whether fish farms could be implicated, given that
most of the migrating sockeye have to pass through the narrow channels among the
Discovery Islands, dotted with numerous Atlantic salmon and Chinook salmon farms, on
their way north out of the Strait of Georgia.
The hypothesis that there is an effect of farms on sockeye survival was tested by
examining the support for its predictions that there would be negative relationships
between fish farm production levels - and such farm metrics as lice levels, disease levels
and farm mortality rates - and Fraser sockeye survival. These various relationships were
statistically analyzed and reported separately to the Commission by Dr. Brendan Connors
(Connors B. 2011. Examination of relationships between salmon aquaculture and sockeye
salmon population dynamics. Cohen Commission Tech. Rept. 5B).
Unfortunately, it turned out that the data provided by Provincial government (BCMAL)
and the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) were insufficient in both quantity and
quality to allow a rigorous analyses capable of answering these questions with certainty.
The biggest problem was the very short length of the time series available for analysis,
basically only 4-5 year classes.
However a longer-term analysis, using production data since 1982, did reveal a
relationship between farm production and salmon survival, i.e., the greater the farm
production the lower the survival of the sockeye. This analysis also revealed a very
interesting interaction with pink salmon abundance in the North Pacific Ocean: the
negative effect of the farms appeared stronger when pink salmon were more abundant,
suggesting that any farm effect may be mediated through changes in the growth and/or
competitive ability of the sockeye.
Despite the a priori predictions, these results cannot be considered conclusive, as they are
only correlations in the data. However, the fact that the 2006 brood year interacted with
half as many pink salmon as the 2005 brood year, and that the corresponding 2010
returns were much greater than those in 2009, suggests that the Connors statistical model
may be capturing some underlying causal relationships, and thus motivates the search for
what these might be.
Several potential drivers of any farm effect were considered. If such an effect exists, it is
most likely to be due to either disease or sea lice, or both. Impacts on sockeye from other
factors, such as escapes or waste and chemical inputs and their effects on the benthic and
pelagic zooplankton communities, are likely to be quite local and unlikely to be
sufficient, alone or in concert, to cause either the long-term population declines or the
especially low returns in 2009. However, the cumulative impacts of several farms in close
proximity have not been adequately addressed.
The viral and/or bacterial pathogens considered the most risky to wild sockeye are
Renibacterium salmoninarum (causing bacterial kidney disease, BKD), the IHN virus
(causing infectious hematopoietic necrosis, IHN) and Aeromonas salmonicida (causing
furunculosis). There are a variety of ways these may be transferred from farmed fish to
wild sockeye, including horizontal transfer of shed pathogens, via farmed salmon
escapees, via movement of infected sea lice (vectoring), and through discharge of
untreated "blood water" from processing facilities. Horizontal transfer and vectoring by
sea lice are likely to be the most important routes of transmission, but the role of
processing facilities needs to be examined further.
ISA (infectious salmon anemia) has not been confirmed on BC fish farms, but several of
the veterinary records refer to symptoms that are highly suggestive. A close watch should
be kept for indications of this disease, and biosecurity rigidly enforced, since ISA could
be devastating to BC wild salmon populations. Recently there have been reports of a
possible retrovirus (the so-called "Miller virus"); its role in Fraser sockeye declines is
currently uncertain. It is suspected to be a contributory factor to the recently elevated
levels of pre-spawning mortality (PSM) in adult Fraser sockeye, but PSM is not the cause
of reduced survival as examined in this report, since the definition of “recruits” includes
any mortalities due to PSM. Thus we are looking for the cause of declining survival over
and above whatever effects this virus has on returning adults. Of course this does not
exonerate the involvement of this presumed virus in mortality of sockeye at earlier life
stages.
It is naïve to believe that the present report, and the Cohen Commission in general, will
identify the cause of the sockeye salmon decline, and in particular the return failure of
2009. Nature is complex and factors do not act in isolation on the population dynamics of
any species. Pathogens from fish farms are just one factor among many that may
influence the mortality rate of sockeye. There are several ways in which these various
factors may interact, and a number of these are discussed. Although some are
hypothetical at this stage of our knowledge, they highlight the complexities in the real
world system in which farms and wild sockeye are embedded, and caution against any
simplistic single-factor explanation.
There are a number of knowledge gaps surrounding the farm-wild fish interaction, in
particular those related to the dynamics of disease transfer. These are listed in a separate
section of the report. Several management options are also briefly considered, with closed
containment being the preferred option if it can be shown to be economically feasible, a
hypothesis currently under test by several such facilities in BC, both land-based and in
the ocean.
It must be understood that the short time series of data available for this investigation
precluded identifying salmon farms as an important driver of the decline of Fraser
sockeye. But it must be equally understood that at this stage of our knowledge is it not
possible to say they are not implicated. It is recommended that a well-organized farm
database be maintained in an ongoing fashion by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and that
annual analyses of the sort performed by Dr. Connors be conducted to firm up
conclusions as more data become available.
B
bones
Guest
so.... 7.8 million Chinook smolts are being eat by predators, believe that is a 2017 test results,,,, so not new. again how many smolts do fish farms kill? what runs are they influencing?...........well?
GLG
Well-Known Member
Did you not read the report I posted? Here let me help you.....
Negative Impacts of Salmon Farms on Wild Salmonids
There have been numerous reviews of the potential impacts of salmon aquaculture on
wild fish stocks (some recent ones include Noakes et al. 2000, EVS 2000, Nash 2003,
Waknitz et al. 2003). Ford & Myers (2008) conducted a meta-analysis to show that wild
salmonid stocks have declined, often as much as 50%, wherever aquaculture production
has increased. Despite this there are surprisingly few demonstrations of the mechanisms
underlying negative impacts. Escaped fish are believed to be the source of furunculosis in
a number of Norwegian rivers in the late-1980s and early 1990s (Hastein and Linstad
1991, Heggberget et al. 1993) and an increased prevalence of infectious pancreatic
necrosis has been found in wild fish near fish farms in Scotland (Munro et al. 1976,
Wallace et al. 2008).
Sea lice (Lepeoptheirus salmonis) are a conspicuous exception to this general lack of
empirical information on impacts of farms on wild fish (Costello 2009). In Ireland, for
example, there is good evidence that some stocks of sea trout (Salmo trutta) have been
negatively affected by lice originating in farms (Tully et al. 1999, Tully & Nolan 2002,
Gargan et al. 2003). According to Gargan et al. (2006) "the data …strongly indicate that
infestations by sea lice...made an important contribution to the sea trout stock collapse on
Ireland's west coast," and "exceptions of good survival were associated with whole-bay
fallowing by adjacent marine salmon farms." In Norway both sea trout and Arctic charr
(Salvelinus alpinus) have been shown to have higher lice loads near farms than further
away (Bjørn et al. 2001, Bjørn & Finstad 2002), and this has been implicated as a cause
of population declines of these species. In a very interesting experiment, hatchery
Atlantic salmon protected with an anti-louse treatment prior to release survived at a
slightly greater rate than untreated ones (Hvidsten et al. 2007), suggesting lice as the
cause of mortality. However, the sample size for the experiment was small and the result
was not consistent across years. A similar experiment in Ireland (Jackson et al. 2011) also
found that pre-release anti-louse treatment (in this case with SLICE®) reduced mortality
significantly, but only to a very small extent.
Here in British Columbia, there is considerable evidence for impacts of sea lice on wild
pink and chum salmon juveniles in the Broughton Archipelago. It is now widely accepted
that the source of the high levels of infestation observed on these wild fish, at least until
recently, has been the farms (e.g., Marty et al. 2010). Atlantic salmon in the farms pick
up sea lice from adult wild salmon moving past them towards their spawning steams in
the fall. The net pens, with their high densities of susceptible hosts, essentially act as
incubators for the lice over the winter, and their numerous progeny (Orr 2007) then infect
the juvenile pink and chum moving seaward in the spring. These fish are quite small, and
lack protective scales, and have not been prepared by their evolutionary past to deal with
an infection at this early stage of their life (normally any infection would not occur until
the fish meet the returning adults later in the summer, when the juveniles are less
vulnerable; Krkošek et al. 2007b). If the intensity of infection is high enough the young
wild salmon can die, either from the direct effect of the parasite, or from indirect effects
such as secondary infections or predators (Krkošek et al. 2011). If enough individuals die,
and these would not have died from some other cause in the absence of lice, then the
population will decline, and there is evidence that this has happened to pink salmon in the
Broughton (Krkošek et al. 2005, 2006, 2007a). There is even evidence to suggest that
Broughton area coho salmon, who can pick up lice when feeding on infected pinks
(Connors et al. 2008, 2010a), have also shown population declines attributable to lice
(Connors et al. 2010b).
Not everyone agrees with the picture I have just painted. The Krkošek papers have
engendered a lively interchange of criticism (Brooks & Jones 2008, Ridddell et al. 2008)
and rebuttal (Krkošek et al. 2008a, b). Most recently, Marty et al. (2010) failed to find a
relationship between lice levels on farmed fish in the Broughton and pink salmon
survival; however, their analysis had a very small probability of being able to detect such
an effect (it had what statisticians call low power), and was flawed in other ways as well
(Krkošek et al. in review). Jones et al. (2008) conclude from laboratory studies that pink
salmon are only susceptible to L. salmonis when weighing less than 0.7 g. and so quickly
outgrow the period of vulnerability. However, these sorts of studies do not place the fish
in challenging natural environments where they must find food and avoid predators, both
of which abilities may be compromised by lice. In addition they do not replicate a critical
feature of the field situation – the possibility of multiple infection as a result of
sequentially passing several farms in close proximity (Wagner et al. 2008). On balance, I
believe the science strongly supports the conclusion that pink salmon in the Broughton
Archipelago, and perhaps other salmon species there as well, have been negatively
impacted by lice from fish farms.
Some have pointed out that sockeye smolts are large relative to pink and chum salmon
and well covered with silvery scales that act as a physical barrier, so the likelihood of
being affected by lice should be negligible. However, this ignores the fact that even adult
sockeye can be killed by lice in sufficient numbers and under adverse environmental
conditions (Johnson et al. 1996). It also ignores the fact that fish as large or larger are
affected by lice in Europe.
In summary, the available evidence suggests that salmon farms can be deleterious to
sympatric wild salmon, at least under some circumstances and in some places. The
question that will be addressed in this report, to the extent possible with the data
available, is whether this is likely to be true for Fraser River sockeye salmon.
california
Well-Known Member
Why does everybody respond to this guy, he's just trolling. He asks the same things over and over, everyone is posting the evidence, which he has no interest in. There is no smoking gun for FF effects, probably never will be, but there is a plethora of evidence that FF have harmful viruses present, are likely spreading them. There is enough circumstantial evidence that sea lice is having some effects as well. Other factors such as estuary predation and disease among the millions and millions of smolts our hatcheries pump out is happening too, and of course we have in the past and continue to over fish many of the stocks. Add in possible changes to river environments (see Fishmyster's posts) and the reasons for declines are multifactorial, and cumulative. Not one answer is ever going to explain everything.
F
fogged in
Guest
In todays Times Colonist
Net-pen salmon don’t get ‘recommended’ rating
A commentary by the B.C. Salmon Farmers’ Association held up the recent Seafood Watch re-ranking of net-pen farmed Atlantic salmon to “yellow” as an indication of the industry’s sustainability. None of the conservation organizations working on these issues in Canada agrees. In fact, in Canada, net-pen farmed salmon still receives “not recommended” ratings.
Sea-Choice made submissions against both the timing and the substance of the re-ranking, protesting interpretations of key scientific papers that ought to have guided the assessment. Several respected scientists who participated in the peer review of the paper did the same.
Ocean Wise lists B.C.’s net-pen salmon as red or “not recommended” and confirmed that they will not be altering their recommendation following the Seafood Watch re-ranking.
Pacific Salmon Foundation CEO Brian Riddell said: “We believe that recommendation is premature and inappropriate because it incorrectly characterizes and relies upon the research results to date of PSF’s Strategic Salmon Health Initiative.” The SSHI is looking at the issue of diseases in farmed and wild fish. It has already exposed deficiencies in the detection and diagnosis of disease in farmed stock and is expected to release preliminary findings on samples of wild juvenile salmon shortly.
The only farmed salmon that receives a “green” or “best choice” sustainability ranking is raised in closed, recirculating systems on land, such as the Kuterra facility on ’Namgis territory near Port McNeill.
Karen G. Wristen, executive director Living Oceans Society Vancouver
Net-pen salmon don’t get ‘recommended’ rating
A commentary by the B.C. Salmon Farmers’ Association held up the recent Seafood Watch re-ranking of net-pen farmed Atlantic salmon to “yellow” as an indication of the industry’s sustainability. None of the conservation organizations working on these issues in Canada agrees. In fact, in Canada, net-pen farmed salmon still receives “not recommended” ratings.
Sea-Choice made submissions against both the timing and the substance of the re-ranking, protesting interpretations of key scientific papers that ought to have guided the assessment. Several respected scientists who participated in the peer review of the paper did the same.
Ocean Wise lists B.C.’s net-pen salmon as red or “not recommended” and confirmed that they will not be altering their recommendation following the Seafood Watch re-ranking.
Pacific Salmon Foundation CEO Brian Riddell said: “We believe that recommendation is premature and inappropriate because it incorrectly characterizes and relies upon the research results to date of PSF’s Strategic Salmon Health Initiative.” The SSHI is looking at the issue of diseases in farmed and wild fish. It has already exposed deficiencies in the detection and diagnosis of disease in farmed stock and is expected to release preliminary findings on samples of wild juvenile salmon shortly.
The only farmed salmon that receives a “green” or “best choice” sustainability ranking is raised in closed, recirculating systems on land, such as the Kuterra facility on ’Namgis territory near Port McNeill.
Karen G. Wristen, executive director Living Oceans Society Vancouver
- Status
Similar threads
