Morton Happy with Fish Farms

S

sockeyefry

Guest
Salmon returns unexpected

Published: September 15, 2009 5:00 PM

Teresa Bird

Gazette staff

Pink salmon are returning in near record numbers on the B.C. coast but no one is really sure why.

Estimates by fishery officers monitoring rivers in the Broughton Archipelago show returns of pink salmon this year already significantly higher than the brood year in 2007.

“They have over replaced the brood year in at least three of the systems,” said Pieter Van Will, DFO program head for North Island stock assessment. For example, the estimated returns to the Kakweiken River system for the 2007 season were 37,000 returns. But the offspring of those fish returning to spawn were already estimated to number about 270,000 by the first week of September this year. In the Glendale system, the 2007 brood year was estimated at 264,000. The estimates for this year are already at 297,000. The same trend is evident in other Broughton Archipelago rivers and all along the B.C. coast.

“We are having strong returns coast wide,” confirmed Andrew Thomson, acting regional director of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in the Pacific region. “The Quinsam River in Campbell River has record returns. I think it speaks to the larger picture that pink salmon fluctuate greatly. We don’t understand all the factors for this fluctuation. It is a very complex picture.”

But Thomson said pink salmon returns are typically lower in odd years and the reason for the strong returns this year is unclear.

“There are any number of environmental conditions that have an impact on the survival of pink salmon,” said Thomson. Those factors could include, along with others, ocean conditions, feed availability, juvenile mortality and flow conditions.

Overall the strong return of pinks are good news.

A study co-authored by local researcher and environmentalist Alexandra Morton, predicted in 2007 the demise of the pinks by 2011. The study pointed at fish farms for increasing the numbers of sea lice that in turn threatened juvenile salmon headed for the ocean each spring. The study concluded that “sea lice typically killed over 80 percent of the fish in each salmon run” and that “if sea lice infestations continue, affected pink salmon populations will collapse by 99 per cent in ... four years.”

Morton, who is happy to see the pinks return, said the extinction forecast hasn’t materialized because fish farms are doing a better job of managing farms.

“The extinct prediction was based on nothing changing,” said Morton. “Since then there have been significant changes.” Those changes include better and earlier administration of the drug SLICE by fish farmers to control sea lice infestations, said Morton.

“It is effectively bringing the lice numbers down,” said Morton.

But while Marine Harvest Canada, operator of the majority of fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago, appreciates the kudos, they say nothing has changed in how they treat their fish for lice.

“Yes farm management is always improving, but we haven’t changed the way we administer SLICE in five or six years,” said Ian Roberts, spokesperson for Marine Harvest. The pinks returning this fall would have migrated through the Broughton in the spring of 2008.

“There was no big corridor of fallowed farms on an out-migration route that year,” said Ian Roberts, spokesperson for Marine Harvest Canada that operates the majority of the farms in the area. “We fallowed three farms. We were managing sea lice as we have in previous years.”

Marine Harvest generally manages sea lice by administering SLICE to kill sea lice on their fish. Last year the company used 15 kg of SLICE to treat 80,000,000 kg of farmed fish.

“Lice levels near or far from farms have dropped in the last five years,” said Roberts. “The returns must be due to other variables in the ocean.

“We are consistent. We are still operating and treating for sea lice the same way. We’re consistent so there’s obviously another factor at play (in fluctuating salmon returns),” said Roberts. “We’ve seen good years and we’ve seen bad years. We have been here for both.”
 
The subject line is completely misleading, an outright lie and You</u> are a liar</u>!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
freshwaterlagoonnuquicw3.jpg
 
I see some major inconsistencies in this media report, Sockeyefry.

1. Unless things changed in the last week, Andrew Thomson is the Acting Regional Director of the Aquaculture Management Division of DFO, not the acting Regional Director of DFO in the Pacific Region, that job belongs to Paul Sprout. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no wonder Thomson deflects attention away from fish farm impacts.

2. Marine Harvest Canada didn't produce 80,000,000 kgs. of farmed salmon in 2008, the entire BC industry produced that much. Sure, MHC grew 45,000,000 kgs. but the media got it wrong again here.

3. Finally, MHC didn't use 15 kgs. of SLICE in their operations, in 2008, the industry used over 15 kgs. of Emamectin benzoate, the active ingredient in SLICE. Since EB is only a very small percentage, there was a whole lot more SLICE used. Could you point us all to a source for these actual amounts Sockeyefry? Someone other than the BC Salmon Farmers butt.? Or should we just take the North Island Gazette's word for it?

I have to agree with you Sock, sometimes the media gets it wrong. This time it got the pro-fish farm side wrong.

I'm not calling anyone a liar, SG. However, it's one thing to get the media to do a story and an entirely different kettle of fish to get published in a prestigious journal like Science. A big difference! That doesn't happen if you are lying.
 
Dog, How am I a liar. I have just reprinted an article from the NI gazette. Careful with the personal attacks there.

So Cuttle, How come now the media is lying with this article when all along when it was Morton's anti farm articles, the media was accurate? In addition what gets reported in scientific journals, or what Morton has to do to get her trash published in journals (like changing her entire conclusion to read there is not conclusions) never seems to be the same as what she likes to potray in the media. Her sea lice article clearly stated in the conclusions that there was no direct causal link... however she sure drew one in the media reports.
 
The SUBJECT LINE is a lie, ergo, whomever wrote it is a liar.

Also, you must be very very slow on the uptake as the line "no direct causal link" you are using over and over has been explained to you and others a number of times on various threads on this topic.
What part of scientific language don't you understand?

They say ignorance is cured by education but stupidity has no cure.

I think they must be right.

Take care.
 
Dave H.

I understand the language quite well. It seems the rest of you do not. The claims made in the media regarding a link betweent sea lice and pink fry deaths were not revealed in the journal article. In order for Morton to get her study published, she had to re write the conclusion section with the " no direct causal link could be found", otherwise it would not be accepted by the journal.

At the time she was being dismissed because she did not have any of her research published. This was her attempt to get it published, knowing that no one would read the actual article, especially her target audience. All she wanted was the article to get published to lend some credibility to her story that she was feeding the media. Unfortunately the media headline and the study which was published differ substantially in their conclusions.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

In order for Morton to get her study published, she had to re write the conclusion section with the " no direct causal link could be found", otherwise it would not be accepted by the journal.
Blah-blah-blah

Boy, sockeyefry, you really know how to go out on a limb and damage any credibility you had left.

Peer-review normally means double-blind reviewers do review and make comments on any authors submission before publication.

Sometimes, the field is small enough for any reviewer to be able to guess at who the author might be. Sometimes not. Sometimes the reviewers suggestions are incorporated into the changed text. Sometimes not.

It depends upon what the intent of the original was, whether the suggestion makes sense, whether the suggestion is supported or whether the original sentence makes more sense, and whether there was any more supporting data. This is all uncovered by the editor of the journal, who is like a referee. All of this behind the scene stuff is also subject to confidentially clauses.

So, if you are stating that Morton had any particular phrase that needed to be tweaked - you are now stating (in your ignorance) that you are/were the editor of a scientific journal - and you are breaking confidentiality clauses and then could be subject to things like law suits, and loss of tenure.

Is that the case, sockeyefry? Are you an editor of a scientific journal that Morton published?

Somehow I doubt it, because:

1/ You would already know all this and I wouldn't have to spell it out for you, and
2/ You don't appear to be that bright or experienced in peer-review process, and
3/ if you were an editor, the last thing you would be doing is posting confidential info over the internet.

Instead, it appears to me you are AGAIN bull-****t*ng, and AGAIN got caught at it.

Instead, I think Morton did (as all cautious scientists do) is state the obvious so no other pro-industry types (like yourself) could say she didn't think of that.

Keep it up. You're the best thing that ever happened to the so-called "anti" fish farm lobby, sockeyefry.
 
Agent

Are you really that stunned? You focus on 1 line, and ignore the rest of the post.

In addition my comments were regarding the fact that the media reports or her work and the actual conclusion found in the journal articles are different.

She does what she has to do to get the article published, then reports what ever she wants regardless of the journal article content. That is deceitful and fraudulent. Why can't you people see this? Mainly cause you don't want to.
 
I understand both sides here but have to say that sockeyefry has put his points forward very well. By simply reading the two articles you could see that the conclusions are different...he wouldn't have to be the editor at all.

Although I agree with her fish farm mission, Morton is a pretty nutty in many of her other ventures. I know 3 or 4 people that were on a board with her and they couldn't think of one single good thing to say about her (these were your average joe types).

www.serengetifishingcharters.com

*NEW VIDEO*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlEzuNC59ck
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent

Are you really that stunned? You focus on 1 line, and ignore the rest of the post.

In addition my comments were regarding the fact that the media reports or her work and the actual conclusion found in the journal articles are different.

She does what she has to do to get the article published, then reports what ever she wants regardless of the journal article content. That is deceitful and fraudulent. Why can't you people see this? Mainly cause you don't want to.
Stunned?

I correct your ignorant, unprofessional and incorrect comments about publishing and the peer-review process - yet, somehow - I'm the stunned one.

Good thing you're not resorting to the childish reaction of lashing-out when you're caught lying, sockeyefry - eh?

Why don't you try something new, sockeyefry - take ownership of your comments and accept that you can (and ofter are) simply wrong at times. Try apologizing instead.
 
Good deflection AA.

You still haven't asnswered why the journal articles comclusions and those which got reported are different.
 
Back
Top