N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

[agentaqua]

Open message to fish farm supporters, workers, media shrills and self-appointed saviours who regularly troll or post on this site:

1/ It is up to your industry to prove that you either have no effects or risks to wild salmon stocks – and NOT us to prove that you do have effects. This is the basis of environmental assessments,

2/ The science is evolving, but there has been quite a bit of peer-reviewed and grey literature that indicates that open net-cage technology can pose significant risks to wild salmon stocks world-wide. The debate in the science is on how severe those risks are, and what is acceptable – rather than whether these impacts happen (we already discussed this on this thread). The fact that you don't like any particular researcher because their research puts your industry in a bad light is irrelevant and childish, and your approach fools nobody on this site, but yourselves.

3/ We already covered that all science (pro and anti) uses the same scientific principles and processes, with similar limitations and assumptions in their methodologies. If you attack the science that is termed “anti” to your cause w/o debating the specific issues with each specific paper – you are actually eroding your own support for any science that may be more forgiving towards your potential impacts – as well as demonstrating your ignorance and belligerence to everyone on this forum.

4/ Be careful when carrying burning swords – they cut both ways. If you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues and an inability to work with others – you are ill-suited for the more inclusive, open processes that are coming at you. DFO is developing new aquaculture advisory processes where you will be called on your BS – like this site. GET USED TO IT!!

In order to continue existing you will need to listen and respond openly and honestly to others; DFO is developing Aquaculture Management Advisory Committees (AMACs), which will advise the development of the Integrated Management of Aquaculture Plans (IMAPs) for finfish and shellfish. If you cannot listen and respond openly and honestly to others – you will be replaced with someone who will, and you can relearn the fetus position in your unemployed closet. Your days of of getting your way by shooting the messenger and being aggressive, combative and belligerent will soon be over. Thanks to the posters on this site who have demonstrated this behaviour to the readership on this site who care about wild salmon, and remember you are an example of how responsive, professional and mature (or NOT) your industry is.

4/ Open net-cage technology is on it's last legs in BC, and we need to transition to closed containment – and it will happen whether or not you like it or not – so why not get on board so you can survive?

 

[tincan]

Salmon Confidential column was outdated and incorrect

By Odd Grydeland, Courier-Islander

http://www.canada.com/Salmon+Confidential+column+outdated+incorrect/8221032/story.html

This guy thinks things are fine. He's independent right?

 

[agentaqua]

Salmon Confidential column was outdated and incorrect

By Odd Grydeland, Courier-Islander

http://www.canada.com/Salmon+Confidential+column+outdated+incorrect/8221032/story.html

This guy thinks things are fine. He's independent right?

He was a fish farmer in the early days - then learned a better way to make money is by promoting fish farms - he owns a PR communications firm, and used to sit on various governmental funding boards for aquaculture. It's interesting how open net-pen supporters end-up on funding boards that deny research $ to independents looking at negative impacts of aquaculture. Think that is planned?

He is good at what he gets paid for, as grydeland twists facts: "Norway in 2003 decided to establish a number of "Salmon Fjords" for the protection of sensitive salmon stocks, not a single one of the fish farms already present in these fjords were asked to leave, and most of these fjords today contain salmon farms."

Norway - where they had to poison/kill off their rivers due to contamination from a farm fish parasite gyrodactylus salaris - moved farms from the mouths of the rivers due to concerns of the wild/cultured stock interactions because they already know the risk and damage. Norway left many farms in the fjords as the fjords are quite large and long there, and if the farms were far enough away from migratory routes they were left - but the rest were relocated - he purposely neglected to mention this.

He does bring-up an obvious point: "Norway has confronted this same problem by banning salmon farms from the migration routes of wild fish. Why then, according to evidence given by one DFO official at the Cohen Commission's reconvened hearings, has no such application ever been refused on BC's coast?"

INCOMPETENCE/COLLUSION: answer. Lack of scientifically defensible siting criteria AGAIN!!

 

[cuttlefish]

Link to new collaborative paper on sea lice management on Broughton Atlantic salmon feedlots and the effect on wild Pacific salmon.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0060096#pone.0060096-Veldhoen1

 

[sockeyefry2]

Finally- some professional collaboration among B.C. salmon farming interests
Canada: While the debate about salmon farming continues to rage in the media and at water coolers across B.C., something very unusual has been happening behind the scenes (Dave Atkinson of UPEI).


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

A group of professional scientists, industry operators, academics as well as representatives from the environmental community has been conducting a detailed monitoring program of sea lice and its presence/absence on both wild and farmed salmon in the Broughton Archipelago since 2010, and farm data from previous years have been added to the development of a comprehensive database. As Dr. Crawford Revie who acts as Science Team Manager for the Broughton Archipelago Monitoring Plan describes, the project involves some strange and fishy bedfellows;

Quietly and without fanfare, an utterly unprecedented collaborative research project has begun; a research project involving some very strange and unexpected bedfellows. Initiated by the biggest salmon farming company in the world, Marine Harvest, and the five environmental groups comprising the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), the Broughton Area Monitoring Plan has brought together co-sponsors and scientists from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the three largest salmon farming operators in BC (Marine Harvest Canada, Mainstream Canada and Grieg Seafood) and academic researcher Dr. Martin Krkošek. As a professor of Epidemiology with the University of Prince Edward Island, I have been contracted by the parties to guide and oversee the program.

The Broughton Archipelago Monitoring Plan (BAMP) began in 2010 as a multi-year sea lice monitoring and research program involving federal government, salmon farm producers, conservationists and academic researchers. Approximately 15 active salmon farms are located in this complex geographic region, as well as a number of important juvenile salmon migration routes. As far as FishfarmingXpert can tell, preliminary results show that lice levels on young, out-migrating salmon in the Broughton Archipelago has not represented a significant threat to the well-being of juvenile salmon during the monitoring periods. A joint Press Release was issued by the group this week, with reference to a study recently published in PLoS ONE;

New collaboration finds opportunities for wild salmon conservation

A new research article has identified that careful timing of sea lice control on salmon farms reduces parasite loads when wild juvenile salmon are nearby. The multi-disciplinary team of academics, government scientists, and aquaculture veterinarians analyzed seven years of data from salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia (BC), an area made famous for sea lice controversy several years ago. "We found that using the parasiticide treatment SLICE® in January or early February is the most effective time to reduce sea lice on farmed salmon when wild juvenile salmon are migrating", said the lead author Luke Rogers, of the University of Toronto.

The spread of sea lice from farmed salmon has been thought to affect wild pink and coho salmon populations in the area, raising management and conservation concerns. By identifying a common goal of healthy salmon—farmed and wild—this study breaks new ground in the often-divisive literature of farmed salmon–wild salmon interactions in BC. "British Columbia is fortunate that SLICE® has remained effective. Sea lice in Europe and New Brunswick are showing signs of resistance to SLICE®", said co-author Dr. Martin Krkošek, a professor at the University of Toronto.

The collaborative study was organized through the Broughton Archipelago Monitoring Program (BAMP), a collaboration between aquaculture companies, conservation organizations, DFO, and academics. “After three years of hard work and a developing sense of trust and shared concerns, it is encouraging to see such tangible evidence of progress”, noted Prof. Crawford Revie of the Atlantic Veterinary College, who acts as the BAMP science coordinator.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Odd is just a reporter same as Mark Hume and Rafe Mair.

 

[sockeyefry2]

C'mon Agent, Did you honestly just suggest that it was wrong for Odd to leave stuff out????? That it is wrong for him to use the favourite tactic of Morton and Suzuki? Talk about your double standards.

 

[agentaqua]

Wrong? No - not from his perspective. And no I never used that word to describe the op ed. I just pointed-out it's inadequacy and bias. Being a blocker on funding boards is another matter. Good news on the monitoring, thanks for sharing...

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Open message to fish farm supporters, workers, media shrills and self-appointed saviours who regularly troll or post on this site:

1/ It is up to your industry to prove that you either have no effects or risks to wild salmon stocks – and NOT us to prove that you do have effects. This is the basis of environmental assessments,

2/ The science is evolving, but there has been quite a bit of peer-reviewed and grey literature that indicates that open net-cage technology can pose significant risks to wild salmon stocks world-wide. The debate in the science is on how severe those risks are, and what is acceptable – rather than whether these impacts happen (we already discussed this on this thread). The fact that you don't like any particular researcher because their research puts your industry in a bad light is irrelevant and childish, and your approach fools nobody on this site, but yourselves.

3/ We already covered that all science (pro and anti) uses the same scientific principles and processes, with similar limitations and assumptions in their methodologies. If you attack the science that is termed “anti” to your cause w/o debating the specific issues with each specific paper – you are actually eroding your own support for any science that may be more forgiving towards your potential impacts – as well as demonstrating your ignorance and belligerence to everyone on this forum.

4/ Be careful when carrying burning swords – they cut both ways. If you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues and an inability to work with others – you are ill-suited for the more inclusive, open processes that are coming at you. DFO is developing new aquaculture advisory processes where you will be called on your BS – like this site. GET USED TO IT!!

In order to continue existing you will need to listen and respond openly and honestly to others; DFO is developing Aquaculture Management Advisory Committees (AMACs), which will advise the development of the Integrated Management of Aquaculture Plans (IMAPs) for finfish and shellfish. If you cannot listen and respond openly and honestly to others – you will be replaced with someone who will, and you can relearn the fetus position in your unemployed closet. Your days of of getting your way by shooting the messenger and being aggressive, combative and belligerent will soon be over. Thanks to the posters on this site who have demonstrated this behaviour to the readership on this site who care about wild salmon, and remember you are an example of how responsive, professional and mature (or NOT) your industry is.

4/ Open net-cage technology is on it's last legs in BC, and we need to transition to closed containment – and it will happen whether or not you like it or not – so why not get on board so you can survive?

So these "significant risks" has been present the entire time farms have existed on the coast?

Have they ever shown themselves in the way of negative impacts on wild populations in nearly 4 decades?

When is this catastrophe supposed to happen?

Doesn't 30 plus years of co-existence with wild stocks without being able to quantify a negative impact prove that precautions taken by industry are working to protect wild fish?

It is true that there is a new aquaculture advisory process being developed, but they won't be looking at it through the lens you hold - they will be working towards ensuring that industry continues to develop practices which protect both farmed and wild stocks from pathogens and other impacts.

You can continue to try and belittle, vilify and dismiss me if you like Aqua, but your continuous assertion that industry has to prove anything after more than 30 YEARS of operation is ridiculous.

We have proved that we pose no significant risk to wild stocks and continue to do so every year massive runs of various wild species return to areas with farms present.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but net pens aren't going anywhere - no amount of posturing from opponents hypocritically flying the wild salmon flag will overcome the simple truth that reality has given us no reason to take action against an activity that has undergone intense scrutiny for years.

You can call people names, label them sociopaths, create any and all sort of conspiracies you like, but the reality is the majority of your fellow BC residents actually need some sort of evidence and don't just rely on their environmental feelings to guide them in life.

 

[Aces]

30 years of co-existence??

Pardon me, sir but with the wild stocks severely diminishing I doubt there is co-existence.

I have been willing to give your industry the benefit of the doubt until full evidence is presented but that is a real stretch.

 

[Dave]

30 years of co-existence??

Pardon me, sir but with the wild stocks severely diminishing I doubt there is co-existence.

I have been willing to give your industry the benefit of the doubt until full evidence is presented but that is a real stretch.

So Fishtofino, show us some evidence that salmon farms have had a measurable impact on mortalities of wild salmon here in BC during these last 30 or so years. You cannot and that is what CK meant by co-existence.
Now, exchange the words salmon farms with sports fishing or commercial fishing or aboriginal fishing. Different answer, no?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

30 years of co-existence??

Pardon me, sir but with the wild stocks severely diminishing I doubt there is co-existence.

I have been willing to give your industry the benefit of the doubt until full evidence is presented but that is a real stretch.

This is what I mean by 30 years of co-existence:

All species of salmon in Clayoquot Sound from Megin, Watta, Moyeha, Atleo, Cypre, Bedwell, Warn, Tranquil, Kennedy and Clayoquot systems. (Don't have '09 info yet)
Most of that productivity is due to Chum - Chinook, Sockeye and Coho (to a lesser degree) declined sharply post 1960, and Pinks were nearly wiped out (also never enhanced in later years)
As you can see, the numbers have fluctuated over the years with peaks every 20 or so (60's, 80's, 2000) - looks like we are in the climb out of a trough now.
If you want to focus on Chinook and Sockeye you can - but those declines have a lot more to do with people eating them than farms IMHO.
You can't really cherry pick the most sought after and pressured species and say somehow they are being impacted by farms and the rest somehow aren't.
This is the point I am trying to get Aqua to recognize - reality just doesn't reflect the assumption some have that declines are even correlated with the presence of farms.

 

[Aces]

Whatever!!

I've been here since the early 80's and the runs here have plummeted big time despite severe restrictions for 10 yrs.

All this has happened since the fish farms have expanded in a big way. They aren't really welcome here anymore.

You professional apologists aren't gonna change anyone's opinions around this forum or Clayoquot sound

I'm done with this thread. Flame away!

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Whatever!!

I've been here since the early 80's and the runs here have plummeted big time despite severe restrictions for 10 yrs.

All this has happened since the fish farms have expanded in a big way. They aren't really welcome here anymore.

You professional apologists aren't gonna change anyone's opinions around this forum or Clayoquot sound

I'm done with this thread. Flame away!

Just in case you're still around, here is Chinook.
You can see the impacts of logging and commercial/sportfishing (1960 and on...) - but not anything related to the presence of farms.
We've got more Chinook now than we did in the '80s.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

So Fishtofino, show us some evidence that salmon farms have had a measurable impact on mortalities of wild salmon here in BC during these last 30 or so years. You cannot and that is what CK meant by co-existence.
Now, exchange the words salmon farms with sports fishing or commercial fishing or aboriginal fishing. Different answer, no?

Exactly.
As a fisherman and a farmer I can recognize the fact that people killing fish, a practice I take part in when not working, has a huge impact on wild runs.
What I don't recognize is the idea that farms are killing wild fish in any way that has been measured anywhere to date.
The hypocrisy of the finger-pointing from some on here astounds me.

 

[agentaqua]

[/B]What I don't recognize is the idea that farms are killing wild fish in any way that has been measured anywhere to date.

Ya, I noticed you are in denial. It's much safer that way for you isn't it?

The situation CK where you wish to remain ignorant and uneducated – is one of your choosing and design. You can only blame yourself for that.

It doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree to self-imposed ignorance or suffer your self-righteous wrath. If you wish to debate the available science on both the grey literature and peer-reviewed literature that illustrates different impacts across the globe from the open net-cage – then I would be pleased to have that debate.

Just saying “there are NO impacts from open net-pens” does not support your hypothesis.

There are different impacts across the globe that are the reality of the residents, industry and fishes that inhabit these areas. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are your identical reality in Clayoquot Sound, but it also doesn't mean they don't exist because you lack both the experience and the desire to educate yourself.

Here are but a few examples of some of the different kinds of impacts that have been noticed, measured and been written-up in science, either peer-review and/or grey literature:

Genetic pollution: Norway and NB
Sea lice transfer to wild stocks: Ireland, Norway
Transfer of diseases and/or parasites to wild stocks: Norway
Lice baths killing crustaceans: NB

This is but a brief and partial list of known impacts from open net-pen operations. Given the fact that BC has some 1000 times more salmon than other parts of the world, and many of the different species of smolts are very much smaller and more numerous than their Atlantic equivalents – one has to take the experience from the rest of the world very seriously – something you apparently appear incapable or unwilling of doing.

AND remember it is YOUR responsibility to prove you are NOT having an impact, rather than ours to prove you are. That is what environmental reviews are suppose to do – something you are apparently unaware of.

Being belligerent and ignorant does not equate to being right, CK.

Having said that – I am willing to admit that in certain areas of the coast – the risks imposed to wild stocks from open net-pens could be much reduced. I would not labels areas with significant numbers of migrating juvenile and adult fish as "reduced" risk. Areas like the Discovery Islands and the Broughtons, for example.

If we were to demand zero risk to all wild stocks – then there would be no open net-pen aquaculture anywhere on any coast, and many other industries would be reduced or non-existent as well.

So - what is acceptable risk and what is not?

Well first off – risk assessments have not been done for open net-pen operations – and they should have. That would require adequate siting criteria and other factors which have not been developed.

Secondarily, risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence.

To know likelihood – we need to have much better developed science on fish health and disease transfer, particularly. We also need to know numbers and residence time of outmigrating smolts and their nearshore rearing and staging areas – something we again know very little about for most areas of this large coast, with some exceptions.

To notice and understand consequence - also requires better enumeration and surveillence of wild stocks. We are always fighting over the few data generated through stream walks - which are often incomplete. Fish health surveillence is just starting - and fish usually sink or are eaten by predators when they die. Out of sight - out of understanding.

So – as it currently stands – we cannot accurately determine risks to wild stocks through open net-cage operations. BUT they still operate and have operated for some years in this absence of adequate surveillance and knowledge.

The last component of risk assessment requires the “assessment” part – the functioning of proper oversight through an inclusive, open, transparent process where all potentially-impacted user groups assess what is known and unknown and make a call as to whether or not the risk is acceptable.

AGAIN – this is something that has been lacking, and one could argue that works in industry's favour. Harper already realized this and changed the rules to allow pipelines through the omnibus bills.

This lack of knowledge, lack of proper and responsible oversight, lack of inclusion, and lack of honesty and transparency is why emotions are very high in the so-called “anti” camp. I think the critiques in these areas are very valid and understandable – and need to be seriously addressed and respected.

By continually refusing to admit that there are potential impacts and refusing to be honest and inclusive – the only choice left for people is to demand that the farms are removed from the water. Given the current lack of knowledge – I tend to agree with those sentiments.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Ya, I noticed you are in denial. It's much safer that way for you isn't it?

The situation CK where you wish to remain ignorant and uneducated – is one of your choosing and design. You can only blame yourself for that.

It doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree to self-imposed ignorance or suffer your self-righteous wrath. If you wish to debate the available science on both the grey literature and peer-reviewed literature that illustrates different impacts across the globe from the open net-cage – then I would be pleased to have that debate.

Just saying “there are NO impacts from open net-pens” does not support your hypothesis.

There are different impacts across the globe that are the reality of the residents, industry and fishes that inhabit these areas. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are your identical reality in Clayoquot Sound, but it also doesn't mean they don't exist because you lack both the experience and the desire to educate yourself.

Here are but a few examples of some of the different kinds of impacts that have been noticed, measured and been written-up in science, either peer-review and/or grey literature:

Genetic pollution: Norway and NB
Sea lice transfer to wild stocks: Ireland, Norway
Transfer of diseases and/or parasites to wild stocks: Norway
Lice baths killing crustaceans: NB

This is but a brief and partial list of known impacts from open net-pen operations. Given the fact that BC has some 1000 times more salmon than other parts of the world, and many of the different species of smolts are very much smaller and more numerous than their Atlantic equivalents – one has to take the experience from the rest of the world very seriously – something you apparently appear incapable or unwilling of doing.

AND remember it is YOUR responsibility to prove you are NOT having an impact, rather than ours to prove you are. That is what environmental reviews are suppose to do – something you are apparently unaware of.

Being belligerent and ignorant does not equate to being right, CK.

Having said that – I am willing to admit that in certain areas of the coast – the risks imposed to wild stocks from open net-pens could be much reduced. I would not labels areas with significant numbers of migrating juvenile and adult fish as "reduced" risk. Areas like the Discovery Islands and the Broughtons, for example.

If we were to demand zero risk to all wild stocks – then there would be no open net-pen aquaculture anywhere on any coast, and many other industries would be reduced or non-existent as well.

So - what is acceptable risk and what is not?

Well first off – risk assessments have not been done for open net-pen operations – and they should have. That would require adequate siting criteria and other factors which have not been developed.

Secondarily, risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence.

To know likelihood – we need to have much better developed science on fish health and disease transfer, particularly. We also need to know numbers and residence time of outmigrating smolts and their nearshore rearing and staging areas – something we again know very little about for most areas of this large coast, with some exceptions.

To notice and understand consequence - also requires better enumeration and surveillence of wild stocks. We are always fighting over the few data generated through stream walks - which are often incomplete. Fish health surveillence is just starting - and fish usually sink or are eaten by predators when they die. Out of sight - out of understanding.

So – as it currently stands – we cannot accurately determine risks to wild stocks through open net-cage operations. BUT they still operate and have operated for some years in this absence of adequate surveillance and knowledge.

The last component of risk assessment requires the “assessment” part – the functioning of proper oversight through an inclusive, open, transparent process where all potentially-impacted user groups assess what is known and unknown and make a call as to whether or not the risk is acceptable.

AGAIN – this is something that has been lacking, and one could argue that works in industry's favour. Harper already realized this and changed the rules to allow pipelines through the omnibus bills.

This lack of knowledge, lack of proper and responsible oversight, lack of inclusion, and lack of honesty and transparency is why emotions are very high in the so-called “anti” camp. I think the critiques in these areas are very valid and understandable – and need to be seriously addressed and respected.

By continually refusing to admit that there are potential impacts and refusing to be honest and inclusive – the only choice left for people is to demand that the farms are removed from the water. Given the current lack of knowledge – I tend to agree with those sentiments.

You can bait me, mock me and attempt to discredit me to your heart's desire, but until you come up with more than whining and opining you will just be someone dancing around the fact that you are in a position where you don't actually have anything to back up your claims.
No matter how hard you try (and others have tried pretty hard too - need I remind you of Cohen's findings?) there is no conclusive evidence out there that confirms what you choose to believe about aquaculture.
Also, if there was an effort to remove risks and impacts to wild salmon - people fishing for them would be the first thing to go.

 

[rockdog]

CK, you say you haven't seen any evidence, but I have just read pages and pages of evidence. It's pretty obvious actually. To the average person who reads this, they are appalled at the open net pens record, and evidence against them. But to the average fish feed lot worker (not a farmer as far as I'm concerned), it's a threat to their income, and livelihood.
Ironically, if you gave the wild fish a chance, you could be making a lot more as a guide or some type of spin off job, than a fish feed lot worker. There is a lot more money in sport fishing than there is in aquaculture, that's been proven. Of course, that's not including the guaranteed income fish feed lots get when the govt steps in to buy diseased fish.
I wish my business was like that.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

CK, you say you haven't seen any evidence, but I have just read pages and pages of evidence. It's pretty obvious actually. To the average person who reads this, they are appalled at the open net pens record, and evidence against them. But to the average fish feed lot worker (not a farmer as far as I'm concerned), it's a threat to their income, and livelihood.
Ironically, if you gave the wild fish a chance, you could be making a lot more as a guide or some type of spin off job, than a fish feed lot worker. There is a lot more money in sport fishing than there is in aquaculture, that's been proven. Of course, that's not including the guaranteed income fish feed lots get when the govt steps in to buy diseased fish.
I wish my business was like that.

So you think I should leave my job, where I raise fish for market which are consumed instead of wild salmon, and take a position in an industry which almost entirely derives its income from the death of wild salmon - to help wild salmon?
Brilliant.
For all the "appalled" people out there, there seems to be a distinct lack of professional fish pathologists, virologists and otherwise trained experts who share the same view.
As for the "guaranteed income" - I'd love to see some evidence of it, it's been tossed around a lot lately but I have yet to see anyone show the numbers.

 

[GLG]

For all the "appalled" people out there, there seems to be a distinct lack of professional fish pathologists, virologists and otherwise trained experts who share the same view.

Why is it you come on a rereational fishing forum if you want to debate with professional fish pathologists and virologists? Should you not seek out debate on some other site that has those people on it? What science journals have you published in? I for one would like to read one of your papers after it was peer reviewed. I may not be qualified in marine biology but I can spot BS when I see it. Your industry has lost the debate you just don't know it yet.....