New Fed. Report says should explore moving Fish Farms to Land

[ClayoquotKid]

CK the burden of proof is on you and your industry.

You can't prove a negative.

Prove to me that chewing Hubba Bubba doesn't cause testicular cancer then.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

So what your saying is because fish farms don't decimate wild populations to the brink of extinction they are ok? Our wild fish have to die off before you'll accept fish farms don't belong on their migration routes? Thank god most people don't see it your way and are trying to do something BEFORE the wild fish are gone.

Stocks are hurting all over but because a few survive this is proof fish farms have no impact? Why do your farms use anti lice medicine? Because they sell better in market when more chemicals are used or is it because its been proven lice infestation on fish farms killed millions of smolts? If there is another reason do explain.

Stocks are NOT hurting all over.
Just most of the ones which have been, and continue to be fished.

You can't cherry pick the "money" species and ignore the rest.

 

[rockdog]

You lost your credibility Kid. I guess we'll have to wait till you show up under a new name.

I dont even read what you post anymore....its all crap. You wont answer the questions. You just posted pages worth stuff, and totally ignored Holmes's question.
This kinda stuff kinda ruins the enjoyment of visiting this site for me, and I'm sure others. Why are you here anyways? You really think you are going to sway some of us to stand up and support farms? gimme a break!

 

[GDW]

Rockdog he isn't here to sway us he is here so an in informed potential fish farm consumer who is doing their own research reads his point of view as well as ours. They spread their propaganda everywhere possible.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

so what if humans have a negative impact on salmon runs through fishing, thats NOT the point....why does every fish killed by fishing have to be replaced somehow?...cause you say so?...your arguement is ridiculous....DO I HAVE TO TYPE IT BIGGER?????.......LICE FARMS NEGATIVELY IMPACT FAR MORE THAN WILD SALMON STOCKS....so you are you saying that lice farms dont have a negative impact on the aquatic and surrounding environments/ecosystems?......holmes*

IT IS MORE THAN MY OPINION, IT IS FACT

You don't have to type it bigger Holmes, that just makes you look like you're red in the face spraying spittle while waving your arms around.

You asked if I could prove it had no impact on wild runs - I can't, I don't think anyone can, because the ecosystem is entirely to complex to pick out that supposed signal from the rest of the factors out there.

My response was a tongue in cheek way of saying that, and if it ruined my credibility with certain other posters here I can live with it.

There is localised, temporary impact on the benthos, but that wasn't what I thought we were talking about - wild salmon runs.

I'm not here to say that farms are completely benign and should be everywhere on the coast - they are not, they should not be, and the ones that are present need to be managed effectively.

My position is that this is happening - the industry is effectively managed, sites are placed in areas away from sensitive habitat and there has been no evidence of them directly harming wild stocks that anyone has been able to show for over 30 years.

If I've ruined anyone's enjoyment of this forum by my postings, that is just too bad - I've had to watch crap spouted about farming for years before I decided to get on here and say my piece.

I don't need to answer every question posed to me, and as far as I have seen I really don't have to keep it civil - but in the effort to make it a productive discussion I will try to.

As far as I am concerned I might be resonating with 10 people for every one counter post I get here - so I just might keep spending my time on it.

 

[Dave]

CK, you know it is against the law to introduce a foreign species to foreign waters right?......holmes*

Now that's a beauty! Who do you think introduced a few million Atlantics to BC waters at the turn of the century?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Now that's a beauty! Who do you think introduced a few million Atlantics to BC waters at the turn of the century?

Oh yeah, thanks Dave - I almost forgot to answer one of Holmes' questions.

It IS illegal to introduce an alien species into BC (now) - That is why Atlantic salmon are kept in nets, llamas, goats, sheep, cows and pigs are kept in pens, chinchillas are kept in cages, boa constrictors are kept in terrariums and piranhas are kept in aquariums.

That is not to say years ago there wasn't another attitude:

"1905: Atlantic salmon first introduced to British Columbia in an attempt to establish a population for recreational angling. 90,000 fry were released into the Coquitlam River, Lillooet River, and Harrison Lake on the mainland and into Campbell River, Comox Lake, Horne Lake, Nanaimo Lake, Cowichan Lake and Koksilah River on Vancouver Island. 3 In total 200,000 Atlantic salmon eyed-eggs, fry, fingerlings and smolts were introduced into B.C. waters this year.4 Eggs for these introductions were imported from New Brunswick as well as Scotland. The bulk of releases were into the Cowichan River system."

http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Timeline of Atlantic salmon in Pacific.pdf

 

[Rockfish]

Nothing but a lot of completely irrelevant deflections coming from Industry shrills. They always point elsewhere because there are no problems with open net pens, never has been and never will be.

I got a Bumper Sticker for you. - ITS ALL LIES I TELL YOU.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

that is 1905....who the f*&% cares about back then....that is irrelevant.....holmes*

It's relevant because not only does it show that Atlantic salmon have not successfully established populations despite MILLIONS of them being deliberately introduced in the past (therefore posing little or no risk to wild stocks through displacement), but that any diseases from Atlantic salmon would have had more than a century to show themselves as an issue.

Back when they just put them in a tank and shipped them over - before we even had any idea about virus' and disease being an issue (which we do now and take care to avoid - kind of like a beef farmer not getting BSE positive cows delivered from England)

Like I said before, just because people are just keying into this now doesn't change the fact that it is old news ecologically.

 

[Birdsnest]

that is 1905....who the f*&% cares about back then....that is irrelevant.....holmes*

Really???
I find it to be very relevant.
First off, despite multiple attempts to introduce Atlantic salmon none ever took. It is a guarantee that none of those early introductions were ever screened to be free of pathogens before so given the idea that putting Atlantic's in the pacific is such a disastrous scenario why do we still even have salmon. In 100 years the Atlantic viruses never put a dint in the populations. What makes you think it would be any different now keeping in mind that we screen for pathogens before introduction.
To better understand the virus situation you have to take into account that they/some/many/all have been here for a long time already. Which ones for how long, I do not know. Only time will tell.

only to post this and see the same thing was posted by ck.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

so what if humans have a negative impact on salmon runs through fishing, thats NOT the point....why does every fish killed by fishing have to be replaced somehow?...cause you say so?.............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<you also missed that question CK.................holmes*

Ok, Holmes - I will try to explain myself a little better to you here:

If you accept the fact that fishing removes fish from the wild (negative impact), and claim that farming does the same (even without having any numbers) and then go on to say that farming should stop and fishing is OK to continue - You seem IMHO to be acting like a bit of a hypocrite.

If you were truly worried about the fish being impacted you would want to ensure that any impacts of fishing were mitigated by enhancement (which they are not).

It would be easy to do - you have a count of how many fish are killed (roughly, not everyone is honest)

If you just want to say that farming has an impact and that you find it unacceptable, then that is just your opinion.

Others may feel that although salmon farms have an impact on the immediate area they operate in, it is one that is temporary and acceptable in whole scheme of things, and that there is not any evidence that would lead them to believe that the farms also impacted wild salmon runs in any measurable way - therefore making them an acceptable component of the west coast marine environment.

 

[Gear'n'beer!]

Holy blue #%€£ do I ever find it annoying when the farmers roll in and wreck a perfectly good thread.
Ck, you don't have to answer any question's, but why don't you try it. Holmes was being reasonable. Better yet just go find a real job and give up the farming proponent Job. Try posting propaganda elsewhere.

No idea why your trying to change sports fishermen's mind anyway

 

[agentaqua]

It's relevant because not only does it show that Atlantic salmon have not successfully established populations despite MILLIONS of them being deliberately introduced in the past (therefore posing little or no risk to wild stocks through displacement), but that any diseases from Atlantic salmon would have had more than a century to show themselves as an issue..

Quite a few assumptions here with the mutt'n'jeff comedy show. Don't believe what they say.

One of the best reports is the AQUACULTURE IN CANADA'S ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC REGIONS - The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries -Interim Report http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/fish/rep/repintjun01part1-e.htm#E. Escaping Farmed Salmonids

In it they state:"Recent scientific evidence, however, suggests otherwise because Atlantic salmon are present in a number of B.C. salmon spawning streams at all life history stages. Last year, we learned that surveys of 1% of the potential rearing habitat for Atlantic salmon on Vancouver Island had shown the presence of juvenile Atlantic salmon in three rivers (the Tsitika and Adams rivers, and Amor de Cosmos Creek); this indicated that Atlantic salmon escapees were successfully spawning in rivers. At the time, we were surprised to find out that so little study was being undertaken in this area (see Table3): the only research being done on the ecological effects of escaped Atlantic salmon was by a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria (an expert in invasive ecology) who explained that a previously reliable method for detecting the presence of Atlantic salmon (electroshock fishing) had been ineffective. He asserted that if you look for Atlantic salmon, "you find them." As of May 2001, John Volpe’s work remains the only scientific evaluation of potential ecological effects of Atlantic salmon farming in British Columbia.

With regard to past attempts, in the past century, to establish Atlantic salmon on the West Coast, it was explained to us that these were unsuccessful because the industry used eggs and alevins, unlike Atlantic salmon that now escape which may be fully or mostly grown and have a better chance of successfully colonizing. Current escapees may also be acclimatized to local conditions, given that they may be the offspring of generations of parents raised in the Pacific environment. As well, compared to the situation 100 years ago, the depressed state of native pacific salmonid populations, particularly steelhead trout, has left a vacant niche for feral Atlantics, which are capable of persisting in B.C. streams, adversely affecting native salmonids through competition for food and space. We were warned that an expanded industry would result in more escapes of Atlantic salmon – a species now found as far away as the Bering sea. In Alaska, where net-cage salmon farming was banned in 1990,(41) we were told that the Department of Fish and Game had evidence that farmed Atlantic salmon were establishing themselves in Alaskan waters."

Reference: Volpe, J.P., Taylor, E.B., Rimmer, D.W. & Glickman, B.W. (2000). Evidence of natural reproduction of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in a coastal British Columbia river. Conservation Biology 14: 899-903. http://web.uvic.ca/~serg/papers/Volpe et al. 2000 Conservation Biology (14) 899-903.pdf

non-native Atlantic salmon were found in over 80 wild salmon spawning streams in British Columbia, with feral juvenile Atlantic salmon having been discovered at three locations.

The Atlantic Salmon Watch Program (ASWP) is a research program operated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aquaculture/aswp/index-eng.htm

They unfortunately do not post their data.

Another reference: http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2012/AI_2012_2_Piccolo_Orlikowska.pdf

Abstract: We present an event-tree biological risk assessment for a non-native Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) invasion into Alaskan waters. Atlantic salmon farming is prohibited in Alaska, USA, but large numbers of them are reared in ocean net-pens in Washinton (WA) USA, and British Columbia (BC), Canada. Large numbers of Atlantic salmon escape each year, and they have been recovered in both saltwater and freshwater in WA, BC, and Alaska. There is limited evidence of successful spawning and rearing in BC, but none from Alaska. No stream-reared smolts are known to have returned successfully from ocean migrations, but survey efforts for escaped adults and reared juveniles in streams have been very limited in time and space. Given recurring, large-scale escape events, propagule pressure could be great enough in any given year for a successful invasion. To date, such large numbers of adults have not been recorded ascending Alaskan streams, but again, monitoring is very limited. Atlantic salmon could most likely successfully spawn and rear in Alaskan streams, so successful ocean migration appears to be the factor most likely to limit their success. Successful invasion of BC waters, where propagule pressure is greater, followed by a subsequent invasion of a pre-adapted stock by straying to Alaskan waters, may pose the greatest risk. The lack of adequate surveys, under-reporting of escapes and recoveries, and inherent ecosystem variation, make it impossible to assign meaningful probabilities to the risk of an invasion of Alaskan waters. We conclude that the short-term risk of invasion generally appears low, but that it might increase over time. We also note that invasion is only part of the ecological risk of Atlantic salmon farming in Pacific waters. Disease, parasites, and pollution may also poserisks to local ecosystems – we do not assess these risks here.

 

[GDW]

So we screwed up on 1906 that makes it ok to continually screw up placing Atlantics here? I don't think so. The issue anyways isn't that a farmed fish carries disease it's that it can SPREAD that disease to out migrating smolts by the millions.

The migration patterns of salmon allow for smolt - mature fish separation. IE a wild smolt will not encounter a wild adult salmon for almost 1 year or more of their life. This ensures pathogens in adult salmon do not transfer to smolts. Now smolts encounter thousands of adult salmon locked in net pens when they first leave the estuary putting the vulnerable smolts in contact with parasites much sooner then nature ever intended and at a way higher volume.

You salmon farmers know this is a fact and you know it's a BIG problem. That's why litres of "medicine" are dumped into the ocean to try and help prevent the spread of these pathogens that are deadly to wild fish.

 

[Rockfish]

Holy blue #%€£ do I ever find it annoying when the farmers roll in and wreck a perfectly good thread.
Ck, you don't have to answer any question's, but why don't you try it. Holmes was being reasonable. Better yet just go find a real job and give up the farming proponent Job. Try posting propaganda elsewhere.

No idea why your trying to change sports fishermen's mind anyway

They certainly have a lot of enthusiasm don’t they. Reminds me of watching crack addicts arguing for drugs at a hospital emergency room. Never underestimate money as a motivator.

If you want to get rid of some of that annoyance, call up you MP's Office and give them an earfull about getting rid of Fish Farms. It will make you feel better.

I like this idea - For everyone of their annoying self serving posts an MP gets a few anti fish farm phone calls. If that does not work they may just motivate us to start up the letters again.

 

[Birdsnest]

So we screwed up on 1906 that makes it ok to continually screw up placing Atlantics here? I don't think so. The issue anyways isn't that a farmed fish carries disease it's that it can SPREAD that disease to out migrating smolts by the millions.

The migration patterns of salmon allow for smolt - mature fish separation. IE a wild smolt will not encounter a wild adult salmon for almost 1 year or more of their life. This ensures pathogens in adult salmon do not transfer to smolts. Now smolts encounter thousands of adult salmon locked in net pens when they first leave the estuary putting the vulnerable smolts in contact with parasites much sooner then nature ever intended and at a way higher volume.

You salmon farmers know this is a fact and you know it's a BIG problem. That's why litres of "medicine" are dumped into the ocean to try and help prevent the spread of these pathogens that are deadly to wild fish.

This would certainly be true if the inlets and rivers were void of life bearing a resemblance to a jug of distiller water. This is not the case. There are many many organisms capable of carrying and transmitting salmon pathogens to expose to smolts and fry. It's just how it is with or with or without salmon farms.

 

[rockdog]

So, if I took a sample in a net pen, and one in an undisturbed bay, according to you fish farmers, I would expect to find the same number of pathogens?
Ya right. Same goes for sea lice. It's not that lice and pathogens didn't exist before farms, it's that it's multiplied big time near farms.
Even the fish farmer that I talked to at the victoria health show at Pearkes told me that he agreed that the farms should be moved off migration routes. We got pretty heated, I couldn't believe that they would be promoting farmed Atlantic salmon at a health show, but whatever.
I wish I got his name, but I could tell he had the answers ready to go before he got there. He knew he would be facing tough questions.

 

[GDW]

This would certainly be true if the inlets and rivers were void of life bearing a resemblance to a jug of distiller water. This is not the case. There are many many organisms capable of carrying and transmitting salmon pathogens to expose to smolts and fry. It's just how it is with or with or without salmon farms.

That may be but none that can output the virus or disease at anywhere near the capacity of a net pen full of adult salmon. Nature did not intend for mature fish to mingle with smolts.

Parasites like lice are not tolerant to fresh water. Adult salmon enter the river the lice die and the smolts do not have to deal with them. Are there a few fish out there carrying lice that can pass if on? Sure. Does that mean its ok to put a pen full of adult fish to host the parasite and allow it to grow and multiply? absolutely not. a fish farm without its lice medicine will kill thousands of smolts this is a known fact by both sides.

If that is not a fact why do you need lice medicine?

And since its been proven fish farms allow lice to exist in high numbers where they should not exist and it effects salmon health why is it not plausible that there are many other diseases that these fish farms are capable of passing onto wild salmon.

 

[Birdsnest]

It is a total myth that without salmon farms there would be no sea lice in the inlets.

 

[Gunsmith]

Just not as many.

It is a total myth that without salmon farms there would be no sea lice in the inlets.