She is way off base. They did the same thing here on the Cowichan River to see if it would improve survival rate for young chinook and it was disaster. Most (real) biologists realize that it is poor ocean conditions and high acidity levels that is causing the demise of young smolts world wide.
Yes especially if the smolts die (which they most likely will). Good for her for doing what she thinks is right (even though it isn't). Read the book Dead Fish and Fat Cats. DFO has tried this before several times all with the same result. The fish do not survive they simply die in the ocean. Of course this will prove that lice is most likely not the cause but don't expect that any time soon. There is too much money to be made pointing the finger at farms.
abbyfireguy
Well-Known Member
And the massive amounts of sea lice have nothing to do with it?????
I find it hard to believe that they are innocent of anything......
As far as DFO failing to transport smolts,,thats not the only thing they have failed at!!!
How about letting bloody fish farms on our coast in the first place..
Landbased farms and nothing else period...
But I guess money talks and all the rest must just bend over and take it...[}
]
I find it hard to believe that they are innocent of anything......
As far as DFO failing to transport smolts,,thats not the only thing they have failed at!!!
How about letting bloody fish farms on our coast in the first place..
Landbased farms and nothing else period...
But I guess money talks and all the rest must just bend over and take it...[}
]
S
sockeyefry
Guest
All rhetoric and opinion aside.
If the fish farms in the Broughton are causing so much of an impact with increased lice loads, then please explain why the last 20 year with the farms present there have been record breaking runs of salmon?
If the fish farms in the Broughton are causing so much of an impact with increased lice loads, then please explain why the last 20 year with the farms present there have been record breaking runs of salmon?
Barbender states (re: Alex Morton's plan to move smolts):
Did you do a phone survey of the net-cage biologists (i.e. the so-called "real" biologists) you knew, or are you just praying what you desperately hope is true - that your industry isn't as destructive as what science has proved so far?
I would counter most open net-cage industry biologists are in a state of denial about the negative effects their open net-pens are having. Their jobs and possibly their sanity (if they have any personal integrity) depend upon it.
Do all factors influence smolt survival rates (i.e. ocean productivity, etc.) - yes, of course. However, sea lice effects from adjacent open net-pens accounts for up to 90% of that mortality.
we have already covered this topic on:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=1 (pages 1-11)
Barbender also states:
Not only does DFO commonly move smolts around (and has for years) through their PIP program and others, but SO DOES THE SALMON FARMERS. DUH!!!
If smolts all die during transport there would be no fish farming industry as they have to move their smolts from freshwater hatcheries to high saline open net-cage sites (with associated high levels of osmotic stress besides those normal stresses from crowding and transport). YET - there is a salmon farming industry. Think about it.
THERE WOULD BE NO SALMON FARMING INDUSTRY IF SMOLTS WERE LIKELY TO DIE FROM TRANSPORTING THEM.
What a stupid statement:” if the smolts die (which they most likely will)". A few may - but most will certainly die if infected by 1 louse or more from the fish farms. That's what is at stake here.
The reason DFO did not give what is normally a simple permit (community groups get this permit all the time to outplant fry grown in hatcheries to natal creeks) to ALEX MORTON (GOD BLESS HER) is because certain key people in DFO want to stop their public embarrassment over not protecting our wild fish, and they are attempting to protect their clients - the fish farmers.
DFO is in a terrible conflict of interest - and some people in DFO should be arrested and charged with treason.
Pacific Biological Station (PBS) Nanaimo (i.e. the research arm of DFO), UBC, and Malasapina University College get hundreds of THOUSANDS of $$$$ a year to do research for the open net-cage salmon farming industry. If Universities need to prostitute themselves for money - I guess that's their choice.
However, DFO is also entrusted with protecting and managing our public's resource. That's DFO's prime mandate - the Fisheries Act -NOT promoting aquaculture. We have both Industry Canada and Agriculture Canada who's mandate is to either promote industry or promote farming. Why aren't these federal departments promoting fish farms?
Well, they wouldn't get to control the public science and science funding and scientific permits - if that were the case. Not only would Alex get her permit, but DFO would be doing that work. Fish farmers would loose influence, and our government would then have to publically acknowledge the failure of the open net-cage technology.
Certain key people within DFO (mostly ex-fish farmers) are defrauding the Canadian public, and should be arrested and beaten senseless with a wild smiley. Okay - just so we don't offend anyone - I won't advocate violence. How about force them to stand in a bucket or fish farm offal. Anyone else have any suggestions?
Also, contrary to popular fish farm misbelief - much, much more money (BILLIONS, right...) is made from contaminating our public resources and incidentally killing-off wild stocks through the activities of the multinational corporate fish farm industry - NOT by Alex Morton.
Besides, let's not forget that it's the net-cage industry's job to prove they are not having an effect - something they have been unable to do after having over 30 years to prove it wrong.
Get a grip, Barbender - use some logic and science if you really want to have an intelligent debate. Do you work for the fish farm industry?
Wow, Barbender - quite the non-scientific statement: "Most (real) biologists realize that it is poor ocean conditions and high acidity levels that are causing the demise of young smolts world wide".
Did you do a phone survey of the net-cage biologists (i.e. the so-called "real" biologists) you knew, or are you just praying what you desperately hope is true - that your industry isn't as destructive as what science has proved so far?
I would counter most open net-cage industry biologists are in a state of denial about the negative effects their open net-pens are having. Their jobs and possibly their sanity (if they have any personal integrity) depend upon it.
Do all factors influence smolt survival rates (i.e. ocean productivity, etc.) - yes, of course. However, sea lice effects from adjacent open net-pens accounts for up to 90% of that mortality.
we have already covered this topic on:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=1 (pages 1-11)
Barbender also states:
How do you know the smolts likely will die? Is that common when transporting smolts - NO, WAIT - TRANSPORTING SMOLTS IS A COMMON PROCEDURE FOR...(wait for it)...dun-dun-da-daaa...
Not only does DFO commonly move smolts around (and has for years) through their PIP program and others, but SO DOES THE SALMON FARMERS. DUH!!!
If smolts all die during transport there would be no fish farming industry as they have to move their smolts from freshwater hatcheries to high saline open net-cage sites (with associated high levels of osmotic stress besides those normal stresses from crowding and transport). YET - there is a salmon farming industry. Think about it.
THERE WOULD BE NO SALMON FARMING INDUSTRY IF SMOLTS WERE LIKELY TO DIE FROM TRANSPORTING THEM.
What a stupid statement:” if the smolts die (which they most likely will)". A few may - but most will certainly die if infected by 1 louse or more from the fish farms. That's what is at stake here.
The reason DFO did not give what is normally a simple permit (community groups get this permit all the time to outplant fry grown in hatcheries to natal creeks) to ALEX MORTON (GOD BLESS HER) is because certain key people in DFO want to stop their public embarrassment over not protecting our wild fish, and they are attempting to protect their clients - the fish farmers.
DFO is in a terrible conflict of interest - and some people in DFO should be arrested and charged with treason.
Pacific Biological Station (PBS) Nanaimo (i.e. the research arm of DFO), UBC, and Malasapina University College get hundreds of THOUSANDS of $$$$ a year to do research for the open net-cage salmon farming industry. If Universities need to prostitute themselves for money - I guess that's their choice.
However, DFO is also entrusted with protecting and managing our public's resource. That's DFO's prime mandate - the Fisheries Act -NOT promoting aquaculture. We have both Industry Canada and Agriculture Canada who's mandate is to either promote industry or promote farming. Why aren't these federal departments promoting fish farms?
Well, they wouldn't get to control the public science and science funding and scientific permits - if that were the case. Not only would Alex get her permit, but DFO would be doing that work. Fish farmers would loose influence, and our government would then have to publically acknowledge the failure of the open net-cage technology.
Certain key people within DFO (mostly ex-fish farmers) are defrauding the Canadian public, and should be arrested and beaten senseless with a wild smiley. Okay - just so we don't offend anyone - I won't advocate violence. How about force them to stand in a bucket or fish farm offal. Anyone else have any suggestions?
Also, contrary to popular fish farm misbelief - much, much more money (BILLIONS, right...) is made from contaminating our public resources and incidentally killing-off wild stocks through the activities of the multinational corporate fish farm industry - NOT by Alex Morton.
Besides, let's not forget that it's the net-cage industry's job to prove they are not having an effect - something they have been unable to do after having over 30 years to prove it wrong.
Get a grip, Barbender - use some logic and science if you really want to have an intelligent debate. Do you work for the fish farm industry?
S
sockeyefry
Guest
What record crash Agent?
There were 5 worse years in the 50's and 60's.
There were 5 worse years in the 50's and 60's.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Agent,
Lighten up, Just because someone disagreew tih you does not mean they deserve your slander.
30 years of nothing happening is pretty good proof of limited impact. Tell me where something has actually happened to the wild salmon as a result of farmn interaction, and not someones opinion or editorial. And not that math student Krkosek's theories of what could mathematically happen. They don't prove squat. You like to put alot of stuff up here, but do you really read it or would that ruin your agenda.
Lighten up, Just because someone disagreew tih you does not mean they deserve your slander.
30 years of nothing happening is pretty good proof of limited impact. Tell me where something has actually happened to the wild salmon as a result of farmn interaction, and not someones opinion or editorial. And not that math student Krkosek's theories of what could mathematically happen. They don't prove squat. You like to put alot of stuff up here, but do you really read it or would that ruin your agenda.
sockeyefry - I actually missed seeing your postings on the last thread about fish farms. Welcome back:
You question "tell me where something has actually happened to the wild salmon" was already covered several times in the last thread. I'll pick-out just one from: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=7
A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids
Jennifer S. Ford*, Ransom A. Myers_
Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Since the late 1980s, wild salmon catch and abundance have declined dramatically in the North Atlantic and in much of the northeastern Pacific south of Alaska. In these areas, there has been a concomitant increase in the production of farmed salmon. Previous studies have shown negative impacts on wild salmonids, but these results have been difficult to translate into predictions of change in wild population survival and abundance. We compared marine survival of salmonids in areas with salmon farming to adjacent areas without farms in Scotland, Ireland, Atlantic Canada, and Pacific Canada to estimate changes in marine survival concurrent with the growth of salmon aquaculture. Through a meta-analysis of existing data, we show a reduction in survival or abundance of Atlantic salmon; sea trout; and pink, chum, and coho salmon in association with increased production of farmed salmon. In many cases, these reductions in survival or abundance are greater than 50%. Meta-analytic estimates of the mean effect are significant and negative, suggesting that salmon farming has reduced survival of wild salmon and trout in many populations and countries.
Citation: Ford JS, Myers RA (2008) A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS Biol 6(2): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
Do YOU actually read it?
Then you state:"And not that math student Krkosek's theories of what could mathematically happen".
It's Krkosek's math that proves what did happen, sockeyefry - read his stuff.
Actually, it's 30 years of hoping nobody noticed - not that anything wasn't happening.
You question "tell me where something has actually happened to the wild salmon" was already covered several times in the last thread. I'll pick-out just one from: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=7
A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids
Jennifer S. Ford*, Ransom A. Myers_
Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Since the late 1980s, wild salmon catch and abundance have declined dramatically in the North Atlantic and in much of the northeastern Pacific south of Alaska. In these areas, there has been a concomitant increase in the production of farmed salmon. Previous studies have shown negative impacts on wild salmonids, but these results have been difficult to translate into predictions of change in wild population survival and abundance. We compared marine survival of salmonids in areas with salmon farming to adjacent areas without farms in Scotland, Ireland, Atlantic Canada, and Pacific Canada to estimate changes in marine survival concurrent with the growth of salmon aquaculture. Through a meta-analysis of existing data, we show a reduction in survival or abundance of Atlantic salmon; sea trout; and pink, chum, and coho salmon in association with increased production of farmed salmon. In many cases, these reductions in survival or abundance are greater than 50%. Meta-analytic estimates of the mean effect are significant and negative, suggesting that salmon farming has reduced survival of wild salmon and trout in many populations and countries.
Citation: Ford JS, Myers RA (2008) A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS Biol 6(2): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
Do YOU actually read it?
Then you state:"And not that math student Krkosek's theories of what could mathematically happen".
It's Krkosek's math that proves what did happen, sockeyefry - read his stuff.
H
handee
Guest
I have read all Krkoseks stuff. His computer models only work if he actually makes really silly assumptions- like ignoring the Glendale river system that produces 80% of the pinks, like assuming that sea lice never die, assuming that there are no other sea lice hosts, assuming that wild fish are distributed evenly throughout the study area and using Mortons pathetic study where she put sea lice and smolts in barrels and assumed that the sea lice killed the fish (in small print she points out that the fish could have died from just being in barrels. Further research at DFO has shown that it is near impossible to kill wild salmon with sea lice even at 10x natural levels).
This meta study above is a book report and applying the same logic would lead one to conclude that wet sidewalks cause it to rain. Pure junk science, junk science with an agenda. Who spent the money and how much to put out press release on this junk? Competitors to farm salmon. This isnt a science debate. Krkosek and Morton are activists. Morton has no credentials, she has a rich Mommy. Krkosek is a student in Alberta being used to bring in big dollars for research from Alaskan fishers. They had decided sea lice from salmon farms are a threat before they even started.
I guess agentaqua that the entire west coast of the US is shut down to fishing because of sea lice? The meta study ignores all other variables to assume that salmon farming is actually significant.
It is ridiculous in the extreme to assume that after a century of polluting, destroying spawning grounds and killing wild salmon that farming salmon is a threat. When will people wake up to the idiocy of eating wild salmon to save them?
Handee, I guess you read only what you wanted to see. I stated:
Then I pasted the abstract from the Ford and Myers study to reference this statement - which you ignored because I'm assuming your mind is made-up and you wish not to be confused with facts in your quest to absolve the fish farming industry from it's effects and responsibility.
Then you went onto say some uncharitable things about Alex Morton and Krkosek, including that Krkosek was:
Then I pasted the abstract from the Ford and Myers study to reference this statement - which you ignored because I'm assuming your mind is made-up and you wish not to be confused with facts in your quest to absolve the fish farming industry from it's effects and responsibility.
Then you went onto say some uncharitable things about Alex Morton and Krkosek, including that Krkosek was:
S
sockeyefry
Guest
The Ford Myers study is nothing more than a selection of data points to prove an agenda. River systems which are presented as being comparable on paper are not in reality even close.
Krkoseks math ignores any biological interactions. The math doesn't provide for the biolgical interactions so necessary in population biology.
Other studies you have provided included the statement that any causal link between lice and population declines have been difficult to prove because of other environmental factors. These statements never appear in the media unfortunately, cause they take away from the authors agenda.
Then you make this statement:
"Then I pasted the abstract from the Ford and Myers study to reference this statement - which you ignored because I'm assuming your mind is made-up and you wish not to be confused with facts in your quest to absolve the fish farming industry from it's effects and responsibility."
You are guilty of the same things that you accuse Handee. Your mind is made up and you do not want to be confused with facts because the will ruin your little agenda. Doesn't that make you something, I believe it starts with H.
Krkoseks math ignores any biological interactions. The math doesn't provide for the biolgical interactions so necessary in population biology.
Other studies you have provided included the statement that any causal link between lice and population declines have been difficult to prove because of other environmental factors. These statements never appear in the media unfortunately, cause they take away from the authors agenda.
Then you make this statement:
"Then I pasted the abstract from the Ford and Myers study to reference this statement - which you ignored because I'm assuming your mind is made-up and you wish not to be confused with facts in your quest to absolve the fish farming industry from it's effects and responsibility."
You are guilty of the same things that you accuse Handee. Your mind is made up and you do not want to be confused with facts because the will ruin your little agenda. Doesn't that make you something, I believe it starts with H.
sockeyefry
I would recommend you read this report, sockeyefry. They are comparing impacts from open net-cage salmon farming on escapement results - not comparing instream habitat.
The biological interactions (including sea lice effects) are what drives the differences in the numbers that Krkosek crunched. That's the basis of the report - differences between a numbers of watersheds exposed to fish farms verses those who have not. I encourage everyone to read his work.
Good point about the caution about causal links in the marine environment. It's a noisy environment.
That caution cuts both ways, however. How can the fish farming industry state that they don't have serious population-level effects on wild stocks using the open net-cage technology? They really don't know, not only how serious these interactions are - but what they are.
But, all this talk about causal links doesn't preclude us from acting in a responsible and precautionary manner to protect our resources. DFO is mandated to do just that. As the public - we demand it. Our kids inheritance is at stake.
Also another point not appearing in the media - is that scientists are really a cautious lot. They error on the side of the arguments that the fish farming industry will make (or the oil and gas industry will make, in the case of global warming) - when they make predictions. These mild, precautionary comments are really the equivalent of the scientific community screaming "DANGER, DANGER".
If you are claiming I am guilty of personally attacking the leading scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers with unsubstantiated and irrelevant misinformation (like we have all witnessed from handee) - they I call BS.
If I critique - I do my homework. I'll let others on this thread add their comments on this, as well.
If you are instead suggesting that I have made sometimes emotional remarks regarding what I believe may be the reason there is a culture of denial within the fish farming industry - then I agree. I have. It's a valid comment.
Have those challenging remarks, which were targeted back in direct response to specific postings from supporters of the open net-cage salmon farming industry (who are also capable and present on this forum to defend their postings - and should) - been over-the-top? Maybe.
Maybe we should hear back from others on this forum - and see what their comments are. I'll stand-by to apologize, if necessary.
I would recommend you read this report, sockeyefry. They are comparing impacts from open net-cage salmon farming on escapement results - not comparing instream habitat.
The biological interactions (including sea lice effects) are what drives the differences in the numbers that Krkosek crunched. That's the basis of the report - differences between a numbers of watersheds exposed to fish farms verses those who have not. I encourage everyone to read his work.
Good point about the caution about causal links in the marine environment. It's a noisy environment.
That caution cuts both ways, however. How can the fish farming industry state that they don't have serious population-level effects on wild stocks using the open net-cage technology? They really don't know, not only how serious these interactions are - but what they are.
But, all this talk about causal links doesn't preclude us from acting in a responsible and precautionary manner to protect our resources. DFO is mandated to do just that. As the public - we demand it. Our kids inheritance is at stake.
Also another point not appearing in the media - is that scientists are really a cautious lot. They error on the side of the arguments that the fish farming industry will make (or the oil and gas industry will make, in the case of global warming) - when they make predictions. These mild, precautionary comments are really the equivalent of the scientific community screaming "DANGER, DANGER".
"H" for "Honest"?
If you are claiming I am guilty of personally attacking the leading scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers with unsubstantiated and irrelevant misinformation (like we have all witnessed from handee) - they I call BS.
If I critique - I do my homework. I'll let others on this thread add their comments on this, as well.
If you are instead suggesting that I have made sometimes emotional remarks regarding what I believe may be the reason there is a culture of denial within the fish farming industry - then I agree. I have. It's a valid comment.
Have those challenging remarks, which were targeted back in direct response to specific postings from supporters of the open net-cage salmon farming industry (who are also capable and present on this forum to defend their postings - and should) - been over-the-top? Maybe.
Maybe we should hear back from others on this forum - and see what their comments are. I'll stand-by to apologize, if necessary.
G
gimp
Guest
AQUA H DOES STAND FOR HONESTY When it come to you
http://www.fishupdate.com/news/full...ins_sea_lice_trials_in_Chile_and_Norway_.html
They seem to think sea lice is a major problem also please read below</u>
MAJOR feed company Skretting announced today it has entered into a contract with Norwegian company Calanus for the development and documentation of a product based on the marine zooplankton Calanus finmarchicus to counteract sea-lice infestations in salmon and trout.
Commercial scale field trials by selected farmers in Chile and Norway are now starting.
Pelagic stages of Calanus finmarchicus and the infective stage of salmon lice are derived from a common ancestor and have many similarities. Therefore they may share what researchers call immunological structures.
The trials will test whether it is possible to achieve higher protection from salmon lice by stimulating the immune system of the salmon with this new zooplankton product.
It is known that the immune system of mammals can be stimulated to improve protection against external parasites. It has also been documented that the immune system of salmon can be improved to repel lice attacks.
“The development of new, alternative salmon lice treatments is important. Although the outcome of this project is unknown, we believe the idea is too good not to try it out,” said David Knudsen, Skretting’s international product manager raw materials.
Sea-lice infection is a major problem for the fish-farming industry in Chile, Canada, UK and Norway. If the test results are sufficiently positive, the product will be launched for commercial use.</u>
“We are very pleased with the agreement and that Skretting is willing to invest significant resources to test our product on a commercial scale, in an attempt to help the fish farmers solve a serious problem, says Gunnar Rørstad, managing director, Calanus AS</u>.
Skretting is the world leader in the production and supply of feed for
farmed fish.
Calanus® AS is a Norwegian company focusing on the harvesting and utilisation of the abundant north-Atlantic zooplankton Calanus finmarchicus.
www.fishupdate.com is published by Special Publications. Special Publications also publish FISHupdate magazine, Fish Farmer, the Fish Industry Yearbook, the Scottish Seafood Processors Federation Diary, the Fish Farmer Handbook and a range of wallplanners.
http://www.fishupdate.com/news/full...ins_sea_lice_trials_in_Chile_and_Norway_.html
They seem to think sea lice is a major problem also please read below</u>
MAJOR feed company Skretting announced today it has entered into a contract with Norwegian company Calanus for the development and documentation of a product based on the marine zooplankton Calanus finmarchicus to counteract sea-lice infestations in salmon and trout.
Commercial scale field trials by selected farmers in Chile and Norway are now starting.
Pelagic stages of Calanus finmarchicus and the infective stage of salmon lice are derived from a common ancestor and have many similarities. Therefore they may share what researchers call immunological structures.
The trials will test whether it is possible to achieve higher protection from salmon lice by stimulating the immune system of the salmon with this new zooplankton product.
It is known that the immune system of mammals can be stimulated to improve protection against external parasites. It has also been documented that the immune system of salmon can be improved to repel lice attacks.
“The development of new, alternative salmon lice treatments is important. Although the outcome of this project is unknown, we believe the idea is too good not to try it out,” said David Knudsen, Skretting’s international product manager raw materials.
Sea-lice infection is a major problem for the fish-farming industry in Chile, Canada, UK and Norway. If the test results are sufficiently positive, the product will be launched for commercial use.</u>
“We are very pleased with the agreement and that Skretting is willing to invest significant resources to test our product on a commercial scale, in an attempt to help the fish farmers solve a serious problem, says Gunnar Rørstad, managing director, Calanus AS</u>.
Skretting is the world leader in the production and supply of feed for
farmed fish.
Calanus® AS is a Norwegian company focusing on the harvesting and utilisation of the abundant north-Atlantic zooplankton Calanus finmarchicus.
www.fishupdate.com is published by Special Publications. Special Publications also publish FISHupdate magazine, Fish Farmer, the Fish Industry Yearbook, the Scottish Seafood Processors Federation Diary, the Fish Farmer Handbook and a range of wallplanners.
H
handee
Guest
Do you think Ms Morton with a BA in music actually wrote any of those reports? The reason her stuff (Mommy paid no doubt, or her connections) got published is because she didnt say anything in print particularly interesting. Its only in the media that she rants on about whatever she wants to. Lots of peer reviewed papers get dismissed as more info is uncovered. Its not an insult to say she and Krkosek have been continually proved wrong. That they were anti salmon farmers before they even thought of sea lice is a matter of public record. That they get their funding from Alaskan fishers eager to improve market share is also gestalt.
1/ the Glendale river system does that produce some 80% of the pink run, as you said – BECAUSE IT IS ENHANCED – WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT USED IN THE ANALYSIS – DUH!!
Excuse me but Krkosek included other enhanced rivers in his study- the ones that supported his hypothesis. Since what is being counted is the number of fish returning to the river the fact that there is a fish ladder is kind of irrelevant anyway. Sure those with a ladder may get up river further but it won't effect the count.
2/ They compared escapement data between rivers exposed to sea lice and those not. YOU DON’T NEED TO DEAL WITH THE LIFECYCLE OF THE LOUSE IN THIS TYPE OF COMPARISON!!DUH!
Like I said they selectively chose rivers. There is alot of river system data out there and they ignored tons of it to make their point. For example the entire westcoast of the USA, no fish farms, no fish returns.
3/ Tell me then – what’s the most likely host – 20-50 million farmed salmon – or Chinook you can’t get enough to capture? What other sea lice hosts would you like to assume? Sticklebacks? Aliens in UFOs?
Krkosek also ignored the fact that lice levels on farm salmon were extremely low, far less than background levels on wild hosts. He ignored the fact that his own research showed Slice to be a highly effective treatment and finally who cares about 25 million hosts that dont have sea lice? Especially whne the background level of hosts may be in the order of 10 billion including wild salmon, stickleback (found to be true in a PEER REVIEWED study) and herring to name but a few confirmed hosts. And furthermore we now know that it is VERY difficult to kill a juvenile salmon with sea lice. We also know that juveniles infected by sea lice even at 8x natural levels survive quite nicely thank you
Did you read the peer review of Krkoseks report written by 18 of his peers? His entire bibliography plus the Pacific Salmon Forum called him and Morton, how to say this nicely, exaggerators, after their latest computer model study. Its really hard for them to claim extinction when the return data for salmon near the farms keeps going up (you see, when headed for extinction a population's numbers are supposed to go down, or at least downwards).
If you don't know these rivers, or anything about wild salmon - it's okay to say so, Handee. It's a spawning channel - with enhanced runs.
Ya - and Ford et al. looked at that issue of salmon farming impacts on wild Atlantic salmon, and I already posted about their study. Across this globe - open net-cage technology impacts adjacent wild salmon stocks.
Wow - do you know how uninformed you sound? You statement is so misleading and incredulous - it's hard to know even where to begin to answer you here. You're not doing your case for credability any good here.
How about - get informed and educated, and then we'll have this debate.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
WRT the Ford study, it also cherry picked river systems to make their point. To say that the South western NB rivers are industry impacted , then compare them to the Miramichi and Restogouche is ludicrous. The are on oposite ends of the province and have totally different watershed characteristics amongst other differemnces. Ford & Myers makes you believe that the only diference is that the SW rivers have salmon farms and the others do not. When I read such articles it makes me sick that they call them selves scientists. What nmmakes me even sicker is you people have fallen for their BS.
