Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[fogged in]

This idea about being carful with the anti salmon farm crusaders has been mentioned on this forum long ago on a few occasions. And the idea that activists may turn the tables on sport fishers is looking like a reality now. And the idea that the precautionary principle should be applied to salmon farms can be easily applied to sport fishing on the Orca food issue. I would urge people to look past what the activist consistently cherry pick and really look hard at the situation. Why is alaska suffering the same issues with their spring salmon? Why is the skeena and nass system suffering such pour returns at the same time as our areas? There are no salmon farms in these areas so why?
OFF COURSE by my posting I have opened the flood gates to the standard response from the usual "concerned citizens"(3 or 4) of them with their comments on lice infestations disease, crap on the bottom and those fellas are welcome to their opinions however those comments don't promote rational discussion and don't honestly reflect the reality of the situation.

Birdsnest seems to think he is the only one capable of rational discussion.
What is " the reality of the situation"?
The reality of the situation is Farm Salmon Sea Lice and Disease do kill wild salmon!
The evidence is overwhelming!
No different then the degradation of salmon spawning grounds, predators, global warming and over fishing.
Birdsnest seem to think that because Fish Farms are only part of the problem, there existence should be tolerated.
Are Fish Farms the only problem Wild Salmon face? No
No one really knows for sure exactly how many Wild Salmon Fish Farms have killed.
Birdsnest, Bones, Shushap, Dave...none of them have been so bold as to come out and say Fish Farms do not, have not and will not Kill Wild Salmon
Why...because the evidence is overwhelming
FISH FARM KILL WILD SALMON!

 

[Birdsnest]

The evidence isn't overwhelming when the salmon stocks are doing poorly in areas that do not have salmon farms like the skeena, the nass and numerous other locations north of the skeena including systems in alaska. Ranched salmon don't count for the are hatchery salmon and we all know hatchery salmon is a primary issue to this problem.(wild salmon) Overall salmon returns up and down the coast of the pacific NW are suffering.

Insert Deflection here>

 

[fogged in]

The evidence isn't overwhelming when the salmon stocks are doing poorly in areas that do not have salmon farms like the skeena, the nass and numerous other locations north of the skeena including systems in alaska. Ranched salmon don't count for the are hatchery salmon and we all know hatchery salmon is a primary issue to this problem.(wild salmon) Overall salmon returns up and down the coast of the pacific NW are suffering.
Insert Deflection here>

no deflection intended by me
I agree with you when you say
"Overall salmon returns up and down the coast of the pacific NW are suffering."
there are however a few exceptions. The Cowichan River Chinook came back above expectations this year and I expect there will be a few other exceptions.
All I am saying is Disease and Sea Lice from Fish Farms are killing Wild Salmon in the area's they exist and have never said they are the only contributor.

 

[Birdsnest]

no deflection intended by me
I agree with you when you say
"Overall salmon returns up and down the coast of the pacific NW are suffering."
there are however a few exceptions. The Cowichan River Chinook came back above expectations this year and I expect there will be a few other exceptions.
All I am saying is Disease and Sea Lice from Fish Farms are killing Wild Salmon in the area's they exist and have never said they are the only contributor.

Then I don't thinks its fair for you to state that the evidence is overwhelming that salmon farms are killing "wild salmon" when you compare ecosystems both with and without salmon farms on out migration routs. Over all they are all suffering. Of course there are little exceptions here and there but those exceptions support neither scenario.
You can gish gallop all the studies you wish however none of them support the general state of salmon runs up and down the coast of the PNW.

 

[fogged in]

Then I don't thinks its fair for you to state that the evidence is overwhelming that salmon farms are killing "wild salmon" when you compare ecosystems both with and without salmon on out migration routs. Over all they are all suffering. Of course there are little exceptions here and there but those exceptions support neither scenario.
You can gish gallop all the studies you wish however none of them support the general state of salmon runs up and down the coast of the PNW.

I am not sure what you consider "fair"
You seem to be saying Wild Salmon are in trouble and Fish Farms ARE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM
Is this a fair assessment of your positon?
I am saying Wild Salmon are in trouble and Fish Farms ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM
Who is to say if areas with no Fish Farms would have a bigger problem if Fish Farms were on their salmon migratory routes.
And...Yes, I am saying there is overwhelming evidence that Fish Farm Sea Lice and Disease are killing Wild Salmon
Sorry if you find this evidence to be unfair.
We will never know for sure how many Wild Salmon Fish Farms kill on migratory Wild Salmon routes will we.
We may just have to agree to disagree on this one...there really is no common ground.
I rather suspect everyone other than you and I are getting a little bored with my posts. (can't speak for yours)
How about we wait until the next scientific study that support Fish Farm or otherwise shows up?
Thanks for the civil debate.
I think you are no doubt a pretty decent guy and those who know me, feel the same.

 

[Birdsnest]

I am not sure what you consider "fair"
You seem to be saying Wild Salmon are in trouble and Fish Farms ARE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM
Is this a fair assessment of your positon? Im saying they are not the problem of scope and fear that activist have much of the public fooled into believing. Im saying by simple comparison that salmon farms are not the smoking gun that is presented here on this forum. A simple comparison to areas without salmon farms firmly supports this overall.
I am saying Wild Salmon are in trouble and Fish Farms ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM
Who is to say if areas with no Fish Farms would have a bigger problem if Fish Farms were on their salmon migratory routes. You make a good point but would the difference be measurable?
And...Yes, I am saying there is overwhelming evidence that Fish Farm Sea Lice and Disease are killing Wild Salmon
Sorry if you find this evidence to be unfair. Your evidence is on paper. You can peer review a study 100 times and it does not not mean you will see a reflection of that paper in nature. This is what I am saying when looking at the skeena etc.
We will never know for sure how many Wild Salmon Fish Farms kill on migratory Wild Salmon routes will we. Its no different for those systems without salmon farms. How do you know how many smolt/fry die on the way out of systems without salmon farms? You don't.
We may just have to agree to disagree on this one...there really is no common ground. Well there should be common ground and there has to be or there will never be any resolutions to the issue. I would like to think that we get our poop together enough that we can club salmon as sport fishers in the future. I honestly am very concerned.
I rather suspect everyone other than you and I are getting a little bored with my posts. (can't speak for yours) Well I don't think there is much of a discussion to be had here because the science involved is not out.
How about we wait until the next scientific study that support Fish Farm or otherwise shows up? I think this is where we are at. Your idea that you and I stop posting till there is new news translates to me this: how about you and I just stop posting till something new comes up while all my anti buddies just carry on pounding away at the issue. For that reason I can not guarantee I will stop.
I think you are no doubt a pretty decent guy and those who know me, feel the same. I wouldn't believe you if it weren't for a close friend of mine who spwews fish farm hate consistently but over the years even he is coming around. He's a great guy who thinks I'm a fairly reasonable citizen.

 

[rockdog]

So tell me birdie....what university degrees, phd's etc, do you have to make your assessments that fish farms aren't part of the problem?
In other words, give me a reason to believe you, instead of the countless scientists all over the world that claim where fish farms live, wild salmon die. I'm not claiming to have any degrees or higher education nor am I a scientist to make a claim either way, but I can read, and what I read isn't really anything good about your industry.
Sorry man, but working at some farm does not make you an expert.

 

[bigdogeh]

One reality I can think of is that these salmon have been here and evolved for millenia. They have always had to fight predators and probably changes in climate also. That is a natural part of life that they have evolved as a species to accept and overcome. I don't think they've had to face the unnatural gauntlets of fish farms holding millions upon millions of invasive, diseased and lice ridden salmon for any of those millenia years, cept for the past 20. And that's when the decline to our salmon populations have started. This is one factor that we as a country do have control over fixing, yet our governments captured through big business and lobbyists dollars refuse to act on it.

 

[Birdsnest]

RD, You seem to be attacking my credibility and intellect as a response to my posts instead challenging the info/idea's I have posted. Thanks for that demonstration. Its perfect!

BDE, You have not challenged my posts by repeating the usual lines of rhetoric. If you consider that the skeena and nass and many other systems without farms are suffering generally the same as the fraser and west coast systems can you measure that the areas with salmon farms are obviously suffering more than those without? From what you are saying about salmon farms this comparison I bring forward would be glaringly obvious but it is not. How do you explain that?

 

[agentaqua]

Then I don't thinks its fair for you to state that the evidence is overwhelming that salmon farms are killing "wild salmon" when you compare ecosystems both with and without salmon farms on out migration routs. Over all they are all suffering. Of course there are little exceptions here and there but those exceptions support neither scenario.
You can gish gallop all the studies you wish however none of them support the general state of salmon runs up and down the coast of the PNW.

I think the evidence that there are various, complex impacts to wild stocks from the open net-pen industry operations (including other non-FF impacts) is very much "overwhelming". There are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed and grey literature articles out there from all over the world - evidence that FF boosters would like to conveniently ignore or dismiss - often calling any dissenting opinions "gish gallop" in an attempt to de-legitimize and invalidate those realities - a PR exercise the PR firms employed by the various FF organizations have demonstrated is effective for their followers (thanks for illustrating that tired, old deflection, BN). The geographic and temporal scope and scale of those impacts is what is actually in debate - and the seriousness and scope likely continuously changes over various time scales.

Another factor seeming misunderstood and/or ignored by FF boosters is that it is ALWAYS any industry's responsibility to prove either: 1/ they are having no impact; 2/ the impact is negligible; or 3/ it can be compensated somehow. Then there should be a consensus-based environmental assessment and risk mitigation decision-making body that can weigh the evidence and the pros and cons and make a decision about whether or not to proceed with this activity - if the pros outweigh the cons.

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED WITH FISH FARMS (unlike other industries) - which is why FF boosters don't recognize this process.

That is why we are stuck in this PR battle - rather than dealing with site applications - which IMHO works better for the industry.

 

[Whole in the Water]

RD, You seem to be attacking my credibility and intellect as a response to my posts instead challenging the info/idea's I have posted. Thanks for that demonstration. Its perfect!

BDE, You have not challenged my posts by repeating the usual lines of rhetoric. If you consider that the skeena and nass and many other systems without farms are suffering generally the same as the fraser and west coast systems can you measure that the areas with salmon farms are obviously suffering more than those without? From what you are saying about salmon farms this comparison I bring forward would be glaringly obvious but it is not. How do you explain that?

Hi BN, Would you like to respond to the questions, issues and concerns raised in this previous post - with peer reviewed published scientific research? (as anything less is just personal opinion and limited observations and just boils down just personal bias) This is just one articles that references one of many peer reviewed research publications that detail the negative environmental impacts of net pen fish farming. Your disregard in a post above for peer reviewed research seems to imply a lack of understanding of how science works in the real world and the scientific method as these are not paper based thought exercises, but the recording of results of real world research in nature.

As of yet no fish farm supporter on the forum has chosen to respond. Not sure if it is because they don't care about the negative impact their industry has or if they are unable to? Anyone up to it?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hello forum Fish Farm Supporters above is a very interesting article that raises some serious concerns about net pen salmon farms. To better understand both side of the debate it would be helpful if fish farm supporters on this forum were to please provide some reasoned critique, backed up with data for the following statements (article highlights) made in this article listed below:

Please inform forum members of what you understand to be the truth around these issues listed below.

• New research http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/related?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471 by an international group of fishery scientists has detected a nasty heart disease, first identified in Norway, on a British Columbia fish farm in the Discovery Islands. And the study revealed that dying fish with similar heart lesions had been retrieved from other farms in the same region between 2011 and 2013
• Second, the study not only confirmed the presence of HSMI in B.C. coastal waters — something industry and government have long denied — but showed a clear link between piscine reovirus (PRV) and the disease. “PRV was the only agent detected in heart tissue that was correlated with HSMI lesions in the heart,” the study found. And that’s a problem because the PRV has been present in B.C.’s industrial fish farms and hatcheries for years. Industry has long maintained not only that HSMI is not present in B.C., but that piscine reovirus behaves differently here and has not been established as a cause of the disease.
• But the paper reports there have been numerous cases of HSMI-like lesions in farmed fish since 2002, and most were likely HSMI. And the study revealed that dying fish with similar heart lesions had been retrieved from other farms in the same region between 2011 and 2013
• The study also explained why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the industry regulator, probably failed to detect the disease: it didn’t sample enough fish or at the right time.
• In addition, B.C. doesn’t use the international standard definition of HSMI for diagnosis, the study noted, instead using its own unique definition.
• In 2013, provincial government fish pathologist Gary Marty stated in an affidavit used by Marine Harvest that “PRV is common in farmed Atlantic salmon and farmed Pacific salmon, but HSMI does not occur in B.C.”
• But the study, which examined healthy, sick and dead fish from one farm over an 18-month period, confirmed that HSMI and PRV travel together even in B.C.
• And in a 2016 presentation to a parliamentary committee, Kristi Miller, a respected DFO fish pathologist and one of the authors of the new study, noted that until recently, the DFO has shown little interest in researching impacts on wild fish while industry has often prevented access to farmed fish for disease studies. “At present, the department relies heavily on information that the industry provides to determine, for example, what pathogens and diseases to focus risk assessments on,” she told the committee. “There are not, to date, any provisions to enable scientists to conduct risk assessments to sample fish on farms unless the industry agrees to provide them.”
  Under Canadian law, it is illegal to transfer diseased or infected fish from holding pens or hatcheries into ocean waters in Canada — yet that’s now a daily reality in B.C.’s farmed fish industry.
• In 2015 a federal judge ruled that DFO couldn’t download its responsibilities for fish health to the industry, letting corporations decide when and how to transfer diseased fish. In addition, the judge said the government must respect the precautionary principle and test all farmed fish prior to being transferred to ocean pens for the PRV virus.
• Marine Harvest and the federal government appealed — the government later dropped its effort — and the practice continues.
• About 80 per cent of farmed fish test positive for PRV, and that inconvenient reality is now the subject of another lawsuit launched last year by biologist and wild salmon advocate Alexandra Morton against the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Given the clarity of the law and the 2015 ruling, Morton wants the DFO to test farmed smolts for PRV before they are introduced to the ocean. Despite the 2015 federal court ruling, the DFO has refused to do so.

Looking forward to some thoughtful replies back up with research and data and some interesting debates on this.

 

[Birdsnest]

"I think the evidence that there are various, complex impacts to wild stocks from the open net-pen industry operations (including other non-FF impacts)"

I agree with your statement because you have conveniently included non-FF impacts to achieve the status of overwhelming evidence however this is a thread about FF and it has become clear that no one here wants to directly challenge my previous posts.

The question remains: if salmon farms are causing harm on any scale how come areas that do not have salmon farms are suffering the same pour returns?

 

[bones]

Fish farms have been on this coast for 40 years (fairly new) and been in other parts of the world for hundreds of years, some papers mention thousands of years.

Fish farms dont hurt out going smolt production, because there are no out going smolts. Newest research indicates seal populations are record highs. The same research shows Chinook, Coho and sockeye being eaten by seals through lab testing of seal scat. The research also shows a dislike for chum salmon. Which shows on the spawning grounds, tons of chum.... Nothing else.

How do sea lice affect salmon stocks that have no fish farms?
People say that farmed fish are full of diseases, so then one can say wilds are full as well..... They both come from the same genetic make up. They both come from the same egg and sperm.
Farmed dish are full of disease so then so are wilds as there the same fish!!!

Alaska is to switch to open net pens in the future as well, current studies indicate. The releasing of toms of smolts (ranching) is building predator numbers to record highs. Basically there increasing salmon shark numbers to record highs by feeding them. Similar results from hatcheries feeding seals.

 

[agentaqua]

Not sure why it seems to me that BN and bones can't acknowledge that FF can and often do have negative, population-level effects on wild stocks. A Google search through the peer-reviewed evidence can easily confirm this.

On the sea lice question - FF avoided looking at background levels of sea lice before they came in - as well as avoiding actual environmental assessments. However, the work comparing areas with farms and non-farms and sea lice has been done:

 

[Birdsnest]

Not sure why it seems to me that BN and bones can't acknowledge that FF can and often do have negative, population-level effects on wild stocks. A Google search through the peer-reviewed evidence can easily confirm this.

On the sea lice question - FF avoided looking at background levels of sea lice before they came in - as well as avoiding actual environmental assessments. However, the work comparing areas with farms and non-farms and sea lice has been done:

can you provide the link so the info can be seen?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.conservationgis.org/scgis/2011Contest/SC1 KarinBodtkerSealiceSalmon.pdf
Various sources as listed on the bottom of the figure...

 

[bones]

Your sealice counting picture is nice. There are no sealice in the jaun de fuca, why are salmon stocks that travel through this strait in trouble? Why are rivers inlet and smith inlet salmon stocks in decline when sealice is not present? Could it actually be somthing else at work? If sealice are killing salmon stocks then why is it that in the Broughton pink salmon (main carrier of lice) are recording record returns? Why is it Chinook in Campbell river show a record return as well as Coho? If sea lice are killin salmon then how could this be?

Why is it that sealice studies baseline outside the test area?......... Because baseline in the Broughton in a inlet devoid of farms... Shows lice counts higher that right next to the farm. This baseline will show negative results......

 

[tincan]

I assure you the 'scientific community' has not moved on from fish farm / wild salmon interaction. The SSHI (PSF, DFO, Genome) is still not complete and the researchers will be coming out with statements / recommendations once this work is done (2018 most likely).

Also, please show me where this publically available peer reviewed report is that shows 87% of chinook smolts are dying between 1st and 2nd narrows bridges. I have read almost all of the studies from the SSMSP and no where did I read anything about this. Also, where does this 7.8million chinook smolts eaten by seals number come from? source please.

Are salmon dying in estuaries in large numbers? hell ya! Are seals eating a lot of them? yes. Are fish farms to blame for smolts being eaten in estuaries? No! Are fish farms therefore free from having impacts on wild salmon? No!

Here's PSF's latest post re: fish farms:

“The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) wishes to clarify the recent recommendation by the U.S.-based Seafood Watch and the BC Salmon Farmers that B.C. open-net-pen farmed salmon are now a good alternative seafood choice for consumers.

We believe that recommendation is premature and inappropriate because it incorrectly characterizes and relies upon the research results to date of PSF’s Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI). Started in 2013, the SSHI is a partnership between the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Genome BC and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The purpose of the initiative is to clarify the presence and/or absence of microbes in Pacific salmon.

The SSHI is not yet complete, so there are no final conclusions yet regarding farmed Atlantic salmon or anything else. While progress to date includes no detections of reportable diseases as listed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there remain many valid questions relative to wild salmon health, and that is what the SSHI continues to study.

The SSHI research will continue and we have committed to communicate to the public any critical new information related to the health of wild Pacific salmon if and when it is found.”

Lmao, all I said was 7.8 million Chinook smolt are being eaten by seals. This study was done by PSF, DFO and Port Authority Your still stuck on sea lice. All your peer reviewed study's show is sea lice counts.
If your read enough about lice, it even agreed upon by the scientific community that most out going smolts dont travel through the Broughton.
The scientific community has moved on..... Fish farms are not even mentioned in meetings. Maybe you should start reading different science papers.
Just an fyi still no facts produced linking fish farms to dwindling salmon stocks.......

 

[agentaqua]

Bones - the picture is not "mine" - 1st off.

2ndly - they are reporting for areas where they took samples. And I would expect sea lice to be distributed throughout the areas - including Jan de Fuca. Having said that - there will likely be "hotspots" for lice at areas where there is gravid (egg-bearing) female lice (like at fish farms) - and the 2 different lice species found on salmon (Leps and Cal) will have different salinity preferences.

3rdly - the likely critical "hotspots" for impacts to wild salmon will likely be where elevated levels of naupilar/copepedite stages attach them selves to that small, vulnerable outmigrating juvenile salmon - esp. pinks and chums - which are very small. That's why some FF placements are so problematic - like the Broughtons where Fraser stocks and other juvie salmon run by..

4thly - River's - like Cultus Lake - tested positive for ISAv (European-strain) - obviously NOT from the Pacific wild salmon. ISAv may have been asymptomatic and/or extremely virulent a virus that killed off the infected hosts quickly. The history of ISAv is that ISA was found in Southern NB: IBoF Atlantic salmon were then placed on SARA list. Molly Kibenge finds ISA in Cultus Lake and Simon Jones squishes her publishing and denies Cohen the evidence: DFO minister stops Cultus Lake from going on SARA from COSEWIC. Fish farm has ISA in Southern NFLD, "looses" fish that escape to rivers in Southern NFLD, and these stocks are also headed for SARA listing. Thanks for pointing this out, Bones.

 

[Birdsnest]

Lice numbers have a direct correlation with salinity. Nowhere in you picture agent do I see recognition of this. If you are going to count lice you have to take into account sanity for anytime you have low salinity you have low lice counts. All lice research includes this because it is basic knowledge on sea lice. Please show me where this is accounted for in your selected research.

I would have expected that you would have posted data that show overwhelming proof that the skeena system is doing so much better than the fraser due to salmon farms but I guess the see lice picture was the next best thing however it does not make my point incorrect.