Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts...
- Thread starter Andrew P
- Start date
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
This article touches nicely on possibly why the "kid" isnt so fearful of the endless posts here on peer reviewed science on salmon farming here in BC.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/02/fp-letters-money-trail-gets-fishy/
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/02/fp-letters-money-trail-gets-fishy/
salmonkiller01
Well-Known Member
thanks for a link to an opinion in the financial post, but just like assh#**s everyone has one.
soxy
Member
So whats everyones opinion of Brian Riddell President and CEO of the Pacific Salmon Foundation?
http://ohboy.ca/secretscience/index.php/dr-brian-riddell/
http://ohboy.ca/secretscience/index.php/dr-brian-riddell/
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Wow, not sure that fits into the valid scientific "peer reviewed" category? Opinions from a couple of pro salmon farmers dated 02/07/10 6:32 PM ET? However, I will be happy to point out some things?
Clare Backman, director of sustainability, Marine Harvest Canada, Campbell River, B.C. actually admits sea-lice impact migrating juvenile wild salmon “... adjusting the timing of fish harvest and SLICE application to coincide with the spring migration of wild salmon.” He even admits, “The DFO website reports that sea-lice abundance on wild smolts has been lower in recent years. Should the sea lice on wild smolts rise to higher levels, we must also consider the contribution from other ambient sources of sea lice.” Guess what - Since sea-lice on wild smolts have NOT rised to higher levels since – must actually mean the culprit really is those “open net pens.” He even agrees open net pens is a cause of concern! “Finally, we agree that there is cause for concern about the experience of salmon farming in other areas of the world...” and I am sure in his opinion, “... the salmon-farming professionals of Marine Harvest Canada are committed to doing things correctly in B.C.” And, that is an – OPINION
Vivian Krause? First, it was the fish feedlot industry (which she was paid) and now it is the oil industry (which she was paid? In other words, she only bashes someone who she is paid to bash! Are you kidding?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vivian_Krause
What does the Canada House of Commons think of her opinions and/or comments? Not much!
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/09/vivian-krauses-conspiracy-theory-you-decide
more of the evidence of impacts from fish farms that CK keeps insisting doesn't exist...
E.J. Peeler (Cefas), A.G. Murray (FRS), A. Thebault (AFSSA), E. Brun (NVI), M.A. Thrush (Cefas), A. Giovaninni (IZAM) 2004. Risk assessment and predictive modelling – a review of their application in aquatic animal health. EU Framework Programme 6 priority 8 Scientific Supports to Policy (SSP). 67 p. ISBN-82-91743-61-4
Gyrodactylus salaris is a viviparous, monogenean, freshwater ecto-parasite of Atlantic salmon whose natural host are Baltic strains of Atlantic salmon. It is regarded to be one of the major threats to the North Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, both in Norway and the UK. G. salaris may cause a fatality rate of almost 100% in Norwegian parr and severe population declines.
While the UK is free of G. salaris, the parasite was apparently introduced to Norway in early 1970s and spread to different geographical regions through stocking of rivers with infected fish. By 2004, a total of 45 Norwegian salmon rivers had been infected, with disastrous effects on the local stocks. For the last 20 years, annually 0-3 new rivers have been infected, a spreading primarily occurring within the proximity of a regional index river.
After the primary introduction of G. salaris to Norway, the parasite spread to new rivers has been regarded as a result of natural migration of infected salmon or other passive carrier fish, or by movement of infected water, including wet equipment. One of the major Norwegian salmon rivers has for more than 15 years maintained its salmon stock after the introduction of Gyrodactylus salaris, by stocking with hatchery reared juveniles up-stream of the infected stretch of river. A proportion of smolts leaving the river system are infected. The authorities requested a quantitative assessment of the risk of infected smolts carrying the parasite to neighbouring non-infected rivers (31). The general conclusions from this work supported findings by Paisley et al (1999) (5) that the estimated risk of such transmission is most of all sensitive to salinity along the migration route. The assessment estimated that a high probability exists of G. salaris spread by smolt migration from the infected river to a nearby neighbouring river.
E.J. Peeler (Cefas), A.G. Murray (FRS), A. Thebault (AFSSA), E. Brun (NVI), M.A. Thrush (Cefas), A. Giovaninni (IZAM) 2004. Risk assessment and predictive modelling – a review of their application in aquatic animal health. EU Framework Programme 6 priority 8 Scientific Supports to Policy (SSP). 67 p. ISBN-82-91743-61-4
Gyrodactylus salaris is a viviparous, monogenean, freshwater ecto-parasite of Atlantic salmon whose natural host are Baltic strains of Atlantic salmon. It is regarded to be one of the major threats to the North Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, both in Norway and the UK. G. salaris may cause a fatality rate of almost 100% in Norwegian parr and severe population declines.
While the UK is free of G. salaris, the parasite was apparently introduced to Norway in early 1970s and spread to different geographical regions through stocking of rivers with infected fish. By 2004, a total of 45 Norwegian salmon rivers had been infected, with disastrous effects on the local stocks. For the last 20 years, annually 0-3 new rivers have been infected, a spreading primarily occurring within the proximity of a regional index river.
After the primary introduction of G. salaris to Norway, the parasite spread to new rivers has been regarded as a result of natural migration of infected salmon or other passive carrier fish, or by movement of infected water, including wet equipment. One of the major Norwegian salmon rivers has for more than 15 years maintained its salmon stock after the introduction of Gyrodactylus salaris, by stocking with hatchery reared juveniles up-stream of the infected stretch of river. A proportion of smolts leaving the river system are infected. The authorities requested a quantitative assessment of the risk of infected smolts carrying the parasite to neighbouring non-infected rivers (31). The general conclusions from this work supported findings by Paisley et al (1999) (5) that the estimated risk of such transmission is most of all sensitive to salinity along the migration route. The assessment estimated that a high probability exists of G. salaris spread by smolt migration from the infected river to a nearby neighbouring river.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
We already know that you Birdnest, get your “opinion” from unqualified journalists with no published scientific background or biological knowledge whatsoever.
Krause’s attack is nothing more than a sinister attempt at demonising the scientific community and casting doubt on their scientific integrity. (We have seen this trick of demonising and isolating a section of the community historically before…….)
Your posted link is even more simple minded if you really think it counters ALL of the hundreds of published research from scientists working all over the world on the impacts of salmon feed lots, just a few of the links to which we who understand and respect the scientific process have posted here.
With conspiracy theorists when you point out the huge holes in their inflammatory arguments, they just expand the scope of the conspiracy. So I’m sure you are going to say the scientists in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Chile etc. are all part of the conspiracy too!
Despicable tactics by an unscrupulous industry!!
Last edited by a moderator:
soxy
Member
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/23/fp-letters-junk-journalism/
We are writing this letter together to put an end to the numerous attempts to fabricate scientific discord associated with the affects of aquaculture on wild Pacific salmon. The Canadian public will only benefit from abundant wild salmon and aquaculture if they have accurate information. Mr. Corcoran’s exaggerations and misinformation are more damaging to the fish farm industry than the science he lashes out at in his column.
Every new industry matures as it develops and aquaculture does represent potential value to our coastal communities. But it must not jeopardize our wild Pacific salmon. Indeed, nowhere else in the world has open-net pen aquaculture existed with such an abundance of wild salmon, as present in British Columbia. To ensure wild Pacific salmon are sustained the ecological footprint of fish farming must meet the biological requirements of wild salmon. Mr. Corcoran seems to want to place the blame for the current situation on activists, but his conclusions are inaccurate and more fishy than any of the science he attempts to discredit.
Mr. Corcoran says, The great salmon farming scare proved to be a false alarm. This is incorrect. Declines in levels of sea lice are the result of a management (treatment) plan enacted in the Broughton Archipelago since 2007. Implementation of that plan is consistent with improved returns of pink salmon to the Broughton Archipelago in 2009.
Mr. Corcoran employs deliberately inflammatory language. As the primary author (Riddell) of the federal fisheries article rebutting the December 2007 extinction prediction article in Science, I have never referred to flawed science, cherry-picked data, or fudging the data. To infer attribution of these terms to me (Riddell) is totally inappropriate.
To his credit Mr. Corcoran has retained some important messages. I (Riddell) am concerned about the salmon farming experience around the world and I do question how environmentally justifiable open-net pen salmon farms are. Mr. Corcoran quotes Dr. Ben Koop, who rightly says science takes a lot of different perspectives and [then] combines and debates. This is exactly what has been occurring on the West Coast of Canada vis-a-vis aquaculture. We, as a community of scientists, acted and initiated the science that triggered management that has temporarily reduced sea lice. We did not wait to see if the extinction prediction was true or false. We are aware of strong indications worldwide that the current treatment measures may fail if or when the lice become drug-resistant. Therefore, the people involved must continue to develop solutions of which closed containment seems to be an increasingly attractive option.
Dr. Brian E Riddell, CEO, Pacific Salmon Foundation. Alexandra Morton, executive director, Raincoast Research Society
If you read nothing else read this....
"For the record, first and foremost the claim that sea lice from fish farms in British Columbia were contaminating wild pink salmon is true. Without treatment for sea lice, the farms in the Broughton Archipelago were proven to be the major source of lice infecting juvenile pink salmon. The treatment of lice on farmed salmon, a plan developed through collaborative research in the archipelago, successfully reduced infection and proved that the farms were the primary source of infection. There really is no debate on this point."
Last edited by a moderator:
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
YET AGAIN another totally underwhelming, opinion piece the lacks any peer reviewed scientific research to back it up! Very pitiful lack of credibility and integrity from a so called "sustainable industry that supposedly has "minimal negative impact" on wild salmon populations and the environment. Your industry plain and simple has no proof to back up what you say about the lack of negative impact and the criticism you spread about your industry's critics. All you and CK have done so far, is reply with personal opinions and cheap, personal , and baselees attacks of your critics and then go an run behind your corporate spin doctors! Pretty damn shameful if you ask me!
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Here is a response from Riddel et al. to the Krkosek et al. paper claiming Pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago were, “on a trajectory toward rapid local extinction.” due to sea lice from farms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5909/1790.2.full.pdf
It points out my previous concerns with other papers of its type - I call it "Fill In the Blanks Science" where data is massaged to get the result you're looking for.
"Their conclusions follow directly from their data selection process."
"they attributed all differences in wild pink salmon mortality between exposed and unexposed populations to sea lice infection, ignoring other potential sources of between-year variation in survival."
"Krkošek et al.’s prediction of rapid extinction only holds if the exposure period is defined to begin in 2000, the year of highest abundance, and returns after 2002 and 2003 are misrepresented."
"Krkošek et al. overstated the risks to wild pink salmon from sea lice and salmon farming. Furthermore, their predictions are inconsistent with recent observations of pink salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago. Their alarming statements of extinction of pink salmon in the BA are only possible with highly selective use of the available data and extrapolation of their results to all pink salmon in the BA."
So, they start with the assumption that farms caused the declines, gather evidence which supports this view, while ignoring all that does not, then create a model based on the assumptions to project a possible future scenario.
If you have to ignore data to make it work for you - it is junk science, especially when observation also runs counter to your theory.
Here is a good video of Richard Feynman explaining the scientific method, well worth 10 minutes of your time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&feature=youtu.be
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5909/1790.2.full.pdf
It points out my previous concerns with other papers of its type - I call it "Fill In the Blanks Science" where data is massaged to get the result you're looking for.
"Their conclusions follow directly from their data selection process."
"they attributed all differences in wild pink salmon mortality between exposed and unexposed populations to sea lice infection, ignoring other potential sources of between-year variation in survival."
"Krkošek et al.’s prediction of rapid extinction only holds if the exposure period is defined to begin in 2000, the year of highest abundance, and returns after 2002 and 2003 are misrepresented."
"Krkošek et al. overstated the risks to wild pink salmon from sea lice and salmon farming. Furthermore, their predictions are inconsistent with recent observations of pink salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago. Their alarming statements of extinction of pink salmon in the BA are only possible with highly selective use of the available data and extrapolation of their results to all pink salmon in the BA."
So, they start with the assumption that farms caused the declines, gather evidence which supports this view, while ignoring all that does not, then create a model based on the assumptions to project a possible future scenario.
If you have to ignore data to make it work for you - it is junk science, especially when observation also runs counter to your theory.
Here is a good video of Richard Feynman explaining the scientific method, well worth 10 minutes of your time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&feature=youtu.be
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Once again CK your post contains a mixture of half truths, deceptions and non sequiturs which deliberately obscure the truth.
Yes Riddell did publish a paper critical of the Krosek paper. But he also said in the letter to correct the rubbish from Corcorans’ article in the Financial Post, which Soxy posted above, and directly referencing the article you have linked:-
“Mr. Corcoran employs deliberately inflammatory language. As the primary author (Riddell) of the federal fisheries article rebutting the December 2007 extinction prediction article in Science, I have never referred to flawed science, cherry-picked data, or fudging the data. To infer attribution of these terms to me (Riddell) is totally inappropriate.”
Riddell also goes on to say:-
"For the record, first and foremost the claim that sea lice from fish farms in British Columbia were contaminating wild pink salmon is true. Without treatment for sea lice, the farms in the Broughton Archipelago were proven to be the major source of lice infecting juvenile pink salmon. The treatment of lice on farmed salmon, a plan developed through collaborative research in the archipelago, successfully reduced infection and proved that the farms were the primary source of infection. There really is no debate on this point."
In other words, Riddell is ONLY being critical of the 80% mortality and eventual extinction prediction. He is NOT critical of the observation that sea lice have a serious impact on Pink salmon smolts. As he says, there is no debate on that. It is only you CK who propagates the lie that salmon feed lot have no (i.e zero) impact on wild salmon runs.
Finally, because ONE paper has come in from some criticism, it is a huge lie on your part to claim no (zero) ecosystem impact of feed lots has ever been documented, when in fact there are HUNDREDS of papers from all over the world that document ecosystem and wild salmon run impacts that prove you wrong CK , as you always are, consistently!
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
"HUNDREDS of papers from all over the world that document ecosystem and wild salmon run impacts"
Really.
Anything actually get further than a model using estimations and assumptions?
"the observation that sea lice have a serious impact on Pink salmon smolts"?
Where was that shown?
Really.
Anything actually get further than a model using estimations and assumptions?
"the observation that sea lice have a serious impact on Pink salmon smolts"?
Where was that shown?
rockdog
Well-Known Member
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Yes really CK. You can deny the evidence and ignore it all you like. You can sneeringly deride modelling and statistics all you like. These are standard techniques and practices in biology and ecosystems research used by the scientific community but you would not understand them, because you have no knowledge of science and because the results all point in a direction not compatible with your fundamentalist belief systems.
Here is just a sample, which I have posted before. As well as a number from BC, two are three of of these papers are from Norwegian researchers and one is from Scotland.
- Thru’ Sea lice infestation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1564/689.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10641260500433531#.UZ-mUMoambs
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-016
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...mN9VDE#v=onepage&q=fish farm sea lice&f=false
http://vhost1.ucs.sfu.ca:9870/science/resources/1320967624.pdf
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/131.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2001.00627.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860500030X
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M04-149.1#.UaQgapwalzM
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f10-105#.UaQmD5walzM
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1772.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M07-042.1#.UaTWlpwalzM
I know we will not hear your learned and insightful criticism of each of these papers based on actual science. You will just fall back on your dismissive "modelling and assumptions" catch all because you are unqualified to actually comment and ignorant of science. In addition, in a couple of papers, as well as measuring high levels of sea lice on smolts near feed lots, the researchers look at the blood chemistry of the infected fish and compare that to uninfected samples. The health impacts on the fish are proven right there.
Finally lets post Dr. Brian Riddell's quote again, in the vain hope it will get through to you.
""For the record, first and foremost the claim that sea lice from fish farms in British Columbia were contaminating wild pink salmon is true. Without treatment for sea lice, the farms in the Broughton Archipelago were proven to be the major source of lice infecting juvenile pink salmon. The treatment of lice on farmed salmon, a plan developed through collaborative research in the archipelago, successfully reduced infection and proved that the farms were the primary source of infection. There really is no debate on this point."
Dr. Riddell is a former DFO fisheries scientist with a Ph.D. and all the credentials. Are you seriously saying you are right and he is wrong CK?? I mean....really???
Last edited by a moderator:
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree with you more rockdog, this has played out well as good education and PR for those against net pen salmon feedlots!
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
HEY CK and Birdsnest.... are you seeing the repeating pattern here.... The facts, data, proof, scientific, peer reviewed research is piling up to clearly show that the net pen salmon feedlot industry both negatively impacts wild salmon, and the surrounding environment. We have asked you, no challenged you to provide scientific peer reviewed research to prove this wrong, yet you have repeatedly failed to do so.
So much for your defense of your so called 'sustainable' industry that has minimal if any negative impact on the environment. What a shameful joke your spin doctoring PR attempts are here on this forum and elsewhere! My 2 bits.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
You guys still haven't been able to make the leap from published "science" to reality.
If the presence of aquaculture caused wild stocks to decline it would be easy to show, but that has not been shown anywhere I have seen - especially in Clayoquot Sound where I am quite involved in both monitoring returns and sea lice levels on out-migrating smolts.
Maybe if everyone stopped killing and eating them we might be able to see if there was actually a trend...
If the presence of aquaculture caused wild stocks to decline it would be easy to show, but that has not been shown anywhere I have seen - especially in Clayoquot Sound where I am quite involved in both monitoring returns and sea lice levels on out-migrating smolts.
Maybe if everyone stopped killing and eating them we might be able to see if there was actually a trend...
trophywife
Crew Member
Ck.. With a closing statement like your last one... I have to ask "what planet are you really from man?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
X2................
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffywestcoast
Well-Known Member
X3........
Similar threads
