Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there has been enough evidence and science posted on this thread - over the past 33 pages or so - that some broad-scale assertions/assumptions can be made.

Every site has overlapping temporal and spatial scales - and potential and realized impacts that fluctuate - and so those potential and realized impacts vary. They vary annually, seasonally, weekly, daily, and hourly - dependent upon many complex interacting factors such as tidal flows, estuarine flow, regional weather and watershed-scale run-off, large-scale climatic processes like PDO/El Niño and La Niña/CC, migratory and holding behaviour of both juvenile and adult salmon - stocking densities and fish health of the cultured fish and the wild fish - and position of that particular site within this mix of interacting and synergistic variables.

If we average these impacts over time and geographic area - a trend develops - where Ford and Myers (2008) found: "reductions in survival or abundance are greater than 50%" on wild salmon from farmed salmon operations: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

A responsible regulator would take these findings with the seriousness they deserve...

So, your hypothesis is that if fish farms were removed, we could expect a 50% increase in the returns (of course this is 2008 article). Obviously, the next question would be to examine all the data over the last 30 years and see if the runs were 50% larger than they are today. That would help with first hypothesis - that is to prove the capacity is there. The second would be to examine the commercial and sport fishing takes and compare that to the data from 30 years ago. Did we diminish numbers so substantially because of over fishing that the runs are still trying to recover? We did have salmon run collapses in the 80's - any oldtimers want to talk about the collapse of salmon from the Georgia Strait or from Campbell River? Finally, we need to understand how the Fraser River sockeye run of 2010 was second largest in a century - this doesn't make any sense unless the data shows it should have been twice as big as it was. If we can match this data and it proves the statistical correlation you are looking for, then you would have a mighty fine argument.

By preforming statistical regressions on your data sets, we can actually test your ideas and prove the point. Again, AA, I am not actually commenting on the validity of all the claims - it is whether they are hyperbolic and don't prove what they are supposed to prove, namely that the source of our troubles for salmon are FF's. I actually worry that the real source of the problem is rising temperatures in our streams that are making them non-conducive for the spawners. We all talk about the sockeye circling out front waiting for a rainfall to cool things down so they can make there push upstream. What if that is the most significant problem? Closing all the FF's in the world won't change rainfall or ocean temperatures and if all they do is make us feel better, lets put that energy into something that works.
 
So what were the numbers like before fish farms? Was it 15-20% before the FF's arrived or was it a similar number? You would think this is simple data documentation. GLG, you probably have these numbers over the last 30 years - can you post them?
Thanks for your question and I hope this will answer it.
 
Hello Bones, you seem to like to ask a lot of questions of folks on this forum, how about you answer some questions yourself - seems only fair!

I've posted this article below at least 3 times before on this posting and no fish farm supporter has been willing, or able to respond to the questions identified in this article with factual information based upon peer reviewed research (not just personal opinion and observations). You keep asking for proof about the negative environmental impacts of net pen fish farms, so read this article and research your answers to support defend the industry you defend - who knows maybe you will find some of the answers you are asking about.

Are you up to it? Can you do it, or will just brush it off and/or deflect?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
The topic is interesting to say the least. I cant really comment on it yet tho. Not to dodge the question only to wait and see the more science. The topic is pretty recent and most studies are still on going unfortunately. Just last year 5 new diseases were found in wild salmon and I cannot recall how many viruses, sorry. To comment on disease here this early would be kinda like saying "look squirrel!!".
Kinda like "look sewage"
Or "look bottom loading"
Look garbage
Look fish blood
Look disease
Look.....

Kinda in the early stages to offer or pass judgment on a topic that isn't clear yet. There are people or studies that say prv may be present in wild salmon. I know this is not the answer to your discussion you are looking, sorry.
Question: Two cases of HSMI were recorded here in BC. One lab pulled it peer reviewed paper after release, is this the same lab that lost it international accreditation?
 
I think there has been enough evidence and science posted on this thread - over the past 33 pages or so - that some broad-scale assertions/assumptions can be made.

Every site has overlapping temporal and spatial scales - and potential and realized impacts that fluctuate - and so those potential and realized impacts vary. They vary annually, seasonally, weekly, daily, and hourly - dependent upon many complex interacting factors such as tidal flows, estuarine flow, regional weather and watershed-scale run-off, large-scale climatic processes like PDO/El Niño and La Niña/CC, migratory and holding behaviour of both juvenile and adult salmon - stocking densities and fish health of the cultured fish and the wild fish - and position of that particular site within this mix of interacting and synergistic variables.

If we average these impacts over time and geographic area - a trend develops - where Ford and Myers (2008) found: "reductions in survival or abundance are greater than 50%" on wild salmon from farmed salmon operations: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

A responsible regulator would take these findings with the seriousness they deserve...
BTW, thanks for posting this - pretty interesting. I think the info is rather dated but would be happy to discuss the issues noted in the BC data collection.
 
[QUOTE="bones, post: 854894, member: 7242"r
Question: Two cases of HSMI were recorded here in BC. One lab pulled it peer reviewed paper after release, is this the same lab that lost it international accreditation?[/QUOTE]

Am I missing something here
Fish Farm pathologist Dr. Gary Marty (that would be the Fish Farm very own guy) stated;


"HSMI the disease that makes fish lethargic has killed only one to three in every thousand farmed fish since 2006”

As reported by Any Smart TC journalist Dec. 3, 2017
 
(I know bones will post his usual "what stocks and how many" nonsense in response
Sorry if you don't like the question....BUT ITS NOT MINE...
Buddy is invited to all the conferences. At questions and answers period a gentleman stands up and asks: This is all fine but how do fish farms fit into all of this? There is a great concern that they are influencing wild salmon numbers and here today there is no mention of them in these studies.

The answer was: Do you have anything or a study that shows how much wild stock salmon are influenced by this industry and which salmon stocks are the issue? When you do please come back with those numbers. FF are not studied any longer as we cannot spend any more of the budget without this information. 10M Chinook smolts go missing in the SOG and were going to spend our money finding out why. To much $$$ already spent with little to no numbers on there effects.

So...... With all the experts here I asked the same question. Still waiting......
Where are the numbers showing greater than 7.5 lice loading smolts?

AA laughs at the papers provided but they show an avg loading of 1 per smolt...... Even it you give the number an error factor your still way below the 7.5 death numbers.
 
Last edited:
So, your hypothesis is that if fish farms were removed, we could expect a 50% increase in the returns (of course this is 2008 article)...
No... that is not my hypothesis at all. If you read the paper (I posted the link) you would see wide variation in location, species and stocks used in that analysis - and subsequently wide variation in the impacts attributed to FF activity.

The stocks that are closest to FF operations - through migration and water flow - would be expected to be most affected (or that would be my hypothesis, anyways). That will vary substantially, as well - for the reasons as indicated in my last post.

Secondarily, I would expect that the most vulnerable life history stages to be the most affected, as well. This includes naive hosts infected w novel pathogens, hosts with impaired immune systems due to stress - and especially the juvenile early marine entrants that are both experiencing stress due to osmoregulatory changes; since they rear for some weeks in and around the FF sites, and would be expected to be at risk from both parasite and disease vectors (e.g.: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085464, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1735/1950) amplified from the open net-pen hosts - and since they simply lack the scale protection, mass and energy reserves that sea lice parasites demand from them.

All of these issues are also well supported with data and evidence that has been posted over the past 34 pages or so.

So - if GLG's coho smolts (as one example) were getting 10-15% ocean survival - and that was cut in half due to their early marine migratory behavior that had them interacting w FFs along the way - they be likely ok - but maybe not doing great. If that ocean survival was halved again to maybe 0.5-3%- maybe this time due to an additive combination of late plankton blooms and lack of food (or seals, or...) AND FF impacts - they'd suffer high mortality for that outmigrating cohort - for that year.

Over time - you would see that as a negative feed-back cycle - as less adults returning also means less juvenile production. Keep doing that every year - for year to year on end - and you could crash that cohort/stock into a lowered level of abundance (depensation, eg.: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2888054?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) after a couple of turns of their life history, or less (e.g.: https://www.nature.com/articles/35022565 ). That's what Ford's data - and others demonstrate as a pattern wrt FF impacts...
 
Last edited:
No... that is not my hypothesis at all. If you read the paper (I posted the link) you would see wide variation in location, species and stocks used in that analysis - and subsequently wide variation in the impacts attributed to FF activity.

The stocks that are closest to FF operations - through migration and water flow - would be expected to be most affected (or that would be my hypothesis, anyways). That will vary substantially, as well - for the reasons as indicated in my last post.

Secondarily, I would expect that the most vulnerable life history stages to be the most affected, as well. This includes naive hosts infected w novel pathogens, hosts with impaired immune systems due to stress - and especially the juvenile early marine entrants that are both experiencing stress due to osmoregulatory changes; since they rear for some weeks in and around the FF sites, and would be expected to be at risk from both parasite and disease vectors amplified from the open net-pen hosts - and since they simply lack the scale protection, mass and energy reserves that sea lice parasites demand from them.

All of these issues are also well supported with data and evidence that has been posted over the past 34 pages or so.

So - if GLG's coho smolts (as one example) were getting 10-15% ocean survival - and that was cut in half due to their early marine migratory behavior that had them interacting w FFs along the way - they be likely ok - but maybe not doing great. If that ocean survival was halved again to maybe 0.5-3%- maybe this time due to an additive combination of late plankton blooms and lack of food (or seals, or...) AND FF impacts - they'd suffer high mortality for that outmigrating cohort - for that year.

Over time - you would see that as a negative feed-back cycle - as less adults returning also means less juvenile production. Keep doing that every year - for year to year on end - and you could crash that cohort/stock into a lowered level of abundance after a couple of turns of their life history, or less. That's what Ford's data - and others demonstrate as a pattern...

Actually AA, it isn't quite what Ford's data says but I will leave that for a moment. The Ford data actually did a significant culling on data sites and only tested certain criteria. As a example, if the watershed had been enhanced to allow the salmon an easier return (even if the site was damaged by human intervention), it was removed - they determined these data points might cause data aberrations . As well, if the site had been damaged over time by logging etc. but no restoration occurred, they could use the site for data analysis. This concerns me because it implies there is no systematic wear and tear on the spawning grounds. While they also tried to normalize for climate changes, again, this was not really used as BC had poor collection of this information. Finally, I think they needed to normalize there data against harvest levels. What levels of commercial and sport fishing harvesting occurred for these runs.


In a perfect world, the data that I would like to see for all the spawning systems analysed:

1) Temperature data for the spawning grounds and ocean temps directly in front of spawning entrance for 20 - 30 years.
2) Need the actual spawn counts (DFO does this on many systems) for each of those systems.
3) We would need an equal number of FF sites correlated to spawning numbers from areas where there are no FF's. (i.e: if it is a bad year for spawners that are 100 miles from any FF, the cause of low returns can't just be FF).
4) Harvest data of the species in question. If the commercial fleet takes a larger than average harvest and the spawn counts are reduced, likely this would help to confirm if over fishing is a problem.
5) I think it is reckless to combine all the data from all around the world to come to a single conclusion. I am not sure the plight of Scottish salmon is the same as ours and as such, it is problematic to group the data. I would just worry about the BC issue.

I wish I was back in University, this would be an awesome study for the coast of BC. All the papers I have been reading imply that the greatest effect on salmon populations has been caused by over fishing and habitat destruction. FF's are mentioned but they don't really have a quantifiable number. That is why it surprises me this paper is essentially saying 50% of the population declines are due to FF. Has there actaully been a 50% decline in total escarpment numbers for the systems impacted by FF? Has there been no decline for the systems were FF's are not present?
 
Something like these?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article
Across-Species Comparisons of Spatial Scales of Environmental Effects on Survival Rates of Northeast Pacific Salmon

Brian J. Pyper , Franz J. Mueter & Randall M. Peterman
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Vol. 134 , Iss. 1,2005
Pages 86-104 | Received 26 Feb 2004, Accepted 16 Jun 2004, Published online: 09 Jan 2005
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T04-034.1
Our results indicate that, on average, shared environmental effects accounted for at least 36% of the variation in survival rates of nearby pink and chum salmon stocks but only 18% for stocks separated by about 500 km. By comparing these between-species patterns with within-species patterns, we conclude that differences in the geographical overlap of fish during the freshwater and early marine life stages are much more important in determining the magnitude of shared environmental effects on the survival rates of these two species than are differences in their life history strategies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Regional-Scale Declines in Productivity of Pink and Chum Salmon Stocks in Western North America
Michael J. Malick*, Sean P. Cox
School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
* mmalick@sfu.ca
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0146009 January 13, 2016
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146009
"...we found little evidence for declines in pink salmon productivity in Southeast Alaska."
 
Last edited:
Man, I don't bother with these threads anymore, or even the site much because the pro FF guys are kind of ruining it. I'm surprised at how much money the industry is pouring into having these guys flood all the sport fishing forums with their propaganda. I also find the new names kind of interesting (spo, bones and others). The re-incarnation of CK (Roberts)? lol.
I can't believe the patience of AA having to be so repetitive with all his knowledgeable responses. Any normal person can see the cards are stacked, the show will end, its the right thing to do. Try as hard as you want, but the FF industry had such bad publicity, I don't think the people of BC have any more patience for the garbage they spew anymore.

The argument of cant do closed containment because its not viable, so we have to continue to use the ocean as our dumping ground, sounds so stupid when you really look at it. If its not viable, then its not a good industry to be in.
 
Man, I don't bother with these threads anymore, or even the site much because the pro FF guys are kind of ruining it. I'm surprised at how much money the industry is pouring into having these guys flood all the sport fishing forums with their propaganda. I also find the new names kind of interesting (spo, bones and others). The re-incarnation of CK (Roberts)? lol.
I can't believe the patience of AA having to be so repetitive with all his knowledgeable responses. Any normal person can see the cards are stacked, the show will end, its the right thing to do. Try as hard as you want, but the FF industry had such bad publicity, I don't think the people of BC have any more patience for the garbage they spew anymore.

The argument of cant do closed containment because its not viable, so we have to continue to use the ocean as our dumping ground, sounds so stupid when you really look at it. If its not viable, then its not a good industry to be in.

Ever think that there is just pro fish farm sports fishermen on these forums. Maybe some realise that if the FF disappear tomorrow the amount of pressure from commercial industry will skyrocket for wild salmon. That sports fishermen peace of the pie will go the way off the dodo bird and these fish will just be allocated to the commercial industry after their is public outrage that the cost of salmon skyrockets. That the amount of poaching will increase to dramatic levels, Think a salmon will make it past FN nets when the price goes to 50 bucks a fish. My neighbour has salmon for dinner two times a week and they don't fish or care about the industry, The only thing they care about is the price.

Price for salmon gets high enough and the Alaskan salmon raches will further increate their production, and these salmon will again out compete wild fish.
 
Already starting..... Burrard band is demanding 2.2 pounds of salmon per head. If this cant be met the they are going to push to manage the resource. There argument being mismanaged
 
So, your hypothesis is that if fish farms were removed, we could expect a 50% increase in the returns (of course this is 2008 article). Obviously, the next question would be to examine all the data over the last 30 years and see if the runs were 50% larger than they are today. That would help with first hypothesis - that is to prove the capacity is there. The second would be to examine the commercial and sport fishing takes and compare that to the data from 30 years ago. Did we diminish numbers so substantially because of over fishing that the runs are still trying to recover? We did have salmon run collapses in the 80's - any oldtimers want to talk about the collapse of salmon from the Georgia Strait or from Campbell River? Finally, we need to understand how the Fraser River sockeye run of 2010 was second largest in a century - this doesn't make any sense unless the data shows it should have been twice as big as it was. If we can match this data and it proves the statistical correlation you are looking for, then you would have a mighty fine argument.

By preforming statistical regressions on your data sets, we can actually test your ideas and prove the point. Again, AA, I am not actually commenting on the validity of all the claims - it is whether they are hyperbolic and don't prove what they are supposed to prove, namely that the source of our troubles for salmon are FF's. I actually worry that the real source of the problem is rising temperatures in our streams that are making them non-conducive for the spawners. We all talk about the sockeye circling out front waiting for a rainfall to cool things down so they can make there push upstream. What if that is the most significant problem? Closing all the FF's in the world won't change rainfall or ocean temperatures and if all they do is make us feel better, lets put that energy into something that works.
Not much old growth /second growth trees around anymore,the old growth canopy held the melt water and snow packs throughout the year and didn't flash flood salmon redds.The land needs time to repair the damage we done to it.Harvesting trees at a age to fit our/their new mills was the worst thing done to the wild stocks of salmon not the FF's.While I talk forest ,the kelp help is needed to be encouraged .I'm not FF fellow.Utah mine rup inlet bc might be great start for a brood stock of chosen land lock pen .Understand they want to dig deeper on the other side of the inlet .kelp there in ruperts diminished 100 % in two years ,why?because of logging to the shores on the shaded slops in active areas of salmon migrations and native fish traps once forgoten.FC (not forgoten yet)
 
... Maybe some realise that if the FF disappear tomorrow the amount of pressure from commercial industry will skyrocket for wild salmon...
NEGATIVE! The TAC is controlled by the PST - not the demand. The price reflects demand, instead. Lets see some proof our your claim, wmy...
 
NEGATIVE! The TAC is controlled by the PST - not the demand. The price reflects demand, instead. Lets see some proof our your claim, wmy...

Let’s see some prof that fish farms in BC effect BC wild salmon. There’s no science on it yet, the Cohen report did not find any and nothing has been done yet to make any kind of of relationship between wild and farmed.

The NGO’s are out in full force in these forums these days.
 
Let’s see some prof that fish farms in BC effect BC wild salmon. There’s no science on it yet, the Cohen report did not find any and nothing has been done yet to make any kind of of relationship between wild and farmed. The NGO’s are out in full force in these forums these days.
So - that would instead be a tactic admission that your claim is unsupported - and if you have any idea of how commercial salmon fishery TACs are developed - you certainly haven't demonstrated that understanding here. Cohen never found a "smoking gun" - but he was concerned with FF impacts - esp. in the Discovery Islands area and the fact that DFO was both promoting and regulating FFs. You never highlighted those inconvenient truths. And unless "NGO' stands for "not getting ornery" - I am not. What about you?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Anybody see the news tonight ? Lots of viruses in the blood waste from farmed salmon. Seems rockfish that feed in the area are testing positive now too.
 
Nice that people care about wild salmon - for sure, eh? I also feel very special that you are following me so closely WMY! :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top