Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by Chuck, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Clint r

    Clint r Well-Known Member

    Yeah I just saw that. Pretty gross. How you can see that and still think it’s ok is beyond me.
  2. Whitebuck

    Whitebuck Active Member

    I’m against fish farms in the ocean.....
    But fishfarms are the perfect non racial scapegoat 99% of uneducated, inexperienced ppl of this province. Vancouverites love to blame the fish farms....even though they have never seen the Fraser in the summer during a ceremonial FN comm opening.
    You want to see stocks rebound? Do a season or a cycle or two of zero netting in the rivers and watch the stocks magically show up...
    trophywife and bigdogeh like this.
  3. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    I agree somewhat (quite a bit) whitebuck... It's going to take a concerted effort on all fronts (netting, fish farms, over fishing, environmental protections, etc) that we can, have the power to, and are able to control and affect if we want to bring back our wild salmon, rather than watch them quickly become extinct. These salmon have been here for millenia and have adapted and thrived, up until the last few decades, a snapshot in time. I'd rather see our government do something positive to try to show they are concerned with our wild stocks rather than putting all their effort into supporting farmed salmon at the detriment of our wild salmon. They have their priorities all wrong. To continue heading in the direction we have been is madness. Unless you are OK with watching another species become extinct and only be shown in museums.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  4. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    Complete fearmongerring. Typical fish farm response.
    For one, no ones going to buy salmon at 50 a lb... and if anything, even if the price went up to 50 a lb, a lot less fish would be sold. (only the very wealthy could afford it) so it could have the complete opposite effect. Do you see everyone rushing out to buy lobster twice a week?, or would your buddy eat lobster at 5 bucks a lb, if salmon was selling at 50? I bet he would. My buddy does up a batch or 2 of sockeye each year in the smoker that he buys from safeway or superstore or where ever... He buys it when it's at rock bottom because the stores are flooded with it. (he won't touch atlantic salmon for the same reasons I won't.)
    Think your neighbours going to keep eating his 2 meals of fish a week when it's $50 a lb?
    The reason we have regulations, limits and rules in aquaculture, commercial fishing, sportsfishing, first nations fishing, is to try to maintain stocks at healthy levels. If the government(s) doesn't want to, or doesn't do their jobs properly (regulate and enforce) this is the mess we end up with.
    To say we need open net pen farmed salmon to save wild salmon just doesn't cut it anymore. Keep trying though. Once the large closed containment systems get rolling down in the US and near other centers of major population, and people start buying certified organic and guilt free, disease and virus free, green labelled salmon, the open net pen fish farms on our west coast will be put out of business if they don't transition to RAS closed containment.
    maybe read Rockdogs post #671 again. There are alot of people in this forum, province and country that are pretty much done with this industry. Even the US doesn't want to get involved with open net pen invasive atlantic fish farms. Keep fighting it as the FF industry will, but it will eventually come down to dollars and sense when the government and industry realizes it will be alot better off on land.
    trophywife and Whitebuck like this.
  5. rockdog

    rockdog Well-Known Member

    The Pro FF dudes (aside from the bird with tuna) post nothing anywhere else other than the anti farm threads. So I would say they joined solely to protect the interests of farms. Not only are they pro farms in discussion, but they also draw a wage from the farms, so who is really in conflict? Can you really take what they say as reality when their livelihood depends on the success of the farms? Get real...
  6. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Active Member

    These forums are starting to get so toxic with enviormential ngo’s. It’s be conning clear that the only thing people here want is to be able to watch salmon on eco tours rather then Harvest wild or farmed salmon.

    Seems some hear don’t want hatcheries, salmon farms, commercial harvest or recreational harvest but rather just be a moritoriam implemented allrogeather. Don’t be surprised in 10 years when the only place you can by salmon is from down south in those land based fish farm after all what will the need to be to even harvest wild at that point or fish for wild salmon or have hatcheries. DFO would like nothing more to completely shut it down it’s been a horrible thorn in their side for years.

    Tell me what will be the point to harvest wild salmon if land based fish farms are solved? Honestly what will be the point might as well leave the wild salmon for the SRKW population. Maybe if your lucky u can go dip your line in their tank.
    SpringFever552 likes this.
  7. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    Sadly, it doesn't surprise me at all. Pretty much seen it all with this industry. I bet it doesn't surprise DFO or Marine Harvest or any of the open net pen FF companies either. They know what's going on. Just always trying to hide or discredit the evidence. They always seem to come up with some type of pathetic excuse. Sure their spin doctors are working overtime.
    Bet they wish they had put their effluent sewage pipe down around 300 or 400 feet where it would have been harder to get to. That'll prob be their solution. Out of sight, out of mind...
    Just shows how much they care for the environment and our wild salmon... nil.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  8. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I agree that some NGOs can have a very challenging perspective (e.g. CPAWS, Watershed Watch, etc.) - a few are even dishonest IMHO (e.g. Sea Shepherd, IFAW, etc.) - but the NGOs actually have a broad focus and perspective - with some (e.g. T. Buck Suzuki, PSF, etc.) having interests closely aligned with sportsfishermen and communities.

    And I am not seeing NGOs flooding these forums - but I am instead seeing science starting to catch-up with our need to understand the dynamics of what is happening out there to the wild fish stocks (e.g. The Salish Sea Initiative and the PSF) - and sportsfishermen availing themselves of that available information (including using this forum to do so) and making up their own fiercely independent minds up about what matters in looking after wild salmon. That more often than not means the risks and costs outweigh the benefits with the open net-cage industry - among other impacts.

    So, I am instead appreciative of the information and debate this forum allows us all.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
    spopadyn, california and bigdogeh like this.
  9. spopadyn

    spopadyn Member

    So, Bigdogeh - I am actually a trained scientist and keep asking you all to provide cause - effect items. I have asked for numbers from almost everyone one of you as have others on the forum. Aside from AA, who attempts to provide some of the information (albeit rather stale dated) I mostly get accused of being a FF advocate. Not even from BC. If you really care like you say you do, you should be interested in providing everything we can to prove the point that FF's have caused the environmental damage claimed. Seriously, if we believe that 50% of the salmon have died from the presence of FF's help us non-biased people see this fact. A video isn't a fact. I also find the videos equally disturbing. But, I really want to know what is causing the most significant damage to the salmon population. Video and forums get everyone's back up, but that isn't a fact. If 90% of the people agree with you, it still isn't a fact. My pet peeve, especially as I am getting older, is that real decisions keep getting made on half truths. These decisions may include allowing FF to take place or removing them. We live in a world of feel good science right now, and it is actually causing more harm then good.

    Look, again, I am just a concerned fisherman, like you, who wants to protect our resource. If you shut down all the FF's and it has no effect on the salmon population other then to create additional pressures on the wilds stocks, what do we do? What is plan B? What if the hydroelectric dams are actually the biggest culprit in the salmon destruction? Shut them down to? Then what. For every action there is always a consequence. PVR and other pathogens all may be exacerbated by FF's, but if the effect is actually negligible, you won't save your salmon.

    This genie is already out of the bottle, and personally, I think aquaculture is one of the future sources of food supply for the planet and Canada should be trying to lead the way in creating a healthy, sustainable industry. We should be helping our scientists, biologists, first nations etc to come up with ways to grow this industry safely.
    SpringFever552, wildmanyeah and Dave like this.
  10. spopadyn

    spopadyn Member


    Figure S1. Survivals of Salmonids in Control (Black) and Exposed (Blue) Stocks, along with Aquaculture Production (Red)

    So looking at the data provided by AA yesterday, these are the graphs of survival rates. The issue I have is that BC Chum and BC coho demonstrated record returns in areas where they were exposed to fish farms. The Pink salmon is the only appreciable negative difference based upon the data. What we should be doing is trying to explain why in the presence of FF's did the exposed Coho and Chum stocks have record returns where the Pinks showed a decline? This is what I don't get. Can someone help me as to why this happens. If the FF is causing a 50% decline in salmon populations, why did the exposed areas of chums and cohos have these all time high returns - either the data must be wrong or the hypothesis is off? Based on the data above, one could even argue that the chum salmon is benefiting from the FF's. Is there any more up to date data that can help with this?

    I am using the report AA submitted as proof of the FF effects globally, however, when you parse out the BC data - it in no way matches the same effects that happened in Ireland or Scotland. There are significant other issues with the paper, but these are the facts. I just wish we had the next 15 years and it included springs and sockeyes.

    Attached Files:

  11. Derby

    Derby Well-Known Member

  12. cuttlefish

    cuttlefish Well-Known Member

    Okay, got that and I agree aquaculture is a good source of food supply. I just don't agree it needs to be salmon grown in net-pens in the oceans and on migrations routes of wild salmon. Science that shows it causes minimum risk to wild salmon is what Justice Cohen called for and I support that recommendation. There seems to be a dearth of that science posted in these salmon farming related threads.
    Perhaps then, spopadyn, you should be advocating for a more collaborative efforts to grow the more sustainable industry in Canada instead of ignoring the Precautionary Principle, calling down other posters, labelling what they offer as "stale dated", and demanding only science that conclusively proves negative cause-effect relationships.
  13. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    I call BS as you obviously know nothing about AA and what he does and what he stands for. I know AA and he is not a NGO rep. I know him as a concerned citizen who is very knowledgeable about fish, biology and the environment and I'm pretty sure he does fish - not that this should matter.

    I think I am not alone with many others on this forum and the Forum Admin. to say stop the negative character judgements, insinuations and personal attacks based on your personal bias and stick to the facts of the debate on this forum please!
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  14. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    Here is the link to the news cast:

    Pretty damn disgusting if you ask me - the fish farm industry should be ashamed. Test of resident rockfish show that they are positive for the virus present in the blood waste being pumped into the ocean. We need to pressure our govt's and politicians that this is NOT acceptable and must stop!

    B.C. conservationists post livestream of blood discharge pouring into local waters
    [​IMG] By Linda Aylesworth Reporter Global News
    Opponents of B.C. fish farms say they’ve found a virus in processing plant waste that could be a threat to wild pacific salmon. Linda Aylesworth reports.

    A Washington state senator is introducing legislation to ban open-net fish farms in his state and says B.C. should do the same.

    Now local conservationists say they have new evidence of the potential damage fish farms can do.

    After video was published online showing red fish blood and waste pumping into the water near Campbell River, concerned diver and photographer Tavish Campbell knew he had to do more to bring awareness to the issue.

    Story continues below
    Campbell, who is also an ecotourism guide and Discovery Island resident, took the video after he saw what was being pumped out of a plant that processes Cermaq’s farmed salmon in Brown’s Bay near Campbell River on the northeast coast of Vancouver Island.

    He took samples, which were sent to the Atlantic Veterinary College in Prince Edward Island where scientists concluded the presence of piscine reovirus (PRV). This virus is common among farmed salmon in Norway and a federal fisheries pathologist acknowledges it is present in 80 per cent of farmed salmon on the B.C. coast.

    READ MORE: B.C. Environmentalists: Do farmed salmon threaten wild species with disease?

    The virus has been linked to Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI) in salmon, a disease that causes the fish to waste and become lethargic and unable to swim.

    The concern is that this highly-contagious virus will spread to B.C.’s wild Pacific Salmon stocks.

    Campbell performed a dive under a fish processing plant on the west side of Vancouver Island in Tofino where Creative Salmon farmed fish are processed. There he found the same situation. Further testing determined that 50 per cent of the rockfish feeding on the waste coming out of the effluent pipe tested positive for PRV.

    Whether or not rockfish can become sick from the virus is unknown but there are concerns that they can spread it to wild salmon.

    READ MORE: Can B.C. fish farms convince critics their practices are safe?

    George Heyman, B.C.’s minister of environment, has said he will look into the matter, however the federal minister responsible, Catherine McKenna, denies that PRV is a problem and continues to allow infected fish to be introduced into open-net farms.

    In an effort to put pressure on both governments to act, Campbell has set up an underwater camera that will livestream the disturbing clouds of infected effluent. It will broadcast seven days a week during daylight hours.

    The livestream can be found here.
    bigdogeh and terrin like this.
  15. terrin

    terrin Active Member

    Good Post WITW. It seems that they try and shut threads down by going negative. I also appreciate the knowledge and resources that AA adds to the discussion.
    bigdogeh and agentaqua like this.
  16. Birdsnest

    Birdsnest Well-Known Member

    Lol. This thread is just getting weird. It seems to run out of items to discuss is not enough so it has to spiral into accusations that have nothing to do with facts. Just ridiculous.
  17. spopadyn

    spopadyn Member

    Yep - what he said. I gave you the info supplied by AA above which contradict what they are claiming, but lets not talk about any science anymore. Lets look at this video and scream!
  18. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Active Member

    Last time i checked this is a sports fishing forum! you would think fishing might matter?

    Oh what a surprise! an Ecotoursim guide!

    I agree I took it to far but I was also a target of personal attacks. Saying I am somehow linked to Pro fish farm groups? just because I have a counter view,

    But fine i will retract from this thread as it seems to be reserved for anti fish farming comments only

    I'm glad fish farms can be the media punching bag for now...

    Time to go back and fish for some more of these from my local stream. Thanks Hatcheries!


  19. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I don't think we do at all, spopadyn. I am very appreciative of the scientific tools we now have at our disposal to figure things out - that we never had 20+ years ago – like satellite and sonic tags, GPS, GIS, ocean gliders, and a host of other instruments and connectedness (e.g. The WWW on which we are now communicating).

    We do however live in a world of “feel bad” politics associated with supporting and misleading PR scripts. That is why I continually advocate for an actual EA process for this and other industries where there is consensus-based decision making based on refereed and accredited information (of which the proponent should provide proof of no or negligible impacts – not the posters on this forum) – something this industry has successfully opposed for all of it's existence so far in Canada.

    I think I and other posters have been pretty consistent about CC and interim measures in getting us there – like risk assessment and management – like looking at wild/cultured stock interactions using appropriate tools (agent-based modelling verses siting criteria for one example) – and getting them off the worst locations – like the Discovery Islands smolt migration routes.

    Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of the genie being out of the bottle – but this is something we should learn from – learn that the promoters should NOT be the regulators – that there has been some collusion and lying by both the regulators and the industry – and we need not to let them to do so w/o accountability checks and balances – including having a real-time notification process with geographic coordinates attached to every disease outbreak so we can learn from them things like transfer risk, mortality, epidemiology, virulence, etc.

    Again – I think some of this has been discussed at length on this thread and others – including myself and other posters attaching dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed science articles on these issues. All you (or bones or any other poster) have to do – if you are interested – is read the available science – often generated in spite of the industry's attempt to hide issues such as fish health.

    However, one more time – I will summarize and share what I know on these issues:

    Pinks and chums are very, very tiny when they outmigrate from their natal creeks – as opposed to other Pacific salmon juveniles. They cannot withstand very much sea lice loading as expressed as number of lice per gram of host weight. They are most at risk from interactions from fish farms since they are so small and rear for some weeks in areas that sometimes contain multiple exposures to cumulative lice loading amplification from the open net-pen industry – like in the Discovery Islands area.

    Then there are other potential impacts – like disease-causing organisms – such as PRv, ISAv, IHN, etc. As fish get stressed – like at spawning time and during acclimation to fresh from salt – or from salt to freshwater – their immune systems are lowered. During that time latent diseases can overwhelm a fish hosts defenses and cause mortality – either directly – or indirectly.

    Yet again, FFs and their open net-pen technology can amplify those disease agents into a high enough density to overwhelm a hosts defenses – and the raising (protecting and feeding) of FF fish selects for high virulence disease-causing organisms – as well as potentially introducing novel diseases to naive hosts. Unless one is there during an outbreak sampling adjacent wild stocks – then - otta sight – otta mind – the usual – and when those impacted stocks return in reduced abundances as surviving adults – that decrease in ocean survival rate can be attributed to many other causes.

    And finally – no – there is no standard “50%” reduction in wild stock survival rate due to FF impacts – it varies wildly – but as mentioned numerous times already – is site and species and cohort-specific.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
    bigdogeh likes this.
  20. Birdsnest

    Birdsnest Well-Known Member

    And finally – no – there is no standard “50%” reduction in wild stock survival rate due to FF impacts – it varies wildly – but as mentioned numerous times already – is site and species and cohort-specific.

    Can you show some wide variations of effects? Im really getting at the quantifiable portion of your statement.

Share This Page