Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
cuttlefish said:
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.
Click to expand...

I also support Justice Cohen recommendation. So where is this data? The info submitted by AA (only up until 2000, which is why I called it stale dated) contradicts what most of the posters are calling for. And, contrary to your belief, I am actually looking at any science that proves the hypothesis.

Look, we can't rationally pick an item out of a scientific document and then decide that if the data doesn't support our hypothesis, we need to ignore the data. That, my friends, is "junk" science. I keep asking the same questions, I just can't seem to get the answers. GLG said he works with coho and they are showing dramatic decreases. Awesome, that is the type of data we need. So what is the data? Where is it? AA is obviously a pretty savvy fact based contributor, although I don't necessarily agree him, I did review the article he sent. I just want to know why the chum and coho returns increased in the presence of FF's. This is the exact opposite of what GLG said and is supported by real data. Help me on this so I can switch teams or maybe some of you can help support your FF'ing industry.
 
Last edited:
Don't you think you should be asking the FFs for this data - not the posters on this forum?
 
Here's a total supposition on my part - but at least one that can be verified as having some support wrt data:

1st - one should identify which local stocks are potentially affected by FF operations - and focus on those, specifically. Not sure if the Ford paper managed to do that.
2nd - one would need to accurately count juvies going out and adults back. That means fish fences or another alternative. Very few of those left.
3rd - one would have to follow that cohort out through all stages of life history and look at things like sea lice loading (in this case) and other measures of mortality/morbidity (e.g. plasma cortisol levels or genomics, etc.). DFO has largely been incapable of doing this (sea lice loading) for the earliest marine entrants - certainly with their trawl methodology they have not been able to.

Anyways, those caveats aside - here's some suppositions that can be verified:
  • Chum outmigrate earlier than pinks - and have different holding areas than pinks
  • chum and pinks and sockeye often compete for the same calanoid food sources at the earliest life history stages - although chum can also utilize harpactocoids. If there were reductions in calanoid food sources but chum managed to nail the harpactocoids - chum would have an advantage - or alternatively vice-versa. Less pinks might mean less density dependent reduction in growth and survival for chums competing for the same food - or subsequently attract more predators targeting chum in mixed schools - or alternatively take the pressure off chum when those schools separate. Lots of ways these species can interact both positively and negatively.
  • coho outmigrate much later than both pink and chum and likely have very different migratory behaviour - and are considerably larger than juvie pinks and chums at outmigration.
so the questions to at least investigate in order to generate answers for your questions, spopadyn - would at least be:
  • What food sources were available - and when and where? what species benefited?
  • How long in transit verses holding and how close to each farms plume does each stock interact with?
  • How many farms does each species and stocks of juveniles interact with? is there a cumulative lice loading amplification effect?
  • What stages of sea lice were on each farm - esp. gravid females - and when were the farms treated?
  • How far does the water take those infective stages of lice (naupilar to copepedite) - and looking at water temperature - when would one expect to see an effect? Where is the agent-based modelling? What does it indicate wrt expected effects?
  • What lice stages are on the juveniles - and when/where? see post #345 for reason: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...lice-and-fish-farms.64546/page-18#post-855014
  • How do the sea lice data and other sampled health data from the outmigrating juveniles compare to known mortality/morbidity data?
And we haven't even talked about disease effects yet.

So - I find it incongruous and disingenuous that FF supporters are here on this forum expecting posters on this forum being able to generate this data - instead of DFO - or the industry that potentially impacts those wild stocks.
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
So - I find it incongruous and disingenuous that FF supporters are here on this forum expecting posters on this forum being able to generate this data - instead of DFO - or the industry that potentially impacts those wild stocks
Click to expand...

So u want fish farms to police them self?
Sounds like a horrible idea

DFO does lots on this already, they already come on the news a state that there is not science in the Salish sea that links fish farms to the declining fish stocks. It does not matter what DFO stance is on this no one will believe them as there just another “political government agency in the pockets of rich fish farm companies”

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/index-eng.html

Problem is no one wants to accept the fact that climate change is the real problem plaging our salmon.

Nice to have someone to blaim tho


Anyways I hope it’s all mute in 10 years as I believe the salish sea project will find the answers. Donate to the pacific salmon foundation they doing God’s work
 
I am guessing you have never experienced an actual environmental assessment process, WMY. Because if you did - you would know that it is the proponents responsibility to ensure that data the referees have asked for in the tracking tables get dealt with - or no EA approval until it does. Much of the wild fish data is DFOs direct purview (e.g. escapement); but under an actual EA - sea lice levels associated w open net-cage operations (e.g. backgound levels) would normally be the responsibility of the proponent - and that data would also be vetted.
 
wildman nailed it - spopadyn is asking forum members for information because forum members won't/don't believe DFO numbers.
 
I have zero faith of the environmental assessment process that you speak of I have been directly involved in them from the third party doing all the testing.

Here’s how it works you submit results that are bad and instead of then being acted on you have to retest them and if there bad again the company then just hires another evormental company that then just gives them favourable results. Then it becomes the industry’s standard to basically just give the company’s what they want because after all your enviormental company won’t stay in business.

The only time I have seen a process work well is on project where the government does there own testing with their own people.

It does not even work when the government hires an enviormental company because they still don’t want to offend the contractor that they will probably work for on future assessments.

So in the end all the environmental assessment get approved it’s just a matter of how many hoops it’s got to hop threw.

Then it started taking to long to get things approved so Harper government just decimated DFO department.

I am actually happy and relieved that DFO is still envovled in the process and have their own labs.
 
That's a contractual problem - not necessarily an EA issue - but does demonstrate the need for oversight - rather than using just so-called "best methods" like in a screening - or a siting criteria review. Thanks for sharing, WMY.
 
agentaqua said:
In The Future, Northwest Fish Farming May Be All On Land
By Eilis O'Neill • 2 hours ago
http://nwpr.org/post/future-northwest-fish-farming-may-be-all-land
Click to expand...


All for it. Unfortunately AA, this fails to answer your hypothesis. Sorry bud, you are a smart guy but puff pieces are not science, even if I personally agree. I asked for hard evidence you gave me a report which contradicted your statement and of others. Forums members all love to pretend they have or know about some secret info which conclusively proves that fish farms are the major cause of salmon numbers being decimated. Now AA is asking the FF supporters to prove that they are not causing harm. Huh? If you accuse an industry or person of something and then ask them to prove they didn't do it, well, we are in a lot of trouble. That would be like me accusing all owners of Kingfisher boats of destroying our salmon stocks then asking them to prove they didn't.

Sorry guys, this thread is getting old because nothing new is coming out. I had hoped that those gents who had things other than a disgusting video of fish guts could tell me why it was causing harm to our stocks. I do think it is disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. I also think that FF people who defend these practices should read about mad cow disease and maybe it would change their perspective. If this practice is illegal, they should be heavily fined. GLG, AA, bigdoegh, and any others - would still love to see the real research. In fact, read through the Cohen report today. Boys, FF is way down on the list as probable causes for the decimation of the Fraser River sockeye. That is what is so fascinating. There are certain sockeye salmon migrating up the Fraser that are showing increased numbers over the last few decades. Why are they not infected by those FF's that are killing all the rest? I just don't get it. My guess is that habitat (and the destruction of it), over fishing, and climate change are the big ones and that everything else is really small. Oddly enough - the recommendations call for a detailed study of ocean temps, toxins, habitat changes, pathogens and even possible linkage to FF's. Cheers all, I think I will exit stage left and let the mob light their torches, grab their pitchforks and go kill Frankenstein! Been fun though and all of you have a Merry Christmas - hopefully 2018 is a great salmon year!
 
spopadyn said:
All for it. Unfortunately AA, this fails to answer your hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Who said it was supposed to, spopadyn?? Not me. Not sure who expected it to neither. It's a news piece, not peer-reviewed science. Thought that was rather obvious...
spopadyn said:
A..Now AA is asking the FF supporters to prove that they are not causing harm. Huh? If you accuse an industry or person of something and then ask them to prove they didn't do it, well, we are in a lot of trouble...
Click to expand...
It's the whole basis of an EA, spopadyn - I am surprised you didn't know that.

It used to be buried explicitly in the HADD section of the Fisheries Act before Harper tore that to shreds. In any event - it has been and still is the proponents responsibility to demonstrate no or negligible impact, or get approval for that impact while compensating (as best as possible) for that impact - to at least a level commensurate with the potential risks and in agreement with the Precautionary Principle in action.

It's seems the FF supporters have been allowed to be willfully ignorant of their responsibilities as a proponent in an EA - since they have successfully lobbied to be exempt from that requirement. It seems to be a new, strange world for them. For other proponents it is expected and just another day in paradise - and onwards with the EA process.

It is strange to me that FF proponents seem to diametrically opposed to being included in an EA. Self-serving, I guess.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...essments/basics-environmental-assessment.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1086026607300319
 
Last edited:
spopadyn said:
All for it. Unfortunately AA, this fails to answer your hypothesis. Sorry bud, you are a smart guy but puff pieces are not science, even if I personally agree.
Click to expand...

My take on AA's post was that is was meant to be read as General Information as to the activities of Fish Farm opponents in Washington State, not as the hard evidence that you are looking for.
It was for sure a good read. Thanks AA
You have got to admit, the overall Media attention coming from many fronts in just the last week or so has been impressive.

opps...looks like AA and I were typing at the same time...boy you have to be quick on this subject.
None the less it does seem like my take was right on
 
spopadyn said:
Now AA is asking the FF supporters to prove that they are not causing harm. Huh? If you accuse an industry or person of something and then ask them to prove they didn't do it, well, we are in a lot of trouble. That would be like me accusing all owners of Kingfisher boats of destroying our salmon stocks then asking them to prove they didn't.

There are certain sockeye salmon migrating up the Fraser that are showing increased numbers over the last few decades. Why are they not infected by those FF's that are killing all the rest?
Click to expand...
Thats the "Precautionary Principle" AA is talking about whereby you need to prove you will cause no harm before you proceed and have rigorous monitoring to ensure you cause no harm. Which certain sockeye salmon runs migrating up the Fraser are increasing over the last few decades I'd like to read up on them?
 
terrin said:
Thats the "Precautionary Principle" AA is talking about whereby you need to prove you will cause no harm before you proceed and have rigorous monitoring to ensure you cause no harm. Which certain sockeye salmon runs migrating up the Fraser are increasing over the last few decades I'd like to read up on them?
Click to expand...

Chilliwack Lake is one.
 
Upper Pitt is another.
Weird how both are below the main netting areas used by FN? Lol
Odd how all the stocks above these netting points are decreasing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
‘Shockingly huge’ steelhead salmon escape fish farm, threatening B.C.’s Lois Lake ecosystem
Replies
5
Views
972
agentaqua
A
A
Chinook bycatch by BC trawlers
Replies
21
Views
2K
wildmanyeah
W
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
2K
Fishing?
F
SVIAC
IMPORTANT: Feb. 27 Fisheries Town Hall Mtg. in Langford
Replies
13
Views
2K
PEETZcanada
PEETZcanada
IronNoggin
CPAWS
Replies
24
Views
1K
Hardy Guy
H
Back
Top