Minimal risk to wild Fraser River sockeye due to pathogen transfer from BC Salmon Farms

[fogged in]

I will make a deal - no posts from me - but not a single lie from your anti-FF group. No false accusations - no false science - no junk. No problem with fair and balanced - just keep it real. My response to Onefish was another claim of DFO collusion and them producing "Fake News". How about you start correcting this instead of leaving it to the pro FF posters to correct every misstatement. Sound fair? Merry Christmas as well.

Ho Ho Ho Merry Christmas
and anyone who utters a word of False News on this thread or the other two Fish Farm threads
will get a stocking full of coal for Christmas and banned from fishing until Halibut season opens!
I for one promise I will give it a rest and challenge all the Fish Farm posters to do the same.
3 days should not be that hard should it?

 

[Dave]

OK, I'm in. aa, can you do 3 days without posting something from Scotland, Norway or ...?

 

[bones]

Our findings allow a partitioning of overall mortality into the first month of life in the ocean and that occurring afterwards, and are of particular importance because they demonstrate that the majority of the mortality occurred after smolts passed through the Discovery Passage/Broughton Archipelago region.

This sparks the debate of whether the poor marine survival was caused by fish farm related issues, or if other factors such as poor ocean conditions were responsible, or if there was perhaps a combination of impacts. At this time we have no answers, but we have solutions that could bring such answers.

In 2010, Kintama collaborated with the University of British Columbia on a Pacific Salmon Foundation funded project charged with providing preliminary information about Cultus Lake salmon migration and survival. These data have still to be published. However, it appears that there are 2 regions of high mortality, one shortly after leaving Lake Chilko, and the other between the Northern Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Strait.

http://kintama.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Welch-et-al-2009-Cultus-sockeye.pdf

 

[bones]

The goal of TEFFS is to provide clear data so that policy makers can determine whether fish farms should be regulated to protect wild stocks, and to satisfy stakeholders on both sides of the debate that the resulting policy decisions are based on sound science.

Whether fish farming caused the widespread decline of southern British Columbia salmon stocks is hotly debated, and it is unlikely that evidence reported at the Cohen Judicial Inquiry can resolve the controversy. In part, this is because all previous studies used indices, such as sea lice burdens on smolts collected near or far from fish farms, rather than directly measuring smolt survival. This choice was a result of earlier technical limitations preventing direct measurement of marine survival. However, several other issues are also important: (1) indices do not provide a direct causal link to survival and the degree of harm fish farms may actually impose; (2) even if one factor (such as lice or parvovirus) can be unequivocally ruled out, other untested or undescribed diseases may still play a role, leading to a long cycle of studies; and (3) smolts move. For instance, our past studies demonstrate that wild smolts migrate at 8~13 km/day. This makes any association between disease burden and smolt location at the time of capture (near or far from fish farms) problematic.

We are proposing four distinct parts to an overall research program that should resolve the effect of fish farms on wild salmon stocks. These components will do the following:

(A) measure the degree to which salmon farm exposure reduces survival of wild smolts over the first ~8 weeks of ocean life after initial exposure;

(B) establish whether animals transported and held in holding pens for experimental use have the same migratory behavior and survival as smolts naturally migrating from their natal lakes;

(C) Develop disease, genomic, and histopathological profiles on smolts that are or are not exposed to fish farms;


http://kintama.com/applications/testing-the-effect-of-fish-farms-on-salmon-survival/

 

[GLG]

Our findings allow a partitioning of overall mortality into the first month of life in the ocean and that occurring afterwards, and are of particular importance because they demonstrate that the majority of the mortality occurred after smolts passed through the Discovery Passage/Broughton Archipelago region.

This sparks the debate of whether the poor marine survival was caused by fish farm related issues, or if other factors such as poor ocean conditions were responsible, or if there was perhaps a combination of impacts. At this time we have no answers, but we have solutions that could bring such answers.

In 2010, Kintama collaborated with the University of British Columbia on a Pacific Salmon Foundation funded project charged with providing preliminary information about Cultus Lake salmon migration and survival. These data have still to be published. However, it appears that there are 2 regions of high mortality, one shortly after leaving Lake Chilko, and the other between the Northern Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Strait.

http://kintama.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Welch-et-al-2009-Cultus-sockeye.pdf

Interesting isn't it... have a search on this forum for more details. Just put Kintama and check out the last page of links.

 

[GLG]

The goal of TEFFS is to provide clear data so that policy makers can determine whether fish farms should be regulated to protect wild stocks, and to satisfy stakeholders on both sides of the debate that the resulting policy decisions are based on sound science.

Whether fish farming caused the widespread decline of southern British Columbia salmon stocks is hotly debated, and it is unlikely that evidence reported at the Cohen Judicial Inquiry can resolve the controversy. In part, this is because all previous studies used indices, such as sea lice burdens on smolts collected near or far from fish farms, rather than directly measuring smolt survival. This choice was a result of earlier technical limitations preventing direct measurement of marine survival. However, several other issues are also important: (1) indices do not provide a direct causal link to survival and the degree of harm fish farms may actually impose; (2) even if one factor (such as lice or parvovirus) can be unequivocally ruled out, other untested or undescribed diseases may still play a role, leading to a long cycle of studies; and (3) smolts move. For instance, our past studies demonstrate that wild smolts migrate at 8~13 km/day. This makes any association between disease burden and smolt location at the time of capture (near or far from fish farms) problematic.

We are proposing four distinct parts to an overall research program that should resolve the effect of fish farms on wild salmon stocks. These components will do the following:

(A) measure the degree to which salmon farm exposure reduces survival of wild smolts over the first ~8 weeks of ocean life after initial exposure;

(B) establish whether animals transported and held in holding pens for experimental use have the same migratory behavior and survival as smolts naturally migrating from their natal lakes;

(C) Develop disease, genomic, and histopathological profiles on smolts that are or are not exposed to fish farms;


http://kintama.com/applications/testing-the-effect-of-fish-farms-on-salmon-survival/

Yup a road not traveled. Sure would have been great if this project would have been fleshed out and acted upon as this would have been completed by now. Maybe we would be having beers or fishing together as I'm sure you're an interesting guy.

 

[california]

Yup a road not traveled. Sure would have been great if this project would have been fleshed out and acted upon as this would have been completed by now. Maybe we would be having beers or fishing together as I'm sure you're an interesting guy.

As you say this kind of science would have been nice decades ago. If the initiatives (I think it is still a big IF) from both sides of the aisle in the WA state legislature are successful at removing fish farms from Puget sound, that would also serve as a very interesting laboratory on the effect of removing fish farms from migratory routes.

 

[ericl]

From the news down here in WA the Cook farms seem to thumb their nose at regulations - wouldn't doubt that PROPER POLICING of these A-holes would cost the govt more money that they collect.
Dunno about Canada, but in the USA we have the best politicians money can buy.................
IMO the risk to wild Salmon is just too great.

 

[spopadyn]

From the news down here in WA the Cook farms seem to thumb their nose at regulations - wouldn't doubt that PROPER POLICING of these A-holes would cost the govt more money that they collect.
Dunno about Canada, but in the USA we have the best politicians money can buy.................
IMO the risk to wild Salmon is just too great.

Interesting post. In Canada many of us are worried about the agendas of politicians and the organized conservationists. I know the Sierra Group down south has been accused of political adgendas that are not necessarily aligned with the environment. Same problems up here. Is it all bad fish farm operators or do you have paid lobbyists working against them?

 

[ericl]

Is it all bad fish farm operators or do you have paid lobbyists working against them?

My comments are from what I see on the evening news. Me, I worry about EVERYBODY's agenda's including my own. These days everybody has an agenda - not sure if it is changing times or that I am experienced enough in life to see it (I am 67). BTW my main definition of "an agenda" is reaching your conclusion/goal & then cherry picking facts/editing them as needed to support your goal.

With fish farms, the tides sweep away the evidence until something major happens. Example; Salmon are in decline - can you prove it is fish farms (or anything else for that matter) to where the politicians will act on it? Will they believe anything that "the other side" came up with?

 

[Fishmyster]

My comments are from what I see on the evening news. Me, I worry about EVERYBODY's agenda's including my own. These days everybody has an agenda - not sure if it is changing times or that I am experienced enough in life to see it (I am 67). BTW my main definition of "an agenda" is reaching your conclusion/goal & then cherry picking facts/editing them as needed to support your goal.

With fish farms, the tides sweep away the evidence until something major happens. Example; Salmon are in decline - can you prove it is fish farms (or anything else for that matter) to where the politicians will act on it? Will they believe anything that "the other side" came up with?

This could become a really heated topic that deserves it own thread! We live in a world where marketing and media is everything. There is big money in marketing environmental/salmon crisis. When you add "non profit" and "donations" to an organization where people draw a wage it leaves questioning for the integrity of such organization. If you pay yourself enough there is no profit for the organization. Excellent way to make a living for the people who are smart enough to craft it all up!

 

[bigdogeh]

Sounds more like a certain branch of government to me... I think they've become pro's on the subject of marketing propaganda and profit at environmental expense.
Oooh, those bad organizations that try to hold the government accountable. Shame on them...
Actually, I'm thankful there are people out there trying to hold the government accountable. I'd hate to think of where we'd be without them.

 

[bigdogeh]

Interesting post. In Canada many of us are worried about the agendas of politicians and the organized conservationists. I know the Sierra Group down south has been accused of political adgendas that are not necessarily aligned with the environment. Same problems up here. Is it all bad fish farm operators or do you have paid lobbyists working against them?

One things for certain, we have politicians and paid lobbyists working for the open net pen fish farm industry...

 

[Fishmyster]

Sounds more like a certain branch of government to me... I think they've become pro's on the subject of marketing propaganda and profit at environmental expense.
Oooh, those bad organizations that try to hold the government accountable. Shame on them...
Actually, I'm thankful there are people out there trying to hold the government accountable. I'd hate to think of where we'd be without them.

But who is making sure the "non profiteers" are accountable??

 

[Birdsnest]

Sounds more like a certain branch of government to me... I think they've become pro's on the subject of marketing propaganda and profit at environmental expense.
Oooh, those bad organizations that try to hold the government accountable. Shame on them...
Actually, I'm thankful there are people out there trying to hold the government accountable. I'd hate to think of where we'd be without them.

Id be interested to see where activists have to show accountability or integrity for their activities. Any standard out there that someone can highlight?

I doubt that there is a standard but one thing for certain NGO groups are allowed to make mistakes they just lack the gumption to ever do so. I cant recall ever once seeing a ngo group making a statement they were wrong.
The government can be sued for wrong doing so I doubt any of those officials are cozzying up to anyone when they know hot tar and feathers are always ready for them should anything be out of order.

 

[bigdogeh]

If government wasn't in bed with the FF industry and actually did their job of regulating rather than promoting and subsidizing, you probably wouldn't see as many NGO's and even just members of the general public (which there are many) trying to shed light on the filthy fish farm industry. The government has had to be sued to be held accountable (sadly) in regard to this industry. They could care less as they have an open checkbook. It's called "the taxpayer" ...

 

[bones]

lmao, DFO works under a shrinking budget, not the tax coffers

 

[bigdogeh]

lmao, DFO works under a shrinking budget, not the tax coffers

where does the money for that budget come from? The taxpayer. Must have a pretty good budget if they can afford to bail out the farmers when their fish die off from disease. Or afford to subsidize the industry to the tune of millions each year...

 

[Birdsnest]

where does the money for that budget come from? The taxpayer. Must have a pretty good budget if they can afford to bail out the farmers when their fish die off from disease. Or afford to subsidize the industry to the tune of millions each year...

What makes you thing that these subsidies and bail outs are any different from what other farming sectors receive. If you compair the salmon farm bail outs in BBC are minuscule. I have presented this in the past.

 

[bones]

where does the money for that budget come from? The taxpayer. Must have a pretty good budget if they can afford to bail out the farmers when their fish die off from disease. Or afford to subsidize the industry to the tune of millions each year...

Lmao