Sea Lice and Fish Farms

If you have the data - as you say - then why not publish it in a science/fisheries journal?
 
I'll help by making some suggestions you can follow-up on Fishmyster – if you are serious about publishing.

I see it as 2 basics choices:

1/ You publishing by yourself – as lead (if not sole) author, or
2/ You publishing as a co-author when involved as a team of researchers.

Most researchers are going to be leery of attaching their name to a paper where they weren't involved in collecting the data – unless they can carve off a specific portion of that process (e.g. Statistics, etc) – where they can vouch for their share of what they were responsible for.

Sometimes in academic institutions – master's thesis's can often be a compilation of looking into other researcher's works – like an annotated bibliography. So – your data could also fit into something like that – possibly.

You can also do it by yourself. A little daunting the first time, potentially.

It sounds as if your research/data/article might fit well in one of the geophysical journals, such as: Water Research; Water Resources Research; River Research and Applications; Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Focus; Environmental Management; Environmental Science & Technology; Journal of Climate; Nature Climate Change; Climatic Change; Geophysical Research Letters; Environmental Research Letters; Journal of Hydrometeorology; Ecological Applications; Evolutionary Applications; Ecosphere; Global Change Biology; etc.

There are also “upper-end” admittedly tougher journals, such as: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; Journal of Fish Biology; Plos One; North American Journal of Fisheries Management; Transactions of the American Fisheries Society; Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences; Science; etc.

In any event – I would recommend doing 2 things simultaneously – in order to focus what approach you may decide to take:

Google the journals I listed above – and browse their past titles/research some – and their “Instructions to Authors”. It'll give you an idea of what type(s) of articles they publish – and how stringent you must be in order to publish. If it appears a bit too daunting – maybe try Googling who else is publishing on similar work (climate change, watersheds, etc – and the stats in determining effects) and their affiliations (Academic Institutes). Then finding someone reasonably close (UBC, etc.) - try emailing them – which puts you into going for choice 2 above: You publishing as a co-author when involved as a team of researchers.

Each party (you and any supervisor/lead author) will need to see what benefits a partnership brings. Maybe your data could be the start of a Master's student thesis – or something else.

Anyways – nothing ventured – nothing gained. You'll have a better idea of what you might wish to do after these suggestions are completed...
 
aa, that was an excellent post! Kudos to you :)
Fyshmyster, give the scientist I forwarded your posts to a little more time to hopefully respond as he has a lot on his plate now, but does have a ton of grad students keen to work on projects that have relevance, as I believe your data shows. Patience for a while ...
 
Thank you AA for the advise. Option two would work best for me. I'll try emailing someone at UBC next.
Sorry if I seem frustrated sometimes. I believe 100% in what I have witnessed over the years. My trouble is believing all the hype in anti farm reports when I know very well what forces more likely caused this great salmon depression. So when I find the big holes in the data used against farms and everyone keeps avoiding the missing components that I mention it is a bit annoying. Sorry if it got to me a bit. Cheers.

Thanks for the reassurance Dave.
 
Cheers back, Fishmyster. I do believe I understand your frustration.

Unfortunately the fisheries management field rarely has the breath and detail in the data that one would plan for - if one had the control over funding and politics. Managers do the best they can with what they have.

In addition - most in the so-labelled "anti" fish farm camp that understand fisheries - also all too well understand the limitations in the data (or more correctly - the LACK of data) in assessing impacts imposed on wild stocks through the use of the open net-cage technology. The fact that they have been denied access to critical data that does exist - and that the fish farm lawyers and lobbyists have been given exclusive access respectively to both Justice Canada and our compromised regulators and law-makers - is not the blame/fault of the fish farm critics. These critics have similarly been frustrated for decades when demanding accountability and data.

I also believe that we can agree to disagree on apportioning relative impacts when comparing "death by a thousand cuts" to our wild stocks - when considering impacts by the open net-pen industry. The only caveat/caution I would add - is that when considering potential freshwater impacts verses potential farm impacts - we need to consider the life histories of the species of concern.

As you mentioned - steelhead and resident trout/char would be expected to be most affected by changes in pH and water quality - while pinks and chum (and maybe sockeye) would be expected to be most affected by ongoing open net-cage operations.

Good luck with your efforts!
 
When the general public wants to do something that 'may' impact on the ocean ecosystem, it is up to them, at their expense, to provide all the data, professional studies and confirmations to DFO proving that there will be no impact to the ecosystem.
If there is some impact, the applicant may have to 'make up' the impact by improving some other spot of the ecosystem.
This system/process is very inflexible and rigorously enforced.
When this system/process is not followed with FF, I can see how people can be upset.

The bottom line for many Canadians is that it is the responsibility of the FF to prove that they have no impact.
FF do not have the freedom to do what they want until somebody proves they are having an impact.

Other factors can be important and may have a varying level of contribution to the problem, but that does not square the problem, or the appearance of a problem, when FF are not held to the same standard as the rest of the population/industries.
Maybe the FF have proven this, it would be strange that this information has not been released with all the heat from Morton and crew.
 
When the general public wants to do something that 'may' impact on the ocean ecosystem, it is up to them, at their expense, to provide all the data, professional studies and confirmations to DFO proving that there will be no impact to the ecosystem.
If there is some impact, the applicant may have to 'make up' the impact by improving some other spot of the ecosystem.
This system/process is very inflexible and rigorously enforced.
When this system/process is not followed with FF, I can see how people can be upset.

The bottom line for many Canadians is that it is the responsibility of the FF to prove that they have no impact.
FF do not have the freedom to do what they want until somebody proves they are having an impact.

Other factors can be important and may have a varying level of contribution to the problem, but that does not square the problem, or the appearance of a problem, when FF are not held to the same standard as the rest of the population/industries.
Maybe the FF have proven this, it would be strange that this information has not been released with all the heat from Morton and crew.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...hows-no-links-to-salmon-farming-in-b-c-report
when they do its just dismissed as conflicts, then asked if its been published with peer review. Apparently the Sea Shepherd society can post and write what there opinions are and its taken as more than it is but when the Aquaculture ind. does it gets torn up.

FF do hold themselves to the standards of other industries. does the cattle ranching industry have to prove there are not adding or contributing to mass global warming? does the free range cattle industry have to prove it is not destroying our precious native grassland on ungulate and sheep wintering grounds? does the same industry have to prove they are using crown land and over grazing? the guy down the street from me wants to build a barn and thrown 45,000 chickens in it at a turn over rate of 8weeks. does he need to prove he his not impacting global warming, environmental, etc etc?
 
Yes I know, you dismissed it. Doesn't mean i did.
Because you came back with something else post 36 doesnt make you right. if it did then what is this discussion about? is what you say is right?
 
Last edited:
Bones, you are deflecting.
I specifically limited my comment to DFO and the ocean environment.
You do yourself and your cause no service in making straw man arguments.

Why did you not mention putting in a dock on the ocean? A marina?
Hell, you should see what the City of Campbell River has to go through with DFO to just remove some gravel from the boat ramp!

You should talk to some of the farmers in the prairies that have fish bearing streams on or near their properties, DFO was crawling all over them.
 
Well -we had an open debate over it already.

Speaking of "dismissing" - I notice you haven't neither challenged nor acknowledged the points I made over this grey literature/data from a science/political perspective - but seem to be still sticking with the PR notes (reference web link again posted) from the BCSFA that: "Sea lice outbreak shows no links to salmon farming".

In defense of that what I consider a myopic position - my understanding of your post is that you then attempt to then equate terrestrial agriculture to aquatic farming - as an excuse that the open net-pen industry is not held to the same standards as other industries - detailed in the post I made described at http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-lice-and-fish-farms.64546/page-4#post-814961

Interesting comparison - and thank you for the opportunity to point-out that:

In attempting to mitigate wild/cultured stock interactions (like the aquaculture industry) - CFIA and the provincial/federal regulators instituted buffer (exclusion) zones for the industry between wild bison and cattle in Northern Alberta and the NWT in an attempt to mitigate anthrax and brucelosis outbreaks.

So - what does you industry do in comparison?

With the assistance of BC, DFO and the CFIA - your industry hides fish health data -there are no exclusion zones for your industry - and your industry does not look at water flows and agent-based modelling as a condition of tenure or siting. GREAT COMPARISON, BONES! and thanks - Keep it coming!

see that discussion previously at:

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/fish-farm-illness-back-east.60587/#post-766683
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-risk-to-wild-salmon.52571/page-6#post-654675
 
Last edited:
Using the term "PR Notes" is certainly defection. The term dismisses facts brought forward by industry or anyone for that matter who forwards thought idea's and information that is for or positive for the industry plainly because it does not align with ones who apposes industry due to their personal beliefs or views. Its a step up from accusing forum members of being paid pundits or shills but equally dismissive and certainly has nothing to do with open and honest discussion on the topic.
 
Salmon retail prices set to leap owing to infestations of sea lice
Wholesale cost rose 50% in 2016 as fish farmers from Scotland to Norway and Chile tried to tackle parasite problem

You may never have heard of Lepeophtheirus salmonis, and you’re unlikely to have spotted one, because they are usually less than 1.5cm long, but the humble sea louse is creating waves that are about to wash on to your dinner plate.

Balanced on blinis, tucked into bagels or crafted into sushi, salmon has become an everyday luxury in the UK. But fans of seafood may be forced to take it off the menu as prices are expected to soar because of a surge in sea lice hitting production.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-salmon-leaps-50-as-sea-lice-epidemic-worsens


I wonder if Forcefield BC will escape the trend the rest of the world is seeing with the sealice epidemic. My bet is it's just a matter of time.....
 
Reading thru this thread sure makes me wonder what the fish farms put in the kool-aid they serve, because its working, deny deny deny. I have been a logger for 20 years and know that our industry is not perfect, years before me the logging really screwed up the rivers and small streams. Once the government decided on cleaning up our industry up atleast we improved, we are not perfect but we improved. Now some of the worst damage is being done by the private land holders all in the name of corporate greed, log it till its all gone, make the profits now and who cares about the future. The fish farms corporations are all about profits now and their employees are in denial on the damage being done, but one day went it turns really bad the farming industry will be hit hard just like logging did.

GLG, i will jump on point and guess the pro farm remarks on this. "thats in a completely different ocean and won't happen here. Have some more Kool- Aid boys!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Well - it is encouraging that the industry has reduced it's proportion of forage fish in feed over time.

However, large amounts of forage fish are still used in the production of feed for farmed salmon. Overall that need will not diminish much - as production biomass of farmed fish increases.

Overall, it is a loss of fish protein converting forage fish into farmed Atlantic salmon flesh - and you won't feed most of the world's population using Atlantic salmon.

I also take issue with the label "not for human consumption" label being applied by the industry for it's own benefit. It is true that some fish may be unfit due to contamination by something - or not being well looked after in the transport - but much of the world consumes forage fishes, or would given the chance. Herring has been used for many, many generation by humans - along with many other species. Just because a fish is small and destined to be rolled into the farm fish feed production - does not make it: unfit for human consumption.

Apparently we are just supposed to go blindly along with the PR firms' assertions and let that sleeing dog lie. I refuse to do so. I know that many forage fishes are quite yummy and well suited for human consumption - regardless of the claims of the industrys' PR firms.
90 Percent Of Fish We Use For Fishmeal Could Be Used To Feed Humans Instead
February 13, 2017
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...fishmeal-could-be-used-to-feed-humans-instead
"Researchers say a whopping 90 percent of that catch is considered "food grade" and could be eaten directly, potentially creating an important source of nutrition for those in developing countries at risk of food insecurity."
"Of the 20 million tons of fish destined for fishmeal production each year, Cashion says most of it, an estimated 70 percent, is directed towards aquaculture, followed by pig and chicken production that uses it to speed growth and provide important nutrients."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12209/epdf
 
I'd much rather eat those herring and anchovie than that fatty food coloured farmed atlantic salmon. I would bet the herring and anchovie would be alot better for your health.
 
"Furthermore, fish used to feed other fish are often sourced in the waters of developing countries, which puts pressure on their fish stocks and reduces locals' access to fresh seafood. In general, these food-insecure communities are also denied access to final aquaculture products because most of those products are exported to developed countries."

This is what I've always said was the falicy with the fish farmer's argument of feeding a hungry world.
 
Back
Top