Sea Lice and Fish Farms

[bigdogeh]

Considering the lunacy of your question it was a very adequate reply.

The only lunacy as I and many others see it is to continue to allow these parasite factories to remain in our waters...

 

[Whole in the Water]

Tell us how you would go about obtaining this "rough estimate" before you start bashing sympathetic DFO. I'm eagerly awaiting your methodology and study design.

I am not a scientist so personally I cannot. Just like you probably cannot either. However this is not the important point here. Just because you and I may not be able to do this does not mean it cannot be done by qualified, intelligent researchers.

Anyone can easily think of much harder issues and problems have been tackled than this by science in the last 100 years. To say that this is impossible task for science to provide some kind estimate solely based upon our limited abilities is pretty silly. If there was a honest desire on the part of the industry and DFO to provide such estimates you can be damn sure they would exist.

 

[agentaqua]

Thank you for your reply, bones - but you seem to be either missing the point - or maybe you misunderstand these issues. You stated:

The only time a fish farm is removed is when sea counts reach max. The fish farm needs to pack up and move till sea lice counts are lower. Thus protecting wild returning stocks. Happens in the nootka area every so often. Sorry nothin major.

Firstly - they normally don't relocate - but rather fallow. The difference is that they still maintain the tenure and are hoping for a lull in the reoccurring sea lice outbreaks in order to continue farming. They are hoping that by putting less naupilar stages from their farm fish in the adjacent water - the problem of lice damage and growth reduction for their farmed fish will die-out. It is an action targeted to avoid production issues - not to protect wild stocks - as you have erroneously claimed.

Secondarily these lice outbreaks are due to a combination of both poor siting and environmental assessment - as well as slice resistance. The impacts to the once abundant wild stocks and the outmigrating small smolts is unknown - and not "nothin major"- as you have yet again erroneously claimed.

The lice data from DFO can be found at: http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/5cfd93bd-b3ee-4b0b-8816-33d388f6811d

A decent article on the problem can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/01/is-farming-salmon-bad-for-the-environment

 

[cuttlefish]

Thanks for the link to DFO's lice dataset, AA.
My understanding from reading through the conditions of a marine finfish aquaculture licence (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/licence-permis/docs/licence-cond-permis-mar/index-eng.html) is that fish farmers are required to fallow their farm only if benthic impact levels beneath the farm reach a certain threshold and are not allowed to restock that site until those levels fall below that threshold. However, no requirement to relocare.
Fish farmers are required to take some kind of management action during the wild salmon outmigration period when the average abundance of sea lice reaches a threshold of three motile adult lepiophtherous sea lice per fish. That could mean treating with a pesticide or harvesting but I couldn't find any requirement to relocate.
I would like Bones to provide an instance where, in BC a farm was relocared because of sea lice concerns.

 

[bones]

Thank you for your reply, bones - but you seem to be either missing the point - or maybe you misunderstand these issues. You stated:Firstly - they normally don't relocate - but rather fallow. The difference is that they still maintain the tenure and are hoping for a lull in the reoccurring sea lice outbreaks in order to continue farming. They are hoping that by putting less naupilar stages from their farm fish in the adjacent water - the problem of lice damage and growth reduction for their farmed fish will die-out. It is an action targeted to avoid production issues - not to protect wild stocks - as you have erroneously claimed.

Secondarily these lice outbreaks are due to a combination of both poor siting and environmental assessment - as well as slice resistance. The impacts to the once abundant wild stocks and the outmigrating small smolts is unknown - and not "nothin major"- as you have yet again erroneously claimed.

The lice data from DFO can be found at: http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/5cfd93bd-b3ee-4b0b-8816-33d388f6811d

A decent article on the problem can be found at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/01/is-farming-salmon-bad-for-the-environment

All your doing is picking apart an an answer, with details.

The question was do they remove fish farms? I said yes
I did not say they tow the farm away and cancel a lease. All I said was the relocate. I passed the transport boat 3 times couple weeks ago pulling fish back to the system.

Your going back on an old subject and post. Which is weird, you know the answers to or have sat at a comp reading only to bring the topic back up so you can troll some more. Nit sure were you want to go with this.

You can call it what you want... Sea lice counts where up, farms were empted. Not once did i say permanently

 

[agentaqua]

...fish farmers are required to fallow their farm only if benthic impact levels beneath the farm reach a certain threshold and are not allowed to restock that site until those levels fall below that threshold. However, no requirement to relocare.
Fish farmers are required to take some kind of management action during the wild salmon outmigration period when the average abundance of sea lice reaches a threshold of three motile adult lepiophtherous sea lice per fish. That could mean treating with a pesticide or harvesting but I couldn't find any requirement to relocate.
I would like Bones to provide an instance where, in BC a farm was relocared because of sea lice concerns.

BINGO! Exactly, cuttle. Thanks for pointing that out.

To be clear - there is no legal requirement for fish farms to relocate in order to protect wild stocks - contrary to bone's claims. Rather fallowing (and not relocation) is used - it is to protect the farmed fish - and *NOT* because they wanted to protect wild stocks.

IF (and that has never happened yet) they used solid, defensible science-based siting criteria (e.g. agent-based modelling) as a risk assessment and mitigation strategy - that could happen. That is something the industry and their boosters/lawyers have been fighting for years - along with hiding fish health information.

I also echo your call for proof from bones about the intent and reasoning for any fallowing/relocation. Should be easy to prove, right?

 

[bones]

There no proof that fish farms hurt wild salmon so to force anything would be an opinion. People do not have to do anything in this world based on opinions. Right?

 

[rockdog]

There no proof that fish farms hurt wild salmon so to force anything would be an opinion. People do not have to do anything in this world based on opinions. Right?

Omg, I just about spat out my breakfast. Are you really going back full circle to the beginning again? Even your buddies (the bird and Dave) have acknowledged there is some negative impact. Norway recognizes there is impact...why? Because there is a plethora of different scientists and studies that prove so. For you to circle back and throw that out there says more about you than anything else.

Edit: sp error

 

[agentaqua]

There no proof that fish farms hurt wild salmon so to force anything would be an opinion. People do not have to do anything in this world based on opinions. Right?

So I have an "opinion" (not based on science nor logic) that by bulldozing your house and sh*tting in the water you drink - bones - it won't hurt you - that is my "opinion" - so therefore I can do it whether you agree with it or not, and not provide any data nor environmental assessment to justify my position - right?

Or....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.cela.ca/collections/pollution/precautionary-principle
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-back-fiche-eng.htm

 

[agentaqua]

Tell us how you would go about obtaining this "rough estimate" before you start bashing sympathetic DFO. I'm eagerly awaiting your methodology and study design.

It's been done, Shuswap.

Basically, you have 2 choices wrt methodologies - that are dependent upon presumed scale of potential impacts:
1/ Look at large-scale impacts using large-scale data. Examples include work by Ford and Krkosek.
2/ Look at more detailed site-specific impacts from a targeted study. Examples include Costello and Gargan's works.

 

[Whole in the Water]

There no proof that fish farms hurt wild salmon so to force anything would be an opinion. People do not have to do anything in this world based on opinions. Right?

Wow! Are you being serious when you say this? Or are you just trying bait or troll people on this forum?

 

[bones]

so people keep attacking farms, saying they are responsible for lower than normal salmon returns. they say they have diseases that effect wild salmon, they say they are infecting the oceans with sewage, they say anything and everything they can to paint a bad picture on fish farms, i just sit here with an open mind and ask how?
for starters there is no link to salmon farms and depleting wild salmon stocks. its been 40 years and we're still waiting.............
some people on this forum say: "lets follow science, but then the next sentence is, "they're sewage plants" where is the science in that? where's the sewage? isn't that an opinion? hold on i have to flush the toilet. environmental impact studies have been done on this 7% aquaculture 9% avian 30% something for beef. where's the sewage? and AA you do **** in my water thats why im not allowed to dig shellfish in a lot of places now

there's millions of tonnage produced every year and with that there will be some impacts. but not like other producers of protein. globally fish sales or revenue are higher than any other commodity in the world, even Rice.

people jump on the sea lice train. i will agree that to some degree sea lice impacts salmon stocks. the industry even agrees. so to combat this they use a pesticide called, whatever "slice". People on this forum have the opinion that this is somehow the worst thing ever. salmon are not even in the top ten pesticide filled foods. fruits are the worst offenders. fruits make up i believe all ten spots. an apple a day doesn't always keep the doctor away!! some tests on apples can show as many as 45 pesticides on a single apple. and to satisfy AA a link http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you...at-are-the-dirty-dozen-and-the-clean-fifteen/
my point is we still eat them......fruits

then the newest one : their eating forage fish. how i ask? i mean in a video shown here in this forum and in the paper. its kinda funny because if the salmon are feeding on caged herring or shiners then why are they swimming around in the pen? i mean 20 thousand 10lb salmon surely would make short work of a school of herring long ago. they're there because a salmon farm is a floating reef. it could simply be explained that they're looking for shade or safety.

you could just keep going and going but..

i get people's distaste for farms, but considering other options for "healthy food" farmed salmon are miles ahead other other sources. the farmed community isn't with out faults but every year they just keep improving on their very own culture, hell 30 years ago the industry dragged dead salomon up the beach and burned their domestic garbage .
the guy in boston wants a pacific salmon for dinner at a restaurant. i say give it to him, here a gov certified wild farmed salmon. not one of my free swimming wild ones. one could even turn this around and say by doing this, we are saving wild salmon because the supply just cannot keep up to the demand.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Sounds like a lot of personal experience and opinion to me.

AA, GLG and others at least provide lots of scientific, peer reviewed research to back up their positions.

 

[bones]

You sit here everyday and give yours, sorry mines not as good. I posted one link would you like more?

 

[trophywife]

distaste is too weak of a word.

 

[rockdog]

I'd say you work on a farm...lol

No one can be that naive...can they?

AA and gang consistently post up peer reviewed papers, you've got nothing but the usual 'there's no proof'. Which is totally laughable. I can't post what I really think of you because I'll get in trouble...

 

[Whole in the Water]

You sit here everyday and give yours, sorry mines not as good. I posted one link would you like more?

Your right I do post my opinions like everyone else on this forum. I also sometimes post links to scientific peer reviewed research. Every ones opinion is just as "good" as the next - a great thing about free speech in a democracy.

Please post as many links as you want that is what makes these forums interesting, educational and worthwhile (and thus ultimately better than just simple, personal opinions). But there is an obvious difference between links to various and sundry articles and peer reviewed, scientific research. That's what makes science - scientific, not just opinions.

AA, GLG and some others post a lot of peer reviewed scientific research that salmon feedlot supporters criticise many times (not all the time) with just limited personal experiences and opinion - they are not the same. If you are passionate about your position then why not back it up with credible, peer reviewed, published research, like AA, GLG and others do. If one can't, well that speaks for itself.

 

[bones]

Sorry dog I do not work on a fish farm. Wondering have you ever step on a farm and seen the gross diseased fish for yourself? Or the sewage or the fish eating other fish? If it helps open you mind on the subject. There are tours available the cost 60$ per and I believe they are avail in June. Fyi pack your own lunch, cuz I dont think you will eat what's being served.

 

[bones]

Sorry whole in watering I did not post papers or anything. Last time I did I was told they hold absolutely no credibility here. It seems if the farm industry prints anything it flawed because they have a interest in it. For example I shared a link showing that sea lice counts are actually higher in some bays in the Campbell river area that are devoid of fish farms and lower at farm sites. Also there isn't any papers peer review in favor of fish farms because they have really nothing to say. Meaning they don't need to spend millions of dollars to prove something. They haven't really done anything wrong..... Yet.
Also pro farming is controlled by the lease holder and contracts do not allow for topic to be talked about. It a way of doing damage control without having to do anything. The anti farm people do not have a gag contract and this is where people speak out or believe what saw or heard. So far millions of dollars have been spent trying to study them out of the water. Eventually they will win and then there will be some serious pressure on what's left of our wilds.

 

[bones]

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/l...ink-salmon-returns-hit-historic-high-1.643524
If sea lice are responsible for salmon smolts dieing then how can this be? A 35 year record. Especially on pinks, they carry more lice per adult then any other salmon species because of there 2year cycle. Could something else be responsible for loss salmon stocks?