Sea Lice and Fish Farms

Do you have hard proof that fish farms are harmful to wild salmon stocks? Do you have any proof of top loading the ocean floor with what you call " sewage"?
Do you have any proof that sea lice are damaging wild stocks?...
BUT......your here trying to convince me that sealice and sewage and everything else farms do are the reason wild stock salmon are in a 20 year decline.

Don't take it personally Bones, but I don't think anyone is trying to convince you of anything!
My observation from your posts is NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND.
What many are doing is posting what they see and believe is undisputable evidence that Fish Farm are having an impact on Wild Salmon AND that impact will only get greater with time unless Fish Farms are moved to dry land with their sludge safely disposed of.
NO ONE HAS EVER SAID Fish Farms alone are the reason for the decline in the Wild Salmon Stocks.
 
Last edited:
Do you have hard proof that fish farms are harmful to wild salmon stocks? Do you have any proof of top loading the ocean floor with what you call " sewage"?
Do you have any proof that sea lice are damaging wild stocks?

I haven't read anything that says this. There is a hatchery that has been doing tagging on smolts for 8 years. The hatchery cannot locate any tags on there fish after they hit the estuary. Adult steelhead no problem, smolts can find one. BUT......your here trying to convince me that sealice and sewage and everything else farms do are the reason wild stock salmon are in a 20 year decline.


your missing a point,,, they are part of the reason. invasive, toxins, disease, payouts, not their ocean, collusion, fox watching henhouse ... anyone else have words our FF friends need to understand or consider? why have them in the ocean, when they could be on land? people could pay a little more for their gmo crap and help save our WILD salmon.. remember -, pig farms dont with wild pigs, cow farms dont farm with wild cows, chickens dont farm with wild chickens.. that model sure is strange hey?
 
I think it is important to note that the burden of proof is always on those who potentially impact public resources to prove that they won't impact the resource - or if they might - it will be mitigated as much as possible - and that the public should get to weigh the pros and cons of the proposed activity. Pointing fingers at some other sector does not alleviate that duty.

At least that's how it happens with every other industrial activity - save one - the open net-cage industry - the one in the water. That's what is missing here - an open and transparent public process using appropriate risk assessment and management protocols.

The reasons are simple - corruption and collusion - which also happens in both other industries and government.

That doesn't mean we have to ignore that reality - but instead we should hold our regulators and politicians accountable.
 
Do you have hard proof that fish farms are harmful to wild salmon stocks?

Perhaps you would be interested to read this peer reviewed study on sea lice and wild salmon.


Sea lice, sockeye salmon, and foraging competition: lousy fish are lousy competitors
Abstract: Pathogens threaten wildlife globally, but these impacts are not restricted to direct mortality from disease. For fish, which experience periods of extremely high mortality during their early life history, infections may primarily influence population dynamics and conservation through indirect effects on ecological processes such as competition and predation. We conducted a competitive foraging experiment using outmigrating juvenile Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) to determine whether fish with high abundances of parasitic sea lice (Caligus clemensi and Lepeophtheirus salmonis) have reduced competitive abilities when foraging. Highly infected sockeye were 20% less successful at consuming food, on average, than lightly infected fish. Competitive ability also increased with fish body size. Our results provide the first evidence that parasite exposure may have negative indirect effects on the fitness of juvenile sockeye salmon and suggest that indirect effects of pathogens may be of key importance for the conservation of marine fish.

http://seangodwin.org/Godwinetal_2015_CJFAS.pdf

You might what to think of it this way..... would you send your child off to school with a 20lb leach on their back and expect them to do well?
 
Do you have hard proof that fish farms are harmful to wild salmon stocks?
Do you have any proof that sea lice are damaging wild stocks?

May I suggest that you read the numerous posts with numerous links to peer reviewed, published scientific research papers that report on the harmful impacts of net pen salmon farms on wild salmon and the surrounding marine environment that AA, GLG, FoggedIn, Bigdogeh, myself and others have posted on numerous threads on numerous posts over the last few years
 
Your'e wasting your time bones ... their minds are made up. In the mean time stocks are being over fished, pollution is increasing ( hello Victoria), urban streams are being drained for developments, climate is changing, and the genetic diversity of all Pacific salmon is being diluted yearly.
Hey readers, how many salmon did you kill this season?

Great deflection. Now I'll give it a try... Um, how about this. How many ways have you and I done things to negatively impact the environment (or kills some kind of wild life form) in the last year by our affluent, wasteful, North American lifestyles??? Does this mean that we should not care about helping reduce our negative environmental impact? Is it all just an overwhelming, impossible lost cause? Of course not! But that is not the point of this post.

It is true that there are many factors, variables and issues that negatively impact wild salmon populations as you correctly indicate above. As concerned citizens we need to try to collectively reduce these harmful impacts if we want to see any sustainable, healthy wild salmon populations in the future. The point of this post is to discuss the negative impact of fish farms and the increase of sea lice they produce on wild salmon populations and the surrounding marine environment - not about all the other negative factors.

Lastly, this post and others like it are not about changing people's minds, but rather sharing information and data to have meaningful and informed discussions on a given topic. I say let's reduce the deflection and stay on topic to make these posts worthwhile for all involved.
 
Still waiting for a reply from bones to my previous post #264, page 14. One Example of a fish farm relocated because of sea lice issues.
 
http://www.salmon-trout.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Loch-Maree-collapse-A-Walker-report1.pdf
COLLAPSE OF LOCH MAREE SEA TROUT
HOW CULPABLE IS SALMON FARMING?
Author: Andrew F. Walker MSc PhD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the late 1980s, concurrent collapses of sea trout angling fisheries occurred in north-western Scotland and western Ireland soon after the introduction of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) farming in complexes of floating mesh cages moored in parts of bays and sea lochs (loughs), sheltered from exposure to the open Atlantic. Many of the cage units were placed close to important rivers for sea trout and salmon angling. In both countries, scientific studies identified close similarities in the patterns of sharp declines in sea trout abundance, size, longevity and fecundity. Previously unknown epizootic levels of parasitic salmon lice (Leophtheirus salmonis Krøyer) were detected on sea trout in salmon farming areas, but not elsewhere.

The world-famous sea trout angling fishery at Loch Maree collapsed from 1988 and has not recovered. Intensive salmon farming began in saltwater Loch Ewe in Wester Ross, NW Scotland, in 1987 and has continued there. Previously, in 1980, extensive catch sampling and electro-fishing of mature fish in the spawning burns (>1100 fish) was undertaken to provide representative biological details of the overall sea trout stock, repeating old studies carried out in the 1920s (catch sampling and netting). The results were almost identical, confirming a slow-growing, long-lived overall population, with many large, old, multi-annual, spawners and a stable stock structure. Further annual samples obtained later in the 1980s and until 2001 had to be pooled because of limited fish abundance. There was a substantial fall in mean length at sea ages, maximum sea age (from 11 sea winters in 1980 to 5 SW by 1997-2001) and in estimated total fecundity, prompting a sea trout stock collapse.

Later research in nearby sea loch Loch Torridon identified a two-year positive relationship between louse incidence on sea trout post-smolts near the River Shieldaig and on a local salmon farm, corresponding to the main production years in their two-year rearing cycle. These findings were supported by longterm scientific studies carried out in western Ireland and in Norway, highlighting extra marine survival problems for sea trout in areas of intensive salmon farming, particularly involving sea lice. Further research raised scientific awareness of acute physiological and behavioural impacts of heavy infestations of sea lice on post-smolts and the lethality of infection levels sustained above previously ambient densities. International tagging studies consistently showed that smolts treated for protection against lice in their first weeks at sea survived and grew better than untreated control batches. However, since there are many other interacting causes of marine mortality of sea trout, it has remained scientifically elusive to quantify their impacts at a population level.

Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the introduction of salmon farming in Loch Ewe close to the River Ewe’s estuary played a prominent part in the changes in sea trout stock dynamics in the River Ewe system, leading to the collapse of the angling fishery in Loch Maree. The rapid change in sea trout stock structure there in the late 1980s was consistent with many other badly affected sea trout fisheries throughout the West Highlands and Islands following the development of local intensive coastal salmon farming. There is no evidence of a collapse of sea trout catches or loss of large specimens in North Coast rivers, where the coastal environment is more exposed to the open Atlantic Ocean and rapid tidal flushing. In most other parts of Scotland, reported angling catches in recent years indicate a decline in numbers, but an increase in annual mean weight of sea trout. Both trends are at least partly explained by a gradual introduction of greater angling restrictions for stock conservation. A long-term study of an indicator population in a tributary of the River Earn in East Scotland found that the annual length and age distributions of the sea trout spawning there remained stable between the early 1980s and 2001, contrasting with north-western river systems.

Unfortunately, knowledge of Scottish sea trout stock dynamics remains weak and monitoring is patchy. Overall, while angling catches are assumed to be indicative of trends in abundance, they have many flaws. In consequence, potential crises are not sufficiently identified and accepted in time to take proper remedial action. Salmon farming has become a massively important industry, with current production already dwarfing wild sea trout and salmon populations and likely to grow substantially. Its technology continues to improve, but the present heavy dependence on floating cages with free water exchange with the open environment is in urgent need of change. In the meantime, a decision should be made to relocate existing salmon farms well away from river mouths, using scientifically predicted transport distances for sea lice infective stages under prevailing local hydrological conditions.
 
Last edited:
Good posts. Great to see more and more research published about the negative environmental impacts of net pen fish farms. This is in contrast to most of the info the FF supporter post that come mostly from orgs that have a bias to support FF's.

The more research we get on the impacts of net pen fish farms the sooner we can move them on land where there negative impacts can better managed. We need to keep up the pressure to get these things out of the water and on to the land!
 
Scottish salmon farming’s ‘liciest’ farms named and shamed
https://www.salmon-trout.org/2017/10/30/scotish-salmon-farmings-liciest-farms-named-and-shamed/

Following the formal decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner (http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/uploadedFiles/Decision142-2017.pdf ) that Scottish Ministers unlawfully tried to withhold information naming fish farms that had breached Scottish Government trigger levels for the numbers of adult female sea lice on farmed salmon, S&TC Scotland has now received the information in question.

It shows that sea lice numbers are running out of control in much of the industry for extended periods and failures by individual farms to operate with lice numbers below Scottish Government’s trigger levels are routine.
 
Scottish salmon farming’s ‘liciest’ farms named and shamed
https://www.salmon-trout.org/2017/10/30/scotish-salmon-farmings-liciest-farms-named-and-shamed/

Following the formal decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner (http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/uploadedFiles/Decision142-2017.pdf ) that Scottish Ministers unlawfully tried to withhold information naming fish farms that had breached Scottish Government trigger levels for the numbers of adult female sea lice on farmed salmon, S&TC Scotland has now received the information in question.

It shows that sea lice numbers are running out of control in much of the industry for extended periods and failures by individual farms to operate with lice numbers below Scottish Government’s trigger levels are routine.

Good read. Especially enjoyed the comments. Seems the public there is just as pissed at this dirty industry on that side of the pond. Many, many comments ic showing their disgust and I didn't see one in support of the industry.
 
Quantitative risk assessment of salmon louse-induced mortality of seaward-migrating post-smolt Atlantic salmon
Short running title: Risk of louse-induced salmon mortality
Anja Bråthen Kristoffersen1, Lars Qviller1, Kari Olli Helgesen1, Knut Wiik Vollset2, Hildegunn
Viljugrein1, Peder Andreas Jansen1*
1 The Norwegian Veterinary Institute, PB. 750 Sentrum, 0105 Oslo, Norway
2 Uni Research Environment, LFI-Freshwater Biology, Nygårdsporten 112, 5006 Bergen, Norway
*Correspondence: Peder A. Jansen
Email: peder.jansen@vetinst.no
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Highlights
 We present a model for quantifying salmon louse infestation and the risk of louse-induced mortality of seaward-migrating post-smolts of Atlantic salmon from 401 salmon rivers in Norway. Infestive lice in the model are produced in salmon farms.
 The salmon rivers drain into 13 marine production zones for salmon farming along the Norwegian coast, of which salmon smolts migrating through the zones on the West Coast are at the highest risk of adverse effects of lice.
 Correlation between densities of farmed salmon and biomass adjusted output of louse infestation in the production zones suggests that a large-scale density-dependent host parasite effect is a major driver of louse infestation rates and the risk of parasite-induced mortality of salmon smolts.

Abstract
The Norwegian government recently implemented a new management system to regulate salmon farming in Norway, aiming to promote environmentally sustainable growth in the aquaculture industry. The Norwegian coast has been divided into 13 production zones and the volume of salmonid production in the zones will be regulated based on salmon lice effects on wild salmonids.

Here we present a model for assessing salmon louse-induced mortality of seaward-migrating post-smolts of Atlantic salmon. The model quantifies expected salmon lice infestations and louse-induced mortality of migrating post-smolt salmon from 401 salmon rivers draining into Norwegian coastal waters. It is assumed that migrating post-smolts follow the shortest path from river outlets to the high seas, at constant progression rates. During this migration, fish are infested by salmon lice of farm origin according to an empirical infestation model. Furthermore, louse-induced mortality is estimated from the estimated louse infestations. Rivers draining into production zones on the West Coast of Norway were at the highest risk of adverse lice effects.

In comparison, rivers draining into northerly production zones, along with the southernmost production zone, were at lower risk. After adjusting for standing stock biomass, estimates of louse-egg output varied by factors of up to 8 between production zones. Correlation between biomass adjusted output of louse infestation and densities of farmed salmon in the production zones suggests that a large-scale density-dependent host-parasite effect is a major driver of louse infestation rates and parasite-induced mortality. The estimates are sensitive to many of the processes in the chain of events in the model. Nevertheless, we argue that the model is suited to assess spatial and temporal risks associated with farm-origin salmon lice.
 
How about you just lay your cards on the table and show us your numbers..... No need to read a hundred papers. If you have them.....WHICH YOU DONT
You ask me to prove fish farms are not hurting stocks. I show you test results showing avg loading of sealice on smolts at 1-1. Your best come back was.... It doesn't count because the paper was done by a company that used to have tie to the industry....... Lol wow.

Numbers?
 
How about you just lay your cards on the table and show us your numbers..... No need to read a hundred papers. If you have them.....WHICH YOU DONT
You ask me to prove fish farms are not hurting stocks. I show you test results showing avg loading of sealice on smolts at 1-1. Your best come back was.... It doesn't count because the paper was done by a company that used to have tie to the industry....... Lol wow.

Numbers?

So that's your bar of acceptability. Protecting wild salmon smolts by making sure they leave your sphere of influence with just one sealice each.
 
How about you just lay your cards on the table and show us your numbers..... No need to read a hundred papers. If you have them.....WHICH YOU DONT
You ask me to prove fish farms are not hurting stocks. I show you test results showing avg loading of sealice on smolts at 1-1. Your best come back was.... It doesn't count because the paper was done by a company that used to have tie to the industry....... Lol wow.

Numbers?
1384373914-102c9715ae22614b83502ba5a0537ce3f14de505_MQ.jpg
Pictures say a thousand words. This smolt is toast thanks to hanging around a poorly sited Fish Farm. All his buddy's were toast too. Now figure out why they are not returning.
 
Back
Top