Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[agentaqua]

I have always posted that FFs are but one source of impacts. So, no - of course your statement (if you made it) that there are other impacts to wild stocks - I would agree with it.

However, unlike many impacts - it is one impact we can affect. We need to get past the denial stage by the FFs and their support network - and into environmental assessment -something the FF industry has successfully fought so far.

If we are into providing references and data to support our statements: then maybe you can provide references for your assertion that: "Lice numbers have a direct correlation with salinity"? I am assuming you wish to make the argument that FFs don't cause lice hotspots - but instead salinity is to blame.

Not only is it industry's responsibility to provide evidence that they are NOT having an impact - if you have an argument that FFs don't elevate sea lice numbers - maybe you can provide that proof, too?

 

[triplenickel]

Then there should be a consensus-based environmental assessment and risk mitigation decision-making body that can weigh the evidence and the pros and cons and make a decision about whether or not to proceed with this activity - if the pros outweigh the cons.

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED WITH FISH FARMS

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this happened on the Provincial and Federal levels or are we saying the farms ended up in place without any assessment? Also doesn't the timing of the significant decline in wild population match up better with salmon ranching than salmon farming?

 

[agentaqua]

No, yes - not that I know - but open for data - in that order.

 

[bones]

Again how is it that rivers devoid of fish farms and sea lice are being affected by fish farms in the Broughton?

 

[bones]

I assure you the 'scientific community' has not moved on from fish farm / wild salmon interaction. The SSHI (PSF, DFO, Genome) is still not complete and the researchers will be coming out with statements / recommendations once this work is done (2018 most likely).

Also, please show me where this publically available peer reviewed report is that shows 87% of chinook smolts are dying between 1st and 2nd narrows bridges. I have read almost all of the studies from the SSMSP and no where did I read anything about this. Also, where does this 7.8million chinook smolts eaten by seals number come from? source please.

Are salmon dying in estuaries in large numbers? hell ya! Are seals eating a lot of them? yes. Are fish farms to blame for smolts being eaten in estuaries? No! Are fish farms therefore free from having impacts on wild salmon? No!

Here's PSF's latest post re: fish farms:

“The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) wishes to clarify the recent recommendation by the U.S.-based Seafood Watch and the BC Salmon Farmers that B.C. open-net-pen farmed salmon are now a good alternative seafood choice for consumers.

We believe that recommendation is premature and inappropriate because it incorrectly characterizes and relies upon the research results to date of PSF’s Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI). Started in 2013, the SSHI is a partnership between the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Genome BC and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The purpose of the initiative is to clarify the presence and/or absence of microbes in Pacific salmon.

The SSHI is not yet complete, so there are no final conclusions yet regarding farmed Atlantic salmon or anything else. While progress to date includes no detections of reportable diseases as listed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there remain many valid questions relative to wild salmon health, and that is what the SSHI continues to study.

The SSHI research will continue and we have committed to communicate to the public any critical new information related to the health of wild Pacific salmon if and when it is found.”

As I've said before...... I'm just the messenger on this. This will not get peer review unless they try to act upon it. If you would like to question the author. Phone PSF, the information to be made public. The power point could even be on there website.

 

[Dave]

4thly - River's - like Cultus Lake - tested positive for ISAv (European-strain) - obviously NOT from the Pacific wild salmon. ISAv may have been asymptomatic and/or extremely virulent a virus that killed off the infected hosts quickly. The history of ISAv is that ISA was found in Southern NB: IBoF Atlantic salmon were then placed on SARA list. Molly Kibenge finds ISA in Cultus Lake and Simon Jones squishes her publishing and denies Cohen the evidence: DFO minister stops Cultus Lake from going on SARA from COSEWIC. Fish farm has ISA in Southern NFLD, "looses" fish that escape to rivers in Southern NFLD, and these stocks are also headed for SARA listing. Thanks for pointing this out, Bones.

aa, please explain to a dimwit like me what you mean with this paragraph? Are you suggesting Cultus and Rivers Inlet sockeye are declining in numbers because of ISAv? What does any of this have to do with Cultus sockeye and SARA?

 

[bigdogeh]

BDE, You have not challenged my posts by repeating the usual lines of rhetoric. If you consider that the skeena and nass and many other systems without farms are suffering generally the same as the fraser and west coast systems can you measure that the areas with salmon farms are obviously suffering more than those without? From what you are saying about salmon farms this comparison I bring forward would be glaringly obvious but it is not. How do you explain that?

If I were to postulate I would say that it's quite possible that these southern wild fish infected with virus (the ones that make it through and aren't eaten by the farmed atlantics, or are lucky enough to not pick up enough sealice from the open net pen farms to kill them or slow their mobility to make them easy targets for prey) when passing through the gauntlets of fish farms, school up in their feeding grounds in alaska or on there way to alaska and more northernly waters and possibly affect the skeena and nass fish with the disease also. Are you telling me that fish from down south don't intermingle or interact with fish from up north? When these wild salmon are caught in seine nets out in the ocean, do the fish caught in one set all come from one river if tested? Viruses are very infectious diseases that can be transferred from one fish to another as far as I know. Look at the effect of when smallpox virus was brought to our shores.
https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/the-impact-of-smallpox-on-first-nations-on-the-west-coast

I'm not a marine scientist so don't have all the answers but I do know that the precautionary principle has all but been thrown out the window when it comes to the circus masters running DFO and our governments that should be looking after the greater interests of our wild salmon and the public they serve. They've made a huge mistake when it comes to allowing these virus breeding salmon farms into our waters and don't have the balls to admit it.

 

[fogged in]

Never once have I seen a post from the Fish Farm supporters that Fish Farm Sea Lice and disease DO NOT, HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT KILL WILD SALMON IN THE FUTURE.
Why can't the Fish Farm supporters, just admit Fish Farm Sea Lice and disease have in the past and will in the future kill wild salmon, but you and nobody else know how many.
I assume you agree with this statement because you have never argued the point, therefor I must assume you believe the impact on Wild Salmon is minimal and is offset with the economic value of Fish Farms, or you just don't care about Wild Salmon??
The fact that some other locations that are unencumbered with Fish Farms are experiencing lower returns is totally irrelevant to the topic of "Fish Farms Trouble in B.C."

 

[agentaqua]

Again how is it that rivers devoid of fish farms and sea lice are being affected by fish farms in the Broughton?

I think we've pretty much hashed this one out already several times.

FF are not the only impact. However, they are one we can do something about - esp. incl. a bone-fide env. butt.

wrt your above question - it's an easy answer:

The thing on the back of a fish is called a tail. They swim. In addition, water flows. That's the rather obvious and the obviously missing components in assessing FF impacts via-a-vis siting criteria - which is an indefensible and inappropriate substitute for an environmental assessment - esp. since nobody should have to tell DFO or BCMoA that fish swim and water flows.

Juvie fish swim out of FW systems - use the nearshore marine habitat near some of the FFs (like the Broughtons along the way from the Fraser) for some weeks to months - then (the survivors) take off North along the coast - swim hundreds to thousands of km - spend a year or 2 in the Alaskan gyre (exception: ocean-type chinook) - and home again to re-interact with some FF in some areas on the way back to the stream.

Along the way they may interact with numerous species of marine fishes - including herring, groundfish, etc - some species of which can get and carry some of the same parasites and diseases - transporting those disease vectors hundreds of kms.

So - if these systems are in fact "isolated" (how I don't know) from the effects of the OPEN net-cage FFs - how come the ISAv was of European strain?

 

[agentaqua]

aa, please explain to a dimwit like me what you mean with this paragraph? Are you suggesting Cultus and Rivers Inlet sockeye are declining in numbers because of ISAv? What does any of this have to do with Cultus sockeye and SARA?

I am convinced it may have been a factor - yes - along w PRv and potentially other unknown and/or untested disease organisms.

 

[bones]

I think we've pretty much hashed this one out already several times.

FF are not the only impact. However, they are one we can do something about - esp. incl. a bone-fide env. butt.

wrt your above question - it's an easy answer:

The thing on the back of a fish is called a tail. They swim. In addition, water flows. That's the rather obvious and the obviously missing components in assessing FF impacts via-a-vis siting criteria - which is an indefensible and inappropriate substitute for an environmental assessment - esp. since nobody should have to tell DFO or BCMoA that fish swim and water flows.

Juvie fish swim out of FW systems - use the nearshore marine habitat near some of the FFs (like the Broughtons along the way from the Fraser) for some weeks to months - then (the survivors) take off North along the coast - swim hundreds to thousands of km - spend a year or 2 in the Alaskan gyre (exception: ocean-type chinook) - and home again to re-interact with some FF in some areas on the way back to the stream.

Along the way they may interact with numerous species of marine fishes - including herring, groundfish, etc - some species of which can get and carry some of the same parasites and diseases - transporting those disease vectors hundreds of kms.

So - if these systems are in fact "isolated" (how I don't know) from the effects of the OPEN net-cage FFs - how come the ISAv was of European strain?

So they you agree that fish farms are not the reason that salmon stocks are dwindling, because all salmon stocks are disappearing along the entire coastline do not all have fish farms and sea lice populations

 

[Dave]

Ok, your'e convinced ISAv was a factor in the crash of Cultus and River's Inlet sockeye ... I suspected you might.
Why has it not been detected since, considering nearly 200 fish ( a considerable portion of the run some cycles) are sampled yearly?
When I was involved in this program the known cause of prespawn mortality was a myxosporean parasite called Parvicapsula minibicornis - are you aware of the literature on this?
But lets say you are correct, ISAVv was the cause ... how did that affect the non SARA listing for Cultus sockeye?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Cultus was all about the money.
Cannot close down the fisheries for one little stock.

Just like they opened up the Thompson Coho to ensure they could catch every sockeye they could.

Ok, your'e convinced ISAv was a factor in the crash of Cultus and River's Inlet sockeye ... I suspected you might.
Why has it not been detected since, considering nearly 200 fish ( a considerable portion of the run some cycles) are sampled yearly?
When I was involved in this program the known cause of prespawn mortality was a myxosporean parasite called Parvicapsula minibicornis - are you aware of the literature on this?
But lets say you are correct, ISAVv was the cause ... how did that affect the non SARA listing for Cultus sockeye?

 

[bones]

It because it hasn't been answered.

They cant even find out going smolts a mear kilometer from the Seymour river. And you insist it's because of lice..... Funny ****.
Is there fish farms in burrard inlet? No

 

[terrin]

Again how is it that rivers devoid of fish farms and sea lice are being affected by fish farms in the Broughton?

There are no Fish Farms in the Fraser river and yet the Fraser Wild Salmon are struggling would likely be the same for the Skeena and Nass rivers. As AA says fish have tails and the Ocean water flows in the currents the ecosystem is constantly interacting with its inhabitants.

 

[agentaqua]

Ok, your'e convinced ISAv was a factor in the crash of Cultus and River's Inlet sockeye ... I suspected you might.
Why has it not been detected since, considering nearly 200 fish ( a considerable portion of the run some cycles) are sampled yearly?
When I was involved in this program the known cause of prespawn mortality was a myxosporean parasite called Parvicapsula minibicornis - are you aware of the literature on this?
But lets say you are correct, ISAVv was the cause ... how did that affect the non SARA listing for Cultus sockeye?

1stly - what DFO/CFIA should have done was to retest immediately - if that was possible. If not then those watersheds should have been thoroughly sampled esp. for resident salmonids - and the very next season - outmigrating smolts should have been tested. They weren't because DFO & CFIA wanted this to all quietly go away.

2 - None of those smolts sampled using CFIA methodology would necessarily test positive for ISAv - EVEN IF THEY HAD IT - considering CFIAs flawed confirmation methods. This was discussed at length at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...sent-bc-salmon-farms.64482/page-4#post-821997

3 - The issue around impacts from viruses or any potentially disease-causing organism has to do with fitness of the host and that potential extra mortality which is related to both the virulence of the virus and the physiological effects on the host. In short: if populations are barely hanging-on on in decline with only a 2-3% ocean survival rate for smolts to adults - adding another 0.5% mortality could have disastrous effects - no matter the source. So - that's what I believe can and occasionally does happen some years - that "extra" mortality is too much - whether from viruses, sea lice - or some other non FF-related impact. If we did proper environmental assessment, proper approvals, proper science, even - we could protect against some of the worst sited FF and their impacts. I'd rather see CC made mandatory - but in the interim - I'll settle for protecting the wild stocks.

I mean are you ok w pretending that salmon swim only 0.99km? Seriously, Dave.

How come the ISAv was of European strain, Dave? Where do you think that came from? Pacific salmon?

 

[Dave]

uh, not sure what the 0.99 km is all about?
Have NA strains of ISAv been found in Europe?

 

[bones]

So.... Peer reviewed paper shows smolts disappearing from the Seymour river. They cannot be found 1 km from the estuary where they where released. Your telling me its because fish have tails and moved around or spread sealice, bla bla. There are no fish farms anywhere near the Seymour, the nearest one is miles and miles away......to say its fish farms is funny.

 

[bones]

It's actually crazy

 

[agentaqua]

uh, not sure what the 0.99 km is all about?

Little surprised you don't know this, Dave.

For all the years previous to late 2015 - it was DFO's presumed "environmental assessment" called "siting criteria". After years of pretending that salmon swim only 0.99km - DFO relented and did a "review" of the siting criteria:

https://www.watershed-watch.org/wor...O-re-draft-siting-guidelines-Sept-15-2015.pdf

So, still not biting on how a European disease got here in BC?