Fish Farm trouble in BC.
- Thread starter Chuck
- Start date
- Status
GLG
Well-Known Member
Do your own homework and get back to us with your results plus links.
Till then I'm tired of dealing with you.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
And yet this from his bioEllis Ross... hand picked by Christy Clark.
Didn't even win his own village of Kitamat... hmnn...
Ellis worked full time as a taxi boat operator until the Haisla Nation Council requested that he become their first full-time councillor. Ellis served in this position for eight years, from 2003 to 2011. In 2011, Ellis was elected Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation, and was re-elected by acclamation in 2013.
http://marineharvest.ca/globalasset...ea-lice-study--goletas-channel-2014-final.pdf
http://marineharvest.ca/globalasset...on-wild-juvenile-salmonid-monitoring-2017.pdf
would you like me to point out some of the facts? again your asking a industry to pack up and leave. you have science papers that say fish farms hurt wild stock salmon but can tell me how many........ its simple how many and what fish are dieing? you cnt tell me because your science papers are incomplete or on going....... like this thread
trophywife
Crew Member
how many are dying? how much disease is being spread? how is the environment negatively impacted? this is all on fish farms, not on the people. prove that no wild fish are affected, prove lice is not a problem, prove there is no negative impact. then you ff's might get an open ear, until then get out of the the open net pen business, until facts can be proven, by the ones who want to abuse our waters.
ummmmm...... read the lice papers. would you like more?
ummmmm.......did you read the paper showing smolts are dieing .....87% before they leave the estuary?
ummmmm.......have you read the paper showing seals target smolts and are eating them 84%?
It's your job to prove otherwise called the "Precautionery Principle".
Actually - this is the crazy stupid stuff I keep ranting about. No, you don't get to shut down anything without evidence. It isn't your right. If you have some science that shows the fish farms are having an appreciable affect, bring it forth. And for the love of God, please explain why we had a biggest sockeye run in 100 years on the Fraser river? Did the fish farms cause that?
It is like talking to children. The reason I have asked you to read about the coal plants in Ontario, is it was the same idiot feel goodscience that was used to justify shutting down cheap electricity. Now Ontario's economy is suffering and will suffer for another generation. The people taking about the crazy unintended consequences are the SIMON FRASER INSTITUTE. These are academics on your side.
Why did we have a once in 100 year sockeye run? Give me a reason? If the farms didn't kill all the sockeye, then why did they thrive that year? Were the offshore currents different? Did it have something to do with ocean temperatures? Was it a low carbon emission year? What caused a record run albeit while we have fish farms. That is what we need to know. Based on your science, it shouldn't have happened. Maybe, we can find a way of helping those conditions along and stop blaming an industry that might not have any impact on anything. If the industry can be shown to kill sockeye one year but help them the next, lets find out how it helped the sockeye and get them to do it again. If the industry didn't somehow cause the sockeye run, then you better explain it. This is SUCK AND BLOW. All bad things a FF all good things must be attributed to something else. One thing you don't for sure get to do, is to pick your own facts.
AA, GLG, Trophy - stop ignoring and start explaining why we had a record run. Also explain why Alaska's runs are on the increase as well...
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Sockeye salmon recommended for listing under Species At Risk Act
Open this photo in gallery:
Sockeye salmon.
MICHEL ROGGO/WWF
IVAN SEMENIUK
SCIENCE REPORTER
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 4, 2017UPDATED 13 MINUTES AGO
For centuries, sockeye salmon have raced up British Columbia's Fraser River to spawn in the millions, completing an astonishing life cycle that spans four years and thousands of kilometres.
Now, scientists have determined that many populations of Fraser River sockeye are in such alarming decline that they should be listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act.
The recommendation, announced Monday by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an independent scientific body that advises the federal government, is the most significant acknowledgment to date of the jeopardy facing the iconic red-bodied fish that was once the mainstay of British Columbia's salmon industry.
"It's a signal of a larger issue," said Eric Taylor, committee chair and fish ecologist at the University of British Columbia. "The Fraser River is having trouble supporting these fish."
A number of committee members said that, without more decisive government action, long-term prospects for sockeye and other salmon species on the Fraser are grim. Last year saw the lowest number of sockeye salmon returning to the Fraser since records began in 1893.
"The projections aren't great if we don't change the way we do business around the river basin," Dr. Taylor said.
Researchers say a number of factors could be contributing to sockeye decline in the Fraser, including the combined impact of commercial, recreational and traditional fishing, as well as pollution and rising water temperature due to climate change. Warmer water increases stress on the cold-water fish during an exhausting upstream marathon and promotes parasites.
A more controversial question is the degree to which fish farming along the sockeye's maritime migration routes may be transmitting diseases that impact wild fish.
Under the Species at Risk Act, the committee's recommendation must now be taken up for consideration by the federal government. But Ottawa has a track record of failing to list commercially important fish, despite warnings from scientists that failing to do so could lead to population collapses. A recent report by World Wildlife Fund-Canada notes that only 12 of 62 species of Canadian fish deemed at risk of extinction have been listed by the government since 2003.
Emily Giles, a WWF representative who attended the sockeye deliberations last week as an observer, said the state of the sockeye in the Fraser has broad implications for wildlife across the region that depend directly or indirectly on the sockeye as a keystone species.
"They die after they spawn and their bodies go back into the ecosystem and provide important nutrients for the rest of the freshwater habitat," she said.
The Fraser River sockeye assessment was among the most complex tasks the committee has faced in its 40-year history. Work began four years ago and led first to the understanding that 24 distinct populations of sockeye spawn on the river's many tributaries, some of which reach as far inland as the Alberta border. This was an important step, because sockeye are so well adapted to their specific spawning environments that if the species disappeared from one tributary it's unlikely that sockeye from another tributary could be successfully reintroduced there.
Last week, during a marathon session in Ottawa, scientists voted that eight of the 24 populations of Fraser River sockeye should be listed as endangered – representing the highest level of risk that the population could someday be lost. The committee determined that two other populations should be listed as threatened and five more designated "of special concern." The committee also voted that the remaining nine populations of sockeye still occur in large enough numbers on the Fraser that they do not warrant listing.
The diverse assessment sets up the potential for a regulatory headache. As sockeye re-enter the Fraser after years out in the open Pacific, they travel in mixed schools. Because it's not possible to distinguish members of one population from another on sight, a federal listing for some populations would likely require measures to curtail fishing of all Fraser sockeye.
"It's going to be a challenge to implement measures to try to protect these stocks and actually rebuild them," said Alan Sinclair, co-chair of the marine fishes subcommittee, who presented the sockeye data last week.
The committee, which meets twice each year, is set to systematically consider other British Columbia salmon populations in the future, including sockeye in other watersheds as well as coho and chinook salmon.
During a reception last week recognizing the committee's 40 years of service, Catherine McKenna, federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said she would adopt targeted timelines for dealing with the backlog of recommendations for listing. The targets include 24 months for terrestrial species and 36 months for some aquatic species including fish.
Experts say this still falls well outside the nine-month maximum that the Species at Risk Act says can transpire between the committee's report on a species and a decision by the government to list the species or not.
"The law is clear," said Amir Attaran, a professor with the Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa. "Although several governments in a row have pretended – illegally I believe – that they can start the clock only when they want to."
Other recommendations announced by the committee on Monday include delisting the peregrine falcon, which was declared endangered decades ago but which has rebounded since the pesticide DDT was banned. The committee also assessed three populations of grey whales that migrate through Canadian coastal waters. Two of the three, including one that feeds near Vancouver Island, were assessed as endangered.
Open this photo in gallery:
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/474Z4XBWNFEDTOBJLRM6HTD5JA.jpg)
Sockeye salmon.
MICHEL ROGGO/WWF
IVAN SEMENIUK
SCIENCE REPORTER
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 4, 2017UPDATED 13 MINUTES AGO
For centuries, sockeye salmon have raced up British Columbia's Fraser River to spawn in the millions, completing an astonishing life cycle that spans four years and thousands of kilometres.
Now, scientists have determined that many populations of Fraser River sockeye are in such alarming decline that they should be listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act.
The recommendation, announced Monday by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an independent scientific body that advises the federal government, is the most significant acknowledgment to date of the jeopardy facing the iconic red-bodied fish that was once the mainstay of British Columbia's salmon industry.
"It's a signal of a larger issue," said Eric Taylor, committee chair and fish ecologist at the University of British Columbia. "The Fraser River is having trouble supporting these fish."
A number of committee members said that, without more decisive government action, long-term prospects for sockeye and other salmon species on the Fraser are grim. Last year saw the lowest number of sockeye salmon returning to the Fraser since records began in 1893.
"The projections aren't great if we don't change the way we do business around the river basin," Dr. Taylor said.
Researchers say a number of factors could be contributing to sockeye decline in the Fraser, including the combined impact of commercial, recreational and traditional fishing, as well as pollution and rising water temperature due to climate change. Warmer water increases stress on the cold-water fish during an exhausting upstream marathon and promotes parasites.
A more controversial question is the degree to which fish farming along the sockeye's maritime migration routes may be transmitting diseases that impact wild fish.
Under the Species at Risk Act, the committee's recommendation must now be taken up for consideration by the federal government. But Ottawa has a track record of failing to list commercially important fish, despite warnings from scientists that failing to do so could lead to population collapses. A recent report by World Wildlife Fund-Canada notes that only 12 of 62 species of Canadian fish deemed at risk of extinction have been listed by the government since 2003.
Emily Giles, a WWF representative who attended the sockeye deliberations last week as an observer, said the state of the sockeye in the Fraser has broad implications for wildlife across the region that depend directly or indirectly on the sockeye as a keystone species.
"They die after they spawn and their bodies go back into the ecosystem and provide important nutrients for the rest of the freshwater habitat," she said.
The Fraser River sockeye assessment was among the most complex tasks the committee has faced in its 40-year history. Work began four years ago and led first to the understanding that 24 distinct populations of sockeye spawn on the river's many tributaries, some of which reach as far inland as the Alberta border. This was an important step, because sockeye are so well adapted to their specific spawning environments that if the species disappeared from one tributary it's unlikely that sockeye from another tributary could be successfully reintroduced there.
Last week, during a marathon session in Ottawa, scientists voted that eight of the 24 populations of Fraser River sockeye should be listed as endangered – representing the highest level of risk that the population could someday be lost. The committee determined that two other populations should be listed as threatened and five more designated "of special concern." The committee also voted that the remaining nine populations of sockeye still occur in large enough numbers on the Fraser that they do not warrant listing.
The diverse assessment sets up the potential for a regulatory headache. As sockeye re-enter the Fraser after years out in the open Pacific, they travel in mixed schools. Because it's not possible to distinguish members of one population from another on sight, a federal listing for some populations would likely require measures to curtail fishing of all Fraser sockeye.
"It's going to be a challenge to implement measures to try to protect these stocks and actually rebuild them," said Alan Sinclair, co-chair of the marine fishes subcommittee, who presented the sockeye data last week.
The committee, which meets twice each year, is set to systematically consider other British Columbia salmon populations in the future, including sockeye in other watersheds as well as coho and chinook salmon.
During a reception last week recognizing the committee's 40 years of service, Catherine McKenna, federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said she would adopt targeted timelines for dealing with the backlog of recommendations for listing. The targets include 24 months for terrestrial species and 36 months for some aquatic species including fish.
Experts say this still falls well outside the nine-month maximum that the Species at Risk Act says can transpire between the committee's report on a species and a decision by the government to list the species or not.
"The law is clear," said Amir Attaran, a professor with the Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa. "Although several governments in a row have pretended – illegally I believe – that they can start the clock only when they want to."
Other recommendations announced by the committee on Monday include delisting the peregrine falcon, which was declared endangered decades ago but which has rebounded since the pesticide DDT was banned. The committee also assessed three populations of grey whales that migrate through Canadian coastal waters. Two of the three, including one that feeds near Vancouver Island, were assessed as endangered.
trophywife
Crew Member
AA, GLG, Trophy - stop ignoring and start explaining why we had a record run. Also explain why Alaska's runs are on the increase as well...[/QUOTE]
sockeye? they went the wrong way? swam fast and deep as the rumour at school was, lice is bad? diseases are worse... unfortunately they didn't live to tell their offspring.
alaksa? that is easy, no farms north.
this fact of the sockeye having a good year (once) seems to be the only, and repeated defence ff supporters use.
sockeye? they went the wrong way? swam fast and deep as the rumour at school was, lice is bad? diseases are worse... unfortunately they didn't live to tell their offspring.
alaksa? that is easy, no farms north.
this fact of the sockeye having a good year (once) seems to be the only, and repeated defence ff supporters use.
trophywife
Crew Member
i have done some reading, still waiting to read that fish farms dont harm wild salmon and are environmentally sustainable in their present format.
Sockeye salmon recommended for listing under Species At Risk Act
Open this photo in gallery:
Sockeye salmon.
MICHEL ROGGO/WWF
IVAN SEMENIUK
SCIENCE REPORTER
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 4, 2017UPDATED 13 MINUTES AGO
For centuries, sockeye salmon have raced up British Columbia's Fraser River to spawn in the millions, completing an astonishing life cycle that spans four years and thousands of kilometres.
Now, scientists have determined that many populations of Fraser River sockeye are in such alarming decline that they should be listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act.
The recommendation, announced Monday by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an independent scientific body that advises the federal government, is the most significant acknowledgment to date of the jeopardy facing the iconic red-bodied fish that was once the mainstay of British Columbia's salmon industry.
"It's a signal of a larger issue," said Eric Taylor, committee chair and fish ecologist at the University of British Columbia. "The Fraser River is having trouble supporting these fish."
A number of committee members said that, without more decisive government action, long-term prospects for sockeye and other salmon species on the Fraser are grim. Last year saw the lowest number of sockeye salmon returning to the Fraser since records began in 1893.
"The projections aren't great if we don't change the way we do business around the river basin," Dr. Taylor said.
Researchers say a number of factors could be contributing to sockeye decline in the Fraser, including the combined impact of commercial, recreational and traditional fishing, as well as pollution and rising water temperature due to climate change. Warmer water increases stress on the cold-water fish during an exhausting upstream marathon and promotes parasites.
A more controversial question is the degree to which fish farming along the sockeye's maritime migration routes may be transmitting diseases that impact wild fish.
Under the Species at Risk Act, the committee's recommendation must now be taken up for consideration by the federal government. But Ottawa has a track record of failing to list commercially important fish, despite warnings from scientists that failing to do so could lead to population collapses. A recent report by World Wildlife Fund-Canada notes that only 12 of 62 species of Canadian fish deemed at risk of extinction have been listed by the government since 2003.
Emily Giles, a WWF representative who attended the sockeye deliberations last week as an observer, said the state of the sockeye in the Fraser has broad implications for wildlife across the region that depend directly or indirectly on the sockeye as a keystone species.
"They die after they spawn and their bodies go back into the ecosystem and provide important nutrients for the rest of the freshwater habitat," she said.
The Fraser River sockeye assessment was among the most complex tasks the committee has faced in its 40-year history. Work began four years ago and led first to the understanding that 24 distinct populations of sockeye spawn on the river's many tributaries, some of which reach as far inland as the Alberta border. This was an important step, because sockeye are so well adapted to their specific spawning environments that if the species disappeared from one tributary it's unlikely that sockeye from another tributary could be successfully reintroduced there.
Last week, during a marathon session in Ottawa, scientists voted that eight of the 24 populations of Fraser River sockeye should be listed as endangered – representing the highest level of risk that the population could someday be lost. The committee determined that two other populations should be listed as threatened and five more designated "of special concern." The committee also voted that the remaining nine populations of sockeye still occur in large enough numbers on the Fraser that they do not warrant listing.
The diverse assessment sets up the potential for a regulatory headache. As sockeye re-enter the Fraser after years out in the open Pacific, they travel in mixed schools. Because it's not possible to distinguish members of one population from another on sight, a federal listing for some populations would likely require measures to curtail fishing of all Fraser sockeye.
"It's going to be a challenge to implement measures to try to protect these stocks and actually rebuild them," said Alan Sinclair, co-chair of the marine fishes subcommittee, who presented the sockeye data last week.
The committee, which meets twice each year, is set to systematically consider other British Columbia salmon populations in the future, including sockeye in other watersheds as well as coho and chinook salmon.
During a reception last week recognizing the committee's 40 years of service, Catherine McKenna, federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said she would adopt targeted timelines for dealing with the backlog of recommendations for listing. The targets include 24 months for terrestrial species and 36 months for some aquatic species including fish.
Experts say this still falls well outside the nine-month maximum that the Species at Risk Act says can transpire between the committee's report on a species and a decision by the government to list the species or not.
"The law is clear," said Amir Attaran, a professor with the Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa. "Although several governments in a row have pretended – illegally I believe – that they can start the clock only when they want to."
Other recommendations announced by the committee on Monday include delisting the peregrine falcon, which was declared endangered decades ago but which has rebounded since the pesticide DDT was banned. The committee also assessed three populations of grey whales that migrate through Canadian coastal waters. Two of the three, including one that feeds near Vancouver Island, were assessed as endangered.
Omg. You post an answer That says over fishing and rising water temperatures are causing sockeye deaths. A more controversial issue is the impact of Ff. seriously? This is getting stupid. Do as you please. Hide your head in the sand. No answers why we had a record run. Nada. Nothing. Thanks for all the back up science. Oh, and just so u understand, that was sarcasm!
fogged in
Well-Known Member
What's with all the questions from you and bones You sound like identical twins.
You reject EVERY explanation and all the science that prove Sea Lice and Fish Farm disease kill wild salmon.
Many of your questions have no definitive answers and you know it!
And I might add, there is no way of definitively counting the Wild Salmon killed by Fish Farms but that does mean Fish Farm Sea Lice and Disease DO NOT KILL WILD SALMON!
You have no interest in related posts or contrary opinions and clearly your opinion will not change!
Last edited:
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Hello Bones, you seem to like to ask a lot of questions of folks on this forum, how about you answer some questions yourself - seems only fair!
I've posted this article below at least 3 times before on this posting and no fish farm supporter has been willing, or able to respond to the questions identified in this article with factual information based upon peer reviewed research (not just personal opinion and observations). You keep asking for proof about the negative environmental impacts of net pen fish farms, so read this article and research your answers to support defend the industry you defend - who knows maybe you will find some of the answers you are asking about.
Are you up to it? Can you do it, or will just brush it off and/or deflect?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hello forum Fish Farm Supporters above is a very interesting article that raises some serious concerns about net pen salmon farms. To better understand both side of the debate it would be helpful if fish farm supporters on this forum were to please provide some reasoned critique, backed up with data for the following statements (article highlights) made in this article listed below:
Please inform forum members of what you understand to be the truth around these issues listed below.
I've posted this article below at least 3 times before on this posting and no fish farm supporter has been willing, or able to respond to the questions identified in this article with factual information based upon peer reviewed research (not just personal opinion and observations). You keep asking for proof about the negative environmental impacts of net pen fish farms, so read this article and research your answers to support defend the industry you defend - who knows maybe you will find some of the answers you are asking about.
Are you up to it? Can you do it, or will just brush it off and/or deflect?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hello forum Fish Farm Supporters above is a very interesting article that raises some serious concerns about net pen salmon farms. To better understand both side of the debate it would be helpful if fish farm supporters on this forum were to please provide some reasoned critique, backed up with data for the following statements (article highlights) made in this article listed below:
Please inform forum members of what you understand to be the truth around these issues listed below.
- New research http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/related?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471 by an international group of fishery scientists has detected a nasty heart disease, first identified in Norway, on a British Columbia fish farm in the Discovery Islands. And the study revealed that dying fish with similar heart lesions had been retrieved from other farms in the same region between 2011 and 2013
- Second, the study not only confirmed the presence of HSMI in B.C. coastal waters — something industry and government have long denied — but showed a clear link between piscine reovirus (PRV) and the disease. “PRV was the only agent detected in heart tissue that was correlated with HSMI lesions in the heart,” the study found. And that’s a problem because the PRV has been present in B.C.’s industrial fish farms and hatcheries for years. Industry has long maintained not only that HSMI is not present in B.C., but that piscine reovirus behaves differently here and has not been established as a cause of the disease.
- But the paper reports there have been numerous cases of HSMI-like lesions in farmed fish since 2002, and most were likely HSMI. And the study revealed that dying fish with similar heart lesions had been retrieved from other farms in the same region between 2011 and 2013
- The study also explained why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the industry regulator, probably failed to detect the disease: it didn’t sample enough fish or at the right time.
- In addition, B.C. doesn’t use the international standard definition of HSMI for diagnosis, the study noted, instead using its own unique definition.
- In 2013, provincial government fish pathologist Gary Marty stated in an affidavit used by Marine Harvest that “PRV is common in farmed Atlantic salmon and farmed Pacific salmon, but HSMI does not occur in B.C.”
- But the study, which examined healthy, sick and dead fish from one farm over an 18-month period, confirmed that HSMI and PRV travel together even in B.C.
- And in a 2016 presentation to a parliamentary committee, Kristi Miller, a respected DFO fish pathologist and one of the authors of the new study, noted that until recently, the DFO has shown little interest in researching impacts on wild fish while industry has often prevented access to farmed fish for disease studies. “At present, the department relies heavily on information that the industry provides to determine, for example, what pathogens and diseases to focus risk assessments on,” she told the committee. “There are not, to date, any provisions to enable scientists to conduct risk assessments to sample fish on farms unless the industry agrees to provide them.”
Under Canadian law, it is illegal to transfer diseased or infected fish from holding pens or hatcheries into ocean waters in Canada — yet that’s now a daily reality in B.C.’s farmed fish industry. - In 2015 a federal judge ruled that DFO couldn’t download its responsibilities for fish health to the industry, letting corporations decide when and how to transfer diseased fish. In addition, the judge said the government must respect the precautionary principle and test all farmed fish prior to being transferred to ocean pens for the PRV virus.
- Marine Harvest and the federal government appealed — the government later dropped its effort — and the practice continues.
- About 80 per cent of farmed fish test positive for PRV, and that inconvenient reality is now the subject of another lawsuit launched last year by biologist and wild salmon advocate Alexandra Morton against the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Given the clarity of the law and the 2015 ruling, Morton wants the DFO to test farmed smolts for PRV before they are introduced to the ocean. Despite the 2015 federal court ruling, the DFO has refused to do so.
Last edited:
GLG
Well-Known Member
So I did read those two reports and I would say that the proof of concept of the first one showed that they could be valuable in creating a baseline as they were intended. The second report is what I would call way more valuable and I would hope that it continues. It's very important that we do get a baseline in that area and the 2017 report seeks to do just that. To bad that it has taken so long for industry to do this. Imagine the value if they had started 15 years ago when this issue surfaced in the public sphere. There is a saying here in BC in the fish regulation consultations. You don't get a seat at the table when you're barking at the moon. To bad the FF lost so much time denying the problem.
GLG
Well-Known Member
"Be opinionated. First, be informed." -Norm Farrell
You have proved the first count but you need to work on the second.
Bones posted those exact same studies last January in the "Sea Lice and Fish Farms" thread. I responded back then: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-lice-and-fish-farms.64546/page-2#post-814772
- Status
Similar threads
