Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts...

[Gunsmith]

"Populations of wild salmon go up and down, regardless of the presence of aquaculture, and so far every paper theorizing impacts from it has had to ignore the ups in order to explain the downs."
Granted not the only straw on the camel's back, but most likely the one that will break it. As far as I am concerned there is enough against wild fish that the fish farms are not worth the risk no matter how little proof you say there is against them. They get my "NAY" vote.

 

[Englishman]

Every single one of the papers cited has a fatal flaw - Without knowing the values of all the other impacts and factors involved in the survival of wild salmon you can never put one on the theorized impact of aquaculture.

Peer-reviewed speculation.

Could, Might, May - None of those ever show a DOES.

CK this is the most preposterous and arrogant dismissal of the masses of evidence against salmon feed lots I ever saw. It is an absolute classic of its kind.
33 papers. Count ‘em. 33 from all over the world and you dismiss them all with your “fatal flaw” wave of your hand. You have read them all have you? All those scientists from all over the world published these papers in peer reviewed journals and they all missed the so-called “flaw” as did all the peer reviewers?
If you cannot see how absolutely idiotic such a stance is, you are a hopeless case. You can clearly never be deflected from your beliefs because you have the irrational and absurd ability to ignore evidence and dismiss the findings of the entire scientific community with one unsupportable statement. Ridiculous, totally ridiculous!

I'm sure this is where the tobacco industry comparison will come in, as every time it is pointed out that there is no instance of an impact being measured, it is always used to deflect away from that fact.

Exactly CK your use of tobacco industry defence is a classic of its kind. It is the person’s life style, the chemicals in their workplace, their genes, the food they ate etc. etc. You cannot PROVE cigarettes cause cancer, etc., ad nauseum. The pathological denial of evidence you posted above is a complete exposure of your self-delusion.

Populations of wild salmon go up and down, regardless of the presence of aquaculture, and so far every paper theorizing impacts from it has had to ignore the ups in order to explain the downs.

I'm pretty sure I have never claimed zero impact on wild stocks from salmon aquaculture, but what I have said is that since it has not been able to be measured - it must be small.

Thos 33 papers all quantified the impacts in terms of lice infestation and subsequent run declines and in some cases smolt mortalities as well. The impacts have clearly been measured and for you to say they are “small” is once again a facile and unsupported statement by someone unqualified to do so.
In addition, as Dr. Riddell states, altering the timing of SLICE application and fallowing of feed lots has clearly altered the pink salmon infestation and abundance in the Broughton, which both rebuts your incorrect statement that the “ups” are not explained as well and proves that the feed lots are the source of the lice infestations.

Put into context, it would likely pale in comparison to known impacts. (And BTW, putting something into context is not "deflection" - it is rational thought.)

Pure speculation on your part. You have no evidence for this statement . It is just an opinion, like everything else you put up here. No science and no rational logical argument.

Dragging in every other reason you don't like something after you've failed to realistic show support for one is, well.... I wish I had that hairbrush waving kid GIF to put up, because IMO it is perfect.

You guys can prop up your views with whatever you like, but don't expect the rest of us to share them, or see it the same way.

CK what we are putting up here are not “views” nor “opinions”. Our positions are derived from facts as published in the peer reviewed scientific papers. You are labouring under the PR and media delusion that science is merely one side of the argument, as though we are talking politics or economics.
Your preposterous position is analogous to arguing the world is flat or the earth is the centre of the universe. If you ignore scientific evidence ANY opinion however absurd, is a “valid” argument.

There are plenty of aquaculture workers who share the same passion for wild salmon, the companies themselves support enhancement and there are lots of people out there working hard to ensure that their day-to-day jobs aren't negatively impacting the things that make their lives on the coast so great. .

Yes, and many tobacco companies supported charities and local sporting events. I’m sure the people that worked for them were all good guys just like you. Deluded, but good.

I'm not about to "take my ball and go home" because of a few anonymous posters on here, and net-pen aquaculture is not about to leave the coast either .

We know that CK. Your capacity to ignore overwhelming evidence ensures you will never concede the argument. Ever. Nor will the fundamentalists ever concede that evolution is true either. You are in excellent, intelligent and informed company!!

Everything people do has impacts, and quite honestly I find the objections of some of the sportfishing community towards aquaculture ridiculously hypocritical and, at times, absurd.

This is a facile argument. The serious negative impacts of your industry on wild salmon and the ecosystem have been well documented and proven by the science. To shrug and make the statement you make is indefensible. Quite honestly I find your defence and arguments of feed lots and rejection of science ridiculous and all times completely absurd.

 

[agentaqua]

The only "fatal flaw" here CK - is your inability to either read, comprehend, accept and/or admit when you are wrong. It's called denial - and thanks again for demonstrating this industry tactic to everyone here on this forum. Your reactions to posted science are not only foolish, but immature. AGAIN - thanks for demonstrating you culture of fear and denial to everyone on this forum.

Taking the modelling component out (PS - your industry operates on modelling, CK: on benthic impacts - so you can't hate it as much as you pretend!!): these are the FIELD components of the various studies:

 

[agentaqua]

Tully et al. 1999: “Significantly higher infestations occurred in bays that contained lice-infested farmed salmon. Lice-infested wild spring salmon, which were present in estuaries of some systems, did not have a significant positive impact on infestations”

Krkosek et al. 2012: “Treatment had a significant positive effect on survival to recruitment, with an overall effect size (odds ratio) of 1.29 that corresponds to an estimated loss of 39 per cent (95% CI: 18–55%) of adult salmon recruitment. The parasitic crustaceans were probably acquired during early marine migration in areas that host large aquaculture populations of domesticated salmon, which elevate local abundances of ectoparasitic copepods—particularly Lepeophtheirus salmonis. These results provide experimental evidence from a large marine ecosystem that parasites can have large impacts on fish recruitment, fisheries and conservation.”

Price et al. 2010: “ Exposure to salmon farms was the only consistently significant factor to explain the variation in prevalence data, with a secondary role played by salinity. ”

Holst et al. 2008: “The controlled experiment suggested a mortal level of 11 adult salmon lice on wild post-smolts. This number is in close accordance with the oceanic observations, where no salmon taken during a period of 10 years were observed to carry more than 10 adult salmon lice in July. Based on the observed infection levels and a conservative mortal limit of 15 adult salmon lice, estimates of up to 95% mortality due to salmon lice infection have been observed. Although the reported mean numbers of adult female lice in fish farms in the area studied have been reduced to close to the allowed level of 0.5 adult females per fish in the spring, salmon lice still appear to be a problem for many wild salmon stocks in western Norway. In particular, rivers draining into the heads of long fjords seem to be adversely affected. As it seems unrealistic that salmon lice levels in fish farms will be further reduced in the near future, an additional measure for critically affected rivers would be to treat the smolts with a protective chemical against salmon lice infection during the migration to sea.”

Morton et al. 2005: “Overall, L. salmonis levels were significantly reduced (P , 0.0001) at the study sites during fallowing but returned to the original level after fallowing. The decline was age specific. While the abundance of the earliest attached sea louse phase (the copepodid stage) declined by a factor of 42, the mean abundance of adult L. salmonis did not decline significantly. Changes in salinity and temperature could not account for the decline. This study provides evidence that the fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms during spring juvenile salmon migrations can be an effective conservation and management tool for protecting wild salmon. ”

Orr 2007: “Fewer farmed Atlantic salmon and sea lice in 2003 coincided with lower abundance and prevalence of L. salmonis on juvenile pink salmon and chum salmon near farms.”

Price et al. 2007: Lice abundances on juvenile sockeye in the salmon farm region were substantially higher downstream of farms than upstream of farms for the two common species of lice: Caligus clemensi and Lepeophtheirus salmonis, and changes in their proportions between two years matched changes on the fish farms...
This is the first study to demonstrate a potential role of salmon farms in sea lice transmission to juvenile sockeye salmon during their critical early marine migration. Moreover, it demonstrates a major migration corridor past farms for sockeye that originated in the Fraser River, a complex of populations that are the subject of conservation concern."

Gottesfeld et al. 2009: “This natural source of sea lice results in levels of abundance that are one or two orders of magnitude lower than those observed on juvenile pink salmon in areas with salmon farms such as the Broughton Archipelago. ”

Gargin et al. 2008: “Highest mean levels of total lice and juvenile (chalimus stages) lice were recorded at sites less than 20 km from farms. The mean total lice infestation was lower at sites less than 30 km from farms and beyond 30 km, very low mean total lice levels were recorded. “

. At distances less than 25 km the full range in infestation occurred. Sea trout have been shown to experience physiological problems and osmoregulatory imbalance at lice levels of approximately 0.7 lice larva.g-1fish weight. The overall mean size of trout in the present study carrying lice was 79g giving an indicative stress level of sea lice infestation of 55 lice/fish. Twenty nine percent of the infested trout had lice levels above this indicative stress level. For fish sampled in bays without farms, 3.4% of the infested trout were above this indicative stress level while for fish captured in bays with farms this level rose to 30.8%. There was a relationship between the proportion of fish in each sample above 55 lice per fish and distance from salmon farms. There was a significant negative relationship between sea trout marine survival and the level of lice infestation on sea trout in four bays in the mid-West

Costello 2012: “Epizootics, characteristically dominated by juvenile (copepodite and chalimus) stages, have repeatedly occurred on juvenile wild salmonids in areas where farms have sea lice infestations, but have not been recorded elsewhere. “

” The increasing evidence that lice from farms can be a significant cause of mortality on nearby wild fish populations provides an additional challenge to controlling lice on the farms and also raises conservation, economic and political issues about how to balance aquaculture and fisheries resource management. ”

Morton et al. 2004: “Epizootics, characteristically dominated by juvenile (copepodite and chalimus) stages, have repeatedly occurred on juvenile wild salmonids in areas where farms have sea lice infestations, but have not been recorded elsewhere. This paper synthesizes the literature, including modelling studies, to provide an understanding of how one species, the salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, can infest wild salmonids from farm sources. ...The increasing evidence that lice from farms can be a significant cause of mortality on nearby wild fish populations provides an additional challenge to controlling lice on the farms and also raises conservation, economic and political issues about how to balance aquaculture and fisheries resource management. ”

Butler et al. 2001: “Sites on the periphery of the salmon farming zone had generally low infestations, and an absence of prematurely-returning fish. “

”The results parallel those of previous surveys in western Scotland, and the characteristics of the lice epizootics mirror those identified in western Ireland and Norway. Time series of three or more years’ data at five rivers demonstrated that inter-year variations in infestations were related to salmon farm production cycles in the local hydrographic area.”

Morton et al. 2008: “Fish exposed to salmon farms were infected with more sea lice than those in the peripheral category. ”

Krkosek et al. 2006: “Farm-origin lice induced 9–95% mortality in several sympatric wild juvenile pink and chum salmon populations. ”

Hillborn 2006: “we now have replication of the basic observation that migrating juvenile salmon become infected with sea lice as they pass salmon farms”

Krkosek et al. 2011: “Our results show that sea lice abundance on farms is negatively associated with productivity of both pink and coho salmon in the Broughton Archipelago.”

Gargin et al. 2004: “The data also strongly supports the view that the sea trout stock collapse on Irelands west coast was contributed to by sea lice infestation from marine salmon farms.”

Krkosek et al. 2005: “Our calculations suggest the infection pressure imposed by the farm was four orders of magnitude greater than ambient levels, resulting in a maximum infection pressure near the farmthat was 73 times greater than ambient levels and exceeded ambient levels for 30 km along the two wild salmon migration corridors. The farm-produced cohort of lice parasitizing the wild juvenile hosts reached reproductive maturity and produced a second generation of lice that re-infected the juvenile salmon. This raises the infection pressure from the farm by an additional order of magnitude, with a composite infection pressure that exceeds ambient levels for 75 km of the two migration routes”

Middlemas et al. 2010: “Within Loch Shieldaig across five successive farm cycles from 2000 to 2009, the percentage of sea trout with lice, and those above a critical level, were significantly higher in the second year of a two-year production cycle. These patterns were mirrored in 2002–2003 across the Scottish west coast. The results suggest a link between Atlantic salmon farms and sea lice burdens on sea trout in the West of Scotland. ”

Morton et al. 2010: “Results indicate that fallowing reduces the abundance and flattens the spatial distribution of lice relative to that expected in areas without farms. Active farms remained the primary source of lice, but transmission was reduced 100-fold relative to previous epizootics in the study area. On the migration route containing active farms, 50% of the juvenile salmon showed evidence of louse damage to surface tissues and the estimated direct louse-induced mortality was ,10%, not including indirect effects of infection on predation risk or competition.”

Bjørn and Bjørn 2002: “fish farming contributes to the elevated lice level in wild fish.”

 

[agentaqua]

AND for comic relief: here's one of those attached pics that describes the salmon farming industry's responses to legitimate criticisms:

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"We know that CK. Your capacity to ignore overwhelming evidence ensures you will never concede the argument. Ever. Nor will the fundamentalists ever conceded that evolution is true either. You are in excellent, intelligent and informed company!!"

The argument here seems to be that some, who oppose the concept of farming salmon in net-pens, feel they have enough evidence to support their position and perception of risk - while others, who support the concept, feel that the lack of empirical evidence and difference between observations and theorised models after more than 30 years of operation show there is little risk and impact from a welll managed industry.

Think about it, when we started out farming salmon in BC we used local stocks and had disease and escapes happen due to the lack of experience our local BC farmers had.

Once the initial boom passed, and prices dropped, those local BC companies could not compete and were taken over by the companies we see today.

They had the experience, the technology and the money to invest in an industry (to the benefit of thousands of BC residents I might add) and brought aquaculture on the BC coast up to a standard rarely seen worldwide. (Due to the pressures of those same thousands of BC residents interested in maintaining the health and beauty of their coast)

So my questions are:
As we have EVOLVED as an industry out practices have, and continue to, improve - We are better at keeping our fish inside the pens, better at keeping them healthy, better at managing any impacts that might arise from sea lice, better at monitoring and maintaining the sea floor below our farms, and better at keeping predators like sea lions away so we reduce the need for lethal measures.

Why would the future be riskier than the past?

If there were to be measurable impacts, would they not be apparent when the management of those impacts was least?

 

[agentaqua]

that's you response to the posted science, CK? You just avoided the whole discussion - or was that your intent from the start?

 

[Whole in the Water]

"We know that CK. Your capacity to ignore overwhelming evidence ensures you will never concede the argument. Ever. Nor will the fundamentalists ever conceded that evolution is true either. You are in excellent, intelligent and informed company!!"

The argument here seems to be that some, who oppose the concept of farming salmon in net-pens, feel they have enough evidence to support their position and perception of risk - while others, who support the concept, feel that the lack of empirical evidence and difference between observations and theorised models after more than 30 years of operation show there is little risk and impact from a welll managed industry.

Think about it, when we started out farming salmon in BC we used local stocks and had disease and escapes happen due to the lack of experience our local BC farmers had.

Once the initial boom passed, and prices dropped, those local BC companies could not compete and were taken over by the companies we see today.

They had the experience, the technology and the money to invest in an industry (to the benefit of thousands of BC residents I might add) and brought aquaculture on the BC coast up to a standard rarely seen worldwide. (Due to the pressures of those same thousands of BC residents interested in maintaining the health and beauty of their coast)

So my questions are:
As we have EVOLVED as an industry out practices have, and continue to, improve - We are better at keeping our fish inside the pens, better at keeping them healthy, better at managing any impacts that might arise from sea lice, better at monitoring and maintaining the sea floor below our farms, and better at keeping predators like sea lions away so we reduce the need for lethal measures.

Why would the future be riskier than the past?

If there were to be measurable impacts, would they not be apparent when the management of those impacts was least?

WOW, YET AGAIN another lame, misguided, highly biased, personal opinion piece that TOTALLY misses the point of what we have been saying here! We are asking, challenging you, to provide peer reviewed scientific research that backs up you claims the net pen salmon feedlots have minimal, if any negative impact on wild fish populations and the surrounding environment and you have completely failed to do so!

Not to seem unfriendly but, we don't care about your personal opinions, observations and musings as they are irrelevant and worthless when we are dealing with peer reviewed scientific research that proves your industry DOES have a negative impact!

So, either provide the research and defend your industry to a comparable level and extent that we have, or go waste other people's time with your inconsequential, personal opinions. All you have done is to prove again and again that your industry has no proof to back up the empty and false claims of being sustainable and environmentally safe.

By stubbornly continuing the way you are you are just embarrassing yourself, your industry and just helping us prove our point. Perhaps it is high time to wake up and move on.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

It is obvious that having someone question the "May" "Might" "Could" and "Probably" elements of all your peer-reviewed papers drives you guys nuts.

Maybe some day we will be able to quantify the "A" through "Y" portion of wild salmon mortality, at which point the proposed "Z" of salmon aquaculture impact could then be identified.

Then, it could be weighed against other activities which negatively impact wild salmon populations, and a regulatory decision could be made using all available information.

Unfortunately for opponents of aquaculture, all signs point towards the actual figure being very small given the difficulty people have had to date (using all historical data and statistical tools available) to show a trend between the presence of aquaculture and a consistent decline in wild stocks statistically different to areas without farms.

That is all I am saying, no peer reviewed rebuttals needed IMHO - nature does it for me every fall.

 

[el.Pereh]

It is obvious that having someone question the "May" "Might" "Could" and "Probably" elements of all your peer-reviewed papers drives you guys nuts.

Maybe some day we will be able to quantify the "A" through "Y" portion of wild salmon mortality, at which point the proposed "Z" of salmon aquaculture impact could then be identified.

Then, it could be weighed against other activities which negatively impact wild salmon populations, and a regulatory decision could be made using all available information.

Unfortunately for opponents of aquaculture, all signs point towards the actual figure being very small given the difficulty people have had to date (using all historical data and statistical tools available) to show a trend between the presence of aquaculture and a consistent decline in wild stocks statistically different to areas without farms.

That is all I am saying, no peer reviewed rebuttals needed IMHO - nature does it for me every fall.

So are you admitting that there is no scientific evidence that supports your opinion?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

So are you admitting that there is no scientific evidence that supports your opinion?

Nope, not at all.

In fact, here is a line from one of the papers 'Aqua put up which proves my point quite well:
"The survival of the pink salmon cohort was not statistically different from a reference region without salmon farms."

Except he 'forgot' to include it in his excerpt.

(It was the line right after, "On the migration route containing active farms, 50% of the juvenile salmon showed evidence of louse damage to surface tissues and the estimated direct louse-induced mortality was ,10%, not including indirect effects of infection on predation risk or competition.")

http://salmonfarmscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sealice_2011_ices_morton.pdf

Here's a bunch more: http://salmonfarmscience.com/library/

 

[agentaqua]

actually, if you were using big science words to describe "May" "Might" "Could" and "Probably" - rather than "Eww - I don't like them" - maybe we could have a debate on the available science, CK. As it stands so far - you have no posted no science questions or critiques of the studies except that when you go fishing in your neck of the woods you still occasionally catch salmon, and you will acknowledge science only if it agrees with your predetermined mind - and that's good enough for you. In case you are unaware - that's not a science debate, CK. Reference monkey picture above for benchmarking your response...

 

[ClayoquotKid]

actually, if you were using big science words to describe "May" "Might" "Could" and "Probably" - rather than "Eww - I don't like them" - maybe we could have a debate on the available science, CK. As it stands so far - you have no posted no science questions or critiques of the studies except that when you go fishing in your neck of the woods you still occasionally catch salmon, and you will acknowledge science only if it agrees with your predetermined mind - and that's good enough for you. In case you are unaware - that's not a science debate, CK. Reference monkey picture above for benchmarking your response...

I save my "big science words" for discussions I have with real, live people - not anonymous posters on a sportfishing forum.

And, actually, I do more than just fish in my neck of the woods - I've been working with local First Nations, enhancement societies and ENGO's for years monitoring sea lice levels on outmigrating smolts, conducting enumeration on returning adults and otherwise working towards having a good understanding of area in which my company operates.

Soon we may be able to incorporate recruitment, plankton and other environmental data into something that will show what I've been looking at for years - An area with salmon farms and wild salmon co-existing without any negative trends seen that fall outside the general marine conditions dictating salmon survival.

 

[Charlie]

[h=2]hy·poth·e·sis[/h]noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\: an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion


plural hy·poth·e·ses\-ˌsēz\


CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago







[h=2]Full Definition of HYPOTHESIS[/h]1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

See hypothesis defined for English-language learners »

See hypothesis defined for kids »

[h=2]Examples of HYPOTHESIS[/h]

1. Other chemists rejected his hypothesis.
2. Their hypothesis is that watching excessive amounts of television reduces a person's ability to concentrate.
3. The results of the experiment did not support his hypothesis.
4. In contrast to Bingham's hypothesis that Machu Picchu was the birthplace of the first Inca and the hearth area of the Inca civilization, current scholars believe that the city was built as a country estate … —Roger Balm, Focus On Geography, Spring 2004
5. Campus veterans marvel at all the poolside apartments that have sprung up since Georgia popped the income cap off its merit awards. Professors are testing their hypothesis that instead of increasing college enrollment, the state's $1.7 billion scholarship program has been a blessing for the automobile industry—since so many families roll the savings into buying new cars. —Greg Winter, New York Times, 31 Oct. 2002
6. Isaac Newton initially argued against a parabolic orbit for the … comet of 1680, preferring the hypothesis of two independent comets, one for the inbound and one for the outbound leg. However, Newton later showed that the orbit of the comet could indeed be fit by a parabola. —“Physics and Chemistry of Comets,” Daniel C. Boice and Walter Huebner in Encyclopedia of the Solar System Paul R. Weissman et al., editors , 1999
7. As stated, our working hypothesis suggests a straightforward way to look for evidence that would confirm or disconfirm it: can you predict what is omitted and what is included in alphabetic representations? —Timothy Shopen and Joseph M. Williams, Standards and Dialects in English, 1980
8. [+]more[-]hide

[h=2]Origin of HYPOTHESIS[/h]Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at doFirst Known Use: circa 1656


[h=2]Related to HYPOTHESIS[/h]

• Synonyms
• theory, proposition, supposition, thesis

<dl></dl>

• Related Words
• assumption, concession, premise (also premiss), presumption, presupposition, theorem; conjecture, generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception, construct
• Near Antonyms
• assurance, certainty, fact, knowledge

<dl></dl>
more




[h=2]Synonym Discussion of HYPOTHESIS[/h]hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.


[h=2]hy·poth·e·sis[/h]noun \hī-ˈpäth-ə-səs\ (Medical Dictionary)
plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
[h=2]Medical Definition of HYPOTHESIS [/h]<jum><cryp>: a proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and test its consistency with facts that are known or may be determined <it appears, then, to be a condition of the most genuinely scientific hypothesis that it be…of such a nature as to be either proved or disproved by comparison with observed facts—J. S. Mill>


</cryp></jum>

[h=2]Learn More About HYPOTHESIS [/h]Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for "hypothesis"
Spanish Central Translation: "hypothesis" in Spanish
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about "hypothesis"

 

[Whole in the Water]

Nope, not at all.

In fact, here is a line from one of the papers 'Aqua put up which proves my point quite well:
"The survival of the pink salmon cohort was not statistically different from a reference region without salmon farms."

Except he 'forgot' to include it in his excerpt.

(It was the line right after, "On the migration route containing active farms, 50% of the juvenile salmon showed evidence of louse damage to surface tissues and the estimated direct louse-induced mortality was ,10%, not including indirect effects of infection on predation risk or competition.")

http://salmonfarmscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sealice_2011_ices_morton.pdf

Here's a bunch more: http://salmonfarmscience.com/library/

Now where starting to get somewhere CK, you're finally providing some references to scientific research. Now we can begin a much more informed and enlightened discussion and look at both sides of the argument using science, data, reason and logic instead of personal observation and opinion.

 

[Englishman]

"We know that CK. Your capacity to ignore overwhelming evidence ensures you will never concede the argument. Ever. Nor will the fundamentalists ever conceded that evolution is true either. You are in excellent, intelligent and informed company!!"

The argument here seems to be that some, who oppose the concept of farming salmon in net-pens, feel they have enough evidence to support their position and perception of risk - while others, who support the concept, feel that the lack of empirical evidence and difference between observations and theorised models after more than 30 years of operation show there is little risk and impact from a welll managed industry.

No the argument is that those who have read and understood all of the published scientific research out there have come to the conclusion from the masses of evidence from all over the world that salmon feed lots represent a huge ongoing impact and risk to our ecosystems and to wild salmon runs.
Those who support salmon feed lots for financial reasons, and contrary to all of the published research, uses false words like “lack of empirical evidence” and accusations such “difference between observations and theorised models” as though this is endemic to every single published scientific paper. And what is more you do this without any supporting scientific research data whatsoever. Your deluded opinion still is “I know better than all those scientific researchers and peer reviewers and they are all wrong”. And you come to this position without any scientific qualifications or understanding whatsoever. It is ridiculously laughable.

Think about it, when we started out farming salmon in BC we used local stocks and had disease and escapes happen due to the lack of experience our local BC farmers had.

Once the initial boom passed, and prices dropped, those local BC companies could not compete and were taken over by the companies we see today.

They had the experience, the technology and the money to invest in an industry (to the benefit of thousands of BC residents I might add) and brought aquaculture on the BC coast up to a standard rarely seen worldwide. (Due to the pressures of those same thousands of BC residents interested in maintaining the health and beauty of their coast) ?

So my questions are:
As we have EVOLVED as an industry out practices have, and continue to, improve - We are better at keeping our fish inside the pens, better at keeping them healthy, better at managing any impacts that might arise from sea lice, better at monitoring and maintaining the sea floor below our farms, and better at keeping predators like sea lions away so we reduce the need for lethal measures.

Why would the future be riskier than the past?

Yes, I see. All the problems were in the past, and you learnt from all that (at the expense of our wild salmon and our public resource I might add) and all is well now. Well the evidence continues to pour in that all is not well; the recent massive salmon feed lot culls that have occurred on the East Coast which triggered this thread and the one about those CFIA ordered culls prove that.
There is an arrogance in your statement here CK. A “faith based” conviction that you can manage any and all variables and interactions in an ecosystem as complex as the open ocean, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
A huge concentrated monoculture like salmon feed lots, which violate all the natural stabilising orders such as genetic and species diversity, separation of generations, dispersal of adult populations to minimise epidemics, and dilution and re-cycling of waste products - when all these rules and more are broken – then an eco-disaster is inevitable. Throw in chemicals and anti-biotics and you create a witches brew. It is happening now with what we observe on the East Coast and has been documented in the scientific literature concerning sea lice resistance to SLICE.

If there were to be measurable impacts, would they not be apparent when the management of those impacts was least?

Those impacts have been measured and documented in the scientific literature. It is you who deny these impacts are not apparent. Coast wide, salmon runs have been declining and obviously salmon feed lots have played a significant role in that.
Just because they are not the only factor is not a reason to avoid your industry responsibility. People died (and still die) from cancer who have not smoked. That is NOT a reason to say, “Therefore it cannot be proven the use of tobacco causes cancer”. The science was able to prove that, just as it has been able to prove the severe impacts of salmon feed lots. You continued denial of the science does not change that.

 

[Englishman]

It is obvious that having someone question the "May" "Might" "Could" and "Probably" elements of all your peer-reviewed papers drives you guys nuts.

Not right CK. What makes us completely speechless is an unqualified lay person like you assuming an air of superior knowledge and insight and using the weasel words you do to try and cause doubt. The only criticism of the peer reviewed papers that deserves any consideration are those like the one from qualified individuals like Dr. Riddell and co-workers. Your comments are completely absurd, not founded in science, and indeed show a complete lack of understanding of hypothesis testing, modelling and statistics.

Maybe some day we will be able to quantify the "A" through "Y" portion of wild salmon mortality, at which point the proposed "Z" of salmon aquaculture impact could then be identified.

Then, it could be weighed against other activities which negatively impact wild salmon populations, and a regulatory decision could be made using all available information.

OMG!. And what society should have done is evaluate all of the thousands of factors that contribute to human health and life expectancy and understand at the molecular genetic level how cancer arises and spreads, and only then would we be in a position to understand the effect of tobacco smoking!
What a silly argument. Again with a big enough sample size and a proper statistical analysis and enough research producing the same results again and again, it IS possible to prove a direct correlation between tobacco and cancer.
And the same thing has been done with sea lice and several other ecological impacts of salmon feed lots, but PR types like yourself that went to school on Hill and Knowlton just keep applying their obfuscation techniques to deny the science.

Unfortunately for opponents of aquaculture, all signs point towards the actual figure being very small given the difficulty people have had to date (using all historical data and statistical tools available) to show a trend between the presence of aquaculture and a consistent decline in wild stocks statistically different to areas without farms.

There HAS been a decline in wild salmon stocks over the 30 year period of the existence of salmon feed lots. Given the complexity of the ecosystems and wild salmon life cycle no one expects a CONSTANT decline in every situation for every species in every river system. There is of course natural variability as well and that is what you PR types rely upon and use to confuse people. Nevertheless, the statistics are there from published papers from all over the world to show a measureable and repeatable impact caused by sea lice coming from the feed lots on wild salmon. As Dr, Riddell says “There is no debate on that”.

That is all I am saying, no peer reviewed rebuttals needed IMHO - nature does it for me every fall.

Ah yes of course. An anecdotal observation from you is equivalent to, and outweighs, all of the 33 peer reviewed papers posted by Aqua and the hundreds of other scientific papers out there. Some salmon are there in varying numbers in different catchments and so “everything must be OK”, even though coastwide the 30 year trend is downwards. CK your statements are so absurd they defy description.

 

[soxy]

Anyone have any info on this company and their claims? I don't see any claims about escapement and possible propagation with wild Chinook.
Sounds all warm and fuzzy.

http://www.creativesalmon.com/_docs/Creative-Salmon-Achieves-Organic-Certification.pdf

 

[Charlie]

Anyone have any info on this company and their claims? I don't see any claims about escapement and possible propagation with wild Chinook.
Sounds all warm and fuzzy.

http://www.creativesalmon.com/_docs/Creative-Salmon-Achieves-Organic-Certification.pdf

Yes, I do have information on Creative Salmon, where would you like me to start?

Unless something has recently changed, Creative Salmon holds licenses for six fish farms and is owned by five private investors. Its shares are evenly split between three Japanese and two BC owners. Anyone want to call a company three-fifths Japanese and two-fifths BC "locally owned?" That is a matter of interpretation.

Even without any publicized escapements, you still have what is called ”leaching” where some fish just go missing from those open net pens. Their certainly is the possibility of propagation of those genetically inferior salmon with wild Chinook. I would actually take any Atlantic salmon feedlot over any company raising any kind of Pacific salmon in open net pens for that reason alone. Meaning the risk is to great to the genetics of the wild stocks and there should be NO genetically weakened Pacific salmon ever allowed in any “open net pen” – EVER!

HOWEVER, Creative Salmon has another VERY big issue. It is called Norwegian ISAv causing their Chinook to turn jaundice and "DIE"! Think about this for a moment… They only raise Chinook salmon from their own broad stock. Creative Salmon Chinook have already been diagnosed with the Norwegians strain of ISAv! Creative Salmon very well could be actually growing their very own version of the Norwegian ISAvirus; and “may” actually now be passing it down generation to generation through their very own eggs; and “may” be passing that disease to the wild! Kind of explains all those dead jaundice salmon starting to turn up in BC, doesn’t it?

“Dr. Miller said the ISA virus has now been confirmed in numerous wild fish, and in chinook samples provided by Creative Salmon, a fish farm on Vancouver Island.”

“Dr. Miller said her tests found a virus that is 95-per-cent similar to the European strain of ISA, which has infected farmed Atlantic salmon in Norway, Scotland, Atlantic Canada and Chile.”

With “open net pens” they aren’t playing with dynamite - they are playing with nitroglycerin! You might as well go out and find a bottle of nitroglycerin and stick it your trunk, drive around, and wait for it to blow. That is exactly what they are doing with all those open net pens in BC concerning the Pacific salmon. And, it will blow!

So, I must ask… is anyone really okay with any type of salmon “open net pens,” especially on wild salmon migration routes? To include, Creative Salmon growing Chinook salmon that can interbred? And… with already known Creative Salmon has their very own Norwegian ISAv? And disease already killing their own Chinook salmon? And those Chinook swimming around intermingling with your wild BC wild salmon?

Concerning their “organic certification” all one has to do is look at who pushed that “organic certification” through! Ever heard of the “fox in the henhouse”?

Executive Director - Ruth Salmon (fitting last name, isn’t it?)

Board of Directors
Clare Backman, Marine Harvest Canada
Jonathan Barry, Breviro Caviar Inc.
Chris Beattie, Skretting Canada
Shelley King, Aquaculture Association of Canada
Jerry Bidgood, Prince Edward Aqua Farms Ltd.
Cyr Couturier, Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association / Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Steve Cross, Kyuquot SEAfoods Ltd.
Linda Duncan, Mussel Industry Council of North America
Terry Ennis, Atlantic Aqua Farms Inc.
Jason Mann, EWOS Canada Ltd.
Ann Worth, PEI Aquaculture Alliance
Nell Halse, Cooke Aquaculture Ltd.
Angela Bishop, Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia
Stewart Hawthorn, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd.
Pamela Parker, Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association
John Rose, Icy Waters Ltd.
Roberta Stevenson, BC Shellfish Grower's Association
Stephen Stewart, Confederation Cove Mussels Ltd.
Karen Tracey, Northern Ontario Aquaculture Association
Fernando Villarroel, Mainstream Canada
Mary Ellen Walling, BC Salmon Farmers Association
Brian Yip, Fanny Bay Oysters

Board of Directors Executive
President - Clare Backman, Marine Harvest Canada
Vice-President - Terry Ennis, Atlantic Aqua Farms Inc.
Treasurer - Cyr Couturier, Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Secretary - Pam Parker, Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association

Executive Members-at-large
John Rose, Icy Waters Arctic Charr
Laurie Jensen, Mainstream Canada

ANY and ALL salmon “OPEN NET PENS” need to be IMMEDIATELY removed from ALL waters throughout the world, including BC. Required to be in closed containment on LAND where the negative impacts can actually be controlled!

 

[soxy]

Thank you, Charlie.