fish farm siting criteria & politics

I have been sitting on the side reading all 200 plus postings on this thread and I have to tell you all...one of the best threads ever.
Informative and even entertaining at times.
It has strengthened my opinions on this industry and given me some real insite to the posters themselves.
 
I think I am figuring it out. There is actually some logic behind the push to operate and expand the open net-cage salmon farming industry.

Whether or not that logic is something you morally agree with or not – seems to depend on whether you and future generations of your descendants are in a position to benefit financially from these changes proposed by a very select group of people who work very much behind-the-scenes within our government – and the government of the US.

The vision I believe they are promoting is purposely obscure and piecemeal, but the storyline is something like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Open net-cage fish farms are 1 prong of this many-pronged attack on the control of our natural resources, by this very select group of people.

It’s part of a long-term goal to position themselves so that they and theirs benefit – while you and yours pay into infinity, if that can be arranged.

These movers and shakers are also graduates from the classical schools of economics, where as many costs that can be - are externalized.

This means that the environment is a dumping ground, and if all fails – it’s the taxpayers that are on the hooks for the costs of clean-ups – not them.

If their pollution makes the water unfit to drink – then good. They can sell you sanitized water – for a cost, of course - and also sell the government water purification plants in a public-private partnership.

If the pollution makes you sick - even better. We can then sell the governments lots of expensive health equipment that goes "ping", with lots of dazzling lights and makes you feel like your government is doing something for you - rather than ensuring the water is fit to drink - which is a global human right recognized by the UN.

If the effluent of sea lice kills off wild salmon in the process of "just making a buck" and "employing lots people" – even better. No competition that way. The benefit side of your cost/benefit margin can skyrocket then. We'll just have to keep the prices we pay to commercial fishermen for their wild pink, chum and sockeye salmon so low - that they'll eventually give-up or die-off.

Wait – there’s additional benefits to no salmon.

Hydroelectric projects, dams and run-of-the-river projects have no opposition. Think of all that power generation potential.

Wait – there’s also additional benefits to dams and diversions – pipelines. Pipelines to the thirsty Midwestern states who aquifers are drying-up. Lots money to be made there. Good thing global warming is helping that crisis along, eh?

Global warming – bah. Tell the great unwashed that’s nonsense. Better pay some money to some friendly-sounding pseudo NGO global warming think tank to deny it. Maybe the salmon farmers will have use of such a PR vehicle.

Maybe we should start the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies or give the Fraser Institute some money. That way it doesn’t appear we are pushing the agenda.

We'll use some double-speak - and call it the "futures-" something or other, so that people will feel that it's their future we are talking about (we won't tell them about our planned future), and that they'll have some say in it - and they'll more readily buy-in.

Global warming – ya it’s only a problem when you need ice roads and frozen bogs to get heavy equipment across. Guess we better hurry-up and get at those tar sands, before we run out of permafrost and loose our winter ice-roads.

But we need both water and light petroleum products to make that happen. Guess we better get those pipelines built. That way the light concentrates and water can be pumped back into the pipelines going to the tar sands, while crude can go onto tankers.

Moratorium – no such thing. Oil spills – not likely, and not that bad.

Mining – ya, I invested – didn’t you? Don’t you play the stocks?

The final chapter goes something like this - Your kids are going to be thirsty, while looking at historical pictures of salmon on the internet, and will probably wonder why their parents and grandparents didn’t stop it before it became so bad. This is George Orwell’s 1999 by 2025. Actually, it's Armand Peschard-Sverdrup's 2025 - director of the North American Future 2025 Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks – welcome to the start of the water wars. You’re in it. Many of you on this forum will be able to say you saw it coming and fought against it. Alex is a hero in my books. Let’s hope the final chapter has not hit the printers, yet. I think we all need to work together to become co-authors and change the final chapter - don't you?
 
What political party is most likely to protect our wild salmon, that is the big question? Political parties change, but the non-elected civil servants remain in their ivory towers. These are the policy-makers, until they are replaced, things will never change. Sad. [V]
 
And that Gallows is a bolt right to heart of how our bureaucracy works , control , control , control ..............ad finitum.
Break the circle and you make the gains necessary.

AL
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080426.BKFISH26/TPStory/?query=salmon

FOOD
The ones that got away

TERRY GLAVIN

April 26, 2008

BOTTOMFEEDER

A Seafood Lover's Journey to the End of the Food Chain

By Taras Grescoe

HarperCollins Canada,
Print Edition - Section Front

Section D Front Enlarge Image
The Globe and Mail

326 pages, $29.95

About 100,000 years ago, right around the time people started eating lots of fish, a huge growth spurt appears to have occurred in the size of the human brain. Recent research shows that countries with low rates of fish consumption exhibit high rates of depression and suicide, while people who eat a lot of fish tend to be happier and healthier.

Your granny was right. Fish is good for you.

But nowadays, if you eat a lot of fish, you might be slowly poisoning yourself with mercury and dioxins, or eating fish from the last of their kind on Earth. Chances are good that the bargain-priced shrimp you bought at the supermarket was treated with caustic soda and borax, and it came from a shrimp farm that's ruined a mangrove ecosystem and runs on slave labour.

Roughly 90 per cent of the world's big fish - the sharks, halibut, tunas, swordfish, cod and so on - have already disappeared down humanity's collective gullet. Global fish consumption has doubled since 1980, and vast stretches of the planet's oceans are now so weirdly barren of fish that unchecked algae growth has created huge, toxic dead zones.

Paradoxically, but sensibly, none of this has convinced Bottomfeeder author Taras Grescoe to stop eating fish. Grescoe says he's actually eating more fish now than when he started work on the book.

Grescoe is a meticulous reporter and an accomplished travel writer with a bit of a preoccupation with the things people eat. A Vancouverite now based in Montreal, Grescoe is a recipient of the Mavis Gallant Prize for non-fiction. His last book was The Devil's Picnic: Around The World in Pursuit of Forbidden Fruit.

Here's the paradox in Bottomfeeder: More than a billion people rely mostly on seafood for their protein; another 2.6 billion people get 20 per cent of their protein from seafood; and the rest aren't eating enough fish. The world's human population is growing. We're not going to stop eating things that come out of the water, but as Grescoe has happily discovered, we don't need to, because the big question isn't whether or not to eat fish.

The question is what fish to eat, from which fishing fleets, from what kind of species, and which niche those species occupy in marine ecosystems. The species closest to the bottom of the food chain are usually the best, Grescoe observes. This is true not just from an "ethical" and ecologically correct point of view. It's also because there's such glorious variety down there, and it's so tasty.

It's not that all fish down there are wise to eat, or pleasurable to eat. Some of the predators up near the apex are actually quite all right to eat. Not all farmed fish are bad - China has made astonishing progress with such herbivorous species as tilapia, for instance - and you have try really, really hard to make oyster farming a bad thing.

It's complicated, and if we're going to get off the suicidal treadmill of overfishing, habitat destruction and impoverishment, we're going to have to use those big fish-fed brains of ours. We're going to have to get a lot smarter and sophisticated as consumers, Grescoe argues, and we'll need to be a lot more assertive and insistent as citizens as well.

But there is no hectoring in Bottomfeeder. Instead, Grescoe relies on engaging reportage, a healthy sense of humour and a knack for old-fashioned storytelling.

Grescoe's inquiries take him out into the North Atlantic on a Portuguese sardine seiner and to a table with the gluttonous nouveau riche at Shanghai's decadent Yu Chi restaurant. He puts in a shift as an assistant chef at the famous Miramar bistro in Marseilles, does a stint as a deckhand on a sail-powered oyster skipjack in Chesapeake Bay and tours the macabre Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo.

Tsukiji is a 13-hectare abattoir-palace of 50,000 workers, with its own post office, banks, liquor stores and library. Tsukiji's fish brokers auction off more than $5-billion worth of fish from around the world every year.

Perhaps the most melancholy passage in Bottomfeeder is Grescoe's encounter with the remnant fishing cultures of Tamil Nadu, in southern India, where huge shrimp farms have ravaged coastal ecosystems, devastated local economies and bulldozed ancient ways of life. But then it's rarely a pretty picture, wherever Grescoe travels.

Much of the trouble has to do with globalization, but there's a paradox there, too. Without globalized trade, a lot of fishermen would be without good-paying work, and a lot of other people would be forced to go without nutritious and wholesome fish. But sometimes, the globalized trade in seafood is just dizzying in its absurdity.

It's gotten so that most of us have no idea where the fish we eat comes from, or what it really is. Farmed fish is routinely passed off as wild, pollock is frequently marketed as crab, and if you buy something called snapper, it could be any one of several dozen species. An Atlantic salmon might be raised in a farm in Chile, filleted in Dalian, China, shipped to Vancouver, trucked right across the continent for processing and packaging in Nova Scotia, where its ancestors came from, then trucked back across the continent again to San Diego, where it ends up on a supermarket shelf. That's an extreme case, but on average, it still takes 23.5 litres of diesel fuel just to get a single farmed salmon into your fridge.

You don't need a degree in economics to see that no good can come of this.

Grescoe concludes with a handy guide to help consumers make the best seafood choices, from an ethical, economic and culinary point of view (mackerel, always; grouper, never), and a helpful survey of the emerging consensus among economists, fisheries scientists and marine ecologists about what it's going to take to turn things around.

The point is there are choices. There are things we can do that could make all the difference in the world.

Despairing isn't one of them.

Terry Glavin is an adjunct professor in the creative writing department at the University of British Columbia. His most recent book is Waiting for the Macaws and Other Stories from the Age of Extinctions.

Taras Grescoe writes about the environmental impact of sea lice and B.C.'s fish farms in today's Focus.
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080426.LOUSE26/TPStory/?query=salmon

FARMED VS. WILD: THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUES
Killer lice
A parasite the size of a thumbtack is flourishing in B.C.'s fish farms - and wiping out the wild salmon, writes Taras Grescoe

TARAS GRESCOE

April 26, 2008

ECHO BAY, B.C. -- Ye ugly, creepan, blastit

wonner,/ Detested, shunn'd,

by saunt an' sinner,/

How daur ye set your fit upon her,/ Sae fine a Lady!
Print Edition - Section Front

Section F Front Enlarge Image
The Globe and Mail

- From the Robert Burns poem, To A Louse, On Seeing One On A Lady's Bonnet,

At Church

For anybody who relishes the unctuous feel of lox on bagel, the crunch of crispy salmon skin in a B.C. roll, or the odour of a Chinook tail on the barbecue, these can be confusing times.

Wild salmon are virtually extinct in the Atlantic Ocean, yet tens of millions of Atlantic salmon are being raised in farms in the Pacific; the U.S.-based Safeway supermarket chain has announced that it is curtailing purchases of disease-ridden farmed salmon from Chile; and returns of wild salmon on the British Columbia coast seem to be declining from year to year.

Choosing farmed salmon, some people will tell you, means consuming some of the most toxic chemicals known to humanity. Opting for wild-caught salmon, others insist, could make you complicit in driving already fragile salmon stocks to local extinction. No wonder so many people end up settling for chopped cucumber in their maki rolls at the sushi bar.

Yet there really is no need for confusion. Where you stand on the wild-or-farmed-salmon issue should come down to what you think about a thumbtack-sized crustacean that survives by eating the scales and skin off the same fish that we love to eat - an ugly, creeping, little beastie known as the sea louse.

I was first shown sea lice on salmon smolts by Alexandra Morton, an American-born marine biologist who has lived in a floathouse in Echo Bay, in the Broughton Archipelago, for more than 20 years. The Broughton, a jumbled jigsaw puzzle of islands scattered off B.C.'s mid-coast, is home to sea otters, great blue herons and, until recently, a resident population of killer whales. It is considered one of the richest pockets of biodiversity on the coast - or at least it was until the salmon farms came along.

Aboard her boat one afternoon, Ms. Morton told me how she had welcomed the first net cages when they were towed into local bays in the late 1980s: She hoped that they would provide employment for local people. But then the killer whales were driven away by the acoustic devices the farms used to discourage them and other predators, fishermen started pulling up prawn traps and clams dripping with rotting pellets and salmon feces, and the wild salmon began to disappear.

In the late 1990s, a Scottish tourist at a fishing lodge near Ms. Morton's floathouse asked, "Do you have the scourge of the sea lice yet?" The visitor explained that after the salmon-farming industry came to Scotland, sea lice started appearing in great quantities on wild fish; he had seen the same parasites on the salmon he had just caught in the Broughton.

Alarmed, Ms. Morton took out a dip net and pulled up dozens of wild juvenile pink salmon. They were bleeding from the eyeballs and the base of the fins. Most of them were covered with brown flecks - juvenile sea lice. As they grow, changing their body shape every few days, these parasitic copepods strip mucus, scales and skin from the growing fish. While a full-grown salmon has an armour coating of scales and can survive an infestation, the parasites exhaust the young fish and quickly kill them off.

Using hand seine nets to sample local waters, Ms. Morton established that the salmon farmers were raising millions of adult farmed Atlantic salmon along the migration routes of wild Pacific salmon - in exactly those inlets and estuaries where juvenile wild Pacific fattened up before going to sea. Suddenly, the decline of wild salmon populations did not seem like such a mystery: The 27 farms in the Broughton, had, by crowding normally nomadic fish into tightly packed nets, become ranches for sea lice, concentrating and fatally passing on parasites to wild salmon when they were at their most vulnerable.

In 2002, government scientists predicted that 3.6 million pink salmon would return to the Broughton. Fewer than 150,000 did - a 97-per cent-population crash.

Though the salmon farming industry has done its best to muddy the waters, Ms. Morton has science, as well as some of the leading fisheries scientists in the world, on her side. Analyzing data from Ireland, Scotland and Atlantic Canada, the late Ransom Myers of Dalhousie University showed that disease and parasites spread by farmed salmon reduced the survival of local populations of wild salmon and sea trout by more than 50 per cent per generation. In December, 2007, Ms. Morton and colleagues from the University of Alberta and Dalhousie published a paper in Science, one of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed science journals, projecting the complete collapse of pink salmon in the Broughton by 2011 if the sea lice continue to infest fish.

The evidence is on their side: Everywhere salmon farms have appeared, from Norway to Chile, they have spread disease and parasites to local fish. This year, Ms. Morton told me, sea lice have for the first time shown up on juvenile herring and sockeye in the Strait of Georgia; she found large numbers of them near a fish farm in Clayoquot Sound (a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve where the multinational Mainstream, which is 45-per-cent owned by the Norwegian government, has been allowed to operate 14 salmon farms).

This spring, thousands of newborn pink salmon are leaving the Broughton Archipelago's Ahta River and schooling near the 600,000 adult Atlantic salmon awaiting harvest at the Glacier Falls farm. Employees have already treated fish in the farm with a pesticide called Slice, a potent neurotoxin that kills not only sea lice, but also affects lobsters and other sea creatures we eat. (Though Slice has never been officially approved in Canada, "emergency" permits are routinely granted to salmon farmers by veterinarians, and Health Canada now allows trace amounts of Slice in the flesh of farmed salmon in our supermarkets.) But even this heavy-duty poison has not killed off all the sea lice this year. Samples taken by Ms. Morton show that 17 per cent of the juvenile fish next to the Glacier Falls site are already infested with the parasites.

In March, she announced plans to "medevac" the fish to safety. Using a technique that is standard in hatcheries, she would net the juveniles, put them in a tank full of ocean water and ferry them past the Glacier Falls farm and back to their migration route. On the day of the proposed operation, a seaplane touched down beside her boat, and she was handed a letter, informing her that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans had refused to give her permission to transport the fry.

"The department rejected the idea," Ted Perry of the DFO's Pacific Biology Station in Nanaimo told CBC Radio, "because we think it's the best thing for the fish. There's a lot of handling that goes on with the proposed moving. ... It's a very stressful process for young fish."
Print Edition - Section Front

Section F Front Enlarge Image
The Globe and Mail

For Ms. Morton, the DFO's contention that it rejected her plea purely in the interests of the fish is just so much spin. She points out that the department currently has a team in the Broughton netting and killing thousands of juvenile salmon for scientific purposes.

"The government is still trying to make this sound like it's a really complicated issue," she says. "It's not. It's simple: Industrial salmon farms in British Columbia are spreading sea lice to wild salmon. Where political will is behind the wild fish and the salmon farms have been banned, the fish are doing just fine."

She points out that Alaska, whose economy depends on the wild catch and where salmon farms are strictly prohibited, had two of its biggest harvests in history for pink and sockeye salmon last year.

The salmon farmers have accused Ms. Morton of engineering a publicity stunt, using photogenic baby fish to draw attention to their industry.

She and her colleagues counter that their concern is genuine: These may be among the last generations of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago. (Ms. Morton's funding comes in dribs and drabs from B.C. fishermen sympathetic to her cause. She is trying to raise money to challenge the government's decision at http://www.adopt-a-fry.org.)

Meanwhile, what is a consumer who is inclined to eat ethically to do? Oddly, the best way to save the wild salmon of the Pacific may be to eat them (in moderation, of course, and paying close attention to which species and stocks are abundant; pink salmon runs from other parts of B.C. are healthy, and Nass River sockeye and most Alaskan salmon stocks are in good shape).

Eating farmed salmon, in contrast, encourages an industry that is insidiously undermining wild stocks around the world. The industry could clean up its act by switching to land-based, closed-containment systems that don't spread parasites and pollutants to the wild. Until then, however, supporting well-managed sport and commercial fisheries, and subsidizing habitat restoration, is the only way to ensure that wild salmon will survive into the future. We need to look at salmon the way we used to: not as the cheap protein in a million in-flight meals, but an occasional luxury - one that is well worth paying more for.

When Robert Burns wrote To a Louse in 1785, the rivers of Scotland - and those of much of Europe - supported healthy populations of wild salmon. Generations of overfishing and habitat destruction in the fjords and firths effectively dug a mass grave for the wild fish; the disease, pollution and parasites that arrived with industrial salmon farms spread the final layer of quicklime on their corpses. In the Atlantic, wild salmon are now considered commercially extinct.

The salmon of the Pacific still stand a chance. Yet when Irish and Scottish scientists and fisheries managers came to B.C. last year to testify before the province's Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture about how sea lice had killed off their native salmon and sea trout populations, they were shocked. Why, they wondered, would Canadians risk endangering one of the planet's last great salmon populations to profit a few Norwegian companies?

I have been wondering the same thing myself. The great mystery is what we as Canadians stand to gain from salmon farming. Of the 149 sites in B.C., 130 are fully owned by Norwegian companies, while only 11 are wholly Canadian-owned. The profits go to bank accounts in Oslo, licensing fees are laughably low and companies are allowed to continue operating farms even after their leases have expired. Local employment is minimal and rarely long-term - as I witnessed on my visit to several farms, the staff is mostly college-aged - and as the industry becomes increasingly automated, the ratio of jobs to kilograms of fillet produced constantly decreases.

The province's marine sports fishery, which one day may disappear because of sea lice, employs 4,200 and brings $158-million of revenue to the province. Salmon farming provides only 1,800 full-time jobs and, according to B.C.'s Ministry of Environment, contributes just $61-million to the gross domestic product.
Print Edition - Section Front

Section F Front Enlarge Image
The Globe and Mail

As Canadians, citizens of a country that once had a worldwide reputation for its forward-thinking environmental policies, we should be mortified by our elected officials' shortsightedness. (This month, the B.C. government announced a moratorium on new permits north of Klemtu - a village 275 kilometres south of the border with Alaska. Meanwhile, they quietly approved two new farm permits on the south coast.)

Like the most parochial banana republic of old, we've leased out our natural riches to a handful of distant head offices. They reap the profits, and we pay the environmental price - in the form of ever lousier and increasingly scarcer wild salmon.

Given the inaction of our politicians, perhaps our only hope is to implore the heavens - as Burns once did upon espying another species of louse - to grant us a modicum of shame about our chronic obliviousness: "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us,/ To see oursels as others see us!"

Taras Grescoe is the author of Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood, which will be published by HarperCollins next Saturday. He lives in Montreal.

Terry Glavin reviews Taras Grescoe's Bottomfeeder today (Sat.) in Books.

Heather Sokoloff talks to Taras Grescoe about eating like a bottom-feeder and liking it. In Globe Life on Wednesday.

*****

By the numbers

27

Number of salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago.

97

Percentage of 3.6 million pink salmon that failed to return in 2002.

50

Percentage per generation of wild salmon and sea trout that fail to survive because of disease and parasites spread by farmed salmon, according to a study from Dalhousie University.

130

Number of salmon farm sites in British Columbia fully owned by Norwegian companies.

19

Number of salmon farm sites

fully or partly owned by Canadian companies.

4,200

Number of people employed by B.C.'s marine sports fishery, which contributes $158-million to the province's gross domestic product annually.

1,800

Number of people employed by the salmon farming industry, which brings in $61-million annually
 
There seems to be well-developed response by the fish farming community to the question of sea lice transfer to wild stocks, and that effect.

Even though Krkosek, Morton, and Ford have published peer-reviewed papers on the population-level effects of sea lice transfer of sea lice to adjacent wild stocks – the response by the fish farming community seems remarkably to be – so what?

Even though it is the legislated responsibility of any industry to prove they are not having an effect – the onus is somehow thrust back on the critics of the industry to prove that the open net-cage industry is not having an effect.

Even though we are compelled by the application of the precautionary approach to respond in a timely manner to avoid impacts – the industry's response still seems to be - you can't prove it - na-na-na-boo-boo.

So then - let’s ask the questions more directly, and then answer them:

1/ Has anyone conclusively proven that 1 sea lice from an open net-cage landed on a smolt, and
2/ What is the cumulative action of that transfer to the wild stocks? Is it both an individual, and a population-level impacts?

The answer to the second question is a resounding – YES!!

Krkosek and Ford both model and quantifies that population-level impact (we posted and discussed these reports earlier), while Morton has been the only one thus far to demonstrate the individual impacts to pink smolts (and we discussed other pro-salmon farming researchers that had been given monies to research this)…

But there are still doubts from the fish farming community as to whether or not their lice contribute to that population-level impact – question1 is unproven thus far. Even though it is admitted that their caged cultured stock get sea lice from the wild stocks through the mechanism of the open net-cage which allows parasites and diseases to flow both ways.

This is because researchers have looked at the DNA, and since there is so much transfer of lice back-and-forth between wild and cultured stocks – there is effectively no difference that the researchers can tell them apart. Think about that one for a minute. What does that say about transfer through the open nets? Wouldn't you say that proved it? If there wasn't sustained gene flow back and forth - you would be able to see DNA differences, wouldn't you?

Even though logically, one would assume that the transfer is the most plausible cause of that population-level impact from sea lice - is there some other scientifically-validated way of assessing the likelihood of that transfer?

Luckily, the answer is – yes there is.

It is called “Hills Criteria of Causation”, and it’s straight out of epidemiology textbooks – something that the public would have expected fish farm vets and BCMAFF personnel to not only be aware of, but have read during their education. The question becomes – why aren’t they using it? Isn't that their jobs to be educated, competent, and responsible? What possible excuse can they invent to explain why they are negligent in their duties?

Hills Criteria of Causation has been around and utilized in the Health Sciences field since 1965 – some 43 years ago. Hill outlined a systematic approach for using scientific judgment to infer causation from statistical associations observed in epidemiological data, listing nine issues to be considered when judging whether an observed association is a causal relationship. These systematic associations are now cited as the "Bradford-Hill criteria". The more of the associations that are proven - the more likely factor "A" causes disease "B".

These criteria are in standard use in epidemiology studies, e.g.:
http://www.sv40foundation.org/Bradford-Hill.html
http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=17408310

Those criteria as listed are (in italics from: http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm):

1. A Temporal Relationship: Exposure always precedes the outcome. If factor "A" is believed to cause a disease, then it is clear that factor "A" must necessarily always precede the occurrence of the disease. This is the only absolutely essential criterion.</u>

In the case of open net-cages and their effects on wild stocks – are net cages there and operating before smolts come out of the creeks. Yes they are. There has only been 1 epidemiological incidence of sea lice reported on ADULT sockeye salmon in Alberni Inlet not being associated with salmon-farming areas. This is because the water conditions were too low for the adult salmon to enter the creek to spawn, and they milled around outside at the end of Alberni Inlet long enough to elevate the levels of lice on adjacent adult salmon while waiting in the salt chuck. The lice were on ADULT salmon who were waiting to enter freshwater, spawn, and die. It is very unlikely that juvenile salmon were affected (and none were noted or found), as this is much later than when they leave the creeks. It is easy to see how open net-pen salmon farms upsets what is the normal temporal association of low contact and low sea lice transfer between outmigrating juvenile salmon at the creek mouth (April to June) with the return of adult salmon at the creek mouth from August to October.

2. Strength of Association: This is defined by the size of the association as measured by appropriate statistical tests. The stronger the association, the more likely it is that the relation is causal. For example, the more highly correlated hypertension is with a high sodium diet, the stronger is the relation between sodium and hypertension. Similarly, the higher the correlation between patrilocal residence and the practice of male circumcision, the stronger is the relation between the two social practices.

Okay, again - In the case of open net-cages and their effects on wild stocks – this effect has been appropriately demonstrated, modeled and published by both Krkosek and Ford.

3. Dose-Response Relationship: An increasing amount of exposure increases the risk. If a dose-response relationship is present, it is strong evidence for a causal relationship. However, as with specificity, the absence of a dose-response relationship does not rule out a causal relationship. A threshold may exist above which a relationship may develop. At the same time, if a specific factor is the cause of a disease, the incidence of the disease should decline when exposure to the factor is reduced or eliminated. An anthropological example of this would be the relationship between population growth and agricultural intensification. Other things being equal, as population growth increases within a given area, we should see a commensurate increase in the amount of energy and resources invested in agricultural production. Conversely, when a population decrease occurs, we should see a commensurate reduction in the investment of energy and resources per acre. The same analogy can be applied to the current debate on global warming. If increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of increasing global temperatures, then "other things being equal", we should see both a commensurate increase and a commensurate decrease in global temperatures following an increase or decrease respectively in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

This effect is very strong with effects from the open net-cage industry. Look at the results from the 2003 fallowing in BC, or any data from Ireland or Scotland.

4. Consistency: The association is consistent when results are replicated in studies in different settings using different methods. That is, if a relationship is causal, we would expect to find it consistently in different studies and in different populations. This is why numerous experiments have to be done before meaningful statements can be made about the causal relationship between two or more items. For example, it has taken thousands of highly technical studies of the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer before a definitive conclusion can be made that cigarette smoking increases the risk of (but does not cause) cancer. Similarly, it would require numerous studies of the difference between male and female performance of a specific behavior (e.g., cognitive tasks, domestic violence, nurturing activities, etc.) by a number of different researchers and under a variety of different circumstances before a conclusion could be made regarding whether a gender difference exists in the performance of such behaviors.

Again, this effect is very strong with effects from the open net-cage industry. Look at the data from Ireland or Scotland or Norway. It is very consistent that there are population-level effects associated with sea lice wherever open net-pen salmonid aquaculture interacts with wild salmon stocks. Ford’s work confirms this.

5. Plausibility: The association agrees with currently accepted understanding of pathological processes. However, studies that disagree with established understanding of biological processes may force a reevaluation of accepted beliefs. In other words, there needs to be some theoretical basis for making an association between a vector and disease, or one social phenomenon and another. One may, by chance, discover a correlation between the price of bananas and the election of dog catchers in a particular community, but there is not likely to be any logical connection between the two phenomena. On the other hand, the discovery of a correlation between population growth and the incidence of warfare among Yanomamo villages would fit well with ecological theories of conflict under conditions of increasing competition over resources.

Again – all logic says this is consistent and logical – water flows both ways bring vectors of disease and parasitic transfer.

6. Consideration of Alternate Explanations: In judging whether a reported association is causal, it is necessary to determine the extent to which researchers have taken other possible explanations into account and have effectively ruled out such alternate explanations. In other words, it is always necessary to consider multiple hypotheses before making conclusions about the causal relationship between any two items under investigation.

Okay – how about sticklebacks without any lice babies to re-infest wild smolts. Nope – debunked that one already. How about 10-50 MILLION penned salmon. Gee – never thought of that…

7. Experiment: The condition can be altered (prevented or ameliorated) by an appropriate experimental regimen.

Can you artificially infect salmon in tanks – yep. Better not give Morton her permit to transfer smolts, though. Wouldn't want to prove or admit anything. Don't repeat that 2003 fallowing experiment, either though. That worked way too well. Wouldn't want to have to explain that one...

8. Specificity: This is established when a single putative cause produces a specific effect. This is considered by some to be the weakest of all the criteria. The diseases attributed to cigarette smoking, for example, do not meet this criteria. When specificity of an association is found, it provides additional support for a causal relationship. However, absence of specificity in no way negates a causal relationship. Because outcomes (be they the spread of a disease, the incidence of a specific human social behavior or changes in global temperature) are likely to have multiple factors influencing them, it is highly unlikely that we will find a one-to-one cause-effect relationship between two phenomena. Causality is most often multiple. Therefore, it is necessary to examine specific causal relationships within a larger systemic perspective.

Do sea lice cause death and sub-lethal effects on immature salmon – yep. Bet your flippers they do...

9. Coherence: The association should be compatible with existing theory and knowledge. In other words, it is necessary to evaluate claims of causality within the context of the current state of knowledge within a given field. What do we have to sacrifice about what we currently know in a given area in order to accept a particular claim of causality. What, for example, do we have to reject of our current knowledge in geography, physics, biology and anthropology in order to accept the Creationist claim that the world was created as specified in the Bible a few thousand years ago? Similarly, how consistent are racist and sexist theories of intelligence with our current understanding of how genes work and how they are inherited from one generation to the next? However, as with the issue of plausibility, research that disagrees with established theory and knowledge are not automatically false. They may, in fact, force a reconsideration of accepted beliefs and principles. All currently accepted theories, including Evolution, Relativity and non-Malthusian population ecology, were at one time new ideas that challenged orthodoxy. Thomas Kuhn has referred to such changes in accepted theories as "Paradigm Shifts".

Yep – the body of scientific literature states that the weight of evidence is that the open net-cage technology poses serious population-levels effects in adjacent wild stocks.

WOW – that’s all 9 points in agreement.

If you used the field of epidemiology to examine this issue – you would say that sea lice from farms are the most probable cause of sea lice infection on juvenile outmigrating salmon - i.e. the observed association is a causal relationship.

That is – if you needed to explain or prove it. But who wants to do that, really. Better not tell the great unwashed about the "Bradford-Hill criteria" - they might get suspicious that we are in fact lying through our teeth and hoping nobody will notice.

Well, guess what - we did notice.

Why hasn’t DFO gone over this checklist, and filed charges against open net-cage salmon farms under HADD or release of a deleterious substance? I'll let you reading this forum come to your own conclusions about why.

Let me ask you this follow-up question, though - would you say DFO is exercising their core mandate of protecting the publics fishery resource? What if key personnel within DFO are blocking that core mandate? Wouldn't that be a criminal action?
 
quote:Why hasn’t DFO gone over this checklist, and filed charges against open net-cage salmon farms under HADD or release of a deleterious substance? I'll let you reading this forum come to your own conclusions about why.
Politics.

quote:Let me ask you this follow-up question, though - would you say DFO is exercising their core mandate of protecting the publics fishery resource? What if key personnel within DFO are blocking that core mandate? Wouldn't that be a criminal action?
No they are not fulfilling their mandate at all.

Decisions to file charges against neglectful bureaucrats too are political, since these same bureaucrats are acting under the direction of politicans charges wil never be laid.
 
Thank you Agentaqua for the Hill Criteria of Causation test. Just a note about those adult sockeye that were dying of sea lice in Alberni Inlet in 1991 I think it was. BC Packers was operating several fish farms in that inlet at that time. While, as you say, the wild salmon could have triggered the situation aggravated by the low and warm waters....Those sockeye passed several fish farms in the Inlet and if the warm temperatures caused louse problems on the sockeye, they were also busy reproducing on the farm fish.

I am almost ready to go to court on this, www.adopt-a-fry.org
 
Things at the EPA are the same as they are at DFO...

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/423/1
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/interference-at-the-epa.html

EPA Scientists Unhappy About Political Meddling</u>
By Erik Stokstad
ScienceNOW Daily News
23 April 2008

Hundreds of scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) say they have personally experienced political interference in their work, according to a survey released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The advocacy group, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, argues that the survey shows a pattern of political misuse of science leading to weaker protections for public health. EPA says that the concerns may largely reflect a misunderstanding of how policy is made.
The survey is the latest in a UCS series that has looked at political influence on science at federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ScienceNOW, 9 February 2005) and the Food and Drug Administration. In order to improve the reliability of the results, this time UCS collaborated with Iowa State University's Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology. The survey was sent to nearly 5500 EPA scientists last summer, and 1586 filled it out. (EPA has between 6000 and 8000 scientists, depending on the definition.)

Among the findings: 889 scientists had "personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the last 5 years." Some 394 of these scientists reported that their own findings had been misrepresented by EPA officials. In addition, 285 noted instances in which data had been selected or omitted to weaken a regulation, and 224 had been ordered to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document." Scientists who reported political interference tended to work in offices that write regulations rather than in basic research labs. Hundreds said they feared retaliation by officials if they voiced concerns about EPA regulations.

Because the survey was not random, the results can't be extrapolated to EPA as a whole. Nevertheless, UCS's Francesco Grifo says the complaints point to a problem at the agency. "Those are huge numbers, and they should be zero, or close to it," she says. UCS is calling for Congress to specifically include scientists in pending legislation designed to protect a whistleblowers and for EPA to increase the transparency of its decision-making process.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Schrader says that officials don't influence the science used to inform policy decisions, such as air quality regulations. As to why agency scientists told UCS they feel aggrieved, Schrader says: "In some cases, they don't agree with the final policy decision and may misconstrue that as political interference." But he adds that the agency will take the concern seriously: "There are some areas that we need to review and evaluate."

The chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Henry Waxman, (D-CA), sent a letter today to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who will testify at a hearing the week of 5 May about EPA's controversial revision of air-quality standards for ozone (Science, 21 March, p. 1602). "You should also expect members of the Committee to ask about these survey results and other evidence of political interference with science at EPA," Waxman wrote.


http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/04/scientists_under_siege_from_po.html
Scientists ‘under siege’ from political interference - April 25, 2008</u>A new report says the US Environmental Protection Agency is ‘under siege’, with more than half of scientists surveyed claiming there is political interference in the agency’s work.

The Union of Concerned Scientists interviewed current and former EPA staff and surveyed hundreds more. It says:

The results of these investigations show an agency under siege from political pressures. On numerous issues—ranging from mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate change—political appointees have edited scientific documents, manipulated scientific assessments, and generally sought to undermine the science behind dozens of EPA regulations.

AP notes an EPA spokesman “attributed some of the discontent to the “passion” scientists have toward their work”. Jonathan Shradar “said the findings will not change anything” (Washington Post).

As one of my colleagues noted, the shocking thing about this is how unsurprising it is. We seem to have become inured to the fact that politicians interfere with scientific practice when they don’t hear what they want to hear.

“Our investigation found an agency in crisis,” says Francesca Grifo of the UCS (Reuters). “Distorting science to accommodate a narrow political agenda threatens our environment, our health and our democracy itself.”

The UCS received 1,586 responses to a questionnaire sent to 5,419 EPA scientists. Even allowing for biased responses the results make uncomfortable reading:

– 889 scientists (60% of those answering the question) had experienced political interference in their work over the last five years
– 285 scientists (22%) frequently or occasionally experienced “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome”
– 224 scientists (17%) had been “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document”

Outraged yet? No? Try reading some of the quotes from the interviews:

I (and others) have been prevented from performing certain experiments--so that the data on sensitive topics (such as World Trade Center dust from 9/11 and Hurricane Kritina water/soil would not be generated.

The current management is openly corrupt, incompetent, and top heavy in the ratio to scientists 1/3. Scientists are not able to do research (no technicians/students/resources) and it has been suggested that we no longer need resources to publish research (you go figure!).

The pressure to toe the line the administration has drawn on many scientific issues is pervasive. This has been the worst I have seen things in 20 years.


Not that this is a new problem, among those who’d worked for the EPA for over 10 years only 43% saw more interference in the last five years versus, with 4% seeing less. Still, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

It’s even sadder that we’re not surprised.
 
Alexandra,

Surely you know that IHN is endemic in all sockeye populations, and has existed as long as there have been sockeye to carry it. For you to suggest that the industry spread it around the coast is another example of how you exagerate and spin the truth to forward your agenda.

Agent,

You post many words but repeat the same things over and over. None of your papers have proven a "causal link". And before you suggest I am in denial yet again, you are on the offensive, and I am in a defense posture, which of course leads to denial of what you have posted.

They haven't used Hills Criteria because it is not valid in this comparison. It is used to show a single cause related to a single disease. Sea lice life cycles are far too complex to use this criteria and receive a valid comparision. Of course Agent has twisted the criteria to arrive at the his predetermined outcome.
 
Sockeye,

You seem to be in the know. Sea lice aside, what's with the farmed salmon heads and carcasses being classified by DFO to be 'toxic waste'
and therefore unsuitable for commercial crab bait?[xx(][xx(]

Has anyone even spoken to a fish farm employee that actually will eat
their own product? Not to my knowledge.[:0][:0]
 
Tortuga,

There classified as "toxic waste"?

Actually lots of farmers eat their own product, as do millions world wide.
 
FYI: it is published in peer reviewed scientific journals that from a health perspective, farmed salmon are very nutritious and are higher than wild salmon in essential fatty acids which are known to have excellent cardiovascular benefits. It would be far healthier to eat farmed salmon versus hamburgers for example.
 
yammy5
quote:FYI: it is published in peer reviewed scientific journals that from a health perspective, farmed salmon are very nutritious and are higher than wild salmon in essential fatty acids which are known to have excellent cardiovascular benefits. It would be far healthier to eat farmed salmon versus hamburgers for example.
yes - if you were only comparing fats, then eating farmed salmon is better for you than eating hamburgers.

However, not all fats are the same.

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that farmed salmon can contain 60% or more fat than wild-caught salmon—with just 16% of that fat as omega-3 fats, compared to 22-27% for wild-caught fish.

The reason: farmed salmon swim less and are fed more than wild salmon - so they have more fat - but not necessarily Omega-3's, though.

In addition, PCBs are stored in fat and remain there for an extended period of time; therefore farmed salmon contain more PCBs than wild salmon.

In January 2004, the journal Science warned that farmed salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.) than wild salmon.
 
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 437-443

Although the wet weight PCB levels were generally found
to be lower in wild than in farmed salmon species, it should
be stressed that the highest mean concentrations of PCBs
found in this study, respectively, were 147-52 fold lower
than the level of concern for human consumption of fish as
established by Health Canada and the US-FDA, (i.e., 2000
ng/g)....When PCB data are presented on a lipid-normalized basis,
the PCB concentrations between the dissimilar farmed and
wild BC salmon sources were less obvious. ie The relative levels of PCBs per unit of fat were practically the same.

Thus,we conclude that all of the salmon sources examined
in this study had high nutritional value based upon their
projected low overall contributions to the body burdens of
individuals for PCDD/Fs and PCBs and Hg, and the fact that
they are excellent sources of EPA and DHAa s well as linolenic
acid and monounsaturated fatty acids, especially in the case
of farmed salmon servings.
 
Agent,

Bringing out the old PCB arguments are you?
Too bad they were put to rest in '04, when it was pointed out how biased that research and resulting articles actually were. They did point out that Farmed was slightly higher in PCB than the wild in the samples they tested, but what they conveniently forgot to say was that the levels were well below the safe limits, and that other mnore common foods such as milk and beef were much higher. Again an example of the fear mongering to forward an agenda which some people buy into.

There was also a study which demonstrated that the sources of PCB in remote inland lakes in Alaska were the migratory sockeye salmon. They were also found to contain very high levels of PCB, higher than farmed salmon.
 
quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that farmed salmon can contain 60% or more fat than wild-caught salmon—with just 16% of that fat as omega-3 fats, compared to 22-27% for wild-caught fish.

The reason: farmed salmon swim less and are fed more than wild salmon - so they have more fat - but not necessarily Omega-3's, though.

In addition, PCBs are stored in fat and remain there for an extended period of time; therefore farmed salmon contain more PCBs than wild salmon.

In January 2004, the journal Science warned that farmed salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.) than wild salmon.

Now sockeyfry post

quote:
Agent,

Bringing out the old PCB arguments are you?
Too bad they were put to rest in '04, when it was pointed out how biased that research and resulting articles actually were. They did point out that Farmed was slightly higher in PCB than the wild in the samples they tested, but what they conveniently forgot to say was that the levels were well below the safe limits, and that other mnore common foods such as milk and beef were much higher. Again an example of the fear mongering to forward an agenda which some people buy into.

There was also a study which demonstrated that the sources of PCB in remote inland lakes in Alaska were the migratory sockeye salmon. They were also found to contain very high levels of PCB, higher than farmed salmon.

Hey sockeye you might be treated better here if you post your facts. The studies you tout. I would like to read them.

Also if you look at both posts Aqua isn't jumping on the PCB band wagon again. He is giving facts about fat in fish. Where PCB and Omega 3's are stored.

In January 2004, the journal Science warned that farmed salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.) than wild salmon</u>.
not PCB but TOXINS
 
The Hites paper of 2004 was alarmist and failed to point out the health benefits of eating farmed salmon. The health risks associated with NOT eating salmon far outweigh any risk associated with eating salmon.

It should also be noted that salmon samples from the Hites study were analyzed with skin on, which likely contain a higher concentration of toxins, yet the majority of people do not eat the skin.

Further, the Hites study was referring to Scottish farmed salmon (which were higher in contaminants) when they made statements of comparison to wild salmon.

BC farmed salmon use much cleaner marine fish oils in their diets (and sometimes substitute with flax oil and canola oil) so the result is a farmed fish that is as nutritious as a wild salmon (even more nutritious than some wild species with regard to fatty acids and alpha-linoleic acid).
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Tortuga,

There classified as "toxic waste"?

Actually lots of farmers eat their own product, as do millions world wide.

Yes they're</u> classified , by DFO, as toxic waste according to a commercial crabber in Hardy. Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm talking about B.C. salmon farmers. I'd say the majority won't eat their own product.
As far as the other 'millions world wide' they can eat all (the human feces laden rice field farm raised tiger prawns and fish) they want. They probably don't have a choice like we do.

Bon Appetit
 
Back
Top