Fish Farms out?

I am not saying fish farms don't have an impact im just saying there removal is unlikely to reverse the decline in salmon we are seeing.
 
I respect Dr. Walters. However, there have been correlations in the decline of salmon with fish farms, worldwide - so I'm not sure about either his intrepretation about open net-cage impacts world-wide - or others assertions about what he said/intended. It's in the peer-reviewed literature - that the pro-lobby tends to ignore or wish the rest of us did.

Admittedly, there are numerous impacts and numerous changes to long-term trends in salmon that are the accumulation of numerous years of impacts - FFs, seals, and fishing included. The unfortunate reality is often we are lacking the definition and data to tell at fine scales - which is where farm-level impacts occur. Escapement data also has quite of bit of variability within the numbers and between years and watersheds. There's really only a few spots that have accurate data thru things like fish fences and/or Didson.
 
DR Carl Walters in the SFI conference said there is no correlation in the decline of salmon with fish farms. That the decline started happening long before fish farms were present.
Then in your mind and according to you, in the mind of Dr. Carl Walters , the Open Net Pen controversy is settled.
Removing Fish Farms will not contribute to non Fish Farm salmon survival? Yes or No AND
No Fish Farm closures are coming and expansion can continue because non fish farm salmon are heading to extinction anyway.
 
Then in your mind and according to you, in the mind of Dr. Carl Walters , the Open Net Pen controversy is settled.
Removing Fish Farms will not contribute to non Fish Farm salmon survival? Yes or No AND
No Fish Farm closures are coming and expansion can continue because non fish farm salmon are heading to extinction anyway.
It will not change the driving forces causing salmon declines. What it's more likely to do is increase wild salmon prices. That will put even more harvest pressure on our stocks.

There also is some fundamental management issues for example every time more than 800k chum are forecasted to return to the fraser river it triggers commercial fisheries that get to harvest the "surplus". what this means is you need to have good ocean survival to have good fishing returns. If you are limiting the spawners you are limiting future returns.

so even if you removed fish farms and achieved some increase in ocean survival it would slightly improve fishing but would still not build the population.

Also i don't think salmon are heading to extinction some populations are doing quite well, some populations have improved over the last 20 years. Some have totally collapsed.

I don't think removal is necessary but it seem that more regulation and oversight is needed. Seems like First Nations will decide a lot of their fate anyhow.

I am certain however that the removal of fish farms will have almost no effect on fraser salmon populations and if the whole coast is going to be regulated based on what first nations on the fraser are demanding I would look to do something else then to remove fish farms.
 
Let’s see how this goes when the FN are involved financially in the Fish Farms.
Bet there will be no push back from the Government and as the FN are now involved in a national company to sell their products then in the next few years this bla bla will become just that.
 
YA the impacts to wild salmon from the open net-pens are largely to the outmigrating smolts for the time they are in the plumes of the FFs. It can be considerable or minor - dependent upon the year, the number of smolts outmigrating, and the environmental conditions at the time. Over time - especially on stocks that are already at lowered abundances and lowered marine survival rates - can be additive and considerable. But it is localized to those smolts/stocks interacting with the FFs as far as most vectors are concerned.

The influence of now coast-wide diseases such as PRv are a matter of debate that is still unresolved and acrimonious since the timely public reporting with co-ordinates is nil; and epidemiological studies on adjacent wild salmon have been consequently prevented during an outbreak on a farm. Kristi Miller-Saunders and her team got in 1 longitudinal study at a farm and put the PRv/HMSI issue to rest after considerable denials by the industry supported by other DFO people.

And lately even she came out swinging against the denial machinery set-up to avoid sufficient scientific vigour being applied to the problem.
 
and open net fish farms with the documented pollution, viruses, parasites, pesticides and incidental in net bycatch, are not contributing to the decline of salmon? Next someone will be saying that net pen salmon farms are helping wild salmon populations.
 
and open net fish farms with the documented pollution, viruses, parasites, pesticides and incidental in net bycatch, are not contributing to the decline of salmon? Next someone will be saying that net pen salmon farms are helping wild salmon populations.
Actually witw, wildmanyeah has already mentioned how farmed salmon are helping wild stocks … if farmed salmon was not available for the general population to purchase, the poaching on the Fraser and tribs would be far worse than it is now.

Consider, early Fraser chinook from the Albion test fishery sells out at $50 lb. There will be a huge black market demand for salmon if wild are only available.
 
I think the assertion that framed salmon is helping decrease the poaching on the Fraser is an angle that even the most belligerent of FF spokespersons have not dared try yet.

Canada contemplating new Aquaculture Act; DFO leading public consultations​

 
I think the assertion that framed salmon is helping decrease the poaching on the Fraser is an angle that even the most belligerent of FF spokespersons have not dared try yet.

Canada contemplating new Aquaculture Act; DFO leading public consultations​


yep a plan and more regulation by 2025 not removal
 
Ya - I never believed the election promise neither, WMY - as you know...
 
The question is will these bands that support or apose salmon farms be elected band government, or non elected hereditary leaders, or just more than one individual local indigenous persons say on the matter?
 
Last edited:
The question is will these bands that support or apose salmon farms be elected band government, or non elected hereditary leaders, or just more than one individual local indigenous persons say on the matter?
Perhaps the Broughton FN Bands can show the leadership required by forgoing a few jobs inspiring the Lower Fraser FN Bands to ban gillnetting in the Lower Fraser so the Upper Fraser FN Bands can put a few Wild Salmon on the dinner table again and a process can start where there can be some Wild Fish for everyone including Sporties and Commies.
 
DR Carl Walters in the SFI conference said there is no correlation in the decline of salmon with fish farms. That the decline started happening long before fish farms were present.

I am not saying fish farms don't have an impact im just saying there removal is unlikely to reverse the decline in salmon we are seeing.
Total abundance of Fraser River sockeye has increased steadily from less than 5 million in the 1960s to a peak of over 23 million in 1993, although there are large variations in cycle line abundance. Figure 6 shows a stacked plot of escapement (black area), catch (gray shaded area) and the corresponding exploitation rate (solid line). The upper edge of the gray shaded area shows total returning adults (i.e. catch + escapement). Before rebuilding began in 1990, average abundance was 6.6 million with exploitation rates above 70% on most years and frequently over 80%. In the 12 years since the start of the rebuilding strategy (1990-2001), average exploitation rates have been reduced to 55% and the total abundance of Fraser River sockeye has nearly doubled to 11.1 million (Table 2). Average catches have also increased to over 7 million and spawner abundance has more than doubled to 3.4 million (Figure 6). However, total abundance of Fraser River sockeye has declined from the peak in 1993. This has been due in part to declining productivity of summer run stocks (Figure 7) and high mortality affecting Late run stocks. Since 1995, management measures put in place to protect stocks in the Late run aggregate have further reduced average exploitation rates to 41%, with a low of 15% in 1999. Average catches since 1995 have also decreased substantially to 3.3 million including the lowest catch on record of less than 600,000 in 1999. Dramatic reductions in exploitation rates have resulted in the largest escapements on record on several cycle lines.
 
Actually witw, wildmanyeah has already mentioned how farmed salmon are helping wild stocks … if farmed salmon was not available for the general population to purchase, the poaching on the Fraser and tribs would be far worse than it is now.

Consider, early Fraser chinook from the Albion test fishery sells out at $50 lb. There will be a huge black market demand for salmon if wild are only available.
Yup it is a deal made with the devil in regards to the benefits of net pen salmon farms that will come back to bite us in the butt for those that care about wild salmon populations. If it were land based salmon farms we were talking about I would agree with you more - but NOT net pen farms for all the disease, pollution, pesticides, and incidental in pen bycatch of other fish species (e.g. herring and wild salmon). The are definitely NOT helping increase wild salmon populations - they are another nail in the coffin. Can't get these salmon farms on the land fast enough in my opinion!
 
Last edited:
Same can be said for the Skeena river Sockeye runs and as everyone here know there are no salmon farms near those fish.
 
Back
Top