Fraser River FN Letter Opposing Salmon Farms

[shuswap]

I see ten of thousands of salmon each year for the last ten years and I have never see anything like that. But then again I don't look at Atlantic salmon in the stores. I see genetic problems in fry after they hatch but they don't live long as they don't compete with the healthy fish at our local community hatchery. That's the thing with nature, if the genetic expression has a benefit then it survives. If not, nature deals with it and they die. I see hundreds to thousands of adults in the fall and I have not seen genetic mutations in them either. Sick fish, yes, damaged fish, yes but mutations, no. There is no way that nature would be kind to an effed up fish like that in the ocean.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree with the photo. Seen lots of fish also - it’s my job. A fish with a mutation doesn’t necessarily die at the fry stage (as you can see in the photo). If you can find another explanation as to why that fish looks like that then I am all ears, but until then I will defer to my own opinion in the absence of clarifying information to the contrary. If you find out the source of that fish photo from the author of that booklet let me know.

This is all pointless as your argument against that PDF is what I call "look we have pandas" you point out something that is questionable to try to discredit everything. I don't work on me as I have far to many years looking at arguments on other issues. I have been looking at fish farms issues for many years and I have come to the conclusion that the risk that industry, in it's current form, is way to big for our wild salmon. I'm not the only one that has this view. I talk with many other community based hatchery people and 99% fell the same way. I talk to hundreds of rec anglers and 99% feel the same way. Cohen has that view as well as many panels we have had in BC over the years. The recent court case that fish farms lost is just another example of this. How many times do we need to go through this until it sinks in?

I disagree – it’s not pointless at all. Sorry, I am not one of those that nods my head in unison when items like that booklet and that letter are posted. In my opinion, it seems on here that if something is produced by Alexandra Morton (i.e. this booklet) it is not to be questioned or those doing the questioning hate wild salmon or are company shrills. Neither is the case here I can assure you. All I am trying to do here provide another perspective here. If you don’t agree that is fine. If it challenges your opinion is that necessarily a bad thing? There are other things in that booklet that are wrong, exaggerated or missing context, but I don’t have the time to go point by point. I would rather go fishing and play with my kids.

June 5 / 2015 - 93 days left in your court order to clean up your effing act.
What are you going to do?

What am I going to do? Well, I have field work planned this season; fishing with my 4 year old daughter; dryfly fishing on some local small lakes; a BC Lions game with my kids in August; some mountain bike riding; and a possible trip back east to visit relatives. Do you want me to wear a GPS tracking device so you can track my movements so I am not unexpectedly found working at Marine Harvest trying to clean up my effing act? However, they might look at me a little strange if I were to show up considering that I DON’T WORK THERE.

I don't know much about toxic blooms but the Fraser River does not effect fish farms north of Campbell River.
May I suggest that you pick up the book "The Sea Among Us" by Beamish and McFarlane if you want to understand how the SoG works and the Fraser River influence.

As for shyt from fish farms.... we know it's a problem, that's why there is a push for multi-trophic fish farms.

I actually have that book. My point about the Fraser River plume was meant more to say that it influences salinity – not specifically directed at aquaculture. I am not an expert with toxic algal blooms either, but I try to take in as much as I can on the subject by looking at the relevant literature – especially as it pertains to our coast. Although some localized nutrient enrichment from fish farms is possible, the literature as it pertains to our coast is not supportive of the view that fish farms are a significant factor with harmful algal blooms. You don't have to take my word for it - by all means look at the literature for this area and see for yourself. Part of this reason is that farms here are situated in areas where the tides flush the surface water well. The more frequent and intense blooms of Heterosigma seem to occur in the Southern Strait of Georgia where there are no fish farms, but the influence of the Fraser River is more pronounced. If you want to understand more about toxic algal blooms there is more information out there, such as the published work from Harmful Algae Monitoring Program, or you can get your information from sources like that booklet. Your choice.

 

[GLG]

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree with the photo. Seen lots of fish also - it’s my job. A fish with a mutation doesn’t necessarily die at the fry stage (as you can see in the photo). If you can find another explanation as to why that fish looks like that then I am all ears, but until then I will defer to my own opinion in the absence of clarifying information to the contrary. If you find out the source of that fish photo from the author of that booklet let me know.

Agreed... I'm pressed for time also but will take a look as I'm interested in that photo.

I disagree – it’s not pointless at all. Sorry, I am not one of those that nods my head in unison when items like that booklet and that letter are posted. In my opinion, it seems on here that if something is produced by Alexandra Morton (i.e. this booklet) it is not to be questioned or those doing the questioning hate wild salmon or are company shrills. Neither is the case here I can assure you. All I am trying to do here provide another perspective here. If you don’t agree that is fine. If it challenges your opinion is that necessarily a bad thing? There are other things in that booklet that are wrong, exaggerated or missing context, but I don’t have the time to go point by point. I would rather go fishing and play with my kids.

I have no problem getting my opinion challenged and you are right it's not a bad thing. I do see that there is plenty of evidence and not just from AM. I'm not one to roll the dice and hope things work out ok when it come to our salmon. Too many things are on the line, least of all the jobs that are around both fish farms and wild salmon.

What am I going to do? Well, I have field work planned this season; fishing with my 4 year old daughter; dryfly fishing on some local small lakes; a BC Lions game with my kids in August; some mountain bike riding; and a possible trip back east to visit relatives. Do you want me to wear a GPS tracking device so you can track my movements so I am not unexpectedly found working at Marine Harvest trying to clean up my effing act? However, they might look at me a little strange if I were to show up considering that I DON’T WORK THERE.

Sorry, it was a bad choice of words and meant for industry not you personally. Enjoy your summer with your little one and your family. Wish you were working on closed containment as clearly you have what it takes to make a difference.

I actually have that book. My point about the Fraser River plume was meant more to say that it influences salinity – not specifically directed at aquaculture. I am not an expert with toxic algal blooms either, but I try to take in as much as I can on the subject by looking at the relevant literature – especially as it pertains to our coast. Although some localized nutrient enrichment from fish farms is possible, the literature as it pertains to our coast is not supportive of the view that fish farms are a significant factor with harmful algal blooms. You don't have to take my word for it - by all means look at the literature for this area and see for yourself. Part of this reason is that farms here are situated in areas where the tides flush the surface water well. The more frequent and intense blooms of Heterosigma seem to occur in the Southern Strait of Georgia where there are no fish farms, but the influence of the Fraser River is more pronounced. If you want to understand more about toxic algal blooms there is more information out there, such as the published work from Harmful Algae Monitoring Program, or you can get your information from sources like that booklet. Your choice.

Thanks for the advice and I do check sources when claims are made. It's amazing how some time the media (or website) say's one thing about a science paper when clearly the authors are not saying that. Plenty of examples that I'm sure you have seen also. Come winter I may dig deeper into toxic algae blooms but presently my interest is in the kind (zoo) that feeds coho in the SoG. I try to follow that and the effect of OA on them.

 

[agentaqua]

Other than complementing Shuswap and GLG on their respectful responses - just to add to one part of the conversation: so-called "toxic" algal blooms....

Undoubtedly - the more serious bloom of "algae" as far as most cultured fish are concerned - is Heterosigma spp. Fish in pens can only swim down as far as the net allows them to - and generally Heterosigma spp. (a raphidophyte) occurs in the upper water column - and if the caged fish can't swim below the layer - like wild and free fish. Well - that's why aquacultured fish are more at risk.

It is - however - but one marine organism commonly lumped in the general "microalgae" category that can reproduce in large numbers - causing a "bloom". And numbers alone may/may not be a problem. There are other effects, as well. The diatom Chaetoceros convolutes has big spikes on the casing which lodges in the gills and creates excess mucus production that can then suffocate the fish - like Heterosigma spp. but by physical damage rather than cell death.

Some of the worst blooms are so-called "red tides" where Alexandrium spp. dinoflagellates can reproduce in large numbers, and subsequently die and release actual toxins - thereby releasing cysts which remain in the sediments until the right winds show up to restart the cycle. Shellfish filter feed and incorporate some of these toxins in parts of their bodies (gonads and siphon tips, especially) - and at some level of contamination - cause PSP in humans and other organisms. It is thought that the clams do this as a defense mechanism against the Dungeness foraging in on them at the higher tides.

Noctiluca scintillans - another dinoflagellate - is a commonly occurring organism that also causes red tides (a little purplish) - but these so-called red tides are non toxic wrt metabolites (as far as I am aware).

Then there are ASP-causing organisms (e.g. Pseudo-nitzschia spp.) - and others - more commonly dinoflagellates verses algae. Forgot what ASP stands for...(joke!)...

In any event - all blooms go through succession - like forest regen - and are often kick-started by the right combination of nutrients and sunlight. Nutrients in the marine environment most commonly seen in bloom promotion are nitrogen compounds, and trace amounts of iron (remember the Haida iron experiment?).

You can get these elements from river run-off and/or decomposition of fish farm feed and poo - among other sources.

It would be wrong to state that fish farms are the only cause of plankton blooms - just as bad as it would be to say they are not involved at all.

On a local scale - yes - of course they are (I'd be interested in seeing the science on what types of blooms they trigger) - toxic or not.

On a coast-wide scale - probably not so much.

All large rivers have a large plume - where at the edges where the silt drops out, sunlight then penetrates and the nutrients remain - and all have a plankton bloom all year that waxes and wanes with the hydrograph.

That why the humpbacks stay there (at the edges of the plume) sometimes all year - as far as I am concerned. Plankton means zooplankton - which means forage fish like juvie herring - which means whale grub - and everything elses.

In summary - blooms are normal. Timing, types and amounts of algal cells makes the difference between a "good" verses a "bad" bloom.

Sewerage, benthic impacts and oxygen depletion are other related but separate conversations.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Other than complementing Shuswap and GLG on their respectful responses - just to add to one part of the conversation: so-called "toxic" algal blooms....

Undoubtedly - the more serious bloom of "algae" as far as most cultured fish are concerned - is Heterosigma spp. Fish in pens can only swim down as far as the net allows them to - and generally Heterosigma spp. (a raphidophyte) occurs in the upper water column - and if the caged fish can't swim below the layer - like wild and free fish. Well - that's why aquacultured fish are more at risk.

It is - however - but one marine organism commonly lumped in the general "microalgae" category that can reproduce in large numbers - causing a "bloom". And numbers alone may/may not be a problem. There are other effects, as well. The diatom Chaetoceros convolutes has big spikes on the casing which lodges in the gills and creates excess mucus production that can then suffocate the fish - like Heterosigma spp. but by physical damage rather than cell death.

Some of the worst blooms are so-called "red tides" where Alexandrium spp. dinoflagellates can reproduce in large numbers, and subsequently die and release actual toxins - thereby releasing cysts which remain in the sediments until the right winds show up to restart the cycle. Shellfish filter feed and incorporate some of these toxins in parts of their bodies (gonads and siphon tips, especially) - and at some level of contamination - cause PSP in humans and other organisms. It is thought that the clams do this as a defense mechanism against the Dungeness foraging in on them at the higher tides.

Noctiluca scintillans - another dinoflagellate - is a commonly occurring organism that also causes red tides (a little purplish) - but these so-called red tides are non toxic wrt metabolites (as far as I am aware).

Then there are ASP-causing organisms (e.g. Pseudo-nitzschia spp.) - and others - more commonly dinoflagellates verses algae. Forgot what ASP stands for...

In any event - all blooms go through succession - like forest regen - and are often kick-started by the right combination of nutrients and sunlight. Nutrients in the marine environment most commonly seen in bloom promotion are nitrogen compounds, and trace amounts of iron (remember the Haida iron experiment?).

You can get these elements from river run-off and/or decomposition of fish farm feed and poo - among other sources.

It would be wrong to state that fish farms are the only cause of plankton blooms - just as bad as it would be to say they are not involved at all.

On a local scale - yes - of course they are (I'd be interested in seeing the science on what types of blooms they trigger) - toxic or not.

On a coast-wide scale - probably not so much.

All large rivers have a large plume - where at the edges where the silt drops out, sunlight then penetrates and the nutrients remain - and all have a plankton bloom all year that waxes and wanes with the hydrograph.

That why the humpbacks stay there (at the edges of the plume) sometimes all year - as far as I am concerned. Plankton means zooplankton - which means forage fish like juvie herring - which means whale grub - and everything elses.

In summary - blooms are normal. Timing, types and amounts of algal cells makes the difference between a "good" verses a "bad" bloom.

Sewerage, benthic impacts and oxygen depletion are other related but separate conversations.

In the decade or so I have been working on and around farms, including many flights tracking the formation and spread of blooms, I have never experienced a bloom form downstream of a farm.

Upwelling, and run-off provide the additional nutrients, as the waters here are already saturated with many of the elements found in fish waste.

In addition, studies in Washington State have shown that waste is oxidized and diluted within meters of the pens, falling within 5% of the normal flux seen.

Jack Rensel and Donald Anderson have written on the subject.

 

[agentaqua]

That's very careful wording CK: "...I have never experienced a bloom form downstream of a farm." - but probably appropriate in this context. There is a difference between experiencing and being proactive in appropriately sampling for effects.

See: http://bibvir1.uqac.ca/archivage/030014322.pdf

"Our understanding of phytoplankton dynamics and patterns in the SWNB portion of the Bay of Fundy led us to believe that:
• higher frequency sampling programs were needed at critical locations and times;
• statistical analysis approaches needed to be applied to time series of individual phytoplankton species to determine the potential for forecasting bloom events;
• the usefulness of satellite imagery and other technologies for detecting offshore phytoplankton blooms in the Bay of Fundy needed to be investigated; and
• we needed information on the critical threshold levels of harmful algae which cause harm to farmed salmon."

Having said that - maybe your effects are less on the water column and more on the benthos in Clayoquot Sound.

As I mentioned, any effects would be "local" - and totally depend upon the loading rate, the flushing rate, and potential sensitivity to additional additions of particular nutrients. And yes, the biggest bang for the buck is to add those nutrients in areas where they are already nutrient-limited for those particular nutrients. Prevailing winds and sunlight also have a part to play.

Having said that: not all fish farms are located in areas that have no capacity to respond (so-called "nutrient-insensitive") where/when nutrients are added. The cut and paste from Rensel and Anderson is misleading in this context.

Having said that: not all plankton blooms are necessarily bad, either - and fish farms may experience a bloom that is caused by other reasons than the additional nutrients from the farm. As I mentioned - Timing, types and amounts of algal cells makes the difference between a "good" verses a "bad" bloom.

It's all very site-specific and "local" effects that way: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...ld_seasons/links/0f31753730640a25a4000000.pdf

a b s t r a c t
Six cruises were conducted in a fish farm adjacent to the Ninghai Power Plant in Xiangshan Bay, East China Sea. Fish farming significantly increased NHþ4 , DIP, and TOC concentrations, while it significantly decreased the DO level. These increase/decrease trends were more pronounced in warmer seasons. Although culture practices did not significantly increase phytoplankton density, it drastically enhanced dinoflagellate abundance and domination. Significant differences in species diversity and community composition between the cages and the control area were also observed. Temperature elevation caused by thermal discharge associated with eutrophication resulted in a dominant species shift from diatoms alone to dinoflagellates and diatoms. This is the first report of stress-induced toxic dinoflagellate (Prorocentrum minimum) blooms in winter and the winter–spring transition in this bay. Therefore, the effects of aquaculture activity and power plant construction in such a eutrophic, semi-enclosed bay require further attention.

see also:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0035e/i0035e06k.pdf
http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/92174/0022031.pdf
http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/resources/1288805500.pdf

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Did you just say that adding a reference to studies done in the Pacific Northwest (including "all" cases looked at in Washington State) was misleading, and then add a reference from China looking at aquaculture operating in an area under thermal stress caused by a power plant (http://globalenergyobservatory.org/geoid/42149) in a eutrophic, semi-enclosed bay?

That's really a stretch AgentAnonymous.

I've personally sampled with tows and discrete bottles from hundreds of spots in and around farms, and looked at countless slides under the microscope.

There has been a local sampling program (HAMP) in place for years, and there has been a huge amount of work done on harmful algal blooms worldwide.

Of all things thrown at the wall hoping they would stick against aquaculture in BC, this is one of the weakest I have seen.

That being said, of course there will be fodder here for a graduate student to do some feel-good research on their way through academia, and I'm sure with enough prodding from the anti's there will be some sort of unrepeatable case-study showing some sort of correlation to something or other...

 

[agentaqua]

The word I keep throwing around is "local effects", CK. The examples I posted are peer-reviewed, and not all damning wrt effects from fish farms - just shows that it can happen. If you want to argue these points - fill your boots - but if you reread what I posted - I also said that not all blooms are necessarily bad, either - whatever their cause. You might be arguing against any "good" points in favour of open net-pen industry.

 

[agentaqua]

In the decade or so I have been working on and around farms, including many flights tracking the formation and spread of blooms, I have never experienced a bloom form downstream of a farm...I've personally sampled with tows and discrete bottles from hundreds of spots in and around farms, and looked at countless slides under the microscope....There has been a local sampling program (HAMP) in place for years, and there has been a huge amount of work done on harmful algal blooms worldwide....

You appeared to disregard that the "H" in HAMP stands for: "Harmful" as in the Harmful Algae Monitoring Program, CK. Not sure how well this program monitors non-harmful algae, CK. Maybe you could enlighten us?

On the report by Nicky Hagen (See: http://www.verney.ca/assets/SSEC_Presentations/Session 10/10A_NickyHaigh_Abstract.pdf) she writes: "All phytoplankton species are identified to the lowest practicable level, dominant group is identified and counted, and known or suspect fish-killing species are identified and counted". Seems non-fish-killing species are not counted and monitored for blooms in this methodology.

Interesting that this program has none-the-less seen blooms: "In 2011 we saw extensive Heterosigma akashiwo blooms in the Salish Sea, and saw the first confirmed cases of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning in BC."

Interesting that other fish farm operators do see peaks in their HAMP programs, CK - but not you. See Mainstream's Bedwell Sound p.41-56: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Weather-Oceanographic-Information.pdf

Good thing Bedwell is no where's close to you, eh? But - You'd rather stick with the cut and paste from Washington State?

In fact on Cermaq's website http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada/aquaculture/fish-health/ it states: "Blooms of algae (phytoplankton) occur naturally in freshwater and saltwater all around the world when phytoplankton already present in the water experience a population explosion from an increased food supply and optimal growing conditions. The most well-known algae bloom is the "Red Tide" phenomenon commonly seen on the Pacific Coast of North America. "

In fact, DFO Area 24 Clayoquot Sound next to Tofino is currently under a biotoxin closure:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/contamination/biotox/index-eng.html
"Subarea 24-9 (closed to all bivalve shellfish except manila clams, littleneck clams, oysters and mussels; Balance of Area 24 closed to all bivalve shellfish. "

Good thing biotoxins have nothing to do with plankton.

But you never see any blooms of any kind, apparently. Must be interesting working on an ocean with no plankton blooms?

Congratulations must be in order.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

You appeared to disregard that the "H" in HAMP stands for: "Harmful" as in the Harmful Algae Monitoring Program, CK. Not sure how well this program monitors non-harmful algae, CK. Maybe you could enlighten us?

On the report by Nicky Hagen (See: http://www.verney.ca/assets/SSEC_Presentations/Session 10/10A_NickyHaigh_Abstract.pdf) she writes: "All phytoplankton species are identified to the lowest practicable level, dominant group is identified and counted, and known or suspect fish-killing species are identified and counted". Seems non-fish-killing species are not counted and monitored for blooms in this methodology.

Interesting that this program has none-the-less seen blooms: "In 2011 we saw extensive Heterosigma akashiwo blooms in the Salish Sea, and saw the first confirmed cases of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning in BC."

Interesting that other fish farm operators do see peaks in their HAMP programs, CK - but not you. See Mainstream's Bedwell Sound p.41-56: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Weather-Oceanographic-Information.pdf

In fact on Cermaq's website http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada/aquaculture/fish-health/ it states: "Blooms of algae (phytoplankton) occur naturally in freshwater and saltwater all around the world when phytoplankton already present in the water experience a population explosion from an increased food supply and optimal growing conditions. The most well-known algae bloom is the "Red Tide" phenomenon commonly seen on the Pacific Coast of North America. "

In fact, DFO Area 24 Clayoquot Sound next to Tofino is currently under a biotoxin closure:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/contamination/biotox/index-eng.html
"Subarea 24-9 (closed to all bivalve shellfish except manila clams, littleneck clams, oysters and mussels; Balance of Area 24 closed to all bivalve shellfish. "

Good thing biotoxins have nothing to do with plankton.

But you never see any blooms of any kind, apparently. Must be interesting working on an ocean with no plankton blooms?

Congratulations must be in order.

I've seen plenty of blooms, AgentAnonymous, I thought that I had made that clear enough for you.

Some where there are no farms...



And, some around farms.



Blooms occur regularly in the summer months throughout Bedwell Sound and other areas in Clayoquot Sound, and will happen in pockets along the shoreline, as well as out in the middle of the sound.

I have never seen a bloom originate and build around a farm, or seen any linkage between the downstream area of a farm and high concentrations of plankton.

In my experience, which is similar to what I have seen in the literature and through personal communication with those experienced in plankton blooms - there are blooms which form nearby freshwater inputs, and there are blooms which form in areas of upwelling (offshore, inshore).

Many areas are prone to blooms, and there are those which rarely see them - there are farms in both.

Why don't you do a little work on the rest of your scenario there, and come back with something other than speculative trolling.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

One more point AgentAnonymous:

Just reading another thread and found you had said, "siting criteria was designed by some kid in grade 8 without any understanding of smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, fjord dynamics, oceanography or anything based in reality"

Wondering if the info provided in the link you referenced earlier (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Weather-Oceanographic-Information.pdf) outlining the siting criteria for our Plover Point farm seemed to match your estimation?

 

[SpringVelocity]

So lets put the placement aside. What do fish need feed and where exactly does the feed come from... ? The problem that still exists between on land and off land farm is the removal from prey in wild to feed these farmed fish. I don't see any way to replenish them once they are taken out..That's a huge problem I have with this issue. Kind of like logging isn't it..Remove a tree plant a tree? Look at the herring fiasco this year. You know those fish were going to ground up for feed.

 

[agentaqua]

I have never seen a bloom originate and build around a farm, or seen any linkage between the downstream area of a farm and high concentrations of plankton...

Yikes!

You do realize (I HOPE) that there are movements of water called "tidal excursions", CK? Something like upwards of 5 km in both directions in a sound/fjord. How the heck can you state that there are "no linkages" between plankton growth facilitated by nutrients from any particular farm site - from the plankton sample within 10km or so? No tide in Clayoquot Sound? (http://waterlevels.gc.ca/eng/station?sid=8615)

Then - as I pointed out above - there are many kinds of plankton - only a few that are HABs or harmful. The methodology I can find shows that these algae are pretty much ignored wrt the HAMP sampling the fish farms are associated with.

Wow - that pretty heavy "science" you DON'T use there - speaking of speculation.

If you were presenting a evidence-based submission that farms DON'T cause algal blooms - you would be laughed out of most oceanography classes 101.

Are the farm's the most likely or sole cause of large-scale plankton blooms - I would doubt it - but we already went over that in the past few posts above.

But to say:

In the decade or so I have been working on and around farms, including many flights tracking the formation and spread of blooms, I have never experienced a bloom form downstream of a farm....

or that:

I have never seen a bloom originate and build around a farm, or seen any linkage between the downstream area of a farm and high concentrations of plankton....

No linkages, eh? How about the "linkages" above to science articles above that demonstrate evidence of that which you cannot "see"?

Anyway's thank for the pics and the laughs. Here's some evidence of the association between farms and plankton blooms from your area: more "linkages" you appear unable to see...

 

[ClayoquotKid]

So lets put the placement aside. What do fish need feed and where exactly does the feed come from... ? The problem that still exists between on land and off land farm is the removal from prey in wild to feed these farmed fish. I don't see any way to replenish them once they are taken out..That's a huge problem I have with this issue. Kind of like logging isn't it..Remove a tree plant a tree? Look at the herring fiasco this year. You know those fish were going to ground up for feed.

So, you mean after the roe fishery kills them and strips their eggs for sale, and the bait fishery packages them up all nice and pretty for us to use, aquaculture is bad for utilising the rendered carcasses that are left over?

 

[agentaqua]

... found you had said, "siting criteria was designed by some kid in grade 8 without any understanding of smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, fjord dynamics, oceanography or anything based in reality". Wondering if the info provided in the link you referenced earlier (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Weather-Oceanographic-Information.pdf) outlining the siting criteria for our Plover Point farm seemed to match your estimation?

Thanks for the opportunity to provide more context, CK.

I would state:

1/ The industry does a pretty good job estimating potential benthic impacts from initial stocking densities and feed ratios vis-a-vis the DEPOMOD modelling on the applications.
2/ So.. where are the "smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, and fjord dynamics" - since you brought this up?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Yikes!

You do realize (I HOPE) that there are movements of what called "tidal excursions", CK? Something like upwards of 5 km in both directions in a sound/fjord. How the heck can you state that there are "no linkages" between plankton growth facilitated by nutrients from any particular farm site - from the plankton sample within 10km or so? No tide in Clayoquot Sound?

Then - as I pointed out above - there are many kinds of plankton - only a few that are HABs or harmful. The methodology I can find shows that these algae are pretty much ignored wrt the HAMP sampling the fish farms are associated with.

Wow - that pretty heavy "science" you DON'T use there - speaking of speculation.

If you were presenting a evidence-based submission that farms DON'T cause algal blooms - you would be laughed out of most oceanography classes 101.

Are the farm's the most likely or sole cause of large-scale plankton blooms - I would doubt it - but we already went over that in the past few posts above.

But to say:

or that:

No linkages, eh? How about the "linkages" above to science articles above that demonstrate evidence of that which you cannot "see"?

Anyway's thank for the pics and the laughs. Here's some evidence of the association between farms and plankton blooms from your area: more "linkages" you appear unable to see...

Enlighten me then, AgentAnonymous, and while your at it - put up a better shot of that image so we can actually see it.

I just might come back sometime and see what you've some up with in your apparent excess of spare time and expertise in pretty much everything.

 

[SpringVelocity]

So, you mean after the roe fishery kills them and strips their eggs for sale, and the bait fishery packages them up all nice and pretty for us to use, aquaculture is bad for utilising the rendered carcasses that are left over?

But you proved me point you still need the herring to feed your fish. And you still pull out feed from all over the ocean to feed them,and yet none of them our replaced... The ocean can't keep that up long term... You have to agree with that fact. With chinook populations dwindling and other fish and whales starving this makes no sense to me.. Habitat we can help but if you take out to much natural feed the wild fish will die.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Thanks for the opportunity to provide more context, CK.

I would state:

1/ The industry does a pretty good job estimating potential benthic impacts from initial stocking densities and feed ratios vis-a-vis the DEPOMOD modelling on the applications.
2/ So.. where are the "smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, and fjord dynamics" - since you brought this up?

Here you go:

http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/conne...+Yaakswiis+Application+PART+1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/conne...+Yaakswiis+Application+PART+2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

I expect a full critique, with detailed concerns and recommendations, on here by the end of the week.

 

[agentaqua]

Enlighten me then, AgentAnonymous, and while your at it - put up a better shot of that image so we can actually see it...

download the file yourself at: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...gcdZfHbTPGh6FCTnqaRG-8A&bvm=bv.95039771,d.aWw

surprised you don't already have this data.

 

[agentaqua]

Here you go: I expect a full critique, with detailed concerns and recommendations, on here by the end of the week.

I can do it much quicker than that, CK.

I will reiterate: where are the "smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, and fjord dynamics"???

yes - there is bottom current metering and modelling vis-a-vis the DEPOMOD modelling requirements - good.

yes - there are some transects done for benthos - fine.

yes - they walked up a few creeks to see if there were still any fish in them and electroshocked - fine - and probably redundant.

ok - do you actually understand what it is I am asking, CK?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I can do it much quicker than that, CK.

I will reiterate: where are the "smolt migration routes, nearshore holding areas, and fjord dynamics"???

yes - there is bottom current metering and modelling vis-a-vis the DEPOMOD modelling requirements - good.

yes - there are some transects done for benthos - fine.

yes - they walked up a few creeks to see if there were still any fish in them and electroshocked - fine - and probably redundant.

ok - do you actually understand what it is I am asking, CK?

Yes, I do.

You are asking me to satisfy your own self-righteous and self-important needs, by providing a willing partner in a discussion where you belittle, mock, and otherwise denigrate those who dare counter your views and seemingly endless expertise.