N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seadna

Yes there is a difference in the interaction. Fish in net pens only compete indirectly with wild fish. They don't compete directly with the wild fish for such things as food, space. Stop and think a minute. 1,700,000,000 salmon smolt were added to the "pastures" in the Gulf of Alaska. These are extra fish above and beyond natural wild production. All pastures have limits, they can only sustain a certain amount of "grazing". Doesn't the figure of 2.7% return worry you? It would be interesting to see if there is any data indicating what the level of return in Alaska is over the last 30 years. Has it been dropping? Maybe that indicates an overgrazing of the pasture?

And there are all the smolt from Russia and Japan. Yes they stock the Pacific for their own commercial fisheries.

Maybe you don't understand how the Alaskans operate? They do a type of Aquaculture called Sea Ranching. I recommend you google a website called:
"The Truth About Alaskan Salmon"

Don't worry yourself about what my agenda is here. I could care less if there is ever another salmon grown in BC. I am happen to believe that aquaculture has a place. I have no problem accepting the sea lice levels can be increased by farms. However I will submit that there are ways to eliminate the impact on wild smolts. Look back a few posts where I outlined how this can be done using a combination of CC farms and short term net pen farms to accomplish both safeguarding the wild smolts and maintaining a level of profitability for the industry. I think this called a win win.

Agent,

Not sure about the Boat Vectors. They certainly have been implicated in such things as Zerbra Mussel introductions among other organisms which hitch a ride in Bilge water. I think it is more CFIA due dilligence to lock down the sites until things can be confirmed or not.

All the disinfection protocols as well as mass mortality protocols are in place for each farm site. Whether or not you have to use them, you have to have the procedures worked out in advance. No good to look for a fish reduction or composter when you have a pile of dead fish to deal with.

Processing plants have waste water treatment systems. Farming companies require these disinfection systems for biosecurity reasons. Plants processing wild fish don't have to have near the level of treatment, and have no disinfection. All the water that is being transported with the fish is contained in holding tanks and treated through disinfection systems. There are various systems availible. I'll try and locate some.

The herring fishery could be just a roe fishery with the carcasses turned into meal as a by product. I doubt they are targetted for meal specifically.
 
If you google:

Atlantech Nomi Des

It will give you a description of a disinfection system for fish plant effluents. Sorry I'm not as adept at attaching Links as you all are.
 
Fish in net pens only compete indirectly with wild fish. They don't compete directly with the wild fish for such things as food, space.
Net pens and farm sites do take-up space. IF we had adequate and scientifically-defensible siting criteria - you might be able to make the claim that net pens do not use critical rearing/feeding areas. Then there is forage fish and smolts that get eaten.

No good to look for a fish reduction or composter when you have a pile of dead fish to deal with.
What does this mean? Where do you dispose of morts in an emergency with a "pile of dead fish"?

Link to disinfection system listed by SF:
http://www.atlantech.ca/files/Product Description.pdf

CK: Where is that graph from? I hope you are not using that graph as "proof" that Alaskan sea ranching caused the decline in Fraser River salmon numbers - because if you look closely at timing - you will see that the graph does not support that hypothesis.

AND even if it did - as you fish farmers like to say - correlation does not mean causation - isn't that right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG,

What part of the Cohen report was that paragraph from?

It seems to me that he is contradicting himself

(Final Report, Volume 3, p. 24, column 2) just as Mary Ellen quoted.
It's an old trick to just use one sentence to back your argument.
You need to look at that sentence to find the context for the true meaning.
Not something that Mary Ellen is fond of. Sad really......
Wonder how she sleeps at night......
Mind you money does strange things to folks...
GLG
 
Sockeye Fry - you make a good point about the impact of hatchery programs re: competing with wild fish for forage. I admit I hadn't put too much time into thinking about it or doing research to discover the relative size of hatchery production to wild production. Once I did poke around a bit today, I have to agree it cannot be ignored as another source of potential problems for BC stocks.

Here's a few relevant links -
Do Hatchery Salmon Affect the North Pacific Ocean Ecosystem? (this one is relatively old but it lays out some of the problem).
http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin No. 1/page 405-411(Heard).PDF

This paper is more recent -
Trends in run size and carrying capacity of Pacific salmon in the North Pacific Ocean
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.183.23&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This paper suggests political solutions to managing each country's input of hatchery fish
International cooperation among nation-states of the North Pacific Ocean on the problem of competition among salmon for a common pool of prey resources
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07001303

The above are good reading for all and may suggest that part of the BC problem is that the some of the food sources for wild BC are being "sucked up" by hatchery plants from Alaska, WA, Russia and Japan. Since hatchery plants are currently managed on an "every country/state for himself" basis areas that don't play the same (poor) game may be losing out. It's certainly something to consider.
 
Agentaqua, The only concrete references that I can seem to find out there in easy to find google realm, is for the food and bait and special use herring fishery. I would love to see some actual stats.

I am purely spouting of my mouth(I tend to get a little passionate about this stuff) based on hearsay....

1. the plankton food from a herring resource manager...email signiture(his title is a conflict of interest):

A/Herring Resource Manager | Gestionnaire des ressources - hareng
Fisheries and Aquaculture Management | Gestion des pêches et de l'aquaculture
Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada

2. The herring roe fishery bi-product hearsay is from a phone call with the manager of a Vancouver Island fish processing plant that just processed a huge herring haul this spring who figured that most if not all of it was going to fish farm food.

just hearsay though....

Here's a good one on feed for aquaculture.
I haven't read the entire 94 pages, but there is plenty of info in there.
http://salmonfarmscience.files.word...ech_guidelines_for_responsible_fisheries1.pdf

These are the main feed production companies websites:
http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect/ewos-content-group/ewos-group
http://www.skretting.ca/

You guys are welcome to read for yourself - I don't have time to spoon feed.
 
Agent,

Thanks for posting the link for the disinfection system.

Disposal options depend on how much you have to dispose of. Typically they would be disposed of at facilities that take offal from processing plants. These would include composters, reduction plants, Mink Farmers, and when all else fails Land fills.
Fish die in farms from causes other than disease. Algae blooms, Low Dissolved Oxygen, water temperature too low or high for example. They can also die in large numbers in CC facilities from equipment malfunctions, environmental issues and yes disease.

Regarding the graph, I wonder if the hatchery outputs of Russia, Japan and USA were added would it point to something that might be causal?

Thanks for the articlse SEADNA, Interesting possibilities.
 
Wow, that's some pretty high level stuff you've pulled out to counter tax info.

Is there something you can show being incorrect, or do you just not like the fact that she's shown how American foundations are using Canadian "Charities" to push their agendas in BC?

The government wont listen to the people so these "charities" fight with a louder voice and have money to back it up. In my industry (forestry) we have had our moment in the sun dealng with all the greenpeace tree hugging organizations, but in the end they fought for tighter guidlines on when and where we can log, saved a huge amount of B.C from deforestation so our grandchildren can see what a true old growth forest looks like. If industry had its way B.C would look like the tar sands, rape pillage and when its not economical walk away with hareholders having the profits.
You can say how eviromentally wonderfull your industry is all you want but in the end it will evolve, it wont be easy, there will be pain but it is part of any industries life cycle.
 
On the topic of salmon ranching in the pastures of the Pacific ocean - here is an interesting graph.
View attachment 6692

Sorry guys…
The only problem with that graph and theory is ALL Alaska Sockeye,Chinook, Chum, and Pink migrate to the North Pacific, which is the Bering Sea. Which all those articles are referring and they do raise valid concerns - to that area with all the different countries stocking hatchery salmon - in that area.

Just for the record “ALL”BC Fraser sockeye migrate to and overwinter at the Kodiak Island areas. Then they will continue their migration totheir feeding grounds, which is approximately 100- 150 miles SOUTHEAST ofKodiak Island. Their migration route wasvery clearly and accurately describe during the Cohen Commission.

There are "NO" U.S. or BC Westcoast Pacific salmon that enter the North Pacific (Bearing Sea), unless they flat out get lost!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry guys…
The only problem with that graph and theory is ALL Alaska Sockeye,Chinook, Chum, and Pink migrate to the North Pacific, which is the Bering Sea. Which all those articles are referring and they do raise valid concerns - to that area with all the different countries stocking hatchery salmon - in that area.

Just for the record “ALL”BC Fraser sockeye migrate to and overwinter at the Kodiak Island areas. Then they will continue their migration totheir feeding grounds, which is approximately 100- 150 miles SOUTHEAST ofKodiak Island. Their migration route wasvery clearly and accurately describe during the Cohen Commission.

There are "NO" U.S. or BC Westcoast Pacific salmon that enter the North Pacific (Bearing Sea), unless they flat out get lost!

Seems you are certain about something the experts are not:

"The distribution and movement of immature Fraser River sockeye salmon at sea is the least understood of the fish’s life history phases. Dr. Welch testified that his recent research suggests postsmolts are staying resident on the continental shelf, as far west as the beginning of the Aleutian Islands, for many months. In his testimony, Dr. Welch com- mented on earlier studies: There was a conjectural model that was developed by French and colleagues some 40 years ago now on what the movements of sockeye were. This is ... where science ... meets art. It was the best guess that the biologists at the time could identify with the technologies at their hands and the data that they’d collected, and it shows a pattern of move- ment back and forth which Mike Lapointe has already indicated to you. My personal view on this is that it’s simply the best guess we can make, but it’s a lovely work of fiction that fits the very thin amounts of data that we have, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily appropriate or correct for Fraser River sockeye or possibly for any species of – any stock of sockeye salmon. I think they’re doing something much more sophisticated than this, but the data is too simplistic to really tell you what Fraser River sockeye are doing.10" Chapter 2 Life Cycle pg 13 http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/FinalReport/CohenCommissionFinalReport_Vol01_02.pdf

Also, there are a great deal of hatcheries and released smolts in the SouthEast of Alaska as seen here: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/ak_hatch.pdf

Their production is quite large: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR13-05.pdf

SouthEast, Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound combined release just shy of 58 million Sockeye annually.

REGIONAL CONTRIBUTION
The contribution of hatchery-produced salmon to Alaska fisheries in 2012 (Tables 5, 6, 12–16):
Southeast: Returning hatchery-produced salmon accounted for 27% of the salmon in the commercial CPF; 84% of the chum, 27% of the coho, 21% of the Chinook, 12% of the sockeye, and 1% of the pink salmon can be attributed to fisheries enhancement projects. The harvest of hatchery-produced salmon contributed an estimated $72 million, or 42%, of the exvessel value of salmon in the commercial CPF. In Southeast, the majority of the noncommercial CPF contribution was coho salmon, with an estimated 49,000 fish harvested.
Prince William Sound: An estimated 25 million salmon returned from hatchery releases, accounting for an estimated 80% of the total number of salmon in the commercial CPH; 88% of the chum, 84% of the pink, 44% of the sockeye, and 5% of the coho salmon in the commercial CPH were hatchery-produced fish. In addition, hatchery-produced salmon contributed an estimated $71 million, or 63%, of the exvessel value of salmon in the commercial CPH. Sockeye salmon were the bulk of the noncommercial CPF harvest, with an estimated 136,000 fish harvested in the Prince William Sound area.
Cook Inlet: The fisheries enhancement program accounted for approximately less than 1% of the sockeye salmon in the commercial CPH and contributed an estimated $196,000, or 0.5%, of the exvessel value of salmon in the commercial CPH. Cook Inlet area noncommercial CPF harvest of 44,000 fish was dominated by coho salmon, with estimates of over 28,000 hatchery- produced fish harvested.
Kodiak: Hatcheries in the salmon fisheries enhancement program accounted for 12.5% of the total number of salmon in the commercial CPH; 25% of the chum, 22% of the coho, 14% of the sockeye, and 12% of the pink salmon in the commercial CPH were hatchery-produced fish. Additionally, the fisheries enhancement program contributed an estimated $6 million, or 13%, of the exvessel value of salmon in the commercial CPH. An estimated 8,000 hatchery-produced coho salmon were harvested in the noncommercial CPF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The government wont listen to the people so these "charities" fight with a louder voice and have money to back it up. In my industry (forestry) we have had our moment in the sun dealng with all the greenpeace tree hugging organizations, but in the end they fought for tighter guidlines on when and where we can log, saved a huge amount of B.C from deforestation so our grandchildren can see what a true old growth forest looks like. If industry had its way B.C would look like the tar sands, rape pillage and when its not economical walk away with hareholders having the profits.
You can say how eviromentally wonderfull your industry is all you want but in the end it will evolve, it wont be easy, there will be pain but it is part of any industries life cycle.

I'm sorry, are you comparing (YOUR) industry of forestry, and oil/gas extraction to aquaculture?

I just about choked on my Earl Grey there...Saturday morning LOLZ.

Wanna see some forestry impacts? (For everyone else who hasn't actually been out there doing it) Check this video out: http://vimeo.com/62582558

Aquaculture has evolved and will continue to do so, but that doesn't mean it will leave the ocean.
 
I'm sorry, are you comparing (YOUR) industry of forestry, and oil/gas extraction to aquaculture?

I just about choked on my Earl Grey there...Saturday morning LOLZ.

Wanna see some forestry impacts? (For everyone else who hasn't actually been out there doing it) Check this video out: http://vimeo.com/62582558

Aquaculture has evolved and will continue to do so, but that doesn't mean it will leave the ocean.

Ya they nuked the forests alright, with litle enviromental care, just like fish farms are releasing biological contaminates into the ocean with little care, but it has and will continue to change for aquaculture. By the way our pacific salmon are choking on the fish farm effluent like you choked on your tea.

By the way why are you on a recreation sport fishing site and have yet to post anything other than how great fish farms are???
 
By the way why are you on a recreation sport fishing site and have yet to post anything other than how great fish farms are???
That's twice now I have read that complaint ... the title of this section of the forum is "Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management", no?
Seems to me this disussion is exactly that but some don't like what they're hearing.
 
Ya they nuked the forests alright, with litle enviromental care, just like fish farms are releasing biological contaminates into the ocean with little care, but it has and will continue to change for aquaculture. By the way our pacific salmon are choking on the fish farm effluent like you choked on your tea.

By the way why are you on a recreation sport fishing site and have yet to post anything other than how great fish farms are???

If there was any truth to your "biological contaminates" or "choking on the fish farm effluent" ideas I wouldn't be on here talking about farms - because I wouldn't be working in the industry.

I'm on a recreation sport fishing site talking about farms because people continue to spew nonsense, while calling it fact, about something I happen to have firsthand knowledge about.

Maybe I should spend more time talking about what fly I might be using this afternoon in search of sea-run Cutties, or putting my two bits into the halibut discussion, or weighing the pros and cons of an early Fraser Chinook closure, or talking about how we might be able to improve on the current enhancement models - or anything else that also concerns me as a fisherman, outdoor enthusiast and responsible resource user.

But I do all that stuff with my real, live friends - I come on here to try to ensure that reality occasionally gets placed in emotional rants and uninformed tirades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top