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

[salmonkiller01]

I dont care just seems odd comming on a rec fishing site to sell farmed fish but hey to each his own. I find the whole argument of fish farms here kinda entertaining, as the science on it is not exact, unless you are a fish farmer then it is, ha ha. Yes dave I dont like what I am hearing especially when there is another outbreak of disease from farms

 

[shuswap]

It is incorrect to say that Fraser Sockeye’s migration was very clearly and accurately described during the Cohen Commission. Dr. Welch’s comment on the issue seem pretty clear to me in Volume 1; Chapter 2. Maybe there is no interaction between Alaskan salmon and BC salmon (in this case Fraser Sockeye), but at this stage I think there is much more to learn. As the technology for telemetry improves (including decreased size of the tags) hopefully we can put more definitive answers to these issues.

 

[Charlie]

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.

REALLY...

You might want to pick an chose your BS a bit closer, and possibly just take it elsewere? How about looking at the rest of your "cut and paste" that you seem to left out? And how about showing what the actual migration is? As in, don't forget to look and read this this part?




YEP... that's right... your BC Sockeye don't even get close to the "North Pacific"! Yep... you might want to take your BS elsewhere!

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/FinalReport/CohenCommissionFinalReport_Vol01_02.pdf#zoom=100

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"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."
You don't think that the 58 million Sockeye released from SouthEast Alaska, Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound might share the same space as Fraser Sockeye?
Really?
Sure looks to me like the US fish South of the peninsula share all of the wintering grounds and most if not all of the summer feeding grounds with Fraser Sockeye.
Why would they be anywhere else - that is where the food is.
Maybe look at where the bulk of Alaskan production happens again - it has nothing to do with the "North Pacific" (which I never mentioned as far as I know - Charlie did)
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/hatcheries/ak_hatch.pdf

 

[Birdsnest]

All due respect sir but I think you are out of line here charlie. Its one thing to not agree regardless of facts but to sling mud such as you just have in no way contributes to the conversation. Whats up with that?
I have looked high and low to find some info that supports your comments that bc sockeye do not interact with alaskan salmon but I just cant find it.

 

[agentaqua]

There are specific, large areas of the North Pacific (a very, large Ocean) that certain species and stocks tend to go as sub-adults and adults - MOST BC stocks do NOT get into the Bering part of the North Pacific MOST years. The Bering Sea is only part of the North Pacific, CK - not the whole part of it.

The Southern limit to adult salmon rearing is determined by sea surface temperatures, and changes annually. The Northern and Southern limits may shift over time due to change in the sea surface temperatures caused by El Nino, La Nina, PDO and/or climate change.

The graph that you posted CK, is from ALASKAN stocks, which includes stocks all through AK, including Northern Alaska - hence the large limits to that area. It is a poor graph to illustrate ocean rearing areas for BC and southern stocks.

Also notice how straight the western side of that defined area is and how it appears to conform to the international date line. It looks as though they excluded Russian waters from that graph. I wonder if Alaskan fish can really tell when they enter Russian waters and avoid it (area limits actually prob. only where the AK survey vessel could go).

Yes, there is some overlap (but not total overlap) between stocks from different areas and countries. There are still large ocean areas that attract and retain certain stocks and species from specific large watershed areas.

e.g. chinook by large area: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/...umon/images/migration-maps/chinook_salmon.jpg

coho: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/...-saumon/images/migration-maps/coho_salmon.jpg

sockeye: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/...umon/images/migration-maps/sockeye_salmon.jpg

pink: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/...-saumon/images/migration-maps/pink_salmon.jpg

chum: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/...-saumon/images/migration-maps/chum_salmon.jpg

It would be interesting to see the raw data and see if 1 could get finer definition.

AS smolts - they travel very close to the coast northward (inside the continental shelf break), and eventually head out far to sea as sub-adults. Welsh was tagging smolts and following them into the post-smolt phase as far as the Aleutians - NOT adults.

The batteries don't last long enough to follow the salmon through their life cycle to spawing adults because the pingers (with very small batteries with limited life) have to be stay small to implant into the small smolts. I believe the life span of the batteries is something like 6 months.

Smolt's travel to offshore habitats is size-related - if they don't grow big enough fast enough on the swim - they stay inshore longer and grow bigger BEFORE they swim off to the great unknown.

They probably get enough feed on the travel up along the coast most years, and then there is no delay and no residence time in the last jumping-off spot before the Alaskan Gyre - but some years - maybe not. The longer your swim, however - the more time you have to feed IF you have abundant feed.

Some stocks and species do not travel all the way to the mid and north Pacific, but stay close to home - like the ocean-type chinook from more southern and coastal watersheds.

Google: "Ocean-type Chinook".

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Again I must emphasize that I never said anything about the "North Pacific", or Bering Sea, or any other term which would have limited the effects of Alaska's aquaculture efforts on Fraser Sockeye.
Regardless of the "large limits" of the graph I posted, the fact remains that the bulk of Alaskan Sockeye production exists in the same area that BC Sockeye utilize.

 

[shuswap]

If you read the underlying technical report from which the graph came from it puts things in a different perspective that is not elaborated on in Volume 1. It is not so cut and dried. The graph was based on our best knowledge to date - it is not the end of the story. Many of these past studies were based on tagging studies and catches from other gear types. The fact is that very few tags were recovered and immature fish appeared to be under represented. It sort of clarifies that the marine distribution and migration of immature Fraser Sockeye is the least understood of all their life history stages. These uncertainties were further emphasized by Dr. Welch in Volume 1. I think we can all agree that Fraser Sockeye have a very complex life cycle and that it deserves further attention.

 

[shuswap]

On the Harrison migration debate:

Tucker et al. (2009) found that 94% of the juvenile sockeye salmon caught off the WCVI in fall were allocated to the Harrison River in the Fraser River drainage - which was the only time of year that Harrison River sockeye salmon were caught; a pattern entirely opposite to other Fraser River origin fish.

http://salmonfarmscience.files.wordp...le_sockeye.pdf

Welch et al. concurs:
http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordp...esentation.pdf

Dr. Welch was a co-author to the Tucker study. I believe he was talking about that trawl work that he was working on with that study. I do not think that Dr. Welch actually determined Harrison juvenile migration from POST work because Harrison Sockeye juveniles are less than 60 mm when they leave the river. I do not believe tags were small enough at the time to put in to those immediate migrants; however, the technology is getting better now so who knows what the future holds.

I don’t believe that the Tucker study demonstrates 100% fidelity for Harrison Sockeye to head through the Juan de Fuca Strait towards the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Cohen seemed to think that the evidence on this was incomplete also (Volume 3; Chapter 2; page 62). Trawling does not tell you how the fish got there, how long the fish have been there or where they spent time before be caught by researchers. It was interesting to learn about the extended residency in the Strait of Georgia as compared to other Fraser Sockeye CUs. As to this route being the reason for the success of the Harrison, that is not entirely certain either as Washington State Sockeye (that take the same assumed route) have shown similar decreased productivity to other Fraser Sockeye CUs. In addition, salmon farms are also located along the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Ironically, the Tucker study did show that some Harrison Sockeye were overwintering off the West Coast of Vancouver Island. How long they reside there? Do they go further north? Who knows?

In my opinion, I do not believe that the success of Harrison Sockeye can be attributed to migration route (at least not alone) – especially when you consider the other aspects of its life history (i.e. migrate to sea in their first year of life; age structure made up of 3 sub 1s and 4 sub 1s; seem to spend more time than other Fraser Sockeye in the Fraser River estuary and in the Strait of Georgia). They also have a very protracted spawner arrival; hold in Harrison Lake as adults for an extended period of time before dropping downstream to spawn; and they do experience pre-spawn mortality (quite high in some years). In addition, they share some similarities to Pink salmon which are growing in abundance in the North Pacific which is kind of interesting and worth further investigation. We definitely need to know more about Harrison Sockeye as to why they are successful. Hopefully we can get more funding directed towards that type of work.

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project10-Report.pdf#zoom=100
http://www3.carleton.ca/fecpl/pdfs/JFB - Hinch et al 2012.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for your input, Sushwap – good information.

The fish to be tagged needs to be 100-120mm fork length or bigger – as far as I'm aware. That leaves 60mm of growth before the smaller 60mm smolts can be tagged. Fish grow at something like 1mm/day – so the fish need to grow for a couple of months in the ocean (if we are talking about Harrison sockeye smolts), before Welsh's technology can be utilized.

Trawling CAN be an effective strategy to follow smolts migratory patterns – just not the way DFO currently does it. You cannot have any significant breaks in capturing all life stages and at all age/sizes - like DFO has. Most of the lengths of fish caught by DFO are 200+mm FL. On average: pinks come out of the creek at like 35mm, chum ~45mm, coho and sockeye something like 65mm (very roughly).

DFOs net is something like 16m deep, so it is unlikely that they can trawl in less than 20m of water. Most recently outmigrated smolts are in substantially shallower water - more like 1-5m deep and commonly close to shore.

There is therefore significant residence time (several weeks or months – dependent upon size of smolts at outmigration) and growth (and possibly mortality) BEFORE DFO picks the smolts up in their deep net offshore.

This fact also has severe implications on CFIAs ability to accurately assess levels of viruses and diseases in smolts using samples captured by DFOs trawling - it's called survivor bias.

Fish most often express latent diseases when stressed. Stressed by crowding like in fish pens or when spawning, or by osmoregulatry stress like when adjusting to fresh water when returning to creeks from the ocean as returning adults - or more importantly in this case - as juveniles leaving fresh water and hitting the ocean for the first time.

If you cannot sample the fish when they first hit the ocean and for the first few days to weeks (which is a common incubation time for infections to develop) - you could have massive die-offs and never notice the fact that the fish died of a disease because you would be only sampling the disease-free survivors- i.e. survivor bias.

See CFIAs surveillence plan at: http://www.salmonguy.org/wp-content...almonids-Surveillance-in-BC-February-2012.pdf

They are also NOT testing for HMSI, which could easily be done in conjunction with the other viral testing they are doing since they are going to the expense of getting the samples anyways.

Back to the trawling discussion - As far as determining migratory routes using trawl capture technology - you also have to do an extensive weekly trawl routine both inside and outside of the areas of interest in order to keep following the mass and direction of the travel of the smolts of interest.

It is a BIG coast and there are many places to trawl – way more than 1 vessel could realistically accommodate and target on all the watersheds in BC.

Over the time span of several years – you could identify a specific stock and it's overall outmigration pattern using the coarse, large-scale data; and then target a more intense, focused sampling on that stock to answer the questions as to residence time by smaller geographic area.

You also have to do DNA analysis of the captured smolts in order to determine watershed of origin – which takes some time to send samples away and get results, so it is a forensic tool rather than “real time”.

That means you cannot alter sampling protocol “on the fly” to follow watershed-specific smolts, when trawling. You can follow slugs of smolts by species and timing, however – just not by specific watersheds. Once the smolts get big enough – you could implant some of them with Welsh's pingers and let the listening lines capture the data for you.

So in order to fully answer the Harrison debate – it would take time and money.

However, at this point – the available data indicates that Harrison stocks go outside vancouver Island when migrating as smolts from the Fraser River. If there is another inside route – it would have to be a minor component as DFOs trawling would eventually have picked them up.

AND when these Harrison sockeye make it up to the areas with farms on Vancouver Island – they would be substantially offshore from the protected areas that have fish farm tenures – or that is what I would expect. What does the trawl data show as far as where the Harrison sockeye smolts were caught in relation to fish farm siting? Are they a couple of kilometers apart or more?

 

[cuttlefish]

Agent; Tucker et al (2009), http://www.sfu.ca/grow/science/resources/1273768297.pdf, page 1472, Figure 6, Panel B. Note dates of interception = Feb.-March, not fall. Also see pages 1474 & 1475 for description of maigratory pattern. Hard to determine proximity to salmon farms from the map, but I doubt they were towing in inlets.

As for hatchery releases and competition for food among sockeye in the Gulf of Alaska, CK's interesting graph stopped just short of 2010. Would have been interesting to see the comparison between the hatchery releases and Fraser returns for that year. And let's not forget, that while all of the hatchery releases are preying on the available food supply, they are also prey for other species including salmon like chinook and coho.

 

[shuswap]

Thanks for the detailed response, Agentaqua

However, I am not particularly certain where you are going with some your post. First, I am not saying that trawling is not good, but there are limitations that even the researchers (i.e. Hinch) themselves understand. Your description actually emphasis the logistical complexities that would have to be overcome and even then it does not address the limitations that I raised. Not sure what you mean about “capturing all life stages and at all life sizes”. DFO has captured Harrison juveniles in the Strait of Georgia and their net sets usually fish the top 30m if you read the methodology from people like Beamish, Trudel, Neville and Beacham. That is where they find most of the Sockeye smolts, so I am confused about criticism of the trawling depths. This standard trawling for juvenile Sockeye has been done since 1998. I understand your concern about assessing Sockeye smolts when they first leave the Fraser, but assessing juvenile mortality in the ocean is not exactly simple. This is why the work of people like Dr. Welch is being looked at more and more.

As for implanting acoustic tags in Sockeye smolts once they are in the Strait that may or may not be possible (not really certain) because it depends on the size of smolts and the % tag burden it can handle. Tags are getting smaller, but the majority of these tags are put in smolts larger than 100mm. Chilko 1 year old smolts (the majority of the outmigration) are roughly between 70 and 90 mm (it can take as little as 8 days for Chilko smolts to reach to reach the Strait of Georgia). This is the reason why many of these smolts are raised in a hatchery to a large size. They couldn’t be tagged otherwise. The underlying assumption with tagging studies (including mark-recapture) is that implantation of the tag or the presence of the tag does not alter behaviour, health, physiology or survival of fish relative to non-tagged fish. If this is not met all bets are off. This assumption would need to be adequately tested if this plan were to be implemented. Smolts would also have to be available for tagging. Once they are large enough (as you indicate) are they going to be in the Strait of Georgia or have already gone for either Johnstone Strait of Juan de Fuca Strait. If you tag them when they are large enough would the presence of a tag effect their survival or migration behaviour? More importantly, if I catch one of these larger smolts in the ocean and I am ready to surgically put a tag in it how do I know if they are from the Harrison or not if the DNA results are not "real time" as you suggest? Would I hold them, wait for the results then release them? You also have to capture enough of them and ensure you have some meaningful representation from some other CUs - not just Harrison. Not saying it is not absolutely possible, but there are things that would have to be considered and addressed.

I agree that the “available” data points to Harrison go outside of Vancouver Island; however, again, there is uncertainty (as well as paucity in the data) in this and trawling to date does not demonstrate that this is the only route. For instance, some Harrison Sockeye juveniles were caught in the northern part of the Strait of Georgia in 2004. This may indicate that they may leave through Johnstone Strait, so I do not necessarily agree with your assertion that this is a minor component? You may be right or you may be wrong, but at this stage of the game we do not know and this was highlighted by Cohen. As for Harrison Sockeye being substantially offshore from fish farms on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, again, we do not know that, so unless you have some information that shows something not shown at the Cohen Inquiry or known by other researchers I would be interested in seeing it. It does highlight the need for more work in this area. Thanks for the exchange of knowledge, but I have a plane to catch tomorrow so that would be it for me now.

http://www.richardbeamish.com/uploads/1/6/0/0/16007202/1283canada.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

Hey Suswap, thanks again for your post. More good information.

As far as where my last post was going – like others on this forum I was “thinking out loud” and rambling, but the nexus of my post revolved around these points:

1/ It looks as though the majority of Harrison sockeye smolts utilize the southern exit around and up on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. I appreciate your highlighting the fact that Harrison Sockeye juveniles were caught in the northern part of the Strait of Georgia in 2004. This may indicate that they may leave through Johnstone Strait OR... it may indicate an extended residence in the Strait in Georgia. I totally agree that at this point the data is preliminary and we need more research.

2/ I agree that there are many factors that either increase mortality or survival – fish farms being but one factor. However, given the fact that fish farms are in the marine nearshore where Pacific juvenile salmon rear, and it has been demonstrated that there are serious risks to wild salmon populations from the open net-cage technology – we should be precautionary and proactive in mitigating these interactions. How far we go is open for debate and should be updated by the best available data, but let's remember that DFOs job is to protect and conserve wild salmon. There are other federal departments like Ag Can or Industry Can that would be more suitable for promotion of fish farms.

3/ It is speculative that 1 of the factors that may promote the apparent success of the Harrison stocks is that they may have much reduced interactions with the net-cage industry – but it is a serious speculation that deserves serious attention – particularly when you superimpose the fact that we still have not taken the steps to resample and retest Cultus Lake stocks for ISA (as another side to that argument for reduced interactions between outmigrating wild stocks and cultured fish farm fish).

4/ Even if it has been done since 1998 – DFOs trawl program is not designed to identify watershed-specific migratory routes and marine nearshore holding/rearing areas for wild salmon smolts. The program still has validity and should be done, but by using the gear they have, and by covering the massive area they do – it is really effective in looking at growth-type studies and providing large, coarse overview of coast-wide timing of smolts migratory behaviour. It's a matter of scale.

For all species of Pacific salmon (possible exception sockeye) – smolts utilize species-specific nearshore structure-oriented shallow water (<5m) habitats to grow and hide from predators until they reach a certain size before they swim offshore to be potentially captured by DFOs trawl nets. You may have read my last post about sizes at first emergence from fresh water, growth rates, and fork lengths of fish captured in DFOs trawls.

The depth of DFOs net precludes them from reaching all species of salmon and there is a “black box” of ~2 months (for some species) of immediate nearshore survival/mortality that DFO cannot sample using their current gear type. Lots can happen in that time frame. I talked about survivor bias in my last post and how DFOs trawl program is really unsuitable to use for things like looking at prevalence of viruses (also including sea lice studies, but I skipped going into that discussion for sake of brevity).

5/ If we have adequate, scientifically-defensible siting criteria – including appropriate local scale studies of hydrology, oceanography and migratory patterns and nearshore holding/rearing habitats for smolts – these data would complement DFOs trawl data and make for a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of farm/wild interactions. The goal would be to substantially reduce risks to wild stocks. I already discussed some of this earlier on this thread.

6/ There are risks and limitations of Welsh's sonic tagging program – but it has been successfully used for some years now – and also in the Bay of Fundy for Atlantic smolts. There has been protocols developed in order to mitigate most of the problems you raised.

7/ If would be difficult, but not impossible to follow a slug of Harrison sockeye smolts and sonic tag them. It would require weekly sampling and waiting for growth to a certain size. And Yes when the actual tagging happened you would be making an assumption that the fish you tagged were in fact Harrision and hope that the DNA results would confirm that a few fish were Harrision stocks. If these fish are as distinct wrt migratory route and feeding areas and timing as people say - it should work in your favour. And it would take some dozens of expensive tags. It's about the best 1 could do. You would need to look at costs and trade-offs before you committed. BUT it is possible and I think a feasibility study should be done – at the minimum..

8/ Lastly, as for Harrison Sockeye being substantially offshore from fish farms on the West Coast of Vancouver Island: we would only need lat/longs or UTMs of the trawl data – as fish farm location is easy to get. If the trawls were 2+ km away from farm sites – one could make the argument for substantially reduced risk of interaction from the farm operations. I would anticipate that to be the case, as I would expect that the Harrison sockeye smolts to be larger by that time and farther offshore. Plus, the trawl/boat combo is long and difficult to manoeuvre and I expect they would want to stay away from twisty channels, rocks, farm obstructions and entanglements, etc.

I agree with Cuttlefish - but unfortunately those figures lack enough detail to accurately tell locations of trawls. Thanks for the response CF..

 

[sockeyefry2]

B.C. salmon farmers continue fish health cooperative measures
Canada: Lessons learned during a fish health event last year have been added to a proactive plan supported by all Atlantic salmon farmers


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

Even in the early days of salmon farming in British Columbia, farmers developed a level of cooperation that was in those days unusual in a competitive business world. None of the original entrepreneurs setting up shop in the inlets of the Sunshine Coast North of Vancouver were prepared for the losses to be encountered due to harmful algae blooms. But after the major bloom events of the late 1980’s, many of the one hundred or so companies with operating licences in B.C. organized workshops led by experts in toxic algae events, and before you knew it- every farm was equipped with microscopes, plankton nets and Secchi disks.

As a result of these events and workshops, a level of camaraderie was developed which led to a continuous interaction within the fish farming community, with an unofficial but spontaneous warning system that would warn the neighbouring farms whenever unusual levels of harmful algae were found during routine sampling programs- which had been instituted on most farms. Later on, the salmon farming industry- now with less than a dozen operating companies- negotiated the establishment of a Fish Health Management Plan with the Provincial government, where a confidential database now keeps track of all fish health events on farms in B.C.

Since this initiative, the salmon farmers in B.C. have also on a voluntary basis set up a specific fish health plan to deal with episodes of exposure to the IHN virus- a plan that was recently enhanced through the addition of lessons learned from the latest experience with this endemic pathogen. A release last week by the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association provides more details;

The farming community’s Viral Management Plan has now been updated to include additional and increased measures for both the prevention and the management of any virus of concern. “The co-operative plan our members proactively developed two years ago was very effective last year – and we’ve found ways to make it even stronger,” said Mary Ellen Walling, Executive Director of BC Salmon Farmers Association.

In May and July 2012, Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHN) virus was found on three farm sites in British Columbia. While IHN is naturally occurring in wild Pacific salmon species, it can be harmful to Atlantic salmon. Under order by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, those sites were depopulated and the sites were disinfected. All other farms were tested and found to be negative for the virus. IHN has no effect on human health. The Viral Management Plan that had already been agreed to by BCSFA member companies was integral to the rapid and responsible management of this incident – which was the first of its kind in nearly 10 years.

As part of the proactive follow-up to the IHN event, farmers found ways to further improve the plan. This includes increasing bio-security standards for transportation of farm materials on land during normal operations, enhancing the internal communications plans during an incident and building on provisions around sharing resources in the case of a positive finding. “This management plan is an example of how BC’s salmon farmers are really leading the way in responsible farming practices - and we’re proud to see how everyone has come together to make it even stronger given the challenges we faced last year,” said Walling.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for keeping us informed, Sockeyefry.

Ra-ra-ra!! The words that stuck for me were: "Health Management Plan with the Provincial government, where a *confidential* database" .., and "voluntary".

Fish healh data should be neither "voluntary" nor "confidental". It is NOT that way with terrestrial farming and our processing plants. CFIA gets right on that, and there is NO "voluntary" and "confidential".

It should be "mandatory" AND "public" AND part of both the provincial tenure approval process and the federal FHMP.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Thanks for keeping us informed, Sockeyefry.

Ra-ra-ra!! The words that stuck for me were: "Health Management Plan with the Provincial government, where a *confidential* database" .., and "voluntary".

Fish healh data should be neither "voluntary" nor "confidental". It is NOT that way with terrestrial farming and our processing plants. CFIA gets right on that, and there is NO "voluntary" and "confidential".

It should be "mandatory" AND "public" AND part of both the provincial tenure approval process and the federal FHMP.

Here is DFO's website with aquaculture data: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/aquaculture-eng.htm

Here's the fish health reports: http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/index.htm

Show me where the same level of information is shared by ANY terrestrial farm/processing plant.

And by the way, CFIA gets right on us too: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/eng/1299155892122/1320536294234

 

[rockdog]

Back for another shift CK?

 

[agentaqua]

Hey CK, thanks for the post and the opportunity to highlight what is really broken with the system.

Since there are 2 main reasons for a progression of regulatory changes, we need a brief overview of how we got here – and hopefully where we are headed.

Firstly, research on fish health and emerging diseases is a part of science that is reasonably new and evolving. It is a work in progress. Some would question why we allowed the technology of open net-cages to be instituted onto wild stocks w/o knowing what the heck we are doing. Shutting the barn door after the viral horses left is ineffective, at best – and surely it is irresponsible.

BUT we are very slowly instituting some measures of regulation for these 2 reasons:

1/ CFIA is slowly playing catch-up over aquatic surveillance where they had been focused heavily on the terrestrial disease regulation (out of sight out of mind), and
2/ Changes in oversight of the open net-pen industry from provincial (BCMAL, BCMAFF and BCMoE) to federal (DFO/CFIA) triggered by Morton's landmark court case.

Up to 2009, the province held onto much of the regulatory strings on the industry. Things like sea lice and fish health were regulated by the province of BC. The provincial fish vet Dr. Gary Marty and his office handled most of this oversight, including farm site visits and handling fish health and sea lice data, although they only started the fish health program in 2001 – many years after the industry has operated open net-pens with unknown consequences to wild stocks.

The companies were extremely reluctant to share sea lice data and fish health on a site-by-site basis, and their lawyers tried to block T. Buck Suzuki's FOI request for sea lice data in 2004. The province caved, and T. Buck Suzuki was forced to go to B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner for resolution which came in 2010 in favour of T. Buck Suzuki's request.

Fish farm companies (through the BCSFA) - after threatening the province with a lack of cooperation with Marty's office if any fish health data went public – pulled the plug on the program. As far as I am aware – there has been no comparable replacement program since 2010, to date.

BC's Agriculture Minister Don McRae (BC Liberal) then responded by bringing forward a bill to make changes to the provincial Animal Health Act, to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret under S. 17(2): where “A person engaged in the administration of this Act must keep confidential the information” and it's all up to the “opinion of the minister”.

Welcome to Orwell's “BC 2012” – screw: democracy, good governance, openness, transparency and public oversight. Hello corporate sociopathy.

One has to ask: If you have nothing to hide, why would you not want to be open and transparent?

It took Cohen then, to get the data.

This is just the first of a number of instalments – that I have time for right now...

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Hey CK, thanks for the post and the opportunity to highlight what is really broken with the system.

Since there are 2 main reasons for a progression of regulatory changes, we need a brief overview of how we got here – and hopefully where we are headed.

Firstly, research on fish health and emerging diseases is a part of science that is reasonably new and evolving. It is a work in progress. Some would question why we allowed the technology of open net-cages to be instituted onto wild stocks w/o knowing what the heck we are doing. Shutting the barn door after the viral horses left is ineffective, at best – and surely it is irresponsible.

BUT we are very slowly instituting some measures of regulation for these 2 reasons:

1/ CFIA is slowly playing catch-up over aquatic surveillance where they had been focused heavily on the terrestrial disease regulation (out of sight out of mind), and
2/ Changes in oversight of the open net-pen industry from provincial (BCMAL, BCMAFF and BCMoE) to federal (DFO/CFIA) triggered by Morton's landmark court case.

Up to 2009, the province held onto much of the regulatory strings on the industry. Things like sea lice and fish health were regulated by the province of BC. The provincial fish vet Dr. Gary Marty and his office handled most of this oversight, including farm site visits and handling fish health and sea lice data, although they only started the fish health program in 2001 – many years after the industry has operated open net-pens with unknown consequences to wild stocks.

The companies were extremely reluctant to share sea lice data and fish health on a site-by-site basis, and their lawyers tried to block T. Buck Suzuki's FOI request for sea lice data in 2004. The province caved, and T. Buck Suzuki was forced to go to B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner for resolution which came in 2010 in favour of T. Buck Suzuki's request.

Fish farm companies (through the BCSFA) - after threatening the province with a lack of cooperation with Marty's office if any fish health data went public – pulled the plug on the program. As far as I am aware – there has been no comparable replacement program since 2010, to date.

BC's Agriculture Minister Don McRae (BC Liberal) then responded by bringing forward a bill to make changes to the provincial Animal Health Act, to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret under S. 17(2): where “A person engaged in the administration of this Act must keep confidential the information” and it's all up to the “opinion of the minister”.

Welcome to Orwell's “BC 2012” – screw: democracy, good governance, openness, transparency and public oversight. Hello corporate sociopathy.

One has to ask: If you have nothing to hide, why would you not want to be open and transparent?

It took Cohen then, to get the data.

This is just the first of a number of instalments – that I have time for right now...

"Corporate socipoathy"?
I guess that nails it for you eh?
No matter what we do, it is not good enough, and obviously is hiding something sinister - That is a ridiculous view, but unfortunately it seems to pervade many single-track minds.
You still failed to show how, "It is NOT that way with terrestrial farming and our processing plants."
I didn't ask what your interpretation of the regulatory and reporting environment for aquaculture, I asked you to back up your claim that terrestrial farming provides more "voluntary" and "confidential" information to the pulic, or even to an averarching regulatory body like DFO which would then do the same.
It simply isn't the case.
Go try and find out how many sick pigs/chickens/cows/sheep died at all the farms in BC and what/how much antibiotics ect. they were treated with - You will find that NO other industry is doing the same.
The level of transparency for the aquaculture industry surpasses any other form of animal husbandry in BC, and if it still isn't sufficient to satisfy the likes of you - that is just tough.
At some point you may have to realise that the reason you can't find any evidence of harm being done by salmon farms isn't because the farmers are hiding anything - it is because it isn't there.
Someday you will have to find someone else to vilify for the age-old issue of stock abundance, maybe go back to aboriginal and commercial fisheries like you used to before farms came around.

 

[Englishman]

"Corporate socipoathy"?
I guess that nails it for you eh?
No matter what we do, it is not good enough, and obviously is hiding something sinister - That is a ridiculous view, but unfortunately it seems to pervade many single-track minds.
You still failed to show how, "It is NOT that way with terrestrial farming and our processing plants."
I didn't ask what your interpretation of the regulatory and reporting environment for aquaculture, I asked you to back up your claim that terrestrial farming provides more "voluntary" and "confidential" information to the pulic, or even to an averarching regulatory body like DFO which would then do the same.
It simply isn't the case.
Go try and find out how many sick pigs/chickens/cows/sheep died at all the farms in BC and what/how much antibiotics ect. they were treated with - You will find that NO other industry is doing the same.
The level of transparency for the aquaculture industry surpasses any other form of animal husbandry in BC, and if it still isn't sufficient to satisfy the likes of you - that is just tough.
At some point you may have to realise that the reason you can't find any evidence of harm being done by salmon farms isn't because the farmers are hiding anything - it is because it isn't there.
Someday you will have to find someone else to vilify for the age-old issue of stock abundance, maybe go back to aboriginal and commercial fisheries like you used to before farms came around.

And you CK have not adequately responded to your industry's attitude and behavior in respect of the three issues AA posted, viz:

The companies were extremely reluctant to share sea lice data and fish health on a site-by-site basis, and their lawyers tried to block T. Buck Suzuki's FOI request for sea lice data in 2004. The province caved, and T. Buck Suzuki was forced to go to B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner for resolution which came in 2010 in favour of T. Buck Suzuki's request.

Fish farm companies (through the BCSFA) - after threatening the province with a lack of cooperation with Marty's office if any fish health data went public – pulled the plug on the program. As far as I am aware – there has been no comparable replacement program since 2010, to date.

BC's Agriculture Minister Don McRae (BC Liberal) then responded by bringing forward a bill to make changes to the provincial Animal Health Act, to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret under S. 17(2): where “A person engaged in the administration of this Act must keep confidential the information” and it's all up to the “opinion of the minister”.

Corporate sociopathy is EXACTLY what it is and no amount of flaming of AA, who is, incidentally far more informed than you are on the fish feed lot problems, changes anything.