P.E.I. fish lab loses international credentials
- Thread starter Whole in the Water
- Start date
which version of ISA does that CK? How many versions of ISA are known? OK - how many are unknown? Which known ones are more virulent to Atlantics? Which ones of the known viruses affect Pacifics more? What about the unkown strains????
Whoops - ya don't talk about that - right....
OR..that the lab that found the nonexistant ISA found the NORWEGIAN strain...
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
This is a good point CK. I assume that every fish that dies gets tested for all possible diseases (loss prevention). Is this information available?
Also, how do I get onto one of these tours that you give? I certainly like to rant
about all of the things that I think are wrong with the current norm in salmon aquaculture, but I have never stepped foot on a salmon farm and who better to get a tour from. I've seen and participated in hatcheries, and was first involved in the process when I was about 6. I am seriously not being a smart butt here and would benefit from a tour.It is a truly interesting dilemma with salmon aquaculture. There is obviously a great amount of knowledge and technology built up around the raising of salmon, but there are natural barriers(waste, disease and parasite incubators) of the open net pen system that stop it from really succeeding. It is trying to completely and artificially control nature rather than enhancing what has evolved over thousands of years and I feel this is the root of the whole problem. Closed containment is better, but still deals with the same flaws of containing too many fish in too small of a space.
If DFO put as much effort and resources as they do for aquaculture support into enhancing wild/hatchery assisted stocks there would be a whole lot more fish around, which in turn has been proven to put more into the local economy that the current system does.
Enough ranting for the night.
Wild Prediction: there will be an attempt in the near future to privatize the hatchery system.
$0.02
you have managed to hit the nail square and sink it with a single stroke. this is the exact hatchery battle we are facing in the US with the push/pull of commercials wanting a crop to harvest while the rec anglers are jumping up and down about not wanting to wait for nature to fix what 'we' have so successfully screwed up. a meaningful balance has yet to be put forward although the pressure over ESA listed fishes is starting to turn this tide in favor of the wild fish.
Actually, the wild salmon policy has never been implemented. Yes, it's on paper - but things like the target escapements and limit reference points have not been implemented on a stock-by-stock basis. There has been no timeframe instituted or identified to do this, either.
To be honest - we know little about the actual numbers of fish that return to most watersheds in the province - as the streamwalkers programs have been constantly cut farther and farther for years - and there are now few fish fences in operation. Stock assessment is operating on a fraction of the budget it had +20 years ago.
After Harper's gutting of the environmental review processes (so that the chinese oil in his stock portfolio could benefit) - there is even less checks and balances. Now only "commercially-important" fish receive only the slightest nod - and that nod isn't even a screening now.
It's an abdication by the feds on their fiducary responsibility in favour of corporate interests.
Regulators and government lawyers are scared sh*tless of getting caught of abdicating their responsibility and getting charged with liability if ISA has been released upon the wild stocks.
That's why Kibenge's lab was the only one audited - it was the one to report ISA-positive results. The fear now transmitted through the remaining government scientists is hoped enough to keep them in line.
Welcome to Orwell's "2013" in Canada.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Why don't you expand on this theory of yours a little Aqua?
How many strains are unknown? That is an interesting question.
How far does your speculative (IMHO Flawed) "precautionary principle" logic take you?
I would really love to see you lay this whole thought process out for us, because simply making some speculative, loaded statements about known and unknown strains and virulence only serves to prop up your far-reaching assumptions about aquaculture's role in your scenario - but it does not explain how any of this actually makes sense given all known information.
If all you have is a bunch of "ifs" tied together with some "coulds" I think you are simply taking part in some high-level hand-wringing.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
This is a good point CK. I assume that every fish that dies gets tested for all possible diseases (loss prevention). Is this information available?
Also, how do I get onto one of these tours that you give? I certainly like to rant
It is a truly interesting dilemma with salmon aquaculture. There is obviously a great amount of knowledge and technology built up around the raising of salmon, but there are natural barriers(waste, disease and parasite incubators) of the open net pen system that stop it from really succeeding. It is trying to completely and artificially control nature rather than enhancing what has evolved over thousands of years and I feel this is the root of the whole problem. Closed containment is better, but still deals with the same flaws of containing too many fish in too small of a space.
If DFO put as much effort and resources as they do for aquaculture support into enhancing wild/hatchery assisted stocks there would be a whole lot more fish around, which in turn has been proven to put more into the local economy that the current system does.
Enough ranting for the night.
Wild Prediction: there will be an attempt in the near future to privatize the hatchery system.
$0.02
BC Salmon Farmers Association does tours: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/farm-tours
I'm not sure how you think holding fish in pens in the ocean is "trying to completely and artificially control nature", while Closed containment ( keeping fish from the ocean in a concrete or fibreglass tank on land, filled with filtered, temperature adjusted freshwater pumped from aquifers or rivers etc, ect, ect.. "is better" and somehow not, "trying to completely and artificially control nature"...
Not trying to be rude, but I just don't see it that way at all.
As for the DFO effort and resources - I'd love to see the numbers instead of hearing people make assumptions.
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
They are both trying to control nature. Both flawed. Closed containment cuts out some of the pollution, but does not change the fact that it is not natural for that many fish to be in such a small place.
Any thoughts on the privatization of the hatchery system? Are you guys going to start trying to do this? Is the recent Omega release dilemma a foreshadowing of what is to come? Let's not forget that was partially funded by your industry. You have evaded all of my comments and questions about this.
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
Can anybody provide pictures of what the ocean floor looks like under these net containment areas? Or is this area considered as private property?
To me this is an area that seems to be "swept under the rug".
I would think that this bed of whatever would be a good incubator.
To me this is an area that seems to be "swept under the rug".
I would think that this bed of whatever would be a good incubator.
Alexandra Morton took some video of the seafloor beneath a net pen. I can't recall where I saw it but the short story was the there was a dead zone beneath the net pen (due to a heavy accumulation of detritus).
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Yup, fish really never get that close to eachother anyways...
Omega Pacific is in a particularly special position where they have the capacity to rear different strains of Pacific stocks (some destined for aquaculture use and some for enhancement)
I see no reason why any of the other private, large scale aquaculture hatcheries would have any reason to begin using their facilities for enhancement. (In fact there are many reasons not to - wild pathogens, difficulty screening brood stock ect.)
First off, the vast majority of salmon raised for aquaculture are Atlantics and come from brood stock taken from farms - as it has predominately been since the 90's. (Nearly all the fish we raise come from genetic lines that have been on the coast of BC or Washington since the early 70's)
Even hatcheries that rear Chinook or Coho would have specific domesticated stock they have been using for years to ensure that they have confidence in the genetics of the specific stocks they use.
If there is going to be a drive for the privatization of hatcheries I see it coming from First Nations wanting to ensure they have access to sufficient fish (terminal fisheries) - there would really be no reason for aquaculture companies to invest in it further than supporting enhancement efforts where they operate (as staff members like myself constantly drive for)
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Gunsmith there is a lot of information on this on the Web. In the vast majority of cases it is not pretty!!
Here are a couple of links to images.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...549.1073741828.554081214626386&type=1&theater
http://organicsalmon.org/faults-of-the-standard
And here are some of the many scientific papers on the impacts (known as bethnic impacts).
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/445.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022098187901845
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/1352289#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X05004418
Englishman
Well-Known Member
CK the only thing flawed is your complete ignorance of, casual dismissal of, and belittling of a very well scientifically and environmentally understood principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
The precautionary principle in effect says "do no harm" . And this means you so not proceed full ahead with your development and then look to see if any harm is done. You examine, measure and evaluate all the harms and risks BEFORE you proceed. With the original introduction of salmon feed lots this was never done.
Some naive and scientifically ignorant industrialist at some time thought this was a "good idea" and the rest is history......Just like application of DDT, and the introduction of rabbits to Australia, and the introduction of starlings into N. America - the list goes on....they were all "good ideas" to which no trace of the precautionary principle was ever applied.....with the results we all know and can see today.....
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
What do your numbers look like Charlie?
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/egg-oeuf-eng.html
Actually, here's one from your neck of the woods..
"The release of Atlantic salmon smolts for the purpose of establishing runs in Washington by the department occurred in 1951, 1980, and 1981. Additionally, many releases were made in lakes for the purpose of establishing a fishery in those lakes (Table 1). None of these releases resulted in the return of adult Atlantic salmon. Attempts throughout the United States and world to introduce and establish Atlantic salmon outside the Atlantic Ocean have failed.
Research to develop marine net pen aquaculture was conducted in earnest in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Some of the preliminary research was conducted in Puget Sound near Manchester, Washington,
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Both Pacific and Atlantic salmon were grown in marine net pens. As a result of this research, captive broodstocks were developed which could be used to restore depleted salmon runs."
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00922/wdfw00922.pdf
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Farming salmon IS a precautionary principle.
You can't keep killing something wild without eventually replacing it with something farmed.
Can you be so sure that the commercial and recreational fisheries "do no harm"?
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpre...mon-aquaculture-is-a-precautionary-principle/
Englishman
Well-Known Member
What a preposterous statement. Something in and of itself is not “A precautionary principle”. Actions and activities are performed which are either in conformance with “The Precautionary Principle” or they are not.
How can suddenly starting to raise salmon in open net pens, with thousands crowded together, with zero scientific data on the impacts and no foreknowledge of the ecological or environmental effect of performing these actions POSSIBLY be in conformance with the precautionary principle? And yet this was exactly what happened when salmon feed lots started.
CK by this statement and by your quoting of a very uninformed source on the subject you have brilliantly illustrated you just do not get the Precautionary Principle at all.
I don’t know what you are talking about CK. Of course you can, provided you do it with sustainable harvest rates AND protect the habitat of the species you are hunting. Humanity did so all over the world with wild game for thousands of years!! The First Nations did so for thousands of years with the bison. The First Nations also did it with salmon right here on the Pacific coast also for thousands of years with no impact on the populations.
I am not going to get into a discussion about the merits or otherwise of industrial levels of commercial fishing or recreational fishing in terms of ecological and environmental impacts. Diversion is a tactic you are very fond of CK. You have learnt your tactics from the tobacco industry defenders very well!!
This guy just does not understand the precautionary principle at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with “replacing” a wild species or population that may or may not be in decline. As if that was even the motives of the salmon feed lot proponents!!
Well…yes and no. It can’t just be summed up that simple because it is not consistent across the board. There are species differences, enumeration methodology differences, abundance-driven considerations, budgetary differences, precision differences (goes hand in hand with methodology) observer efficiency considerations, spawner life considerations, environmental factors (goes hand in hand with OE) and fish behaviour. All of these can factor into the precision of an estimate. The goal is to select the appropriate enumeration method for a particular stream, lake or lakeshore that takes all of the above into consideration as best as possible. Is it perfect? No, because counting salmon is not easy when factors interact, but the people that undertake these enumeration projects have a great deal of experience selecting the appropriate method. The species differences cannot be ignored because the Chinook/Coho world of enumeration is different from the Sockeye world. Chinook/Coho have some significant data gaps; whereas, Sockeye (i.e. Fraser) has a much richer, long term data set. I caution the use of the word “actual” because the only method that comes close to a true gold standard are enumeration fences and even they can be prone to breaches due to environmental conditions or if they are not maintained properly. Fences cannot be put anywhere - they have their pros and cons like any other enumeration method.
It is true budgets have dwindled – more so on the Chinook/Coho side of things. With deficit reduction being the focus nowadays the future is definitely going to be challenging to say the least.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
"Humanity did so all over the world with wild game for thousands of years!!"
Really.
When is the last time you had... never mind.
So what about the years of aboriginal famine and war... never mind.
So the Precautionary Principle applies to aquaculture but not the continued harvest of wild fish despite unknown consequences due to mixed stock captures and variable survival?
But, don't we need to have all the answers before doing anything?
That's not diversion - that is logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
