Salmon farms harming wild salmon 60 minutes - cbs

[agentaqua]

Anything I say about self-reporting you will dismiss due to your bias against "industry", so what's the point?

You can't seem to see the companies for the individual BC residents that make them.

I see you also avoided addressing my point about Volpe pursuing the evidence of a feral population by mentioning how hard he worked to research interactions.

Seems to me that proving their existence in the wild would be more important than hypothesizing interactions that may rarely actually occur - no?

Or, does creating a scenario do more for the creation of FUD than actually confirming whether escaped farmed Atlantics were establishing populations in BC?

You are an anonymous poster, so I'm going to disregard the rest - Although I will say you have proven to be a truly special character in this forum.

In the 1999 study for the Province funded by the Habitat Conservation trust Fund - Volpe looked at 22 streams CK. Juvenile Atlantics were observed in 3 streams - the Amour do Cosmos, Adam River, and the Tsitika River.

In the Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 197–207 (2001) study - Volpe states: "In August 1998, the first naturally reproduced Atlantic salmon were captured in the Tsitika River on the northeast coast of Vancouver Island (Volpe et al. 2000). The 12 fish sampled represent the first documented evidence of successful feral spawnings (2 year-classes captured) of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in British Columbia."

 

[agentaqua]

Still see you are ducking the conversation over self-reporting of escapees CK.

 

[agentaqua]

If anyone can let me know where I may have missed the "Atlantic Invasion" here, please let me know: http://www.bccf.com/steelhead/stock-assessment.htm

"For rivers like the upper Gold, Heber and Tsitika rivers, there are more than 20 consecutive years of summer steelhead snorkel counts, using the same methods and many of the same crew members. There are from 10-15 years of steelhead escapement counts for another six streams, and 5-10 years of escapement observations for about another 10 streams."

from the same web page you quote above CK:

"Limitations to use of snorkel surveys include the fact that they are labour intensive and subject to weather and streamflow conditions. On streams with marginal water clarity (less then 3 m), they are not recommended. "

Kinda just forgot this part?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Still see you are ducking the conversation over self-reporting of escapees CK.

Reporting escapes is the law, as dictated in our Aquaculture Licenses: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2010-270/page-1.html#docCont

In the decade I have spent farming salmon escapes have been treated VERY seriously, not only in regard to regulations, but in regard to the fact that those fish are why we are out there - losing any is bad for business, and keeping fish contained in order for them to be harvested and sold is top priority.

The importance of reporting and addressing issues related to salmon escaping our pens goes far beyond simply notifying DFO, it is something that is built in to todays corporate culture in the drive for sustainable, successful business.

Losing fish is bad for business, breaking the law is bad for business - hence, it is in our best interest to conduct our operations responsibly and ensure quick reporting and resolution of any issues.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

from the same web page you quote above CK:

"Limitations to use of snorkel surveys include the fact that they are labour intensive and subject to weather and streamflow conditions. On streams with marginal water clarity (less then 3 m), they are not recommended. "

Kinda just forgot this part?

So, not only do negative impacts on wild salmon populations not have to me measurable to be an issue, but escaped farmed Atlantics don't have to be actually seen to exist?

This is remarkable.

When 90% of evidence out there points towards little impact from salmon farms, is it reasonable to run a continuous negative campaign against the industry using the 10% which may be unknown, uncertain, or simple hypothesis/speculation?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Sun News and Ezra? Thats your rebuttal? I wish I could say I was surprised CK. It demonstrates your lack of understanding and sincerity over legitimate concerns. Maybe you have a picture of Rob Ford hanging in your home?

It had nothing to do with Ezra, it was the people he was talking to that I was interested in.

You are an anonymous poster, yet the arguments you put forward are strikingly similar to some of the responses I saw in the clip.

This has nothing to do with my sincerity or understanding, it is actually about you continuously, anonymously posting moral judgements and accusations.

I'm just trying to put a face to the name, Aqua - it is getting pretty tough to take you seriously.

 

[agentaqua]

So, not only do negative impacts on wild salmon populations not have to me measurable to be an issue, but escaped farmed Atlantics don't have to be actually seen to exist?

This is remarkable.

When 90% of evidence out there points towards little impact from salmon farms, is it reasonable to run a continuous negative campaign against the industry using the 10% which may be unknown, uncertain, or simple hypothesis/speculation?

The only thing remarkable (but not unexpected) is your continual denial of the impacts, CK. So far - we have 3 non DFO reports that demonstrate that there are Atlantic juvies in Pacific streams.

AGAIN - you demonstrate your lack of understanding of due diligence and the Precautionary Approach.

So no CK - they do exist. If you re-read the posts above - I gave you those reports and the watersheds and the years available.

As with ANY STUDY CK - there are restrictions or limitations as to the accuracy of the study. If you can't get that water visibility/turbidity affects the ability to see and recognize fish - whether they be Atlantics, Pacifics, juvies or adults - all I can say is that we are all better off with you doing your thing on your net-cages and leaving the fisheries work to people who understand fish and watersheds.

 

[agentaqua]

Reporting escapes is the law, as dictated in our Aquaculture Licenses: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2010-270/page-1.html#docCont

In the decade I have spent farming salmon escapes have been treated VERY seriously, not only in regard to regulations, but in regard to the fact that those fish are why we are out there - losing any is bad for business, and keeping fish contained in order for them to be harvested and sold is top priority.

The importance of reporting and addressing issues related to salmon escaping our pens goes far beyond simply notifying DFO, it is something that is built in to todays corporate culture in the drive for sustainable, successful business.

Losing fish is bad for business, breaking the law is bad for business - hence, it is in our best interest to conduct our operations responsibly and ensure quick reporting and resolution of any issues.

You just brought-up a major issue. The licence and the lack of environmental assessments and the lack of third-party monitoring. Thanks for highlighting that. In the commercial fisheries - many fisheries have to have cameras, and third-party dockside monitoring. Yet in the open net-cage aquaculture industry - DFO trusts the farmers to self-report things like escapees. I already gave you the analogy as to speeding tickets, and how unreliable that information would be if it were self-reporting. Your assertions over numbers of escapees lack confidence or scientific rigor.

 

[agentaqua]

It had nothing to do with Ezra, it was the people he was talking to that I was interested in.

You are an anonymous poster, yet the arguments you put forward are strikingly similar to some of the responses I saw in the clip.

This has nothing to do with my sincerity or understanding, it is actually about you continuously, anonymously posting moral judgements and accusations.

I'm just trying to put a face to the name, Aqua - it is getting pretty tough to take you seriously.

If you re-read my posts - I supply credible, defensible arguments backed up with the science where available. The fact that you cannot recognize or appreciate legitimate concerns speaks to your industry-instituted myopic propaganda where everyone who brings up a concern is some hippy left-winger pinko to be discredited by Ezra's bulling tactics. It speaks to the unwillingness you demonstrate to have an open conversation about your industry's potential and realized impacts and the unease you demonstrate in accepting that there may be some validity to these arguments. You would rather shoot the messenger than admit potential impacts. It is very tough for people on this forum to take you seriously, CK.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Good on ya Agentaqua for rebutting all of CK's, weave and dodge tactics - keep up the good work!

The more the net pen defenders post here, the more people get informed that this just another industry that puts profits before the environment and the wild creatures that live in it and the people that rely on them.

A growing number of the public are seeing that this industry, that is unethically protected by myopic govt's, influenced by large foreign corporations, causes more harm than good overtime. Just a matter of time before all these feedlots are out of the ocean and put on land where they cause less harm. Can't happen soon enough IMO!

Lastly, it is high time CK that you stop whining about anonymous posts here - that is what this forum is all about. If you what to have a discussion where you know the people you are interacting with then set up a face to face meeting, otherwise stop complaining about it here as it makes you look kinda lame, seriously.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

The only thing remarkable (but not unexpected) is your continual denial of the impacts, CK. So far - we have 3 non DFO reports that demonstrate that there are Atlantic juvies in Pacific streams.

AGAIN - you demonstrate your lack of understanding of due diligence and the Precautionary Approach.

So no CK - they do exist. If you re-read the posts above - I gave you those reports and the watersheds and the years available.

As with ANY STUDY CK - there are restrictions or limitations as to the accuracy of the study. If you can't get that water visibility/turbidity affects the ability to see and recognize fish - whether they be Atlantics, Pacifics, juvies or adults - all I can say is that we are all better off with you doing your thing on your net-cages and leaving the fisheries work to people who understand fish and watersheds.

AGAIN - I have an anonymous poster passing judgement on me.

I am not arguing that the fish found in '99 weren't there - I am saying that does not equate to the continued presence of juveniles there, or elsewhere, today.

The Atlantic colonization risk debate has been beat to death over the years, and I find Volpe's latest piece of work to be incredibly thin, if not well timed given its intent.

"...if Atlantic salmon farms were removed, then Atlantic salmon abundance would decline to zero in Pacific watersheds..."

 

[agentaqua]

I am not arguing that the fish found in '99 weren't there

REALLY????

Evidence?... on a political tactic to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about adding any more farms to the coast - full stop.

...These are imaginary fish, much like the escaped ones you assume go unreported - which, by the way, is quite insulting to me and my colleagues.

If John Vople actually had evidence of a feral population of escaped Atlantic salmon living in a BC river I am quite sure he would have made it his life's work to show it.

Given the fact there has never been a documented case of that ever happening, it really would have worked in his favour (in terms of getting rid of salmon farms) to pursue that to the end.

So, not only do negative impacts on wild salmon populations not have to me measurable to be an issue, but escaped farmed Atlantics don't have to be actually seen to exist?

Whats the matter CK - telling so many fibs you cant remember what you claimed already?

 

[Dave]

Again, when was the last time anyone here saw an adult Atlantic in a BC river? Juveniles in 1999 either started a population or not ... until someone can tell me they have actually seen a wild fish, I say not.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Does the scientific community recognise Volpe's findings in 2000 as the first documented case of Atlantic salmon establishing a population in the Pacific?

I don't think so.

He found some juvenile fish (they were real), he looked at their scales and hypothesised that they were from 2 year classes based on an assumption that only wild fish would have a "winter check" (speculative) - he did not find adult fish mating, or any redds, or continue to monitor that particular area (even though others continued to do so, apparently without finding any of the same) for any evidence to support his claim in further years.

He had 10% that he figured meant yes, the rest of us have 90% that we're quite sure means no.

The "imaginary" fish I referred to were the ones his latest paper claims to exist regardless of being seen - they only live in the models he created.

Pretty standard tactic - remove context, insert FUD.

 

[agentaqua]

Well the real issues/problems with escapees on the West Coast are:

http://www.livingoceans.org/media/releases/escaped-farmed-salmon-invading-canada-s-rivers

“There is simply no way to verify the industry’s data,” said Will Soltau, Salmon Farming Campaign Manager for Living Oceans. “Salmon farmers self-report escapes and at the same time, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) does not publicly share data from the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program it operates to receive reports from fishermen, field researchers and hatchery workers.”

AND

“We are quite concerned about the implications of what we found,” said Alina Fisher, the report’s lead author. “The fact that Atlantic salmon invasion was stable between years either implies that Atlantics have effectively naturalized or that chronic net-cage leakage is significantly and consistently high. Either case has significant implications for Pacific salmon.”

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.livingoceans.org/media/releases/escaped-farmed-salmon-invading-canada-s-rivers
Open net-cages can tear and when they do, farmed salmon escape through the holes. Over one million farmed salmon escaped into B.C. waters between 1987 and 1996. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of farmed Atlantic escapes since regulations changed and the industry began self-reporting its losses:

2008 - 111,000 escapes
2009 - 47,000*
2010 - 15,700**
2011 - 12
2012 - 8
2013 - 0
* not reported to the public until after fishermen began catching Atlantic salmon in their nets.
** only made public in the parent company’s quarterly report.

 

[agentaqua]

If we are lucky - the Atlantic population(s) died-out since 1999. That doesn't mean that we have adequate surveys enough to say either way at this time.

It also doesn't mean that there are no escapees that may enter streams adjacent to the fish farming industry. My concern is less do do with genetic pollution - which is the problem in the Atlantic - but rather with fish disease transfer. ESPECIALLY ISA, PRV and other disease vectors.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Well the real issues/problems with escapees on the West Coast are:

http://www.livingoceans.org/media/releases/escaped-farmed-salmon-invading-canada-s-rivers

“There is simply no way to verify the industry’s data,” said Will Soltau, Salmon Farming Campaign Manager for Living Oceans. “Salmon farmers self-report escapes and at the same time, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) does not publicly share data from the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program it operates to receive reports from fishermen, field researchers and hatchery workers.”

AND

“We are quite concerned about the implications of what we found,” said Alina Fisher, the report’s lead author. “The fact that Atlantic salmon invasion was stable between years either implies that Atlantics have effectively naturalized or that chronic net-cage leakage is significantly and consistently high. Either case has significant implications for Pacific salmon.”

Do you have a copy of the paper? Because I do.

"To quantify the spatial extent of escaped Atlantic salmon in Canadian Pacific rivers, we systematically snorkel-surveyed 41 known Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)-supporting rivers and creeks on Vancouver Island over a span of 3 years. (15 years ago) We estimated and accounted for imperfect detections using multi-season occupancy models. We detected Atlantic salmon in 36.6 % of surveyed rivers. After accounting for imperfect detection, occupancy models estimated that over half of surveyed streams across the study area contained Atlantic salmon, and that 97 %of streams with high native salmon diversity were occupied by Atlantic salmon."

Imaginary fish.

 

[Birdsnest]

Agent, on one hand your saying that atlantics are invading and establishing populations and then you carry on to say that the self reporting cant be trusted. This suggest that you believe that far far more atlantics escaped in bc giving them far far more opportunity to establish here than what is reported yet there are no established populations.
And don't forget all the previous sport fishing introductions over the last 90 years or so. http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Timeline of Atlantic salmon in Pacific.pdf

I just dont think you got a pot to **** in on this one.

FUD away as I know you will. FUD away.

 

[agentaqua]

The "imaginary" fish I referred to were the ones his latest paper claims to exist regardless of being seen - they only live in the models he created.

Actually - I already gave you the references for this and the details. They weren't "imaginary" fish CK - maybe in your mind - but look back to where I quoted:

In the Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 197–207 (2001) study - Volpe states: "In August 1998, the first naturally reproduced Atlantic salmon were captured in the Tsitika River on the northeast coast of Vancouver Island (Volpe et al. 2000). The 12 fish sampled represent the first documented evidence of successful feral spawnings (2 year-classes captured) of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in British Columbia."

Look back a few more posts and you even give the "4 S0, and 8 S1 Atlantics (by scale growth observation)" data.

Do you always contradict yourself CK?

One one hand you are claiming the fish are only "imaginary", and the next you are letting us know what fish Volpe reported.

Then you are stating If John Vople actually had evidence of a feral population of escaped Atlantic salmon living in a BC river you were quite sure he would have made it his life's work to show it.

So then you deny knowledge of that peer-reviewed report - the one you just reported numbers from.

I think you have a major credibility problem. It'd be nice if you stopped fibbing.