The Future of Fish Farms ????

[Dave]

Anyways, it would appear not all of your colleagues feel the same way as you do.
Have you spent any significant amount of time out of a lab and on the water where there are farm sites??

Your'e certainly right that not all past and present DFO employeees are pro salmon farms or salmon farming; strangely, most of the DFO people I know against FF'ing are mainly hatchery guys. And, your DFO buddy was correct in that wild salmon are in dire straits ... but was he directly blaming FF`s for this problem?
My guess is no.
And yeah, I have a ton of field time but nearly all on the Fraser River or its tribs. Having said that I have christened the decks of a troller with my breakfast while off Tofino sampling Early Stuarts, and have seen one salmon farm just outside Pt. Hardy, about 2 years ago. My brother in law and I caught 4 species of ground fish about 100m away from this site in a very short time. Saw dolphins, sea lions, eagles, gulls ... all good.

 

[hambone]

Your'e certainly right that not all past and present DFO employeees are pro salmon farms or salmon farming; strangely, most of the DFO people I know against FF'ing are mainly hatchery guys. And, your DFO buddy was correct in that wild salmon are in dire straits ... but was he directly blaming FF`s for this problem?
My guess is no.

We were talking specifically about salmon farms, as they were in the headlines for the multiple "outbreaks" or whatever it was that happened earlier in the spring of this year. There was a very shady event that took place which is why the conversation was brought up in the first place and likely why my friend felt open to talk about things. My "buddy" is convinced that FF's are responsible as a large factor in the problem, not the sole reason.... lets not kid ourselves, there are plenty of reasons why salmon are in trouble.
There's a long and growing list of credible scientists from around the world that think global warming is a hoax.... so I'm sure the salmon farm's vs. wild salmon debacle will continue on for years to come...... salmon are going extinct though, so lets hope something happens to correct it.

 

[seadna]

<stuff clipped>
There's a long and growing list of credible scientists from around the world that think global warming is a hoax.... so I'm sure the salmon farm's vs. wild salmon debacle will continue on for years to come...... salmon are going extinct though, so lets hope something happens to correct it.

The only long list of [allegedly] credibly scientists I have seen that think global warming is a hoax was a list populated by a lot of scientists, MD's and engineers very few of whom actually had real experience in climate science. One of the big issues when it comes to interpreting and assessing what the consensus scientific opinion is in any area is that one can always create a list of some collection of dissenters and nutters with some number of degrees and try to pass that off as current scientific opinion or create the sense that there is genuine controversy amongst the relevant scientific community when little or none exists. I wrote a piece on another forum I frequent about how I assess what is likely to be correct in an area in which I'm am not an expert. I'll see if I can dig it up for re-posting here but in brief I:
1) Check the credentials of the alleged experts.
a) Are they working directly in the field of interest? E.g. are they a climate scientist, a random physicist or an engineer? If the topic is climate, I'll more likely believe those who devote their life to climate studies than a random physicist or an MD. Just as very few of us would take our Honda outboard to a Honda car mechanic and even fewer would take it to a carpenter, I'll value the opinion of the bona fide climate scientist over that of a random physicist and probably will value the opinion of the MD (when it comes to climate science).
b) What is their scientific publication record? Have they published in the relevant area? Have they published in well respected journals? Is their work highly cited?
c) Where do they work? Is it at a highly respected and selective institution (Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc) or is it at a tiny college with marginal quality science overall?
2) Is there an expert report available from places like the National Academy of Science or the Institute of Medicine and what do those people have to say on the topic? In general, I'll trust those organizations over a random collection of alleged scientists.
3) Do I know someone in the field who I trust and who can offer me an opinion? Do I get the same general opinion from multiple contacts?

The above steps are really no different than what I do when selecting a mechanic, doctor etc. E.g. I look at their credentials, I compare their opinions with consensus opinions when possible I ask respected and trusted friends for advice. In addition, when it comes to stories in the media, I always look to see where the money is on both "sides" of an issue. However, very few people do a similar analysis when it comes to public discussions of science. This allows biased media and/or biased industries to create the appearance of controversy where little actually exists. This is done intentionally to confuse the masses and to allow the status quo to continue (typically for the financial benefit of some industry). Sorry to digress from the main point of this thread, but I really think we need to better train people to more carefully evaluate the masses of information thrown at them each day. Equal volume on opposing sides of an issue should not be confused for equal quality in the argument.

 

[Dave]

We were talking specifically about salmon farms, as they were in the headlines for the multiple "outbreaks" or whatever it was that happened earlier in the spring of this year. There was a very shady event that took place which is why the conversation was brought up in the first place and likely why my friend felt open to talk about things. My "buddy" is convinced that FF's are responsible as a large factor in the problem, not the sole reason.... lets not kid ourselves, there are plenty of reasons why salmon are in trouble.
There's a long and growing list of credible scientists from around the world that think global warming is a hoax.... so I'm sure the salmon farm's vs. wild salmon debacle will continue on for years to come...... salmon are going extinct though, so lets hope something happens to correct it.

Among my other duties while with DFO was maintaining a network of real time and other water temperature data loggers throughout the Fraser River watershed. Data collected from these loggers and other historic water temperature data sources show an increase in the past 50 or so years of app. 2 degrees C in the Fraser River during peak sockeye migrations. I’m not Charlie and not about to cite publications so for verification of this read Cohen.
Thing is, scientists may disagree on global warming but salmon don’t have that option and are having a ***** of a time adapting. Energy reserves are exhausted earlier; bacterial ,fungal and parasitic infections are more frequent and in some cases, like Stuart sockeye migrating through the Nechako River on an above average water temperature year sexual maturation hormones stop functioning meaning the fish arrives at the spawning grounds, maybe, but the gonads are immature.
The fact is this 2 degree increase in water temperature during migration (and predicted to rise due to land use and resource extraction issues) are imo the greatest threat by far to wild Fraser River salmon.
Salmon farms are peanuts to what these fish must face in the next 20 years.

 

[Englishman]

YOu are now convinced he is a campigner and an activist because he is smart and resourceful? Unreal.... and typical i guess. Can you please tell me WHO could sway your opinion? I am pretty sure the answer is nobody.

Of course no one can sway Birdsnest's opinion!! I have already explained why that is in previous posts on this thread.
The guy's logic is totally weird. Now according to him, Charlie, who's opinions are formulated by all the science he knows and posts here is dismissed as a "campaigner or activist"!!
It is like I said, any information that challenges Birdnest's world view is dismissed, ignored or the originators are impugned. Anyone who through research and reading the science becomes a fish feed lot opponent is a campaigner/activist!! The more information you have the less you are to be trusted!! It is such an utterly twisted way of thinking it is laughable.

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Among my other duties while with DFO was maintaining a network of real time and other water temperature data loggers throughout the Fraser River watershed. Data collected from these loggers and other historic water temperature data sources show an increase in the past 50 or so years of app. 2 degrees C in the Fraser River during peak sockeye migrations. I’m not Charlie and not about to cite publications so for verification of this read Cohen.
Thing is, scientists may disagree on global warming but salmon don’t have that option and are having a ***** of a time adapting. Energy reserves are exhausted earlier; bacterial ,fungal and parasitic infections are more frequent and in some cases, like Stuart sockeye migrating through the Nechako River on an above average water temperature year sexual maturation hormones stop functioning meaning the fish arrives at the spawning grounds, maybe, but the gonads are immature.
The fact is this 2 degree increase in water temperature during migration (and predicted to rise due to land use and resource extraction issues) are imo the greatest threat by far to wild Fraser River salmon.
Salmon farms are peanuts to what these fish must face in the next 20 years.

that's kind of cherry picking isn't Dave? You use Cohen to support your water temp. point which i agee with but you sure stay way clear of his warnings and recommendations on Fish Farms. For a Government commisioned study to come out with the language he did on fish farms, when they are normally so tempered, you know the seriousness of the evidence he reviewed did not equate to the damage being peanuts.

Geez, what are they paying you?

 

[cuttlefish]

Thing is, scientists may disagree on global warming but salmon don’t have that option and are having a ***** of a time adapting. Energy reserves are exhausted earlier; bacterial ,fungal and parasitic infections are more frequent and in some cases, like Stuart sockeye migrating through the Nechako River on an above average water temperature year sexual maturation hormones stop functioning meaning the fish arrives at the spawning grounds, maybe, but the gonads are immature.
The fact is this 2 degree increase in water temperature during migration (and predicted to rise due to land use and resource extraction issues) are imo the greatest threat by far to wild Fraser River salmon.
Salmon farms are peanuts to what these fish must face in the next 20 years.

You got the climate change part right, Dave. And Cohen called it,"The elephant in the room." He also said in his Life
Stage 5 Findings; "I find that the single greatest risk to Fraser River sockeye salmon during the upstream migration is increasing river temperatures." But he went on to qualify that statement with this, "However, as I noted earlier, although en route mortality can affect harvest and escapement, it does not affect productivity and thus does not assist in identifying stressors that caused or contributed to the long-term decline."

So, just as increasing water temps caused by climate change means more escapement into the river is necessary and one way to insure that increased escapement is to reduce harvest rates (although it impossible to reduce harvest rates below zero as they were in 2009). It is one thing that Canada can and does manage in the short term. In the same vein then, Cohen is right to recommend a freeze on salmon farm production in the Discovery Islands and changes to farm siting criteria along wild salmon migration routes including removing those farms that don't meet the new criteria. It is another management action that Canada can take in the short term.

 

[Dave]

In the same vein then, Cohen is right to recommend a freeze on salmon farm production in the Discovery Islands and changes to farm siting criteria along wild salmon migration routes including removing those farms that don't meet the new criteria. It is another management action that Canada can take in the short term.

Cuttlefish, thanks for not asking what I’m paid to post here!
As stated I am not a salmon farmer so I have no qualification to speak on their behalf but it appears from the pro salmon farming web forums I visit, virtually all salmon farmers agree with Justice Bruce Cohen`s recommendations, including everything regarding salmon farming you have posted.
If I recall, he suggests 8 years, or 4 sockeye cycles, of research to make some hard decisions on salmon farm sitings and operations in the Discovery Island area. I hope that funding is made available so we can get on with this and start to tackle the far bigger issues quickly coming down the pipe..

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Cuttlefish, thanks for not asking what I’m paid to post here!
As stated I am not a salmon farmer so I have no qualification to speak on their behalf but it appears from the pro salmon farming web forums I visit, virtually all salmon farmers agree with Justice Bruce Cohen`s recommendations, including everything regarding salmon farming you have posted.
If I recall, he suggests 8 years, or 4 sockeye cycles, of research to make some hard decisions on salmon farm sitings and operations in the Discovery Island area. I hope that funding is made available so we can get on with this and start to tackle the far bigger issues quickly coming down the pipe..

Dave, you don’t have to be a fish farmer to speak on their behalf. A lawyer speaks on the behalf of their client much as does a lobbiest. If you want to deny the fact that there are people paid to work and try to influence internet forums and public opinion on behalf of special interest groups, then you need to give your head a shake. Whether you are one or not, I don’t know. You do deny speaking on their behalf and then immediately seem to do just that.

A little copy and paste of a report on what Cohen said;

Cohen also recommended a cap on fish farms in the Discovery Islands, with no increases in production in existing farms and a one-year maximum for licenses. In addition, licenses would require farm operators to provide as many fish samples as DFO requires for both monitoring and research. These and other regulations, Cohen said, should begin immediately and run until at least Sept. 30, 2020.
"If at any time between now and Sept. 30, 2020," Cohen wrote, "the minister of fisheries and oceans determines that net-pen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon, he or she should promptly order that those salmon farms cease operations."
He went on to say: "On Sept. 30, 2020, the minister of fisheries and oceans should prohibit net-pen salmon farming in the Discovery Islands... unless he or she is satisfied that such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye."

Is this really what the pro Fish Farm sites you frequent say they are in favour of?

Good to hear! Let's get started.

 

[hambone]

I provided technical support to both DFO and university scientists and for about 15 years was involved in sampling Fraser River sockeye for stressors relating to pre spawning mortalities and disease.

Can you let us know about some of these studies?

 

[Dave]

Can you let us know about some of these studies?

I don`t have direct links to these reports but a bit of online searching will supply you with tons of reading - possibly Charlie can help here? For reports on how warm water impacts migrating salmon, google publications by university professors Drs. Anthony Farrell , Scott Hinch (imo, the Gretzky-Lemieux’s of the salmon physiology world) and Stephen Cooke, along with DFO`s Dr. Steve Macdonald and David Patterson. For parasite information like Parvicapsula and how they impact prespawning mortalities, try DFO’s Dr. Simon Jones and Dr.Sophie St. Hilaire. For disease publications try DFO’s Dr. Christine McWilliams.

 

[Charlie]

I don`t have direct links to these reports but a bit of online searching will supply you with tons of reading - possibly Charlie can help here? For reports on how warm water impacts migrating salmon, google publications by university professors Drs. Anthony Farrell , Scott Hinch (imo, the Gretzky-Lemieux’s of the salmon physiology world) and Stephen Cooke, along with DFO`s Dr. Steve Macdonald and David Patterson. For parasite information like Parvicapsula and how they impact prespawning mortalities, try DFO’s Dr. Simon Jones and Dr.Sophie St. Hilaire. For disease publications try DFO’s Dr. Christine McWilliams.

A little off topic; however, water temps certainly do effect survial rates! For Sockeye water temperature has some, but minimum effects up to the high side of the normal range -19C. At or above 20C survival reduces considerably; at 25C, pretty simple... they are dead.

I actually do have a link handy to one of those mentioned:

Effects of river temperature and climate warming on
stock-specific survival of adult migrating Fraser River
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)

EDUARDO G. MARTINS, SCOTT G. HINCH, DAVID A . PATTERSON, MERRAN J . HAGUE
STEVEN J . COOKE§ , K R I S T I N A M . MILLER, MICHAEL F. LAPOINTE,
KARL K. ENGLISH a n d ANTHONY P. FARRELL

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/coe-cde/cahr-crha/publications/martins-eng.pdf

 

[cuttlefish]

If I recall, he suggests 8 years, or 4 sockeye cycles, of research to make some hard decisions on salmon farm sitings and operations in the Discovery Island area. I hope that funding is made available so we can get on with this and start to tackle the far bigger issues quickly coming down the pipe..

I thought sockeye cycles are 4-5 years and pink cycles are 2 years.

 

[Dave]

I thought sockeye cycles are 4-5 years and pink cycles are 2 years.

Correct cuttlefish - my error, my mistake.

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Correct cuttlefish - my error, my mistake.

I’m sorry Dave, but with your background isn’t that the equivalent of a mechanic telling us that the Volkswagon beetle came out with a V-8 engine?

 

[Dave]

Yup, I said I made a mistake and no doubt I'll make others.
I didn't check my post before hitting reply - I made a posting error. Do you have anything more to add regarding what I said that was not in error?

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Yup, I said I made a mistake and no doubt I'll make others.
I didn't check my post before hitting reply - I made a posting error. Do you have anything more to add regarding what I said that was not in error?

Dave, it was a pretty big posting erorr but it got by me too. Sorry, but I couldn’t resist running with it when somebody else didn’t immediately do it. You have posted credentials that would seem to say “you should listen to me because look what I have done”. Whether that is true or not who knows, we can be anything we want to be. Hell, on the internet I could be god’s gift to women although I have to admit I’m not.

Seeing your posts and the way you always try to support the Salmon Farming industry I wonder why you are here. Can you not see that the evidence is not leaning in your favour and as such why take your fight to a forum that is dedicated to the sacredness of the indigenous salmon of this beautifull coastline we are blessed with.

You stated that the pro fish farmers you correspond with on other sites are in favour of the Cohen recommendations although you skimmed over them in the typical fish farm way of reading only what you want to read and hearing only what you want to hear.

So I repeat my previous question are they really on board with the Cohen recommendations like I copied and pasted? And if so do they also agree that DFO needs to separate itself from it’s involvement of promoting fish farms while having a true responsiblilty to be protecting BC’s salmon stocks?

And if they really care about being a responsible corporate citizen why not join with independent testing facilites to share data and work on solutions instead of refusing testing?

You seem to want to skirt the topic of the thread, there are other issues but stop trying to change the subject.This is about fish farms.

Heck, I’m not an idiot and realize Cohen recommending that DFO or the Fisheries Minister police this at this time, gives the Salmon Farmers a free pass but with public pressure and maybe if necessary a change in Government both Provincial and Federal, maybe one day our sacred salmon will enjoy more that a slim chance in hell of survival!

An answer would be nice.

 

[ziggy]

Wow, lighten up folks. What if he isn't a fish farmer ,like he says, and is just a guy who is giving his honest opinion based on his own knowledge and experience. I found some of his posts educational and IMHO he never came out in support of fish farms but just expanded the discussion to other factors that impact salmon .Some of that expansion came from answering questions. I personally don't support salmon farms, but am also worried that they are getting too much focus at the expense of other contributing factors that are being conveniently ignored because they are too hard to tackle.

 

[Aces]

Wow, lighten up folks. What if he isn't a fish farmer ,like he says, and is just a guy who is giving his honest opinion based on his own knowledge and experience. I found some of his posts educational and IMHO he never came out in support of fish farms but just expanded the discussion to other factors that impact salmon .Some of that expansion came from answering questions. I personally don't support salmon farms, but am also worried that they are getting too much focus at the expense of other contributing factors that are being conveniently ignored because they are too hard to tackle.

I agree Ziggy. I feel some on this thread are getting a little too worked up over this subject. I can assure that the salmon populations have been diminishing long before the fish farms came on the scene but they probably aren't helping matters.

 

[Charlie]

“Open net pens” feedlots actually ARE killing your wild salmon!

I will be the first to state there are some very good scientist at DFO; however, I need to advise there are some that “do as they please,” have very novel "theories,” is “unethical,” and “extremely unprofessional” at very high levels within DFO. In other words, some of DFO scientists to some very good work and some very high level “senior” scientist only but out slanted, tainted, unethical – PROPAGANDA trying to conscience the public open net pen feedlots are good.

Contrary to one’s belief… and as stated before… I do actually do READ available “peer reviewed” studies; to include, I also look at who did the studies, why they were done, and even who paid for them. Some are only PROPAGANDA! You might want to make sure your champions are really the champions you think and want to support?

apol·o·gist
noun \ə-ˈpä-lə-jist\
Definition of APOLOGIST
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist

A person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people. A modified example of use in a sentence is: the Atlantic open net pen industry's apologists [=people who write and speak in support of the open net pen industry]— often + for▪ an apologist for the industry. Here is a prime example of what is really going on within and at the high level of DFO:

Salmon Farm Apologist's "Shoddy Science" Outed by DFO Colleague's Memo
Written by Rafe Mair Wednesday, 13 July 2011 19:43

“Blockbuster” hardly describes an internal DFO memo recently uncovered through the Cohen Commission on collapsing Fraser sockeye stocks - now made public in a blog by Don Staniford, the doughty fighter against Atlantic Salmon fish farmers, which battle has included a lawsuit by the shameless bastards.

The 2003 memo (download here) contains some truly shocking passages for their candour and for how clearly they vindicate those who have been critical of DFO's salmon farm science. Written by a respected DFO scientist, Dr. Brent Hargreaves, the memo severely attacks the credibility of a colleague, key salmon farm apologist Dr. Dick Beamish, whose science Hargreaves labels as "shoddy" and "unethical", among other pejoratives. Here are a couple of choice passages:

The research on sea lice that has been conducted by Beamish has been strongly and widely criticized in both the scientific community and the public media...I think to a large degree it was the inadequacies of Beamish's research and conclusions that led to the lack of public confidence in DFO science...
...I also do not want to be directly associated, either professionally or personally, with either Beamish or his research...He always does exactly as he pleases, regardless of the (often negative) impacts on DFO staff and research programs."

First, a bit of background.

For nearly a decade we who were fighting Atlantic Salmon fish farms, led by the intrepid Alexandra Morton, were told by the provincial government that the “science” was on the side of the fish farms and that they would continue to permit the industry to expand.

The international scientific community familiar with the issue of sea lice from fish farms killing migrating Pacific Salmon supported her fight against. Her findings were published and peer-reviewed; several fish biologists also published papers condemning fish farms and Dr. Daniel Pauly of UBC, one of the most distinguished scientists in the world according to Scientific American, said flatly “the debate is over."

Still, the Campbell government had the “science on their side."

At the request of Premier Campbell, I presented him with an analysis of the scientific evidence which he ignored. He had the “science on his side."

On it went – study begat study, all of which endorsed Alexandra Morton’s findings.

Still, the government pressed on. And so did Alex, who brought lawsuits, wrote, marched, all at considerable personal expense – not to mention the huge emotional beating she took.

And the Campbell government maintained that it had the “science on its side." (Needless to say, Premier Christy Clark was part of that government in the critical early days.)
Alex has had lots of supporters very much including her “Boswell," Don Staniford – here is an excerpt from is his July 13 release:

...The memo went on to describe Dr. Beamish's scientific research as "unethical", "unprofessional" and a "'lapse' in judgment".

In his testimony to the Cohen Inquiry last week, which saw his career flash before his eyes like Klingons off the starboard bow of the Star Trek ship 'The Enterprise', Dr. Beamish said: "Maybe it's aliens" before adding unbelievably: "Obviously I don't believe in aliens".

Dr. Beamish certainly doesn't believe that sea lice from salmon farms are killing wild salmon and spent his career staunchly defending the Norwegian-owned salmon farming industry. At last year's 'Sea Lice 2010' conference in Victoria, Dr. Beamish refused to answer questions on sea lice from salmon farms. This was even more incredible since Dr. Beamish was the plenary speaker in a session on 'Wild/Farmed Interactions'.

The audience in the public gallery at the Cohen Inquiry last week were left in no doubt which side Dr. Beamish was on when he greeted Mary-Ellen Walling, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association. "My inspiration," he gushed as he hugged her like an old flame.

"This is bad science?" asked lawyer Greg McDade as he ripped apart Dr. Beamish's scientific work. Thankfully, Dr. Beamish recently called last orders on his career with the DFO. His future scientific credibility would be in jeopardy otherwise.

I find it hard to speak on this – a rare thing for me – my anger is so intense. The scientist Campbell and co. relied upon so stubbornly was, according to a respected colleague, “unethical” and “unprofessional”.

Just one or two thoughts:

• The **** and abuse we all have taken, most especially Alex, at the hands of environmental turncoats like Patrick Moore to say nothing of Liberal Party hacks.
• The refusal of the government to apply the “precautionary principle” – it’s the law – placing the onus of proof on the industry not private citizens.
• The deliberate bias of the media who allowed the fish farm flack, Mary-Ellen Walling, to roam the op-ed pages virtually at will…and their utter lack of any scrutiny.
• The silence of the media columnists who trashed the government when it was NDP and have been struck dumb on this issue.
• The lawsuits Alex took and won and paid for - to a large extent - out of her own pocket.
• The lies of the industry, deliberate lies – I say deliberate because the largest shareholder of the biggest company, Marine Harvest, admitted that sea lice were slaughtering migrating wild salmon.
• The terrific support we’ve all had from the decent public which BC is mostly made up of.
• Most of all, the appalling loss of millions of our precious salmon – destroyed because the Liberal government consciously and deliberately refused to look at the massive evidence.

Will the Clark Liberals do the decent thing and apologize?

Not a chance. The moral compass of this bunch was set when Campbell got thrown in jail for drunk driving and imposed no penalty on himself.

Will they immediately act to stop all new licenses and give the present farmers 60 days to dismantle and leave?

You have to be kidding! Admit error? Bite the hand that feeds them? Show a little contriteness?

Hell will definitely freeze over before that happens.

Every single Liberal MLA from 2001 until now ought to hang their heads in shame.

I’m sure I speak for Alexandra Morton, her loyal “Boswell”, Don Staniford, and the thousands of citizens who have supported what often looked like a lost cause, in saying that the vindication of Dr. Hargreaves' evidence is swamped by the sense of the massive loss of our province’s soul, the Pacific salmon, which would have lived were if not for deceit and negligence of a government which, if they had an ounce of decency, would resign en masse.

http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/895-shoddy-science-hargreaves-beamish-dfo