In 2007, a study published in Science magazine made an ominous prediction: Broughton Archipelago pink salmon stocks faced extinction by 2015, as a result of sea lice from area fish farms infecting wild salmon stocks....
But wild pink salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago didn’t collapse – they surged dramatically in 2014. And in 2010, Fraser River sockeye made a stunning comeback, with a return of 28 million fish, followed four years later with a return of 19 million...
https://www.biv.com/article/2017/5/whats-destabilizing-bcs-wild-salmon-stocks/
funny post 7 the topic gets shifted from parasites to disease......
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/e-mail-dsf-sea-lice-research-23may2011.pdf
More than 500 news stories have reported this sea lice research. The lead researcher was Dr. Martin Krkosek, a graduate student of Dr. Mark Lewis.
The biggest problem with alarm over sea lice is that it is completely at odds with the excellent returns of wild salmon in recent years. In 2000, despite 13 years of salmon farming, the return of wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago was the highest on record since the 1950s. The Broughton lies between the north tip of Vancouver Island and the mainland and is ground zero in B.C.'s salmon farming controversy.
In the Broughton, the largest pink salmon producing watershed is Glendale Creek. In 2004, pink salmon returns to the Glendale were the third highest on record. In predicting extinction due to sea lice, the CMB excluded Glendale data.
In 2009, in the very same area where extinction due to sea lice was predicted, wild pink salmon returns were so good that commercial fishing took place. DSF didn't say boo. Instead, DSF and other environmental groups shifted their focus to low returns of Fraser sockeye. So much fuss was raised that Prime Minister Stephen Harper established a public inquiry, The Cohen Commission, costing $15 million. The following year, 30 million Fraser sockeye showed up. That historic return was the best in nearly 100 years.
The David Suzuki Foundation has described its sea lice research as undeniable, compelling, irrefutable and proof. “These (sea lice) data, due to the massive sampling effort and the unequivocal nature of the conclusions, satisfy even the most conservative benchmark for proof,” says the David Suzuki Foundation. The fact is, that study was done over 14 days. That's hardly a massive effort. According to the company that operates the salmon farm under study, harvesting was in process so during the last part of the data collection, there were apparently no fish at the farm.
The David Suzuki Foundation reports, "up to 95 percent of wild juvenile pink and *** salmon are dying from sea lice” but mortality in the wild was never measured and reported. Never. Hypothetical, mortality estimates were computer-generated in Edmonton. The CMB's published mortality prediction was "9 - 95 percent." The David Suzuki Foundation selectively publicized the CMB's prediction of up to 95 mortality but not the fact that it could be as low as 9 percent.
According to Dr. Richard Beamish, a federal government scientist and member of the Order of Canada, the survival rate of juvenile wild salmon in the Broughton in 2002 was an unprecedented high of 34 percent. If 34 percent survived, it is mathematically impossible that “up to 95 percent” were killed by sea lice, as the David Suzuki Foundation has claimed.
Studies from the 1960s — when there were no salmon farms — found that between 59 and 77 percent of juvenile salmon die within the first 40 days of life. And yet, the David Suzuki Foundation claims that sea lice from salmon farms "frequently kill over 80 percent." Again, the numbers don’t ring true.
Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish, including herring. A method to trace the origin of sea lice is under development but currently does not exist so its methodologically impossible to distinguish between sea lice that originate from a fish farm and those that come from other wild fish. It follows that the David Suzuki Foundation's many claims about “farm-origin” sea lice, are flagrantly unsubstantiated (read: bogus).
In science, unsubstantiated claims lack integrity. Getting such claims published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal does not change that. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) states that any action that is inconsistent with integrity is regarded as misconduct.
As for the David Suzuki Foundation, it web-site says, "We do not assume responsibility for omissions and inaccuracy of our materials."