B.C. Salmon Farmers will spend $1.5 millin on study.

OldBlackDog

Well-Known Member
The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association is putting $1.5 million over the next five years into a series of research projects on how wild and farm-raised salmon interact.

The announcement is part of the industry’s attempt to address recommendations stemming from Judge Bruce Cohen’s recent inquiry into the state of Fraser River sockeye.

Don Noakes, dean of science at Vancouver Island University, said the work will help fill some of the gaps in our knowledge of what’s happening under the surface of our coastal waters.

“There’s still a lot we don’t know about salmon,” Noakes said on Sunday. “The research is to gain information about wild and farmed salmon, how they interact, and how better to ensure that the environment in all aspects is of benefit to both wild and farmed fish.”

Researchers will focus their efforts on five themes, including fish pathogen transmission, salmon migration routes, environmental management, fish health reporting and information sharing, according to the association.

Though the money is coming from salmon farmers, Noakes said the work will be done by independent researchers who are affiliated with various universities.

“Some of the vets and the biologists from the industry will certainly be involved, because we’ll need data that involves salmon farms and they’re in the best position to provide context and to provide that information. But the whole intent is to get as broad a group as possible to do this research so it’s unbiased,” he said.

Academics, researchers, conservationists, government and industry members selected the research topics during a round of workshops held over the past year.

One of the most pressing topics is disease transmission between wild and farmed fish.

Of major concern to the industry is infectious hematopoietic necrosis, a lethal virus that is endemic to wild Pacific salmon and herring but that leads to rotting flesh and organ failure of farmed Atlantic salmon. The virus has caused some farms to quarantine then cull their salmon.

“Part of the problem is we don’t even know what kind of pathogens ... the wild fish are actually carrying,” said Noakes.

But it is fears of a different virus — infectious salmon anemia — spreading from farmed to wild salmon that has sparked intense criticism about ongoing contact between Pacific and Atlantic salmon on the West Coast.

There have been no confirmed cases of salmon anemia in wild Pacific salmon, but a federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist testified during the Cohen inquiry that she had found pieces of the virus in B.C. sockeye salmon during testing in a government lab. When the samples were tested at a different DFO lab, they came back negative.

Compounding the history of uncertain findings related to the deadly virus, a P.E.I. lab that claimed to have found infectious salmon anemia in wild Pacific salmon was later stripped of its testing status after the World Organization for Animal Health found it lacked proper quality standards and failed to investigate conflicting results.

The researchers will also be studying fish migration. The inquiry called for a moratorium on new fish farms in the Discovery Islands archipelago between Campbell River and the mainland, a migration route for Fraser sockeye.
 
“We know so very little about ... migration routes of wild fish and just even some of the basic behaviour even though we’ve been studying them for a long time,” said Noakes.

Cohen had also called for better collection and distribution of data on farmed fish, something researchers will work on as one of the projects.

“Fish health monitoring and reporting for hatcheries is limited,” said Noakes, who had worked at DFO as a director of its biological station in Nanaimo. “You couldn’t go and find out what ... the fish health records were right now on a website. You’d probably have to do an (access to information and privacy) request. I was with the department for 19 years, and I could probably say there was little monitoring, and not for a widespread list of diseases.”

The federal government released in October data related to the performance of B.C.’s farmed salmon industry. The information came two years after Cohen called for Ottawa to be open with its scientific data, noting the industry’s “potential harm” to Fraser River sockeye is “serious or irreversible.” Absent from the released information was data on disease and pathogens in salmon.

B.C.’s salmon aquaculture companies have set a target of 2020 for all of the region’s farms to receive certification by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. To receive certification, farms must be assessed for their environmental, economic and social impacts. To date, no Atlantic salmon farms in the province have met the standard. Two are in the audit process at this time, said Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.

mrobinson@vancouversun.com

Click here to report a typo or visit vancouversun.com/typo.
 
Good post black dog. I of course considered posting that here but figured what was the point.

Pick apart crew....begin.
 
I will try, pacific fish all have true form a of Atlantic salmon dna,so chosen as farm fish ,heard, farms where without fish when sockeye arrived off the north island,planning was already done.heard a farm only needs to produce 1$. to get federal funding to farms, if fish all die feds bail them out.so with a farm goal of a dollar and feds make up the differance ,where the 1.5 mill from . although we have herring and bait fish for migrating USA bound fish,with our practice of farming in canada.When reports come in that fish are not growing due to water quality ,this industry should support regeneration of kelp when active farm ,or disbanding farm.1.5 mill on release of 15 year old info .Get on board with Fish wars,next thing to san juan pig war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good post black dog. I of course considered posting that here but figured what was the point.

Pick apart crew....begin.


Yes, some would say it's a 1.5 Million dollar promotion stunt.
How *** Canada vetoed the NAFTA recommendation
"This week Canada and Mexico voted against the recommendation by a NAFTA commission that Canada's record on protection of wild salmon from farmed salmon be reviewed. The U.S. voted for the audit."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fish-farms-12-12-2014.html
 
The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association is putting $1.5 million over the next five years into a series of research projects on how wild and farm-raised salmon interact.

The announcement is part of the industry’s attempt to address recommendations stemming from Judge Bruce Cohen’s recent inquiry into the state of Fraser River sockeye.

Anyone care to guess what the conclusion of this Fish Farm paid for study will say???
Why has our Government long before now done an independent survey on Fish Farms and their impact on fish and our environment?
 
I say take a wait and see approach. There is no evidence the outcomes of the study are a foregone conclusion. We might have our concerns, but I think it is better to weigh the evidence when we actually have something to review. Otherwise we are right back to McCarthyism....a communist under every bed.

Just in case there are few out there who are not long enough in the tooth to know what McCarthyism is, here you go...

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[SUP][1][/SUP]
 
Yes, some would say it's a 1.5 Million dollar promotion stunt.
How *** Canada vetoed the NAFTA recommendation
"This week Canada and Mexico voted against the recommendation by a NAFTA commission that Canada's record on protection of wild salmon from farmed salmon be reviewed. The U.S. voted for the audit."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fish-farms-12-12-2014.html

Or we can take the approach and say that this is needed funding in order to address the data gaps mentioned by Justice Cohen in his report. Undertaking this work takes money and there isn’t much coming from government these days so when individuals, associations, clubs and industry can help provide some funding that should be a positive thing. It falls in line with other work planned for such as the Fish Health Initiative with Genome BC, the PSF and DFO as well as the Salish Sea Project.
 
I say take a wait and see approach. There is no evidence the outcomes of the study are a foregone conclusion. We might have our concerns, but I think it is better to weigh the evidence when we actually have something to review. Otherwise we are right back to McCarthyism....a communist under every bed.

Just in case there are few out there who are not long enough in the tooth to know what McCarthyism is, here you go...

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[SUP][1][/SUP]

Two thumbs up on that post.
 
Will be interesting to this work unfold. My understanding is that there will be a working panel and a review panel so we'll see what the composition of each will be. If these panels consist of highly credible science minds I think there is a good chance it will be a fair/accurate report. I think they are still in the process of putting these teams together and coming up with the parameters for the study so lots of work ahead but I'll remain cautiously optimistic at this point.

I recall when the Cohen commission was announced many, including myself, were skeptical that a federal gov't inquiry would produce a report too scathing of industry and it's own gov't so we'll see what happens here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will be interesting to this work unfold. My understanding is that there will be a working panel and a review panel so we'll see what the composition of each will be. If these panels consist of highly credible science minds I think there is a good chance it will be a fair/accurate report. I think they are still in the process of putting these teams together and coming up with the parameters for the study so lots of work ahead but I'll remain cautiously optimistic at this point.

I recall when the Cohen commission was announced many, including myself, were skeptical that a federal gov't inquiry would produce a report to scathing of industry and it's own gov't so we'll see what happens here.
Hallelujah TC - well said! Couldn't agree more. The working and review panel and their membership will determine focus, scope and reporting of results. It will be interesting to see what industry pundits pop-up on these panels, and whether they will allow non-favourable focus and/or results to be released.
 
Hallelujah TC - well said! Couldn't agree more. The working and review panel and their membership will determine focus, scope and reporting of results. It will be interesting to see what industry pundits pop-up on these panels, and whether they will allow non-favourable focus and/or results to be released.

Kind of like the unbiased presentation in that Salmon Confidential crap you keep touting.

You may not like the idea that the farmers are kicking in with some cash but starting from the perspective that any report will gloss over the facts is pretty ironic coming from an internet anti-farm crusader. Why not just say thanks and see what they come up with. After all, it is your version of the "facts" you're defending, not the scientific version and what you consider glossing over is an entirely subjective interpretation.
 
Kind of like the unbiased presentation in that Salmon Confidential crap you keep touting. You may not like the idea that the farmers are kicking in with some cash but starting from the perspective that any report will gloss over the facts is pretty ironic coming from an internet anti-farm crusader. Why not just say thanks and see what they come up with. After all, it is your version of the "facts" you're defending, not the scientific version and what you consider glossing over is an entirely subjective interpretation.
I can understand that you don't like hearing criticism, Absolon. If you go back on other threads - you will see what I said about the video you are referring to at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?29852-No-ISA-in-BC-CFIA/page10
Ya - I felt the same way over that particular clip in this video, Shsuwap. I am not advocating agreeing with nor accepting with some of the assertions/claims made in this video. However, some of the political and science-based issues raised by this clip are still outstanding and unresolved. Is there anyone that can reasonably argue against having more and better information to make decisions on and carry-out the required due diligence?
If you feel personally threatened by honest questions raised about due diligence and risk assessment by our federal regulators - TFB. That's your neuroses to deal with. Like many others, and like many others on this forum - I have consistently pushed on protection of wild stocks through appropriate and scientifically- defensible siting criteria, and open information on issues such as fish health. If you believe that in your defensive mindset that it makes me an "internet anti-farm crusader" for asking tough questions and demanding answers from our federal regulators - then have at 'er bye. You are welcome to believe in the Yeti, Santa, AND a flat Earth - if that is your desire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You may not like the idea that the farmers are kicking in with some cash but starting from the perspective that any report will gloss over the facts is pretty ironic coming from an internet anti-farm crusader. Why not just say thanks and see what they come up with. .

Yea sure their kicking in cash... cash that the Harper government gave them..... So if there is someone to thank, it would be the taxpayer, it's our money.....

Harper Government Takes Further Steps to Ensure a Sustainable and Prosperous Aquaculture Sector in Canada


<time datetime="2014-02-10">February 14, 2014</time> - Nanaimo, British Columbia
The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, along with Dr. James Lunney, MP for Nanaimo Alberni, today provided further details on the Government of Canada’s investment of $54 million over five years to continue Canada’s Sustainable Aquaculture Program, which focuses on scientific research and regulatory enhancements.
With its Sustainable Aquaculture Program, the Government of Canada is creating the conditions, with science as the foundation, that will enable the Canadian aquaculture industry to be successful while operating in an ecologically sustainable manner. Under the renewed program, up to $27 million is being directed to further our scientific knowledge through research, operational analyses, risk assessment and scientific peer-reviewed advice. The two other pillars of this program are regulatory reform and improved reporting.
pac02.jpg


The Honorable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, B.C., announcing $54 million over five years for the renewal of the Sustainable Aquaculture Program.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2014/hq-ac06-en.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's just more fog to obscure the view. The government didn't hand the salmon farmers money and in fact, the funding applies to all forms of aquaculture of which salmon farming only represents a part. The money was directed at developing new regulatory regimes, regulatory science carried out by the government, reporting and information systems, marketing programs and a grants system aimed at developing so-called green technologies.

The farmer's contribution is unrelated to the government program but if you guys can throw enough **** at it that some sticks even before the program is implemented you can frame it in the public realm as something nasty the farmers are doing yet again. It's just a different flavour of Salmon Confidential, that tripe that repetitively gets dragged out even if the guy doing the dragging is "not advocating agreeing with nor accepting with some of the assertions/claims made in this video" but rather because "some of the political and science-based issues raised by this clip are still outstanding and unresolved", a meaningless canard if there ever was one. That one is only topped by the suggestion that anyone ignoring the propaganda or calling it out for what it is is actually "against having more and better information to make decisions on and carry-out the required due diligence".

Give me a break.
 
...even if the guy doing the dragging is "not advocating agreeing with nor accepting with some of the assertions/claims made in this video" but rather because "some of the political and science-based issues raised by this clip are still outstanding and unresolved", a meaningless canard if there ever was one. That one is only topped by the suggestion that anyone ignoring the propaganda or calling it out for what it is is actually "against having more and better information to make decisions on and carry-out the required due diligence"...
yes, Absolon. I have repeatedly heard from your industry PR types that protection of impacts to the wild stocks is "meaningless" in your minds along with adequate data to make decisions on. Just more proof of the lack of commitment and lack of due diligence of the industry and our supposed federal regulators - and more insights into the mindset of the open net-cage industry pundits. Thanks for amply illustrating that, and the inappropriateness of leaving your industry on it's own to mitigate impacts to the wild stocks.
 
yes, Absolon. I have repeatedly heard from your industry PR types that protection of impacts to the wild stocks is "meaningless" in your minds along with adequate data to make decisions on. Just more proof of the lack of commitment and lack of due diligence of the industry and our supposed federal regulators - and more insights into the mindset of the open net-cage industry pundits. Thanks for amply illustrating that, and the inappropriateness of leaving your industry on it's own to mitigate impacts to the wild stocks.

You haven't got a clue what my industry is though, as usual, that doesn't stop you from erroneous and unsupported assumptions and sweeping subjective statements that are neither supported nor really relevant at all. Complaining about the likely lack of objectivity of the research before any facts about it are even known or suggesting that it is actually taxpayer money funding the announcement is purely speculative nonsense designed to impugn the salmon farmers and aren't based on any real facts. They contribute nothing toward the discussion and are representative of the typical rhetorical toilet flushes that plug up these discussions and obscure the truth though I admit, they are precisely what I've come to expect.
 
You haven't got a clue what my industry is though, as usual, that doesn't stop you from erroneous and unsupported assumptions and sweeping subjective statements that are neither supported nor really relevant at all. Complaining about the likely lack of objectivity of the research before any facts about it are even known or suggesting that it is actually taxpayer money funding the announcement is purely speculative nonsense designed to impugn the salmon farmers and aren't based on any real facts. They contribute nothing toward the discussion and are representative of the typical rhetorical toilet flushes that plug up these discussions and obscure the truth though I admit, they are precisely what I've come to expect.
It would only be worse if you were DFO, Absolon. I hope you realize that. Take a look at my last post at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...fish-farm-rejected-risk-to-wild-salmon/page59
 
What has any of that to do with the subject we have been addressing, the research funding contribution by the BC Salmon Farmers? Bob and weave? Duck and cover? Shift the goal posts? Sorry, I'm not biting.
 
Back
Top