fish farm siting criteria & politics

In addition to all that the Quinsam River is where most of those Pinks come from and it had a major project a few years back that opened a channel so Pinks could get above the cataracts that blocked their passage before. This opened up many kilometres of new habitat which has been well used by Pinks creating a noticeable increase in their returning numbers.

Now add in two good years at sea with La Nina conditions (good for salmon) and you have a good smolt to adult survival rate too.

So, there are at least three good reasons why the Pink run to the Campbell/Quinsam is good this year.

Take care.
 
Nope. not good enough. Salmon farms are a constant feature, and so are the supposed sea lice loadings. If sea lice loadings are the sole reason for the poor returns in the Broughton in one year, as suggested by Morton, then they would impact all the runs, preventing good and bad years. If the lice have such a catastrophic effect to produce salmon extinction, then there can be no variamnce in salmon returns, only decline to extinction. It doesn't matter how good the freshwater habitat is when all the fry are killed by sea lice from fish farms.
Morton if you recall has been predicting the extinction of wild salmon for the past several years. She is uncompromising in her quest to get her message out that sea lice kill wild salmon to such an extent that they will cause their extinction.
Therefore Agent, if the farms produce sea lice that kill all the fry that pass near them how can there be any good salmon runs?

Oh yeah, you haven't explained how the largest pink returns to the Broughton occurred when farms were present, and the worst returns happened before there were any farms.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Nope. not good enough. Salmon farms are a constant feature, and so are the supposed sea lice loadings. If sea lice loadings are the sole reason for the poor returns in the Broughton in one year, as suggested by Morton, then they would impact all the runs, preventing good and bad years. If the lice have such a catastrophic effect to produce salmon extinction, then there can be no variamnce in salmon returns, only decline to extinction. It doesn't matter how good the freshwater habitat is when all the fry are killed by sea lice from fish farms.
Sorry, sockeyefry. Your logic is flawed, and demonstrates the lack of depth you have with wild salmon, and possibly even sea lice.

As I (and others incl. Dave H and others) mentioned many times over numerous postings on this thread; there are many things that can and sometimes do impact salmon numbers, such as (in no particular order of importance):

1/ commercial fishing, both in BC and Alaska,
2/ sportsfishing,
3/ First Nations FSC harvest,
4/ ocean climatic conditions (la Nina and El Nino)
5/ fluctuating pisciverous predators (hake, mackeral, humbolt squid, etc.)
6/ coastal plankton and food production

AND (in some areas, such as the Broughtons)

7/ excessive open net-cage operations that can and do kill outmigrating salmon smolts through sea lice and disease transfer.

None of what I am saying is new to anyone on this forum, and we even earlier discussed Ford's study that delineated potential contributions to population-level mortality through interactions from open net-cage salmon farming world-wide.

Each year any particular smolt from any particular watershed can encounter a different mix of different population-level impacts.

Some years the ocean conditions have enough "extra" so that some impacts are minimal; while in other years, impacts like increases in sea lice loading can be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for some stocks in some areas adjacent to fish farms.

So you are always going to have "good" and "bad" years, wrt salmon numbers, SF. AND so NO, you will always have variances in the numbers of returning salmon. This is where your level of understanding is lacking.

However, if you get too many "bad" years, from whatever reason - wild salmon numbers can crash, and unless that "extra" impact is removed - certain impacted salmon stocks may not recover.

That's suggested to be the case for many of the stock in the Broughton's, due to population-level impacts from the numerous open net-cages.

In that case, you are right - "It doesn't matter how good the freshwater habitat is when all the fry are killed by sea lice from fish farms</u>".

Another area where your level of understanding is lacking - is in the field of lice transfer. You stated: "Salmon farms are a constant feature, and so are the supposed sea lice loadings."

Simply put - WRONG, again SF!!

The lice levels and stages of lice development on the farms depends upon: a/ timing of lice treatments, b/ season (water temps and water salinities), c/ potential of transfer by inmigrating returning adult salmon and by adjacent farmed stock (siting and placement of adjacent farms and pens).

The potential for transfer from farmed stock to outmigrating wild salmon smolts depends upon: a/ numbers of infected farm stock in the pens, b/ number of gravid (egg-bearing) female lice on those farmed fish, c/ local oceanographic conditions (salinity, water flow, stratification, etc), and d/ siting of those farms close to migratory routes and juvie rearing habitat.

The potential for that increase in lice loading on juvenile wild salmon smolts to become an increase in mortality and/or morbidity (sub-lethal effects) depends upon: 1/ size (age and weight) of that developing juvenile, b/ numbers and stage of lice (motile stages are much more damaging), and c/ the ability of that host fish to develop processes to rid itself of lice while growing fast enough to avoid predators (species and individual responses).

All of these factors interact so that outmigrating wild salmon smolts encounter a very dynamic process of lice loading from fish farms - NOT AT ALL the "constant feature" you claim (either in ignorance or in a failed attempt to BS here on this forum).

One factor not yet discussed is that for every farm a wild smolt encounters on it's way out to the sea - the negative effects are CUMULATIVE - so that eventually, given enough farms and lice loading - the smolt dies. Then 1-4 years later (dependent upon species and stock) - there's millions of missing salmon - as in the case of the Fraser River sockeye stocks this year.
 
The Times Colonist, 25th August 2009

Action now on wild salmon

The collapse of the Fraser River sockeye salmon run this year should be a wake-up call to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans that its management plans are simply not working.

Unfortunately, DFO has shown no indication that it understands the depth of the problem, even as fewer than 20 per cent of the anticipated Fraser run have returned this year.

The Pacific Salmon Commission now forecasts 1.7 million sockeye will return to spawn in the Vancouver-area watershed this summer, compared to DFO's pre-season estimate of 10.4 million fish.

Given that other West Coast sockeye runs have thrived this year, as have catches of some other salmon species, there is clearly a problem for the Fraser run in particular.

But what is the cause?

No one knows -- least of all DFO. The salmon commission points to "poor ocean survival," since healthy out-migrations of fry from the river were observed four years ago when the run left the Fraser, but that rather generic term does little to isolate the reason for the shortfall.

Environmentalists have charged that the commercial fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago, which the young salmon pass on their way to the ocean, might have infected them with parasitic sea lice. Despite attempts by fish farm operators to reduce the impact of sea lice on passing wild salmon, studies have indicated a correlation between the operations and infection of wild stocks.

Other theories have suggested climate change could be affecting the sockeye's food supply or that rising temperatures in the Fraser could be a factor.

More studies are needed, but immediate, serious work on a transition to closed-containment systems in the fish farms is clearly desirable, both to eliminate escapes of farmed fish and to reduce levels of sea lice, antibiotics and other undesirable side effects. Yet almost three years after an all-party legislative committee called for a provincially supported closed containment pilot project, little has happened.

A Supreme Court decision in February transferred responsibility for fish farms from the province to the federal government. That decision, pending an appeal from one aquaculture company, set a deadline of next February for action.

DFO should not wait that long. A moratorium on fish-farm expansion and work on transition to closed containment should be in the works now, along with studies to determine if other factors we can control are to blame.

Salmon represent more than just dinner -- they are a vital part of the ocean ecosystem and a keystone to our marine economy. We must do everything in our power to understand the forces threatening their populations, and fix them where we can.

By falling short in that part of its mandate, DFO is failing both salmon and the British Columbians who depend on the Fraser fishery. The department must do more before it's too late.

http://www2.canada.com/victoriatime....html?id=e4de979d-dd04-4f64-abd5-3baeae8cbf3b
 
Pacific Free Press, 21st August 2009

Sea Lice Found on River Trout: Clayoquot Sound Locals Ring Salmon Alarm

by Steve Lawson


Dear Friends; we live in Clayoquot Sound and fish regularly here. We've recently been fishing trout in the Cypre River in Bedwell Inlet where Mainstream has 7 fish farms, two at the entrance to the Cypre River.

Every time we have gone up this river this summer, the trout we have caught have been covered with sea lice, something we have never seen before. This picture of the most recent one caught (two days ago, Tues, 18th, August: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=117128040014) had at least 14 sea lice on it.

It even had sea lice on its tail and two on its head, one dripping over its mouth. We caught some trout two weeks ago and recorded the same thing.

We have heard that in Scotland where the fish farms are plentiful, the trout and most of the wild salmon have disappeared. We are catching most of these trout in fresh water quite far up the Cypre River and as you can see, the sea lice are surviving quite well on these poor trout.

We have a small video documenting where it was caught and all the sea lice on it. This is very alarming and the fact that these trout (cutthroat) are carrying the sea lice into the rivers where the salmonids are trying to survive is of great concern.

There were quite a few salmonid in the river's pools along with these trout and quite a few little trout living in the river as well. Everything is being negatively impacted by the fish farms in the vicinity of our rivers and streams and the fact that these sea lice can live on fish far up into the fresh water is of immediate concern. We have also noted that this year, the sea lice on the some of the returning salmon have extremely long tails of eggs, something not noticed before.

Wishing you all the best, Susanne Hare and Steve Lawson

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/new...clayoquot-sound-locals-ring-salmon-alarm.html
 
Nanaimo Daily News, 21st August 2009

Tories under fire for neglecting collapsed salmon stocks


Jorge Barrera, Canwest News Service

The Conservative government has been ignoring the collapse of British Columbia's sockeye salmon stocks that threatens to equal the environmental and economic impact of the demise of Newfoundland and Labrador's cod fishery, B.C. NDP MPs said Friday.

Their call came as B.C.'s salmon fishery comes to grips with the still unexplained disappearance of millions of sockeye salmon from the Fraser River, once known as a fertile spawning grounds for the fish.

"We are facing a critical collapse of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River," said Burnaby-New Westminster MP Peter Julian, NDP critic for the western fishery. " I was on the river a week and a half ago and it was eerie in the silence through the sonar monitoring equipment that is kept there . . . Essentially we are seeing a collapse of stocks that is equal in its magnitude on the economic and environmental front to the collapse of the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador."

Julian and Skeena Bulkley Valley NDP MP Nathan Cullen said Fisheries Minister Gail Shae has been "AWOL" on the issue and has visited the region only once to attend a fundraiser on Vancouver Island in July.

"I've talked to commercial, sport and native fishermen in my part of the world and they are not even sure who she is," said Cullen.

A spokeswoman for Shae said the minister's trip to the area did not include a fundraiser and she had meetings with stakeholders, including First Nations, and announced close to $1 million in funding for aquaculture and $1.7 million for the coast guard.

"The situation of the sockeye salmon stock is of great concern and dealing with it is our No. 1 priority at the moment," Nancy Bishay said in an e-mailed statement.

But the opposition said the Conservative government doesn't quite grasp the immensity of the crisis facing B.C. sockeye salmon, and wild salmon in general which, according to estimates, generates about $1.6 billion in revenue and 52,000 jobs on the West Coast.

They called on the government to increase funding for the salmon enhancement program, which focuses on hatcheries and restoration of habitat and has been cut over the years to $26 million, down from $37 million in 1990. They also said the federal government should provide financing for salmon fish farms to move away from open-cage to closed containment operations. Closed containment fish farms filter the water within the enclosures before it enters the watershed.

Bishay said one of the projects in Shae's funding announcement had a closed containment system component. She said the Conservative government committed $8 million over two years to the salmon enhancement program.

The NDP MPs also called for increased funding to Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientific resources to increase its ability to monitor the salmon's ocean cycle.

"They have cut all the funding for the department to actually go into the marine environment to count and assess the salmon stock. So they have no idea," said Cullen. "This lack of science has led to bad decisions. Poor management of this fishery will kill it off in the end. It is a fact because we have seen it in Canada."

Much debate has ensued over the cause of the collapse of the sockeye salmon. Factors such as sea lice picked up by wild salmon from farmed salmon, warmer river water temperatures which weaken the salmon, or temperature changes in the ocean reducing regular food sources, have been pinpointed as possible causes.

Shae's department was expecting up to 10.6 million sockeye to return to the Fraser, but only about 1.7 million are now expected to spawn in the watershed this summer.

Once an abundant resource that fed the world, years of overfishing destroyed cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=1917591
 
Nope wrong again AA,

Please explain the large runs during the time that salmon farms were in the Broughton, and the very small runs during the 50's and 60's when there were no salmon farms. Until you do you can remove #7 from your list.

And in addition, please stop posting other people's misguided oppinions. They are not scientific papers and are in no way evidence of sea lice impacts.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry



And in addition, please stop posting other people's misguided oppinions. They are not scientific papers and are in no way evidence of sea lice impacts.

PLEASE show me scientific proof that sea lice does no damage to fish
 
Sockeye, you post your opinions and they are no more "scientific":D

IMG_1445.jpg
 
agreed.You will never gain any ground here. The people that are in this forum love fishing, and they love wild fish, not farmed crap.
 
Been away, but still want to reply, Sockeyefry.
quote:Cuttle,

Yes I agree, that you cannot necessarily draw the conclusion that there is no effect. However,if you accept your logic, then you must also discard most of the NGO rhetoric against salmon farms. The Myers Ford study is now out the window, as well as most of Volpe and Orr's work. So which is it?
Not sure about what or why you are referring to Volpe and Orr. But, given what Ford and Meyers said in their global assessment; where ever there are salmon farms, sea lice levels are higher and populations of wild salmon are declining at a faster rate than where there are no salmon farms seems perfectly logical to me. Perhaps you could expound a bit more on why you disagree with the peer reviewers of that paper and consider their findings illogical.

You also keep asking for an explanation why the lowest returns of pinks to the Broughton occurred before the presence of salmon farms. Are you only looking at escapements? Or are you including harvests? Exploitation rates were a lot higher previous to the early nineties when fisheries management became a lot more risk averse and so have had a significant effect on the escapement levels in the past. I don't think there has been a directed commercial harvest of pinks in the Broughton since 2001.
 
Contamination will linger at salmon farm site, report says

Centre Cove facility degrades seabed 100 metres from pens

By Scott Simpson, Vancouver SunAugust 26, 2009



Toxic contaminants from a "notorious" Kyuquot Sound salmon farm are having a lasting, negative effect on the seabed in the farm's vicinity, according to a new provincial government report.

An August 2009 Environment Ministry study estimates that Centre Cove salmon farm will degrade seabed marine life as much as 100 metres from the site of the farm for 15 years dating from the farm's 2004 shutdown.

The report warns that the toxic effects from metals released from the farm, notably zinc and copper, could last significantly longer.

"It is notoriously one of the worst fish farms on the coast," David Suzuki Foundation fisheries biologist John Werring said in an interview, adding that an unspecified number of other salmon farms along the B.C. coast are believed to be causing similar effects -- "but we just don't know how many."

Werring said the province is considering regulatory changes that would make it easier for farms to discharge waste into the ocean.

Copper is part of an "anti-fouling" agent used to deter growth of algae and barnacles on sea pen nets, while zinc is present in fish food and subsequently defecated.

The report said that while oxygen-deficient organic material, notably fish waste, will eventually be flushed away, "metal toxicity" at Centre Cove is a persistent concern for so-called benthic organisms, including oysters and clams.

The west coast Vancouver Island salmon farm dates back to the 1980s, and was owned and operated by Marine Harvest from 1998 to 2004, when the company shut it down because low ocean-current speeds were not effective in dispersing contaminants escaping from the farm.

The environment ministry report said the seabed in the vicinity of most farms recovers in four to six months, but described the Centre Cove's seabed impact as "more severe."

The report also suggests that a few month's fallowing may not be long enough to allow the seabed to recover from metal contamination, in areas without strong currents to disperse farm waste.

Bernie Taekema, a senior aquaculture biologist with the environment ministry, said in an interview that Centre Cove has been studied annually since 2000 and that despite the persistence of contaminants, sea worms have colonized the area and appear to be contributing to its recovery.

Sharon Dedominicis, environmental sustainability manager for Marine Harvest Canada, described Centre Cove as a "non-typical" site compared to an ideal farming venue with good tidal flows and high oxygen levels.

"It's certainly not a place we'd choose ever again," Dedominicis said, adding that a typical Marine Harvest farm remediates in one to three months.

"Essentially, about 40 per cent of the company has been modified over the last five years or so, looking at improving benthic performance," she said.

She added that a conventional fallow period has been proven sufficient for seabed recovery at a typical fish farm.

"I would have to assume there are other farms in this sort of situation," said Stan Proboszcz, fisheries biologist for Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

"According to the province's Waste Management Act, this farm would be considered a contaminated site."

ssimpson@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
 
The Courier Islander, 26th August 2009

Time for inquiry is now

If you had an accountant that told you you had $11 million in the bank and a couple of years later said accountant said that, well actually, you only have about $2 million, what would you do?

And what then would you do if for an answer as to where the other money went said accountant simply shrugged the shoulders and told you "I don't know"?

You would call the police. You would report to them that you were probably part of a Ponzi scheme. And the accountant or investment advisor would face the full wrath of the law.

Such is the case with the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans. They have 'lost' 11 million sockeye, worth many more millions of dollars and they don't know why.

Well, we believe they do know why. At least some of them. But we also believe these employees can't tell us because they fear for their jobs and their security. We believe that the problem is that the ministry has continued with its decades long practice of silencing those who would dare offer an opinion that contravened that of the political equation.

It is time that we have a judicial inquiry into the operation of this ministry. The inquiry must have strong and legally binding guidelines that allow a free and unimpeded flow of information and opinion. We believe that ineptitude isn't the real problem with DFO, it's the Draconian managerial structure that licks the boots of the political masters at the expense of wild salmon.

- - -

Previous poll: Do you think Fisheries Minister Gail Shea is a secret agent working for the Norwegian government?

Yes: 81.48 % No: 18.53%

New Poll: Do we need a judicial inquiry in what's wrong with DFO?

Vote at www.courierislander.com

http://www2.canada.com/courierislan....html?id=b6696f1c-8cc3-4063-bcf1-36a137539d69
 
Don't know where the 15 years is based on but any research completed on salmon farm env. impacts show the sites returning to normal levels within a few years at max. This has been well documented and why the NGO's do not typically use it in their anti arguments. Basically they are using sea lice because it is the only one which they have s fighting chance on a discussion of facts.

The Myers study was shown to be flawed upon review due to the fact that they did not compare regions before and after salmon farm introduction. That is they did not compare the salmon farm impact to baseline data collected before the farms were put in place. To compare 2 geographically distinct regions and form a relevent comparison is not possible in this context. The comparison of the Bay of Fundy region rivers to the Miramichi seems on the surface to be a good comparison, I mean they are both in NB arent they. However, the physical characteristics or the two watersheds could not be more different. This was not taken into account. In addition, Myers could have chosen to compare the Bay of Fundy rivers in Charlotte county to the Atlantic Coast of NS. Here, the comparison would have shown that thye salmon stocks were better in the farnmed areas. The SW NS Rivers have been hit hard by acid raibn which has decimated almost all of the native salmon populations. Myers simply selected areas in a general proximity to the salmon farming areas which would make her comparions seem relevent, and in every case the farmed areas were worse than tghe non farm areas. Cmon Cuttle doesnt that make you a little suspicious of the motive behind the conclusion.

The Broughton escapement levels were low due to over fishing, and are higher in the absence of over fishing, and have returned to a normal average level since the halt to overfishing. See a pattern here Cuttle. Do I have to spell it out for you. Pinks low when overfished, higher when not overfished. Salmon farming did not effect the increase post overfishing.

Gunsmith,

You are correct, my opinions are no more scientific, but I am not publishing my opinions as facts in the media for public consumption. The media has a modicum of trust from people that what they print has been researched by editors to be correct. Most people accept printed word as fact, and should be presented as such. Unfortunately in todays media, that is not true. I reference the NY Times scandals of a few years ago where reporters printed bogus stories.

nedarb2

Read the post again. I am not saying that there is no impact, I am saying that these posts are based on opinion not fact.

Hey Rico,
I fish and love wild fish as well. Where did you get the notion I do notÉ
 
Hey Rico,
I fish and love wild fish as well. Where did you get the notion I do notÉ


I think if you cared even the slightest, you would not be pro fish farm. You would be like the rest of us saying to get that **** out of the water to closed containment. From there, grow all the toxic fish you want, just make sure the water you put back into the ocean is clean. This is a start to rebuilding salmon stocks, and you KNOW it.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

The Myers study was shown to be flawed upon review due to the fact that they did not compare regions before and after salmon farm introduction. That is they did not compare the salmon farm impact to baseline data collected before the farms were put in place.
Firstly, SF - NO, it is NOT necessary to do this analysis you suggest. Interesting, possibly informative, maybe even desirable - but NOT necessary. That's a different and/or companion study to the one Ford and Myer's did.

Instead, this is the intent and general methodology of the Myers and Ford study: "To determine population level impacts, we examined temporal trends in the abundance and survival of wild salmonids (Figure 1 and Figure S1). Our study contrasted trends in wild populations exposed to potential aquaculture impacts with those of populations not exposed." (Intro, p.1)

Secondly, it's probably impossible to do as you suggest- the "before" part of your suggestion. The fish farming industries were never held to this higher standard of environmental review BEFORE they damaged wild stocks.

We have been long hammering on the lack of precautionary science that should be done, and should have been done before open net-cages were ever allowed to operate - and discussed throughout this thread since it was started.

Thirdly, the only place I can think of where the Myers study was: "shown to be flawed" might have been the rhetoric on BC salmon growers assn website. This study was peer-reviewed, and published, SF.
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

To compare 2 geographically distinct regions and form a relevent comparison is not possible in this context.

BS, SF. Of course it is. It was even peer-reviewed. You may not like the significance of those findings because they put your industry in a bad light, but the rationale and methodology are sound.
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

The comparison of the Bay of Fundy region rivers to the Miramichi seems on the surface to be a good comparison, I mean they are both in NB arent they
Yes they are appropriately compared by area; as are the other watersheds separated into the other 9 regions that Ford and Myers looked-at:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/...RI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033.g001

Adult Returns of Wild Salmonids in Control (Black) and Exposed (Blue) Stocks, with Aquaculture Production (Red)
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

However, the physical characteristics or the two watersheds could not be more different. This was not taken into account.
So what, SF??? It was not a habitat study - it was a study that looked at changes to salmon numbers; not instream habitat comparisons which would only then tell you production potential - not what different population-level pressures happen in the ocean.

What you are instead doing here is what is called as "throwing out a red-herring", possibly because you don't know any better - or because you're trying to BS and mislead.
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

In addition, Myers could have chosen to compare the Bay of Fundy rivers in Charlotte county to the Atlantic Coast of NS. Here, the comparison would have shown that thye salmon stocks were better in the farnmed areas.
Actually, in the Atlantic area, they looked at 32 rivers all around the Atlantic provinces; and NO - the ones in the areas with farms were consistently lower than those w/o farms, and the decline in numbers was in-sync with the rise in production of aquaculture (see figure above).

It's pretty self-explanatory, SF - whether or not you like the authors conclusions: "Combining the regional estimates statistically, we find a reduction in survival or abundance of wild populations of more than 50% per generation on average, associated with salmon farming." (Author Summary, P. 0002).
 
The Westerly, 27th August 2009

Point missing from Chinook story

Dear Editor,

In regards to a Westerly News article reprinted in the Alberni Valley Times -- Reasons for decline of Chinook in Clayoquot Sound remain a mystery, August 20, 2009.

I am the chair of the Alberni Sport Fish Advisory Committee and sit with the area 24 (Clayoquot Sound) representative, Jay Mohl, at all Sport Fishing Advisory Board meetings. Jay represents the Tofino area well and is more concerned about the Clayoquot Chinook stocks than anyone mentioned in the article.

I am also the sport fish representative on the West Coast Aquatic Management Board and am very familiar with our area's Chinook issues.

To spend half an article talking about the sport catch affecting the Chinook returns in Clayoquot Sound is a waste of the readership's time and of paper.

The recreational fishery has negligible effect and there is catch data and stats to prove such. Recreational fishing plans have been crafted and modified each year to avoid harming any Clayoquot Chinook.

The Alaskans have been catching 50 per cent or more of our West Coast Vancouver Island Chinook for years. Why would only the Clayoquot stocks be seriously declining and not the Barkley nor Nootka Sound stocks?

For the article to not even mention the most probable cause of the continuing decline in the Clayoquot area Chinook -- open net fish farms, is more than an oversight.

With the wild and enhanced rivers and streams in Barkley Sound (with only two active fish farms and neither on migration routes) having relatively good returns despite climate change and ocean conditions and the Nootka Sound area also experiencing better than average returns, the obvious difference is the proliferation of open net fish farms in Clayoquot Sound. Twenty-seven sites and 22 active farms mostly on migration routes.

There is no doubt whatsoever that sea lice infection from wild fry having to pass by fish farms has a serious detrimental impact on their survival. The only real answer is closed containment. Cost cannot be a deterrent because the cost of losing our wild salmon is beyond measurement.

One of the potential causes being investigated of the millions of missing Fraser Sockeye this year is the Broughton area fish farms relative to out-migrating Sockeye fry.

The study done in the Dixon Sound area showed high (lethal) levels of lice from fish farms on thousands of out-migrating Chinook fry. All the enhancement and restoration work in the Clayoquot area rivers and streams is a waste of time and money if people don't face the facts and deal with the fish farms.

There are dozens of scientific study reports about open net fish farms and their effect on wild salmon stocks worldwide. When analyzed from an unbiased perspective there is no doubt of the damage and destruction to wild salmon populations these farms cause.

I would hope that your paper might look to do a follow up story investigating the effect of fish farms on your area's Chinook stocks.

Bob Cole, Port Alberni

Editor's Note: The Alberni Valley Times did not print the Westerly's article in its entirety. The full article can be found online at www.westerlynews.ca.

http://www2.canada.com/westerly/news/upfront/story.html?id=79a11464-0ea9-443b-ad3f-f34d9c6b7c7d
 
Whistler Question, 26th August 2009

Pay more attention to sea lice, group urges minister



Whistler – Sockeye salmon returns in the Fraser River system, and pink salmon in the Squamish River system, are expected to plummet this year, and a local sportfishing advisory group is concerned that federal officials aren’t paying enough attention to one of the root causes: sea lice from open-net fish farms in the Georgia Basin.

In a letter to John Weston, the Member of Parliament for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, the headers of the Squamish Lillooet Sportfish Advisory Committee (SLSAC) say recent statements by two high-ranking Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) officials appear to indicate that federal officials believe fish farms aren’t a major factor in this year’s poor early returns.

In the letter, Whistlerite Dave Brown, SLSAC vice-chair, expressed his dismay over the federal government’s failure to recognize fish farms’ contribution to the loss of sockeye, which is impacting Pemberton’s Birkenhead River.

“To see high ranking DFO representatives dismissing the impact of these salmon farms on the Fraser sockeye collapse is extremely concerning,” Brown wrote.

In a follow-up interview, Weston said he has since spoken to Brown and other stakeholders in an effort to relay information to Gail Shea, Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

“I’m trying to get the Minister of Fisheries to come here to talk and meet directly with stakeholders in the community so she hears firsthand the nature of the problem,” said Weston.

“Given that the priority of DFO is conservation, I’m hopeful that we can come up with some solutions.”

In an interview with The Question, Brown said there’s little question that sockeye run on the Birkenhead this year won’t even approach historic levels this year. He said there’s mounting evidence in research conducted by independent biologist Alexandra Morton and others that sea lice from fish farms are a significant part of the problem.

Sockeye normally start returning to the Birkenhead in late August, with the run peaking in September.

“We don’t know the numbers of salmon that will return, but judging by the numbers returning in other Fraser locations so far this year, it most likely be quite low, and a low return would be pretty devastating to this area,” Brown said.

“We’d like to see them give more attention to the issue of fish farms. Total containment onshore would be the ideal thing. Looking at location of fish farms relative to salmon migrations and the number of salmon migrating is another thing they could do as well.”

Weston said he’s not a fisheries expert but wants to bring Minister Shea to the riding to get the local perspective.

Pink salmon usually start making a freshwater return from the ocean to spawn in the Squamish River system in mid- to late-July every odd year, according to local angling guide and SLSAC member Clint Goyette. This year, he didn’t see his first pink salmon until Aug. 5 and the numbers are improving slowly, he said.

“It’s terrible. It’s much worse than the last cycle,” said Goyette, who has spent the last 10 years as a local angling guide.

“It’s been the toughest salmon fishing year that I’ve ever experienced.”

The numbers of pink salmon started to increase this week but nowhere near the numbers needed to lift a retention ban on freshwater pink salmon initiated in 2005 after a CN train derailment spilled 40,000 litres of caustic soda into the Cheakamus River, killing thousands of fish.

B.C. Ministry of Environment biologist Steve Rochetta said it’s too early in the season to give a final report on local populations, adding that the salmon also arrived late in other parts of the province such as Campbell River. Still, he is not encouraged by what he has seen so far.

“By the first week of September, if we don’t have pinks everywhere, then that’s a problem,” said Rochetta.

Theories for the generally low numbers of B.C. salmon have residents looking to the government for action. DFO officials have confirmed the return of 1.7 million sockeye to the Fraser River system despite expectations the run would yield more than 10.6 million sockeye.

While some theories point to climate change and rising water temperatures, others pinpoint fish farms as the culprit. Morton has sent a letter to federal Minister Shea explaining that she examined the previous run of sockeye after it left Fraser River and discovered some had up to 28 sea lice as they passed the salmon farms near Campbell River.

Squamish Streamkeeper Jack Cooley supports Morton’s assertions. Although Squamish isn’t normally home to sockeye, Cooley said its collapse does not bode well for other types of salmon returning to Squamish. For example, chum and coho salmon numbers were recently about 20 per cent of the norm.

“The fish farms affect us just as much as the sockeye that came out of the Fraser River because our fish will make a right turn, just like the sockeye, and go more or less on the right side of the Georgia Basin and hit farms on the east side of Quadra Island,” he said.

— With files from David Burke, The Question

http://www.whistlerquestion.com/art...re-attention-to-sea-lice-group-urges-minister
 
Vernon Morning Star News, 25th August 2009

Missing sockeye salmon raising concern

It’s even worse than they thought. Close to nine million sockeye salmon have gone missing.

Stan Proboszcz, a fish biologist with the science-based, non-profit Watershed Watch Salmon Society, says the consensus is that something happened during the early stages of the juvenile out- migration from the Fraser River.

“One of the theories is that food was limited for these juvenile fish,” Proboszcz says.

“We have ocean conditions which are changing quite rapidly these days, so there’s a lot of variability in such things as temperature.”

Proboszcz says water temperature can affect nutrients and food availability for fish.

“Another theory is that during the sockeye out-migrations, again when they’re small, is that these fish have to migrate through approximately 30 salmon farms before they get out to the open ocean.”

Proboszcz says there is evidence in B.C. and from around the world, that there is a sea lice issue.

A study published in 2008 by Alex Morton, a biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation found elevated levels of sea lice on juvenile sockeye near farms, he says.

“I think that there’s enough information to link sea lice as a potential factor that needs to be considered when examining the health of Fraser sockeye,” he says.

“I don’t think it’s solely one or the other (lack of food or sea lice) and I don’t think all the answers are known.”

Proboszcz says the huge discrepancy between the original forecast and the current one puts the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ ability to manage salmon stocks in doubt.

“The comments I’ve heard question the quality of the work of DFO,” he says. “People are beginning to question the ability of this agency to manage wild salmon stocks in a sustainable manner.”

But DFO area manager Barry Rosenberger says returns are based on a predictive model derived from a data bank of 50 years of information.

Pre-season runs are estimated on what would happen this year if the stock behaved as they normally would, for example encountered the same conditions and survival rates at various parts of their life.

“The key thing now is that we have a very good in-season test fishery of northern- and southern-route sockeye and test fisheries in the Fraser River,” he says.

“From the information gathered at those three sites, we get an in-season indication of what’s actually coming back and that’s what we use in deciding whether we have fisheries or not.”

He says this year’s is the most restricted First Nations fishery ever. Some of the early runs are completed and have come in very low, says Rosenberger, noting the mid season forecast for the Adams River has not yet been set.

But, he notes, this year is the lowest cycle for the Adams River, a year in which the average return is less than 5,000. However, the brood year four years ago was 20,000.

“The marine side of the equation is what has created the big difference in returns,” he says in agreement with Proboszcz.

“But the sea lice associated with fish farms cannot account for all the reduction.”

He points to the Skeena River sockeye return that was less than half the forecast and whose fish do not encounter fish farms, and pink salmon who are returning in large abundance across the B.C. coast this year, many of them are in the areas of fish farms.

“I think we need to look at this issue further,” he says, noting that DFO’s actions to protect the all-important salmon spawn when in-season tests showed a huge reduction in fish is indication that the organization is managing the stocks in a sustainable way.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/vernonmorningstar/news/54831837.html
 
Back
Top