N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agent,

Of course Sea Lice are of a great concern to the industry as well. The lice of course can affect the health and growth of their stock.

When you speak of Genetic pollution, it's interesting to note that probabaly one of the greatest contributors to the mixing of gene pools in Atlantic Cabnada was DFO. They would stock rivers from their hatcheries. However, they did not take the time to collect brood from each river, they did what was convenient and used the brood of the river the hatchery was located on to stock all the rivers within their stocking truck range. Talk about your genetic pollution.

Another great contributor was the ASF. Yes the Atlantic Salmon Federation who now decry the genetic pollution caused by fish farms. They of course conveniently forget that they were willing participants in all sorts of genetic research at their facility in St Andrews. They willingly took funding to assist industry to develop a better farm stock. They actually won Aquaculturist of the Year at the St Andrews Aquaculture fair. I am not sure of the year, but I believe it to be in the early 90's. Guess they make more money now being against Farmed salmon.

Farmers tend to try very hard to contain their stock. Funny story, one of the worst escapes of fish I have been involved with was with a CC system called the "Future SEA Bag". Very thin layer of ice cut a bag just like a knife, and it allowed 250,000 half lb. rainbows to escape.
 
Interesting study. I note they only tested treated Atlantic smolts, and not sea trout.

Another piece of data to note: there is mortality from sea lice from farms - about 1%. Not a big number, BUT could be a conservation issue when marine survival rates drop.

In the Pacific, for certain time periods - many salmon stocks have been exhibiting low marine survival rates of only 1-2%. Subtracting another percentage point from lice mortality from farms could seriously hurt these stocks at risk.

Like I said above: "Some years for some things – not too bad – especially if the wild stocks are at high enough numbers to take it. When the wild numbers drop – that additional environmental stress can and does have significant, severe population level effects."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DFO used to cut LWD (Large Woody Debris) out of creeks at one time here on the West Coast, as well as shoot orcas with machine guns.

It is an indication that science and the associated accumulation of knowledge is a work in progress; and we need an open, transparent scientifically-based inclusive process to properly manage our resources.

That hasn't been how DFO has been working.

Yes, I remember the ASF used to be open net-cage friendly. Then they got some experience under their belt, and used science to assess the impacts. They've deceided (like me) that the open netcage technology is just too risky for the future of wild salmon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it was because of availability? Sea Trout are really Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) second cousin to an Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), that go to sea.


I understand what you are saying regarding a small insignificant mortality in years of abundance becomes a big factor during lean times.
Another way to look at the 1% lice mortality is to find out what is causing the other 99% and deal with that. Unfortunately the causes of the 99% may be beyond our control, and maybe shutting down the farms to eliminate the 1% caused by Farm lice won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things.
 
Yes it is a work in progress and you can only make decisions based on the best knowledge availble to you at the time. That is part of the problem right now with the Fish Farm debate. There seem to me to be too much emotion on both sides, and mistrust. Just read through the posts here. It is very polarised and no one trusts the other enough to have open discussions. The fear of what you say may be used against you in the court of public opinion.

I think that net pens have a role, but that role should be reduced as much as economically possible. If you reduce the time the fish are at sea, and increase the times that the sites are empty, this can only reduce the impact they would have on not only the wild salmon and environment, but also the farmer benefits by breaking the effect site senescence cycles. This is where I see CC systems playing a part by doing the bulk of the rearing on land, and using the net pens to finish the product.
 
Agree with your above comments.

I was wondering what happened with those guys. Did Campbell River get cold enough for ice, or was it the Lime Kiln Bay site in NB?

Was there a new rainbow fishing derby afterwards?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For some that are following this thread and want a little back ground in the science here is a link to something I found on the internet. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01889.x/full
It's not some paper from the far away in fishfarm land but a little closer to us here on Vancouver Island.
It does bring up the question of what is happening with the Coho and why after 10 years of not being able to keep non-clipped we still have not got our Coho populations up.
 
"Let me ask you this question: To what camp does stalling the issues with deflection and lies work better for? Who is afraid of changing from the open net-cage technology?

Certainly our coastal communities want to be able to take advantage of our natural resources – stalling is continuing to deny access and vitality to our communities. These communities bear the brunt of any negative effects – NOT Vancouver, Ottawa or Oslo. The shareholders of these companies only want to see the largest return on their investment as possible. They don't bear the burden of living with the negative effects."

This mentality is what I really struggle with - Assuming all involved in aquaculture are willing to "deflect" and "lie" about what it is they do, in order to preserve the profits of "shareholders".

It is a simplistic, self-righteous and absurd view of the industry and insults the integrity of thousands of hardworking and honest people.

Your position relies on the idea that all who support a practice you disagree with lack the moral compass to recognize the supposed harm you feel exists - despite being unable to support your opinions or feelings with anything more than debatable theories which do not reflect the natural worlds empirical evidence.

It is this view that I will counter without reserve anywhere I see it - I find it ridiculous, especially on a forum populated by people who kill wild salmon for money or sport.

As I answered about my aquaculture history earlier I will also let you know that in the years prior to securing year-round work in a field that I enjoy immensely, I worked in the recreational sector.

I've worked places like Langara, Hakaii and Rivers Inlet, and fished to my heart's content in boats of all shape and size - it is something that has been very dear to me my entire life.

You can't simply divide it up into good and bad, taking the supposed moral high ground and assume that there aren't any people who might share your same passions and concerns in the other camp.

You can vilify and marginalize all you want, but until you have more than theories and feelings to justify your position you will simply be expressing an opinion.

My science vs. your science can go on forever - what I am asking you to show is the what, where, why and how of all these "impacts" you keep talking about.

My position is - If you can't show that aquaculture kills more wild salmon than any other currently accepted practice (like the release mortality rates of sport caught salmon for instance?) you don't have a leg to stand on when demanding that the practice must change.

I agree that science will be used to propose how an effect may happen, but if it is not significant enough to be measured you may have to adjust your perception of risk attributed to that activity.
 
No matter what you think or say, I oppose the fish farm for the same reasons I do not like stockyard, factory farming or penning up wild game for the reason that they create an environment in which disease and disease mutation thrive in. The food produced by these methods are not my idea of a good way to raise food.
 
Just when it looked as though me n sockeyefry were about to join hands and sing Kum-by-ya my Lord, in walks Sir Kid the brave throwing dead morts – AND defending poor net-cage farmers everywhere...

Well CK – I have been trying to maintain a civil, respectful, logical debate here. You are right, SF – never shall the twain meet.

You would be more effective, kid – if you read more of the science and educated yourself.

NEVER in any of my postings have I not acknowledged that there are some good people on the other side of the fence. My vitriol has been against the industry spokespersons, PR companies, and our own government civil servants. I understand fully that under the minor royalty, serfs toil in the pens to keep the lordships cash flow coming.

I also do not single-out the open net-pen industry as the only poor corporate model of revenue production. I have railed on about oil and pipelines, as well.

No matter your feelings of affection towards your fellow serfs, you are part of a very large corporation whose main preoccupation is to feed the shareholders and the stock market.

Our whole world economic structure is sickened by this affliction of greed and lack of accountability – do not feel you are either special or alone.

One last point I wish to add is that I hope the wild salmon runs persist in the future - way past our current world economic model – and I hope my great-great-great-grandkids will be able to harvest the bounty that lands on their doorstep w/o our intervention or interference, along with all the other creatures that depend upon wild salmon.
 
Just when it looked as though me n sockeyefry were about to join hands and sing Kum-by-ya my Lord, in walks Sir Kid the brave throwing dead morts – AND defending poor net-cage farmers everywhere...

Well CK – I have been trying to maintain a civil, respectful, logical debate here. You are right, SF – never shall the twain meet.

You would be more effective, kid – if you read more of the science and educated yourself.

NEVER in any of my postings have I not acknowledged that there are some good people on the other side of the fence. My vitriol has been against the industry spokespersons, PR companies, and our own government civil servants. I understand fully that under the minor royalty, serfs toil in the pens to keep the lordships cash flow coming.

I also do not single-out the open net-pen industry as the only poor corporate model of revenue production. I have railed on about oil and pipelines, as well.

No matter your feelings of affection towards your fellow serfs, you are part of a very large corporation whose main preoccupation is to feed the shareholders and the stock market.

Our whole world economic structure is sickened by this affliction of greed and lack of accountability – do not feel you are either special or alone.

One last point I wish to add is that I hope the wild salmon runs persist in the future - way past our current world economic model – and I hope my great-great-great-grandkids will be able to harvest the bounty that lands on their doorstep w/o our intervention or interference, along with all the other creatures that depend upon wild salmon.

Reminds me of this quote I saw the other day:

"A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that costs and risks are socialized to the extent possible while profit is privatized" - Noam Chomsky
 
Agent,

The escape was in the Bras d'Or lakes, which already have an established population of rainbows due to Government stocking and Aquaculture escapes in the 70's. Fishing was quite brisk that spring if I recall.

Ever see an article by Dr. Hugh Mitchell called "The Church of the Holy Wild Salmon"? It was basically trying to explain why people are so passionate about the protection of Wild Salmon that they sometimes lose perspective, and want protection measures implemented which are way beyond what would normally be required. I'll see if I can find a copy.

Fish4all,

Yep we get things like lice, but we don't want them...and the fish get sick. And yes we sometimes have to treat them, but we would prefer not to. Its a fact of life on any farm. That's why we vaccinate the fish against pathogens that we know exist in the ocean. We didn't put them there, but we spend millions of dollars protecting our stock from them. This vaccination also prevents the fish in the farms from increasing the amount of pathogens in the water columns.

GLG,

Journal articles that include Mathematical modelling of DFO data really worry me. I wonder about the validity of the conclusions when I read who the authors are. When avowed anti salmon farm researchers reach a conclusion through mathematical data massaging which indicate salmon farms harm coho populations, just colour me skeptical.
 
GLG,

Journal articles that include Mathematical modelling of DFO data really worry me. I wonder about the validity of the conclusions when I read who the authors are. When avowed anti salmon farm researchers reach a conclusion through mathematical data massaging which indicate salmon farms harm coho populations, just colour me skeptical.

Peer review is the gold standard. Facts vers opinion.
Show us the papers that prove this one wrong.
Read my sig
Till then we can mark you in the "Fishfarm Skeptic" camp?
 
GLG,

The only part of the study that you care about is that the conclusion matches your opinion.

A proper study would take Juvenile Coho salmon, treat half with Slice and leave the other half untreated. Tag them and release them. Record survival rates of returning adults and note if there were any differences in survival rates. Repeat for 10 years. That's how you tell if there is any Lice impact, not some farcical mathematic exercise reaching agenda driven conclusions.

Did you not read my previous post regarding the Irish study? This is the kind of work that has to be done in BC.
 
GLG,

The only part of the study that you care about is that the conclusion matches your opinion.

A proper study would take Juvenile Coho salmon, treat half with Slice and leave the other half untreated. Tag them and release them. Record survival rates of returning adults and note if there were any differences in survival rates. Repeat for 10 years. That's how you tell if there is any Lice impact, not some farcical mathematic exercise reaching agenda driven conclusions.

Did you not read my previous post regarding the Irish study? This is the kind of work that has to be done in BC.

Sockeye, this is the exact kind of studies that should have happened BEFORE any fish farms ever went in the water!!! There is spinning that happens on both sides of the argument....the difference is that one is fueled by a concern for our natural ecosystem and the other is purely greed. sick.
 
Sockeye, this is the exact kind of studies that should have happened BEFORE any fish farms ever went in the water!!! There is spinning that happens on both sides of the argument....the difference is that one is fueled by a concern for our natural ecosystem and the other is purely greed. sick.
I totally agree. Migratory patterns of smolts and backgound levels of sea lice are commonly NOT looked at as part of siting criteria - as far as I know. Instead an arbitrary 1 km radius is drawn from the mouth of a creek. Totally scientifically INdefensible siting criteria.

Only very few places on the coast that looked at background levels of sea lice BEFORE farms came-in:

http://www.livingoceans.org/sites/d...onFarming_sealice_on_juvenile_salmon_2008.jpg
http://skeenafisheries.ca/pdfs/pub_sx_juv_chtm_snd.pdf
http://content.imamu.edu.sa/Scholars/it/net/pub_gottesfeld_etal_2009_sea_lice_transfer.pdf
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1629/3141.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1672/3385.full
http://srdws.strathconard.ca/upload...es_Submissions/PH29_Information_Submitted.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016851
http://www.raincoast.org/wp-content...2012_Salmon-farms-as-source-of-lice_CJFAS.pdf
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Krkosek-and-Hilborn-2011-CJFAS.pdf
http://www.livingoceans.org/sites/default/files/reports/08_04_sea_lice_discovery_isl_study.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG,

The only part of the study that you care about is that the conclusion matches your opinion.

A proper study would take Juvenile Coho salmon, treat half with Slice and leave the other half untreated. Tag them and release them. Record survival rates of returning adults and note if there were any differences in survival rates. Repeat for 10 years. That's how you tell if there is any Lice impact, not some farcical mathematic exercise reaching agenda driven conclusions.

Did you not read my previous post regarding the Irish study? This is the kind of work that has to be done in BC.

Bang on - You've summed it up nicely.
Would love to see something like this study done in BC.
 
Bang on - You've summed it up nicely.
Would love to see something like this study done in BC.

CK, what are you waiting for? Why don't you get industry to up the funds, get an independent academic institution to do the research/study, publish the results and,voila your wish comes true!
 
Bang on - You've summed it up nicely.
Would love to see something like this study done in BC.

Agreed it's a study that should be done.. However lets remove all the farms while we do the study.

My skepticism with the pro farmer approval of this type of study is they are just buying time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top