40,000 escape

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

What are you suggesting Agent? That they reelased them for the insurance money? Accusing someone of fraud? You had better be careful with such wild accusations and / or insinuations.
Oh, you WANT "insinuations", then.

Okay. How about if that harvest cohort that was about to be harvested, was diseased? They wouldn't get full $$$ from the processor/distributer then. Right?

Maybe even have to pay to get them properly disposed of then, right?

What then if a hole was "accidently" cut in the nets by a farm diver - er, I mean by a seal, or even from an "unavoidable" accident like running a barge into the netting?

Would they get full market $$$ from their insurance company then?

Maybe, eh?

What then if release of diseased fish was more damaging to wild stocks then the release of non-diseased farm stock?

Does DFO charge them?

No?

Hmmm. Seems strange, does it not?

This is all, of course "hypothetical", and refers to no individual company or individual - because, as we all know - all fish farms and farm managers are above board.

And we know this NOT because we have independent 3rd party observers on the sites like is required by DFO in other industries like commercial fishing and/or environmental monitors in the heavy construction trades - BUT because we have the industry's word on this.
 
Good thoughts Aqua!

"This is all, of course "hypothetical"", but this is not, it has been reported that MHC has been suffering with "soft flesh" disease for quite some time and up to 50% of their salmon have been infected? That is right from MHN financial statements.

BTW... Not jumping on Odd Grydeland's bandwagon at all, but his number isn't to far off? Just for clarification: Not quite a million of those on the BC website is Chinook? There is only 550,981 Atlantic? 640,691 from Washington, for a total of 1,191,672, if I added right?
http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/escape/escape_reports.htm
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/atlantic/comcatch.htm

BC and WA both did try to plant Atlantic salmon years ago, but neither was successful. And you do know there is "wild" Atlantic salmon established in BC, from the "fish farm" escapes... and it has been proven, they use the same spawning grounds as Steelhead?
 
Good thoughts Aqua!

"This is all, of course "hypothetical"", but this is not, it has been reported that MHC has been suffering with "soft flesh" disease for quite some time and up to 50% of their salmon have been infected? That is right from MHN financial statements.

BTW... Not jumping on Odd Grydeland's bandwagon at all, but his number isn't to far off? Just for clarification: Not quite a million of those on the BC website is Chinook? There is only 550,981 Atlantic? 640,691 from Washington, for a total of 1,191,672, if I added right?
http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/escape/escape_reports.htm
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/atlantic/comcatch.htm

BC and WA both did try to plant Atlantic salmon years ago, but neither was successful. And you do know there is "wild" Atlantic salmon established in BC, from the "fish farm" escapes... and it has been proven, they use the same spawning grounds as Steelhead?
 
Thanks for pointing out my error, Charlie. I stand corrected on the the escapes of Atlantics. None the less, they are being caught every year in BC and as far away as Alaska indicating they are surviving in the wild. So, in my opinion, if the escapes continue, it is just a matter of time before more get established.
 
Actually you are right, Sitka, it is the province who does the fish escape investigations. Course that will all be changed in Feb. when DFO tales over.

Charlie, the "soft flesh" you speak of is called Kudoa. It is a naturally occuring parasite which affects all salmon both wild and farmed. It is only found in a few areas, and I heard the same thing, although not as bad as 50%, more like up to 15% in some farms.

Agent, the other thing about the fish insurance is that once a claim is made for a particular event, insurance companies usually remove it as a coverable incident, so they would only get rto do the "escape" thing once, then they either would not be insured for it, or it would be so costly that it would not be worth it.

I think they should be fined for the escape. I do not think that they should be given any special treatment, just like Wolf stated.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Actually you are right, Sitka, it is the province who does the fish escape investigations. Course that will all be changed in Feb. when DFO tales over.

Charlie, the "soft flesh" you speak of is called Kudoa. It is a naturally occuring parasite which affects all salmon both wild and farmed. It is only found in a few areas, and I heard the same thing, although not as bad as 50%, more like up to 15% in some farms.

Agent, the other thing about the fish insurance is that once a claim is made for a particular event, insurance companies usually remove it as a coverable incident, so they would only get rto do the "escape" thing once, then they either would not be insured for it, or it would be so costly that it would not be worth it.

I think they should be fined for the escape. I do not think that they should be given any special treatment, just like Wolf stated.
That would be correct, it would be "Kudoa" aka "soft flesh syndrome"!

"The second most prevalent parasite in farmed salmon </u> is kudoa thyrsites, commonly called “soft flesh syndrome.” This microscopic insect breaks down muscle fiber in fish, turning the flesh to a jelly-like consistency and making it commercially worthless.</u> Deterioration occurs rapidly after salmon are killed and there is no known cure. Kudoa contamination is usually first detected when salmon are slaughtered and processed. Outbreaks have forced many salmon producers to offer discounts or credits for infected fish. According to IntraFish, an industry newspaper, the kudoa parasite affects 20–50 percent of all salmon produced in British Columbia</u>, costing the industry there at least $30 to $40 million annually. Atlantic salmon, the predominant commercial stock for faming operations, are more vulnerable </u> to the kudoa parasite than Pacific salmon." http://www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/diseases.pdf

"This causes losses to both aquaculture operations, for instance, where salmon are being reared in "sea-pens</u>", and to capture fisheries. Losses are both direct, through the degradation of fish products, and indirectly, through the perception of the consumer that fish from a particular area are of a lower quality. The intensity of K. thyrsites infection is positively correlated with the severity of flesh softening in Atlantic salmon fillets</u>[4]. Softening of flesh always occurred with heavily infected fillets, while lightly infected fillets showed no softening. Prevention and/or control of K. thyrsites infections is problematic especially in open water netpens</u>. Currently there are no available treatments." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudoa_thyrsites

So, now that we have that cleared up... what does Marine Harvest Norway have to say about "Kudoa", let's look at their "2008 Annual report": http://hugin.info/209/R/1310360/303078.pdf

"Quality issues related to soft flesh caused discards and complaints amounting to NOK 26 million in 2008</u>. Mortality from a major algae bloom and a sea lion attack resulted in exceptional costs in the amount of NOK 9 million for the year. Actions to strengthen the operational performance were taken towards the end of the year. Operational EBI"

Hey, but it appears things are getting better, if you look at their "Interim Report Q2 2009": http://hugin.info/209/R/1334763/317024.pdf

"Total exceptional items included in the operational EBIT amounted to NOK 23 million in the second quarter and relates to discards and claims from Kudoa (soft flesh).

As a result of closure of two fresh water sites, impaired assets have been accounted for in the amount of NOK 5 million.

The average mortality rate was 0.22% per month </u> in the quarter, which is 0.18 percentage points lower than in the same period last year</u>. With the exception of Kudoa presence, the biological situation remains satisfactory. Slow sea water growth has been recorded in some sites in the spring and summer of 2009."

I did underline some points and yes it apprears things are getting better - mortality is at .22% per month which is down .18% from same period last year! Yep, I still have to admit...Good thoughts Agentaqua!
 
quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

Odd forgot to mention that most farms insure their fish against loss.

So, they may NOT be out of making profits over this loss of fish...

Correction AA: most farmers do NOT insure their fish. Its become way too expensive. The company and the sea lions usually eat the loss.
 
quote:Originally posted by cuttlefish

Thanks for pointing out my error, Charlie. I stand corrected on the the escapes of Atlantics. None the less, they are being caught every year in BC and as far away as Alaska indicating they are surviving in the wild. So, in my opinion, if the escapes continue, it is just a matter of time before more get established.

whats really scary is that DFO, Alaska and the Russians intentionally release a billion or so diseased smolts into the wild every year for decades. its called salmon enhancement. Rather than treat with antibiotics they release them to save money. I guess its better than releasing healthy smolts that may live to outcompete wild counterparts for food and genetically pollute them through mating. Now THAT's scary.

Really, salmon enhancement, is the worst type of fish farming imaginable- and it doesn't "work", if by "work" you mean it re-establishes salmon runs to historic levels (eg pre 1970's). Big, healthy, docile, pellet-fed domesticated atlantics escaping into the wild?, a million or so over 20 years?, thats NOT scary at all.
 
quote:Originally posted by cuttlefish

Thanks for pointing out my error, Charlie. I stand corrected on the the escapes of Atlantics. None the less, they are being caught every year in BC and as far away as Alaska indicating they are surviving in the wild. So, in my opinion, if the escapes continue, it is just a matter of time before more get established.

Don't hold your breath Cuttlefish. We cant even successfully (by success i mean re-establishing self sustaining populations to pre 1970 levels) reintroduce wild Pacifics into the pacific or wild atlantics into the Atlantic after 50 years of intensively trying through the release of BILLIONs of smolts in the name of salmon enhancement.

Lets just say that one day we did find a stream of colonized Atlantics in BC. How difficult do you think it would be to depopulate it? I'd say about 2 weeks with a gill net.It would be like finding a colony of chickens or cows in the forest- BIG DEAL!!! Our fishermen are geniuses when it comes to exterminating salmon runs.
 
You have obviously not even the slightest clue what salmon enhancement is, handee. But nobody actually expected any different - based on your previous nonsense. [xx(]
 
Calm Sea,

Actually Handee is quite accurate in his description of the Alaskan model for salmon enhancement.

See the confusion here is with the definition. Enhancement in Canada means DFO, and in some cases local fish and game clubs doing work to preverve salmon stock in particular rivers, giving nature a hand to maintain river stocks. Typical releases are measured in millions of fry and smolt

In Alaska, enhancement means "commercial fishery augmentation". They release billions of fry with the sole purpose of creating and increasing the salmons runs for commercial fisheries interests. Check out www.ssraa.org or www.nsraa.org, These are the websites for the aquaculture associations in SE Alaska. These are associations of commercial fisherman who operate hatcheries to "enhance" their commercial fisheries

They hatch out millions of let say Chums. They place net pens (the same ones BTW that are used in BC) in areas where they want to enhance the commercial fishing oppurtunities and rear the fry in these locations. Typically from early Feb. to May. Then they release the fry into the saltwater. The selection of the fry rearing areas is determined by commercial fisheries, not the local river stocks. Sometimes the pens are located in areas where there are no suitable spawning streams.

So you can see that Handee is quite right. This is a form of salmon aquaculture known as sea ranching. They use the exact same hatchery techniques as those used in BC, feed the same feed, which in fact is made in BC, and shipped to Alaska. They do however have access to alot more and different therapeutants than in Canada. The feed mills have to get special permission to make the medicated feed as it far exceeds the amounts regulated for use in Canada. There was a professor in Anchorage who a few years back suggested that the number of enhamcement fry released actually were having a negative impact on the natural wild salmon by over grazing the gulf of alaska, and was actually causing natural river stocks to decline. He of course was "shouted" down by the powerful commercial fishing lobby for suggesting such a thing, and the State quickly did some "studies" to disprove his findings. Funny eh? Maybe that's what happened to the sockeye this year? Isn't the Skeena also down this year for Sockeye returns? Maybe this is what the new inquiry should be looking at.
 
NSRAA and SSRAA total well less than 20% of Alaska’ enhancement program. Hmm… your statement might be “just” a tad bit and little misleading? You are looking at two programs out of at least 16 enhancement programs that represent (totally) well under 20% of Alaska’s enhancement programs.. If you want to understand Alaska’s enhancement program you probably should look at it all, don’t you think? Start reading, you can start here:
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fmr09-08.pdf
http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/finfish/salmon/catchval/blusheet/08exvesl.php
http://www.genetics.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/publish/posters/chinook_migration_03.pdf
http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/region2//finfish/salmon/bbay/brbpos09.pdf
http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/index.htm

quote:They use the exact same hatchery techniques as those used in BC, feed the same feed, which in fact is made in BC, and shipped to Alaska.
Emphasis, on “hatchery techniques”!

There is a distinct difference between “Alaska’s “ranching” and BC’s “Atlantic fish farming”! Is the US, Alaska, Washington doing everything right? No, but compared to DFO…?

quote:Isn't the Skeena also down this year for Sockeye returns? Maybe this is what the new inquiry should be looking at.
Another hmm… I don’t believe the Skeena was really down this year, was it? Since the “actual” return was “higher” than DFO “projected”! But, that fishery is a completely different story… We all know what is happening to those fish, don’t we? Just so you know, I am very “OKAY” with an inquiry into Marine Harvest pratices! That company needs to “clean up” its act or "kicked out"!!!!!!!!!!!! :(:(

quote:So you can see that Handee is quite right.
Not really?

quote:There was a professor in Anchorage who a few years back suggested that the number of enhancement fry released actually were having a negative impact on the natural wild salmon by over grazing the gulf of Alaska, and was actually causing natural river stocks to decline. He of course was "shouted" down by the powerful commercial fishing lobby for suggesting such a thing, and the State quickly did some "studies" to disprove his findings. Funny eh?
No it’s kind of sad, but does sound like a typical Marine Harvest “fish farm” tactic, doesn't it?
 
Charlie,

SSRAA and NSRAA are the ones I am most familiar with. I know they are not the only ones involved with this. There are similar associations right up to PWSAC in Prince William Sound. I am quite familiar with the Alaskan system, and their hatchery practices, and probably know more than you will find in the ADF&G websites.

The point I was making is that even though they are both called enhancement, the end goal of both programs is radically different.

".....Another hmm… I don’t believe the Skeena was really down this year, was it? Since the “actual” return was “higher” than DFO “projected”!...."

I had heard it reported that the Skeena was up and others said it was down. I don't know the right number, thought you or someone else might

"......But, that fishery is a completely different story… We all know what is happening to those fish, don’t we?....."

Actually Charlie I don't know what is happening to the Skeena fish?

"....Just so you know, I am very “OKAY” with an inquiry into Marine Harvest pratices! That company needs to “clean up” its act or "kicked out"!!!!!!!!!!!!....."

I don't know about an inquiry into MH practices. I would suggest as Agent has always said proper regulations upheld by a third party monitor. I do agree that if they do not "clean up their act" that they should be punished, which could include expulsion. You see fish farmers do not want poor corporate citizens ruining it for the rest either.
 
quote:Originally posted by handee

quote:Originally posted by cuttlefish

Thanks for pointing out my error, Charlie. I stand corrected on the the escapes of Atlantics. None the less, they are being caught every year in BC and as far away as Alaska indicating they are surviving in the wild. So, in my opinion, if the escapes continue, it is just a matter of time before more get established.

Don't hold your breath Cuttlefish. We cant even successfully (by success i mean re-establishing self sustaining populations to pre 1970 levels) reintroduce wild Pacifics into the pacific or wild atlantics into the Atlantic after 50 years of intensively trying through the release of BILLIONs of smolts in the name of salmon enhancement.

Lets just say that one day we did find a stream of colonized Atlantics in BC. How difficult do you think it would be to depopulate it? I'd say about 2 weeks with a gill net.It would be like finding a colony of chickens or cows in the forest- BIG DEAL!!! Our fishermen are geniuses when it comes to exterminating salmon runs.

No, don't worry, just hire DFO to "manage" the Atlantics.

Problem solves.


Last Chance Fishing Adventures

www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com
 
No cents to recover fish
Dan MacLennan, Courier-Islander
Published: Thursday, November 05, 2009

The response to last month's Marine Harvest fish farm escape calls into question the company's commitment to recover farmed fish from the wild.

That's how biologist Alexandra Morton, a well known open-net-cage opponent, views the Oct. 21 escape of Atlantic salmon from the company's Port Elizabeth farm in the Broughton Archipelago area. Both the company and a commercial fisher on scene agree large numbers of the escaped Atlantics schooled outside the farm for up to 10 hours after the escape but there was no recapture effort until after they'd largely dispersed into the wild.

On Oct. 23, two days after the escape was discovered, Marine Harvest issued a news release saying about 40,000 mature Atlantics had escaped from several holes in two pens. The release stated "a vessel is on site for recapture efforts."

What the release did not state is that thousands of the escapees that circled outside the pens for hours, were gone by the time the designated recovery seiner arrived from Campbell River. James Walkus, of Port Hardy-based James Walkus Fishing Co., was on the scene with two of his six vessels including the Kristin Joye, a seiner, shortly after the escape was noticed on the Wednesday.

"They were all fairly schooled up," he told the Courier-Islander. "It just hung right around one of my boats, the Pacific Joye. With the lights on the school stayed right by them for the duration of a night." Walkus said the school stayed together for about 10 hours.

"Right then it looked fairly easy (to catch them)," he said. "I don't know what the results would have been like if the bottom was rocky but we would have definitely made an attempt. We would have loved to have made an attempt to rescue the fish there. I think we would have had an opportunity to catch a fair chunk of it."

Walkus thought the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had refused to give permission for an unapproved boat to fish the Atlantics, but Marine Harvest spokesman Clare Backman says DFO was never asked if the Kristin Joye could attempt to recover the fish.

Backman explained DFO regulations require every fish farm company to have a ZZA licence identifying specific fishing vessels and equipment to be used in the recovery of escaped fish. He said Walkus' boats weren't on the licence. Instead, the Pacific Faith, based in Campbell River, was called in to do the job.

"The question came up about whether (the Kristin Joye) might start fishing," Backman said. "Unfortunately, that boat was not one of the ones listed on the licence. That's why the boat didn't start fishing. We had the other boat on its way, so rather than use a boat that wasn't cleared, we had to use one of the boats that was on the licence."

But the Pacific Faith didn't arrive at the farm until the next afternoon, after the main school of escaped Atlantics was gone. The Pacific Faith recovered less than 1,200 of the 40,000 escapees. Backman estimated the lost Port Elizabeth fish were worth a million dollars or more.

After the escape, Morton said she couldn't understand why Marine Harvest didn't do more to recover such a large investment when it was swimming just outside the pens. But Backman says the fish lost all their commercial value to Marine Harvest the moment they escaped.

"When a fish has been outside the net and it's recovered, it doesn't enter into our harvest stream," he said. "Unfortunately, as odd as it sounds, we can't ensure 100 per cent containment of our fish. "One of the things that we maintain is full traceability from egg to plate. We always maintain that we've had full control and security for the product security and quality over the animal, right through. Once it's left the pen, when we do recover them, we can't put them into the stream with the same confidence. It could always be argued that those fish were outside the pen for a period of time - even though it might seem to some people a little bit ridiculous if it was a few hours only - but we ascribe to pretty high standards for our fish."

Backman was asked if that didn't remove incentive for the company to recover escaped fish. "I think the stronger incentive that we have is to maintain the confidence that we're doing whatever we can to recover these animals and to reduce any real or public concern about negative impacts on the environment," he said. "That's what the ZZA licence was initially put in place for. Yes, there's not a financial incentive to recover the fish, but here in BC it's a lot more than just the financial aspects when something like this occurs. We all want to make sure that everything's done to reduce the environmental impacts."

Backman said Marine Harvest will talk with DFO about possible changes to the regulations surrounding recovery of escaped fish. "We need to be able to have the ability to make some changes to the licence when opportunities for other recovery become available," he said. Morton says the Marine Harvest policy explains a lot.

"Suddenly this whole thing makes a lot more sense, because if you've got a boat on scene that's capable of recapturing these fish, you'd think that the priority would be to recapture them," she said. "It's not in their financial interest to recapture these fish, so they will do whatever government asks them and they'll do nothing more. So calling the Pacific Faith all the way up from Campbell River is what they decided to do.

"They knew they were going to lose these fish. They knew these fish were going to disperse because they've been through these escapes many times. "They follow the letter of the law but they create an environmental disaster. "There's something very wrong with the whole management regime of this industry that would allow this to happen. If you could physically get these animals out of the wild and you don't do it, the fault lies with both government and Marine Harvest. They are not doing everything they can to prevent these fish from dispersing to the wild."

Morton said more financial incentive is needed in the form of "enormous fines for every single fish that gets out." The provincial ministry of Agriculture and Lands said it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing investigation. DFO said it was not asked if the Kirstin Joye could fish the Atlantics.


© Courier-Islander (Campbell River) 2009


http://www2.canada.com/courierislander/news/story.html?id=f9f14ac4-9a58-427c-a4a9-215eaeb69d88
 
Yep, I rest my case!
The U.S., we had our "Watergate"... B.C. has their "Salmongate"... or should we call it "Marine Harvestgate"?
 
quote:...but we ascribe to pretty high standards for our fish...

And that's where the industry sharply stops - no effort whatsoever beyond their fish. Their fish, their money and the rest doesn't matter. And that's why they need to go. No conscience, no ethics. And unfortunately our government doesn't require it either. What is wrong with this world, he? [xx(]

Here we stand years after and wonder how could thinking people let all the buffalo get slaughtered, the indians get massacred and how could Hitler come to rise and kill in the center of civilized Europe? In years to come people will wonder how such blantant ignorance towards such a precious resource as the Pacific Salmon could have been tolerated and subsisted. And what is our answer to this question now?
 
Because there are rules in place, and procedures to follow, companies usually stick to the protcols in these situations. While it looks negilgent on MH's part to not have used the vessels if they were indeed on site, the possiblity of further ramifications had a recovery attempt gone wrong were worse. In other words, had the boats caprured some Pink fry or coho adults in the process of recovery, then Morton would be in the press condemning this action as well.

Kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.
 
and that sums up the problem with open pen. Problems arise, and then it isn't their fault all of a sudden. Thanks for clearing that up sockeye.
I guess the moral of the story is, if in closed containment = no problems. If you don't like it? Get out!!
 
Back
Top