Aquaculture; improving????

MORE:
As assessment of the impact of hatcheries on wild salmon in the US found that evidence for pathogen transmission between farmed and wild fish was equivocal (Naish et al. 2007). Although Kurath and Winton (2011) provide evidence for greater wild to farmed transmission of certain viruses, there is support for a directional transfer of parasites from farmed to wild fish (Taranger et al. 2015). Although disease monitoring among captive populations (e.g., hatcheries) is routine, surveillance for disease in free-ranging populations is usually synoptic, anecdotal, or not performed at all, and represents a major information gap in understanding the interaction of farmed fish with wild fish. Furthermore, reduced fitness for sick wild fish is expected to make them vulnerable to predation and other hazards that rapidly remove them from observation. Host tropism is an important consideration for horizontal transmission between farmed and wild fish of different species. Some species are more vulnerable to developing disease upon infection. For example, coho and Chinook salmon are more vulnerable to bacterial kidney disease (caused by Renibacterium salmoninarum than Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout (Starliper et al. 1997).

The risk of exotic or introduced pathogen exposure is substantially reduced by the use of native fish, initially cultured in a pathogen-free setting. However, if the farmed fish become infected by wild fish or pathogens present in the environment, the high density of farmed fish within net pens could amplify transmission within net pens, as well as to wild fish in proximity to the pens. Numerous risk reduction measures mentioned above have been implemented by Cooke Aquaculture to reduce pathogen exposure (e.g., vaccination, judicious use of multiple antibiotics, biosecurity measures to limit pathogen spread, fallow period, an all-in-all-out operation, etc.). Furthermore, the additional measures mandated by WDFW in association with their January 2020 Aquaculture Permit are likely to minimize the risks even further by ensuring timely reporting and increased accountability. Based on the disease history for the PS net pens and the information considered above, we believe the consequences of response of all listed species exposed to pathogens are likely to be low.
 
and on the clearly flawed & misleading Marty PRv assertions that they referenced as quoted in post 2179 above:
 

Attachments

  • Comment on G Marty document.pdf
    191.3 KB · Views: 5
We already established that high density is bad for disease as well as sea lice negatively impact wild salmon. We also have agreed that they are NOT driving forces in salmon abundance.

The crusade to down right remove the industry is what I disagree with. Which seems to dominate most of the media coverage. Altho finding workable solutions like farming native species (sable fish, steelhead ect) is apparently just PR language for shareholders.I think pointing fingers like that just degrades the discussion.

Its also part of a board theme we see being played across this province is the removal of access to our resources. That is obviously not a positive think when looking to gain access to things like MSF. The response from government will be, why would we give you access when removing everyone else's. Perhaps we have even dug our own grave.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it appears ever more likely that the industry and it's massive PR machine along with the collusion of upper DFO officials have dug their own grave by continually lying and never voluntarily adopting many of the changes I and others have been saying for years but instead vilifying any inconvenient data as coming from evil "activists" thereby discounting any outside input and keeping the dialogue elevated and acrimonious purposely.

It is even more sad that they have drug innocent farm workers with them in their massive and lengthy failures. I do feel for them in their current realities.

But ALL industries have changed over time. ALL have had to adapt to numerous pressures & changes - not the least of which is the stock market - but it the only driver that really has teeth with some companies.

Unfortunately corruption lies deep within some regulatory bodies - incl the top end of DFO. Unfortunately those unaccountable bureaucrats will live out their time in the federal service with great salaries and great pensions - unlike the working stiffs on the farms. In a fair World - we would hold those largely unknown decision makers accountable.

I think it is time to support the transition of the industry - including it's front-line workers.
 
Last edited:
I can't support transition without a plan and right now "transition" is a fancy word created by the paid PR ENGOs for the end of the industry in BC (expect for perhaps the lower mainland, where on land makes some sense). Tho that wont help small coastal community's But according to the environmentalist on the radio today were all suppose to live in big apartments and walk to work anyways.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for gas's guzzling, wild fishing bonking sports fishermen these days.
 
yep - Different words get hijacked to match some peoples narrative - like "activist", or "sustainable" as 2 more examples by both industry and their once lapdog DFO.

One of the biggest problem that resource-based communities always face is the boom and eventual bust of cycles. One does not see those realities proudly displayed on the BCSFA brochures, neither. At some point in the life span of this industry people have to make a choice for either wild salmon or farmed - another reality again not displayed on the colour brochures of this industry.

That has very much been the legacy of this industry in the Atlantic - in both Scotland and New Brunswick as 2 examples. But there they really have no wild salmon left and really few other choices. Cod also tanked, as well, among others. Lobsters left, maybe.

And no - not all of these crashes are the responsibility in part or whole of this industry. But some are. And at some point one has to make that tough choice on the method of operation - the open net-cage - which is really the problem, or... the elephant in the room.

We still (so far) have salmon here on this coast - some 2000 times that or better of what is left in the Atlantic w Atlantic salmon. That to me is the priority for the future - and the obvious choice.
 
Conclusions:
• multiple lines of evidence strongly that where juvenile salmonids migrate through areas of concentrated fish farms in southwestern British Columbia, there have been largescale collapses over many different species, and populations, for Gulf of Georgia, Fraser River and some west coast Vancouver Island watersheds
• this has been the most catastrophic aquatic ecosystem collapse in the history of British Columbia and the evidence points to the proliferation of fish farms, in timing and location, in southwestern British Columbia.
 
Conclusions:
• multiple lines of evidence strongly that where juvenile salmonids migrate through areas of concentrated fish farms in southwestern British Columbia, there have been largescale collapses over many different species, and populations, for Gulf of Georgia, Fraser River and some west coast Vancouver Island watersheds
• this has been the most catastrophic aquatic ecosystem collapse in the history of British Columbia and the evidence points to the proliferation of fish farms, in timing and location, in southwestern British Columbia.

I've seen that same correlative evidence in justification for a seal and sea lion harvest.
 
And... (drum roll please) the expected narrative from industry pundits is always: "Correlation does not necessarily mean causation", which is true - except when of course - it does mean causation.

There is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. And in the early stages of understanding cancer the same PR firms that later worked for ONC industry, earlier worked for the cigarette companies (e.g. Hill and Know-nothing) - and they used the same excuse not to do or change anything as a stalling strategy in the same way. I don't think anyone today would claim "Correlation does not necessarily mean causation" in regards to the relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

There are additional statistical methods to determine relationships such as: multivariate stats, models to determine statistical power, and even looking @ the R2 value of a correlation. But, I have NEVER heard of the conversation about correlation going past the dismissive speaking notes from this industry into those additional options, neither. Kind of embarrassing and too revealing to do so I expect.

Nor have I ever heard the industry admitting they should be bound by the Precautionary Principle/Approach, neither. They - like their promoters and unfortunately regulators DFO - tend to run out the door when one mentions this, as well.

And yes Dave - ocean-wide - there has been a reduction in OSRs in the past 20 years or so. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, there have been subtle and not-so-subtle differences in OSRs by LOCATION in that same timeframe - and that was what was looked at in this review - if one wishes to actually read it.
 
Last edited:
And... (drum roll please) the expected narrative from industry pundits is always: "Correlation does not necessarily mean causation", which is true - except when of course - it does mean causation.

There is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. And in the early stages of understanding cancer the same PR firms that later worked for ONC industry, earlier worked for the cigarette companies (e.g. Hill and Know-nothing) - and they used the same excuse not to do or change anything as a stalling strategy in the same way. I don't think anyone today would claim "Correlation does not necessarily mean causation" in regards to the relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

There are additional statistical methods to determine relationships such as: multivariate stats, models to determine statistical power, and even looking @ the R2 value of a correlation. But, I have NEVER heard of the conversation about correlation going past the dismissive speaking notes from this industry into those additional options, neither. Kind of embarrassing and too revealing to do so I expect.

Nor have I ever heard the industry admitting they should be bound by the Precautionary Principle/Approach, neither. They - like their promoters and unfortunately regulators DFO - tend to run out the door when one mentions this, as well.

And yes Dave - ocean-wide - there has been a reduction in OSRs in the past 20 years or so. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, there have been subtle and not-so-subtle differences in OSRs by LOCATION in that same timeframe - and that was what was looked at in this review - if one wishes to actually read it.

well if it is true then we should start seeing a number of those areas where FF has now been reduced greatly increase.
 
I believe that is all within our collective hopes for the juveniles from the watersheds of origin that use the Discovery Islands area where the farms were removed (only area I know) - as was the intent of one of Cohen's recommendations. Keeping in mind of course the issues described in post #2162:
 
more examples World-wide: similar issues with shifting burden of proof and monitoring and other issues described in post #2162:
The world-famous sea trout angling fishery at Loch Maree collapsed from 1988 and has not recovered. Intensive salmon farming began in saltwater Loch Ewe in Wester Ross, NW Scotland, in 1987 and has continued there:


already preparing the narrative if they don't increase.
 
well if it is true then we should start seeing a number of those areas where FF has now been reduced greatly increase.
At this stage “reduced” doesn’t cut it and as far as I know it’s “removed” that is to take place. What is reduction of fish farms in the Broughton up to this point?
 
should not be a hope if that correlative info is accurate representation then we should be seeing big changes increases soon. Should see some big reversals in next 8 years
Hopefully it’s not too late as when a certain threshold is reached it may be irreversible. When they actually remove the Fish Farms we will see a rebound in Wild Salmon with some being quicker than others depending on how their current numbers are.
 
Hopefully it’s not too late as when a certain threshold is reached it may be irreversible. When they actually remove the Fish Farms we will see a rebound in Wild Salmon with some being quicker than others depending on how their current numbers are.
Assuming of course the BB slide is fixed, lol! Until that problem is solved the ff argument is silly.
 
Back
Top