Aquaculture; improving????

[agentaqua]

Ya - speaking of absorbing and regurgitating speaking notes - this time from the BCSFA & Seawest snooze - I know it makes it easier to discount legit critiques by labelling any debate as only a 2-sided black and white PR war between the "antis" elite and the presumably non-antis disregarding of course the fact that the industry is comprised of multinational foreign corporations.

The debate is far from that even-sided in the published sciences tho - prob about +1000 published journal articles proving impacts from sea lice, from introduced diseases, etc.. It is also far from that in the real World with wild/cultured stock interactions. The debate is only on how severe those impacts are and how they happen. As the body of evidence builds it is becoming increasing difficult for industry pundits and the compromised people in DFO Aquaculture to ignore and obfuscate sharply contrasted with the acceptance and validation this independent science has been afforded in our own court system.

And there are literally hundreds of independent researchers working on wild-cultured stocks World-wide - not just the "evil" Alex. In BC alone there are at least a couple dozen including Alan Gottesfeld, Bart Proctor, Stephane Peacock, Corey Peet, Martin Krkošek, John Volpe, Brendan Connors, Michael Price, Stan Proboszcz, Neil Frazer, Emiliano Di Cicco, Brian Riddell, Larry Dill, Craig Orr, Kristi Miller-Saunders, Roger Dunlop, Sean Godwin, Andrew Bateman, Gideon Mordecai, the Kibenges, etc. If you aren't too afraid to learn - you can google them and their research. For those who are already driven to self-educate and stay on top of this topic - they should be already familiar names.

The anti label & polarization reminds me of the global warming false debate - and in fact some of the same PR firms were involved in that debate as well - Hill and Know Nothing has also been used by the ONP industry. A news release from the BCSFA and DFO and some prayer beads - and all is suddenly well again. Nothing to see here folks - move along.

No thanks SF. Not moving along. The basic technology remains the same wrt potential and realized impacts to adjacent wild stocks since the open net pens are still open. That should be a simple, practical explanation that should be easy to understand and absorb. Even for industry folks. Or there's the prayer beads...

 

[SpringFever552]

Its not called "global warming" any more had to change it to "climate change "

 

[James Costello]

Ya - speaking of absorbing and regurgitating speaking notes - this time from the BCSFA & Seawest snooze - I know it makes it easier to discount legit critiques by labelling any debate as only a 2-sided black and white PR war between the "antis" elite and the presumably non-antis disregarding of course the fact that the industry is comprised of multinational foreign corporations.

The debate is far from that even-sided in the published sciences tho - prob about +1000 published journal articles proving impacts from sea lice, from introduced diseases, etc.. It is also far from that in the real World with wild/cultured stock interactions. The debate is only on how severe those impacts are and how they happen. As the body of evidence builds it is becoming increasing difficult for industry pundits and the compromised people in DFO Aquaculture to ignore and obfuscate sharply contrasted with the acceptance and validation this independent science has been afforded in our own court system.

And there are literally hundreds of independent researchers working on wild-cultured stocks World-wide - not just the "evil" Alex. In BC alone there are at least a couple dozen including Alan Gottesfeld, Bart Proctor, Stephane Peacock, Corey Peet, Martin Krkošek, John Volpe, Brendan Connors, Michael Price, Stan Proboszcz, Neil Frazer, Emiliano Di Cicco, Brian Riddell, Larry Dill, Craig Orr, Kristi Miller-Saunders, Roger Dunlop, Sean Godwin, Andrew Bateman, Gideon Mordecai, the Kibenges, etc. If you aren't too afraid to learn - you can google them and their research. For those who are already driven to self-educate and stay on top of this topic - they should be already familiar names.

The anti label & polarization reminds me of the global warming false debate - and in fact some of the same PR firms were involved in that debate as well - Hill and Know Nothing has also been used by the ONP industry. A news release from the BCSFA and DFO and some prayer beads - and all is suddenly well again. Nothing to see here folks - move along.

No thanks SF. Not moving along. The basic technology remains the same wrt potential and realized impacts to adjacent wild stocks since the open net pens are still open. That should be a simple, practical explanation that should be easy to understand and absorb. Even for industry folks. Or there's the prayer beads...

PS - ya i'm getting rich posting on here and you are welcome in me spending my valuable time on here

Are you done then?

Is your final position that net-pens will never be an acceptable form of protein production for the world because despite decades of operations and co-existence with fluctuating levels of wild salmon populations - you feel the risk is too great?

Despite a federal commission that found evidence of minimal risk, all researchers who come to a similar conclusion are paid shills and liars?

 

[agentaqua]

Disgraced DFO Sea Lice Report Has So Many Holes, It Can’t Possibly Float | NorthIsle.News

16 independent scientists were so angry, they penned a letter to Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray

northisle.news

140: Salmon Aquaculture and Coastal Communities with John Aitchison

I knew that salmon farming was bad but I didn’t realise quite how bad it really is. Salmon aquaculture creates massive ecological and welfare issues for the fish. Both farmed fish as well as wild f…

tommysoutdoors.com

And NO - absolutely NOT - the Cohen Commission DID NOT exonerate the ONP industry and find "minimal risk". WOW! Talk about yet another industry revisionist PR lie. But thanks for the opportunity to set the record strait with some honest supported dialogue instead. There were some 75 recommendations and 3 volumes of a report that came out of the Cohen Commission. Here's 2 of the recommendations:

15 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms. 16 After seeking comment from First Nations and stakeholders, and after responding to challenge by scientific peer review, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should, by March 31, 2013, and every five years thereafter, revise salmon farm siting criteria to reflect new scientific information about salmon farms situated on or near Fraser River sockeye salmon migration routes as well as the cumulative effects of these farms on these sockeye.

17 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should apply revised siting criteria to all licensed salmon farm sites. Farms that no longer comply with siting criteria should be promptly removed or relocated to sites that comply with current siting criteria. Salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye. Disease can cause significant population declines, and, in some situations – for example, if a disease were to wipe out a vulnerable stock of Fraser River sockeye – such effects could be irreversible. I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye salmon is serious or irreversible.

Here's some more commentary from Justice Cohen:

In relation to fisheries, DFO’s paramount regulatory objective is the conservation of Fraser River sockeye salmon and other wild fish species.

DFO’s response to the introduction of salmon farms should be no different from its response to other stressors: DFO must protect the health of wild stocks. However, the current role of DFO in relation to salmon farming is broader than the protection of wild stocks. It extends to promotion of the salmon-farming industry and farmed salmon as a product. there are circumstances in which it may find itself in a conflict of interest because of divided loyalties. For example:

There is a risk that DFO will not proactively examine potential threats to migrating sockeye salmon from salmon farms, leaving it up to other concerned parties to establish that there is a threat.

There is a risk that DFO will impose less onerous fish health standards on salmon farms than it would if its only interest were the protection of wild fish. Farmed salmon may tolerate certain diseases or pathogens differently from wild salmon, such that the farmed fish would not necessarily require treatment except for their potential to spread disease or pathogens to wild fish. (The treatment of sea lice is a good example: see the discussion in Volume 1, Chapter 9, Fish health management.)

There is a risk that DFO will be less rigorous in enforcing the Fisheries Act against the operators of salmon farms. As long as DFO has a mandate to promote salmon farming, there is a risk that DFO will act in a manner that favours the interests of the salmon-farming industry over the health of wild fish stocks. The only way to address this potential conflict is by removing from DFO’s mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product, and by transferring the promotion of salmon farming to a different part of the Executive Branch

 

[Birdsnest]

15 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms. 16 After seeking comment from First Nations and stakeholders, and after responding to challenge by scientific peer review, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should, by March 31, 2013, and every five years thereafter, revise salmon farm siting criteria to reflect new scientific information about salmon farms situated on or near Fraser River sockeye salmon migration routes as well as the cumulative effects of these farms on these sockeye.

17 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should apply revised siting criteria to all licensed salmon farm sites. Farms that no longer comply with siting criteria should be promptly removed or relocated to sites that comply with current siting criteria. Salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye. Disease can cause significant population declines, and, in some situations – for example, if a disease were to wipe out a vulnerable stock of Fraser River sockeye – such effects could be irreversible. I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye salmon is serious or irreversible.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada's update on the implementation of the Cohen Commission's recommendations

Fisheries and Oceans Canada's update on the implementation of the Cohen Commission's recommendations

www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

DFO says these have been addressed.

Recommendation 15 - The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms.​

This recommendation has been implemented. Siting of aquaculture operations is a shared and harmonized process in BC, requiring provincial crown tenure, a federal navigable waters permit, and a federal aquaculture licence. Aquaculture applications are submitted through a single-portal, where the Government of BC reviews siting related to granting leases for provincial crown lands, Transport Canada reviews siting related to navigable waters, and DFO considers siting relating to potential impacts to the aquatic environment from an aquaculture licence. More specifically, DFO’s review process for siting salmon farms considers potential impacts to fish, fish habitat and the environment; potential impacts to existing fisheries; and fish health and wild-farmed interactions, which specifically includes consideration of the proximity to wild salmon migration routes.

Recommendation 17 - The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should apply revised siting criteria to all licensed salmon farm sites. Farms that no longer comply with siting criteria should be promptly removed or relocated to sites that comply with current siting criteria.​

Existing farms are managed through conditions of licence. These conditions of licence, among other things, require companies to manage relevant issues outlined in the Siting Guidelines. In circumstances where a farm does not adequately meet the conditions of licence, work is undertaken to examine mitigation options, which may include relocation. As such, this recommendation is considered to have been implemented, albeit in an alternative way.

 

[James Costello]

man - catching a FF pundit in a lie seems to bring out all the lurking industry supporters. Anyone else notice that?

Looking for backup?

I'd suggest looking for evidence to support your claims instead.

 

[terrin]

Are you done then?

Is your final position that net-pens will never be an acceptable form of protein production for the world because despite decades of operations and co-existence with fluctuating levels of wild salmon populations - you feel the risk is too great?

Despite a federal commission that found evidence of minimal risk, all researchers who come to a similar conclusion are paid shills and liars?

You very accurately summed it up. Paid shills and liars and they need to go.

 

[James Costello]

Let me sum up this whole thing again then, as we are 139 pages into this and it started with a question:

Is aquaculture improving?

- Yes, because improvements in XYZ mean that QRS and NPL will be reduced, and using historical data we can see no trends or causation.

- No, because you are all liars, shills, and are corrupt, and have rigged the game for decades to prevent anyone else from discovering the truth.

One is science, one is activism.

Reality is in the middle.

Go fishing, enjoy nature, take care of the place we live.

I might be done here.

 

[agentaqua]

I can see where it is hard to admit a lie. Fish are an emotional topic.

But good governance and oversight absolutely requires dependable, reliable and trustable current science. Over the past 20+ years or so that independent science has laid out those wild/cultured stock interactions adding depth to those impacts - and we are still learning - particularly in the newer area of disease introduction, amplification and transfer - something one cannot avoid using the same old technology - the open net pen.

This is despite the interference, collusion, lies and deflections from the in the industry and their protectors in DFO. Some of this has been laid out thru the ATIPS. The communications branch of DFO that deals with the Aquaculture file for DFO is doing everyone and Canadians at large a big disservice finding creative ways to lie, almost lie, change the narrative, deflect, ignore & change the science on these interactions.

There are pages and pages of these news reports and ATIPS buried in the whatever number of pages this thread consists of.

DFO needs a large shake-up - something still outstanding from Cohen's recommendations.

 

[James Costello]

I can see where it is hard to admit a lie. Fish are an emotional topic.

But good governance and oversight absolutely requires dependable, reliable and trustable current science. Over the past 20+ years or so that independent science has laid out those wild/cultured stock interactions adding depth to those impacts - and we are still learning - particularly in the newer area of disease introduction, amplification and transfer - something one cannot avoid using the same old technology - the open net pen.

This is despite the interference, collusion, lies and deflections from the in the industry and their protectors in DFO. Some of this has been laid out thru the ATIPS. The communications branch of DFO that deals with the Aquaculture file for DFO is doing everyone and Canadians at large a big disservice finding creative ways to lie, almost lie, change the narrative, deflect, ignore & change the science on these interactions.

There are pages and pages of these news reports and ATIPS buried in the whatever number of pages this thread consists of.

DFO needs a large shake-up - something still outstanding from Cohen's recommendations.

Got it. - your two bits.

Although...

Stating your conclusion, then calling everyone liars for not agreeing is not a moral high-ground for you to sit comfortably in your anonymity.

At this point this is neither a quality discussion, or a fair fight.

 

[Admin]

Here is my two bits. We are going to put an end to the direction this thread is heading in with the "your nose is bigger than mine, so henceforth, you are the bigger liar" talk. Deflection and personal attacks are not going to happen. Some of you, and you know who you are, have already been banned for varying times due to the same behaviours being exhibited currently. If you have something new to add to the conversation that actually has some relevance to new or changing information regarding FF, by all means post it. Anything else will be considered useless or derailing information will be instantly removed and continued posting of such useless information may just result in another ban or two.

Brian

 

[gone fishin]

​ Our Minister of Fisheries, Joyce Murray, is in a tough place. Of all the ministers I’ve met over the years, I believe this one is actually trying to get fish farms out of our province. She’s up against a lot: a huge foreign-owned fish-factory lobby group that could sue her again; and, scientists and bureaucrats in her own federal agency giving her bad advice. Case in point: the recent federal science report that DFO cooked-up to basically conclude that parasites from fish farms aren’t a problem for wild salmon. To top it off, we know DFO sat on this junk report for 5 months until finally releasing it in mid-January, right before the Minister was due to make her final Discovery Islands decision. This is so shady. In an unprecedented turn of events, 16 top Canadian salmon scientists wrote an open letter calling the DFO sea lice report junk, just a couple weeks ago. Prominent academics don’t take to the airwaves like this unless something really smells bad. And this report sure stinks. Many people are asking the question: is this research fraud? It might very well be. All those involved should be investigated and heads should roll. Can you take a second to phone the feds now? We’ll automatically connect you to the appropriate person.

Call the feds to get fish farms out​

Call the Minister - Defend our Salmon (safesalmon.ca)

 

[agentaqua]

PSF report summarizes evidence of risks open-net salmon farms pose to wild salmon​

https://psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PSF-Report_Risk-OpenNetAcquaculture_Sept2022-1.pdf

 

[Birdsnest]

PSF report summarizes evidence of risks open-net salmon farms pose to wild salmon​

https://psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PSF-Report_Risk-OpenNetAcquaculture_Sept2022-1.pdf

I saw a response to this on PSF's facebook page. PSF removed it from visibility to the public which really caught my attention. Ian Roberts posted this:

"With all due respect, your organization identifies risks associated with salmon farming, but fails to recognize the management of these risk nor balance with benefits. PFS's risk assessment was confirmed to CBC radio (Aug 15/22): "We don't have broad scale patterns of correlation between Discovery Islands salmon Farms and Fraser sockeye survival."

So PSF research identifies risks but has never shown population impact - Not correlation let alone causation. So why does PSF hold such and extreme position of removing marine aquaculture when its own research show little or no negative impact?
Your organization is proud to promote sport fishing - which presents a clear risk to the survival of salmon - but is managed accordingly to reduce that risk (much of it by self reporting). Your organization also identifies many risks associated with hatchery production of wild salmonids (to benefit fishing activities), however , PSF presents reasonable steps to monitor and potentially reduce these impacts. So again, why does the PSF Board hold a "zero" risk tolerance for salmon farming while at the same time accepting risks posed by sport fishing and large-scale hatchery production- booth human activated actively promoted and encouraged by PSF?"

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, you really think that that the big reason for these facts on endangered salmon are fish farms?

It is interesting to note that Endangered salmon have not received any protection under SARA?

It appears we are treating Chinook just as Steelhead and we know how that goes.


Canada Canada
Chinook Conservation (updated January 31, 2023)
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has assessed the status of all 28 Southern British Columbia (BC) Chinook Designatable Units (DUs). Of these, twelve are assessed as Endangered, seven as Threatened, two as Special Concern, five as data deficient, and two were deemed Not at Risk. More details are available on the Species at Risk Public Registry (species-registry.canada.ca).
Southern BC / Fraser Chinook: Conservation measures implemented for conservation of southern BC and Fraser Chinook will continue to be required for several years. Salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMP) will continue to require highly-precautionary fishery restrictions were intended to provide a high degree of protection to at-risk Fraser Spring 42, Spring 52 and Summer 52 Chinook, and other at- risk Chinook. Chinook management measures to reduce exploitation rates on Harrison River Chinook will also likely be required given this stock has not achieved the Pacific Salmon Treaty escapement goal in most recent years. The general management approach developed in recent years will continue to be required with consideration of potential adjustments to management measures based on post-season review information and IFMP consultations.
Northern BC / Skeena Chinook: Escapement of northern Chinook salmon has declined dramatically in recent years. Unprecedented declines of northern Chinook in 2017 triggered significant management measures for salmon fisheries in 2018 through 2021. These measures, which included spatial and temporal closures and quota reductions, were put in place to support conservation and promote rebuilding of Skeena Chinook. In response to the low preliminary 2022 Skeena Chinook terminal forecast (approx. 21,000), the Department implemented more restrictive non-retention periods and bag limits during periods of peak run timing for Skeena Chinook through AABM and ISBM fisheries. While escapement of Skeena and Nass Chinook for 2022 have shown improvement over the previous five years, the 2023 expectation is that Skeena Chinook remain in a period of low productivity, and therefore continued precautionary management measures will likely be required.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for bringing up the risk assessment and zero mitigation to date topic, BN.

As I've mentioned numerous times - in any actual environmental assessment (and no - siting criteria are not that) scoping is the very 1st thing done. Scoping is the determination of boundaries for any project/site potential effects/risks. DFO - LONG AGO - decided against that and blindly accepted what the Province did previously because it was easy and wouldn't upset the apple cart of having to move sites. They have also apparently decided against using actual science - even their own - in that risk assessment and mitigation even after all the work done by Foreman in the Discovery Islands years ago that I posted a few pages back - w/o even openly admitting this.

 

[gone fishin]

More bad pr for Fish Farms…and on and on it goes….

Government Must Act on Evidence of “Research Fraud”

Government Must Act on Evidence of “Research Fraud” | National Newswatch

 

[James Costello]

This question this thread is based on can only be answered with opinion.

So far, it has proved to be almost entirely a facilitated opportunity for consistent, targeted attacks on a particular, identifiable group by anonymous parties.

If we weren't talking about aquaculture, what would it look like?

 

[gone fishin]

This question this thread is based on can only be answered with opinion.

So far, it has proved to be almost entirely a facilitated opportunity for consistent, targeted attacks on a particular, identifiable group by anonymous parties.

If we weren't talking about aquaculture, what would it look like?

Clearly this Thread is about Fish Farms and there is a lot to discuss !
If you focus on the thread title only, "Aquaculture Improving???"
you might hope for posts that only highlight improvements in Fish Farming.
What we are seeing is opinions from experts and others, no end of scientific studies and media reports etc which are both pro and con fish farms.
Most are worth reading and help in determining our overall opinion on Open Net Pen Atlantic Fish Farming.
The fact that the many of the posts on this site show the harm Fish Farms are doing to our wild salmon is simply a fact of life.

 

[SpringFever552]

Clearly this Thread is about Fish Farms and there is a lot to discuss !
If you focus on the thread title only, "Aquaculture Improving???"
you might hope for posts that only highlight improvements in Fish Farming.
What we are seeing is opinions from experts and others, no end of scientific studies and media reports etc which are both pro and con fish farms.
Most are worth reading and help in determining our overall opinion on Open Net Pen Atlantic Fish Farming.
The fact that the many of the posts on this site show the harm Fish Farms are doing to our wild salmon is simply a fact of life.

Aquaculture improving is the title
Answer is yes