ATTENTION: JOIN THE WAR ON FISHFARMING!

Gimp, your figures are quite pretty, but irrelevent. Biological systems do not simply conform to mathematical analysis just ask Volpe and Krkosek, when they tried to put forward your same analysis and were shot down. In addition, salmon farmers do not want lice either. In 4 years when the salmon do not go extinct, will you stop bashing salmon farms?

Chris73, I do understdand that there are many more impacts to the salmon, but the effect of fish farms is the one being discussed here. This impact is in reality very small if not insignficant when you consider the top 3, which are: 1) Overfishing by Commercial and recreational; 2) Habitat (spawning) destruction by Land development & Forestry; 3) Oceanic environmental changes.

Facts are that you won't change #1, you can't change #3, and most of you work in #2. In addition, the impact of salmon farming has been overblown (much like Greenpeace and the seal hunt) to satisfy the economic needs of the environmental lobby. It represents an easy target.

In fact the very large numbers of salmon released by the Alaskan, Japanese, and Russian sea ranching industries have a tremendous impact on the BC wild salmon. The impact if you are not familiar with this issue is like having too many cows on a pasture. The northern Pacific can only support so many salmon, and if these numbers are artificially increased beyond this level, then some will not survive.

Do you know who Patrick Moore is? He once was the head of Greenpeace, but he quit because it was becoming to commercial. Causes were not taken up based on merit, but on how much money could be made. What did he do after he quit?...... He became a salmon farmer.

David Suzuki in '96 did a nature of things episode in which he declared that salmon farming would be the saviour of the wild stocks because we would no longer have to over exploit thme for our fish dinners. Why did he flip flop?

By the way, On shore salmon farming is technically feasible, but is a tremendous environmental disaster. It is like putting cows in a bubble under the ocean to stop them from using up pasture.

I guess what I am trying to point out is that salmon farms are not the problem you have been lead to believe they are. They are small single point impacts at their worst. They do not have the widespread effects of the big 3. For proof, I suggest that wild salmon are being impacted throughout their ranges, even where there are no salmon farms. This should lead you to conclude that it really is not the farms, but something else. I think that salmon farmers can be one of your biggest allies in the wild salmon survival package.
 
You can say that the numbers are irrelivant but you really know they are. You as a farmer are held to them by the goverment as a standard. When they change the sealice limit to 0 per fish dont cry to me about numbers. Its not your falt the goverment allowed you to place your farms on migratory routes. I am wondering if you would have a sealice problem if you were not on the migratory routes. I mean shoot its not your falt that the wild salmon carry the sealice in with them and they infect your darling Alantic salmon in the Pacific. Its not your fault that there is not commercial fishing in the broughten archapellago and hasnt been for sometime now. P.S. Dont for get to keep the lights on around the net pens so to draw more fry into your nets so you can cut costs on feed.

If you want my honest first opinion on salmon farms I thought they were going to save the wild salmon I love so much. But I have seen first hand the devistation in the Broughton. I am also guessing you are working out of Clayoquot and not the Broughton. If you are in the Broughton. I will be there in August maybe you can give me a tour and change my mind.
 
Hey Gimp,

What makes you think I am a farmer? Because I happen to be presenting a view contrary to yours. Maybe I just like a good debate. Unfortunately I think that you have been bought into the anti farm rhetoric, and would never soften your stance even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
With regard to sea lice, the research is being done, and so far the information out of DFO and the PSF does not support the apocalyptic predictions of Morton et al. But of course, DFO and the PSF are in the governments pocket, blah, blah, blah.
You keep talking about the documented cases where farms have caused problems, but never state where or when. I think that it is only fair if you make such a statement that you should be able to back it up.
You seem to take the stance of "no impact is acceptable" with regards to the farms. Do you apply this to other areas of society? Do you apply it in your own life? Humans make impacts simply by existing, it is important to be able to allow the activity while mitigating the impacts. Facts are that salmon farms have existed in BC for 30 years, and during that time there have been record pink salmon runs. In fact the lowest runs were recorded when no farms existed. Based on this one could draw the opposite conclusion that farms actually help the salmon.
 
You are correct I assumed you were/are a fishfarmer. My appoligies for assuming, but I must ask your profession. Would you ever soften your stance even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that farm on migration routes are causing problems with wild salmon and should be moved?
 
Hey Gimp,

I think that part of the problem is that there is too much emotion on both sides, and too little hard facts. If it was proven that a farm on a migratory route did have an irreversible impact on a salmon population then it should be moved. However, you would also have to apply this criteria to all human activities. This of course would include rec fish also. I think the key here is not to stop all activities,but to mitigate the effects. In otherwords, management practises at the farms could be put in place to lessen the impact.

The key problem is also one of distrust. There has been too much mudslinging that it is now difficult for each side to trust the other. Funny as it may seem, both sides want the same thing, which is a healthy environment in which to carry out their activies.
 
TOP FISHERIES SCIENTISTS FIND LATEST SEA LICE STUDY FAILS TO SUPPORT THE EXTINCTION HYPOTHESIS
2008-01-30

Twenty of the world’s leading fisheries scientists have concluded that a recent study on the effects of sea lice on juvenile wild salmon fails to support its own hypothesis, according to a new study in press at Reviews in Fisheries Science.

The group of senior scientists analyzed a controversial paper recently published in Science magazine last month by Krkosek et al (2007). The Krkosek et al. study had concluded that sea lice associated with salmon farming in British Columbia’s Broughton Archipelago region is leading to the eminent extinction of local pink salmon stocks.

The latest peer reviewed study by lead authors Kenneth M. Brooks and Simon R.M. Jones, concludes that by using selective data, questionable analytical procedures and unsubstantiated assumptions, the dire predictions made by Krkosek et al. are completely unfounded. In fact, contrary to the conclusions reached by Krkosek et al., Broughton pink salmon have been steadily increasing with no indication that they are threatened with extinction.

Brooks and Jones state that the omission of additional scientific reports known to Krkosek et al. is a major concern, as other scientific evidence does not support the dire predictions made by Krkosek.

The Krkosek study failed to demonstrate any cause and effect relationship between sea lice infected pink salmon fry and larval lice on farmed salmon. Additionally, pink salmon mortality rates are not substantiated, faulty mathematical models are used and existing science that does not support the authors conclusions is omitted.
 
For Immediate Release
PACIFIC SALMON FORUM RELEASES 2007 INTERIM
RESEARCH FINDINGS - FINDINGS DO NOT SUPPORT CLAIM OF
WILD SALMON EXTINCTION
NANAIMO – Key findings of the BC Pacific Salmon Forum’s 2007 research program were
released today based on preliminary reports of some fifteen research projects involving over
30 scientists and other personnel. This research program is aimed at improving
understanding of the Broughton Archipelago’s ecosystem with research projects focused on
oceanography, potential role of sticklebacks, the natal stream origin of pink and chum salmon,
marine monitoring of juvenile pink and chum salmon and sea lice, impacts of lice on salmon,
wild fish health and salmon population dynamics.
2007 adult pink salmon returns as a whole in the mainland inlets of the Broughton Archipelago
system were described by researchers as similar or slightly improved relative to the brood
return of 2005. In context of the 2007 interim research results it does not appear that the
natural stocks of pink salmon in the Broughton would be subject to mass extinctions within four
generations as predicted by the recent study by Martin Krkosek, et al.
Over twenty key findings have resulted from this work, all of which have been examined and
approved by the Forum’s Science Advisory Committee based on the interim research findings
provided by the individual research teams.
Said John Fraser, Forum Chairman, “It’s apparent from our research that the ecosystem within
the Broughton Archipelago is very intricate. The interaction between wild salmon, farmed
salmon and other species is taking place in a region of a complex mix of currents, winds, and
geography.” Fraser goes on to say, “Since it is clear we are dealing with dynamic ecosystems
that includes many factors not simply sea lice, the Forum will be funding a broad range of
researchers to come together to develop an analytical framework that will incorporate all
ecosystem factors in order to interpret the data that is emerging from this research program.”
Research is continuing in 2008. The Forum is continuing to explore management opportunities
that will support healthy wild salmon populations in this area including integrated pest
management.
Research summaries were prepared and approved by each of the researchers and no editing
of their final summaries has taken place. The full text of the summary of key findings and
individual interim research project reports can be found at
www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/research/index.php
- 30 -
Hon. John Fraser, Chair Dr. Jon O’Riordan, Research Director
BC Pacific Salmon Forum BC Pacific Salmon Forum
MEDIA CONTACT:
250 755-3036 250 755-3036
News Release
 
Howdy,

S-fry: Congrats on the splash you're obviously hell-bent on making here. Trouble is, none of us are getting wet yet.

Good on you for standing up for your beliefs. I'm certain many out there - somewhere - are applauding you.

The net-pen business is but one small piece of the puzzle of issues affecting our beloved Pacific salmon. Unlike climate-change, it's one that we can deal with - now.

After the Wild Salmon Alliance achieves that end - we will move hastily on to the task of giving our fuc*#+ government a good-one up the side of the head to set them back on the track of reviving our beloved Pacific fishery. Which is what they should've been focused on all along!

By the way S-fry; my freakin' email has been going 'nuts' since my editoral was published Monday. So much support and encouragement, it brings water to my eyes.

Dig?

Cheers,
Terry
 
And the response from Ms. Morton, who worked with the PSF:

(In the following open letter, Alexandra Morton responds to a Pacific Salmon Forum press release issued earlier this week.)

Dear Colleagues:
Yesterday, Dec. 18, 2007 the Pacific Salmon Forum (PSF) issued a press release suggesting that 80 per cent of the Broughton juvenile salmon were not infected with sea lice in 2007. I am a co-investigator on the study that generated the PSF number “80 per cent.”
For the past two years, Drs. Brent Hargreaves, Simon Jones and I have worked together on the PSF funded project to monitor sea lice and salmon in the Broughton. We have been trying to resolve some differences of opinion for some weeks about using the number (80 per cent).
Since the PSF has gone ahead and released the figure under debate I feel compelled to tell you where it came from.
We know that juvenile salmon migrate through the Broughton from their rivers, towards fish farms, past fish farms and out to sea.
We also know that surface currents in Knight and Kingcome inlets generally flow in the same direction as the fish.
This means we can identify areas where sea lice from fish farms are highly unlikely to drift into and that these are the same areas where young salmon will not yet have encountered a fish farm. This roughly divides the Broughton Archipelago into areas exposed and not exposed to fish farms.
Many of us have published on this, showing both the difference in lice abundance and prevalence between exposed and unexposed areas and also a finer scale examination of the transition between these zones.
The PSF chooses to ignore all of this work when they use the number 80 per cent to challenge the recent paper in Science.
The number 80 per cent not infected with sea lice includes fish from areas exposed and not exposed to fish farms.
This includes fish caught in lower Knight Inlet east of Tribune, Kingcome Inlet and the estuarine environments of the Kakweikan and the Ahta.
As well, this number includes the Wells Passage area where there were no farm salmon, except for one pen for a few days in March. It includes fish that have been in the saltwater for hours, days, and months.
But we know juvenile salmon move generally west, passing fish farms in the channels of the Broughton like water through a coffee filter.
You are only going to find brown water at the outcome of the funnel.
To learn how many salmon got infected by sea lice from fish farms you need to understand where the fish came from.
One of my co-investigators did not want to offer a more detailed analysis on the grounds that measuring impact of fish farms was not an objective of the study and that we need to understand the natural processes involved before we can understand any farm effects.
I don’t see how anyone can study natural effects in the most perturbed sea louse habitat we know of in BC.
It is my impression that if we want to know what percent of juvenile salmon were infected with sea lice in the Broughton, we need to look at the fish as they leave the archipelago.
In both my own study and the PSF study, the site that best represents the product of the Broughton Archipelago is Wicklow.
At the peak of the 2007 out-migration, 83 per cent of the salmon I examined in my own study at Wicklow were infected with sea lice.
If the PSF study was not designed to tell us anything about impact of fish farms on sea lice infections of juvenile salmon, why is the PSF using it to challenge the Science paper on this subject?
As I write this the Cliff Bay fish farm is being stocked resulting in more stocked fish farms on the Tribune – Fife salmon migration route than in the history of fish farming.
Science reports sea lice from these exact fish farms are rapidly driving wild salmon to extinction and John Fraser chooses to publicly challenges Science using a study that was not even designed to speak to this subject.
I think it is time that the relationship between the fish farming industry and our governments be investigated and reported to the Canadian public.

Alexandra Morton,
 
Howdy,

S-fry? Rebuttal?

It's that psycho-babble Morton again.

Do your homework and make it good this time, or we'll all ignore you forever more.

Cheers,
Terry
 
ya... we all forgive your ignorance sockeyefry....they hire uneducated people like you to work in the industry all the time! but i dont have the energy to argue with you or any body like you.. you have been shown countless papers and had this discussion for days on here . people that are full of knowledge on the subject are sharing info here. you come here to talk crap and discredit the life work of people that have chosen the path of natural order over money . you sound more foolish every time you post. we have put the facts out there .people know the truth! the industry and guys like you cant hide the truth because of science,conversations like this , and people like us .good luck in your efforts to rune the fisheries for my kids but.....yours is a dieing bread my friend ! .....people know!
 
I give you 30 scientists who are working objectively on this issue to try, and you respond with more Morton editorials. No scientist makes statements which start with "It is my impression..." This again is nothing more than opinion. Of course she disagrees with her peers. They don't agree with her agenda.

Terry, I applaud your efforts in Wild salmon conservation. However, I feel that you are misguided. Salmon farms are a small issue with a bunch of emotion attached. They are not widespread, and therefore do not have a widespread consequence on Wild salmon stocks. I agree that the worst obstacles you face , such as oceanic conditions, or Alaskan hatchery production are outside your ability, but I think you should be looking at freshwater environments, enhancement of spawning and juvenile rearing in our streams. Use you talents for organization to create streamkeeper groups and an Adopt a stream program to enhance the natural productivity of the freshwater, not just in the Broughton, but throughout the whole province. Salmon stocks are under pressure all over, and not just in the Broughton area. If you started up such a program, I would support you because I would then feel that you are doing some good.

Patches, you are starting to sound like an ole time Zealot. Damn the truth, we know what's right. You don't have the energy, because you don't like what I am saying. Oh and by the way, if holding a degree in Fisheries Biology is uneducated, then I guess I am.
 
S-fry, what is your take on this report:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/6/2/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0060033-L.pdf

It clearly outlines decreasing stocks that pass by salmon farms at juvenile ages. Notice in the graphs, the decrease in pink returns begins as fish farming increases. Each graph compares exposed and not exposed runs in the same area, thus the only variable is farming. The report includes exposed fish stocks from all around the world. I don't see how this can be disputed.
 
Captain,

What the paper represents is a statistical exercise to prove the impact of farms on populations of salmon, and is does so quite emphatically. They simply looked at the appropriate data on catch stats and picked that which would prove their points and ignored those data sets which would not. It is simply a statistical exercise which over simplifies a complex interaction for the sole purpose making the reader draw a specifc conclusion. It does not take into account regional and river specific differences which may have contributed to the regional declines. A statistical exercise such as this one can take 2 unrelated occurences and make the reader convinced that there is a direct cause and effect. In other words, a rise in teen pregnancy and an increase in salmon farming could be show through this type of analysis to be related, which of course they are not. I don't want to start that rumour, we have enough myths about salmon farming already. I believe this study was also discreditted by the scientific community for the above reasons.
 
I cannot comment on the latest PSF Summary of 2007 Interim Research Findings as of yet I will finish reading it tonight as I need to do some work. But I can say from what I have read. Someone on this fourm might be putting a bit of a spin on the findings. For those of you that have not read it yet I encourage you to take the time and read it. There are many portions of the reasearch that are not even close to compleat. Some of these are highly important take A.4 for example pages 23-25

well enjoy the reading
 
Sockeye,

If this report was discredited, I would like to see the comments. Are you saying that it was said by the scientific community that the report selectively used runs exposed to farms that happened to have decreased in size, and compared them to runs in the same area not exposed to farms that happened to increase in size? I find this difficult to accept for a number of reasons.

First, who exactly is the scientific community in this case? One of Morton's reports was initially discredited, but was later determined to be sound scientific practice in the supreme court (I don't have the link to the source with me but I'll post it later if you'd like) - so how am I to know the agenda of these scientists?

Second, the report states in the introduction that runs in the same region are compared. Therefore, regional differences should not have an effect on the results because stocks in one region are not compared to those in another region. This minimizes variables such as river conditions, fishing, habitat destruction etc. For example, rivers in the same region are more likely to have the same or similar conditions i.e - same rainfall, temperature, etc.

I understand that some runs may simply have a poor survival rate one year and would yield poor results, but the results are very consistent. For example, look at the Bay of Funday - the exposed stocks are at a fraction of what they used to be - this is not the result of the odd bad return being selectively chosen - this decline is consistent over the last 15 years.

Reports are consistently released proving again and again that farming has a negative impact on wild salmon. Personally, I don't see why the scientists writing these reports would want to prove farming has a negative effect. Farms were once praised as a solution to the salmon demand, which would relieve pressure on wild stocks. Even Morton herself said she was excited about the idea of farms because of the just mentioned benefit. So why would these same people turn around and try to rid them without viable reason? It doesn't make sense. They simply would not do it. These people care immensly for the health of salmon, and have no reason to fabricate reasons farms are negative. If a scientist was going to write an intentionally biased report and put his/her reputation at risk, S/he would need considerable motivation and I simply don't see it.
 
Captain,

The motivation is $$$$$. The scientists receive large research grants from US foundations. The more they can sensationalize the more money they get. Now you know the motivation. It used to be the Seal Hunt, now its salmon farming.

Do you know the east coast at all? The bay of Fundy is a large Bay, and salmon farming is taking place in one small corner, down near St George. When they speak of the Inner bay of fundy they are refering to the upper areas, the MInas Basin, and more specifically the Stewiacke and Shubenacadie rivers of Nova Scotia. The only rivers close to the farming activity are the St Croix and the Macaduavic. To suggest the decline of the salmon populations in the Stewiacke are the result of farms in St George would be like saying the farms in the broughton have an impact on rivers near Victoria. The salmon on the east coast have been in decline since the early 80's, all over the region. To suggest that it is the result of salmon farms is ludicrous, and negligent, as it deflects efforts away from the real causes and possible solutions.

I would like to see the link where the supreme court up held Morton's findings.

Gimp, are you suggesting that I have altered the PSF press release? It was taken directly from their website, that is why I provided the link. And yes there is a lot of research left to do, but you peopl seem to want to act before it is finished.
 
You can say your motivation is money also. If the dollars are coming form the US for the funding of the research regarding foreign salmon farms in Canada. I say awesome you are getting your research paid for by the U.S. There are many reasons why people work (social acceptance, they are purpose-driven, its self fulfilling or they work for enjoyment. But Most People work for the PAY FOR THE WORK DONE. Tell us who do the salmon farms get money from and where does 90 percent of their sales come from. Can you say the U.S.? Where do the pure profits go after the year-end could it be Norway? I am not discrediting that foreign owned salmon farms don't pump money into the local economy but we all know that the profit at the end of the year goes to the investors and does not stay local. Heh at least if it is U.S. money being spent on science its staying local.

No I am not stating that you altered the press release LMAO Im stating that the press release is a spin and does not reflect the entire report and depending on what side of the fence you fall on you can make arguements both ways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

searun
UVIC & SFI Research - Effects of Management Measures
Replies
2
Views
453
searun
searun
SVIAC
PRIZE BOARD ADDED: Sat. Mar. 30 2024 Salish Sea Spring Fishing Derby
Replies
4
Views
1K
Deewar25
Deewar25
B
Integrity commissioner launches investigation of DFO officials over alleged attempts to silence scientists IAN BAILEY
Replies
5
Views
444
Unreel
Unreel
ChinookChaser
  • Locked
Guiding: QCL or Rivers Inlet Sportman’s Club
Replies
33
Views
3K
Admin
Admin
SpringVelocity
Prawn Closure
Replies
3
Views
3K
seachicken
seachicken
Back
Top