Crowd Funded Salish Sea Herring DNA Study...

Andrew P

Well-Known Member
Hey Folks,


So, I have something that I am pretty darn excited to announce, and once the fine details are confirmed, there will be another, more official announcement made.

Here is a brief breakdown of the project and it's goals.

Background: Myself and a bunch of fish loving friends got together and formed the Salish Sea Herring Enhancement Society. The name sounds much bigger than what 'it' is at the moment....but we have to start somewhere. For the last couple of years we have done bits and pieces around the CRD to monitor the herring spawn and try to enhance it in a few ways(hanging herring curtains on docks, etc). It became apparent pretty quickly that the herring stocks have been reduced to a point where they are quite unpredictable and there are some large gaps in the information available about herring in Southern BC, and most notably, specific information around smaller populations, such as The Gorge, Saltspring, Saanich Inlet, Howe Sound, etc. I have had lengthy conversations with the DFO Herring Manager for the area and he agrees that this is a large gap in the information and a piece that would certainly help in managing the stocks. It is unclear whether these populations are genetically distinct from other populations that spawn throughout the Salish Sea....and if proven so, would have huge benefits in both managing harvesting of the stocks along with stock rebuilding plans.

So you can probably get where I am going with this....and you are probably saying that this is DFO’s job and why are they not doing it alone? Well, there just isn’t the funding or it is not seen as a priority. This will be a side effect of the project; send a strong message to the top that Canadians care about herring as they are essential for a healthy coastal ecosystem in BC.

Project Goals:

Long Term Goal:
To expand upon DFO's study that evaluated herring DNA on the BC Coast. This was a great study, but one that points out that there are many gaps, which if filled, would greatly help in the management of the stocks across the coast.

This information will be used to lobby DFO to protect and begin to rebuild these stocks and to lobby the Federal Government to give DFO adequate resources to properly manage the stock.

The whole exercise will also be used to raise public awareness of herring as a valuable resource that needs to be protected not only for humans, but for the long list of ocean creatures that depend in them for food.

A message will ring out: Science is important and if government will not fund it, citizens will step in. This will not be an combative message but rather one to bring about change and hopefully have DFO match the public.

The DFO DNA study outlined some gaps that we would like to start to address:

1) Small isolated stocks were probably under-represented. They need to be looked at further to identify whether they are genetically distinct stocks. The Gorge
only got caught because Yogi sent him the samples. Saanich Inlet,
Saltspring Island, Porlier Pass, and Squamish might also be distinct
stocks or be spill-over from larger Georgia Strait/Salish Sea stocks. This question needs to be answered if any meaningful management or enhancement is to be achieved.

2) Identification of what the juveniles are doing. This may be a
bottleneck for survival. Where are they going? If it is found that a distinct stock is mixing with the general population out in the open ocean at a certain time, then management practices could be put in place to reduce the over fishing of the stock. This is pointed out in the DFO study.


Phase 1:
The initial goal of the study is to have DNA analysis done on 300 herring sample from 6 distinct sites of interest.

Cost: Roughly $5000
Source Of Funding: Online Crowdfunding Campaign.

Who is Organizing this study:

I am not a scientist and do have a job already….so I have reached out into the fish loving community and have teamed up with Yogi and the good folks at the World Fisheries Trust. They are doing the paper work and also applying for any grants that may be available. I will be pulling my company(sitka.ca) in to help with the fundraising and we have open arms to anyone else who want to make this a big success.

Who is doing the testing:
The folks lined up to do the analysis for us are the DFO lab that has done past analysis of herring. We would just be pushing them to do
some work they are not scheduled to do, presumably subsidised by DFO infrastructure and staff, but with supplementary money. We could
maybe argue that we should not have to pay for analysis at a government lab, but the collaboration could also make any necessary
follow-up more likely. It would be done through an official research collaboration agreement, similar to what they do with a variety of
universities, so it isn't a cash-only secret transaction. $5000 would get us about 300 fish analysed. If we think of 50 fish per analytical
site, this gives us 6 sites or situations. Terry Beacham, of this lab, was the lead researcher on the most recent and complete evaluation of herring DNA on the coast.


What Next?!

We will be finalizing the initial plan and agreement with the lab shortly and will then be launching the crowdfunding campaign.

I am very much an optimist at heart and think that we are going to destroy the $5000 goal. What happens if the initial goal is surpassed? The study simply continues to expand in scope(more sites analyzed). My wild dreams have the entire BC herring population mapped out. A rough estimate of that scope is about $500,000.

If anyone would like to get involved(besides making a donation) please send me a PM. I will of course put up a more official post once the fine details are worked out.

Thanks Guys and Gals!!

The study that I speak of can be downloaded here:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-033.1?journalCode=utaf20#.Uug_FfbTliU

Andrew
 
Great to hear that someone is doing something to help the important herring population! This is a no brainer as less herring = less fish.

My only caution is to be on the look at for DFO and others who may try to use this data to somehow justify increasing herring fishing limits.

I will support your work and encourage others to do so as well.
 
I've recently heard DFO doesn't have the budget in 2014 to monitor and/or regulate the herring fishery in BC. Anyone else hear of this recent news?
 
Names of places have changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. I talk to some guys about the Strait of Georgia and they get pissed off at me for calling it that! They used to call it the Gulf of Georgia or just the Gulf back in the early trolling days. Whatever you call it, it needs productive forage fish populations for a healthy ecosystem


The Salish Sea (/ˈseɪlɪʃ/ SAY-lish) is the intricate network of coastal waterways located between the south-western tip of the Canadian province of British Columbia, and the north-western tip of the U.S. state of Washington. Its major bodies of water are the Strait of Georgia, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound. It reaches from Desolation Sound at the north end of the Strait of Georgia to Oakland Bay at the head of Hammersley Inlet at the south end of Puget Sound. The inland waterways of the Salish Sea are partially separated from the open Pacific Ocean by Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula, and are thus partially shielded from Pacific Ocean storms. Major port cities on the Salish Sea include Seattle, Vancouver, Tacoma, Bellingham, and Victoria.
 
Thanks Finaddict, but let's not get this derailed. Tincan obviously set that straight. Is the Gorge in Victoria part of the Georgia Strait? No. Perhaps reread you tag line!! ;)
Ok no problem, back to the request at hand. Sounds like a good idea and one that likely merits support. Anything that helps to improve prey survival for the benefit of salmon stocks is certainly needed, but at what cost? This year there is approximatley a 25% increase in commercial herring quotas in the Strait of Georgia (DFO, Canadian Coast Guard and Environment Canada's nomenclature) to the tune of over 13,000 tonnes. While I am happy to support science in the name of conservation, I will not support science that benefits the commercial overharvest of herrring. We have had two years of lower quotas for the commie herring industry and the rebound in the Strait of Georgia was noticeable. An influx of porpoises and Humpback whales seen in areas they have been absent in for years. Halibut caught in the strait and increased returns of coho. This is no co-incidence.

1200 tons – Charlottes<o:p></o:p>
2000 tons – Rupert<o:p></o:p>
1500 tons – centralcoast<o:p></o:p>
13633 tons – Strait ofGeorgia<o:p></o:p>
2117 tons – West CoastVan. Is.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
19,700 tons total Quota isabout 25 % over last year’s number,

Here is where I am getting at. I will support your research on one condition. The science remains proprietary and ownership belongs to those who contribute and not DFO and not the commercial herring industry. If I am being asked to contribute above and beyond my present tax dollars, then I want a say in how that science is used and what the benefits go to. I want all decisions associated with the research and all the changes in herring enhancement to remain in the ecosystem and not used to increase the commercial herring industry. Not one thin herring. All subsequent increases in biomass are to be documented and added to the total amount of herring biomass to remain in the strait.

If you can get DFO and its commercially biased and job supported bureaucracy to sign an agreement of that nature, then I'll be 100% on board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finaddict! That's more like it!

I would love to have an agreement like this....but don't know if possible. But I will certainly bring it up.

To be clear, this study is not to make any sort of assessment of size of the biomass; it is to prove to DFO that there are distinct stocks(just like salmon) and that they do mix with other stocks. It clearly states in the report that I posted, that if they had this information, they would take it into consideration for harvest decisions. For example, if it is proven that any of the very decimated stocks are mixing in the Georgia Strait or out in the open Pacific, then there is grounds to stand on to restrict the take.

I am of the mind that persuasive argument based on science is the only way to create change. I do not think that there should be ANY commercial herring fisheries with the current state of BC herring stocks. We will certainly be mindful of what you are referring to.

That being said, this study is for the public. To bring public awareness and to give evidence to pursuade DFO that their current practices must change if herring are to survive in BC waters.
 
I am of the mind that persuasive argument based on science is the only way to create change. I do not think that there should be ANY commercial herring fisheries with the current state of BC herring stocks. We will certainly be mindful of what you are referring to.

You would think/hope this would be the case right? We have seen countless recent examples against this seemingly logical way of looking at things, however. That said, I still agree that the science needs to be done. We just need to allow it to reach a scientifically literate population and the Feds are doing a great job to ensure that is not the case.
 
Finaddict - I hate to say it but you're ideas RE: the science being proprietary are, IMHO, crazy. The data that will generated is data - pure and simple. Good data is most useful when it is publicly available and the methods of collection are well documented. Attempts to hide or control the use of data (regardless of from where they come) will only result in creating suspicion of the data itself and of the organization that collected it. Controlling and repackaging data is what many of us get concerned about when it is done by commercial organizations (big Pharma, fish farming operations etc). There's an entire movement in science towards increasing openness and transparency of data and methods. Your proposals are a step backward. Also, in practice, there's no way to control how others re-use or re-present data. Nonetheless good data speaks for itself.
 
Ok Seadna, thanks for the comments, Lets look at my ideas and I will detail a little more for my reasoning. It is not as far fetched as you seem to think and I have been involved in the contractual side of scientific data in the past so I speak from a little experience.
Finaddict - I hate to say it but you're ideas RE: the science being proprietary are, IMHO, crazy.
Actually it is common practise for scientific data that is generated to be proprietary. All contracted environmental consulting agencies have to sign agreement that they will release their information ONLY to the owner and the employees must sign non-disclosure contracts as well. The only time a consultant is required to release this information to a governing agency is when it is clear that the owner is breaking the law. If the owner is the governing agency, there is no requirement to tell any other agency and in fact it is an offense to release that information to any other governing agency without prior consent from the owner/governing agency. This is the "gag-order" clause. All I am proposing is that this information which is being sponsored by an NGO (non-government office) be the owner of the data, and that it not go directly to DFO. I have no issue with sharing the information directly with DFO, I am just proposing that it be owned by the contractor and not the governing body.
The data that will generated is data - pure and simple. Good data is most useful when it is publicly available and the methods of collection are well documented.
agreed, and the recent track record of DFO and many other governement scientific agencies is to gather the data and then release whatever they feel fit to release to suit their own agendas. No I do not consider myself to be a "conspiracy theorist". I think there has been enough well documented incidences in the recent past to support my conjecture. To corroborate, please see the new thread that has begin entitles "Fisheries science books disposal costs Ottawa thousands"
Attempts to hide or control the use of data (regardless of from where they come) will only result in creating suspicion of the data itself and of the organization that collected it.
Hmmmm sounds very familiar, almost like DFO itself.
Controlling and repackaging data is what many of us get concerned about when it is done by commercial organizations (big Pharma, fish farming operations etc). There's an entire movement in science towards increasing openness and transparency of data and methods.
BS, presently there is an entire movement by all governing agencies to control data as much as possible.
Your proposals are a step backward. Also, in practice, there's no way to control how others re-use or re-present data. Nonetheless good data speaks for itself.
My proposal is not backwards, it is in direct reponse to the present manipulation and control of information that DFO is trending towards. I have no issue with open sharing of the data collected. In fact I fully support it. I just want to make sure that the informaiton and the data AS COLLECTED is owned by those who pay for it directly. One might say, Ihave little faith or trust in anything DFO does when they have the opportunity to filter and control the information prior to presenting their results for their own personal (read commercial) interests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok Seadna, thanks for the comments, Lets look at my ideas and I will detail a little more for my reasoning. It is not as far fetched as you seem to think and I have been involved in the contractual side of scientific data in the past so I speak from a little experience. Actually it is common practise for scientific data that is generated to be proprietary. All contracted environmental consulting agencies have to sign agreement that they will release their information ONLY to the owner and the employees must sign non-disclosure contracts as well. The only time a consultant is required to release this information to a governing agency is when it is clear that the owner is breaking the law. If the owner is the governing agency, there is no requirement to tell any other agency and in fact it is an offense to release that information to any other governing agency without prior consent from the owner/governing agency. This is the "gag-order" clause. All I am proposing is that this information which is being sponsored by an NGO (non-government office) be the owner of the data, and that it not go directly to DFO. I have no issue with sharing the information directly with DFO, I am just proposing that it be owned by the contractor and not the governing body.
As an academic scientist as my FT job, I fully recognize that it's common practice for contractors to keep scientific data proprietary (often to the detriment of the public and the benefit of those who provided the contract). What is under discussion here is crowd source data that should be of value to the public AND DFO. Why would anyone want the data that is generated to be proprietary?

agreed, and the recent track record of DFO and many other governement scientific agencies is to gather the data and then release whatever they feel fit to release to suit their own agendas. No I do not consider myself to be a "conspiracy theorist". I think there has been enough well documented incidences in the recent past to support my conjecture. To corroborate, please see the new thread that has begin entitles "Fisheries science books disposal costs Ottawa thousands" Hmmmm sounds very familiar, almost like DFO itself.
And that is PRECISELY why the data, ALL of it AND the methods used to generate it should be publicly available.

BS, presently there is an entire movement by all governing agencies to control data as much as possible.

It's not BS at all in the academic world NOR in the US federally funded research world. I am frequently required by law or the publishers to make my data public on publication. All of my NIH funded publications have to be made public through a government funded website. Publications which contain sequence data must have accession numbers that provide a way to look up the data in a public database. A HUGE number of publicly accessible open access journals have come online in the past 10 years and there's a huge movement in academia to make all publications, data and methods publicly available for free. See for example this wikipedia article and references therein, PloS.org, http://www.opendatafoundation.org/ and many, many other groups that are working towards the same goals. While a few Canadian ministries are attempting to control as much data as possible, this is not the way forward.

My proposal is not backwards, it is in direct reponse to the present manipulation and control of information that DFO is trending towards. I have no issue with open sharing of the data collected. In fact I fully support it. I just want to make sure that the informaiton and the data AS COLLECTED is owned by those who pay for it directly. One might say, Ihave little faith or trust in anything DFO does when they have the opportunity to filter and control the information prior to presenting their results for their own personal (read commercial) interests.
So because DFO is controlling data (which you appear to agree is a bad thing), this project should do the same? Have you ever heard the statement that two wrongs do not make a right? Ownership and proprietary are two different things. I'm in 100% agreement that those who collect the data should own it - e.g. they should be able to publish it all and prevent the data from being altered or suppressed in any way and they should require anyone who uses the data to acknowledge the source. I'm entirely against the idea that the data itself should be privately held. Those who own it should make it freely available to the public. This is similar to the model used by Genbank - the U.S. sequence database. If I deposit something in the database, I am the one who must be contacted if others find something wrong with the data. The data cannot be changed without my consent (which I'd give if the data were in error). So in that sense, I own/control the data. However, the data itself is freely available to all.
 
Seadna, You and I are not far apart in our intent for the data, only in the theory of how the ownership of the data should be managed.
As an academic scientist as my FT job, I fully recognize that it's common practice for contractors to keep scientific data proprietary (often to the detriment of the public and the benefit of those who provided the contract). What is under discussion here is crowd source data that should be of value to the public AND DFO. Why would anyone want the data that is generated to be proprietary?
Past experience shows that data controlled by DFO is no longer in the public domain. My intent is to ensure it gets into DFO's hands only after it has been collected and released to the owner first. If that appears to be contrary or perceived poorly by the public, then have it gathered by an audited third party who can guarantee that the info is accurately disseminated to all parties equally.


And that is PRECISELY why the data, ALL of it AND the methods used to generate it should be publicly available.
See comment above



It's not BS at all in the academic world NOR in the US federally funded research world. I am frequently required by law or the publishers to make my data public on publication. All of my NIH funded publications have to be made public through a government funded website. Publications which contain sequence data must have accession numbers that provide a way to look up the data in a public database. A HUGE number of publicly accessible open access journals have come online in the past 10 years and there's a huge movement in academia to make all publications, data and methods publicly available for free. See for example this wikipedia article and references therein, PloS.org, http://www.opendatafoundation.org/ and many, many other groups that are working towards the same goals. While a few Canadian ministries are attempting to control as much data as possible, this is not the way forward.
I hope you are right, but I suspect that you may be a little ethereal in your expectations for the future. Either that or I may be a little bit more pessimistic in how I think government bodies may react to this new found open publilc scrutiny. I am thinking only of the present and very recent past practises of these governing agencies. Recent past practises clearly point to data is being manipulated by government agencies for hidden agendas and personal benefit. I do not blame the government scientists for this. They are caught between a rock and a hard place, where their livelihood is at risk if they do anything contrary to departmental policy. I do however direct the blame on the bureaucrats and adminstrators who have succumb to the political pressure and lobbyists and make the agency policies and manage the data. I for one, have come to mistrust our "protectors of the environment"


So because DFO is controlling data (which you appear to agree is a bad thing),
not sure how my comments could appear otherwise
this project should do the same? Have you ever heard the statement that two wrongs do not make a right? Ownership and proprietary are two different things.
Well, not really. Both words define the legal right to possession of something. PROPRIETARY. 1. : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; OWNERSHIP 1. Legal right to the possession of a thing. ownership (ˈəʊnəʃɪp). n. 1. the state or fact of being an owner.
I'm in 100% agreement that those who collect the data should own it - e.g. they should be able to publish it all and prevent the data from being altered or suppressed in any way and they should require anyone who uses the data to acknowledge the source. I'm entirely against the idea that the data itself should be privately held. Those who own it should make it freely available to the public. This is similar to the model used by Genbank - the U.S. sequence database. If I deposit something in the database, I am the one who must be contacted if others find something wrong with the data. The data cannot be changed without my consent (which I'd give if the data were in error). So in that sense, I own/control the data. However, the data itself is freely available to all.
That is fine if it working and I fully support that model. I will not support (monetarily or otherwise) being a participant in collecting data for DFO where the information goes to DFO first. As I have mentioned in my previous posts, they are no longer to be trusted with my funds, or my support. Did I mention that I don't trust DFO?:cool:

BTW I am now out on this discussion. I have already used up too much space and I know there are others (yourself included) who have much more wisdom and experience with data management for the good of the environment. Thank you for your thought provoking comments from another viewpoint. I like to debate in this way. Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It sounds liked we've mostly converged on what is right and that our only real differences are in degrees of optimism/pessimism and our wording. I also appreciate a good discussion and love this forum since people can (generally) disagree without being disagreeable. I will say that in my world of academia, the gov't funds us but doesn't control the data (other than to expect us to make it public). I see that as an incredibly healthy way to do science.
 
I hate to say it but you're ideas RE: the science being proprietary are, IMHO, crazy. The data that will generated is data - pure and simple. Good data is most useful when it is publicly available and the methods of collection are well documented. Attempts to hide or control the use of data (regardless of from where they come) will only result in creating suspicion of the data itself and of the organization that collected it. Controlling and repackaging data is what many of us get concerned about when it is done by commercial organizations (big Pharma, fish farming operations etc). There's an entire movement in science towards increasing openness and transparency of data and methods. Your proposals are a step backward. Also, in practice, there's no way to control how others re-use or re-present data. Nonetheless good data speaks for itself.
Seadna - I agree with your comments in theory. However, finaddict has a pretty realistic understanding of what actually happens with DFO and data - on the ground level. I have to agree with his comments based on my own experience. My own experience is that you cannot trust senior DFO fisheries management people as far as you can throw them. There is far too much politics and corruption in the top end of DFO and our government in general that preempts fair dealings on the lower echelons of DFO. Ever since they did away with the Fisheries Research Board of Canada and instituted the current version of DFO - there has been no effective division of politics and science within DFO. That is precisely why the FRBC was disbanded and DFO instituted. Science got in the way of somebody's progress and greed. Many University-based academics have been insulated from these realities - and though I agree that their vision may operate that way in many Universities, and it is the way it SHOULD operate...It's not the way it does operate within the current Orwellian fisheries management regime in Canada. To be effective - you have to understand, acknowledge and mitigate that reality as described by Finaddict. The way to do that is NOT to give data to DFO, but rather ensure it does get out to the public in another format/process.
 
Herring Tracking Map - LIVE!!

OK, so anyhow, hopefully we can get this back on track here. The discussion about data ownership and all that is great but a bit distracting from the project.

This whole study is by the people, for the people.

We have established 3 phases to the study:

1. Establish a collaborative mapping platform for groups and individuals around the Salish Sea to post recent and historical reports on spawning events, juvenile herring spottings, etc. And look, we already have it live! Please feel free to contribute!

http://www.inaturalist.org/projects/pacific-herring-in-the-salish-sea

2. Collect samples from sites of interest for DNA testing. We will certainly need the help of the fishing community along with community groups to collect samples. Roughly 100 fish per site would be needed per site to have enough data for an analysis. I will post up instructions on how to take samples, but it is a very simple clip of the tail fin.

The locations of interest that have suspected genetically distinct/isolated stocks(among many others):

The Gorge(Portage Inlet)
Saanich Inlet
Howe Sound and Bowen Island
Port Melon
Pender Harbour
Poiler Pass


3. Crowd funding campaign to have the samples tested. The DNA of the known smaller groups would then be compared with the genotype of the existing DFO information from major spawning areas along with test netting results.

Thanks for all of your interest and please keep the input coming....but let's refrain from simply discuss how DFO works/doesn't work.

Ap
 
Back
Top