Fraser River FN Letter Opposing Salmon Farms

[agentaqua]

51. Mullins JE, Groman D, Wadowska D (1998) Infectious salmon anaemia in salt water Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in New Brunswick, Canada. Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 18(4):110.
52. Biacchesi S, Berre M Le, Guillou S Le, Benmansour A, Quillet E, Boudinot P (2007) Fish genotype signifcantly influences susceptibility of juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), to waterborne infection with infectious salmon anaemia virus. J Fish Dis 30:631–636.
53. MacWilliams C, Johnson G, Groman D, Kibenge FSB (2007) Morphologic description of infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV)--‐induced lesions in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss compared to Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Dis Aquat Organ 78:1–12.
54. Kibenge FS, Garate ON, Johnson G, Arriagada R, Kibenge MJ, Wadowska D (2001) Isolation and identification of infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV) from coho salmon in Chile. Dis Aquat Organ 45:9–18.
55. Lovoll M, et al. (2010) A novel totivirus and piscine reovirus (PRV) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with cardiomyopathy syndrome (CMS). Virol J 7:309--‐315.
56. Marty GD, Morrison DB, Bidulka J, Joseph T, Siah A. (2014) Piscine reovirus in wild and farmed salmonids in British Columbia, Canada: 1974--‐2013. J Fish Dis. DOI: 10.1111/jfd.12285
57. Kibenge MJT, Iwamoto T, Wang Y, Morton A, Godoy MG, Kibenge FSB (2013) Whole--‐ genome analysis of piscine reovirus (PRV) shows PRV represents a new genus in family Reoviridae and its genome segment S1 sequences group it into two separate sub--‐genotypes. Virol J DOI: 10.1186/1743--‐422X--‐10--‐230
58. Palacios G, et al. (2010) Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation of farmed salmon is associated with infection with a novel reovirus. PLoS One 5(7):3–9
59. Finstad OW, Falk K, Lovoll M, Evensen O, Rimstad E (2012) Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI). Vet Res 43:27.
60. Finstad OW, Dahle MK, Lindholm TH, Nyman IB, Lovoll M, Wallace C, Olsen CM, Storset AK, Rimstad E (2014) Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) infects Atlantic salmon erythrocytes. Acta Vet Scand 45(1): 35.
61. McVicar AH (1997) Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and cultured Atlantic salmon populations. ICES J Mar Sci J du Cons 54:1093–1103.
62. Poppe TT, Seierstad SL (2003) First description of cardiomyopathy syndrome (CMS)--‐ related lesions in wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in Norway. Dis Aquat Organ 56:87–88.
63. Bockerman I, Wiik--‐Nielsen CR, Sindre H, Johansen R, Tengs T (2011) Prevalence of piscine myocarditis virus (PMCV) in marine fish species. J Fish Dis 34:955–957.
64. Brocklebank J, Raverty S (2002) Sudden mortality caused by cardiac deformities following seining of preharvest farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and by cardiomyopathy of postintraperitoneally vaccinated Atlantic salmon parr in British Columbia. Can Vet J 43:129–130.
65. Taksdal T, Olsen AB, Bjerkas I, Hjortaas MJ, Dannevig BH, Graham DA, McLoughlin MF (2007) Pancreas disease in farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), in Norway. J Fish Dis 30:545–558.
66. Igboeli OO, Burka JF, Fast MD (2014) Lepeophtheirus salmonis: a persisting challenge for salmon aquaculture. Anim Front 4(1):22–32.
67. Markussen T, Jonassen CM, Numanovic S, Braaen S, Hjortaas M, Nilsen H, Mjaaland S (2008) Evolutionary mechanisms involved in the virulence of infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV), a piscine orthomyxovirus. Virology 374:515–527.

...end of letter...

 

[Dave]

Gotta be better than an orgasm eh,aa? lol!!
This one will be fun to follow, big egos all around.

 

[rockdog]

Is it really ego's?

 

[shuswap]

Scientific studies indicate that juvenile sockeye salmon on the east coast of Vancouver Island that are infected with sea lice have reduced competitive foraging ability relative to uninfected conspecifics (15)

Dr. Marty commented on this particular study and suggested that it was incomplete because it didn’t look at any pre-existing disease that might affect feeding behaviour of these fish. It’s kind of a big loose end that didn’t get tied off. If those fish were already suffering from a pre-existing illness then how can the authors conclusively state it was sea lice that reduced their foraging ability? I believe this is a valid criticism and it was not mentioned by Dr. Dill in his letter.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/letters/pharmacists+vaccinate+kids+under/11031356/story.html

On page 4, Dr. Marty says: “Data presented during [the Cohen Commission] did not show that salmon farms were having a significant negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.” However, Dr. Marty fails to include the line that immediately follows this quote from the Cohen Commission report, “… the statistical power of the database (containing fish health data from 2004 to 2010) was too low to rule out significant negative impact” (21, p. 24). By not including this additional context, Dr. Marty leaves the impression that we can confidently conclude that salmon aquaculture does not pose a potential risk to Fraser River sockeye. Justice Cohen, however, concludes that “…net--‐pen salmon farming in the Discovery Islands poses a risk of serious harm to Fraser River sockeye through the transfer of diseases and pathogens” (21, p. 25).

Well, to be fair, it kind of goes both ways. Dr. Dill cannot say that it is a higher risk either as he leaves that impression also. Justice Cohen also had other findings (Vol. 2, Chapters 4 and 5) that Dr. Dill chose to omit so to paint Dr. Marty as misrepresenting published work is like the pot calling the kettle black.

A key citation used by Dr. Marty to support the statement that salmon farms do not affect wild salmon is his own work (35). Dr. Marty fails to mention that his analysis was not conclusive because it had low power to detect an effect (2). Indeed, a reanalysis of the data, published in the same scientific journal, revealed that productivity of both pink and coho salmon was negatively related to abundance of sea lice on salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago (2). We recognize that there is continuing debate over the magnitude of the effect of salmon farming on wild salmon (23), and that the impact may vary among species of salmon, locations, and years (e.g., 36). However, by failing to acknowledge the published works that found parasites from salmon farms may negatively affect wild salmon populations (3, 29, 37–40), Dr. Marty presents a biased perspective on the current state of knowledge regarding the potential effects of salmon farming on wild salmon .

Dr. Dill and his fellow authors are doing the same sort of thing here they are accusing Dr. Marty of. For instance, and rather obvious to most researchers now, they do not mention the dramatic increases in the abundance of Pink Salmon in the Northeast Pacific which includes the South Coast and the Fraser River. This was a finding from one of the authors (Brendan Connors), but not mention in the letter. They do not mention growing literature on the potential negative impacts of ranched salmon (primarily Pinks; mostly from Russia, Japan and Alaska) on species like Sockeye in the North Pacific. They also do not mention the work of Randall Peterman where they testified during the Cohen Commission about the potential interactions between wild and enhanced fish. Dr. Peterman provided evidence during the Commission that the body size at any given size of adult Sockeye decreases as the abundance of competitors increases. In addition, in Technical Report #10 (and discussed by Cohen in his Final Report), Randall Peterman and Brigette Dorner found that most Fraser and many non-Fraser Sockeye stocks, both in Canada and the US, show a decrease productivity. These were also omitted by Dr. Dill while at the same time blaming Dr. Marty for being biased. Lastly, there is no mention of recent productivity increases (modest as they are) in Fraser Sockeye since 2009 while salmon farming still goes on. If Dr. Dill is going to start going into a detailed review of the literature and suggest to show “a more complete assessment of the science” in order to prove Dr. Marty’s shortcomings then the same can be done to him and his colleagues.

While we recognize that numerous samples of Pacific salmon have not tested positive for ISAv (e.g., 41), several laboratories have conducted tests that indicate genetic elements of ISAv are present in Pacific salmon (42). Although this is not conclusive evidence that ISAv is present in BC, it is misleading to ignore these test results.

Before Dr. Dill can start pointing fingers about Dr. Marty not mentioning something here it would help his credibility here if he didn’t omit Justice Cohen’s findings regarding ISAv and ISA. That includes the Cultus Lake samples and the testing that was done – not just at DFO’s Moncton Lab but Dr. Kibenge’s lab also. Dr. Dill also does not mention the recent viral surveillance work done by both Canada and the US and the results from that work so far. Again, if this is supposed to be “a more complete assessment of the science” that these authors are trying to undertake then show it – don’t do what they are accusing others of.

Piscine reovirus (PRV) is widely acknowledged as present and widespread in British Columbia – in trout as well as salmon (56, 57). There is strong evidence of an association between PRV and the disease, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HMSI; 58, 59), if not a direct cause--‐and--‐effect relationship (60). Dr. Marty′s commentary on PRV fails to mention these papers

Dr. Dill primarily focuses on selective literature to prove his point, but fails to mention recent work on PRV. Somehow Dr. Garver’s studies (released this year) on PRV were not mentioned anywhere. That alone is a big omission from some claiming “a more complete assessment of the science”. Can that be considered being sort of biased? I mean let’s call a spade a spade here.

I believe that the extensive ongoing research that Dr. Dill talks about, and I definitely agree with, will provide a much more robust data set in the coming years that Dr. Korman eluded to during the inquiry was missing. I agree there is still much debate about the degree of that risk. However, as I read Dr. Dill’s letter, I am not fully convinced that he will follow evidence based policies as much as he preaches. I figure is mind is pretty much made up at this point, but that’s my opinion.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, are people saying we should not trust our government and a government scientist on this?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Firstly - thanks for not resorting to personal attacks, and sticking to the issues.

2ndly - your question reverses the responsibility of proof. It is supposed to be the responsibility of the proponent to prove that the planned activities do not harm the environment - and if they do - plan/implement for mitigation/compensation. I think this is the nexus of the problem.

You industry has been exempt from a full-fledged environmental assessment procedure ever since the 1st farm went into the waters in Canada. Your industry apparently does not understand what an environmental assessment is, and what a baseline (i.e. the "normal ranges" you reference) should look like wrt indexing realized impacts. It appears to me that your industry is quite scared of such a process, along with the mandatory public input and consultation processes.

Again - at the crux of this problem - is the political interference and conflict of interest in having DFO regulate and promote your industry. Justice Cohen spoke to this and recommended that DFO be replaced in these conflicting roles.

3rd - to directly answer your question: I will reiterate what I have said many times over numerous posts and threads....

There are peer-reviewed articles that myself and other posters have posted over your above question - but your response to date has been to attack the author rather than the content of these articles (e.g. Krkosek, Ford, Morton, etc.) - in an attempt to de-legitimize their impacts. Certainly most published articles can be critiqued for their assumptions and relevancy - and that is fair game in the field of science. But what shouldn't matter is what name is on the paper.

I think we always should have independent 3rd party validators/researchers/investigators. DFO also apparently thinks so - as many - if not most commercial fisheries have some level of independent 3rd party validators as part of "Conditions of Licence" for a fishery. YET - not your industry - and the courts have determined it to be a "fishery" - and you have the same body regulating you.

In addition we should be using the Precautionary Approach and risk-adverse strategies. If tidal excursions are something like 5km - then so should the siting criteria.

I am pleased to hear you state: "New information will better serve both sides of the debate". That is missing here. Along with that is honest, real-time, site-specific info on things like fish disease outbreaks. There should be no reason to gate-keep or lie. You may/may not believe me when I say that when you get into a real communication/consultation process in something like a real, full environmental assessment process - people are held accountable for their comments/submissions. Eventually, trust develops. That - again - is what is missing here - because of the lack of honesty and transparency - and lack of respect.

That is the real reason the dialogue is so elevated, emotional, acrimonious and derisive.

Oh - and thanks for the support , Rockdog!

After 30+ years operating with no discernable negative impact on wild salmon populations, I am quite confident that the "responsibility of proof" falls quite squarely on opponents of salmon aquaculture in BC.

Your application of the "Precautionary Principle" inevitably times out after a period of operation in which our application of the "Precautionary Principle" results in a state of affairs in which using any and all available science there is no definitive evidence of harm.

You could apply the same methodology used to almost any industry in BC and call for changes in regulation, management, or siting based on speculative claims of correlation.

As I have said before, knowing more about how things move around and their impacts changes nothing about the fact that a great deal of energy is being put in to working towards a problem that can't be seen with todays knowledge.

That, in my mind (as in many others as well), signifies that the proposed impact is at a level which puts it well below what may have already been identified as a factor in wild salmon population fluctuations.

Once known, that knowledge will be applied to the overall managment of fisheries and aquaculture on the coast, resulting in potential changes across the board.

That could mean that if it was shown that a particular pathogen found on a farm was resulting in a certain % of mortality in wild smolts due to proximity, that the proximity to early rearing and holding areas would change.

Taken in context, it could also mean that mortality caused by releasing undersized wild salmon by sportfishermen (impacting populations a little later in their lives) would amount to roughly X the impact of the pathogen, and occur yearly instead of periodically.

What would the regulatory change be?

There is an inordinate amount of time spent scrutinizing salmon aquaculture when you look at the other factors we already know that negatively impact wild populations.

Academia and Government will continue to fight a pitched battle of, "We're doing this because of this." and "We disagree because we think that this may, due to potential theoretical factors like this, mean that that could change."

All that does little to change the fact that decades in to farming salmon on the coast, negative impacts to wild populations remain a theoretical, modeled number living inside a subjective risk assessment.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I would like to hear the stance on this, and no copy and pasting.

Are you saying you will boycott all bait and fish only lures?

 

[terrin]

I believe that the extensive ongoing research that Dr. Dill talks about, and I definitely agree with, will provide a much more robust data set in the coming years that Dr. Korman eluded to during the inquiry was missing. I agree there is still much debate about the degree of that risk. However, as I read Dr. Dill’s letter, I am not fully convinced that he will follow evidence based policies as much as he preaches. I figure is mind is pretty much made up at this point, but that’s my opinion.[/QUOTE]

This is where the Precautionary Principal should be applied with regard to Open Cage Fish Farms until that degree of risk can be addressed in favour of Wild Salmon.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Had another great day out on the water yesterday sampling wild smolts with Ahousaht Fisheries.



Seeing a lot more Chinook this year, a handful of Sockeye as well to go along with the usual relatively strong Chum and Coho runs.



We're doing live ID this year, as there has been many Chum taken for the lab over the projects 10 year life-span - sea lice levels still correlate well to salinity and temperature.

Results will be posted on our website this summer, once the project is complete and all the data and images sorted.

http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada

 

[Whole in the Water]

So, are people saying we should not trust our government and a government scientist on this?

You're joking right, if not then the answer is a great big YES! I have seen and heard first hand of Govt. staff and scientists who say and publish only what the politicians want to hear (to support questionable corporate interests and practices) so they can keep their jobs. I understand why they do it, but it doesn't make it morally right or healthy in the long term for the environment that we all need to survive. The sad thing is that after one twists or hides the truth long enough it is easy to start believing it is the truth overtime so one can live with themselves.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”Joseph Goebbels, **** Party Propaganda Minister, 1933-1945

 

[Dave]

You're joking right, if not then the answer is a great big YES! I have seen and heard first hand of Govt. staff and scientists who say and publish only what the politicians want to hear (to support questionable corporate interests and practices) so they can keep their jobs. I understand why they do it, but it doesn't make it morally right or healthy in the long term for the environment that we all need to survive. The sad thing is that after one twists or hides the truth long enough it is easy to start believing it is the truth overtime so one can live with themselves.

So tell us WitW, are you suggesting Dr. Marty is not telling the truth?

 

[SpringVelocity]

Are you saying you will boycott all bait and fish only lures?

I fish mostly lures BTW nice try. That was clever dance around what I said.... You have to admit the industry has a huge impact on the bait fish in the ocean. The more you expand the more food is taken always from the wild fish.

[video=vimeo;119469413]https://vimeo.com/119469413

 

[OldBlackDog]

So tell us WitW, are you suggesting Dr. Marty is not telling the truth?

The question is does everyone who posted against Dr. Marty believe he is had lied on this?
Further do they think that their governments has?
Will be interesting to know if they think they do and if they have a good facts on which they believe this.

There are people who have posted that we need more scientists in our government yet they are against this one?
Kind of hypocritical?

 

[agentaqua]

The real hypocritical part is not supplying adequate, relevant, timely info - no matter what anyone's "beliefs" are...

 

[agentaqua]

So tell us WitW, are you suggesting Dr. Marty is not telling the truth?

You do understand that Dr. Marty is a Provincial employee - a "public servant", Dave? NOT an industry vet or industry PR firm?

Yet - here he is advocating on behalf of the industries needs.

Does anyone else think that is inappropriate?

 

[OldBlackDog]

You all understand about this person as well. A government employee.

Download in full via the Cohen Commission's web-site: Memo from B Hargreaves re Nov 20 2003 Meeting with BC and BCSFA on Preliminary Sea Lice Results, undated - CAN386274 (Exhibit #1342 - from 8th July).
>
> Or click online here.
>
> In his testimony to the Cohen Inquiry last week, which saw his career flash before his eyes like Klingons off the starboard bow of the Star Trek ship 'The Enterprise', Dr. Beamish said: "Maybe it's aliens" before adding unbelievably: "Obviously I don't believe in aliens".
>
> Dr. Beamish certainly doesn't believe that sea lice from salmon farms are killing wild salmon and spent his career staunchly defending the Norwegian-owned salmon farming industry. At last year's 'Sea Lice 2010' conference in Victoria, Dr. Beamish refused to answer questions on sea lice from salmon farms. This was even more incredible since Dr. Beamish was the plenary speaker in a session on 'Wild/Farmed Interactions'.
>
> The audience in the public gallery at the Cohen Inquiry last week were left in no doubt which side Dr. Beamish was on when he greeted Mary-Ellen Walling, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association. "My inspiration," he gushed as he hugged her like an old flame.
>
> "This is bad science?" asked lawyer Greg McDade as he ripped apart Dr. Beamish's scientific work. Thankfully, Dr. Beamish recently called last orders on his career with the DFO. His future scientific credibility would be in jeopardy otherwise.
> Read more background via "Beamish Me Up Dicky"

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I fish mostly lures BTW nice try. That was clever dance around what I said.... You have to admit the industry has a huge impact on the bait fish in the ocean. The more you expand the more food is taken always from the wild fish.

[video=vimeo;119469413]https://vimeo.com/119469413

Bait fish - lol.

Yes, salmon aquaculture does use marine sourced protein in their feed - that fact is well recognized, and reducing that has been one of the main focuses of the industry for years.

Here's a good look at it using todays data: http://report2013.cermaq.com/#/en/sustainability-report/sustainable-feed

Pointing out context isn't dancing around anything - it is simply an effort to point out that bitching about the role aquaculture may have in BC's herring fishery (no matter how indirect and minor it may be) while engaging in an industry which takes directly from the herring and anchovy stock, using it as bait, when there is an easily accessible and functional alternative is a little ironic.

"Starving whales be damned, they're only taking medium herring on a glow teaser today!"

 

[OldBlackDog]

Was he not asked by his employer for this report?

So why would he lie? That is an offence that could get you fired?

You do understand that Dr. Marty is a Provincial employee - a "public servant", Dave? NOT an industry vet or industry PR firm?

Yet - here he is advocating on behalf of the industries needs.

Does anyone else think that is inappropriate?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

You do understand that Dr. Marty is a Provincial employee - a "public servant", Dave? NOT an industry vet or industry PR firm?

Yet - here he is advocating on behalf of the industries needs.

Does anyone else think that is inappropriate?

You may call it, "advocating on behalf of the industries needs", but others would simply call it presenting the science as supported by empirical evidence and balancing a number of competing, peer-reviewed positions.

Just because it favours a position which lowers the perceived level of risk from a certain operation doesn't mean it is advocating on behalf of that operation.

You seem to be stuck in the "We are right, everyone who disagrees is obviously a shill" rut, where you work backwards from a (proposed) problem and try to fill in the blanks wherever it fits your position, while ignoring everything that does not.

Not really very scientific.

 

[agentaqua]

Was he not asked by his employer for this report? So why would he lie? That is an offence that could get you fired?

No - I can't see where he was asked for this, OBD. It was mailed out to the various Provincial Ministers - Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and the Minister of the Environment. The only one that is Marty's "Boss" is the MoA.