Salmon Extinction

[Red Monster]

Fish farms were brought in with the guarantee that they would not impact wild salmon. But rather than making fish farmers live up to this obligation, we have a government that simply ignores the truth. The government should be held accountable for the damage caused by fish farming.

I think it was Churchill who said that the Americians always do the right thing ...right after they have exhuasted all other options. But when it comes to fish farms, not even the Americans will touch them. If we sit around exploring all other options before we do the right thing with fish farms and take them out of the ocean, there may be no salmon left to save. [xx(]

 

[wolf]

So you are not going to comment on my Questions????bender???

 

[Barbender]

Hey Wolf. Sorry I said I would stop as perhaps it is too emotional a issue for some and that perhaps this is not the right venue for this discussion. My intentions are not to inflame or offend anyone. Also I do not speak for the industry as a whole, I am only speaking on what I have seen both in the commercial and farmed side of the seafood industry. Plus I have a large mistrust of NGO's (and gov't) that try to tell everyone what is happening. Your right in that I make a living off of aquaculture but I dont think that makes my oppinion any less valid. I still depend on a healthy ocean to make a living. If the general concensus is for me to continue then I will. However again I am here for fun and to enjoy the cameraderie of the sportfishing community. I would be happy to meet up for a beer somewhere and discuss it in person with whomever wants to. Although I must insist on bringing a few friends with me as extra security.

 

[Tailspin]

Aquaculture,

"The farming of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants in fresh or salt water, instead of on the land".

Sure it has an impact and is a large contributor to the collapse of our wild stocks, however the impacts are far more severe from global warming and habitat destruction wich is all caused by our own carbon footprints and greed. There are many good reads of environmental doom and gloom on all the impacts working against our future fishery.

I am not for fish farms and also would love to see them land based only, but to place the blame of demise of our entire wild stocks on Aquaculture is taking the easy diagnosis out.

Good on Barbender for handling himself in a professional manner, he is great guy to sit down and talk to.

 

[wolf]

No need to bring extra friends but I love a good debate on things and yes i would meet for a bevie and grab tailspin at the same time havent seen him in a bit.

Thanks Wolf

 

[Little Hawk]

Howdy,

What is the purpose of this forum?

Well, let's see... my take is that it's an electronic-conduit/meeting-place for all of us who've been touched by the thrill of catching a 'Wild-fish'. Here we meet, and share, and talk, and laugh, and even bragg, about something we all LOVE to do. Something that - as red blooded West Coasters' - gets our adrenaline moving like few other things in life can.

So, if I'm on the mark here and my fellow Sporties' out there in computer-land agree with my appraisal of the purpose of this site, let me ask all of you this:

What business do pro-fishfarmer's have mingling in amongst us here, singing the praises of what is arguably the single greatest threat to the long-term survival of our wild Pacific Salmon stocks?


Although I am new to this forum, make no mistake about, I am not new to the battle against the open-net pen fishfarmers, and I urge each and every one of you - if you truly give a 'flyin'-'f#@*'about our Wild-fish - to do as I have done and learn all you can from ALL sources about this dispicable industry and the forces at play behind it. Don't take my word for it - or Barbenders - or Morton's, or the Leggatt Report, or the Suzuki Foundation's, or the scientific community, or the Native's, or (least of all) our Government's; GET OFF YOUR ARSES' AND START ASKING QUESTIONS, AND READING, AND MAKING PHONE CALLS TO ALL PARTIES'(global) INVOLVED ON ALL SIDES FOR AND AGAINST - AND LEARN ALL YOU CAN...

... then draw your own conclusions about this industry.

The research that I did on the fishfarming industry - which formed the basis of a feature article for BC Outdoors/Sportfishing Magazine - left me horror struck.

I will never support open-net pen fishfarming in our waters and count myself among the 'Wild-fish' soldiers ready and willing to battle this menace until they pack-up their nets and go back to Norway and Holland.
</u>
Pro-fishfarmers (Barbender included) need to be exposed for what they are - pro-industry activist's who've infiltrated this media intent on softening the opposition to fishfarming. With respect to the known impacts of fishfarming on our 'Wild-salmon' and too, the very purpose of this forum - I believe his (and other pro-farmers) posts are a disgrace to all of us who care about 'wild-fish'.

Sure, as has been said, maybe people like Barbender are actually nice guys and 'fun' to have a beer with and why would someone like me say anything derogatory about him? Hell Terry... you don't even know him!

No I don't know him. But I've been reading and watching long enough to know that he is what he is with respect to fishfarming: an industry proponent who speaks out of BOTH sides of his mouth.
I'd rather call a spade-a-spade.

Believe me, I have empathy for those very few people who live in outlying areas on the Coast who (after being brainwashed by their employers) seek only to make a living while working on these farms; I too have a family to feed. However, my advise to you is this: FIND A NEW VOCATION - QUICK!</u>

Why am I of such a harsh opinion?

Here's a couple of reasons:

-Because I belive the industry is NOT going to move to a CLOSED-CONTAINMENT system; it's cost prohibitive. They'll pack up and sweet-talk their way (via collusive politician's) into another country to grow their fish to sell to the American's.

-The open net-pen fishfarmers days on the West Coast of Canada are numbered.

Why, you ask? Because the genesis of the west-coast fishfarming industry is THE NEED TO MAKE MONEY SELLING FARMED FISH TO THE AMERICANS. WHEREAS PEOPLE LIKE ME - THOSE WHO TRULY</u> TREASURE OUR WILD-FISH - ARE DRIVEN BY AN INFINATELY MORE POWERFUL FORCE - IT'S CALLED PASSION - AND THE BELIEF THAT WE (as stewards of all wild-fish) ARE OBLIGATED TO DO ALL WE CAN TO SEE TO IT THERE ARE 'WILD' SALMON LEFT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

If this post moves some of you to do something or get involved - or pisses you off - then I have done what I set out to do.

If you are already involved in the opposition to open-pen fishfarming (I salute you) then you, too, know full well that there are many forces at play driving/supporting the industry. Like our Provincial/Federal Government Fisheries managers who are under pressure (or being paid off) from the American's to grow their fish in our waters.

It's getting close to the point where Government won't be able to turn a blind-eye to the environmental impacts of open-pen fishfarming. To bring this industry and our Government to their knees, I believe at least two-things need to happen...

1) The Americans (where 85% or more of our farmfish are destined) need to be educated about what the consequenses of eating BC's farmed salmon are to the Pacific North-Nest's marine environment and ecology. If the market south of our border dries-up, so will the industry.

2) Opposition to the industry needs to become not only more broad-based, but also more aggressive with louder voices . Us guy's right here on this forum are indeed among the most PASSIONATE of all user groups concerning the conservation of the resource and henceforth should be on the front-line in the battle to rid our coast of open-netpen fishfarming. Perhaps we should be the ones to spearhead a campaign to rid our coastline of this disgrace.

If we don't, maybe one day... (skip ahead twenty years) while out fishing with a Grandson for Atlantic Salmon (now pen-raised then released for sportfishing and whalefood), your Grandchild will turn to you and ask, "Grandpa, what was it like, I mean, what was it really like to catch a 30-pound Chinook?"

 

[Nerka]

Barbender wrote "I can tell you that I could use the same data that Morton used and the same selective reasoning and prove that salmon farms increased Pink runs."

Wow, pretty bold statement. Since the data used in the science paper was DFO escapement data I would like to take you up on your offer of redoing the analysis using your own "selective reasoning" to show that salmon farms increase Pink runs.

I look forward to you posting your results.

Cheers,

nerka

 

[walter]

Prime example of an oops,

http://www.westcoastaquatic.ca/article_mainstream_escape0907.html

 

[Barbender]

Ok with regards to Hawk, his comments reflect a lack of knowledge or rational thought for that matter. So I will do what more and more of the general public are doing about such ridiculous statments and ignore him. With regards to Pinks I can post this graph.

I think it clearly shows that pinks have faired pretty well over the last few years. Like I said. Using this graph I can show that pinks have increased since farms showed up in the Broughton. Although that would be a irresponsible statement since it would take a bit more research to prove. With regards to the pink collapse if 2002 it is a well known fact that too many spawners on the grounds can cause collapses the following year. Too many fish (2000 returns)can lead to oxygen depletion, eggs being uncovered and lack of food for so many smolts going to sea at once. Again it is just a theory but one based on historical fact.
Wolf youd comments in regards to cattle farms not affecting salmon populations. I would only add this. The Fraser river ( the largest salmon river in the world) gets thousands of tons of run off from farms up the valley.
Also with regards to the Mainstream escape. What the media did not tell you is that the fish were contained within the predator net and did not escape into the ecosystem. So yes it makes good press to say salmon escaped. However it is not so exciting when those fish are contained so why even report it. Food for thought.

 

[Nerka]

Barbender I thought this graph was laughed into obscurity a few years back. Two cavets that everyone should be aware of when checking out the "data" you have chosen to share with us:

(1)1988 saw the construction of the glendale spawning channel halfway up Knight inlet, this has been the crutch that has kept pinks returning to the "Broughton" despite near collapses of pink returns to the majority of natural systems in the area. Oh course this coincided (roughly) with the advent of salmon farming.

(2) All the "low" escapement years preceding salmon farms sustained commercial fisheries that extracted pink salmon in the millions. Since 2002 there has been no commercial fishery within the Broughton.

I understand your concern regarding the "motivation" of the like of Morton and Krkosek, but their research is thoroughly reviewed, the propaganda that you have posted is not, and would be torn to shreds by any scientist. It definetly reveals your true colors though.

nerka

still waiting for the analysis you claim shows pinks have done better with salmon farms around...

 

[Barbender]

quote:Since 2002 there has been no commercial fishery within the Broughton.

Ok but there were commercial fisheries from 88-2001. Check the numbers still higher than the average.

quote:still waiting for the analysis you claim shows pinks have done better with salmon farms around...

I would never say that. What I did say was that I could use this graph and my own science and come to that conclusion if I wanted to skew the data (like Morton and Krkosek did).

quote:I thought this graph was laughed into obscurity a few years back

By whom? Morton? Kkrosek? David Suzuki? NGO's?

 

[Dave H]

"By whom? Morton? Kkrosek? David Suzuki? NGO's?"

How about by everyone who saw what Patrick (Pay Me) Moore tried to do when he issued this graph, trying to show there were lower returns than in 2002?
See the caption "Spawners Lower Than 2002"?
See the five arrows pointing to the "lower" years?
See what those years are?
Looks like 1991, 1987, 1969, 1961 and 1953 to me.
Notice they are all odd numbered years?
Don't you know that there are ON years and OFF years for Pink salmon returns and the returns in question are all even numbered years?
That is to say, after a huge return in 2000 one would expect a significant return two years later, in 2002.
Problem is that research in the spring showed huge sea-lice infestations on the outgoing juvenile salmon, so bad that the failure of the run in 2002 was actually predicted by Alexandra Morton, although she underestimated how bad it really was.

See how Moore, tried to compare APPLES and ORANGES? Pointing at odd years to compare the returns of even years wasn't a brilliant move now was it?
You'd think for the money they pay him he would be a bit more sophisticated.


Totally debunked graph but typical of the game.

More recently Vivian Krause wrote a letter to the Westcoaster on the topic of sea-lice and salmon.
The first sentence of the letter is: "Further to my letter of 28 September, I am writing as a member of the public to provide information and to offer my opinion regarding the sea lice research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation and others.

See the lie?

"as a member of the public" my butt.

Oh, and I don't believe Morton has ever got any Suzuki Foundation money either, another lie always thrown out there.

She (Krause) used to be Director Of Corporate Something or Other for Nutreco, part of Marine Harvest and has worked in the industry for years.

To claim to be but "a member of the public" and then submit a letter that was probably put together for her by some PR flack, given the layout of it, is lying, pure and simple.
And I think liars are all POS's, just so you know.

The sea-lice dynamic is so simple to understand that no research really needed to be done.
It's just a given that you cannot introduce 10 to 15 million adult sized salmon into an environment that has sea-lice in in and then expect the lice to not find the salmon, particularly since they are so nicely all penned up.
I mean how simple minded does one have to be to not understand the basic biology and physics of the situation?

And I think Nerka has nicely covered a few other salient points.

Take out the production from the Glendale and see how the runs look.

Good thing there's a legal opinion out there that the companies aren't responsible for what is happening as they "have no effective control over sea-lice" eh?

It's not against the law so they'll just keep on helping those Norwegian and Dutch multi-millionaires make a few more bucks.
And if a few wild fish suffer in the process, well what the heck do they care?

You'd be far better off staying off this topic Barbender, 'cause you're on the wrong side of it bigtime.

Take care.

 

[OldBlackDog]

quote:Originally posted by C.S.

Hey Wolf,your talking about Knight Inlet pinks getting cleaned out from fish farming.....what about the once awsome chinook fishery in the inlet totally wiped off the slate from the sport fishing industry?
Not defending farming but in some area's years of greed from other sectors have done alot of damage.

Once again another bunch of crap.
Gee, wonder what ALL those cannerys were up there?
Gee, wonder who stepped up to save those chinook? That would be the sportsfishing group.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Dave, right on.

 

[OldBlackDog]

quote:Originally posted by C.S.

No cannerys or commercial fishing around there 20 years ago but some great chinook fishing for sporty's.......All gone now Oldblack dog!
I was part of that greed,saw it first hand.

Any way....merry Xmas

Sorry, wrong inlet, I believe the forestry industry was the culprit here.
Explain how you cleaned out all the chinook.

 

[Barbender]

Well like I said. A very emotional issue. I think when you point out some information everyone has a counter to it. All I can say is that if you really look for yourself and keep the emotion out of it you will see it is not the doomsday culprit some people say it is. Do fish farms affect the enviroment they operate in...yes. However is it the cause of the downward spiral of all our fisheries? No. I have worked in seafood most of my career and seen it from both sides and have to say that the aquaculture side does far less damaging to the ecosystem. Do I think the commercial fishery is to blame for everything...no. All I am saying is that there is a large combination of factors and for people to blame farms when the causes are numberous is irresponsible and politically motivated.

 

[wolf]

I dont think you can say the sports industry whipped out the chinooks in knight inlet our lodge did not take that many fish out and we were really the only one up there in the last 10 years, every thing was ok until about 8 years ago then poof they were gone we havent had the lodge up in the upper inlet fo about 5 years now so I really dont know how the run is like in the spring now!!!! but I can tell you about the time we noticed the springs were not there as much we did notice the those things called olligan (sp)were not there as well and thats what scared us the most those placed used to team with bait every where now its like the dead sea.

I dont know what happened but it WAS a great spot to get fish NOT anymore!!!!!


Wolf

 

[Barbender]

In my oppinion (nothing more-nothing less) the main culprits to salmon numbers crashing are as follows.
1: Habitat destruction. There are from last count less than half the salmon producing rivers there once was 100 years ago.
2: Overharvesting of baitfish. The wholesale slaughter of Herring (a disgusting wasteful industry), Pilchards and Krill (which is used in some salmon feeds)
3: Industrial pollutants and effluent from farms, logging and cities dumped into major tributaries like the Fraser.
4: Over-exploitation of specific runs of salmon. (200 canneries worked full time starting in the 1800's on the shores of rivers. do the math)
5: The damming of hell's gate in the early days. That single event killed more salmon and future generations of salmon than any single event since. The ripples of which are still felt today.
6: Warmer ocean temps bringing mackarel closer inshore that decimate juvenile salmon.
7: DFO (Nuff said)
8: Commercial harvesting and Aquaculture
I could go on and on. All of which depresses the hell out of me.

 

[chris73]

quote:In my oppinion (nothing more-nothing less) the main culprits to salmon numbers crashing are as follows.
1: Habitat destruction. There are from last count less than half the salmon producing rivers there once was 100 years ago.
2: Overharvesting of baitfish. The wholesale slaughter of Herring (a disgusting wasteful industry), Pilchards and Krill (which is used in some salmon feeds)
3: Industrial pollutants and effluent from farms, logging and cities dumped into major tributaries like the Fraser.
4: Over-exploitation of specific runs of salmon. (200 canneries worked full time starting in the 1800's on the shores of rivers. do the math)
5: The damming of hell's gate in the early days. That single event killed more salmon and future generations of salmon than any single event since. The ripples of which are still felt today.
6: Warmer ocean temps bringing mackarel closer inshore that decimate juvenile salmon.
7: DFO (Nuff said)
8: Commercial harvesting and Aquaculture

In my mind the order is different:

1) Changing ocean conditions and associated decreased ocean survival of juvenile salmon
2) Human impacts on estuaries which are rearing gounds for juvenile salmon (this also includes impacts from rivermouth located fish farms) - latest studies show that the juvenile life stage is where the highest increase in loss occurs)
3) Overharvesting (government failed and greed prevailed)
4) River habitat destruction (I do not rank this on top as Barbender did since I know of several streams that are in relatively unchanged conditions or have been restored to at least equal conditions compared to times when salmon still migrated into those systems, and yet the fish do not return anymore...)
5) Food chain disruptions (natural and anthropogenic)

Single events like the Hells Gate blockage are not good but nature is able to compensate for this. Over the millions of years, such catastrophic events have occured naturally here and there too due to vulcanic eruptions, slides etc. There has always been a bad year for salmon here and there. It's the consistent impacts that will eradicate our salmon if we do not watch out.

 

[Red Monster]

Okay, the fall back postion for the fish farms is that they're not that bad, not as bad as say... Wait a minute! How the hell did we get off topic here? According to the rules and politicians that brought in the damn things, fish farms are only allowed to exist if and only if they do not impact wild salmon! So I refuse</u> to argue about fish farms compared to anything else: that's just not the point. Are there other issues for wild salmon? Yes, and I care about those issues too. But only a fool would accept the lame-butt BS being slung around to justify the existence fish farms.

Therefore, and as some here have already suggested, the issues that confront us are quite clear. How do we get rid of fish farms? How do we get federal and provincial governments to do the right thing? Is there a legal remedy? Could we persuade/educate consumers to stop buying farmed salmon? I wish I knew what to do. In this regard, however, there's one thing I know for sure: fish farmers themselves, along with their pimps and pushers, will never quit or even slow down out of any concern for the well being of wild salmon. And that pisses me off.