View From the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences side of the fence

[seadna]

AND DFO thinks 1 km is an adequate and scientifically defensible siting criteria here in the Pacific, and they want you and I to believe them and to believe that they house the professional and scientific expertise to deal with aquaculture.


OK - I'll nibble:

1/ how would you determine whether or not the same species of lice are different with respect to "potency" - if such a thing exists?
2/ How would you quantify and prove that?
3/ Just because there are genetic differences between different populations of leps in the Atlantic and Pacific (which would be expected) - why would you assume that the reason they are taking it more seriously in Europe must mean there are differences in potency?
4/ If sea lice have co-evolved with different salmonid species in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (as you posted above) - why would "potency" then be suspected as a factor of differences between how different jurisdictions acknowledge sea lice impacts from the open net-cage industry? Why wouldn't you first suspect politics and media manipulation as the reason for different management strategies?

1 and 2 are easy - you'd have to do a well defined experiment in which you intentionally exposed groups of salmon to the different isolates of sea lice and then determined the mortality rate and perhaps measured other phenotypic characteristics (average weight for example). Of course you'd use identical (to the extent possible) salmon populations and environments for this testing. It's not unreasonable to hypothesize the differences in "potency" (a microbiologist would you the term pathogenicity) could exist between different populations of sea lice. HOWEVER,

As you point out, genetic differences between sea lice strains are not in and of themselves indicators of pathogenicity. It's expected that isolated populations will evolve differently. To my knowledge, there is no experimental evidence for differences in pathogenicity between different isolates of sea lice. IMHO, the hypothesized difference in pathogenicity seems to be just an excuse to ignore the experience of other parts of the world where impacts of farming on wild fish are more evident than they are here. Some Canadians (just like MOST Americans) like to believe that knowledge from elsewhere isn't applicable "here" because we're different, we do things different, etc. etc.

 

[agentaqua]

1 and 2 are easy - you'd have to do a well defined experiment in which you intentionally exposed groups of salmon to the different isolates of sea lice and then determined the mortality rate and perhaps measured other phenotypic characteristics (average weight for example). Of course you'd use identical (to the extent possible) salmon populations and environments for this testing. It's not unreasonable to hypothesize the differences in "potency" (a microbiologist would you the term pathogenicity) could exist between different populations of sea lice. HOWEVER,

As you point out, genetic differences between sea lice strains are not in and of themselves indicators of pathogenicity. It's expected that isolated populations will evolve differently. To my knowledge, there is no experimental evidence for differences in pathogenicity between different isolates of sea lice. IMHO, the hypothesized difference in pathogenicity seems to be just an excuse to ignore the experience of other parts of the world where impacts of farming on wild fish are more evident than they are here. Some Canadians (just like MOST Americans) like to believe that knowledge from elsewhere isn't applicable "here" because we're different, we do things different, etc. etc.

I couldn't agree more with your post here Sedna. In fact the "Precautionary Approach" directs that we should assume similar effects until that assumption is proven invalid - not the other way around. Fish farmer PR shrills are always trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I couldn't agree more with your post here Sedna. In fact the "Precautionary Approach" directs that we should assume similar effects until that assumption is proven invalid - not the other way around. Fish farmer PR shrills are always trying to shift the burden of proof.

If you haven't been able to prove your case after nearly 40 years - I would say the burden of proof has shifted entirely to you, and that the "Precautionary Approach" (as you choose to invoke it) does not still apply.

Your argument is invalid.

The moderators set quite a precedent a while back with their, "Given that this debate will always create an "agree to disagree" outcome we are closing this thread before the debate degenerates any further. "

I'm surprised anyone can discuss salmon farms on here anymore.

 

[agentaqua]

If you haven't been able to prove your case after nearly 40 years - I would say the burden of proof has shifted entirely to you, and that the "Precautionary Approach" (as you choose to invoke it) does not still apply.

Your argument is invalid.

The moderators set quite a precedent a while back with their, "Given that this debate will always create an "agree to disagree" outcome we are closing this thread before the debate degenerates any further. "

I'm surprised anyone can discuss salmon farms on here anymore.

only in your mind, CK.

 

[Dave]

only in your mind, CK.

Hardly!
CK is right, after 40 years you still have no evidence BC salmon farms are impacting long term wild salmon returns.
Until you do don't expect much from this "troll".

 

[seadna]

I would claim that there is certainly evidence that salmon farms can do harm as indicated by studies of sea lice on out migrating fry AND a reduction in such when the farms changed their sea lice abatement programs to reduce sea lice more during out migrations. In addition there is a sound theoretical basis for how such things could effect long term returns. Given both of those, the precautionary approach makes a lot more sense to me than letting salmon farms continue to use the public water resources as they wish until the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that they are F'in up things.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I would claim that there is certainly evidence that salmon farms can do harm as indicated by studies of sea lice on out migrating fry AND a reduction in such when the farms changed their sea lice abatement programs to reduce sea lice more during out migrations. In addition there is a sound theoretical basis for how such things could effect long term returns. Given both of those, the precautionary approach makes a lot more sense to me than letting salmon farms continue to use the public water resources as they wish until the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that they are F'in up things.

Can, could - You didn't want to throw in a may for good measure?

Runs in areas with farms have showed no decreases outside normal fluctuations seen elsewhere, even before sea lice treatment was implemented.

How long will it take for the data to be collected to show that the, "evidence is overwhelmingly clear that they are F'in up things"?

Will people still be doing all the other things that we do know harm wild salmon while we wait?

Seems to me this is pretty much, as I've said before, a, "Put up or shut up" era for salmon farm haters.

 

[Rockfish]

Hardly!
CK is right, after 40 years you still have no evidence BC salmon farms are impacting long term wild salmon returns.
Until you do don't expect much from this "troll".

I am shocked Dave. Who could have ever predicted that another of the 4 or 5 industry PR hacks who grace our forum would show up to back up one of your own no matter how absurd or ridiculous the statement. Should we stand by for Birdie and Absolon?

 

[Rockfish]

If you haven't been able to prove your case after nearly 40 years - I would say the burden of proof has shifted entirely to you, and that the "Precautionary Approach" (as you choose to invoke it) does not still apply.

Your argument is invalid.

The moderators set quite a precedent a while back with their, "Given that this debate will always create an "agree to disagree" outcome we are closing this thread before the debate degenerates any further. "

I'm surprised anyone can discuss salmon farms on here anymore.

I have been following this issue long enough that it is extremely rare that I see anything new in terms of the industry’s tactics and talking points and this one is nothing new.

What a perfect protective circular argument put forward with this piece of illogical nonsense. The industry does not have to prove there is no risk or that they do no harm, it is up to others to prove that it does. But of course the industry will never accept as having validity any study, review, or information that would demonstrate risk or harm so there is no proof acceptable to the industry and in my view never will be which of course allows them to postulate this absurd position.
Indeed if the industry had a mantra it would be, there’s no proof there’s no proof, there’s no proof.

Now every once in awhile when the industry gets caught with their pants down and risk or harm on a specific issue is so glaringly obvious that they can see the millions of scepticable faces in their minds eye, they are forced to switch to another tactic. That is when you begin to see: its not as bad as it use to be, we are making huge improvements, we are spending x amount of dollars to solve x etc etc etc. They then have no problem with going back to the mantra of there’s no proof without ever acknowledging the hypocrisy of the shift and in fact they can do both at the same time, it is truly amazing to watch. Look through the posts of the half dozen industry PR shrills that grace our little forum and you will see this over and over.

Now of course there are lots of other tactics used by a very well funded industry Public Relations spin machine, their representatives and employees. The bottom line is that for them it is not about proof or truth. It is about maintaining the public license to keep their open net pens in our inlets, to expand those pens in both size and numbers, to keep the public focus off the substantial amount of tax dollars that are directed towards the industry directly and indirectly to protect it, prop it up and increase its profits at the expense of the taxpayer and finally to keep the heat off their political supporters least they become less supportive.

Why is it that DFO seems to have such a weak, some would say nonexistent application of the Precautionary Principal of Fishery Management when it comes to this industry? DFO has no problem with enforcing the Precautionary Principal in fishery management in other situations and there are many examples particularly as it relates to the sport sector. One however I became aware of some years back at a public meeting with DFO representatives I found particularly interesting for it’s sheer contrast with how DFO or perhaps it would be fairer to say their political masters approach the Atlantic net pen industry as opposed to other situations with considerable similarities.

A group of anglers in a small coastal community had worked for a couple years on a project to establish a localized pink fishery close to a small coastal town for anglers and particularly children. It would provide an economic benefit for the town and a family friendly and fun healthy sport fishing activity. The plan was to place some small Pacific Pinks Salmon for a short time in a small ocean pen so that they would imprint on that local area, would be released and then return as adults to create a new small local sport fishery that had not previously existed and perhaps the Pinks would even be able to be caught from shore.

A DFO representative advised that despite all the work to date, they had decided that it was too risky to continue with the project. As I recall a major reason was as there was a creek not too far away, there was the possibility that the Pinks could establish a run in that creek which to their knowledge had not previously had Pacific Pink Salmon in it. Even though these were to be healthy native Pacific Pink Salmon and a very small scale operation with only a short time in a pen and a remote chance they could establish in the creek which could be monitored and if they did could be removed. I did not disagree with the decision. I did have some empathy for the anglers that had put in all the work only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. In effect DFO consider that Native Pacific Salmon were to be considered alien salmon in this case and the plan too risky. At the time in my naivety I was rather impressed that they were being so careful.

Now let’s contrast that with the millions of actual ALIEN Atlantic Salmon in open net pens for long periods of time with their diseases that evolved in a different ocean introduced into our ocean with our Pacific Salmon. Millions upon millions of them and none of them ever escape now do they. But don’t get concerned there is no proof there is any risk or harm caused by them at all and no one will ever prove otherwise, just ask the industry PR hacks. So what happen to the Precautionary Principal with the Atlantic Salmon net pens that was so rigorously imposed to squash the low risk small Pink fishery project.

I guess the Atlantic Salmon net pen industry must be far less risky than the little Pink Salmon project because the industry has apparently just been granted approval by the Feds for a major expansion.

It also looks like Provincial govt. is once again pushing through gag order legislation which it had previously backed off of because of public concern and backlash. I guess they think it is quiet enough to get it through this time and the corporate media is giving them a pass. This will in my opinion make it less likely that if something goes wrong with the perfect risk free industry, (but that never happens, just ask them) those pesky voters will be much less likely to hear about. That’s a good thing, - for the industry.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Can, could - You didn't want to throw in a may for good measure?

Runs in areas with farms have showed no decreases outside normal fluctuations seen elsewhere, even before sea lice treatment was implemented.

How long will it take for the data to be collected to show that the, "evidence is overwhelmingly clear that they are F'in up things"?

Will people still be doing all the other things that we do know harm wild salmon while we wait?

Seems to me this is pretty much, as I've said before, a, "Put up or shut up" era for salmon farm haters.

Your challenge here reminded me of a challenge I gave to you and Birdnest just before Christmas. I and others asked you and any other net pen feedlot supporter to provide any peer reviewed research to disprove all the growing evidence of the negative impacts of net pen feedlots that Agentaqua, Englishmen and others have posted on this forum many times and you FAILED to do so. Your challenge here now sounds pretty damn hollow!

Thread: Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts...

Originally Posted by ClayoquotKid Hello "Whole",

While the amount of research going into quanitfying the hypothesised impacts of aquaculture on wild salmon populations has risen, their actual findings and dependence on assumptions has not changed.

The simple fact remains that there is no evidence available today which shows that areas with salmon farms have wild salmon populations which perform any differently than those in areas without.

No amount of bold type or inreased font size is going to change the simple truth that the papers do not align with what wild salmon populations actually do.

Think about this: Do the hatchery folks working in areas with aquaculture present get consistently lower survival than those in other areas?

Not that I know of - Anyone have any different info?

That would be a pretty easy way to tell if there was anything different going on with farms present.

For instance, look at the 2014 Outlook summary from DFO: http://www.sportfishing.bc.ca/docs/p...look_-_dfo.pdf

Some up, some down, but overall better than last year.

I don't have to match paper with paper because it doesn't PROVE anything - it simply means that flaws in one argument are pointed out and different ideas are put forward.

In instances where I have done so, the rebuttals are dismissed as being industry funded - so there really doesn't seem to be any value in it in this context.

You can keep banging the table and passing judgement on morals all you like, I guess this forum is designed for just such activity - but the scientific debate about impacts on wild salmon from aquaculture operations will certainly not be closed here in favour of either side.

My tone and occasional quips may lean a little to the snarky side, but given the accusations, name calling and outright hostility seen from the anonymous posters on the other side of the debate here - I would say it's all part of the game.

Happy Holidays!
Thanks for the reply CK. My use of bold and bigger fonts was only to get you to provide a reply as it was a long time in coming - getting a little frustrated I guess.

While I understand your position and your ongoing defense of your industry (as it is your job). I cannot agree with, nor respect how you have defended your industry. You have refused to provide any peer, reviewed scientific research to dismiss the findings from a growing collection of such research from around the world and only reply with personal opinions and observations.

I think it would be fair to say at this time you and your industry cannot defend itself from the research on the negative impacts of net pen salmon feedlots and if it wasn't for the well documented conflict of interest support you get from DFO (see Cohen Commission Report) and pro-foreign investment support from the Prov. and Fed. Govts. (I know as I have worked in Govt. and witnessed it) your industry would be most likely shut down for the high probability of spreading disease, polluting the environment and endangering wild fish populations.

But when large amounts of foreign investment money is involved (just as in oil, mining, forestry, pharamaceutical, fast food, tobacco industries, etc. the list goes on) the local people and the environment they depend upon gets ruined and most times the big corporations and their short-term jobs move on to some other place to "develop"/ruin for corporate profits. Net pen salmon feedlots are no different in this regard in minds of a growing number of people and research scientists. (ha, look at me now I am 'opinionating' like you).

I and many others on this forum can only hope that land based, salmon feedlots become more economically viable before any really serious damage is done to wild salmon and the marine environment. Until then I and many others will continue to work hard to bring about positive change to improve things in this regard. My 2 bits.

Happy Holiday's to you!

 

[ClayoquotKid]

When is all this harm from aquaculture supposed to begin?

Seems to me that if there is nothing measurable from the days when things may have been done poorly, the fact that things are now done quite well (IMHO, as someone with firsthand knowledge of current practices) would point to a future with high confidence of productive co-existence between farmed and wild salmon in BC.

Duelling papers passing through peer review don't equate to the reality seen in the natural world - they are simply academics arguing points and trying to support their positions with evidence.

The reality is that in BC there has not been a case where anyone has shown that the presence of salmon farms in any area has resulted in the decline of wild salmon.

Far from causation, there isn't even a correlation - no pattern, no signal, nothing that stands out as abnormal given the natural fluctuations seen in wild salmon populations.

On another note, I think Stephen Harper is doing a great job for Canada, Christy Clark and the BC Liberal Party are undoubtably the best choice for BC's future prosperity and success, the term "Carbon Pollution" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I would rather see a pipeline used to export oil than trains any day.

 

[GLG]

When is all this harm from aquaculture supposed to begin?

Seems to me that if there is nothing measurable from the days when things may have been done poorly, the fact that things are now done quite well (IMHO, as someone with firsthand knowledge of current practices) would point to a future with high confidence of productive co-existence between farmed and wild salmon in BC.

Duelling papers passing through peer review don't equate to the reality seen in the natural world - they are simply academics arguing points and trying to support their positions with evidence.

The reality is that in BC there has not been a case where anyone has shown that the presence of salmon farms in any area has resulted in the decline of wild salmon.

Far from causation, there isn't even a correlation - no pattern, no signal, nothing that stands out as abnormal given the natural fluctuations seen in wild salmon populations.

On another note, I think Stephen Harper is doing a great job for Canada, Christy Clark and the BC Liberal Party are undoubtably the best choice for BC's future prosperity and success, the term "Carbon Pollution" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I would rather see a pipeline used to export oil than trains any day.

Well that explains a lot....
Double down then double again...

I can see your hope for Harper with the tossing of the section 35, that pesky law against dumping in the ocean. I'm aware of you anti-science views and that is confirmed with your "Carbon Pollution" but I'm surprised that you think tankers of tarsands off the waters of BC is OK with you. After all, pipeline or train the end game is the same....
Like I said... double down and show us you creditability.