Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: liketofish on August 23, 2010, 01:16:53 PM
-
Sockeye run is so strong this year. It is an enigma for most lay men to understand why one year is so disastrous and the next a bonanza. The ocean? Fish farms? FN? Habitat? Not sure which one can explain this huge difference one year from the next. I personally suspect that it is perhaps the predation by mackerals. Perhaps they were up in the northern oceans by the billions last year due to warm current and they gobbled up young sockeyes last year. But why pinks were so good last year? I am out of wits. Any body with a better explanation? This is much harder than math 101 to figure out ...LOL. ;D So do we still need that expensive judicial inquiry ordered by Harper in view of this year's bonanza sockeye run? Sockeye in trouble? What trouble? ;D
-
Well at the very least the huge run should impact Alexandria Morton's credibility. Her claim that the salmon farms will cause the extinction of our salmon is unfounded. British Columbian Salmon farming has negatively impacted the Alaskan fishery's sales as it has stolen some of the market share. Ms. Morton (an American BTW) is funded by the Alaskan fishery and therfore will will say/do anything possible to regain sales (Dollars) for the Americans regardless of who she impacts and regardless of the facts. Pretty hard to blame the salmon farms when we have a sockeye return like this as well as the pink run last year.
-
Hi All I was just looking at the test sets for the month of August 1-23 for the last 15 years quite the eye opener as well the Chinook
2001 ,6539 sockeye 1239 chinook.1995 257 sockeye 421 chinook From 1998 to 2002 they were strong counts so we have to figure out what happened to the sockeye from 2003 to this year. It would be good to know why this happened. Farley
-
This 4 year cycle has always been a good run the last couple decades, 2002 and 2006 had high returns.
Im trying to find this article that could answer your question, hmm may take awhile.
-
Since you've asked for guesses - mine is that many of the fish we're seeing a 5 year olds that stayed out in the ocean an extra year. The returns are more similar to 2005 than to 2006.
As to Alexandra's reputation: I think the farmers reputation is more damaged because As I recall they were claimiing climate change and warmer oceans as their reasoning for lower returns. Unless these present fish found some different cooler pacific ocean that the one the farmers were referring to then that theory is gone with the last tide.
-
Well at the very least the huge run should impact Alexandria Morton's credibility. Her claim that the salmon farms will cause the extinction of our salmon is unfounded. British Columbian Salmon farming has negatively impacted the Alaskan fishery's sales as it has stolen some of the market share. Ms. Morton (an American BTW) is funded by the Alaskan fishery and therfore will will say/do anything possible to regain sales (Dollars) for the Americans regardless of who she impacts and regardless of the facts. Pretty hard to blame the salmon farms when we have a sockeye return like this as well as the pink run last year.
Possibly because of Morton's campaign the fish farms have taken extra care to kill the sea lice in their pens as the sockeye smolts were passing by 4 or 5 years ago. One good year does not mean everything is Hunky Dory with the salmon..... Let's wait till after we have 4 or 5 years of good returns before we start slamming Morton and praising fish farms, ok?
As far as the Alaskan fisheries, you could make the same argument about the fish farms. It could be argued that it's in their best interest to kill as many wild salmon as possible so that the fish farms could have more market share..... ???
-
It's only one year. It could just a blip, let's hope not. Let's see the results for the next decade before arriving at any conclusion.
-
every 100 years there is a cold water phenomenon that brings cold water and feed from the north.
it happens for about 10 years and we are at the very beginning.
I wish I could find the article I read.
It would also explain the herring run, and the whales that came threw early in the season.
-
Favorable marine conditions for out-migrating juvenile sockeye salmon combined with strong upwelling in the Spring of 2008 has produced an excellent run of Sockeye salmon this year. These are of course 2 of a whole bunch of variables involved that all contribute together, so there are no isolated single reasons why. Some factors contribute more than others. Alexandra Morton's credibility shouldn't be changed for this exact reason. The work done by Dr. Krkosek and Dr. Morton have indeed alleviated some of the parasitic impacts on juvenile salmon as they pass by fish farms due to pesticide use, but to say that Alexandra Morton's message is that fish farms are the only factor involved is simply not true. They are just one of many negative impacts humans have caused salmon populations in BC - the emphasis is placed on them because they are something we have immediate control over and can resolve (land based farming). Creating giant marine reserves, stopping commercial fishing altogether, culling all marine predators of salmon, stopping all pollution into the marine environment.. etc are all very large intangible goals that we need paradigm shifts in thinking to achieve if they are even necessary. Moving fish farms to closed containment can happen in less than a year. This is the reason why the emphasis is placed on it. Not because it's purported to be the "only" factor contributing to salmon population decline in BC.
-
I'm not trying to say that everything is right in the world now. My point is that wild salmon and salmon farms can co-exist.
-
I'm not trying to say that everything is right in the world now. My point is that wild salmon and salmon farms can co-exist.
That's not even close to what your previous post suggested. ???
However I agree that wild salmon and salmon farms can exist as well. As long as we let the wild salmon have the oceans and put the farmed salmon in pens on the oceans beaches.... ;)
-
gordc...have you seen the pics and videos from brougton archipeligo...have you seen the lice loads on those outward migrating smolts?!?
After seeing those videos, I think an individual has 2 choices: you believe the information as factual and realize we are KILLING SALMON by having fish farms on migration paths OR you think those pictures, videos, and research are bogus.
I would have to say I do believe we can't have open net pens on migration paths and Gord I think you are 100% wrong. PS - did you bother reading anything on the pink salmon collapse in the Broughton...I am pretty sure you will see the pinks bounced back when they moved the pens...ie AWAY from wild smolts migration paths....kinda indicates that farms and wild fish CANT co-exisist wouldnt you say?
Back to the question at hand...I know some research was being done on euphauciids populations as an indicator to salmon run health...strong euphaicid numbers = lots of feed = strong returns. Keep in mind what ever it was that is responsible for this year's run, it propbably occured 2+ years back. As well, I am pretty sure sockeye feed primarily on euphausiids (krill) hence their deep red flesh, not so much bait fish so sockeye run health maye be very closely matched to krill populations.
-
Ms. Morton (an American BTW) is funded by the Alaskan fishery and therfore will will say/do anything possible to regain sales (Dollars) for the Americans regardless of who she impacts and regardless of the facts. Pretty hard to blame the salmon farms when we have a sockeye return like this as well as the pink run last year.
Actually, Alexandra Morton is not funded by any interest groups in particular, this is entirely untrue. She has stated multiple times that she cut herself off of this support system as it's the same story as the farms themselves - absolute power corrupts absolutely. The research done in the Broughton several years ago was independent science, funded by the national sciences and engineering research council (NSERC). I was up there for 2 months this spring staying at the research station Alexandra built, collecting data for a couple of studies. One of the studies involved zooplankton populations and how they relate to juvenile salmon diet. This is a study funded in part by the department of fisheries and oceans. To claim that all research done in the Broughton by Alexandra Morton is partisan and funded by interest groups is simply not true. Most people credit Alexandra completely for the research that has been conducted up there, but she isn't the first author on the most highly regarded papers that were published. Governor General's Gold Medal winner Dr. Martin Krkosek is the mathematical ecologist who suggested local extinction for the Broughton pinks. When pink numbers plummeted there was a push for increased pesticide use, and a fallow year occurred where the farms produced no salmon whatsoever. The pinks came back strong the following cycle. Is this direct evidence that fish farms wipe out runs? No. It suggests that could be the case, but that's how scientific understanding works. Hypotheses needs to withstand the test of time before they become theory/law.
-
Back to the question at hand...I know some research was being done on euphauciids populations as an indicator to salmon run health...strong euphaicid numbers = lots of feed = strong returns. Keep in mind what ever it was that is responsible for this year's run, it propbably occured 2+ years back. As well, I am pretty sure sockeye feed primarily on euphausiids (krill) hence their deep red flesh, not so much bait fish so sockeye run health maye be very closely matched to krill populations.
Years with strong upwelling bring nutrients from the deep, producing a cascade of productivity starting at phytoplankton and moving upwards. These seasonal increases in feed, when timed for the Spring, produce robust, healthy salmon populations. Once juveniles reach a certain size they are significantly less likely to die from predation. If there is a rich food source in the ocean for the juveniles to meet with when they reach the marine environment, they will grow faster, and become more hardy sooner than if there was not, removing them from a large degree of predation risk. Coastal upwelling also escalates other bait-fish populations by the same mechanisms, so natural predators of salmon have a larger prey field with multiple targets. Add these 2 factors together and you can see how geologic parameters can influence salmon numbers greatly. However, we don't have our hands on the lever that controls ocean upwelling - we do, however, have our hands on the laws that enable open-pen salmon aquaculture which, as illustrated by a number of highly regarded scientists, very visibly negatively impact wild salmon populations.
-
Dr. Martin Krkosek is the mathematical ecologist who suggested local extinction for the Broughton pinks. When pink numbers plummeted there was a push for increased pesticide use, and a fallow year occurred where the farms produced no salmon whatsoever. The pinks came back strong the following cycle. Is this direct evidence that fish farms wipe out runs?
Thats good enough for me! Move the farms onto land or at bare minimum, away from the migration paths of BC's wild salmon.
PS - Jon, thanks for 2 good postings.
-
Thanks Jonhill, Great info!
-
Salmon farms are one possible reason why last years run went missing. It is clear that salmon farms in BC and around the world have had dramatic affects on various wild salmon runs. Over the years they seem to be getting a bit better, with fallow times of year, changing drug use etc to minimize affeccts, but there is still lots of potential for the same or new problems (different diseases etc). Alexandra Morton has put pressure onthe fish farmers to make positive changes - she has benefited wild salmon.
-
I my be wrong, but weren't the salmon farms fallowed when the smolts from this run went out to sea.
-
IMO
I think on average at the most at any time would be 25 % of farms being fowled at any time. Having said this it is likely that many farms were active during smolt salt water introductions.
As it has been posted there are so many factors involved in ocean salmon survival. But as it has been protested/funded etc. that salmon farms will be the demise of "wild" salmon, this sockeye run is just one more clear indicator that it may be possible for both salmon farms as they are today and four to five years ago, and "wild" salmon to co-exist. Off course if you are a zero tolerance environmentalist that doesn't really eat food and never drives a car, or use plastic and tries to not breath to reduce carbon emissions etc, etc, but will except donations how ever they come than I understand that this thought is unexceptional. That was a bit of a rant.
By the way salmon returns have been on the rise every since salmon farms started in bc in 1985.
The skeena has no salmon farms and continues to have pour runs.
Salmon Farming is bc's #1 agricultural producer... this equals revenue for the province and taxpayers. that is a large contribution.
Mrs Morton:
Stated that salmon farms were dead zones and years later is suing salmon farming companies for having pink smolts in pens. Truth is salmon farms are teaming with sea life because they support it.
Predicted the collapse of pink salmon stocks. This did not happen.
Changed governing powers from provincial to federal which changes nothing but claims otherwise.
May not except american donations (anymore) but can not escape here intention to hands down get rid of salmon farms under the title of "wild" salmon.
When the pinks came back she swiftly slathered sockeye salmon with her dire "scientific" predictions.
What will it be next. There is obviously going to be a shift in strategy. From her record it is obvious.
To make a claim that salmon farming is not the main concern for salmon ocean survival is wise but to suggest moving salmon farms to land is not so wise. Maybe if it was a different species ya but salmon just cant be raise efficiently on land. I strongly disagree with this claim even though it has been done does not make it financially viable though others will swear up and down that it is. Ya I heard about it but having been in the business for 15 years I can state my opinion based on experience and it is not just possible. If you think closed containment is a reasonable alternative you are again being miss lead by the organizations that have "don't forget to donate" at the bottom of all their literature.
To answer the stated question: My guess is that they are wild salmon and that is what they do. I would love to think that this is the product of salmon management and pollution laws ect. Salmon are awesome and important and deserve attention, respect and management. We all benefit when there are abundant salmon runs. Sadly this massive sockeye run will bring sad stories of greed and waist and inefficiencies.
IMO
-
By the way salmon returns have been on the rise every since salmon farms started in bc in 1985.
The skeena has no salmon farms and continues to have pour runs.
Ummmm, care to back that up????
People all along the Skeena drainage fought tooth and nail to keep the farms out of the migration path of wild Skeena salmon. I'd love to see some documented proof, or even a hypothesis suggesting that the Skeena salmon runs could/would benefit from having open-net farms in the migration lanes.
Skeena steelhead numbers are tracking as the best this decade, amazing what years of dismal sockeye returns do for other species ;D
Skeena coho have been on the rebound ever since the commercial boys agreed to reduce their catch in SE Alaska.
-
Thread cleaned up. Let's back up a bit, focus on the actual debate instead of belittling the credibility of those who don't share the same views as you. The mods have very little tolerance when the discussion heads that way and have no problem with locking it if it continues.
-
Here is one example
http://www.greenspirit.com/pinksalmon/
And when I was referring to the skeena I should has stated socks.
-
Story about salmon declines where there are no salmon farms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129210349.htm
-
People all along the Skeena drainage fought tooth and nail to keep the farms out of the migration path of wild Skeena salmon. I'd love to see some documented proof, or even a hypothesis suggesting that the Skeena salmon runs could/would benefit from having open-net farms in the migration lanes.
There would be no such proof. But it is a possibility that since there was fresh farmed salmon available on the market it reduced the financial/political drive to fish that area creating a positive effect.
-
Considering that one lake produces anywhere from 85-95% of the Skeena sockeye return, the poor runs you mention need all the help they can get.
I also question the positive effect Atlantic salmon have had, seems the commercial boys have a fair amount of say when it comes to fisheries management anywhere on the coast.
Just to give an example, the Skeena Tyee Test Fishery which operates similar to the Albion Test Fishery, had a two day bump in sockeye numbers leading fisheries managers to believe 1,300,000 sockeye we're coming back, which would allow a harvestable surplus and a one day opening was allowed. The numbers then dropped off and the overall estimate is now at 950,000 sockeye which DFO has stated is below the escapement target that allows for commercial fisheries.......oops.
If there is more salmon than DFO deems needed, they will be scooped up by somebody somewhere regardless supply and demand.
-
Story about salmon declines where there are no salmon farms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129210349.htm
All that proves is in that area, it was something else other than a farm...coninue to read and:
from the link provided:
The reason for the decline is unclear. Both hatchery and naturally produced fish have been negatively affected, and returns of coastal stocks in Oregon, in the Columbia River, and in British Columbia were all low in 2007. The decline seems to be a coastwide phenomenon, probably related to ocean conditions.
In fact in that link under related stories:
Dramatic Declines In Wild Salmon Populations Linked To Exposure To Farmed Salmo - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
"Comparing the survival of wild salmonid populations in areas near salmon farms with unexposed populations reveals a large reduction in survival in the populations reared near salmon farms."
-
All that proves is in that area, it was something else other than a farm...coninue to read and:
from the link provided:
The reason for the decline is unclear. Both hatchery and naturally produced fish have been negatively affected, and returns of coastal stocks in Oregon, in the Columbia River, and in British Columbia were all low in 2007. The decline seems to be a coastwide phenomenon, probably related to ocean conditions.
In fact in that link under related stories:
Dramatic Declines In Wild Salmon Populations Linked To Exposure To Farmed Salmo - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
"Comparing the survival of wild salmonid populations in areas near salmon farms with unexposed populations reveals a large reduction in survival in the populations reared near salmon farms."
Gooey, you're doing it all wrong. The way to do research is to only read the stuff you agree with and completely ignore the rest.
-
Or you could just read the stuff from Suzuki or Morton where the editting /omitting of data is already done for you :)
-
Or you could just read the stuff from Suzuki or Morton where the editting /omitting of data is already done for you :)
Or you could do like I have done, reading all sources including academic literature, aquaculture proponent magazines, fisheries and oceans gray literature, news paper articles, salmon management literature meta-analysis, attend symposiums and seminars that discuss these issues, as well as critically think for yourself - and then come up with a conclusion. Alternatively, you can have a "gut feeling" and go with it, we all know how well those stand up in debates.
-
The comment was sacrastic. I will admit to not spending as much time reading literature as you have mainly due to the fact that I spend almost all of my available time away from work with my family. This perhaps makes you a more informed person on the subject than I but certainly doesn't warrant the elitist attitude you so often present. Just my opinion. I think there are many elitists that live on this forum.
-
I think there are many elitists that live on this forum.
Guilty as charged! ;D
Folks, obviously most of the participants in this discussion and similar ones have a good background in this issue. Some are academics, some work in the industry, some are simply passionate about the environment. How much one participant knows differs to another so it is your responsibility to remain civil without mocking or belittling others who engage in the discussion with you. It's unprofessional and would only discredit your POVs.
This is my last attempt to suggest how one should behave in this discussion. If it does not change then we can simply not have it.
-
The comment was sacrastic. I will admit to not spending as much time reading literature as you have mainly due to the fact that I spend almost all of my available time away from work with my family. This perhaps makes you a more informed person on the subject than I but certainly doesn't warrant the elitist attitude you so often present. Just my opinion. I think there are many elitists that live on this forum.
As you can imagine, it's often hard to read between the lines and extract the tone of a person from a line of text. I took your comment to be literal. In the same manner, you can perceive my attitude to be elitist, but I'm simply informed and passionate about the subject and will not stand idle while people say things that are not true.
-
All that proves is in that area, it was something else other than a farm...coninue to read and:
from the link provided:
The reason for the decline is unclear. Both hatchery and naturally produced fish have been negatively affected, and returns of coastal stocks in Oregon, in the Columbia River, and in British Columbia were all low in 2007. The decline seems to be a coastwide phenomenon, probably related to ocean conditions.
In fact in that link under related stories:
Dramatic Declines In Wild Salmon Populations Linked To Exposure To Farmed Salmo - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
"Comparing the survival of wild salmonid populations in areas near salmon farms with unexposed populations reveals a large reduction in survival in the populations reared near salmon farms."
My point remains the same that there is no farm and problems are consistent.
And I am glad that you posted this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm for it is a fine example of miss leading information (for the general public of course but I would have thought that "one" would have noticed. Miss leading for the following reasons.
1. States 5 locations around the world but does not say where.
2. Is titles salmon in trouble but suddenly into the article it becomes salmon and trout.
Location and species is very important to know for it is known that the sea lice we have here are far less harmful than those in other locations such a Scotland. In addition to this trout are not salmon and are far more susceptible to sea lice in other locations. (just and example)
So an average person could read that and blam, to them salmon farms forbidden for they read about it in a science mag when really the info is seriously lacking content.
Or you could just read the stuff from Suzuki or Morton where the editting /omitting of data is already done for you :)
Sounded pretty strait up to me.
Guilty as charged! ;D
Folks, obviously most of the participants in this discussion and similar ones have a good background in this issue. Some are academics, some work in the industry, some are simply passionate about the environment. How much one participant knows differs to another so it is your responsibility to remain civil without mocking or belittling others who engage in the discussion with you. It's unprofessional and would only discredit your POVs.
This is my last attempt to suggest how one should behave in this discussion. If it does not change then we can simply not have it.
It's unprofessional and would only discredit your POVs.
Could it be that the Sockeye all survived last year they just did not come back till this year. So the 30 million fish are 4 and 5 year fish?
A crill comeback? Maybe the cohen enquiry should strongly change gears from where did the sockeye go to where did all these fish come from? Finish it off on a positive note.
And whats up with the theory that to many fish in the river = a pour return/escapement?
IMO
-
"My point remains the same that there is no farm and problems are consistent." What problems are consistent? We have some runs doing extremely well, others OK, and I am sure there are some doing pourly. Each run is probably effected by a number of different factors so I can't see this consistency you refer to?
I think you would have to be a fairly nieve individual to look at one of those pictures from the Broughton or a young smolt with 20-30-40 lice of different sizes (ie generations) and not be able to acknowledge that the fish's environment is totally polluted with lice and that these lice are reducing those smolts odds of returning to spawn.
Of coarse issues exisit away from fish farms...there are toxic train spills, deforrestation, urbanization, polution from agriculture land, predation from exotic species, etc, etc. Just because these issue exisit independantly of fish farms certainly doesnt mean fish farms have no impact...they are just another line item on a list of negative human impacts on salmon. We can't control ocean currents or predation so it is critical we properly manage the things we can control...fish farms being merely one on a list of many.
-
The salmon returns problem is consistent Some rivers are up, some rivers are down, some rivers are all around. That is the consistency and there is no correlation about being near or en rout to a salmon farm.
Another major fallacy about sea lice is that they do not occur on out migrating smolts naturally and that they are only there because of the farms. It is entirely false. Another fabrication to suit ngo's "science".
That photo clearly followed with "dont forget to donate".
I keep hearing this thing about "farms being the one thing we can control". I agree for I am very aware of how they are controlled and monitored. There is a lot of control. But to hands down get rid of them(dont talk to me about closed containment unless you will eat whole grain rice for the rest of your life) forget it. The revenue is massive and great for our economy( schools hospitals etc.) I think it is to bad that not more of it goes to wild salmon.
We control many other factors too. Pesticide, garbage over fishing(well ah??) there are a lot of controls. And we get better at it all the time. The amount of salmon farms in bc fits in an area of stanly park no problem and are in vast waterways. The Fraser river vally is huge and populated with us spiting, fertilizing lawns, spilling chemicals. And the the Fraser runs right through it. We can control that right? lets just return it back to its original state.
-
That photo clearly followed with "dont forget to donate".
This comment always makes me smile and shake my head...... On one side of the equation the fish farms have corporate funding to back their enterprise. On the same side of the equation is DFO, who is assigned the responsibility of protecting the wild salmon yet is also given the responsibility of approving fish farms (read grow the industry) and they receive their funding from our tax dollars. ::)
And then there's Morton who is clearly fighting to protect the wild salmon. She has no corporate backers, no tax payer dollars to support her research, only the interested public that will support her efforts to fight the farms and DFO. It's her tenacity that I admire so much! She's the David fighting not one but 2 Goliaths!
Please use a better argument than suggesting she has no credibility because she needs to ask the public for support dollars.... ???
-
I am not just specifically talking about Mrs. Morton. While she "stopped" receiving outside funding because it looks bad she still gets painted with the same brush. Getting rid of salmon farms under the saving wild salmon flag like all ngo's. They share all their "science" any way so whats the difference. If she was all bout saving wild salmon she would be jumping up and down about sport fishers and commercial fishers and native fishers(all of which can be controlled) but she cant because thats where the support is to remove fish farms. There are many other ways of control like removing salmon predators but again ngo will not touch it for they will lose support. I can see you smiling and shaking your head and understandably so. My point is not to be so literal but to really look at the mechanism of the ant salmon farming campaign. Obviously it has to work this way but see it for what it is. Again, its getting rid of salmon farms under the flag of saving the wild salmon which IMO if far more involved than just removing fish farms.
-
My point is not to be so literal but to really look at the mechanism of the ant salmon farming campaign. Obviously it has to work this way but see it for what it is. Again, its getting rid of salmon farms under the flag of saving the wild salmon which IMO if far more involved than just removing fish farms.
By your logic, if there isn't a single smoking gun culprit responsible for the decline in salmon numbers, we should give up and not try to do anything because the situation is too complex for us to understand. Let us instead sit on our asses and watch. If you have a shred of interest in the scientific process which has demonstrated clear declines in salmon populations in response to the introduction of salmon aquaculture due to parasites, waste and disease in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Chile, and Canada, then you wouldn't have a problem with it. The more you speak about this topic, the clearer it becomes that you have no interest in the scientific process. I challenge you to find a single item in the room you are currently sitting in that hasn't at least in some manner been influenced by the development of ideas through the scientific method. Everything you do, everything you consume.. science has played a role in.
Look around you, magic didn't bring you your car and computer.
-
Jon5, I challenge you for one second to get off your high horse and look at scientific data without allowing your morals to influence you in a bias way. The science supporting fish farming is not all bogus much like the science against it is not all bogus. However, you seem to be ignorant to the fact that arguements from both sides are often related to money. For the love of God stop with the elitism. Making your point is all fine and well but your approach is rediculous. You'll get more flies with honey than you will with vinegar and I suspect ultimately your intention is to offer valid information. Your attitude interferes with this effort IMO.
-
OK here's my two bits...
1) It's in everyone's best interests to have healthy stocks- that's a given. By healthy we mean not too many nor too few. Think of the ecosystem as a person. Not too much food, nor too little. Enough to withstand moderate to severe stresses- maybe even some severe ones. Just like a healthy person.
2) Stocks fluctuate due to many factors, many of which have been mentioned. No doubt there are some of which we are not aware. While we can't go chasing ghosts, we still need to acknowledge we don't know everything, and move with caution while not getting paralyzed. One extreme can bring about knee-jerk reactions, which may or may not bring desired results, while the other will bring a total lack of action.
3) In order to have healthy stocks we as a very efficient fishing people need to set limits on numbers, and be selective about the fish we do take.
4) Traditional or not, gillnetting is only selective as to size of fish, but non-selective in species. Release mort rates don't make this an efficient method, even when carefully and properly done.
5) In my opinion, salmon farms only need to do one thing to make them viable- make them land-based. I still see no real reason for not doing this beyond the point that it affects profit margin. But we're not talking about building a space station...
6) So how do I think commercials should make their living? I see side-brailling seine netting as a possibility. It's been done, but I don't know how well- it makes sense as far as release techniques are concerned when done properly. Otherwise, I'd hate to buy the salmon at the bottom of a net that was hauled up onto the stern deck.
7) Beach seining. Once again, when done properly, just as when we sporties release a fish. Same can be said for weirs.
Just my two bits from a person who doesn't have all the right answers, but just an opinion, for right or wrong. Didn't mean to turn it into a manifesto, but there ya are!
And boys: play nice ;D
-
Jon5, I challenge you for one second to get off your high horse and look at scientific data without allowing your morals to influence you in a bias way. The science supporting fish farming is not all bogus much like the science against it is not all bogus. However, you seem to be ignorant to the fact that arguements from both sides are often related to money. For the love of God stop with the elitism. Making your point is all fine and well but your approach is rediculous. You'll get more flies with honey than you will with vinegar and I suspect ultimately your intention is to offer valid information. Your attitude interferes with this effort IMO.
I've read the literature and I understand the argument from proponents and detractors of open pen fish farming. There is both more in term of quantity and quality research demonstrating the ill-effects of open-pen farming than there is demonstrating the null effects. Even if the case was that we didn't know at all, the mistake was made by not erring on the side of caution. The burden of proof lies not with those who are opposed to open pen fish farming, they need to be demonstrated as effectively neutral or helpful to the ecosystem and our wild salmon populations in an objective scientific manner. This is referred to as the precautionary principle and has not been followed. What has happened is that a number of notable and highly regarded mathematical ecologists, aquaculture experts, ichthyologists, population geneticists, evolutionary biologists, and parasitologists have demonstrated the negative impacts associated with open pen fish farming around the world by conducting multiple experiments with multiple data sets with statistically significant quantities of samples. I'm simply pointing out the truth, call me an elitist or what have you - this is the truth take it or leave it.
-
Here is a large list of the academic, government, industry, ngo, and dialogue reference material I am basing this from:
Auditor General of British Columbia. (2004). Salmon Forever: An Assessment of the Provincial Role in Sustaining Wild Salmon – 2004/2005 Report. Victoria, BC: Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia.
Auditor General of Canada. (2004). Chapter 5: Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Salmon Stocks, Habitat, and Aquaculture. In, 2004 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General.
EVS Environmental Consultants. (2000). An Evaluation of Knowledge and Gaps related to Impacts of Freshwater and Marine Aquaculture on the Aquatic Environment (Final Report). Prepared for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Gardner, J. and D.L. Peterson. (2003). Making sense of the Aquaculture Debate. Report prepared for the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.
Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, J. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J.Clay, C. Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney and M. Troell. (2001). Effects of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies. Ecology. 8:14.
Naylor, R.L., J. Eagle and W. L. Smith. (2003). Salmon aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest: A global industry with local impacts. Environment. 45:18-39.
Naylor, R.L. and M. Burke (2005) Aquaculture and ocean resources: Raising tigers of the sea. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30:185-218.
Marshall, D. (2003). Fishy Business: The Economics of Salmon Farming in BC. Prepared by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - BC Office. Vancouver, BC. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U.R. Sumaila, C.J. Walters, R. Watson and D.
Zeller. (2004). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature. 418: 689-695.
Rees, W. (2003). Net-pen salmon farming: failing on two fronts: An eco-footprint analysis. In Gallaugher, P., Wood, L. (Eds.). The World Summit on Salmon, June 10-13, 2003: Proceedings. Continuing Studies in Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC: 139-152.
Tacon, A.G.J. (2005). State of information on salmon aquaculture feed and the environment. Prepared for the World Wildlife Fund/Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue.
Bjorn, P.A. and B. Finstad. (2002). Salmon lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Kroyer), infestation in sympatric populations of Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), and sea trout, Salmo trutta (L.), in areas near and distant from salmon farms. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science. 59:131-139.
Butler, J.R.A. (2002). Wild salmonids and sea louse infestations on the west coast of Scotland: sources of infestation and implications for the management of marine salmon farms. Pest Management Science. 58:595-608.
Connors, B.M., M. Krkosek & L.M. Dill. (2008) Sea lice escape predation on their host. Biology Letters.
Costello, M.J. (2006). Ecology of sea lice parasitic on farmed and wild fish. Trends in Parasitology. 22(10):475-477.
Dill, L.M., C.J.C. Losos, B.M. Connors, P. Mages. (2009) Comment on Beamish et al. (2007) “A proposed life history strategy for the salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis in the subarctic Pacific”. Aquaculture. 286:154-155.
Ford, J. S. and Myers, RA (2008) A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids. PLoS Biol 6(2): e33 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033 Frazer, L.N., (2009) Sea-cage aquaculture, sea lice, and declines of wild fish. Conservation Biology. 23:599–607.
Gallaugher, P. and C.D. Orr (2000). Aquaculture and the Protection of Wild Salmon. Workshop Proceedings. Speaking for the Salmon. Continuing Studies in Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. [Electronic copy not available]
Gallaugher, P., C.D. Orr, M. Berry, and P. Broomhall (2002). Speaking for the Salmon: Summit of Scientists on Sea Lice. Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
Gallaugher, P., J. Penikett, and M. Berry (2004a). Speaking for the Salmon: A Community Workshop to Review Preliminary Results of 2003 Studies on Sea Lice and Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago Area of British Columbia. Simon Fraser University, Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, Alert Bay, BC.
Gallaugher, P., J. Penikett, and L. Wood (2004b). Speaking for the Salmon: Scientists' Roundtable on Sea Lice and Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago Area of British Columbia—Conveners Report. Continuing Studies in Science and Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, SFU, Vancouver, BC.
Gottesfeld, A. S., B. Proctor, L. D. Rolston and C. Carr-Harris. (2009) Sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, transfer between wild sympatric adult and juvenile salmon on the north coast of British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Fish Diseases. 32: 45–57.3
Heuch, P.A., P.A. Bjorn, B. Finstad, J.C. Holst, L. Asplin and F. Nilsen. (2005). A review of the Norwegian Action Plan against salmon lice on salmonids: The effects on wild salmonids. Aquaculture. 246:79-92.
Holst, J.C., P. Jakobsen, F. Nilsen and M. Holm. (2000). Sea lice kill the wild salmon: Measures ahead! Aquaculture Report 2000. Institute of Marine Research. Bergen, Norway.
-
Continued...
Holst, J.C., P. Jacobsen, F. Nilsen, M. Holm and J. Aure. (2003). Mortality of seaward-migrating postsmolts of Atlantic salmon due to salmon lice infection in Norwegian salmon stocks. In D. Mills (ed.) Salmon at the edge. Blackwell Science, Oxford:136-157.
Krkošek, M., A. Morton, J. Volpe, & M.A. Lewis. (2009) Sea lice and salmon population dynamics: Effects of exposure time for migratory fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. published online, doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0317
Krkošek, M. (2009) Sea lice and salmon in Pacific Canada: Ecology and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. published online, doi:10.1890/080097
Krkošek, M., M.A. Lewis and J.P. Volpe. (2005). Transmission dynamics of parasitic sea lice from farm to wild salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 272:689-696.
Krkošek, M., M.A. Lewis, A. Morton, L.N. Frazer and J.P. Volpe. (2006). Epizootics of wild fish induced by farmed fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 103:15506-15510.
Krkošek, M., A. Gottesfeld, B. Proctor, D. Rolston, C. Carr-Harris and M.A. Lewis. (2007). Effects of host migration, diversity and aquaculture on sea lice threats to Pacific salmon populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1122.
Krkošek, M., J.S. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele, R.A. Myers, and M.A. Lewis. (2007) Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farmed salmon. Science.318:1772-1775.
Lees, F., M. Baillie, G. Gettinby1 and C.W. Revie. (2008) Factors associated with changing efficacy of emamectin benzoate against infestations of Lepeophtheirus salmonis on Scottish salmon farms. Journal of Fish Diseases. 31: 947–951.
Morton, A., R. Routledge, C. Peet and A. Ladwig. (2004). Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infection rates on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon in the nearshore marine environment of British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 61: 147-157.
Morton, A. and R. D. Routledge (2005a). Mortality rates for Juvenile Pink Oncorhynchus gorbushca and Chum O. keta salmon infested with Sea Lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis in the Broughton Archipelago. The Alaska Fisheries Research Bulletin. 11(2): 146-152
Morton, A., R. D. Routledge and R. Williams. (2005b). Temporal patterns of sea louse infestation on wild Pacific salmon in relation to the fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25:811-821. 4
Morton, A. and R. D. Routledge. (2006). Fulton’s condition factor: Is it a valid measure of sea lice impact on juvenile salmon? North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26:56-62.
Morton, A., R. Routledge, and M. Krkosek (2008) Sea louse infestation in wild juvenile salmon and Pacific herring associated with fish farms off the east-central coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
Orr, C. (2007). Estimated sea louse egg production from Marine Harvest Canada farmed Atlantic salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003-2004. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27:187-197.
Watershed Watch Salmon Society. (2004). Sea Lice and Salmon: Elevating the dialogue on the farmed wild salmon story. Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Coquitlam.
Lacroix, G. L., P. McCurdy and D. Knox. (2004). Migration of Atlantic Salmon postsmolts in relation to habitat use in a coastal system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.133: 1455-1471.
Morton, A.B. and J. Volpe. (2002). A description of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar captures and their characteristics in one Pacific salmon fishery area in British Columbia Canada, in 2000. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin. 9:102-110. Naylor, R., K. Hindar, I.A. Fleming, R. Goldburg, S. Williams, J. Volpe, F. Whoriskey, J. Eagle, D.
Kelso and M. Mangel. (2005). Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. Bioscience. 55(5):427-437.
Volpe, J., E.B. Taylor, D.W. Rimmer and B.W. Glickman. (2000). Evidence of natural reproduction of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in a coastal British Columbia river. Conservation Biology. 14: 899- 903.
Volpe, J.P., B.R. Anholt and B.W. Glickman. (2001). Reproduction of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a controlled stream channel on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.130: 489-494.
Volpe, J.P., B.R. Anholt, B.W. Glickman and D.W. Rimmer. (In review). Native juvenile salmonids do not constitute biological resistance to the colonization of Atlantic salmon in a British Columbia river: Implications for invasion. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
Volpe, J.P., B.R. Anholt and B.W. Glickman. (2001). Competition among juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Relevance to invasion potential in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 58:197-207.
Krogdahl, A., A.M. Bakke-Mckellep, K.H. RŘed and G. Baeverfjord (2000). Feeding Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. soybean products: Effects on disease resistance (furunculosis) and lysozyme and IgM levels in the intestinal mucosa. Aquaculture Nutrition. 6(2):77-84.5
Kurath, G., K.A. Garver, R.M. Troyer, E.J. Emmenegger, K. Einer-Jensen and E.D. Anderson. (2003). Phylogeography of infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus in North America. Journal of General Virology. 84: 803-814.
Saksida, S. (2004). Investigation of the 2001-2003 IHN epizootic in farmed salmon in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association.
St-Hilaire, S., C.S. Ribble, G.S. Traxler, T. Davies and M.L. Kent. (2001). Evidence for a carrier state of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in Chinook salmon Onchorhynchus tshawytscha. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 46(1):7-14.
-
Continued again...
Werring, J. (2003). Implications of holding diseased fish in open net-pen fish farms and the potential impacts on wild fish and adjacent, disease-free farms, with particular reference to Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHN). Bioline – The Official Publication of the Association of Professional
Biologists of BC. 19(1):11.
Bright, D.A. and S. Dionne. (2004). Use of emamectin benzoate in the Canadian finfish aquaculture industry: A review of environmental fate and effects. Environment Canada and UMA Engineering, Victoria, BC.
Gillis, D.J. (1995). Some impacts of salmon farming in British Columbia on Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi). In, Hay, D.E. and P.B. McCarter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Pacific Coast Herring Workshop January 27-28, 1994. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, BC: 77-83.
Morton, A. (2002). Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science 59:71-80.
Waddy, S.L., L.E. Burridge, M.N. Hamilton, S.M. Mercer, D.E. Aiken and K. Haya. (2002). Emamectin benzoate induces molting in American lobster, Homarus americanus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 59:1096-1099.
Willis, K. J. and N. Ling. (2003). The toxicity of emamectin benzoate, an aquaculture pesticide, to planktonic marine copepods. Aquaculture. 221:289-297.
Ernst, W., P. Jackman, K. Doe, F. Page, G. Julien, K. Mackay and T. Sutherland. (2001). Dispersion and toxicity to non-target aquatic organisms of pesticides used to treat sea lice on salmon in net pen enclosures. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 42:433-444.
Findlay, R.H. and L. Watling. (1997). Prediction of benthic impact for salmon net-pens based on the balance of benthic oxygen supply and demand. Marine Ecology-Progress Series. 155:147-157. Lampadariou, N., L. Karakassis, S. Teraschke and G. Arlt. (2005). Changes in benthic meiofaunal assemblages in the vicinity of fish farms in the Eastern Mediterranean. Vie et Milieu-Life and Environment. 55:61-69.6
Pohle, G., B. Frost and R. Findlay (2001). Assessment of regional benthic impact of salmon mariculture within the Letang Inlet, Bay of Fundy. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 58:417-426.
DeBruyn, A.M., M. Trudel, N. Eyding, J. Harding, H. McNally, R. Mountain, C. Orr, D. Urban, S. Verenitch and A. Mazumder. (2006). Ecosystemic effects of salmon farming increase mercury contamination in wild fish. Environmental Science and Technology. 40(11): 3489-3493. BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, Ahousaht First Nation, Kitasoo Fisheries, Musgamagw
Tsawataineuk Tribal Council and University of Victoria. (2004). Fish farm contaminant levels in BC First Nations Fish and Shellfish Resources. [Power Point Presentation]
Cabello, F.C. (2006) Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: A growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environmental Microbiology. 8(7):1137-1144.
Cabello, F.C. (2007) Salmon aquaculture and transmission of the fish tapeworm. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 13(1):169-171.
Foran, J., D.H. Good, D.O. Carpenter, M.C. Hamilton, B.A. Knuth and S.J. Schwager. (2005). Quantitative Analysis of the Benefits and Risks of Consuming Farmed and Wild Salmon. Journal of Nutrition. 135: 2639-2643.
R.A. Hites, J.A. Foran , D.O. Carpenter, M.C. Hamilton, B.A. Knuth and S.J.Schwager. (2004). Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon. Science. 303: 226-228.
Easton, M.D.L., D. Luszniak and E. Von der Geest. (2002). Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere. 46:1053-1074.
Iacobs, M., J. Ferrario and C. Bryne. (2002). Investigation of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzop- furans and selected coplnar biphenyls in Scottish farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Chemosphere 47:183-191.
Xiaoyu, H., R.A. Hites, J.A. Foran, M.C. Hamilton, B.A. Knuth, S.J. Schwager and D.O. Carpenter. (2006). Consumption advisories for salmon based on risk of cancer and noncancer health effects. Environmental Research. 101(2):263-274.
-
Enough already Jonhill..... I don't read all that fast. :D
-
Ok that is a huge list which you obviously did not edit. So I skimmed through the titles and see a lot of words like estimates, predictions, forecast, and I wonder whats in that list of papers has equivalent relevance to the study on orcas and under water noise devices which have not been used in 10 years for they never worked anyway. And the list is huge and it is a direct reflection on the kind of $$$$ pumped into the de-marketing of farmed salmon.
Many concerned folks have read a the book a stain upon the see. To learn of false information in this book give this a read:
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/sites/default/files/353.pdf
For a clear and strait forward update on the sea lice issue read this:
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/sites/default/files/SeaLouseUpdate2009.pdf
Some information about salmon ranching in alaska and its relationships Look close at the graph:
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/blog/alexandra-morton-selective-data-makes-mockery-“science”
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/
For information about private funding to Ngo and many interesting relationships there give these a go:
Than there the private american funding information which is really really interesting if you read through it:
http://www.prheadquarters.com/
http://blogs.bclocalnews.com/victoria_secrets/morton-pest-migrates-to-new-post/100
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/fishy-salmon-science-linked-to-alaska-interests/
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/lucile-packard-foundation-ignorant-of-fact/
http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/vital-choice-wild-seafood-is-that-really-true/
This one is a must read if you cant stand going through all this and do not forget to see the links at the bottom of the article.
http://www.seafoodsource.com/blogs.aspx?id=4294990619&blogid=4295004788
Enjoy!
-
I think you may need to expand your reading list. Seems like most of the articles you provided are written by the pro-open pen farmers. :o
I find the argument that BC's fish farms can't be that bad because Alaska's salmon ranching is worse to be a little ridiculous.....
Maybe you should read a few from Jon5hill's list...... :-\
-
The weak sources you listed are WEBSITES - NOT academic literature - from salmon farming industry proponents, funded by Marine Harvest, Grieg, Cermaq, and likely other aquaculture conglomerates. Of course they are going to have a bunch of tripe on the internet denouncing the science and refuting all claims to the contrary of their industry. It would be suicidal for a business to not act in self defense if their money-making machines are being threatened to be shut down. There is no big room with a round table with devious scientists plotting the collapse of the fish farming industry so that Alaskan wild fish increase in value. This is hogwash, and you're beating around the bush by not outright declaring that is what you believe in. It's conspiracy-theorist nonsense.
The farm fresh salmon website is handled largely by Cory Percevault, Plant Manager at Noboco’s Coulter Road plant in Campbell River. Would it make sense for Mr. Percevault to potentially lose his job by not defending it? It's a cut-throat world. I imagine you've spent time working on the farms and have pent up resentment about the anti-farming activists and all these ridiculous references you're citing are your way of helping yourself sleep at night. Rationalize it to yourself all you want if it makes you feel better, but don't go spewing your corporate rhetoric as if it were even remotely honest and true because it's not. It's unscientific and completely dishonest.
Think for yourself, just like many of the independent scientists whose research indicates ecological problems with aquaculture. Many of these scientists were funded by NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council), which is about as independent as it comes.
-
I think you may need to expand your reading list. Seems like most of the articles you provided are written by the pro-open pen farmers. :o
I find the argument that BC's fish farms can't be that bad because Alaska's salmon ranching is worse to be a little ridiculous.....
Maybe you should read a few from Jon5hill's list...... :-\
And 5hills list is funded by who??
I can admit that this debate is a two way street but some(2) clearly do not so there is no discussion here and it is pointless. You have shined your true colors for all (which isn't really much) to see and that is good enough for me. You did not read my posts as I did not search out all your information to read cuz I do not have 2-3 years to wade through that list. I never denied any single bit of information you post but you chronically deny every spec of mine. For this reason IMO you represent your cause poorly...shame cuz your a smart guy except for the part where you hold yourself as all knowing and the belittling Rod would mention and have to delete. He did you a favor there by the way, its embarrassing.
Have fun with that last word. I know you want it soooo bad.
-
Since you've asked for guesses - mine is that many of the fish we're seeing a 5 year olds that stayed out in the ocean an extra year. The returns are more similar to 2005 than to 2006.
I thought that might be the case too. If so then the average size should be much bigger since they have been feeding a year longer. Is that so?