Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JPW]

No, Annie, it is not a misconception.  Like other fish farm advocates, you insist that the fish farms are not the cause of the decline, therefore should be left alone.  THAT is the Red Herring.  I am well aware of the history of the decline of the salmon fishery in BC.  I read Meggs when I wrote my own paper in the 90s on the collapse of the commercial salmon fishery after the Cruikshank report came out about the same time as Meggs book.  What I am saying is that the salmon, already in decline, are now having to negotiate through the waters polluted by the fish farms.  You may argue that the pollution (be it biological or chemical) is small compared to the size of the ocean, or that the tides here can flush the sites adequately so there is no real harm, but I do not buy it.  The fact that the sea lice study quoted earlier showed that fallowing the farms reduced the sea lice infection rates, demonstrates the harm the farms can cause.  The fact that sea lice infection, while potentially harmful to juvenile salmon at a critical stage, is not the worst thing facing a migrating juvenile salmon, doesn't change the fact that it is an additional stress facing an already stressed salmon. Add to this the potential for the farms to amplify diseases that could then be passed to salmon, perhaps when they are returning to spawn and will be in high concentrations in the rivers with already weaken immune systems, and the danger is there.  The fact that the farms have nothing to gain by abusing the ecosystem, is irrelevant, although some (who shall remain nameless) may argue fish farmers would profit handsomely if the wild Pacific stocks disappeared and the world was dependent on farmed Atlantics for their salmon "needs."   You don't need to want to harm the ecosystem to do it.  There are many instances in the past where fish farms have harmed the local ecosystem, whether intentionally or not. While many have "learned" from those mistakes and have cleaned up their act, that doesn't change the fact that their activity harmed the ecosystem.  The fact that it is such a heavily regulated industry is testimony to harm they can cause the surrounding environment.   As I have said, trying to get the farms out of the water does not mean ignoring those other polluters in the Fraser, or the thousands of tons of plastics floating around the Pacific basin where the salmon, and their food fish, feed.  I do not need to ignore the other causes when I turn my attention to fish farms.  I understand the thousands of jobs that are at stake, and that is a shame, but as I said, those jobs should never have been created.  The jobs that should have been created were the ones that reduce the dependency on the products and packaging that are eroding our planets ecosystems.  I understand you have accepted that a farmed Atlantic salmon is as beautiful as a wild pacific salmon, but I do not.  One day we may all be forced to eat farmed Atlantic salmon, at that will be a sad day, but until that day comes, lets give the wild salmon the best chance for survival.  When they are all gone, then you can have our barren seas to raise as many farmed Atlantics as you can stomach.

I completely agree.  In my opinion, salmon farming isn't worth the risk.  There are other bigger issues surrounding the decline of wild stocks, but just because farming isn't at the top of that list it shouldn't be ignored.  Further to that it is one of the most easily "corrected" issues.

It's clear that many of the pro-aquaculture group are passionate about wild salmon, I think if I read between the lines, they even accept that farming doesn't come without consequence to the environment  in which it operates?  Disregarding the extremist groups on both sides, it appears that it is the difference in opinion on how damaged the wild stocks are already that separates the "pros" from the "antis".  Do supporters of fish farms feel that the farms take pressure off demand for commercial harvest (a good thing) and if we were to lose them the increase in harvesting of wild stocks to meet demand would be worse than the possible negative effects of keeping them?  I'm just trying to understand what makes farms worth keeping and I don't view "jobs", "money", "BC's global position in the salmon farming olympics" or "this paper that discredits that paper" as good reasons.  They are great catalysts to keep a debate going, but that doesn't help sustain wild fish!  So to those people, like Dave, who appear to be above anything pro-wild salmon, I have a question.  If the outlook for wild fish is so bleak and the potential for damaging those stocks further through farming exists, what greater threat are the farms offsetting that it isn't worth removing them all together?

-Jared

[AnnieP]

No, Annie, it is not a misconception.  Like other fish farm advocates, you insist that the fish farms are not the cause of the decline, therefore should be left alone.  THAT is the Red Herring.  I am well aware of the history of the decline of the salmon fishery in BC.  I read Meggs when I wrote my own paper in the 90s on the collapse of the commercial salmon fishery after the Cruikshank report came out about the same time as Meggs book.  What I am saying is that the salmon, already in decline, are now having to negotiate through the waters polluted by the fish farms.  You may argue that the pollution (be it biological or chemical) is small compared to the size of the ocean, or that the tides here can flush the sites adequately so there is no real harm, but I do not buy it.  The fact that the sea lice study quoted earlier showed that fallowing the farms reduced the sea lice infection rates, demonstrates the harm the farms can cause.  The fact that sea lice infection, while potentially harmful to juvenile salmon at a critical stage, is not the worst thing facing a migrating juvenile salmon, doesn't change the fact that it is an additional stress facing an already stressed salmon. Add to this the potential for the farms to amplify diseases that could then be passed to salmon, perhaps when they are returning to spawn and will be in high concentrations in the rivers with already weaken immune systems, and the danger is there.  The fact that the farms have nothing to gain by abusing the ecosystem, is irrelevant, although some (who shall remain nameless) may argue fish farmers would profit handsomely if the wild Pacific stocks disappeared and the world was dependent on farmed Atlantics for their salmon "needs."   You don't need to want to harm the ecosystem to do it.  There are many instances in the past where fish farms have harmed the local ecosystem, whether intentionally or not. While many have "learned" from those mistakes and have cleaned up their act, that doesn't change the fact that their activity harmed the ecosystem.  The fact that it is such a heavily regulated industry is testimony to harm they can cause the surrounding environment.   As I have said, trying to get the farms out of the water does not mean ignoring those other polluters in the Fraser, or the thousands of tons of plastics floating around the Pacific basin where the salmon, and their food fish, feed.  I do not need to ignore the other causes when I turn my attention to fish farms.  I understand the thousands of jobs that are at stake, and that is a shame, but as I said, those jobs should never have been created.  The jobs that should have been created were the ones that reduce the dependency on the products and packaging that are eroding our planets ecosystems.  I understand you have accepted that a farmed Atlantic salmon is as beautiful as a wild pacific salmon, but I do not.  One day we may all be forced to eat farmed Atlantic salmon, at that will be a sad day, but until that day comes, lets give the wild salmon the best chance for survival.  When they are all gone, then you can have our barren seas to raise as many farmed Atlantics as you can stomach.

Doesn't alter the fact the sea lice theory is old news and one that has been thrown aside. Dick Beamish had a study that shows  other areas away from salmon farms actually had higher levels of sea lice than those in farm areas. It kind of blew Ms Morton's claim that she "discovered sealice in the Broughton " all to heck. One has to wonder if those salmon fry she shows covered with sea lice are actually collected off that sewer pipe she has running down from her cabin in the Broughton to the ocean. You mention the plastic in the ocean. Yes another variable never before considered for wild salmon. Fish and wild life have all been found with bellyfulls of the dreaded stuff. Whale  necroscopys have shown whales with bellyfulls of plastic as well. Do you really believe that creating jobs in BC to rid us of plastic and packaging would have had an effect on fish that go to sea thousands of miles away from their birth river and encounter things we have no knowledge of ? I really doubt BC ridding itself of plastic and packaging would matter in the least when thousands of ships and boats at sea are dumping garbage  daily illegally. I recycle almost everything I use and rarely even put out my garbage for collection. But when I walk the beach I see nothing but tooth brushes, plastic bottles, cans, rope, plastic crates, tampon tubes, condoms you name it. I'm just one person doing my part but it just doesn't matter if everyone doesn't do it.

[Sandman]

Doesn't alter the fact the sea lice theory is old news and one that has been thrown aside. Dick Beamish had a study that shows  other areas away from salmon farms actually had higher levels of sea lice than those in farm areas. It kind of blew Ms Morton's claim that she "discovered sealice in the Broughton " all to heck.

 

And Martin Krkošek has a number of studies (one in 2005 and the latest in 2010) confirming the opposite.  Hardly signs the issue has been "thrown aside" following Beamish's 2009 study.

[shuswapsteve]

Even the sea lice study that Steve posted conclude that the sea lice infections of migrating pink salmon were ultimately reduced by fallowing the farms during their out migration.

I am glad you took the time to read the recent studies I posted but Brauner et al 2012 noted that this “voluntary compliance may mitigate salmon louse effects on the most sensitive stages of Pink Salmon.”  In this paper, they show evidence that sublethal effects were not evident once Pink Salmon reach 0.5g.  I believe what this paper is saying is that the fallowing by the industry was indeed helpful in reducing louse levels and Pink salmon infections to background levels, but there is evidence that Pink Salmon fry (especially those after one or two months of growth) show much more resilience to louse infections than what was once hypothesis.  Remember, Ms Morton once thought that this science with sea lice and salmon was pretty simple (i.e. they get lice – they die).  After reading the study it appears as though it is not all that simple.  I believe that hypothesis by Morton has finally been laid to rest.

The authors do concede that that this interaction between sea lice and Pink Salmon can be complex and can dependent on certain factors which can create some uncertainty (i.e. swimming performance); however, by identifying the most sensitive life history stages and fallowing farms accordingly during this time, the study seems to suggest from my perspective farmed salmon and wild salmon can coexist.  I do not think that sea lice have absolutely no impact – of course they do and the study talks about that impact; however, its the magnitude of that impact which grows more and more suspect every year with more data coming out.  I just do not buy into sea lice being the big problem as it was played out to be, especially when the BC industry has been proactive already to mitigate those potential impacts with the very sensitive life stages.  I agree with Absolon when he says that if the farms did not learn from their past mistakes then the older studies would have much more horsepower, but fact is that they have.  Making comparisons to Chile or some warm water country is really meaningless because it does not provide evidence of damage here.

Stringent regulations are testimony to the harm they can cause the surrounding environment?  Seems strange that the public demands tighter and more stringent regulations for industries that operate in and around water, but when an industry like the BC fish farm industry operates in a more heavily regulatory environment to reduce impacts (and achieves positive results as demonstrated by Brauner et al 2012) as demanded by the public it still is not good enough for some.  Meanwhile, “back at the farm”, many other activities with much more impact and not as heavily regulated go about their way of doing things.  Fish farms are an easy political target.  Personally, I would feel more comfortable with an industry with a regulatory regime that that is much more stringent than without.  When I pair this study with the other one I posted it reinforces in my mind sea lice is not the Armageddon that it was made out to be.  Pink salmon are on the increase in the North Pacific.  Pink salmon runs can be highly cyclical also with highs and lows even before salmon farming even began.  I say “was” because it is clear that the higher profile farm critics do not even mention sea lice anymore.  From my perspective, there are much more pressing matters to be concerned about.

[shuswapsteve]

 

And Martin Krkošek has a number of studies (one in 2005 and the latest in 2010) confirming the opposite.  Hardly signs the issue has been "thrown aside" following Beamish's 2009 study.

If you believe correlative studies like Krkosek then you should look at what Morton et al 2010 said about the prevalence of sea lice near farms and away from farms.  Again, not as simple as Morton protrays it.

[AnnieP]

For those who are interested, here is a link to The Foundation for Conscious Evolution: http://www.barbaramarxhubbard.com/site/

Note the Hubbard family crest:

And then there's Alex Morton's
http://www.gofundme.com/SalmonDiseaseTestingFund

[AnnieP]

 

And Martin Krkošek has a number of studies (one in 2005 and the latest in 2010) confirming the opposite.  Hardly signs the issue has been "thrown aside" following Beamish's 2009 study.

And the latest study shows that food source was low for out migrating salmon in 2007 and it is considered they starved before they even made it out to sea. Krkosek's studies are usually just a rehash of old material. And he is Morton's buddy in study. Show me a study written by someone who has never been associated with Morton. It is no secret most of Morton's papers are peer reviewed by the same people Krkosek and Volpe for another.
http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Lack+food+ocean+conditions+behind+poor+2009+sockeye+returns/6933718/story.html

[Sandman]

And the latest study shows that food source was low for out migrating salmon in 2007 and it is considered they starved before they even made it out to sea. Krkosek's studies are usually just a rehash of old material. And he is Morton's buddy in study. Show me a study written by someone who has never been associated with Morton. It is no secret most of Morton's papers are peer reviewed by the same people Krkosek and Volpe for another.
http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Lack+food+ocean+conditions+behind+poor+2009+sockeye+returns/6933718/story.html

...and I thought the antis had the market cornered on conspiracy theories.

[alwaysfishn]

And the latest study shows that food source was low for out migrating salmon in 2007 and it is considered they starved before they even made it out to sea. Krkosek's studies are usually just a rehash of old material. And he is Morton's buddy in study. Show me a study written by someone who has never been associated with Morton. It is no secret most of Morton's papers are peer reviewed by the same people Krkosek and Volpe for another.
http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Lack+food+ocean+conditions+behind+poor+2009+sockeye+returns/6933718/story.html

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=30611.msg290785#msg290785

[AnnieP]

...and I thought the antis had the market cornered on conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy theory. Read her papers in Science journal. They are either co-authored with Krkoseck ,Volpe, Routledge or Ford or peer reviewed by them. No secret.

[AnnieP]

I completely agree.  In my opinion, salmon farming isn't worth the risk.  There are other bigger issues surrounding the decline of wild stocks, but just because farming isn't at the top of that list it shouldn't be ignored.  Further to that it is one of the most easily "corrected" issues.

It's clear that many of the pro-aquaculture group are passionate about wild salmon, I think if I read between the lines, they even accept that farming doesn't come without consequence to the environment  in which it operates?  Disregarding the extremist groups on both sides, it appears that it is the difference in opinion on how damaged the wild stocks are already that separates the "pros" from the "antis".  Do supporters of fish farms feel that the farms take pressure off demand for commercial harvest (a good thing) and if we were to lose them the increase in harvesting of wild stocks to meet demand would be worse than the possible negative effects of keeping them?  I'm just trying to understand what makes farms worth keeping and I don't view "jobs", "money", "BC's global position in the salmon farming olympics" or "this paper that discredits that paper" as good reasons.  They are great catalysts to keep a debate going, but that doesn't help sustain wild fish!  So to those people, like Dave, who appear to be above anything pro-wild salmon, I have a question.  If the outlook for wild fish is so bleak and the potential for damaging those stocks further through farming exists, what greater threat are the farms offsetting that it isn't worth removing them all together?  Jared

[AnnieP]

I completely agree.  In my opinion, salmon farming isn't worth the risk.  There are other bigger issues surrounding the decline of wild stocks, but just because farming isn't at the top of that list it shouldn't be ignored.  Further to that it is one of the most easily "corrected" issues.

It's clear that many of the pro-aquaculture group are passionate about wild salmon, I think if I read between the lines, they even accept that farming doesn't come without consequence to the environment  in which it operates?  Disregarding the extremist groups on both sides, it appears that it is the difference in opinion on how damaged the wild stocks are already that separates the "pros" from the "antis".  Do supporters of fish farms feel that the farms take pressure off demand for commercial harvest (a good thing) and if we were to lose them the increase in harvesting of wild stocks to meet demand would be worse than the possible negative effects of keeping them?  I'm just trying to understand what makes farms worth keeping and I don't view "jobs", "money", "BC's global position in the salmon farming olympics" or "this paper that discredits that paper" as good reasons.  They are great catalysts to keep a debate going, but that doesn't help sustain wild fish!  So to those people, like Dave, who appear to be above anything pro-wild salmon, I have a question.  If the outlook for wild fish is so bleak and the potential for damaging those stocks further through farming exists, what greater threat are the farms offsetting that it isn't worth removing them all together?  Jared

Farmed salmon go into the sea lice free. The lice they get are from wild salmon, herring and stickleback. Those fish already have naturally occuring sea lice populations. They existed long before farmed salmon were introduced.

[Sandman]

Farmed salmon go into the sea lice free. The lice they get are from wild salmon, herring and stickleback. Those fish already have naturally occuring sea lice populations. They existed long before farmed salmon were introduced.

So did many of the diseases, but the captivity of the farmed salmon in high densities in open net pens negates the natural order where the salmon leave the near shore and head out to the open sea.  The Farmed salmon have no where to go so the sea lice have a steady host supply and they multiply, as do many of the "natural" diseases. It is this amplification that has many concerned for the impact on the salmon when they are migrating past the farms.  I want to believe you when you say there is no risk to the wild salmon swimming past these farms, but I do not.

[shuswapsteve]

So did many of the diseases, but the captivity of the farmed salmon in high densities in open net pens negates the natural order where the salmon leave the near shore and head out to the open sea.  The Farmed salmon have no where to go so the sea lice have a steady host supply and they multiply, as do many of the "natural" diseases. It is this amplification that has many concerned for the impact on the salmon when they are migrating past the farms.  I want to believe you when you say there is no risk to the wild salmon swimming past these farms, but I do not.

You will need to define what "high densities" mean.  If you look into what they do in BC, densities are monitored and maintained a certain level to reduce strees (15kg/cubic metres or less).

[AnnieP]

You will need to define what "high densities" mean.  If you look into what they do in BC, densities are monitored and maintained a certain level to reduce stress (15kg/cubic metres or less).

Thanks Steve. Glad someone knows what they are talking about. The truth is in the 1970's a naturally occurring sockeye die off occured due to high sea lice levels due to the salinity of the ocean water. This happened in the Albernie Inlet and it happened long before fish farms were even here in BC. To blame fish farms everytime something occurs just because one happens to be in the vicinity is ludicrous and very poor science.  Very Alex Morton.