Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on August 01, 2012, 11:42:05 AM
-
We are all aware of how salmon feedlots pollute the ocean floor, spread diseases and sea lice...... however I wonder how many people are aware that the feedlots use night lights to attract wild fish to the pens. Is this where some of the sockeye smolts are disappearing as they migrate past the feedlots? Is this a way for the feedlots to cut down on fish meal costs? Why is it allowed?
http://www.iasproducts.com/aLUWLightingSel.html (http://www.iasproducts.com/aLUWLightingSel.html)
Effect of artificial light on wild fish and zooplankton in an area of active salmon farming http://salmoncoast.org/artificial_light_effects_mcconnell (http://salmoncoast.org/artificial_light_effects_mcconnell)
Project Summary
This project looked at the effect of artificial light on wild fish and invertebrates. Artificial light can change the behaviour of aquatic organisms, though the direction of response can be species and life-stage specific. Open net-pen salmon farms in British Columbia routinely illuminate their net pens during the winter and spring, with unknown consequences on the abundance and distribution of marine fish and invertebrates.
This project conducted paired lit and control samples consisting of plankton hauls and purse seines around a 400W underwater light such as those used on salmon farms. Invertebrates were marginally more abundant on lit nights, while larval fish and non-larval fish were significantly more abundant on lit nights. In particular, the invertebrate taxa Gastropoda and Bivalvia were significantly more abundant on lit nights, as were the fish species, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), soft sculpin (Psychrolutes sigalutes), and great sculpin larvae (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus). These results suggest that lights commonly used in open net-pen aquaculture may increase the abundance of some fish species around pens, thereby increasing the probability that farmed fish and wild species directly and indirectly interact in coastal marine environments.
-
We are all aware of how salmon feedlots pollute the ocean floor, spread diseases and sea lice...... however I wonder how many people are aware that the feedlots use night lights to attract wild fish to the pens. Is this where some of the sockeye smolts are disappearing as they migrate past the feedlots? Is this a way for the feedlots to cut down on fish meal costs? Why is it allowed?
Thanks AF. This is yet another fine example of the lengths you and others will go without any actual facts. We all well know you will not listen to the farmer and that is why none of your group has ever asked. The reason the lights are used is to fool the fish into a response that helps them grow/feed during the short daylight portions of the year. Its photo manipulation that fools smolts into feeling they are in the middle of summer. This method is used for more than just livestock. I believe this is only done with small fish or smolts. It is not done to feed the fish wild products. One minute you complain the fish are not eating natural products the next minute you are. Anyway, This lighting is only used on atlantics when required. Besides, wasn't it Morton and all the rest that believe that salmon farms are dead zones? Guess you changed your minds again. I am not surprised.
If light could travel through water the same as it does the air perhaps the lights would have some far reaching effect. They just do not.
-
I appreciate that the feedlots are doing it to fool the fish, however like most of what they do, there are side affects. I just posted up a scientific study showing that these lights do attract fish.
While you are a fish farmer and seem to be an honest guy...... as Absolon would say "show me a scientific study that shows the lights have no affect on attracting wild salmon."
Logic suggests that the fish are attracted to the lights as well as the food source.... and if they don't get eaten, at the very least they are exposed to the sea lice and viruses the feedlot salmon are carrying.
-
Here's a company that knows quite a lot about attracting fish with light.... http://www.fishinglightsetc.com/Howtheywork.html (http://www.fishinglightsetc.com/Howtheywork.html)
"........... light starts a natural food chain reaction by attracting a concentration of small microscopic animals called plankton. Bait fish such as shad and minnows are drawn to the light to feed on the plankton; and larger game fish move in to feed on the bait fish. It's not uncommon to see bait fish stacked in columns 15 feet thick under the lights, with game fish suspended directly below them."
-
It all sounds like your usual speculations posted in a factual manor. Whatever..... ::) For all you know wild salmon could benefit from lights being placed in the ocean but you have proven it time and time again that your rules you use to appose salmon farming do not apply to your reality in terms off all the other foods your consume. I always think of you as a skinny frail little man based on your food rules.
-
Shhhhhhh!, maybe if everybody refuses to comment, AF will continue this thread on his own. ;D
-
It all sounds like your usual speculations posted in a factual manor. Whatever..... ::) For all you know wild salmon could benefit from lights being placed in the ocean but you have proven it time and time again that your rules you use to appose salmon farming do not apply to your reality in terms off all the other foods your consume. I always think of you as a skinny frail little man based on your food rules.
;D That's actually quite funny.... and it might even be true...... but it's off topic. ::)
-
Honours Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 2008.
McConnell, A., R. Routledge, & B. Connors. The effect of artificial light on marine invertebrate and fish abundance in an area of active salmon farming. Marine Ecology Progress Series. In press.
Another pair of statisticians doing biology work.
-
...... as Absolon would say "show me a scientific study that shows the lights have no affect on attracting wild salmon."......
No, absolon would say that this summary of a doctoral thesis apparently soon to be published by Morton's "research institute" suggests that.....
In particular, the invertebrate taxa Gastropoda and Bivalvia were significantly more abundant on lit nights, as were the fish species, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), soft sculpin (Psychrolutes sigalutes), and great sculpin larvae (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus)
There is no mention of the presence of wild salmon let alone an increased presence of them as a consequence of the lights. One would expect that given the salmon are the particular subject of concern, any presence of them would certainly warrant a mention. Further, the summary suggests that there was no research into the effects of that increased presence and the lack of information on experimental methods means there is no way to tell if the experiment was designed to replicate actual conditions.
Consequently, your conclusions don't follow from the research and from the summary published, don't match those of the authors.
-
No, absolon would say that this summary of a doctoral thesis apparently soon to be published by Morton's "research institute" suggests that.....
In particular, the invertebrate taxa Gastropoda and Bivalvia were significantly more abundant on lit nights, as were the fish species, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), soft sculpin (Psychrolutes sigalutes), and great sculpin larvae (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus)
There is no mention of the presence of wild salmon let alone an increased presence of them as a consequence of the lights. One would expect that given the salmon are the particular subject of concern, any presence of them would certainly warrant a mention. Further, the summary suggests that there was no research into the effects of that increased presence and the lack of information on experimental methods means there is no way to tell if the experiment was designed to replicate actual conditions.
Consequently, your conclusions don't follow from the research and from the summary published, don't match those of the authors.
What did you expect its AF..... ;D ;D
-
No, absolon would say that this summary of a doctoral thesis apparently soon to be published by Morton's "research institute" suggests that.....
In particular, the invertebrate taxa Gastropoda and Bivalvia were significantly more abundant on lit nights, as were the fish species, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), soft sculpin (Psychrolutes sigalutes), and great sculpin larvae (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus)
There is no mention of the presence of wild salmon let alone an increased presence of them as a consequence of the lights. One would expect that given the salmon are the particular subject of concern, any presence of them would certainly warrant a mention. Further, the summary suggests that there was no research into the effects of that increased presence and the lack of information on experimental methods means there is no way to tell if the experiment was designed to replicate actual conditions.
Consequently, your conclusions don't follow from the research and from the summary published, don't match those of the authors.
So you are saying that the light attracts everything except salmonoids? Come now Absolon, use a little logic....
The lights attract plankton, which is the main food source for sockeye smolts. Admit it, the feedlots are giant attractors for all sorts of fish and these fish have no chance of survival when they enter those pens....
-
I'm reading directly from the summary of the research and though the researchers list the species found in higher abundance, they make no mention of salmon. Presumably they would know and are in a better position than you to describe their results. Giddyup horsey!
-
I'm reading directly from the summary of the research and though the researchers list the species found in higher abundance, they make no mention of salmon. Presumably they would know and are in a better position than you to describe their results. Giddyup horsey!
Still refusing to use a little logic......
The fact that they did not catch any salmonoids in the net only proves there were none in the area at the time the tests were taken.
The study was conducted near Gilford Island which is well away from any salmon migratory route and because the time period was between early February and the middle of April there wouldn't have been any sockeye present as they don't normally start migrating till May.
Admit it, your argument that no salmonoids were caught, and suggesting that proves that feedlot lights don't attract wild salmonoids, is one of the silliest arguments you've ever put forward.... ::) ::)
What I provided was a summary of the actual scientific study. Why don't you read the entire 10 page report before commenting any further....
-
Great bit of information, and one that can be hard to get your maw around if you don't understand pit lamping. Thanks AF but the dinos are going to challenge that the ice age existed, over recognizing repercussions of pit lamping for the sake of making a buck. Your worth 10 Annies though in terms of putting up with their personal attacks against your physical appearance and other kinds of low blow comments.
I thought pit lamping was illegal in BC but I guess the dirty little open pen fish farmer weirdos have found a new angle to it. Shame and fail to them. :-[
-
Awwwww...look TB is back.....where ya been we missed ya.......I must say I guess you didnt read the article either or cant comprehend whats written, and its written by your compatriots too, stataticians turned biologists.. ;D ;D
-
And get your terminology right too. I thought something was weird when you used the term Pit Lamping, but then I forgot your anti and look for anything..http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cos/100years/1905/early_years.html (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cos/100years/1905/early_years.html)
-
Still refusing to use a little logic......
The fact that they did not catch any salmonoids in the net only proves there were none in the area at the time the tests were taken.
The study was conducted near Gilford Island which is well away from any salmon migratory route and because the time period was between early February and the middle of April there wouldn't have been any sockeye present as they don't normally start migrating till May.
Admit it, your argument that no salmonoids were caught, and suggesting that proves that feedlot lights don't attract wild salmonoids, is one of the silliest arguments you've ever put forward.... ::) ::)
What I provided was a summary of the actual scientific study. Why don't you read the entire 10 page report before commenting any further....
From the study:
Chum salmon were caught only on lit nights, but the results are not statistically significant due to the small number of catches containing them.
Pink and chum salmon fry are most attracted to light levels to which they are previously adapted (reviewed in Feist & Anderson 1991, Simenstad et al. 1999). It follows that low catches of chum salmon would occur, for chum salmon straying into the lit zone after dusk would be repelled by the contrast between the dark (to which they would be currently adapted) and the bright artificial light.
Regardless of your personal conclusions, the authors report statistically insignificant catches of salmon. They do, however, make the following suggestion that you would be well advised to pay attention to:
These findings agree with others that suggest continuous lighting in marine areas as well as terrestrial systems (Rich & Longcore 2006 and references therein) constitutes an attractive influence over various organisms. Care must be taken when extrapolating these results to salmon farms. The present study used only one non-farm sample site and thus cannot control for different environmental factors at different locations, nor can it predict wild fish and invertebrate behaviour around artificial lights in conjunction with farms themselves.
-
It's good to see you took some time to read the entire report before commenting further.....
As you have noted the lights attract virtually every fish that is in the area including salmon. I did notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact that the study was conducted when no sockeye were in the area.
So considering the feedlots use lights to attract fish so that they can use this free feed to raise their penned salmon, how much free product are they pulling out of the ocean that could be used to feed the wild salmon?
Most of us thought that these pens were just pollution and disease generators but we now see that they are raping and pillaging the feed fish and salmonoids as well by baiting them with light..... Shameful really! :o
-
Great bit of information, and one that can be hard to get your maw around if you don't understand pit lamping. Thanks AF but the dinos are going to challenge that the ice age existed, over recognizing repercussions of pit lamping for the sake of making a buck. Your worth 10 Annies though in terms of putting up with their personal attacks against your physical appearance and other kinds of low blow comments.
I thought pit lamping was illegal in BC but I guess the dirty little open pen fish farmer weirdos have found a new angle to it. Shame and fail to them. :-[
It's another dirty little secret these feedlots don't want the public to know, isn't it.
As far as the personal comments, it seems par for the course. When they realize someone has discovered one of their dirty little secrets, they can't defend it so a select few of the pro-feedlot boys respond with the personal attacks. In this one Absolon is digging himself a deeper hole by trying to defend this despicable practice of "pit lamping". He should probably just refrain from commenting like some of the other pro-feedlot boys. Even AnnieP is smart enough to avoid commenting on this feedlot practice.
Just a side note, I read somewhere else that Canada is the only country that uses the pit lamping practice. I wonder if it's because the fish feedlots have killed all the sea life around them in other parts of the world and there is no point in pit lamping, because there are no feed fish left to attract. ???
-
Studies have been done on the feedlot use of lights... and the feedlots gain huge benefits because the fish grow faster. (Likely because they are eating better)
"A simple cost analysis of the use of light treatment equipment was conducted to obtain an estimate of the financial gains to farmers, should they employ this treatment method on their farms. The cost of purchasing, wiring and operating the lights was less than $5,000 per cage. Based on November results for each 70 m sea cage, the potential net financial would be greater than $100,000 per farm."
No surprise given the savings in feed as a result of the penned salmon catching their own......
-
So mister saver of wild salmon besides posting the crap you do on here what are you personally doing to actually help preserve wild salmon? Me as posted in another forum I gave up fishing for slamon in 2009, strictly a still water guy now. Chris is doing his own thing and I admire him for that and all he's involved in so again besides the garbage you post here what are you and that sidekick of yours doing besides nothing.
-
So mister saver of wild salmon besides posting the crap you do on here what are you personally doing to actually help preserve wild salmon? Me as posted in another forum I gave up fishing for slamon in 2009, strictly a still water guy now. Chris is doing his own thing and I admire him for that and all he's involved in so again besides the garbage you post here what are you and that sidekick of yours doing besides nothing.
I'm trying to get the feedlots out of the ocean..... you know "remove a fish pen, save 10,000 wild salmon" :D
-
So in other words nothing... ;D.....
-
So in other words nothing... ;D.....
Change seldom happens unless people are made aware of the need for change....
Take lighting in the feedlot business.... Are you aware that inspite of the obvious harm night lighting is doing to the ocean environment, DFO has not authorized any studies on the issue and there is no mandatory feedlot reporting on the use of lighting.
Makes you wonder what other harm these feedlots are inflicting, and we are not even aware of them...
-
I do not claim to be an expert on the issue of fish farms by any means, but i wanted to make a rookie comment on here.
I think that despite both sides banter back and forth, sometimes good, sometimes borderline disrespectful, i have learned alot of information about the topic while reading through all the posts.
I can honestly say, that despite my personal opinions or beliefs on the subject, i feel as though i can make a more educated decision on whether to be pro or anti whereas before i would simply know that fish farms where bad because i saw it in the newspaper.
I also learned a valuable lesson this summer when i went to Tofino for a family vacation in which i met a group of people who were employed by one of the fish farms. I spent some time talking to them about their opinions on the subject and that was very informative.
Regardless, i just wanted to say thanks for the educational lessons on the subject, keep em coming guys.
-
I do not claim to be an expert on the issue of fish farms by any means, but i wanted to make a rookie comment on here.
I think that despite both sides banter back and forth, sometimes good, sometimes borderline disrespectful, i have learned alot of information about the topic while reading through all the posts.
I can honestly say, that despite my personal opinions or beliefs on the subject, i feel as though i can make a more educated decision on whether to be pro or anti whereas before i would simply know that fish farms where bad because i saw it in the newspaper.
I also learned a valuable lesson this summer when i went to Tofino for a family vacation in which i met a group of people who were employed by one of the fish farms. I spent some time talking to them about their opinions on the subject and that was very informative.
Regardless, i just wanted to say thanks for the educational lessons on the subject, keep em coming guys.
Appreciate your comments!
-
I am quite certain that the government moniters the fishs internal contents. So dispute your claim af, and you dramatic presintation on this one I am confident that you are incorrect once again. I will dig up some data for you even though you may fall back on a conspiracy theory afterwards.
Jack55 , what is your take on it then. This whole salmon farming thing in bc?
-
It's interesting to note that the feedlot pens all use green lights.
(http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1274487249604&ssbinary=true)
I wondered about this and after a little googling, I learned that the reason green light is so effective for attracting fish is that green light travels furthest in the water so it's most effective in attracting fish.
Also it's interesting to note that all marine bio luminescent creatures are bluish-green in color. Over the last five years the popularity of green light fishing has soared in saltwater and freshwater circles.
It's impossible to believe that it's a coincidence that the feedlots are using the blue green colored light bulbs.
-
I am quite certain that the government moniters the fishs internal contents. So dispute your claim af, and you dramatic presintation on this one I am confident that you are incorrect once again. I will dig up some data for you even though you may fall back on a conspiracy theory afterwards.
I look forward to seeing some of your "data".
I read a study once (can't find it now) that suggested the reason that escaped feedlot fish are able to successfully colonize is because they are already quite experienced at catching wild fish. It's easy to appreciate, given that the lights are attracting wild fish to the pens.
-
Ya, I'll try to get something for you. In the meanwhile you keep on giviner' like you have the silver bullet. You are practicing a common tactic here where you put out your information as fact, hard and fast, and when contradictory information arrives we start turning over rocks looking for you but you will be gone. When you do turn up you will just start another topic and be unwilling to respond to the last one.
There is not much of a discussion here with your used car sales approach.
-
I was wondering a question to the biologists on here, is there a way you could do a survey pertaining to wild salmon mortality,caused by fishfarms and then caused by sportsfishing, would be interesting to see those numbers.
-
Green lights. Ha ha. Your really throwing yourself out there on that one. From my perspective that photo looks lIke a photo of the sun from under water. I work under water. Remember?
-
Bass, do you remember the photo in fish porn of a steelhead' guts that was full of roe in roebags and rubber eggs, plastic worms and pealed shrimp? It was from this year or last year.
That should be enough evidence for af. He does not require much info before his mind is made up and he is presenting his opinion as fact.
-
Ya, I'll try to get something for you. In the meanwhile you keep on giviner' like you have the silver bullet. You are practicing a common tactic here where you put out your information as fact, hard and fast, and when contradictory information arrives we start turning over rocks looking for you but you will be gone. When you do turn up you will just start another topic and be unwilling to respond to the last one.
There is not much of a discussion here with your used car sales approach.
Complaining about my posts probably doesn't add any value to the discussion....
-
It's not a complaint. I am only pointing out how this discussion will go. So go on, keep pumping up your unfounded opinion as fact. You know time is running out on this one as it usually does for those who campaign using this style. I'm loving your hysterical approach on this one! Ahhhhh! Panic!!!
-
I think your concerns may be more about the fact that the feedlot secrets are being revealed and you don't have an explanation that differs from what I have provided....
-
The benefit to the farms from using the lights doesn't come from feeding on the plankton or any of the other small fish species the study found were attracted to the light.
The benefit and the revenue accruing from it come from using photoperiod control to delay maturation and prolong the growth period supported by the regular day time feeding program. Once maturation begins, the fish divert the nutrients and energy obtained from the diet from growth to the formation of eggs or milt and no longer increase in size or value. As has been pointed out, though in manner that displays either broad ignorance of the subject or a deliberate intent to mislead, the farms can increase revenue appreciably by delaying the onset of maturation in order to extend the growth period.
-
When I was a youngster it was common practice to build huge bonfires on shore to attract lake trout into casting range. I do believe that the practice of using light to attract fish is illegal in Ontario now. Minnows came to the light of the bonfires too, age old method of getting fish to come close to shore. So I could see smart feedlot guys getting a bit of free forage for the fish this way. ;D
-
Just want to share that several years ago we had a chance to ocean fish in the one of the tropical countries. It was a guided trip at night. Before fishing, we would first hunt for bait fish. The captain would have lights on to attract the bait fish and squids. We had a pretty good result of catching the bait with this method.
-
When I was a youngster it was common practice to build huge bonfires on shore to attract lake trout into casting range. I do believe that the practice of using light to attract fish is illegal in Ontario now. Minnows came to the light of the bonfires too, age old method of getting fish to come close to shore. So I could see smart feedlot guys getting a bit of free forage for the fish this way. ;D
Just want to share that several years ago we had a chance to ocean fish in the one of the tropical countries. It was a guided trip at night. Before fishing, we would first hunt for bait fish. The captain would have lights on to attract the bait fish and squids. We had a pretty good result of catching the bait with this method.
Thanks guys for posting. Unfortunately unless either of you are scientists and your report has been peer reviewed, according to the feedlot promoters, salmon are still not attracted to light. ::)
-
The benefit to the farms from using the lights doesn't come from feeding on the plankton or any of the other small fish species the study found were attracted to the light.
The benefit and the revenue accruing from it come from using photoperiod control to delay maturation and prolong the growth period supported by the regular day time feeding program. Once maturation begins, the fish divert the nutrients and energy obtained from the diet from growth to the formation of eggs or milt and no longer increase in size or value. As has been pointed out, though in manner that displays either broad ignorance of the subject or a deliberate intent to mislead, the farms can increase revenue appreciably by delaying the onset of maturation in order to extend the growth period.
Thanks for copying and pasting from the report...... Of course you omitted the side benefits of using lights which is the free food and who knows how many wild salmon smolts become part of their menu.
-
Hmmmm... I wonder if Enbridge gets its way how many wild salmon smolts will bite the big one with the first of many spills, could you answer that Always or is that gonna shut you up.
-
I am confused Bassanator you are for fish farms but against oil....
Funny as the only positive that farms seem to offer has been determined in past posts is profit and a few jobs ....oil makes profit big time and offers plenty of jobs ...what with all the messy cleanups.
Awww what the hell they are going to go extinct so we may as well get the profits before someone else does ...right
-
The farm boys bib cover alls are just bout down to their knees now. Kissing sow and making off track comments bout oil companies. Dem the same folks whod said that when yas don't have anytin concrete to the argument yous start wit the personal atttacks. Well looks like the weasel came home to roost. :)
AF your beating them down hard. ;D This pit lamping thing is a new low and give a bad name to fish farming. Hopefully things change for the better. They just need the right people to clean up on the industry. Again nothing wrong with fish farming just how it's being done on the cheap and now the what should be considered illegal pit lamping tricks. But like all things humans get involved in it takes some time to get things right.
-
The farm boys bib cover alls are just bout down to their knees now. Kissing sow and making off track comments bout oil companies. Dem the same folks whod said that when yas don't have anytin concrete to the argument yous start wit the personal atttacks. Well looks like the weasel came home to roost. :)
AF your beating them down hard. ;D This pit lamping thing is a new low and give a bad name to fish farming. Hopefully things change for the better. They just need the right people to clean up on the industry. Again nothing wrong with fish farming just how it's being done on the cheap and now the what should be considered illegal pit lamping tricks. But like all things humans get involved in it takes some time to get things right.
We love ya TB. ;D ;D ;D
-
I am confused Bassanator you are for fish farms but against oil....
Funny as the only positive that farms seem to offer has been determined in past posts is profit and a few jobs ....oil makes profit big time and offers plenty of jobs ...what with all the messy cleanups.
Awww what the hell they are going to go extinct so we may as well get the profits before someone else does ...right
Like Ive always said" If the fish farms dont kill em then the sporties and commies will'.. ;) ;) ;)
-
We love ya TB. ;D ;D ;D
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/troutbreath/applause.gif)
watch your back bibster ;D got bacon in my pocket
-
Just take the B out of bassonatar. ;D ;D
-
Just take the B out of bassonatar. ;D ;D
You thought that up all by your lonesome.......Wow ;D ;D ;D Another one whos staring right at the name and still cant spell it right.. ???
-
We are all aware of how salmon feedlots pollute the ocean floor, spread diseases and sea lice...... however I wonder how many people are aware that the feedlots use night lights to attract wild fish to the pens. Is this where some of the sockeye smolts are disappearing as they migrate past the feedlots? Is this a way for the feedlots to cut down on fish meal costs? Why is it allowed?
http://www.iasproducts.com/aLUWLightingSel.html (http://www.iasproducts.com/aLUWLightingSel.html)
Effect of artificial light on wild fish and zooplankton in an area of active salmon farming http://salmoncoast.org/artificial_light_effects_mcconnell (http://salmoncoast.org/artificial_light_effects_mcconnell)
Project Summary
This project looked at the effect of artificial light on wild fish and invertebrates. Artificial light can change the behaviour of aquatic organisms, though the direction of response can be species and life-stage specific. Open net-pen salmon farms in British Columbia routinely illuminate their net pens during the winter and spring, with unknown consequences on the abundance and distribution of marine fish and invertebrates.
This project conducted paired lit and control samples consisting of plankton hauls and purse seines around a 400W underwater light such as those used on salmon farms. Invertebrates were marginally more abundant on lit nights, while larval fish and non-larval fish were significantly more abundant on lit nights. In particular, the invertebrate taxa Gastropoda and Bivalvia were significantly more abundant on lit nights, as were the fish species, Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), soft sculpin (Psychrolutes sigalutes), and great sculpin larvae (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus). These results suggest that lights commonly used in open net-pen aquaculture may increase the abundance of some fish species around pens, thereby increasing the probability that farmed fish and wild species directly and indirectly interact in coastal marine environments.
Nothing like digging up a rehash of another of Morton's theories. There are a few good reasons for the systems being lit besides fooling Atlantics into not going broody and wanting to spawn. Has it occured to you that the farms would be a hazard to navigation at night if there was no lighting or that lighting is necessary for workers to see their way around the system at night ? This is an old claim from Morton and has no merit. Like everything she claims in one study she claims there is no life around and under the farms and in the next she claims the pens are full of wild fish enticed there by lights to supplement fish fodder. Blah Blah Blah
-
Has it occured to you that the farms would be a hazard to navigation at night if there was no lighting or that lighting is necessary for workers to see their way around the system at night ?
That's a good one Annie..... ;D ;D
Is that why they put green lights under water? Aren't lighthouses (which are used for navigation) normally above water?
At least Absolon backs up his defense of feedlots with some facts on occasion.... You just make stuff up.
-
Heres a plan for ya AF grab the grandkids and a camera , tell em your going to show them how bad fish farms actually are and then grab us a picture or 2 of these green lights, then Ill believe ya but until that time its just more hueyy from an armchair biologist..... :D :D :D
-
It's good to see you took some time to read the entire report before commenting further.....
As you have noted the lights attract virtually every fish that is in the area including salmon. I did notice how you failed to acknowledge the fact that the study was conducted when no sockeye were in the area.
So considering the feedlots use lights to attract fish so that they can use this free feed to raise their penned salmon, how much free product are they pulling out of the ocean that could be used to feed the wild salmon?
Most of us thought that these pens were just pollution and disease generators but we now see that they are raping and pillaging the feed fish and salmonoids as well by baiting them with light..... Shameful really! :o
Apparently you don't know that as far as MHI goes the wild fish are graded out of the pens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwr7bJZUzs0&list=PL2B72A35640BB31D1&feature=plcp
My husband runs the boat doing the grading for your information now accuse me of making that up ?? :-*
-
That's a good one Annie..... ;D ;D
Is that why they put green lights under water? Aren't lighthouses (which are used for navigation) normally above water?
At least Absolon backs up his defense of feedlots with some facts on occasion.... You just make stuff up.
Actually I think your the one making stuff up. Quoting Morton also qualifies as making stuff up.
-
Apparently you don't know that as far as MHI goes the wild fish are graded out of the pens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwr7bJZUzs0&list=PL2B72A35640BB31D1&feature=plcp
My husband runs the boat doing the grading for your information now accuse me of making that up ?? :-*
Thanks Annie..... proves the point that the feedlots are attracting wild fish using lights and of course the feed, or why else would they have to invest in a separator machine. Of course the separator machine isn't going to help all the salmon fingerlings that have been swallowed up by the feedlot salmon, is it?
-
Actually I think your the one making stuff up. Quoting Morton also qualifies as making stuff up.
If you read through the beginning of the thread you would see I'm not making this stuff up....
-
Actually Ive read the links you posted and Annie is right anything after that, youre making it up, problem is your so caught up in your own BS that you actually believe it, and that lets people like Morton know thier brainwashing is working.
-
If you read through the beginning of the thread you would see I'm not making this stuff up....
No Morton made it up your just rehashing it. Small fish are graded out and back into the water . End of story. Argue all you like it won't change the fact your wrong.
-
I said I would post info on this. Here it is:
I have not read through the whole thing yet but I am sure it will be interesting.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/dfo-mpo/Fs97-4-2662E.pdf
The potential for predation by caged Atlantic salmon on wild food organisms has
raised concerns about the possible impacts on local populations of wild fish species in
the vicinity of fish farms. The use of bright lights on some sites had raised specific
concerns that wild species of fish and zooplankton were being attracted to the lights and
were then being consumed by the captive salmon. We collected and examined
stomachs from Atlantic salmon reared at four different aquaculture sites on the northern
end of Vancouver Island. One site used large lights as a technique to enhance growth.
We examined a total of 600 stomachs from all sites collected over a 9-week period. We
collected another 134 stomachs from an experimental aquaculture site near the Pacific
Biological Station, Nanaimo. Most gut contents were contained within caecae, in
various states of digestion. The gut contents varied in time and within and among pens
but very little wild feed was taken by salmon at any of the sites. The main wild
organisms consumed were caprellids, small crustaceans that are part of the ‘fouling’
community that grows on the webbing of nets on the cages where the fish are held.
There were some wild pelagic organisms such as copepods and euphausiids but these
were rare. Only one fish was found in the stomachs, a small sand lance (Ammodytes
hexapterus). No fish larvae were found in the stomachs but very small items, such as
larvae of marine fish such as herring (Clupea pallasi) or eulachons (Thaleichthys
pacificus) might have gone undetected because after a short time in the stomachs, the
fragile tissue in fish larvae would have been unrecognizable. It is probable, however,
that if substantial numbers of fish larvae had been consumed, we would have detected
some. There were no obvious differences in the consumption of wild organisms among
the sites and lights had no apparent effect on the consumption of wild food.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/dfo-mpo/Fs97-4-2662E.pdf (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/dfo-mpo/Fs97-4-2662E.pdf)
-
I said I would post info on this. Here it is:
I have not read through the whole thing yet but I am sure it will be interesting.
This study confirms that the Atlantics eat wild fish and that lights attract plankton which in turn attracts wild fish.
The problem I see with the study is that they sampled only fish that were attracted to feed pellets rather than randomly sampling fish from the pens. Likely the Atlantics eating the wild fish weren't hungry any way so they didn't chase the feed pellets..... The quantities of wild fish eaten by the Atlantics can't be relied on with that sort of sampling.
If you haven't read it here is the report I referenced in the beginning of this thread. http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2010/419/m419p147.pdf (http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2010/419/m419p147.pdf) The problem I see with this study is that it doesn't simulate a feedlot scenario, it just uses lights.
-
This study confirms that the Atlantics eat wild fish and that lights attract plankton which in turn attracts wild fish.
I think I agree that more work could be done on the issue. While one fish out of 600 was found in a farm fish it does indicate exactly how that fish got there. I agree that the study should have more of a random selection but I also feel that it proves that the farms are not profiting from having lights in the water to steal feed from the ocean. In other words it is a good start and basically shows that the farm fish are not gorging or even snacking on wild feed.That is just another thing you heard or made up to empower your campain. There is alot more information in that study than you wish to acknowledge.
As for the study you posted, I think absolun has some good points on that:
There is no mention of the presence of wild salmon let alone an increased presence of them as a consequence of the lights. One would expect that given the salmon are the particular subject of concern, any presence of them would certainly warrant a mention. Further, the summary suggests that there was no research into the effects of that increased presence and the lack of information on experimental methods means there is no way to tell if the experiment was designed to replicate actual conditions.
Consequently, your conclusions don't follow from the research and from the summary published, don't match those of the authors.
If saving one needle fish out for every 600 farm salmon is that important than we have our work cut out for us for I am certain that there are many other knee jerk reactions we could perform to save even more.
-
As for the study you posted, I think absolun has some good points on that:
If saving one needle fish out for every 600 farm salmon is that important than we have our work cut out for us for I am certain that there are many other knee jerk reactions we could perform to save even more.
Sometimes you need to read what isn't in a report in order to reach your conclusions. Like Absolon, you fail to consider that the tests in that study were taken at times that the salmon fry had likely finished their migration past the test sites.
To not take that into consideration and then draw the conclusion that the lights don't attract salmonoids is I think you would agree, ridiculous.
-
Sometimes you need to read what isn't in a report in order to reach your conclusions. Like Absolon, you fail to consider that the tests in that study were taken at times that the salmon fry had likely finished their migration past the test sites.
You may have your short moment of belittling glory but I am pretty sure you are completely incorrect on that statement.
-
My experience from cutthroat fishing in the salt chuck shows there is lots of fry from march through may and this study starts on day 129 of the year so if you look at that first month of sampling its a start. Like I said before I agree that the study could be better but it is a good start. If the farm fish were gorging on fry like you dare to dream about then you would think that they would find at least one or even a smolt of some kind or a herring. But there is none to be found. I think your trying to make cookies with dog cupcakes here and it isn't going to work. ;D
-
My experience from cutthroat fishing in the salt chuck shows there is lots of fry from march through may and this study starts on day 129 of the year so if you look at that first month of sampling its a start. Like I said before I agree that the study could be better but it is a good start. If the farm fish were gorging on fry like you dare to dream about then you would think that they would find at least one or even a smolt of some kind or a herring. But there is none to be found. I think your trying to make cookies with dog **** here and it isn't going to work. ;D
Here is my response to absolon's earlier comment.
Still refusing to use a little logic......
The fact that they did not catch any salmonoids in the net only proves there were none in the area at the time the tests were taken.
The study was conducted near Gilford Island which is well away from any salmon migratory route and because the time period was between early February and the middle of April there wouldn't have been any sockeye present as they don't normally start migrating till May.
Admit it, your argument that no salmonoids were caught, and suggesting that proves that feedlot lights don't attract wild salmonoids, is one of the silliest arguments you've ever put forward.... ::) ::)
What I provided was a summary of the actual scientific study. Why don't you read the entire 10 page report before commenting any further....
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=30772.0#quickreply
-
I am not familiar with that area but surely there would be some fry of some kind.Not even some chum fry?Sometimes you need to read what isn't in a report in order to reach your conclusions. (http://Sometimes you need to read what isn't in a report in order to reach your conclusions.) so those farm are in perfect locations? ;D
-
...... so those farm are in perfect locations? ;D
No ........ a perfect location would be on dry land.
-
Well, we have discussed that EXTENSIVELY so lets not go there again. You know thats not going to happen. But it did serve as an opportunity for you to provide the public with another idea that is not actually possible. Hey they do not know any better so why not continue to mislead them.
-
Well, we have discussed that EXTENSIVELY so lets not go there again. You know thats not going to happen. But it did serve as an opportunity for you to provide the public with another idea that is not actually possible. Hey they do not know any better so why not continue to mislead them.
Why don't I just get you to write all my posts....... ??? that way you will agree with everything I post. ::)
-
Here is my response to absolon's earlier comment.
Quote from: alwaysfishn on August 01, 2012, 10:04:05 PM
Still refusing to use a little logic......
The fact that they did not catch any salmonoids in the net only proves there were none in the area at the time the tests were taken.
The study was conducted near Gilford Island which is well away from any salmon migratory route and because the time period was between early February and the middle of April there wouldn't have been any sockeye present as they don't normally start migrating till May.
Admit it, your argument that no salmonoids were caught, and suggesting that proves that feedlot lights don't attract wild salmonoids, is one of the silliest arguments you've ever put forward.... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
What I provided was a summary of the actual scientific study. Why don't you read the entire 10 page report before commenting any further....
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=30772.0#quickreply
The obvious question would be to ask why you posted the study in the first place. As you've suggested yourself, the study conditions bear no relationship to the environment around a farm. In fact, the authors even caution about drawing any conclusions about farms based on their work and I specifically pointed that out to you. In that same post, I also pointed out that the authors (and not myself as you are dishonestly claiming is the case, a tactic you use with great frequency) suggested that statistically insignificant numbers of salmon were found and also that both Pinks and Chum have an aversion to abnormal conditions.
In fact, nothing you have presented is related to what that study says or has any basis in any fact. You've commented several times about reading the study. I would suggest to you that is only part of the battle. The next and a more important step is understanding what it is saying, something you clearly haven't managed to accomplish. The final step is the development of a reasonable interpretation of what the study means. Obviously, if you don't understand what you've read, the result will be the sort of nonsense you've presented here where you try to convince people that the study actually infers a conclusion diametrically opposite to the authors' own stated conclusions.
On the other hand, the manuscript aquapaloosa supplied is considerably more relevant and it's observation that one small non-salmonid was all that was found in the stomach contents of some 500 or so farm fish suggests you are just blowing your usual smoke with your attempts to rationalize and reconcile that result with the nonsense you are trying to promote. I would suggest you stop digging and instead man up and deal with the question Shuswapsteve posed about the source of the IHN infection in the other thread. It is obvious you've seen it; you were rudely dismissive of any real facts and now you are running and hiding from a perfectly reasonable request to back up your statements with something other than your imagination and your usual technique of bluster and my smelly socks.
-
Good to see you back and ranting again.... Of course I expect you to only accept any information that you think supports feedlots and reject those that don't support them.
You need to be mindful that belittling me does nothing to support your argument and actually takes away from it.
........ I can't believe I'm actually trying to help you with the presentation of your pro feedlot agenda. ???
-
Bluster and my smelly socks