Print

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

[RalphH]

Attached is a list of 47 studies independent of Salmon Farming industry funding and DFO, that investigate the real and potential impacts of Open Net salmon farming in BC. The list includes abstracts or summaries of the findings plus links to to the actual published papers which may require a subscription or a fee for access.

These studies are peer reviewed and published in academic  periodicals. Thirty-five (35) of these studies deal with sea lice issues, 12 with disease transmission and 5 others with economic, eco-system and sustainability issues. These were published in January of this year and additional studies may have been published. There are papers for studies carried out in other jurisdictions that reach similar finding.

I am providing this list in response to the constant and false claims claims that there is no evidence that open net farms present any kind of harms to wild salmon or the environment as a whole. Also please note that many studies find that potential harm from factors like sea lice infestation of wild fish are dependent on a number of variables and much of the time sea lice levels may present little short term risk. At other times it looks clear they do. Neither am I claiming the collected papers on this list prove anything one way or the other but rather be cautious of claims from either side.

I believe it is up to individuals to inform themselves on such issues and make up their own minds.

The list:

https://pacificwild.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Annotated_Guide_to_Independent_Studies_on_Open-Net_Pen_Salmon_Farming_2025.pdf

[wildmanyeah]

A 2025 review found BC farms pose "minimal risk" to wild salmon, with no consistent sea lice decline post-removals in some areas. This supports the view that farms and wild salmon can coexist with proper management (e.g., lice treatments reducing spillover)

Pathogens From Salmon Aquaculture in Relation to Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon in Canada: An Alternative Perspective


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aff2.70079

[RalphH]

that is of course the study commissioned by DFO that a number of University Profs doing equivalent research alleged (via a letter to the Minister of Fisheries)  was "cherry picked" to produce data that supports the conclusions. I believe I provided a link to that issue in a previous discussion topic.

Again one study or several does not a sound scientific consensus make. Neither does DFO have exclusive right to such a conclusion.

[Fisherbob]

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/atlantic-salmon-federation-north-atlantic-salmon-fund-salmon-farming/activists-new-platform-peddles-cherry-picked-science/1949108

[Fisherbob]

https://seawestnews.com/are-studies-used-by-activists-to-attack-salmon-farmers-really-independent/

[RalphH]

of course the authors of both articles are both directly paid by the salmon farming industry.

[MetalAndFeathers]

Really sad how easy it is to direct universities, remember the UBC presentation on the Thompson steelhead where they not once mentioned commercial fishing as a reason for their decline.

[RalphH]

Really sad how easy it is to direct universities, remember the UBC presentation on the Thompson steelhead where they not once mentioned commercial fishing as a reason for their decline.

No. I seriously doubt UBC as a distinct whole body made such a presentation. You got a link or other evidence?

[wildmanyeah]

that is of course the study commissioned by DFO that a number of University Profs doing equivalent research alleged (via a letter to the Minister of Fisheries)  was "cherry picked" to produce data that supports the conclusions. I believe I provided a link to that issue in a previous discussion topic.

Again one study or several does not a sound scientific consensus make. Neither does DFO have exclusive right to such a conclusion.

I think there might be some confusion here—this isn't the DFO-commissioned sea lice study from 2023 that drew criticism from 16 scientists in an open letter for alleged cherry-picking.

The paper in question (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aff2.70079) is a completely independent, peer-reviewed review published just this July (2025) in Aquaculture, Fisheries and Fisheries. Titled "Pathogens from Salmon Aquaculture in Relation to Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon in Canada: An Alternative Perspective", it's written by six fish health experts from U.S. institutions like UC Davis, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and others—not DFO or industry.

the paper I linked (https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.70079) shows open-net salmon farming is not significantly harming wild BC salmon for three evidence-based reasons:

Risks are overestimated – Studies claiming major pathogen transfer rely on qPCR (DNA detection), but DNA is not equal to live infection or harm. Most detections are non-infectious fragments, not disease-causing agents. Models ignore this, inflating risk.

No population-level impact after 40+ years – Despite farms operating since the 1980s, wild salmon returns are stable or increasing (e.g., Fraser sockeye doubled in some cycles). Closures in Discovery Islands (2021–2023) showed zero detectable recovery in wild runs.

Independent, zero-funding bias – Written by 6 U.S. fish health experts (UC Davis, Alaska DF&G, etc.), no DFO or industry funding, peer-reviewed, open access.

They conclude:


“removing open net pen salmon farms will have no detectable effect on wild salmon population productivity.”

This isn’t DFO spin — it’s independent science saying the data do not support claims of serious harm.

[Dave]

Your'e getting good at this Matt!

[MetalAndFeathers]

No. I seriously doubt UBC as a distinct whole body made such a presentation. You got a link or other evidence?

It was live-streamed on BCWF’s facebook page in spring 2024. Not only did they ignore commercial fishing as a factor they cherry picked the data for their report. They “missed” new research from John McMillan that went against their whole presentation.

[RalphH]

 

think there might be some confusion here—this isn't the DFO-commissioned sea lice study from 2023 that drew criticism from 16 scientists in an open letter for alleged cherry-picking.

I apologize for any confusion. There certainly is a a lot of confusion on a number of points.

First I started this discussion not to transfer the debate from the "Get your facts straight?" discussion that has been running for 12 years to here but to provide a list of studies. Also to refute the oft claim that not a single study that has found a relationship between open net salmon farms in BC and high sea lice populations in nearby waters. The point is that in the intervening 12 years  things have moved a long considerably.
 
Other confusions;

- that a single study/paper can prove x or y. They do not.

- that studies that find a 'null' hypothesis "prove" anything - ie A conclusion  " We find..."there is not a relationship between dependent variable y and independent variable x (say where X is open net salmon farms and y is local sea lice populations. THEY DO NOT. Statistically typical you cannot prove a null and such  typical tests were never designed to do so. Despite this scientists who publish such studies claim they do.

- the opinions offered by publicists who are paid by the salmon farming industry need to be taken with healthy skepticism.

- I started this discussion not to prove anything. I also don't believe that the science is final or there is a consensus on these topics. I do believe the salmon farming industry in BC is responsible for their pending apparent demise.

[RalphH]

It was live-streamed on BCWF’s facebook page in spring 2024. Not only did they ignore commercial fishing as a factor they cherry picked the data for their report. They “missed” new research from John McMillan that went against their whole presentation.

this one?: https://bcwf.bc.ca/saving-interior-steelhead-1-risks-benefits-of-hatchery-propagation/

This one is not by UBC but by 4 researchers who work at the UBC Institute for Oceans and Fisheries. They reach independent conclusions on their own.

[wildmanyeah]

Agreed Ralph the industry only made changes once forced and in many was are responsible for their own demise.