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.

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.

Your'e getting good at this Matt!

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.

The FN got to go hog wild all summer netting sockeye. Now they get an opening to net chum for “food” What a joke.

I seen them all lined up under the golden ears bridge the other day fishing. I was like there is no way any of them are eating chum after harvest thousands of sockeye and chinook all summer.

maybe they are feeding it to their sled dogs, so they will be able to navigate the Lower mainland

Who needs it? I'd be happy if chum in Region 2 were never opened again.

Are you and I actually agreeing on something? I also would be totally fine with non tidal Chum never opening again (all sectors)....meaning there would be absolutely no late season gillnetting for any reason in the Fraser.

1. This would be better for the interior steelhead.
2. It would put more rotting chum on the river banks
3. It would be great for mid-late season Coho numbers.
4. No one eats late season chum anyway. It's a roe fishery....always has been....what a waste.

A permenantly closed Chum season is a win win for the sporties in every respect....

It actually blows me away the fishing community doesn’t get more upset about this. Chum numbers are way down, there’s literally 0 steelhead in the Albion so IFS numbers are surely way down this year. The FN got to go hog wild all summer netting sockeye. Now they get an opening to net chum for “food” What a joke. I haven’t read anything about any of this on social media. But I have read about 1 billion comments from beeks crying for a leader restriction that won’t change anything.

I used to do a lot of first light coho fishing on the Vedder.. Now I don't. Have noticed a big shift in the lack of respect/étiquète, and a swing towards entitlement. "Back in the day" I usually be the first one at my spot (430-5am). And as other rolled in they'd show respect to the guy(s) there before them, ask if there was room to squeeze in, and so on. Guy(s) who showed up too late would realize, ah dang it, this spot is kind of full, guess I'm going to have to go elsewhere.
Then somewhere that line of thinking went out the window. Seems a lot of guys would show up like 5 minutes before you could see your float, and just squeeze in. Not a word said, hood up, zero f**cks given.
I had enough when it happened several times where I had to walk a spring down or whatever, or bonking/dealing with a fish on shore, and I come back to where I was fishing, and it seems to have "disappeared." In other words, the other guys fishing around me (likely buddies) squeezed me out of my spot. After words were exchanged they'd shuffle a bit to let me back in, but then they'd be dicks about it, casting right on my float, etc. You get the picture.
I finally had enough and only do the canal by boat now for 1st light. If I want to shore fish I'll do the late afternoon - dusk shift. Catch less coho but seems most of the jerks have gone home by then.

I have been fishing the afternoons and most of the time I encounter one or two other people in a run. Fishing is not as good as first light but I still hook half a dozen and keep a few coho. Fish the whole run like you do for steelhead and you'll get a few biters, and if the run hasn't been fished for hours then you'll get lots of biters. Haven't been skunked yet this season. It's much more relaxing and there is no need to get up at 4 am just to get a spot to fish. But if you are inclined to get up at 4am to get a spot then hats of to you. That tells me you are super dedicated and you are willing to sacrifice sleep for a chance to catch some fish for your family.
Oh, there is no need to close any part of the river because you don't agree with how some people fish. We all know where they are and can just walk away from that. It's a long river with lots of places to fish so don't let some people ruin your experience. Getting angry over stupid stuff will only shorten your life.

I used to do a lot of first light coho fishing on the Vedder.. Now I don't. Have noticed a big shift in the lack of respect/étiquète, and a swing towards entitlement. "Back in the day" I usually be the first one at my spot (430-5am). And as other rolled in they'd show respect to the guy(s) there before them, ask if there was room to squeeze in, and so on. Guy(s) who showed up too late would realize, ah dang it, this spot is kind of full, guess I'm going to have to go elsewhere.
Then somewhere that line of thinking went out the window. Seems a lot of guys would show up like 5 minutes before you could see your float, and just squeeze in. Not a word said, hood up, zero f**cks given.
I had enough when it happened several times where I had to walk a spring down or whatever, or bonking/dealing with a fish on shore, and I come back to where I was fishing, and it seems to have "disappeared." In other words, the other guys fishing around me (likely buddies) squeezed me out of my spot. After words were exchanged they'd shuffle a bit to let me back in, but then they'd be dicks about it, casting right on my float, etc. You get the picture.
I finally had enough and only do the canal by boat now for 1st light. If I want to shore fish I'll do the late afternoon - dusk shift. Catch less coho but seems most of the jerks have gone home by then.

Agreed. It's one thing when guys squeeze in around you, but when you go to the shore for 90 seconds to trim your bait and you come back and someone is standing on my rock......that is a whole other level of selfishness. Although....I have no problem coming back even if that means standing 18 inches next to him waiting for him to figure it out.....Sadly....some of these dips$!ts still don't get it.......

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?