Print

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

[alwaysfishn]

Ocean Wise is not anti aquaculture. There are a number of aquaculture products that they have certified,  if they are grown in closed systems. The exception is shellfish.

The suggestion that they are anti Atlantic farmed salmon because they are pro Alaska salmon, is silly.

[aquapaloosa]

Your the only one suggesting that.  Why do you think they support Alaskan salmon ranching?

[alwaysfishn]

Your the only one suggesting that.  Why do you think they support Alaskan salmon ranching?

Because according to their guidelines, it is sustainable.

[shuswapsteve]

You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new

The study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located.  The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.

Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included).  The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves.  There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish).  These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery.  The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable.  Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks.  This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.

I already commented on that particular study briefly in this forum (different thread) already so I did see it.  Actually, I am aware of a few more studies about this you that are probably not aware of as it is part of my job.  The fact remains that there is much more to know about Fraser Sockeye and hopefully studies such as this will shed more light on the matter.  The thing is that proper management does not exist in its current form with the type of conventional fisheries that we have currently.  The MSC certification makes quite a few assumptions, but in reality many Fraser Sockeye CUs (Conservation Units) are far from being sustainable – even if we adjust harvest levels.  There is more to it than that.  For one thing, we need to get back to more science based information on what the total run size is instead of having it hashed out by managers with stakeholders pressing them for more and more opportunity.

Secondly, you need to understand the entry of the various timing groups of Fraser River Sockeye into the Fraser, their overlap and the various weaker stocks that migrate amongst the stronger stocks.  Commercial fisheries indiscriminately target weaker stocks.  Managers try to avoid this by the types of fisheries conducted, types of gear, location and closures, but the bycatch of weaker stocks unfortunately still happens.  For instance, Cultus is a late run Sockeye, but their migration through the Fraser is very protracted beginning in late July and goes on into November.  They basically co-migrate with Early Summers, Summers and other Late Run Sockeye.  These can consist of much stronger stocks such as Chilko which can be targeted by fisheries.  The various run timing groups and their overlap over each other compounds of impact of these commercial fisheries even more.

What we need to do is encourage fisheries that are much more reduced, more valued added, more selective and more terminal (if at all possible).  The PICFI fisheries conducted over the past couple of years in the BC Interior where fisheries are conducted near the terminal areas greatly reduce unnecessary bycatch.  This is an example of sustainable fisheries.  This is what should get the MSC certification.  The other commercial fisheries are clearly not.

Like most critics you seem to talk about the negative impacts of fish farming, but ignore the wealth of evidence provided at the Cohen Inquiry that indicated that the industry in BC was responsible, sustainable and can co-exist with wild salmon.  Expert testimony (such as from Dr. Micheal Kent) during the inquiry never suggested that fish farms could not be a source of disease and parasite transmission; however, it was emphasized that this needs to be equally weighed with how the industry in BC manages for this and how other places in the world are light years behind the regulatory environment that this industry in BC is under.  You talk about negative impacts on wild salmon from the “potential of transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish transmission”, but you need to remember the glaring fact that major gaps exist in our knowledge about the impact of these diseases on the survival of wild salmon.  Even Dr. Kristi Miller alluded to this during her original testimony in August and her latest testimony in December of last year.  Yes, even the Scientist of the Year does not necessarily take the view of many fish farm opponents.  Instead they selectively take what they want from hear from her and ignore whatever else she is saying.  We need to stop relying on studies based on mathematical models and correlations and actually start looking at the fish themselves.  We need to support objective science projects like what Dr. Welch proposes and remove ourselves from the conjecture that has dominated the stage for the past 10 years.  Sandman, I don’t need to spend my evening refuting your claims or perceptions of the industry – the technical reports, the testimony and exhibits from the inquiry already do that.  Read the link to the technical reports I provided in my previous post.  The issues are more complex than just aquaculture.

You would be hard pressed to find many industries in and around water that do not have negative impacts.  Those marines on the BC coast have negative impact.  Mixed stock commercial fisheries clearly have a negative impact.  The negative impacts of fish farms are made worse with poor regulations and poor operating practices.  There may be other places in the world that are conducting some poor aquaculture practices, but I do not see anything in the testimony from the inquiry that leads me to believe that the industry in BC is poorly operated (especially in the last decade).

Lastly, you take a big leap by suggesting that the negatives of the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself.  Clearly, the commercial fishery has some big negatives which are internal – relating to very nature of the indiscriminate, mixed stock fishery itself and where it is generally located.  It is a big assumption to make that if habitat loss, climate change impacts and pollution were controlled to allow Sockeye to spawn and rear successfully then we can adjust harvest levels to sustain stocks.  It sounds good in theory, but totally unrealistic for the most part.  More on the spawning grounds is better than fewer, but is not all about abundance.  Changing harvest levels do not necessarily ensure the abundance of Fraser Sockeye.  What helps is if you help maintain the integrity and diversity of the individual CU so that if a certain population go extinct for some reason or another then a nearby population can help rebuild it by straying.  When you target populations indiscriminately this can have an adverse influence on the ability of the CU to function in this regard.  You have also left out much of Scott Hinch’s work over the past 12 years (much of it presented during the Cohen Inquiry) which indicate that environmental conditions will likely impact Fraser Sockeye more into the future.  How do we control for climate change?  Dr. Miller’s own research has other areas to cover which may definitely change how we view prespawn mortality.  You have also left out much of what the Cohen Inquiry had on what government cutbacks are doing to current habitat monitoring by DFO.  Compare the development along the shorelines of our large nursery lakes in the BC Interior from the 70s and 80s  to what is there now.  There is clearly not much control.  There are multiple jurisdictions involved and tons of referrals overwhelming an already overworked habitat division.  That is the major flaw in your argument - many of these things you mention are not constant or controlled.  That is one of the things that makes managing Fraser Sockeye so difficult - the variability that cannot be easily controlled.  Sockeye fisheries are adjusted inseason when environmental conditions are poor in the Fraser, but these conditions are likely going to curtail additional fisheries – not increase them.

[Dave]

Hey SS, ever considered writing a book   Great post that explains much about the complexity of managing today's salmon fisheries.
And don't worry about Rosie!

[Sandman]

Steve, I do not refute what you say.  I never claimed the commercial Sockeye fishery was not without its own problems, and if you look at the Ocean Wise's salmon reports, they also outline the points you mention.  I was simply explaining their methodology, I was not saying I agreed with it, in fact I said I disagreed with it on key points.  I also do not, "like most critics," ignore the evidence to the contrary with regards to the aquaculture in BC.  I simply recognize that there is evidence that they are damaging to the environment and possibly to wild stocks, the true extent of which is still unknown (as you have just said), and I prefer to err on the side of caution. Many people, yourself included now, have used the argument that many industries have a negative impact, but you seem to forget that we, as a society, have fought HARD to get industries to clean up their act and the release of industrial waste unchecked into the environment is now recognized as unacceptable to all except salmon farms who continue to operate with the idea that the ocean is so big we cannot possible have a negative impact on it.  I am glad they have cleaned up their act in the last 10 years.  I just do not want to hear in 10 years that it was not enough and they were responsible for any kind of further harm to the wild fish on our coast.  Our wild fish are in peril enough without another strike against them.

Lastly, you take a big leap by suggesting that the negatives of the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself.  Clearly, the commercial fishery has some big negatives which are internal – relating to very nature of the indiscriminate, mixed stock fishery itself and where it is generally located.  It is a big assumption to make that if habitat loss, climate change impacts and pollution were controlled to allow Sockeye to spawn and rear successfully then we can adjust harvest levels to sustain stocks.  It sounds good in theory, but totally unrealistic for the most part.  More on the spawning grounds is better than fewer, but is not all about abundance.  Changing harvest levels do not necessarily ensure the abundance of Fraser Sockeye.  What helps is if you help maintain the integrity and diversity of the individual CU so that if a certain population go extinct for some reason or another then a nearby population can help rebuild it by straying.  When you target populations indiscriminately this can have an adverse influence on the ability of the CU to function in this regard.  You have also left out much of Scott Hinch’s work over the past 12 years (much of it presented during the Cohen Inquiry) which indicate that environmental conditions will likely impact Fraser Sockeye more into the future.  How do we control for climate change?  Dr. Miller’s own research has other areas to cover which may definitely change how we view prespawn mortality.  You have also left out much of what the Cohen Inquiry had on what government cutbacks are doing to current habitat monitoring by DFO.  Compare the development along the shorelines of our large nursery lakes in the BC Interior from the 70s and 80s  to what is there now.  There is clearly not much control.  There are multiple jurisdictions involved and tons of referrals overwhelming an already overworked habitat division.  That is the major flaw in your argument - many of these things you mention are not constant or controlled.  That is one of the things that makes managing Fraser Sockeye so difficult - the variability that cannot be easily controlled.  Sockeye fisheries are adjusted inseason when environmental conditions are poor in the Fraser, but these conditions are likely going to curtail additional fisheries – not increase them.

How did I ignore ANY of these points? You even quoted my words. . .  I started by saying that the current state of the stocks was the result of poor management, including the management of the harvest rates (the indiscriminate harvest of multiple CUs is an example, since they have no way of determining how many of an endangered run are being taken at any one opening).  I was also making the point that the current state of the stocks are a result of external forces such as habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc.  I simply stated that none of these can be blamed on the commercial fishing fleet.  The  strike against the commercial sector is the way they indiscriminately harvest salmon from a variety of CUs, including those that may be weak or endangered, and THIS is where they need to improve.    I too would prefer to see terminal fisheries where possible and harvest methods that would better eliminate bycatch.

[Sandman]

To any future members that wish to convince me that open net pen salmon farming in BC is not the only problem facing wild salmon and that the issues facing the decline of wild fish like the Fraser river Sockeye is a "complex" issue. Please do not bother.  I have never claimed that the open net pens are the only problem facing wild salmon.  Stop trying to make it sound like I did.  Stick to the program.  You do not need to convince me that there are other problems facing wild salmon.  You need to convince me that open net pen salmon farming have no negative impact on wild salmon, or the marine ecosystems in which they are located.

[alwaysfishn]

To any future members that wish to convince me that open net pen salmon farming in BC is not the only problem facing wild salmon and that the issues facing the decline of wild fish like the Fraser river Sockeye is a "complex" issue. Please do not bother.  I have never claimed that the open net pens are the only problem facing wild salmon.  Stop trying to make it sound like I did.  Stick to the program.  You do not need to convince me that there are other problems facing wild salmon.  You need to convince me that open net pen salmon farming have no negative impact on wild salmon, or the marine ecosystems in which they are located.

I believe all of the folks on here that would like to see the feedlots moved out of the oceans, agree with what you've just posted.

The problem is the pro-feedlot folks use deflection to get you talking about the other problems facing wild salmon, so you'll stop talking about the problems the feedlots are causing. Deflection is a technique that works well with little kids, but not so well with thinking people.

[absolon]

 You need to convince me that open net pen salmon farming have no negative impact on wild salmon, or the marine ecosystems in which they are located.

Actually, nobody needs to convince you of anything and I suspect few lose any sleep over the fact that you disagree with current policy.

If you want to see changes, you need to convince the people that regulate the industry that those changes you would like to see are justified and if you want those regulators to pay attention, you'll need to provide more evidence than your own personal evaluation of the risks you feel are associated with the farms. All the storm and fury presented here has no effect on any policy and shouldn't have; policy should be a product of rational analysis, not personal opinion.

Lets not kid ourselves. The most constructive thing these threads offer is some winter entertainment for weatherbound anglers.

[Sandman]

All the storm and fury presented here has no effect on any policy and shouldn't have; policy should be a product of rational analysis, not personal opinion.

I could not agree more,

Questions are being raised about the sustainability of salmon (and other finfish) aquaculture (Ellis 1996; Fischer et al. 1997; Goldburg and Triplett 1997; Naylor et al. 2000). With the production of farmed salmon expected to double in the next decade and new marine finfish species being added to the global production of farmed fish, there is an urgent need to review and address the gaps in the state of our knowledge of the impacts of salmon aquaculture on the coastal environment. The information provided by such a review would both direct research efforts to areas where our understanding of salmon aquaculture impacts are weak and incomplete, and provide regulatory agencies with more up-to-date information on which to define and set ecologically meaningful environmental standards, guidelines and objectives.

Until such a review is undertaken, it would be appropriate for regulatory agencies to apply the precautionary principle to decision-making concerning expansion of finfish aquaculture in coastal waters and to mitigative measures on existing operations. This principle states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (Environment Canada 1996). Recognition of the gap in scientific information and data has led to the increased acceptance of the precautionary approach as a decision-making principle. The principle essentially favours erring on the side of human health and environmental protection rather than short-term economic growth and it is becoming an important element of international environmental law.

(Milewski, 2001)

...too bad our policy makers do not agree and instead proceed more often on the basis of the opinion of big business interests:


Milewski, I. 2001. "Impact of salmon aquaculture on the coastal environment: a review." Pages 166–197 in M. F. Tlusty et. al., editors. Marine aquaculture and the  environment: a meeting for stakeholders in the Northeast. Cape Cod Press, Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA.

[absolon]

Your opinion assumes that the regulatory authorities aren't applying sufficient precautionary measures in their approach and you cite an 11 year old literature review of documents from 12 to 21 years old in support of it.

I suspect the regulators are more interested in the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in the specific waters the regulations apply to, but what do I know?

[Sandman]

Your opinion assumes that the regulatory authorities aren't applying sufficient precautionary measures in their approach and you cite an 11 year old literature review of documents from 12 to 21 years old in support of it.

I suspect the regulators are more interested in the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in the specific waters the regulations apply to, but what do I know?

It was his cautionary words, not the research, that I was citing.  Most scientific papers I read, even those that conclude the impacts on wild fish are "minimal" (Noakes, et. al., 2000), begin by stressing how difficult it is to assess the impact of disease on wild salmon because sampling would most certainly turn up only healthy individuals since those that are sick and exhibiting irregular behaviour would quickly be picked off by predators (McVicar, 1997).  In light of the lack of scientific study of the impacts of Salmon farms in BC, I do not see how the regulators are able to assess the "current state of affairs in the specific waters the regulations apply to," so yes, I do think his words of caution apply to using the lack of scientific understanding as an argument to continue and even expand salmon farming in open net pens.  He was pointing out then, that the precautionary  principle states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.  Since there has not been the appropriate studies done here in BC, the regulators should err on the side of caution.  In a recent study of the impacts of salmon farming on wild fish, including those in BC, found "a significant increase in mortality of wild salmonids exposed to salmon farming across many regions" (Ford & Myers, 2008). The impacts in BC were found to be worse on Pink salmon (they also looked at coho and chum, but not sockeye), and while the impacts were less than that found one Atlantic salmon in Eastern Canada and Europe, the impacts were still "significant."   

Ford JS, Myers RA (2008), "A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids." PLoS Biol 6(2): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids
Gross, Mart R. 1998,  "One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture," Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 131–144

McVicar, A. H. 1997. "Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and cultured Atlantic salmon populations." - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54: 1093-1103.

Noakes, Donald J., et. al 2000, "On the decline of Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon farming in British Columbia," Aquaculture 183: 363–386

[absolon]

I'll reply to your comments about Ford's article in the same way I replied to Chris when he posted an article about the results of the study several months back.

...it is based on a statistical evaluation of gross trends worldwide and doesn't take into account trends that existed prior to salmon farming or any other factors that would affect wild survival, and the study indicates specifically that "In British Columbia (Pacific Canada), only pink salmon showed significant declines correlated with salmon aquaculture". Those results for Pink Salmon are largely based on Kroksek's rather controversial work......

 

As a further caveat, the authors provide this statement:

We have estimated a significant increase in mortality of wild salmonids exposed to salmon farming across many regions. However, estimates for individual regions are dependent on assumptions detailed in the Materials and Methods section, and the estimates often have large confidence intervals.

Regardless of your concerns, the regulators, by the nature of their role, focus on the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in BC waters and under the relevant conditions applying to BC farming. Events and trends in other jurisdictions, while great fodder for anti-farm posts, are not by definition reflective of events and trends in BC just as absence of proof of the harm you claim is not by definition a reflection of lack of understanding by regulators of circumstances here in spite of attempts to represent it as such.

It may well have been Milewski's words you are citing, but they are very general and broad brush observations based on dated research and you are doing so in support of your opinion.

[Sandman]

Regardless of your concerns, the regulators, by the nature of their role, focus on the practical outcomes and current state of affairs in BC waters and under the relevant conditions applying to BC farming. Events and trends in other jurisdictions, while great fodder for anti-farm posts, are not by definition reflective of events and trends in BC just as absence of proof of the harm you claim is not by definition a reflection of lack of understanding by regulators of circumstances here in spite of attempts to represent it as such.

My opinion has always been that the regulators should have demanded scientific evidence that the "practical outcomes" and that "state of affairs" in BC waters would be significantly different than the "events and trends in other jurisdictions" instead of treating our waters as a test subject to see if their opinion that it will be different, holds true.  Now we wait until the proper "up to date" and "uncontroversial" scientific research is conducted in this "jurisdiction" to to see if the open pen farms in BC waters farms are having any negative effects on the wild salmon in BC, as they have in other jursdictions.  Now we all need to hope that it will not be too late by the time that scientific research is done.