Print

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

[troutbreath]

Salmon forum loses credibility as it mires itself in wrangling
 
Stephen Hume
Special to the Sun


Monday, January 07, 2008


The B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum was set up in December 2004 by Premier Gordon Campbell.

The government-funded research body was to pull together bulletproof science that would settle long-running arguments over whether fish farms threaten wild salmon.

Instead, the forum is itself now wrangling with scientists whose conclusions about sea lice appear to differ from its own.

First: Craig Orr, of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society. His evidence that reducing sea lice egg production on salmon farms coincided with lighter parasite loads on juvenile salmon was published by the North American Journal of Fisheries Management in 2007. Before that, Orr was commissioned by the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum to survey research into sea lice interactions between farmed and wild salmon.

Second: Martin Krkorsek, University of Alberta, who once researched sea lice on a forum project. His 2007 paper in Science predicted extinction for wild pink runs in the Broughton archipelago if sea lice burdens on smolts passing fish farms are not reduced.

When that that story broke, a top-drawer public relations consultant urged media to note the significance of the forum's response. It said unpublished research doesn't support Krkor-sek's published conclusions, that there is "divided agreement" among scientists about Krkorsek's work and that it will meet him to "discuss" his study.

Third: Alexandra Morton, a contributor to Krkorsek's paper who is also researching sea lice infection rates for the forum. In a letter obtained by The Vancouver Sun, Morton objects to use of research still under internal review for a forum media release that she complains creates an impression that "does not accurately represent the condition of Broughton archipelago juvenile salmon."

This brings me back to Orr.

The forum did not release Orr's 2006 report. A year later, a copy was leaked to Vancouver Sun reporter Scott Simpson. The report said scientific evidence indicated salmon farms play a role in sea lice infestations. It cited evidence farmed salmon are a source of lice infections much heavier on wild salmon captured within 30 kilometres of pens than on those captured farther away.

The forum told Simpson that Orr's survey was reviewed by the organization's science advisory committee and was not released because it "did not meet their rigour."

Yet a letter from the Vancouver law firm Goodwin & Mark to the forum on behalf of Orr says one science committee member provided a written review which suggested Orr's report was, indeed, rigorous. Orr, the letter says, spoke with a second member of the committee who agreed with that assessment.

The copy of the review of Orr's report that I saw says rather bluntly that the forum got what it asked for from the scientist and that "it's a fair review."

It says Orr's survey identifies current and relevant research despite the limitations imposed by government and industry withholding data, and answers the key question of whether Orr's survey considered and fairly represented the full range of opinions in the scientific literature with an unequivocal "YES." (Review's capitals, not mine.)

This might all warrant a snicker as not-so-newsworthy squabbling over procedural minutiae among science specialists. But there is a broader context. It frames the importance of the forum's credibility.

The forum is important to both industry and environmentalists. It will prove useless if perceived as a captive of one faction or the other. So the process demands both transparency and an unassailable appearance of impartiality. This is essential if public trust is to be won. In the charged climate over wild salmon survival, public trust is crucial if policy advice is to be accepted by all stakeholders.

Yet how can anyone expect public confidence in a process embroiled in arguments over suppressed reports; in which participating experts feel their professional credibility impugned; in which disagreements over methodology seem to be either ignored or cited depending upon which agenda is in play; in which public relations consultants seek to influence media coverage; in which certain published research material is unavailable while other unpublished data is conveniently available to challenge yet other peer-reviewed work that's been published?

In terms of public perception alone, this looks like a real mess. Over to you, Mr. Premier; it's your baby, and a right cranky one, too.

shume@islandnet.com

© The Vancouver Sun 2008
 

 

[mattcass]

The researchers I know that are involved with the PSF and sit on it's science advisor board openly admit politics is influencing the science behind sea lice.

The research/data being called into question by Alex Morton the sea lice infection data from the Broughton Archipelago and how it is used. Juvenile salmon were sampled along their migration route. Naturally, those sampled before salmon farms are free of sea lice. Those that have passed salmon farms are infected and as they travel along their migration route the burden of infection increases. By the end of the migration route infection rates are over 80%.

The PSF is trying to use the average of all the sampling, with no consideration for the migration of the juveniles by including individuals sampled before the farms. The result of this analysis is an overall infection rate of about 13% (a number also openly stated by Dr. Simon Jones at the recent "Speaking for the Salmon" dialogue at SFU Vancouver).

Here are articles that may be of interest.

Forum seeks to review fish study
Scott Simpson, vancouver sun
Published: Wednesday, December 19, 2007

SALMON - A government-funded research group is seeking a meeting with the fisheries researcher who last week touched off an international controversy by linking fish farms to a decline of wild pink salmon on British Columbia's central coast.

In an article last week in the journal Science Martin Krkosek and fellow researchers suggest salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago are causing hyper-concentrations of sea lice that are proving lethal to migrating juvenile wild salmon in the vicinity.

Krkosek examined 37 years' worth of data collected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and concluded that Broughton-area wild pinks could be extinct in as little as four years unless the lice problem is addressed -- based on an apparent pink population decline in seven rivers in the area.

The provincially funded BC Pacific Salmon Forum is also researching the impact of aquaculture on wild Pacific salmon.

In an interview, forum chairman John Fraser said there was "divided agreement" in the scientific community about Krkosek's work.

Fraser said he had not directly spoken with Krkosek, but the University of Alberta doctoral degree candidate confirmed in an e-mail to The Sun that he will accept the forum's offer.

The forum is in the midst of a multi-year research program and has so far funded $2.5 million in field and laboratory research -- most of it focused on the Broughton Archipelago, which holds the greatest concentration of salmon farms on B.C.'s coast.

According to a news release, the forum's work will be peer-reviewed and published in late 2008. The release suggests that the forum's own research that does not support Krkosek's warning of a looming pink salmon crash on some rivers.

It said infestation rates among juvenile pink salmon are running at about 20 per cent in the Broughton Archipelago -- that's about six times natural background levels in areas away from farms -- but said 2007 populations are "as good as or better" than the 2005 parent group.

"The conclusions that he and his colleagues have drawn about the probable extermination of pink and chum stocks in seven rivers in the Broughton is a pretty dramatic announcement. On all of the research we have funded up to date, those kinds of predictions are not coming forward," said Fraser.

"We thought the right thing to do is invite Mr. Krkosek to come in front of our science advisory committee and sit down in a civilized way, and talk about it."

Watershed Watch Salmon Society executive director Craig Orr accused the forum of being "in active denial" about the pink situation. "They are saying more research is needed before we can say anything. They also say there has been no consensus that sea lice from farms are a threat," Orr said.

"That's crap. There have been two international sea lice meetings, one in Norway and one in B.C. just last January. There was a consensus statement out of each meeting, in which the scientists said they believe sea lice are the major problem with salmon farms impacting wild fish around the world."

ssimpson@png.canwest.com

[mattcass]

These two articles are from westcoaster.ca

Salmon Forum Questions Fish-Farm Study
 
Published Date: 2007/12/21 0:30:00
Article ID : 3295
Version 1.00.01
By Keven Drews



Members of the Pacific Salmon Forum are questioning a recently published report in the journal Science that argues wild-salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago could soon collapse because of sea lice. 


The Hon. John Fraser, chairman of the Pacific Salmon Forum, told the Westcoaster.ca Thursday that many of Canada’s leading fish biologists are conducting research for his organization, and their preliminary results do not support the findings Martin Krkosek, of the University of Alberta, and Alexandra Morton.

“How can we have such a disparity between this particular study and the recent results we’re getting back,” asked Fraser.
He said the forum will release its own interim research on the Broughton in early January and will likely meet with Krkosek that same month.


Sitting on the PSF’s Science Advisory Committee, he added, are academics like Dr. Al Lewis, Dr. Brian Riddell, Dr. Tony Farrell, Dr. Bill Pennell, Dr. Rich Taylor, Don Farnell and Dr. John Reynolds.
“They’re not second rate – not by a long shot.”


Appointed by the B.C. government in 2005, the Pacific Salmon Forum is supposed to fill knowledge gaps and make recommendations in 2008 that ensure sustainable wild and farm-salmon industries.
The PSF has already commissioned more than $2.5 million in research on the Broughton, said Fraser.


Earlier this week, the Pacific Salmon Forum stated in a press release that pink-salmon stocks in the Broughton appear to be doing well.
“The marine survival of pink salmon to the Glendale River, the region's major producing river for pinks has been equal or better than the survival rates for pinks in other coastal watersheds where there are no salmon farms.
“Pink salmon returns in the other Broughton watershed were as good as or better than those that occurred in 2005.

All the field researchers noted that over 80 percent of the wild salmon smolts migrating out of the Broughton in the spring of 2007 had no lice whatsoever.”


Last week, Science, an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal, published Krkosek and Morton’s study.
Their research analyzed federal estimates of wild-salmon populations in the archipelago and just to the north of it. The archipelago is now home to more than 20 farms along an 80-kilometre stretch of salmon run. None exist to the north. 


Their study found that from 1970 to 2001, both study areas were about equally productive. But after their first major sea lice infestation in 2001, wild stocks in the Broughton archipelago began collapsing and have now shrunk by 80 per cent. 
Stocks to the north have held steady. 


“Based on the rate of decline we have seen, those pink salmon populations are going to go from their historical level to extinction in four generations. Right now, we’re already halfway through that decline,” said Krkosek, in an interview with the Canadian Press last week. 


“There’s four years left before these fish are gone if the sea lice infestations continue.”

Researcher Responds To Pacific Salmon Forum
 
Published Date: 2007/12/21 0:30:00
Article ID : 3296
Version 1.00

(In the following open letter, Alexandra Morton responds to a Pacific Salmon Forum press release issued earlier this week.)



Dear Colleagues:
Yesterday, Dec. 18, 2007 the Pacific Salmon Forum (PSF) issued a press release suggesting that 80 per cent of the Broughton juvenile salmon were not infected with sea lice in 2007. I am a co-investigator on the study that generated the PSF number “80 per cent.” 


For the past two years, Drs. Brent Hargreaves, Simon Jones and I have worked together on the PSF funded project to monitor sea lice and salmon in the Broughton. 
We have been trying to resolve some differences of opinion for some weeks about using the number (80 per cent). 


Since the PSF has gone ahead and released the figure under debate I feel compelled to tell you where it came from.


We know that juvenile salmon migrate through the Broughton from their rivers, towards fish farms, past fish farms and out to sea. We also know that surface currents in Knight and Kingcome inlets generally flow in the same direction as the fish. 
This means we can identify areas where sea lice from fish farms are highly unlikely to drift into and that these are the same areas where young salmon will not yet have encountered a fish farm.

This roughly divides the Broughton Archipelago into areas exposed and not exposed to fish farms. 
Many of us have published on this, showing both the difference in lice abundance and prevalence between exposed and unexposed areas and also a finer scale examination of the transition between these zones.


The PSF chooses to ignore all of this work when they use the number 80 per cent to challenge the recent paper in Science. 


The number 80 per cent not infected with sea lice includes fish from areas exposed and not exposed to fish farms. 
This includes fish caught in lower Knight Inlet east of Tribune, Kingcome Inlet and the estuarine environments of the Kakweikan and the Ahta. 
As well, this number includes the Wells Passage area where there were no farm salmon, except for one pen for a few days in March.

It includes fish that have been in the saltwater for hours, days, and months.
But we know juvenile salmon move generally west, passing fish farms in the channels of the Broughton like water through a coffee filter. 
You are only going to find brown water at the outcome of the funnel.


To learn how many salmon got infected by sea lice from fish farms you need to understand where the fish came from.
One of my co-investigators did not want to offer a more detailed analysis on the grounds that measuring impact of fish farms was not an objective of the study and that we need to understand the natural processes involved before we can understand any farm effects. 


I don’t see how anyone can study natural effects in the most perturbed sea louse habitat we know of in BC.
It is my impression that if we want to know what percent of juvenile salmon were infected with sea lice in the Broughton, we need to look at the fish as they leave the archipelago. 


In both my own study and the PSF study, the site that best represents the product of the Broughton Archipelago is Wicklow.
At the peak of the 2007 out-migration, 83 per cent of the salmon I examined in my own study at Wicklow were infected with sea lice.


If the PSF study was not designed to tell us anything about impact of fish farms on sea lice infections of juvenile salmon, why is the PSF using it to challenge the Science paper on this subject? 


As I write this the Cliff Bay fish farm is being stocked resulting in more stocked fish farms on the Tribune – Fife salmon migration route than in the history of fish farming. Science reports sea lice from these exact fish farms are rapidly driving wild salmon to extinction and John Fraser chooses to publicly challenges Science using a study that was not even designed to speak to this subject.


I think it is time that the relationship between the fish farming industry and our governments be investigated and reported to the Canadian public.

[firstlight]

Not much different than the gravel removal issue.
They hire experts and when the experts find out and prove the fault,they are then fired or shipped off somewhere else because the powers at large didnt hear what they wanted to.
Unfortunately there is no way to hold these clowns accountable as they hide behind there political badges and the environment is the loser once again.
Sickening.

[bcguy]

There is absolutely no room for politics in environmental issues, it either is or isn't, weight the evidence, and go from there,
don't just try putting a different spin on the data.
If there is a conflict of intrest, which there is obviously, that individual should not be included in the assessment, there is no room for individuals with a vested intrest, especially monetary. I liken it to believing big business being able to monitor themselves on environmental issues, because they have such upstanding morality on environmental issues.  , ...provided there is no money to be made, ....what do you mean pcb's are bad