Print

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

[mykisscrazy]

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA - Pink salmon are returning in abundant numbers to the Glendale River this year.

Despite dire predictions two years ago by Martin Krkosek and Alexandra Morton about the imminent collapse of salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago as a result of salmon farms in the area, it may now surprise many to hear that pink salmon are returning in abundant numbers to the Glendale River (a major river system in the Broughton Archipelago) this year.

So much so, that pink runs on this system were opened to commercial seine and gill net fishermen on 31 August 2009. These high returns mirror reports last week of high pink returns on Campbell River’s Quinsam River this summer. While both of these river systems are located in different geographic areas, they are both close to two of the highest density salmon farming areas on the BC coast.

Other more experienced and established researchers were more successful in their assessment of the situation. Two separate papers by distinguished researchers (Brooks and Jones, 2008 and Riddell et al., 2008) questioned Krkosek’s and Morton’s conclusions.

These papers explain that following periods of high abundance, pink salmon populations typically fall to low levels and in most cases, the populations then gradually increase to begin the cycle again. Contrary to the conclusions reached by Krkošek et al. (2007), Broughton pink salmon returns have steadily increased since then with no indication that they are threatened with extinction.

It appears that the science has played this out to a conclusion on the pink salmon as we now see record returns in these two regions.

[Frankey]

Only because the fish farms were legislated to delouse the farms with chemicals to prevent the spread of sea lice. Thanks to Alexandras monumental efforts to change the way Fish Farms conduct there unsafe enviromental practices.Now these Farms have contributed to the collaspe of the Fraser river sockeye runs.

[Rodney]

Only because the fish farms were legislated to delouse the farms with chemicals to prevent the spread of sea lice. Thanks to Alexandras monumental efforts to change the way Fish Farms conduct there unsafe enviromental practices.Now these Farms have contributed to the collaspe of the Fraser river sockeye runs.

Yeah, you're not contradicting yourself at all.

[alwaysfishn]

Yeah, you're not contradicting yourself at all.

I sense some sarcasm in your response Rod, but I'm afraid for most of us the meaning of your comment is not clear....   

[Easywater]

Slice is some nasty stuff - and they feed this stuff directly to the Atlantic salmon:

SLICE

One of the most significant and well-studied impacts of salmon farming on wild salmon is the transfer of sea lice from fish farms to juvenile wild salmon during out-migration. Attempts to control sea lice outbreaks on salmon farms by industry and government have been through emamectin benzoate, sold under the commercial name SLICE.

Emamectin benzoate, the active ingredient in SLICE, is a pesticide that is administered to farmed fish through their feed. In BC, there is a withdrawal period of 68 days between when SLICE can be administered and fish can be harvested for human consumption.

To date, SLICE has:

    * not been tested for food safety by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
    * not been licensed by Health Canada; or
    * not been permitted for use through the Pesticide Control Act

Yet, SLICE is still the preferred chemical for sea lice control in Canada. In BC, salmon farmers are approved to use SLICE through the Emergency Drug Release Program which allows the use of non-approved drugs when recommended by veterinarians for emergency situations.

SLICE is not used for the occasional emergency. Outbreaks of sea lice are so prevalent in industrial net-pens that the use of SLICE has become standard operating procedure. In 2003, 37 million farmed salmon in Canada were treated with SLICE. A steady dependence on SLICE by the BC salmon farming industry has been recorded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Emamectin benzoate belongs to a class of chemicals called avermectins, which are axonic poisons affecting nerve cells.4 Farmed fish ingest SLICE as a coating on commercial food pellets. Digestion releases the drug to pass through the lining of the fish’s gut and into the fish’s tissues, from where it takes about a week to be eliminated.5 Although SLICE contains emamectin benzoate (0.2%), an active ingredient in pesticides, it is classified as a drug because it is fed to the fish rather than applied externally.

Overuse or over-reliance on any single compound has been shown to lead to the development of resistance by the target organism. Evidence of resistance to SLICE has recently been reported in Chile.

SLICE lacks specificity; it puts marine organisms in the vicinity of treated salmon farms at risk. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund’s Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue (SAD) found that sea lice therapeutants (such as SLICE) negatively impact the environment through its effects on non-target wild crustaceans such as shrimp, crabs and prawns, and may remain in the environment from ten days to six months.

[Dave]

Thanks Mykisscrazy for this “latest” on sea lice and their relevance to Broughton pink salmon populations.  I was fortunate to have worked with both Riddell and Jones, as you know.  Excellent scientists.
Please keep this Science stuff coming.

Easywater, methinks you may have cut and pasted here; if so, please quote your source of data.  If this is indeed your writing, my apologies, but still, we readers need creditable references to make informed decisions.

[Easywater]

I did cut & paste - from here: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/page/sealicechemical
CAAR - "Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform"

[alwaysfishn]

Thanks Mykisscrazy for this “latest” on sea lice and their relevance to Broughton pink salmon populations.  I was fortunate to have worked with both Riddell and Jones, as you know.  Excellent scientists.
Please keep this Science stuff coming.

"Excellent scientists" is that your opinion or fact?

Take a little time to read the following article from the Georgia Strait.  http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/PDF/08_11_Frazer_ACanadianTragedy.pdf

Here's an excerpt: "When professionals such as Riddell and Jones make public statements they know are
unscientific, it is because they are afraid of something—afraid of losing their research
budgets, afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of losing their pensions. In an organization like
DFO, I suppose some of them are so used to the fear that they don’t notice it anymore."

[Dave]

Thanks alwaysfish for the interesting read.  Much appreciated.
Yes, it is my opinion and I stand by it.  When you work with people you respect, opinions are quickly formed. Riddell was my manager (DFO's best people always seem to end up in management) while Jones and I collaborated on Parvicapsula minibicornis (a kidney parasite that killed, and is still killing, Fraser River sockeye) research.  Their Science was impeccable.
To suggest (as author Neil Frazer does) that Drs. Riddell and Jones were mandated or coerced into making unjustified statements, to save their pensions or research funding is just wrong.   To further suggest the integrity of the Honourable John Fraser is also at fault is simply ludicrous, as anyone who has met and spoken with John will agree.

[Easywater]

If the guy is retired from DFO, nothing can affect his pension.

Also, he now the CEO of the Pacific Salmon Foundation.
Highly unlikely that he will lose his job or the Foundation will lose funding because he is speaking up against salmon farming.

[jon5hill]

Thanks alwaysfish for the interesting read.  Much appreciated.
Yes, it is my opinion and I stand by it.  When you work with people you respect, opinions are quickly formed. Riddell was my manager (DFO's best people always seem to end up in management) while Jones and I collaborated on Parvicapsula minibicornis (a kidney parasite that killed, and is still killing, Fraser River sockeye) research.  Their Science was impeccable.
To suggest (as author Neil Frazer does) that Drs. Riddell and Jones were mandated or coerced into making unjustified statements, to save their pensions or research funding is just wrong.   To further suggest the integrity of the Honourable John Fraser is also at fault is simply ludicrous, as anyone who has met and spoken with John will agree.

I suppose the peer review process for the journal Science isn't as good as the clearly biased assessment of Krkosek and Mortons work by the DFO's leading researchers on the topic. Keep in mind this is the same DFO that openly promotes the multimillion dollar industry of Salmon farming. Their research may be impeccable, but they have not done research that even addresses Salmon farms. In fact, they outright ignore their existence throughout their research. Jones research on stickleback which was to prove that the stickleback were the vectors bringing sea-lice to the wild stocks of Salmon completely ignored the existence of Salmon farms in the paper. When asked why and how to eliminate the lurking variable of Salmon farm effects, they said a control group would need to be established and studied to compare against but that they had no intention of doing that. This isn't even science, it's political tripe. Furthermore, to openly scrutinize a publication in a highly regarded scientific journal is not only unheard of, but it is academic suicide. These guys can join the ranks of Dr. Michael J. Behe. If the crooks operating in the DFO ever lose their jobs (as they rightly should) these 2 jokes will not find work unless it is to create some more politically motivated jingoist "science" to put more money into someones pockets.

[alwaysfishn]

Yes, it is my opinion and I stand by it.  When you work with people you respect, opinions are quickly formed. Riddell was my manager (DFO's best people always seem to end up in management) while Jones and I collaborated on Parvicapsula minibicornis (a kidney parasite that killed, and is still killing, Fraser River sockeye) research.  Their Science was impeccable.
To suggest (as author Neil Frazer does) that Drs. Riddell and Jones were mandated or coerced into making unjustified statements, to save their pensions or research funding is just wrong.   To further suggest the integrity of the Honourable John Fraser is also at fault is simply ludicrous, as anyone who has met and spoken with John will agree.

I am myself trying to come to grips with the reason the sockeye salmon numbers aren't there and the pink numbers are there. I know for a fact that politics influences the decisions made in many departments of government. It is totally plausible that DFO scientists write papers and make comments that support the political agenda of the day. Not doing so would affect their careers.

I support the idea that the science department of the DFO should be separate and independent from the DFO. Something like the auditor general does for the government. This way, while the science may not be followed, at least we as voters would know the facts rather than potential fiction.

[alwaysfishn]

If the guy is retired from DFO, nothing can affect his pension.
Also, he now the CEO of the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

I believe Riddell was employed by DFO at the time he wrote the papers referred to in mykisscrazy's post.

I also see that DFO provides funding for the Pacific Salmon Foundation.... http://www.psf.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=98

Each year, PSF works with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to produce the Salmon Conservation Stamp. An angler wishing to retain any species of salmon must purchase and affix a stamp to their licence.  The purchase of a Salmon Conservation Stamp makes you a key contributor.  $1.00 from the sale of these stamps is used to fund salmon restoration and enhancement projects supported by the Pacific Salmon Foundation. The Salmon Conservation Stamp image is also used as an additional fundraising source by producing Limited Edition art prints.  Prints are sold through the Foundation and can be viewed on this website.

In addition, DFO is a significant contributor to the Fraser Salmon & Watersheds Program.

Highly unlikely that he will lose his job or the Foundation will lose funding because he is speaking up against salmon farming.

I am not aware that he has ever spoken against salmon farming...

[Eagleye]

I sense some sarcasm in your response Rod, but I'm afraid for most of us the meaning of your comment is not clear....   

I think Rod is talking about the fact that Frankey said the abundance of Pinks is because of the legislated delousing of the farms so they would not kill off the fish.  But then he says that the farms are responsible for killing the sockeye.  I presume this is could be because the sockeye travelled by the farms before this happened or passed by farms which did not have this treatment.  But I am no scientist nor am I Rod     Some further info would be great.

[Davis]

Let me clarify.Slice was used to kill off the parasites when the Pinks were passing through,it is only effective for 4 to 6 weeks,when the Sockeye passed through later the Slice had worn off and the poor buggers were swamped with sea lice killing thousands and thousands of Sockeye Fry.