Print

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

[chris gadsden]

http://www.seafoodsource.com/newsarticledetail.aspx?id=13664

[absolon]

So tell me again....Who is it that says that farms aren't trying to improve their practices?

[Sandman]

Well, I was going to give absolon a pat on the back for another great post but I won't ...

Then I will Dave, because they are always great food for thought...but that doesn't mean I need to agree with him.

First:

Then perhaps we need some specific paper and page references that show where you drew your numbers from to confirm that

Then:

The world doesn't owe you the answers; you've got the responsibility for the matter.

Hypocritical don't you think? Anyway, those numbers were from the first document you provided, I do not remember what page, but you then I had assumed that you had read it.  

I began by stating specifically that I wanted to hear your own ideas and that I would be presenting my own, not quoting others.  We have seen all kinds of studies quoted already and we have seen both sides pick each other's so called experts apart and try to discredit the science behind them.  I just wanted to hear your own ideas. But we can go back to discrediting the scientists again.

No one is suggesting turning a blind eye to any"potential harm they may be doing" and no one is turning a blind eye. The industry practices are constantly monitored and constantly refined to avoid doing "potential harm". The experience with sea lice makes that perfectly clear. A potential problem was identified, a solution developed and implemented and outcomes were monitored to ensure that the solution had the desired effect. The dire warnings about the imminent extinction of the pinks in the Broughton proved to be nothing more than a small boy crying "wolf".

Who identified out the "potential problem" with sea lice affecting the pinks in Broughton?  Are you suggesting that the fish farms would have developed their "solutions" had this problem not been identified by people "outside" the fish farms.   It is only because of the critics, that these farms are located in the sites they are now located (better flushing) and that they are doing anything at all to mitigate their impacts on the environment.  Everything they are forced to do to appease the critics eats into their profits.  They wouldn't be doing it on their own (unless the impact was affecting their own production of course).

If someone could just demonstrate what greater harm they are doing, there is no question that they will do what is required to stop that harm.

Yeah, I think someone did. That was why they developed their "solutions" to those harms.  But they should be responsible for "demonstrating that harm" and assessing their impact and developing the solutions.  Private citizens should not have to foot the bill to point out these harms being perpetrated by an industry that is here supposedly for our own good.  Unfortunately we cannot trust a company to properly monitor itself, and clearly we cannot trust the government to do so either.

[Sandman]

As has been pointed out to you, drug and chemical treatments occur very infrequently and involve very small quantities.

Yet, still you provide no evidence of this.   However, a study done in 1997 of antibacterial usage found use varied considerably among farms with some farms using as much as 450kg active ingredient per year with "moderate" usage around 70 - 170kg annual usage (Herwig et al 1997), and these farms there it was found that 20% of the bacteria in the sediments near the farm were anti-bacterial resistant.

Because of modern feeding technology, another innovation by the industry to reduce it's environmental effect, very little feed escapes the pen. What does escape can be consumed, but is more likely to settle into bottom sediment where it will decompose. The total affected area under pens amounts to several hundred acres on a coastline that consists of hundreds of thousands acres or more. The impact is extremely small.

Yet  still you provide no evidence of this.  In the document you provide later as evidence that the environmental effects are minimal (Dr. Weston's 1985 paper)  doesn't even deal with fin fish waste as it is on floating shellfish farms (I am no biologist, but I suspect shellfish produce less waste than fin fish).   Now Weston's 1990 study may be more useful as he does document the effects of fin fish farms in Puget Sound on the macrobenthic community and there he confirmed that the effects were indeed profound:

With increasing proximity to the farm there was: (1) reduced areal species richness; (2) reduced macrofaunal biomass; (3) an order-of-magnitude increase in Capitella cf. capitata density; and (4) a slight decrease in total macrofaunal abundance. (Weston 1990)

Weston also reported that "All chemical measurements indicated that the 0 m station [the one directly below the site] was heavily affected by culture activities....[and that the] effects of culture activities on the seafloor were readily visible."  Of course his study was only of the "enrichment" effects of the farms so his chemical analysis was limited to carbon, nitrogen, water-soluable sulphide content (caused by the de-oxygenation of the sediments), and mineral stability.  He was not testing for the presence of other chemicals associated with the feed like the antibiotics and pesticides so his study is not useful to showing these impacts are "miniscule".

It was studies like this, and the reaction by those "reactionists" that saw fish farms move to new sites that were better flushed (Rensel and Forster 2007).  However, moving to a better flushed site does not reduce the effects of "enrichment," it just reduces the enrichment (the site continues to produce the harmful outputs, but they are better distributed to reduce the effects, kind of like running a car in a closed garage vs opening the bay door or piping the exhaust outside...the exhaust is just as harmful, but it is now being released into the outside air and being "diluted" so the effects are no longer seen).  Even in their report "Beneficial Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Mariculture" (from which I see you get most of your arguments) prepared for the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service's National Sea Grant College Programme,  Rensel and Forster admit that there were "adverse effects" at some earlier sites that were studied in the 1990s (they also cite Weston), but that "most of the problems associated with net pen aquaculture in the U.S. are manageable or have been dealt with" so we need not worry any more as the fish farms are now "properly located." 

Furthermore, your argument that these farms are affecting a small percent of the coastal area is negated by the desired expansion of the industry.  The more the industry expands the greater this impact will be.  But of course it can expand unchecked until some one else provides the inarguable proof of the concentration numbers that would make the impact "harmful."  And who gets to decide which small parts of the environment get to be written off while the farms are there?

Document those catches of second generation young. I know you and your compatriot reactionaries don't do proof, but I'd like to see some.

I thought "The world doesn't owe you the answers; you've got the responsibility for the matter."  Again the "H" word comes to mind...but here it is anyway.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=juvenile%20atlantic%20salmon%20british%20columbia%20tsi&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.uvic.ca%2F~serg%2Fpapers%2FVolpe%2520et%2520al.%25202000%2520Conservation%2520Biology%2520(14)%2520899-903.pdf&ei=RQkRT6v6LOSniQKThZjLDQ&usg=AFQjCNFdAHkCm1j9cTHcCAZPjWpa563fUA&sig2=IoRe4ddfyQ8PsZUo_JXAIg&cad=rja

The introduction was reasoned and well managed, the introduced stock is contained and controlled.

The escapes have been reduced but not eliminated (just the reporting has).  A review of the research has revealed that open net salmon farms contribute to coastal nutrient pollution (exacerbating existing problems from agricultural runoff, sewage discharges and atmospheric deposition), releases toxic compounds (exacerbating existing pollution of coastal ecosystems), and interferes with the performance of existing wild salmonid stocks (exacerbating the continuing decline in wild salmon stocks).  Given the large gaps in our knowledge and the acknowledged poor state of health of wild stocks, regulatory agencies and policy-makers should apply the precautionary principle to decisions concerning expansion of salmon aquaculture in BC waters.

Victoria dumped it's sewage and it was essentially harmless because of the principle of dilution. The greenies got up in arms because it violates environmental principles not to be seen to treat it so it didn't matter if Victoria's sewage discharge actually caused no harm, it became a bone in their craw. The conjured images of turds bobbing around the kelp beds made it great subject for the media, guaranteed to raise hackles and arouse public ire. Never mind that it actually doing no harm at the levels of discharge that were done.

Well there you have it.  So intent are you to defend the farms you are actually arguing that Victoria pump raw sewage into the Straits.

Dilution does not get rid of what’s in sewage (organics, pathogens like hepatitis, heavy metals or chemicals) and therefore it doesn’t prevent the long-term damage to the environment, or the waste of the energy and mineral resources carried by sewage.  Furthermore, contrary to what we’ve been told, the currents near the outfalls do not carry the sewage out into the Pacific. Rather, because currents change direction with the ebb and flow of the tide, a lot of the sewage either stays nearby or flows back into Georgia Strait.  And I am not picking on Victoria, as most of Greater Vancouver sewage only receives primary treatment and then frequent discharges of untreated sewage occur after heavy rains back up the sewer systems.  Not to mention that non-point source pollution is just as damaging as it too is untreated.  But as I have already stated, just because there are other harmful effects caused by other activities, that does not mean we should not continue to work to eliminate them.  Open pen fish farms, as a source of pollution, just do not need to be here ,so unlike stopping oil run off from road after a rainfall, harm from a fish farm can easily be removed by their closure.

I'll tell you what; it's time to broaden your horizons a bit. I'll give you a little lesson on confirming facts for yourself. Go to Google and type in the search box "metabolization of antibiotics" and start reading. Follow the useful links and start compiling the information you need to consider in order to answer your question. The world doesn't owe you the answers; you've got the responsibility for the matter.

Stop patronizing anyone who does not restrict their reading to Aquaculture Digest as "narrow minded" and practice what you preach.  I have read the literature, many of the same sources you cite, and I just do not agree with the conclusions that you, and the aquaculturalists, are drawing from them.

[chris gadsden]

Well, I was going to give absolon a pat on the back for another great post but I won't as that would be following the lead of Chris and af
Seems the only posters to this thread have determined their positions ... looking forward to the next round of bs by Alex to keep this discussion going

OK, not to disappoint you here is a start.
01/14/2012
Two Norwegian Salmon Farmers in Court Next Week
Next week Marine Harvest will be in Port Hardy Provincial Court for sentencing for illegal possession of wild salmon and herring. And Cermaq (Mainstream) will be in court trying to sue Don Staniford for his effort to get salmon farms out of the ocean.

Marine Harvest - Port Hardy, Wednesday January 18
In June 2009, young wild salmon were seen spilling onto the dock in Port McNeill as live Atlantic salmon were unloaded from a vessel into a truck. The farm salmon were being transported to a hatchery to strip their eggs, but Marine Harvest did not have a licence to possess the wild salmon which had been presumably scooped out of the sea pen with the Atlantic salmon. Bill Mackay of Mackay Whale Watching picked up some of these fish and gave them to me for identification - they were pink salmon. I pressed a charged under the Fisheries Act, and for the first time ever the Department of Justice (DOJ) took over a private prosecution and moved forward with the case. More generally when the DOJ takes over a private citizen's case they stay the charges. The DOJ required Fisheries and Oceans Canada to actually lay charges against Marine Harvest for illegal possession of wild salmon, as well as, a second report involving juvenile herring. The trial did not proceed, Marine Harvest spokesman, Clare Backman is quoted in the Times Colonist saying the "the company will plead guilty in court Jan. 18. He said there are two counts of incidental bycatch, but he could not elaborate further on the case until after the legal proceedings are concluded."
(Times Colonist, Oct 23, 2011).

The salmon incident originated at the Marine Harvest salmon feedlot called Potts Bay, Midsummer Island at the mouth of Knight Inlet and the herring were taken from the Marine Harvest Arrow Pass feedlot - both in the Broughton Archipelago.

If you can attend the Port Hardy Court House at 9 am on Wednesday January 18, please do. We know fishermen are heavily for illegal possession of one salmon - it will be interesting to see how the courts respond to Norwegian salmon farm by-catch of wild BC fish.

If you are concerned about wild fish being killed in salmon feedlots and have information on wild fish in farm salmon or salmon farms, please send pictures and reports.

Cermaq (Mainstream Canada) Vancouver, Monday January 16
Also next week the Norwegian salmon farm company Cermaq is attempting to sue Don Staniford for publishing graphics that compare salmon farming to the tobacco industry. Don has been working to protect wild salmon from salmon farms for almost 20 years. He has gone to investigate the industry around the world including Chile, Norway and Scotland. Don has met with the CEOs, gone to the share holder meetings, met with scientists, has pressured environmental organizations not to succumb to industry pressure, he has been tireless, fearless and incorruptible. When Cermaq tried to silence him "Staniford responded one minute past the deadline and with another cigarette-like-package graphic that read "Norwegian Owned" and included an image of a raised middle finger and the words "Salmon Farming." article Don has worked for several environmental organizations in the past but is going solo on this. Don needs funds to go toe to toe with a company whose largest shareholder is the Norwegian government. If you can help please do.If you can attend the opening day please show support for this brave man at the Court House at Hornby and Nelson 10 am, the exact court # will be posted in the lobby that morning. It was revolting to watch the eye-contact darting back and forth between government employees on the stand at the Cohen Inquiry and the salmon farming representatives. They were huddled together in the hallways. The industry told us their fish would be tested, but appear to have changed their minds after the hearings. The people who are reporting on and challenging this industry in court are taking personal risk and need your help.

Your presence and your money are crucial. If we want wild salmon it is up to us.

[chris gadsden]

Here is the Times Colonist article mentioned above if interested in reading.

http://www.timescolonist.com/Salmon+firm+admit+breach+bycatch/5594257/story.html

[chris gadsden]

http://issuu.com/steelhead-salmon-society/docs/legacy212?mid=57

[alwaysfishn]

"The salmon farming industry has been habitually skewing information to bolster its practices and image - it's been doing this for decades. And, as recent history has revealed, the credibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has been compromised by its conflicting mandates of managing wild salmon and promoting salmon farming. Now we discover that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has its own conflicting mandates of suppressing pathogens while enhancing marketing opportunities for fish products. Consequently, when a viral disease is reported and the commercial value of fish is threatened, the CFIA assumes a defensive position by questioning the findings of the testing labs, by re-testing the degraded samples of infected fish with its notoriously inaccurate technology, and then recording "inconclusive" results as "negative".

This strategy is evident in an e-mail from a CFIA executive, Joseph Beres, to his colleagues, congratulating them on a conference call to the media that was intended to quell concerns about allegations of ISAv in BC salmon. "It is clear that we are turning the PR tide to our favour," he writes, "and this is because of the very successful performance of our spokesmen at the Tech Briefing yesterday... Congratulations! One battle is won, now we have to nail the surveillance piece, and we will win the war also." This is the response of a promoter concerned about reputation and market, not the response of a scientist concerned about the danger of an ecosystem-threatening virus.

This might explain why the CFIA didn't submit to the Cohen Commission evidence of ISAv in more than 100 wild salmon a decade ago. And why DFO advised its molecular geneticist, Dr. Kristi Miller, to curtail her research on ISAv - precisely the opposite of how prudence and science should respond to such an urgent situation."

This is the same CFIA that has promised to test 8,000 wild and farmed salmon over the next 2 years to find out if three potentially deadly fish diseases are present in BC waters. The project is aimed at detecting any signs  infectious salmon anemia, infectious pancreatic necrosis or infectious hematopoietic necrosis. What's the likely hood of their tests showing up any disease which would affect the marketability of farmed fish in BC??   

[absolon]

First:
Then:
Hypocritical don't you think? Anyway, those numbers were from the first document you provided, I do not remember what page, but you then I had assumed that you had read it.

Not hypocritical; I am aware of where you sourced your numbers but thought it a good idea to have you revist your sources and see if you noted that the freshwater sector economic output is included in the calculating the economic contribution of the sportfishing sector that you were quoting as justification of it's relative importance; thus the numbers are considerably higher than those obtained from the sport salmon fishery alone, the one you purport to be under threat from farms. The last paper specifically and exclusively addresses the economic outputs of the various salmon fisheries and uses (and discusses the reasons for using) a methodology that more accurately analyzes effects. Those numbers I quoted to you from that study reflect the salmon only component of aquaculture, sport and wild fisheries.

I began by stating specifically that I wanted to hear your own ideas and that I would be presenting my own, not quoting others.  We have seen all kinds of studies quoted already and we have seen both sides pick each other's so called experts apart and try to discredit the science behind them.  I just wanted to hear your own ideas. But we can go back to discrediting the scientists again.

These are my ideas, carefully considered, well researched and validated by experience. You disagree with them. I disagree with yours. I can only support my reasons for my beliefs by using external sources. You obviously are not prepared to accept my word alone. I can only support my disagreement with your ideas by using external sources. Again, you are not prepared to accept my word alone. The point is not to present experts, it is to present information. The point is not to discredit experts, it is to use empirical evidence to counter subjective beliefs. Knowledge is power; information aids understanding.

Either that or we can stand in our respective corners and throw rocks at each other.

Who[/b] identified out the "potential problem" with sea lice affecting the pinks in Broughton?  Are you suggesting that the fish farms would have developed their "solutions" had this problem not been identified by people "outside" the fish farms.   It is only because of the critics, that these farms are located in the sites they are now located (better flushing) and that they are doing anything at all to mitigate their impacts on the environment.  Everything they are forced to do to appease the critics eats into their profits.  They wouldn't be doing it on their own (unless the impact was affecting their own production of course).

You obviously don't understand one of the fundamental principles of fish husbandry. To put it crudely, one doesn't cupcakes on one's own doorstep. The fish have to live in that environment that you claim farms wantonly degrade and damage in the drive to increase profit. The point you miss is if the environment is degraded, the fish are under greater stress, grow less and more slowly, get sick and die in greater numbers and increase operational costs to the farm. The farm maximizes it's profit by maximizing it's environmental quality and maximizing the health status of the stocks. It is in their best interests to react to developing problems as quickly as they can with the most effective method available. Farms already understood about flow rates and site fallowing and used them as operational tools. The sites were not moved, they were fallowed during outmigration.

Yeah, I think someone did. That was why they developed their "solutions" to those harms.  But they should be responsible for "demonstrating that harm" and assessing their impact and developing the solutions.  Private citizens should not have to foot the bill to point out these harms being perpetrated by an industry that is here supposedly for our own good.  Unfortunately we cannot trust a company to properly monitor itself, and clearly we cannot trust the government to do so either.

I don't think we'll arrive at a satisfactory agreement about who was responsible for the solutions and what the farm's internal programs were in the absence of the media spectacle. The issue became another of Morton's circuses and has become so polarized and subjectively interpreted tha discussion of that aspect is pointless. Suffice to say, it was a manageable problem, and it was managed. The pink stocks still exist in the Broughton and the trend in run size belies all those apocalyptic predictions the reactionaries trotted out.

[Sandman]

You obviously don't understand one of the fundamental principles of fish husbandry. To put it crudely, one doesn't **** on one's own doorstep. The fish have to live in that environment that you claim farms wantonly degrade and damage in the drive to increase profit. The point you miss is if the environment is degraded, the fish are under greater stress, grow less and more slowly, get sick and die in greater numbers and increase operational costs to the farm. The farm maximizes it's profit by maximizing it's environmental quality and maximizing the health status of the stocks. It is in their best interests to react to developing problems as quickly as they can with the most effective method available.

Ah, but I do.  As I said, they would correct the problem if it affected their stocks.  But the farmed salmon's environment is the pen, not the surrounding ocean, and the farmers are concerned about the quality of the water in the pen, not below it or "down stream."  That is why they use the antibacterials in the first place.  If the harm to the environment is affecting the wild fish swimming past the farm, they would not do a thing about it if someone did not make them (through a media circus) to take notice.  As I said, it would be nice if the farmers would act more responsibly and proactively and not only act when someone publishes outrageous claims in the media.

Farms already understood about flow rates and site fallowing and used them as operational tools. The sites were not moved, they were fallowed during outmigration.

Well not according to Rensel and Forster.  They specifically state that the criticism over the harmful environmental affects of the farms was based on Weston's research of farms that are no longer located in the same place.  They state that the farms are now "properly located".

[absolon]

Yet, still you provide no evidence of this.   However, a study done in 1997 of antibacterial usage found use varied considerably among farms with some farms using as much as 450kg active ingredient per year with "moderate" usage around 70 - 170kg annual usage (Herwig et al 1997), and these farms there it was found that 20% of the bacteria in the sediments near the farm were anti-bacterial resistant.

Herwig's results found that anti-biotic resistant bacteria prevalence declined with reduced usage of antibiotics and declined rapidly as distance from the pens increased. Levels of antibiotics used in 1997 were considerably higher than those used now. Most recent statistics for BC indicate that a farm of sufficient size to harvest 100 tonnes would have used 7.1 kg of antibiotics in that year, 10% of the minimum rate in Herwig's study. Of that 7.1 kg, the largest proportion would be metabolized by the fish. Effects as a consequence of current practice would be considerably less than Herwig's results, and current husbandry practices would reduce it even further because buildup under the site and bacteria exposure to antibiotics would be reduced as a result of better siting and fallowing.

Yet  still you provide no evidence of this.  In the document you provide later as evidence that the environmental effects are minimal (Dr. Weston's 1985 paper)  doesn't even deal with fin fish waste as it is on floating shellfish farms (I am no biologist, but I suspect shellfish produce less waste than fin fish).   Now Weston's 1990 study may be more useful as he does document the effects of fin fish farms in Puget Sound on the macrobenthic community and there he confirmed that the effects were indeed profound:

Weston also reported that "All chemical measurements indicated that the 0 m station [the one directly below the site] was heavily affected by culture activities....[and that the] effects of culture activities on the seafloor were readily visible."  Of course his study was only of the "enrichment" effects of the farms so his chemical analysis was limited to carbon, nitrogen, water-soluable sulphide content (caused by the de-oxygenation of the sediments), and mineral stability.  He was not testing for the presence of other chemicals associated with the feed like the antibiotics and pesticides so his study is not useful to showing these impacts are "miniscule".

Westons 1986 study does indeed deal with netpen culture and fairly thoroughly. My copy currently resides in the Malaspina University Aquaculture Department library so I can't scan the TOC for you. The best I can do for confirmation at this moment is to refer you to question 18 in this list of FAQ:
http://www.wfga.net/SJDF/faq.html

Since the bulk of the "environmental outputs" of a farm are essentially nutrients, Weston did concentrate on "enrichment" and since feces and waste feed was the point under discussion, Weston's research is extremely to the point. He found that the area directly under the pens was subject to the deposition of a layer of nutrient material and the deposition declined quickly and drastically as distances of 50 meters from the pen were reached; in other words, the affected zone was not much larger than the farm. He found that all though some benthic invertebrate species populations in that zone were negatively affected, other species numbers increased. Once the material decomposed, populations returned to normal. He discovered that on so long as decomposition of the waste remained aerobic, the deposition quickly broke down into elemental constituents, but if the layer got too deep, the decomposition became anerobic and slowed considerably resulting in a greater time period for the site to clear itself. The essential point was that the material does decompose and restore itself when the site is fallowed. That principle has been adopted by the industry; of the 135 or so sites currently held, approximately half are fallow.

It was studies like this, and the reaction by those "reactionists" that saw fish farms move to new sites that were better flushed (Rensel and Forster 2007).  However, moving to a better flushed site does not reduce the effects of "enrichment," it just reduces the enrichment (the site continues to produce the harmful outputs, but they are better distributed to reduce the effects, kind of like running a car in a closed garage vs opening the bay door or piping the exhaust outside...the exhaust is just as harmful, but it is now being released into the outside air and being "diluted" so the effects are no longer seen).  Even in their report "Beneficial Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Mariculture" (from which I see you get most of your arguments) prepared for the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service's National Sea Grant College Programme,  Rensel and Forster admit that there were "adverse effects" at some earlier sites that were studied in the 1990s (they also cite Weston), but that "most of the problems associated with net pen aquaculture in the U.S. are manageable or have been dealt with" so we need not worry any more as the fish farms are now "properly located."

I suspect that report must get their arguments from me. I've not seen it before. Car exhaust is not an input to the trophic web. The elemental nutrients that result from the decomposition of fish waste are. Dilution and dispersal spreads them so that decomposition to those elemental nutrients proceeds more quickly. What most reactionaries can't seem to get their heads wrapped around is that the late eighties and the nineties were a period when the industry was on a steep learning curve to learn the technology and adapt it to our circumstances. There were problems. No one in the industry denies that or attempts to conceal that. Those problems were managed, lesson were learned, understanding grew, practices were refined, technology was improved. The industry today is not the same as it was then, those lessons were learned and there is no negative legacy from those days. Your opinion that there is still a problem is only that, a subjective opinion and a completely unsubstantiated one at that.

Furthermore, your argument that these farms are affecting a small percent of the coastal area is negated by the desired expansion of the industry.  The more the industry expands the greater this impact will be.  But of course it can expand unchecked until some one else provides the inarguable proof of the concentration numbers that would make the impact "harmful."  And who gets to decide which small parts of the environment get to be written off while the farms are there?

Give me a break. If the industry were to double in size, it would move from using about 3/1000ths of one percent of the coastal waters to 6/1000ths of one percent................. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!...........................It can't and won't expand unchecked, the environment isn't written off, the impact will remain minuscule and reversible...............The sky is falling! The sky is falling!.......................The government has a coastal resource use process that every user is involved in. Everybody gets a shot at getting their needs met....... I know, I know. The government is corrupt...they're in the pocket of the industry....it's a conspiracy to kill all the salmon so they don't have to worry about them anymore.

[absolon]

I thought "The world doesn't owe you the answers; you've got the responsibility for the matter."  Again the "H" word comes to mind...but here it is anyway.

The escapes have been reduced but not eliminated (just the reporting has).  A review of the research has revealed that open net salmon farms contribute to coastal nutrient pollution (exacerbating existing problems from agricultural runoff, sewage discharges and atmospheric deposition), releases toxic compounds (exacerbating existing pollution of coastal ecosystems), and interferes with the performance of existing wild salmonid stocks (exacerbating the continuing decline in wild salmon stocks).  Given the large gaps in our knowledge and the acknowledged poor state of health of wild stocks, regulatory agencies and policy-makers should apply the precautionary principle to decisions concerning expansion of salmon aquaculture in BC waters.

Sorry for the smart my friend reply. I'm so used to these arguments where people refuse to do any research and yet refuse to accept any done by someone else after demanding something be proved to them. The crowd you hang with are not overly intellectual in their approach to this subject and I run out of patience with doing all the leg work only to have it ignored.

I wasn't aware of Volpe's discovery. One would presume, given the finding, that followup studies were done to determine whether the fish had indeed established and given the lack of publicity of any finding by the regulators or the reactionaries, one would suppose that further confirmation was not made. Although Don McPhail, who wrote the definitive book on freshwater fish in BC, reported broad dispersal of stray Atlantics, he found no evidence of any established breeding population and his is the most current and broadest look.

If the intent is to preserve the wild salmon stocks, the greatest guarantee of success, the fastest results possible and the least cost associated would result from eliminating the greatest demand on the resource, the commercial fishing fleet. The precautionary principle would suggest that as the first option for action. It doesn't matter how many times you say drug residue, toxic compound or nutrient load. It doesn't make the actual damage done by the proportionally tiny amounts used and extremely small areas affected into something significant or indicative of permanent or consequential damage. It doesn't matter how many times you say farmed stocks harm wild stocks. Until there is empirical evidence that remains and carries all the weight of a subjective opinion.

Well there you have it.  So intent are you to defend the farms you are actually arguing that Victoria pump raw sewage into the Straits.

Dilution does not get rid of what’s in sewage (organics, pathogens like hepatitis, heavy metals or chemicals) and therefore it doesn’t prevent the long-term damage to the environment, or the waste of the energy and mineral resources carried by sewage.  Furthermore, contrary to what we’ve been told, the currents near the outfalls do not carry the sewage out into the Pacific. Rather, because currents change direction with the ebb and flow of the tide, a lot of the sewage either stays nearby or flows back into Georgia Strait.  And I am not picking on Victoria, as most of Greater Vancouver sewage only receives primary treatment and then frequent discharges of untreated sewage occur after heavy rains back up the sewer systems.  Not to mention that non-point source pollution is just as damaging as it too is untreated.  But as I have already stated, just because there are other harmful effects caused by other activities, that does not mean we should not continue to work to eliminate them.  Open pen fish farms, as a source of pollution, just do not need to be here ,so unlike stopping oil run off from road after a rainfall, harm from a fish farm can easily be removed by their closure.

I have no intent to attack or defend Victoria for dumping it's sewage. I merely pointed out that they have a valid argument; dilution is an acknowledged way to deal with disposal. Organics do decompose, antibiotics have fairly short half lives, heavy metals bind up in subsea soils instead of accumulating in terrestrial soil, chemical toxicity is reduced. It may violate your principles, but it works.

Stop patronizing anyone who does not restrict their reading to Aquaculture Digest as "narrow minded" and practice what you preach.  I have read the literature, many of the same sources you cite, and I just do not agree with the conclusions that you, and the aquaculturalists, are drawing from them.

I'll stop patronizing when people start using their intelligence rather than their gullibility to spectacle and manipulation to look at this subject and when they stop confusing uninformed opinion with proven facts. I understand that you don't agree, and I understand your disagreements stem from a string of what-might-happen scenarios rather than any real event. As I've said many times in this thread: everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this subject. Nobody's opinion, however, negates the facts, and ignorance of those facts and the inability to understand those facts renders them no less important.

[absolon]

Ah, but I do.  As I said, they would correct the problem if it affected their stocks.  But the farmed salmon's environment is the pen, not the surrounding ocean, and the farmers are concerned about the quality of the water in the pen, not below it or "down stream."  That is why they use the antibacterials in the first place.  If the harm to the environment is affecting the wild fish swimming past the farm, they would not do a thing about it if someone did not make them (through a media circus) to take notice.  As I said, it would be nice if the farmers would act more responsibly and proactively and not only act when someone publishes outrageous claims in the media.

Anything that swims by the pen is going to affect them. Fish diseases come from the wild stocks. If there are excessive lice, the farms bear the brunt. If nutrients feed plankton blooms, fish die. I understand you disagree with the requiremment but one really needs some basic understanding of farm operation and husbandry practices and principles in order to criticize effectively.

Well not according to Rensel and Forster.  They specifically state that the criticism over the harmful environmental affects of the farms was based on Weston's research of farms that are no longer located in the same place.  They state that the farms are now "properly located".

In the case of Westons research that is true. Your phrasing was unclear and it appeared to refer to the sea lice issue, suggesting that farms just learned those techniques from that problem.

[Sandman]

Anything that swims by the pen is going to affect them. Fish diseases come from the wild stocks. If there are excessive lice, the farms bear the brunt. If nutrients feed plankton blooms, fish die. I understand you disagree with the requiremment but one really needs some basic understanding of farm operation and husbandry practices and principles in order to criticize effectively.

Thanks for pointing out these harmful effects of Fish Farms.  While I appreciate the farmers trying to mitigate their negative impacts (as you point out so eloquently) in order to save their crops and maximize their profits, but until they are moved out of the ocean, they will continue to have a negative impact and they will continue to have to develop ways to manage it.  Unlike you, I do not see the benefits of the farms (jobs & cheap protein) out weighing the negative impacts both current and potential.

In the case of Westons research that is true. Your phrasing was unclear and it appeared to refer to the sea lice issue, suggesting that farms just learned those techniques from that problem.

Even in the case of fallowing, while the farms may have developed fallowing as a strategy to control disease and parasitic outbreaks, was it not a government Order that forced the sites to fallow during out migrations of wild fish?  I also find it puzzling that DFO is still claiming that there is no evidence, despite repeated publish studies (not all by Morton by the way), that farms cause lice infestations.

Are fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago causing the dramatic increase in sea lice levels?

This is unlikely. Sea lice were not originally a salmon-farming phenomenon. Sea lice existed on wild salmon for tens of thousands of years before the first salmon farm was established in Canada and wild salmon have adapted to them.

There are two possible sources of sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago: natural sources such as other fish, or salmon farms. Last year’s studies indicate that the contribution from other fish (sticklebacks) was significant. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the increased sea lice levels negatively affected the growth and condition of infected adult pink salmon.

Sea lice levels can also be carefully controlled [by chemical treatments] on the salmon farm thereby reducing the risk of infecting fish living outside the farm to a negligible amount.

This seems to fly in the face of research conducted all over the world since the 1980s.  While the impact of sea lice on outgoing migrating pink salmon in Broughton may be "inconclusive" to DFO, I find it disturbing that DFO would try to suggest the lice in the sound are coming from sticklebacks, not the millions of salmon in the pens that would not normally have been there year round.  While it is true lice have been around for thousands of years, probably as long as the salmon themselves, they have never had the presence of millions of fish kept in such close quarters to feed on year round before.  Furthermore, while farmers can (and do) try to control disease and parasites on their farms, the very nature of the open net pen ensures that while they are treating their stock, the spread of the pathogens into the surrounding environment is continuing.  And should they reach the critical mass and be forced to remove their stock for disposal, the pathogens may have already spread to surrounding organisms.

All I am hearing is that the negative effects are minor and a necessary evil:

Not one of these activities is entirely free of effects on the environment, yet we have come to accept them as part of the natural course of our lives either out of necessity, convenience or pleasure. Regulatory controls, monitoring and compliance protocols, and penalties exist to ensure these industries remain compliant with environmental standards.

You yourself stated any negative effects on the relatively "small" area affected by the farms are minor compared to the large area of the BC coast line.  But that is also, in itself, not a good argument for continuing to harm an environment.  I would not accept that argument from a forest company who says while their clear-cutting of this valley will likely harm this salmon stream, there are lots of other streams for salmon to use;  Or a mining company saying my tailings pond will only affect this one lake, there are many other lakes in BC.  Therefore I will not accept that argument from a farmer.  In the case of the "by catch" of wild fish that Chris posted, where do you suppose the wild fish in the pen came from?  If we accept that the company did not illegally plant them there, then the fish must have swam into the pens as juveniles through the mesh and decided to stay there an eat the food falling from the sky.  Now, if the fish happened to be coming from a stream with a depressed run, those fish could represent a significant impact on the stocks of that one stream.  What if those fish were the last few wild steelhead from a nearby stream?  Still only a minor impact compared to the thousands of streams on the coast?  While it may be "unlikely," and no documented evidence has been found yet that it has happened.  If we wait for the inarguable proof that open net pens have contributed to the disappearance of the wild salmon in even one stream, it will be too late to save them.

Furthermore, contrary to DFO's claim, while the government agencies may have "come to accept [these activities] as a natural course of our lives" many of us have not and are continually pressing for government to change its policies in response to our growing understanding of the severe long term impacts these other activities are having.  Therefore, to tout them as an excuse to continue or to allow new similarly harmful activities "out of necessity, convenience or pleasure" is just wrong.
 

[absolon]

Thanks for pointing out these harmful effects of Fish Farms.  While I appreciate the farmers trying to mitigate their negative impacts (as you point out so eloquently) in order to save their crops and maximize their profits, but until they are moved out of the ocean, they will continue to have a negative impact and they will continue to have to develop ways to manage it.  Unlike you, I do not see the benefits of the farms (jobs & cheap protein) out weighing the negative impacts both current and potential.

A moments thought will make it very clear that all of those effects are effects on the farmed stock which don't have the option to swim away. It will also be apparent that by following good husbandry practices, the farm can minimize it's exposure to those effects. I am very clear on your judgment; in my view, you grossly exaggerate the effects and even include effects that have not occurred in your value calculation and that taints your evaluation.

Even in the case of fallowing, while the farms may have developed fallowing as a strategy to control disease and parasitic outbreaks, was it not a government Order that forced the sites to fallow during out migrations of wild fish?  I also find it puzzling that DFO is still claiming that there is no evidence, despite repeated publish studies (not all by Morton by the way), that farms cause lice infestations.

Whether or not it was a government order is irrelevant; the farms willingly followed the fallowing program. As is so often the case with reactionary arguments, semantics are used to imply the industry wasn't fully co-operative and supportive.

This seems to fly in the face of research conducted all over the world since the 1980s.  While the impact of sea lice on outgoing migrating pink salmon in Broughton may be "inconclusive" to DFO, I find it disturbing that DFO would try to suggest the lice in the sound are coming from sticklebacks, not the millions of salmon in the pens that would not normally have been there year round.  While it is true lice have been around for thousands of years, probably as long as the salmon themselves, they have never had the presence of millions of fish kept in such close quarters to feed on year round before.  Furthermore, while farmers can (and do) try to control disease and parasites on their farms, the very nature of the open net pen ensures that while they are treating their stock, the spread of the pathogens into the surrounding environment is continuing.  And should they reach the critical mass and be forced to remove their stock for disposal, the pathogens may have already spread to surrounding organisms.

Research conducted around the world is not research conducted under the conditions that occur in the Broughton and thus while it may inform research in the Broughton, it is not representative of it. There is no question that farms contribute to sea lice numbers, but there is also no question that farm management techniques can mitigate that effect. It is the final outcome on which results are measured and judgments made, not the existence of some contributing factor. While disease pathogens are shed during outbreaks, the pathogens have extremely short lives in the absence of a host. Those pathogens, should they contact a host, must also be able to overcome the immune response of the host in order to infect them. Since all the pathogens that affect farm fish come from the wild, the wild fish have been exposed and have developed immune responses. Species' disease susceptibility varies so pathogens which may harm farm fish have no effect on wild fish. Even farm fish have an immune response that wards off pathogens. A disease can take hold in a farm environment only when stress levels in the fish compromise their immune response.

All I am hearing is that the negative effects are minor and a necessary evil:

You yourself stated any negative effects on the relatively "small" area affected by the farms are minor compared to the large area of the BC coast line.  But that is also, in itself, not a good argument for continuing to harm an environment.  I would not accept that argument from a forest company who says while their clear-cutting of this valley will likely harm this salmon stream, there are lots of other streams for salmon to use;  Or a mining company saying my tailings pond will only affect this one lake, there are many other lakes in BC.  Therefore I will not accept that argument from a farmer.  In the case of the "by catch" of wild fish that Chris posted, where do you suppose the wild fish in the pen came from?  If we accept that the company did not illegally plant them there, then the fish must have swam into the pens as juveniles through the mesh and decided to stay there an eat the food falling from the sky.  Now, if the fish happened to be coming from a stream with a depressed run, those fish could represent a significant impact on the stocks of that one stream.  What if those fish were the last few wild steelhead from a nearby stream?  Still only a minor impact compared to the thousands of streams on the coast?  While it may be "unlikely," and no documented evidence has been found yet that it has happened.  If we wait for the inarguable proof that open net pens have contributed to the disappearance of the wild salmon in even one stream, it will be too late to save them.

Furthermore, contrary to DFO's claim, while the government agencies may have "come to accept [these activities] as a natural course of our lives" many of us have not and are continually pressing for government to change its policies in response to our growing understanding of the severe long term impacts these other activities are having.  Therefore, to tout them as an excuse to continue or to allow new similarly harmful activities "out of necessity, convenience or pleasure" is just wrong.

That is because the effects are indeed very minor and contained to very small areas.They have no long term effects and make no permanent changes. They are a very minor but necessary cost of obtaining the benefits that the industry provides.