Even the sea lice study that Steve posted conclude that the sea lice infections of migrating pink salmon were ultimately reduced by fallowing the farms during their out migration.
I am glad you took the time to read the recent studies I posted but Brauner et al 2012 noted that this “voluntary compliance may mitigate salmon louse effects on the most sensitive stages of Pink Salmon.” In this paper, they show evidence that sublethal effects were not evident once Pink Salmon reach 0.5g. I believe what this paper is saying is that the fallowing by the industry was indeed helpful in reducing louse levels and Pink salmon infections to background levels, but there is evidence that Pink Salmon fry (especially those after one or two months of growth) show much more resilience to louse infections than what was once hypothesis. Remember, Ms Morton once thought that this science with sea lice and salmon was pretty simple (i.e. they get lice – they die). After reading the study it appears as though it is not all that simple. I believe that hypothesis by Morton has finally been laid to rest.
The authors do concede that that this interaction between sea lice and Pink Salmon can be complex and can dependent on certain factors which can create some uncertainty (i.e. swimming performance); however, by identifying the most sensitive life history stages and fallowing farms accordingly during this time, the study seems to suggest from my perspective farmed salmon and wild salmon can coexist. I do not think that sea lice have absolutely no impact – of course they do and the study talks about that impact; however, its the magnitude of that impact which grows more and more suspect every year with more data coming out. I just do not buy into sea lice being the big problem as it was played out to be, especially when the BC industry has been proactive already to mitigate those potential impacts with the very sensitive life stages. I agree with Absolon when he says that if the farms did not learn from their past mistakes then the older studies would have much more horsepower, but fact is that they have. Making comparisons to Chile or some warm water country is really meaningless because it does not provide evidence of damage here.
Stringent regulations are testimony to the harm they can cause the surrounding environment? Seems strange that the public demands tighter and more stringent regulations for industries that operate in and around water, but when an industry like the BC fish farm industry operates in a more heavily regulatory environment to reduce impacts (and achieves positive results as demonstrated by Brauner et al 2012) as demanded by the public it still is not good enough for some. Meanwhile, “back at the farm”, many other activities with much more impact and not as heavily regulated go about their way of doing things. Fish farms are an easy political target. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with an industry with a regulatory regime that that is much more stringent than without. When I pair this study with the other one I posted it reinforces in my mind sea lice is not the Armageddon that it was made out to be. Pink salmon are on the increase in the North Pacific. Pink salmon runs can be highly cyclical also with highs and lows even before salmon farming even began. I say “was” because it is clear that the higher profile farm critics do not even mention sea lice anymore. From my perspective, there are much more pressing matters to be concerned about.
Author
Topic: Petition to restrain Alexandra Morton (gag order request) (Read 95143 times)