Fish farm ban likely for northern B.C.
By Tom Fletcher - BC Local News -
March 16, 2008
A net-pen salmon farm in the ocean on the southern B.C. coast.
B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association
Opposition to salmon farming on the B.C. coast has effectively stalled its expansion in southern waters, and will likely keep salmon farms from being established in the north.
After dozens of salmon farms have operated for up to 25 years in the waters around Vancouver Island, there remains no scientific consensus on their effects on wild salmon, or the effectiveness of the strategies for curbing sea lice, according to a review of world-wide scientific literature just completed for the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum.
Efforts to manage the effects of net-pen fish farms with a pesticide trade-named Slice will continue this spring as another generation of wild pink salmon makes its way to sea. And salmon farms won't be emptied or "fallowed" to make way for the April run of juvenile pinks.
"We're going to make sure that all of those farms have very low if not zero lice levels during the migration period," said B.C. Agriculture Minister Pat Bell. "Fallowing's not practical at this point. It would involve moving something in the order of three quarters of a million fish in each one of potentially five sites ... but certainly Slice treatments would more than compensate for any risks that are associated with that migration period."
Bell, who granted two new salmon farm licences last fall in the Broughton Archipelago between northern Vancouver Island and the mainland, hopes to have a new provincial policy out later this year. It depends heavily on consultations with aboriginal communities along the coast, he said.
"There's a variety of opinions on it, but I would say that the overall body of opinion leans towards a moratorium on the north coast," Bell told Black Press.
Skeena MLA Robin Austin, who chaired an NDP-controlled committee calling for an end to net-pen salmon farming, said a moratorium for northern waters is "a given." Residents of Kitkatla, a Tsimshian village on an island near Prince Rupert, recently voted in a new council that reversed the community's effort to bring the first salmon farm to the region, Austin said, and now the industry has no local support in the north.
Dr. Brian Harvey, an independent fisheries biologist hired by the Pacific Salmon Forum to study the available research on fish farm impacts, said the picture is slowly becoming clearer. But it's still too soon to say if farmed fish are depleting wild salmon runs, or if Slice and fallowing strategies are effective.
Other hosts for sea lice are being discovered, the behaviour of Pacific salmon going out to sea is more complicated than previously thought, and there has been little study of parasites outside the Broughton region to compare to, Harvey said in an interview.
"People really want it to be one way or the other, but it's such a fantastically complicated natural system, and there are so many variables and so many disciplines, so many unknowns," Harvey said. "It's not a copout to say that, it's the truth."
He said the "burden of proof" is on the industry to show that it can operate without damaging the environment. Austin disagreed, saying it is the B.C. government's responsibility to protect wild salmon first.
Email |
Print |
Letter to Editor
|
Share on Facebook
COMMENTS
Why is okay for the net pen salmon industry of Alaska (Ocean Ranchers) to purposely release billions of fish from net pens just north of Canada's border? However if one salmon escapes from a BC farm its an environmental disaster. We can have both wild and farmed but it is unlikely if BC bans farming in the North. This is a crime against BC coastal residents and will one day be the subject of great regret.
Posted by: Bill Vernon
Date: Mar-17-2008
Report as Violation
The big difference between Alaskan salmon releases and BC net pens is the species involved: BC fish farmers are using the exotic/invasive Atlantic salmon, while Alaska is using native salmon stocks. Alaska's low tech salmon enhancement practices are also closely monitored in SEAK by both the US and Canada through the Pacific Salmon Commission. Talking apples and pineapples here.
Posted by: Jim Heffernan
Date: Mar-17-2008
Report as Violation
Got to love science. We start out with the pre-fish farm situation. Add the fish farms, figure out that it's doing damage to the wild runs and what do we do? Do we start scaling back the fish farms until they no longer exist? No... of course not, that'd make too much sense. Lets add "Slice" - which is presumably a chemical and/or drug to the water.
We're brilliant, all in the name of progress.
Posted by: Jabber Wocky
Date: Mar-17-2008
Report as Violation
Salmon farms have operated in these waters since 1984. Certainly the extinction of the wild salmon runs predicted by those against it should have happened by now? Unless it really doesn't have the huge impact that they say it does? How do you explain record run returns in years since 1984 in spite of all the fish farms? I'd say the sky in not really falling.
Posted by: D. Anderson
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
The worst part of the Alaskan fishery is that they use NATIVE stocks. These stocks out-compete and interbreed with true wild stocks. BC uses Atlantic salmon which are NON-invasive. You cant make them take hold even if you tried. In Alaska the fish farming is controlled by FISHERMAN- thats not a good thing. They dont care about genetic diversity, they care about catching more fish than last year. I have friends that work up there. Its a gong show. Save the wild eat farm fish.
Posted by: J Handy
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
Listen: the use of SLICE on salmon farms is not a big issue. Why? Because SLICE is a treatment for sea lice and sea lice are NOT a big issue for fish farmers. SLICE is used because of gov't policies brought in in response to the hysteria manufactured over sea lice. Our wild fish are not threatened by sea lice.
Posted by: J. Handy
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
How can we save the wild salmon by eating them to extinction? We need to be stopping the large scale wild fishery so we can really protect the wild salmon. I prefer my protein farmed and healthy!
Posted by: Lynne Brown
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
What makes you think non-native Atlantics couldn't take hold there?
Our Great Lakes have a $6 Billion salmon/steelhead sports fishery begun with west coast stocks in the early 60's.
Hatchery stocking has been curtailed by 25% each year for a number of years because a vast number of NATURALLY reproducing salmon little realized were
overpopulating the lakes and overwhelming the forage base.
And, yes we do have Atlantics here also. We can have 5 fish everyday we fish; Chinook, Coho, Steelhead or Atlantics, all by the way unnatural fish in a landlocked nonsalty environment.
Only our Lake Trout are limited to no more than 2 per day.
Posted by: Frank Root
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
Well said, Lynne. No one expects to eat wild cow, pig or chicken - why would we depend on wild fish to feed a growing world population?
There are so many real and pressing environmental issues that need attention - let's put our energies there - not at knocking fish farming, for goodness sake.
Posted by: S. Dominy
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
Wild fish are not threatened by sea lice? SLICE is not a big issue? Eat farmed fish because we don't want to eat wild fish to extinction? What a load of bollocks! Next they'll be saying toxic sludge is good for you. Current fish farming practices are highly damaging to wild stocks; numbers are rapidly plummeting. Nevertheless, no one is calling for fish farming to end; that's just disinformation from the Fish Farming Flunkies. What IS being called for is an end to open pen farming in favour of a closed system. As for the health of current farmed salmon, Lynne and S. Dominy, be my guest. Would you like some GMO corn salsa with that?
Posted by: Rick
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
We are knocking fish farming because it IS having a negative effect on wild fish. Eating farmed fish does not alleviate pressure on wild stocks, as we originally believed when fish farms were first installed. Escapees from crowded fish pens compete with wild fish and introduce exotic diseases. Not to mention all of fish farming's externalities that the consumer doesn't pay for, including large amounts of waste to the local waters from the chemically treated fish, as well as fishing at least 3x the weight in edible fish than is produced in that farmed fish. It has a bigger impact than you may be aware of.
To feed a growing world population we need to focus our attention on less protein, for most protein production on such a large scale is energetically inefficient.
Posted by: K. Poppe
Date: Mar-18-2008
Report as Violation
When talking about efficiency you can't beat farming fish. Conversion rates of less than 1.5x are the norm, not 3x or 5x as you would be led to beleive. Wild fish ( or ranched )need up to 5x because of the energy expended foraging. The fishmeal industry has not increased over the years, just the aquaculture industries use of it, which is still roughly 35%. The majority of fishmeal produced still goes to the developing world for pig and poultry feed, which by the way does need a ratio of 3x to 5x. Don't beleive the hype. If you look a little deeper you will find out that if your heart is in doing the right thing, you should be for aquaculture, not against it.
Posted by: James Costello
Date: Mar-19-2008
Report as Violation
To J. Handy, do you just dream up your comments because you are so, so ill informed? Ahh, probably a fish farmer, eh?
Posted by: Pere Bare
Date: Mar-19-2008
Report as Violation
Wow, clearly the anti fish farming folks don't have a clue about fish farming because the retoric is not only irrational it is totally untue! How many of you folks have even worked on a farm or even visited one? Maybe you need to stop listening to celebrity scientists and start a dialogue with the real ones that actually have degrees! Try listening to those that aren't being funded by the American foundations that are being supported by those on the Alaska Marketing Council:) As well don't judge those who prefer fish over beans for their protein...if you are really concerned with the environment you would know that "closed" containment is not environmentaly friendly! Maybe some Valerian with those beans would be a good idea?
Posted by: Lynne Brown
Date: Mar-19-2008
Report as Violation
How is closed containment not environmentally friendly? Please enlighten me. By the way, I get my information from Ph.D. scientists, who have published papers in scientific journals.
I don't mean to suggest we turn to beans completely. But if we want to continue living on this overpopulated planet, we could at least limit our animal consumption (especially beef).
Posted by: K. Poppe
Date: Mar-19-2008
Report as Violation
Guess some people don't give 2 hoots about our wild pacific salmon. Who cares if lice infected atlantic salmon take over the pacific ocean, just as long as someone makes a buck and we all know it is just about money. If you want to farm fish, do it on land in tanks and leave our oceans out of scenario!
Posted by: Pere Bare
Date: Mar-19-2008
Report as Violation
Just read the research of Dr. Alexandra Morton on sea-lice and fish-farming and then decide for yourself on this issue. Just a wee bit more objective than any scientists paid for by the sea-farming industry.
Posted by: B. Powell
Date: Mar-20-2008
Report as Violation
Another major problem is the depletion of 3rd world fisheries for the production of fish meal which is then fed to our farmed salmon. The environmental costs far outweigh the benefits. The needs of the few (fish farmers and processors) cannot come before the many. How many times will we compromise and endanger our environment so a few individuals can make a buck?
Posted by: geoff lloyd
Date: Mar-21-2008
Report as Violation
Has anyone read the report that the article refers to or is this just a debate between the pro and anti's?
Posted by: Frankie
Date: Mar-21-2008
Report as Violation
There's more than just one report to read, Frankie. There is also what has been experienced with salmon farming in Norway and Scotland to consider. Finally, understand what's being proposed here -- not to ban salmon farming but to have it undertaken in a closed system that does not harm wild salmon. Lynne Brown will try to confuse you with straw men and red herrings. Seems like she has a vested interest and won't be troubled by the disappearance of wild salmon.
Posted by: RICK
Date: Mar-25-2008
Report as Violation
Get those net pen farms out of our coastal waters. For the sake of saving a few dollars investment to build land-based fish farm facilities with proper water and waste management we should not risk one of the greatest Canadian natural resources. No money is worth the risk of having another negative impact on our already hammered salmon stocks.
Posted by: Christoph Moch
Date: Mar-25-2008
Report as Violation
Certainly there are more than one report to read...BUT...comparing farming in Norway and Scotland to Canada is like comparing apples and oranges.
They are completely different ecosystems with different water temperatures, currents, salinities, etc ad nauseum.
Read up on closed containment trials that have been completed to date...none have been successful and there are reasons for that other than economics.
Posted by: Frankie
Date: Mar-26-2008
Report as Violation
Frankie, are those differences relevant? The problem is the same -- sea lice from open pen farms. That is why the Oslo Resolution was adopted in 1994.
In 2003, Norway established 37 national salmon rivers and 21 salmon fjords to protect three-quarters of Norway’s total wild salmon population. No new fish farms could be approved in these rivers and fjords and an additional 13 fjords were banned to fish farming.
Iceland banned fish farming in seven bays and fjords to protect their most prolific wild salmon runs and established the Wild Salmon Coastal Protection Areas where salmon farms are prohibited. All but one fish farm in Iceland is land based.
Sweden has 70 closed areas to protect wild salmon and sea trout. Scotland has restricted the expansion of fish farms since 1999. Alaska has banned them.
There's a clear trend here.
As for your trials, what trials are you talking about? Just the ones here? All you need to do is go to YouTube to see working closed containment systems -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lEy2tW1Rzs.
A workable solution can be achieved, but fish farmers in BC either are too lazy or too greedy to do the right thing, or they want to eliminate a competitor -- wild salmon.
If you are trying to make a case for open pen farming, Frankie, I'm afraid you haven't succeeded.
Posted by: RICK
Date: Mar-26-2008
Report as Violation
The differences are certainly relevant. I am not making a case for open pen farming, merely trying to open the eyes of people who are against to the vast amount of research that disputes the work of the anti-farmers. There was a recent article on seafoodintelligence.com that said that only bad news gets any press...so if you only read what is printed in the media you are getting a narrow view. My intention of the first post was to see how many people had actually read Dr. Harvey's report and it is apparent this will just be a dispute like all others. Thank you for your time and I hope you enjoy reading Dr. Harvey's report, which is what Mr. Fletcher's article is about.
Posted by: Frankie
Date: Mar-26-2008
Report as Violation
The final remark, Frankie, is very pertinent to the argument I'm making: "He said the 'burden of proof' is on the industry to show that it can operate without damaging the environment." They have not done this and that is why people are angry. Closed containment is a reasonable compromise. However, the fish farmers would take your position as an argument for doing nothing while the wild salmon continue to be decimated right in front of our eyes! As for my sources, I depend least on what the media is telling me. I put more stake in what the scientists studying the sea lice problem over an extended timeframe in situ are saying, like Martin Krkosek and Alexandra Morton. Their findings changed the position of the Pacific Salmon Forum. As for Harvey, he only reviewed the scientific literature, he did not do primary research like Krkosek and Morton. I think you're getting distracted in the details from the pertinent point above.
Posted by: RICK
Date: Mar-27-2008
Report as Violation
For the latest research from the field that has found sea lice infestations have spread to juvenile pink, chum, and sockeye salmon as well as juvenile herring near Campbell River fish farms in the northern Georgia Strait, see: http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/08_04_sea_lice_discovery_isl_study.pdf. I think it is sufficiently clear that all open pen farms should be banned.
Posted by: RICK
Date: Apr-12-2008
Report as Violation