Re: “Farmed B.C. salmon could carry organic label under federal plan,” July 15.

The proposal by the Canadian General Standards Board and the organic aquaculture working group at Fisheries and Oceans Canada to give the “organic stamp of approval” to B.C. farmed salmon raised in open-net pens is nothing short of Orwellian.

Among many practices that should be considered antithetical to the spirit and intent of organic certification, the B.C. fish farm industry relies on the application of the agricultural drug Slice to address chronic sea lice outbreaks.

Emamectin benzoate is the active ingredient in Slice, which is administered in feed. The use of Slice is a concern to scientists like David Carpenter, professor at the environmental health and toxicology division at the University of Albany in New York. Carpenter has said that “emamectin is one of a class of drugs known to block a major inhibitory neural transmitter in the brain. Animal studies have demonstrated exposure to this chemical during development causes changes in behaviour and growth as well as pathological changes in the brain.”

Little is known about the long-term impact of Slice on other aquatic life. Mounting evidence indicates that Slice may negatively affect crustaceans. Canadian scientist Les Burridge, who works in the field of ecotoxicology, has written that “chemicals used to control infestations of sea lice on cultured salmon have a potential for impacting non-target organisms, particularly other crustacea. Investigations have been conducted on lethal impacts but observations made during these experiments indicate potential for ecologically important sub-lethal impacts.”

Chris Genovali

Raincoast Conservation

Sidney

By Misty MacDuffee, Corey Peet and Chris Genovali

As the Canadian federal inquiry examining the 2009 Fraser River sockeye salmon collapse in British Columbia kicks into full gear, one might be surprised to learn that at the same time, the Marine Stewardship Council wants to designate this fishery as “eco-certified.”

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for the Fraser River sockeye fishery raises serious questions about the process and methodology for MSC certification, especially given the latest Fraser sockeye collapse of some eight million fish. Even the possibility of MSC certification for Fraser
sockeye has led many of BC’s environmental NGO’s to express qualms about the logic and rationale of the MSC, as their judgment in this matter has, thus far, overlooked serious concerns about the status and management of Fraser sockeye.

It is an unfortunate situation as the existence of MSC certification should signify an opportunity to increase the protection of wild salmon on the coast and to work around the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) who have been a major obstacle to achieving that goal.

MSC began in 1997 when the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever – a major seafood buyer – formed a partnership to try to leverage buying power into transformative change for global fisheries and collectively define sustainable, or at least environmentally preferable, fisheries. A collaboration of this type represents a potentially powerful step forward, as conscientious members of industry can work with NGOs to integrate conservation and social justice agendas into fisheries sustainability.

This new approach also changes the role of governments, given their poor track record at managing fish, into a follow-up function that implements policy as it is defined by the collaboration between industry and NGOs. This scenario has the potential to drive substantial change as long as the
environmental NGOs involved fully grasp the conservation science at the local level. It is also key that they never lose sight of the fact that establishing sufficient rigorousness for such a process is of paramount importance to ensuring that their integrity is not squandered for bad tradeoffs.

The Raincoast Conservation Foundation recognizes the value that certification could play in terms of improving fisheries practices. However, we are concerned that MSC relationships between the client (industry) and the certifier are far too close and not independent. Secondly, we are concerned that the MSC criteria sets a low bar and will not result in transformative change. These factors have allowed them to endorse fisheries around the globe that are not sustainable. For example, the stock status of
both Alaskan pollock and New Zealand Hoki have declined under MSC certification. Their criteria also lack sufficient ecosystem considerations. For example, BC salmon fisheries do not consider whales, bears or other wildlife that depend on salmon. In addition, if the Fraser River certification moves forward then Cultus Lake or Sakinaw sockeye would also be certified; this leads us to raise the question, is the MSC actually sanguine about certifying endangered fish populations?

Certification must account for all environmental (and social) issues facing the certified fish in question, even if this means committing to continuous improvement on certain issues, especially as science and conservation objectives evolve. Failure to do so is greenwashing and forces NGOs who are also working on these issues into difficult positions, where they find themselves opposing the MSC instead of supporting it.

As an example, the industry is proposing that MSC give the green stamp of approval to pink and chum salmon runs in the Great Bear Rainforest, the area where Raincoast has been working for over a decade to protect salmon- grizzly systems and other important salmon ecosystem linkages. In the last
several years, however, there has been a disturbing silence at the time of year when these streams should be vibrant with spawning fish and splashing bears. Raincoast believes it to be imperative to account for these types of ecosystem functions when considering a fisheries sustainability.

We suggest that the MSC re-examine both their process and certification standards are determined and pay much more attention to their ecological shortcomings if they want long-term legitimacy from conservation groups. They need a transparent, independent and impartial certification process, as
well as a mechanism for ongoing improvement of criteria that would continually push for the highest fishing standards and truly drive conservation in the world’s oceans. To attain this, they must address the structural flaws in their certification process and commit to incorporating ecosystem objectives for marine and terrestrial environments. Their brand reputation is at stake and they run the risk of turning their theoretical supporters into very real opponents if their approach to these issues is
allowed to continue.

Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s wild salmon program. Ecologist Corey Peet is an aquaculture specialist and Raincoast board member. Chris Genovali is Raincoast’s executive director.

As the Canadian federal inquiry examining the 2009 Fraser River sockeye salmon collapse in British Columbia kicks into full gear, one might be surprised to learn that at the same time, the Marine Stewardship Council wants to designate this fishery as “eco-certified.”

For the rest of this Raincoast article visit The Huffington Post at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-genovali/would-a-grizzly-bear-cert_b_615947.html

Mary Ellen Walling’s opinion piece ( Farmed salmon is more than just another meal option, May 10) conveniently skips over every single substantive problem salmon aquaculture presents to the marine environment, both locally and globally.

One-dimensional economic arguments aside, the first and foremost concern should be whether farming carnivorous species such as salmon is sustainable. In order to farm salmon, harvesting of wild fish and krill for fishmeal is required to produce the feed.

Leading fisheries experts, such as Daniel Pauly of the UBC Fisheries Centre, have cautioned against “farming up the food web” because of the inefficient and wasteful use of biological resources, all of which are already used by humans and other organisms, and some of which are commercially valuable.

Estimates indicate that farming salmon requires anywhere from two to four kilograms of wild fish to produce one kilogram of farmed fish. In contrast, farming herbivorous species, like tilapia and carp, requires minimal inputs of fishmeal.

Corey Peet is an ecologist researching the impacts of aquaculture on the marine environment. As he explains:

“Natural food webs take the shape of a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid lies an abundance of organisms that gain their energy directly from the sun or chemical processes. The next step up the pyramid are the slightly less abundant organisms, mostly herbivores,that feed on those below them. With each step up the pyramid, only 10 per cent of the energy is passed on to the next step, as 90 per cent of energy is lost to heat. Therefore, fewer organisms can be supported as you step up the pyramid, leaving only a few predatory species at the apex. There is a reason why we only see a few carnivores in the wild; nature only has so much energy to go around. Thus, when we consider the farming of salmon against the fundamental basics of ecology, it makes no sense to claim that this practice is sustainable.”

With the majority of the world’s fisheries in crisis, scientific evidence suggests that salmon farming is hurting more than helping the global fishery problem. In fact, the volume of harvested fish required to support the salmon farming industry in Europe is larger than the productivity of the entire North Sea, requiring the industry to depend heavily on fishmeal imported from South America.

The practice of taking protein sources from the Southern Hemisphere raises significant ecological concerns. The aquaculture industry in this province is also accessing, inadvertently or not, B.C.’s wild fisheries to feed its farmed salmon. Although the industry will claim that it is continuing to lower its dependence upon marine derived protein through the development of alternative feeds, such as soy protein, these gains have been offset by the rapid growth of the industry.

Peet also points out that more than 85 per cent of the world’s aquaculture production, primarily in Asia, involves the use of non-carnivorous species(freshwater fish, shellfish, and seaweed), and this has resulted in global aquaculture production adding to world seafood supplies. However, while the global aquaculture industry is a net fish protein producer, aquaculture of carnivorous fish is a net fish consumer.

Past and current scientific information suggests that farming salmon and other carnivores is not sustainable, contrary to industry claims. Farming carnivores is inherently illogical from an ecological perspective and layering additional risk factors, such as disease transfer and sea lice infestation, upon B.C.’s salmon via open net-pen aquaculture when our wild stocks are already under a suite of pressures makes no sense at all.

Accommodating salmon aquaculture in B.C., whether it is by eco-certifying “good” farmed salmon versus “bad” farmed salmon, or promoting closed containment or land based systems, will likely prove fruitless, unfortunately, as the industry has shown time and again it has no serious interest in embracing alternative technology. In light of this continuing intransigence, it might be time that multinational aquaculture corporations just got out of B.C. Period.

Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

A host of environmental, recreation and tourism organizations are calling on Ottawa to shut down three fish farms to create an emergency corridor for out-migrating wild salmon smolts.“In light of the collapse of most Fraser River sockeye stocks in 2009, and a suggested link to impacts from disease and sea lice from salmon farms, we the undersigned call on the Federal government to implement emergency measures required to protect migrating wild salmon in 2010,” states a March 1 letter to federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea from Alexandra Morton, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Georgia Straight Alliance, the Living Oceans Society, the Outdoor Recreation Council of BC, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the Ritchie Foundation, the Save Our Salmon Marine Conservation Foundation, the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, and the Wilderness Tourism Association.

“The finfish aquaculture regulations, as they currently exist in BC, are inadequate to protect wild salmon, as they do not address the impacts that open net cage salmon farms have on the wild salmon stocks. For example, there are no requirements in the current provincial regulations for the salmon farming industry to monitor the health of juvenile wild salmon for impacts due to disease and sea lice around farms during their out-migration.”

The groups acknowledge DFO is developing new finfish aquaculture regulations which could be in effect October or November 2010, but they say the most threatened stocks desperately need government action now to protect the 2010 out migration of juvenile wild salmon. The groups want Shea to implement three emergency interim measures.

1. Establish an emergency migration corridor by requiring immediate harvesting of adult Atlantic salmon at Marine Harvest’s Okisollo/Sonora and Cyrus Rocks farms, as well as Mainstream/Cermac’s Venture Point farm.

“There are currently five active open net cage salmon farms in the Wild Salmon Narrows of northern Georgia Strait,” the letter states. “The farms of most concern for the 2010 migration are the three farms containing adult salmon.

This emergency risk management measure will reduce the pressure of sea-lice transfer in at least one passage through the northern Georgia Strait on this year’s juvenile Fraser River salmon making their way to the open ocean.”

2. Establish and fund a wild fish monitoring program for the Discovery islands during the out-migration period in order to gain a better understanding of the impacts of sea lice on migrating salmon. The program findings will need to be transparent and fully accessible to independent scientific analysis.

3. Establish a wild fish sea lice monitoring program with funding from the aquaculture industry.

“Over the long term, sea lice on all BC salmon farms need to be controlled such that sea lice levels on adjacent juvenile wild salmon do not exceed natural background levels at any time during the juvenile out-migration periods,” the group states. “We recommend that a special committee comprised of representatives from First Nations, federal and provincial governments, industry and non-governmental organizations be established now to advise on the design of the long-term monitoring program and the selection of scientist(s) to lead the program. Multi-stakeholder participation in such a committee will be necessary to ensure the program’s findings are fair, independent and verifiable.

2008 ranked as one of the worst years for salmon returns on British Columbia’s central coast and the ‘silent fall’ I experienced there last year, while not surprising given the lack of fish, was disturbing nonetheless…

The silence along the river was almost deafening. No bears, or even birds, appeared along the banks. The reason soon became obvious: not a single salmon was to be seen in the glacial-fed water. Not a single salmon carcass lay on the ground, not in the estuary or the forest. There was no sign of predation and no sign of decomposition.

The usual sounds of fall in this coastal rainforest valley were agonizingly muted. The thrashing of salmon swimming upstream, the splashing of grizzlies pouncing on fish in the shallows, the cacophony of multiple bird species scavenging the bears’ leftovers—all were virtually nonexistent. And not a whiff of the fetid odor of dead and decaying salmon I have come to associate with this time of year was evident. The unnatural quiet sent a chill up my spine.

While it appears salmon returns, pink runs in particular, on the central coast are much improved in 2009, grizzly bear sightings have remained inconsistent.

The ability of grizzlies to get their quotas for salmon is really a matter of competition and the odds are stacked against the bears.  As fishermen, humans engage in what ecologists call ‘exploitative competition,’ capturing salmon en route to spawning grounds before they reach awaiting carnivores.

In a recent opinion piece for the Times Colonist, Raincoast biologists Chris Darimont and Misty MacDuffee stated that “referenced against past and current declines in salmon runs, we suspect coastal grizzlies receive a fraction of the salmon they used to, which ultimately manifests in
population declines.  Not by ‘die-offs’ as some have speculated, but through repeated years of low birth rates.  Grizzlies are omnivorous and can persist even without salmon, but they have far fewer offspring.”

Fisheries managers have always assumed that salmon exist exclusively for human consumption. Consequently, runs are only protected from harvest when they are overfished or endangered.  But how does status quo fisheries management serve the terrestrial ecosystems that salmon nourish? Not well.

As Darimont and MacDuffee explain: “Put yourself in the paws of bears.  Imagine if your big annual paycheque was reduced by four fifths.  Then imagine the effect on the coastal food web economy.  The nutrient subsidy used by the forest from the salmon carcasses, is also greatly diminished. As such, ‘protected areas’ that host highly exploited salmon runs are not really protected if a major ecological process is being compromised. Of course, it’s not just fishing nets that rob bears of this yearly bonanza.  Fish farms, climate change, habitat loss, fresh water withdrawals and changing ocean conditions all influence salmon abundance.”

So how much salmon do the bears really need? Raincoast scientists are directly addressing this question.  In hair collected from (harm-free) fur snagging stations, DNA and isotopes are used to track bear numbers, estimate how much salmon coastal grizzlies are eating and elucidate the relationship between the amount of salmon and the number of bears.  Like CSI sleuths, Raincoast is also assessing hormone levels in the hair to provide information about potential stress, reproductive activity and protein deprivation bears might show in response to poor salmon returns.  From this knowledge emerges an informed basis for action.
Chris Genovali is the Executive Director of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation
___________________________________________________________

Did You Know?

The presence of salmon determines the size, fecundity and population density
of coastal grizzly bears.
Reproductive success for female grizzlies is directly related to their body
mass in the fall.

How do salmon declines affect coastal bears? And how much salmon is required to sustain wildlife? These are questions that many people are asking in light of headlines about missing sockeye and salmon runs that fail to return as expected.

If you were a coastal grizzly, the presence of salmon would determine many things. For instance: how big you get, whether you can successfully raise children, and the number of bears in your neck of the woods (ie: size, reproductive success, and population density) are all related to salmon abundance. From the grizzly’s perspective, its ability to get enough salmon is really a matter of competition and, increasingly, the odds are stacked against the bears.

As fishermen, humans engage in what ecologists call ‘exploitative competition’—we capture salmon en route to spawning grounds before they reach the waiting carnivores. Referenced against past and current declines in salmon runs, we suspect coastal grizzlies are receiving a fraction of the salmon they used to, which ultimately manifests in population declines. Not by ‘die-offs’ as some have speculated, but through repeated years of low birth rates. Grizzlies are omnivorous and can persist even without salmon,
but they have far fewer offspring.

With both actual (Fraser River sockeye) and potential (runs in the Great Bear Rainforest) salmon calamities serving as catalysts, we believe it’s time for fisheries to start considering wildlife in their salmon management plans. We also believe it is time to establish truly protected salmon runs—runs that would be managed solely for their importance to wildlife and ecosystems. This would allow salmon to return to spawning grounds without encountering the nets of the Pacific salmon fleet. And those fish would then spawn in rivers that flow naturally without their watersheds logged, developed or otherwise impaired.

This concept of unfished salmon runs that lead to fully protected freshwater habitats is a bold and ambitious proposal that runs contrary to the philosophical underpinnings of salmon management. After all, fisheries managers have always assumed that salmon exist exclusively for human consumption.

Consequently, runs are only protected from harvest when they are overfished or endangered. Even salmon runs that spawn in protected watersheds and parks are subjected to exploitation by commercial fisheries at levels as high as 80%. Often, these parks were created to protect species such as grizzlies, black bears and wolves. But how does status quo fisheries management serve the terrestrial ecosystems that salmon nourish?

Not well. Put yourself in the paws of bears. Imagine if your annual paycheque was reduced by four-fifths. Then imagine the effect on the coastal food web economy. The nutrient subsidy used by the forest from the salmon carcasses, is also greatly diminished. As such, ‘protected areas’ that host highly exploited salmon runs are not really protected if a major ecological process is being compromised.

Of course, it is not just fishing nets that rob bears and other coastal life of this yearly bonanza. Fish farms, climate change, habitat loss, fresh water withdrawals, changing ocean conditions, and more, all influence salmon abundance. Many of these impacts are hard to predict, are indirectly related to salmon abundance, or require complex solutions. As eminent US fisheries scientist Dr Robert Lackey has stated, ‘our collective actions—from the rules of commerce to philosophies of growth and development—are not fish-friendly and tend to put relentless downward pressure on salmon numbers.’ In contrast to combating other threats, reducing or eliminating exploitation—on at least some runs—is straightforward and would have an immediate and direct positive effect on coastal ecosystems.

But how much salmon do the bears really need? Raincoast scientists are directly addressing this question. In hair collected from (harm-free) fur-snagging stations, DNA and isotopes are used to track bear numbers, estimate how much salmon coastal grizzlies are eating and elucidate the relationship between the amount of salmon and the number of bears.

We also assess hormone levels in the hair to give us information about potential stress, reproductive activity and protein deprivation bears might show in response to poor salmon returns. From this knowledge emerges an informed basis for action.

Current thinking in conservation science indicates that salmon management needs to include the bears, wolves and other wildlife that have an evolutionary reliance on the annual pulse of nutrients and energy delivered via spawning salmon.  But for elected officials to listen to scientists, the public needs to join the call. It’s time to share the harvest.

Chris Darimont is a Research Scientist at the University of California-Santa Cruz and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.  Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation and lives on Pender Island.

By Chris Darimont and Misty MacDuffee
Times Colonist

The headlines blare across local, regional, and national media: Nine million Fraser River sockeye salmon missing. At the same time, questions have arisen concerning the status of other Pacific salmon runs on B.C.’s central and north coast, a region known as the Great Bear Rainforest.  Many have asked how these potential declines are affecting coastal bears, which depend on salmon for sustenance.

With both acknowledged and possible calamities as compelling and urgent catalysts, Raincoast Conservation Foundation is advocating for British Columbia’s first fully protected salmon runs. This means creation of safe havens or sanctuaries that protect salmon from marine fisheries on their ocean migration routes and also protect their freshwater spawning habitat.

This bold and ambitious proposal runs contrary to the historical philosophical underpinnings of salmon management.

After all, fisheries managers have always assumed that salmon exist exclusively for human consumption. Consequently, runs are only protected from harvest when they are endangered. But how has such status quo management served salmon and the terrestrial ecosystems they nourish?

Not well. Even runs that spawn in protected areas are subject to exploitation by fisheries at levels as high as 80 per cent. Put yourself in the paws of bears. Imagine if your annual paycheque was reduced by four-fifths.

Then imagine the effect on the coastal food web economy. The subsidy presented to the forest and its inhabitants by bears, which leave portions of salmon carcasses behind, is also greatly diminished. Accordingly, we believe that protected areas that host highly exploited salmon runs are not truly protected, because a major ecological process is compromised.

Of course, it’s not just fishing nets that rob bears and other coastal life of this bonanza. Fish farms, climate change, habitat loss, fresh water withdrawals, changing ocean conditions and more all influence salmon abundance.

Many of these impacts are hard to predict, are indirectly related to salmon abundance or require complex solutions.

As eminent U.S. fisheries scientist Robert Lackey has stated, ‘our collective actions — from the rules of commerce to philosophies of growth and development — are not fish-friendly and tend to put relentless downward pressure on salmon numbers.’

In contrast to combating other threats, reducing or eliminating exploitation– on at least some runs — is straightforward and would have an immediate and direct positive effect on coastal ecosystems.

The best thinking in conservation science confirms that sustainable salmon management must include consideration for terrestrial organisms that have co-evolved with, depend on and help sustain salmon.

Indeed, Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s new wild salmon policy provides an important conservation opportunity as it identifies the need for management to transcend salmon production alone, explicitly seeking information on how much salmon is required to sustain key terrestrial species.

Research being conducted by Raincoast’s scientists, in conjunction with major universities, directly addresses this question for an important group of terrestrial salmon users — the large carnivores.

It is a matter of competition, and the odds are stacked against carnivores in these coastal “salmon forests.” Simply put, commercial, recreational and subsistence fishermen engage in what ecologists call exploitative competition — they capture salmon en route to spawning grounds before they even become available to awaiting carnivores.

As a result, we suspect that grizzly bears, in particular, receive a fraction of the salmon they are used to, which ultimately results in population declines. Not by die-offs as others have speculated, but through repeated years of low birth rates. Grizzlies are omnivorous and can persist even without salmon, but they have far fewer offspring.

Our current research — all conducted from non-invasively sampled bear hair– provides timely insight into these concerns. We are estimating how much salmon coastal grizzlies are consuming, tracking bear numbers and determining the relationship between salmon and bear numbers. Hormonal assays give us information about potential stress, reproductive activity and protein deprivation bears might show in response to poor salmon returns.

From such knowledge emerges a solid basis for action. Experience tells us that only carefully gathered information and prudent inference can provide the arguments that form the foundation for lasting changes to management of coastal systems.

Chris Darimont is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of California -Santa Cruz and  Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

To read the letter click here

For more of Raincoasts concerns about low numbers of salmon and bears on the BC coast click here.

click here for the interview

Can humans angling for the prize-winning fish shift the course of evolution? Research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that predation by humans through hunting, fishing, and gathering has had significant influences on the rate of evolutionary change in a wide variety of species. Traits such as body size and first reproductive age shift significantly in species that are ‘harvested,’ the authors say.

“Fishing regulations often prescribe the taking of larger fish, and the same often applies to hunting regulations,” said Chris Darimont, one of the authors of the study. “Hunters are instructed not to take smaller animals or those with smaller horns. This is counter to patterns of natural predation, and now we’re seeing the consequences of this management.” Darimont and colleagues found that human predation accelerated the rate of observable trait changes in a species by 300 percent above the pace observed within purely natural systems, and 50 percent above that of systems subject to other human influences, such as pollution,. We’ll talk with Darimont about the team’s findings

by Mike Price

Biologist, Raincoast Aquaculture Campaign
September 2009

The headlines continue to blare across local, regional, and national newspapers: 11 million Fraser River sockeye missing; poor early marine survival blamed.

Earlier this summer, Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s aquaculture field crew was searching the waters among the Discovery Islands at the northern end of Georgia Strait for juvenile sockeye. An unexpectedly beautiful and rich waterway off Vancouver Island’s east coast, the Discovery Islands host one of the largest salmonid migrations on the planet. It is also now home to BC’s highest concentration of salmon farms. There is growing concern that farm-origin sea lice are infecting migrating juvenile sockeye from the Fraser River; hence, our study.

The now missing Fraser sockeye were on course to migrate through this region in the summer of 2007, the first year of Raincoast’s sockeye project. Roughly 60% of the sockeye smolts we sampled that spring were of Fraser River origin, with Chilko and Quesnel stocks dominating the samples. Chilko is the largest producer of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, and over 78 million fry left the lake in the spring of 2007 heading towards the Discovery Islands.

Even at a low survival rate, the return from these fish alone should have been 1,000,000 sockeye. Since ocean conditions were considered favourable for marine survival during the 2007 out-migration, DFO predicted high spawner returns of over 10 million sockeye. Yet, these fish have failed to show.

Could sea lice infection be the reason so many sockeye of Fraser origin failed to return, just as pink salmon populations have shown declines in another farm region? We are currently trying to answer this. One idea emerging from the scientific community is not that juvenile salmon necessarily die as a direct result of being infected by lice, but rather indirectly. For example, juveniles infected by lice show slower swimming speeds and ‘loner’ behaviour, two characteristics that encourage increased predation risk; more juveniles infected with lice from farms, more food for natural predators, less returning salmon.

Poor early marine survival is the likely cause for the missing Fraser sockeye – question is, are salmon farms the culprit. At Raincoast, we hope our Discovery Islands sea lice research will shed some light on the Fraser sockeye issue.

Support this work

By Judith Lavoie,
Times Colonist, September 9, 2009

Try swimming in the Pacific Ocean wearing a backpack, and that might hint at difficulties faced by juvenile salmon when sea lice are hitching a ride, according to conservation biologist Michael Price.

After years of researching the number of lice on salmon in the Discovery Islands, where there is a high concentration of fish farms, Price believes the wrong question is being asked in the polarized and often bitter debate over sea lice and the effect of farms on wild salmon.

“A lot of the mortality work done on pink and chum focuses on the size and lethal levels of lice,” Price said.

Instead, the question should be whether lice reduce survival because afflicted fish cannot swim as fast or catch as much food and are more susceptible to predation, Price said.

Arguments that bigger fish, such as sockeye, are not killed by lice, lose sight of other effects, he said.

“If these juveniles host lice, it is going to affect their behaviour and likely slow them down,” said Price, who, during recent research on pinks and chums for Raincoast Conservation Foundation, also found juvenile Fraser River sockeye with lice.

“Early marine survival is at the core of salmon survival. They need to grow and they need to grow fast to avoid predators, and this could be slowing down their growth,” Price said.

However, little research has been done on sockeye. With the apparent collapse of this year’s Fraser River sockeye runs, Price cannot understand why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not considering that salmon farms might be partially responsible.

“I don’t think salmon farms alone are responsible for the collapse, but I think it’s certainly likely they are contributing,” Price said.

In Europe, Atlantic salmon and sea trout runs were damaged by sea lice — and they are bigger fish than juvenile sockeye, said Price, who wants to see farms moved from migration routes.

Closing farms might hurt some economically, but it is easier than solving challenges such as climate change and ocean productivity, he said.

The ultimate solution is closed containment — something salmon farming companies and government say is not yet practical.

Price disagrees.

“There are closed-containment fish farms all over the world. They are not producing salmon, but it should be an easy one to fix,” he said.

Simon Jones, DFO research scientist, agreed that there is little direct research on the effects of lice on sockeye, but said research on pinks and chum is likely to continue.

“There are many factors that influence ocean survival of juvenile Pacific salmon, and I don’t think there is a simple answer. Climate change and freshwater habitat conditions play a role, and sea lice may be one of those issues,” he said.

A 2008 DFO study found that, in a laboratory, high concentrations of sea lice led to deaths of juvenile pink salmon under 0.7 grams, but there was no mortality of larger fish. Juvenile sockeye are five to 10 grams when they migrate to the ocean.

“By extrapolation, you can predict that sockeye are large enough that lice wouldn’t affect them,” Jones said.

European problems with Atlantic salmon and sea trout are not relevant because those fish are more susceptible to disease and attract a different species of louse, he said.

Mary Ellen Walling, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association executive director, said sockeye appear to be protected by their size.

“By the time they emerge, they have a fully developed immune system,” she said.

Farms have taken extraordinary measures to protect other species of salmon, such as fallowing pens or stocking them only with small fish when wild fish are migrating through the area, treating farm fish with the chemical Slice at an early stage and co-ordinating treatment with other farms in the area, Walling said.

“They are being quite careful in the period when they think wild salmon are most vulnerable,” she said.

“Assigning the blame to salmon farms is not making a lot of sense. It is much more complex. People need to start thinking about fishing and urbanization.”

In the Broughton Archipelago and northern Vancouver Island, where farms have taken mitigation measures, pink salmon runs are excellent this year.

By Chris Genovali, Executive Director, Raincoast Conservation Foundation

I always associate September with wild salmon and with its onset I’m reminded of a particularly affecting experience I once had with these remarkable fish.The pale afternoon light that is so peculiar to autumn filtered through the trees, refracting through the flowing water to the tessellation of river rocks below, giving the entire landscape a golden hue. A haunting wind blew up the valley, alternating gusts of comforting warmth and icy chill. The alder and cottonwood leaves floated crazily to the water, landing on the tattered backs of the returning salmon holding in the river.  My Raincoast colleagues and I sat motionless on the bank, hypnotized by the beauty laid out before us in this rainforest valley located on B.C.’s central coast.

Quietly making our way through the bush there was bear sign aplenty; grizzly tracks and fresh piles of scat seemed to appear around every corner. We followed the tracks and kept moving along down the bear trail until we came to a large side pool bordered by several downed logs. We staked out a mossy bench overlooking the pool and watched the throng of salmon make their return up the river.  It’s an event that never fails to mesmerize.

My salmon-induced reverie was abruptly interrupted, however, as we spotted a large grizzly wading into the river. The bear began snorkeling for salmon, sticking his snout and eyes underwater, but leaving the rest of his huge head above the surface.

Raincoast’s goal is to advocate for B.C.’s first fully protected salmon runs.  Currently, even runs that spawn in protected areas are subjected to commercial fisheries and can be exploited at levels up to 80 percent. Given the extraordinary ecological value of spawning salmon to terrestrial wildlife, we see this gap in resource management as a grave oversight.

In addition, out-migrating juvenile salmon often must run a gauntlet of fish farms, exposed to disease and sea lice infestation on their way out to the North Pacific. And then there is the specter of climate change, which poses a major threat to salmon on multiple levels.

Canada’s new Wild Salmon Policy identifies the need for management to transcend salmon ‘production’ alone, explicitly seeking information on how much salmon is required to sustain key terrestrial species.

Research being conducted by Raincoast scientists directly addresses this question for an ecologically important group of terrestrial salmon users – large carnivores. Grizzly bears, black bears, and wolves depend on salmon and play a key role in salmon ecosystems by distributing marine nutrients to other users, riparian vegetation, and in turn to the structure and productivity of the habitat that supports salmon.

It’s important to note that salmon are not exclusively marine organisms and considerations about terrestrial conservation in a coastal environment are incomplete when the ecological influences of salmon are ignored.

The concept of protected salmon migration corridors that lead to fully protected freshwater habitats is unique, but it’s something we believe will capture the imagination of British Columbians.

Did You Know?

Chinook salmon may travel up to 2,500 miles from their natal streams and stay out to sea four to seven years before returning to their freshwater spawning grounds.

Locally, Goldstream Provincial Park has a world-class salmon spawning stream with thousands of Chum salmon returning each year.

Raincoast Conservation agrees with Clare Backman that caution should be used before laying blame for the Fraser River sockeye collapse on salmon farms (“Don’t blame fish farms for sockeye decline,” Aug. 27).By the time salmon farms began producing fish in B.C., wild salmon were already in a state of decline as a result of widespread mismanagement on every level. However, this does not exonerate salmon farms from responsibility for the impact to wild stocks that has occurred since they began using our ocean as a dump for waste and disease. The reason so many are quick to point the finger at salmon farms, and Marine Harvest specifically, is because of the aquaculture industry’s track record. Every country hosting salmon farms has experienced sea lice infestations and disease transfer that have left local stocks on the brink of extinction. And while this has occurred, time and time again, the industry has denied its role in the ensuing catastrophe. When Backman lectures about irresponsibility, he should look first at theNorwegian owned company he represents and the ecological disruption it continues to cause. In the Broughton Archipelago, they are finally beginning to find ways to lower lice levels and reduce disease outbreaks, though this is the result of numerous independent scientific studies and years of public pressure. But in the Discovery Islands region south of the Broughton, where the majority of Fraser stocks out-migrate, it’s still business as usual for the industry. At Raincoast, we hope our Discovery Islands sea lice research will shed some light on the Fraser sockeye issue. Michael Price Conservation biologist Raincoast Conservation

Paul Sprout, of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, writes that sea lice from fish farms are not the explanation for this year’s crash of Fraser River sockeye (Fishing For Answers – letters, Aug. 15). How can anyone make such a conclusive statement at this juncture?

Wild salmon face multiple human-caused stressors; no single pressure alone can be blamed for the dramatic decline of sockeye we now witness. However, salmon farms are the most recent stressor to arrive on our coast, and in this short time numerous researchers have implicated sea lice originating on farms in the decline and collapse of local wild stocks.

The majority of juvenile sockeye from the Fraser migrate through B.C.’s
highest concentration of salmon farms within their first few weeks at sea, and recent evidence suggests sockeye in the northern Georgia Strait host elevated lice levels in close proximity to farms.

Sockeye from the Skeena River are returning in low numbers, though not to such a perilous state as to close the local sport and food fishery. Fraser River sockeye are well beyond this, with many populations facing the threat of extinction. Is the situation not urgent enough to at least consider whether farms are having an effect on Fraser sockeye?

Michael Price
Conservation biologist, Raincoast Conservation Foundation