by Mike Price
Times Colonist August 29, 2009
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
Tags: fraser sockeye, sea lice, wild salmon
The above statement contains some contradictions. On one hand you support Backman’s position that sealice have no negative impacts on migratory salmon amd should not be blamed, and in the next breath you are saying they have been irresponsible. Why bother quoting or referring to an industry biased viewpoint? Conservation groups, in my mind, should always use the pre-cautionary principle and take a hard-line position that they have to operate in closed pen environment becuase there are studies to show that fish farms do introduce higher than normal levels of sea lice. Whereas, DFO’s guiding principle is to do whatever it takes to protect the quanity and quality of wild stocks they should be closing down open pen fish farms and I hope that Raincoast will promote this position also before its too late for the stocks.
thanks for your email Ross
Raincoast did not agree with Backman that sea lice don’t have a negative impact on wild salmon – we absolutely believe they do. What we agree with is that there is no evidence that the Fraser collapse is caused by sea lice. There isn’t. We have reason to believe sea lice could be a factor, (based on our own work) but its also possible temperatures in the Fraser weakened them, or miss-timed plankton blooms in Georgia Strait, or the poor nutritional value of food in Georgia strait. Maybe the problem occurred after the fish left Georgia strait (but that may be less likely). The problem is no one knows. But what Backman did was dismiss sea lice as a possibility. Unfortunately I also don’t agree that DFO’s guiding principles are ‘ to do what ever it takes to protect wild stocks’. If that was even remotely true, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
thanks for posting.
Misty MacDuffee