Our Endangered Coastal Fishery

[nwyles]

Here is a question. It was in a thread quite some time ago but I do not recall the response.

Who is serving farmed salmon ? I mean in town here. Most chefs in town are using wild salmon, either fresh or "refreshed" - the new word for frozen !

Why ?

With the availability of farmed and the cheaper price, why are the local Chefs still using wild ?

I have to go, but I look forward to seeing why ! And who is using farmed !

I just got off od the phone with my supplier. I was asking who was using farmed and why.

Basically large hotels for banquets, golf courses ( same reason ) and smaller restaurants who just do really care about that kind of stuff ( no names named ).

Also, retailers - I am assuming Safeway etc.

Wild salmon is available for about five months of the year according to the supplier and the other seven months it is frozen at sea / refreshed. Perhaps Harry Kambolis or Leonard could add a bit more detail to that.

The price difference is all over the board, depending on what you are getting but farmed is around 20 % less. Lots and lots of farmed salmon is being shipped to Alberta right now.

As for Cubilularis , perhaps he has had too many portions of Bong Water Gravy with Sunday dinner lately. Get off the bong !!

[Viola da gamba]

Sablefish, which as you identify is the same fish as Alaska black cod, was (chauvinistically) rebranded for the Canadian market a few years ago. That worked--it's also seemingly better managed to wholesale, without the kippering effect of ABC.

I've been finding this thread really interesting - thank you everyone! Small query, though - as to the "rebranding" of Alaskan black cod as sablefish - I understood that it had to be sold as "sablefish" in BC because the Americans had trademarked the name "Alaskan black cod" - much like the whole "champagne/sparkling wine" issue? No? I apologise if I'm wrong.

It's good to hear these things discussed - I too haven't had Birkenstocks for years - but surely environmental sustainability is an issue that no longer deserves the rubric of "fringe" or "fundamentalist" - not with the first global warming refugees having to leave Alaska. True, I miss eating certain things - but it's worth the challenge of eating new & different fish - and finding the recipes to deal with them.

[canucklehead]

This thread has been very interesting.

One thing that I am not clear on is what steps are being taken (or can be taken) to replace the depleted biomass? My fear is that as we switch from one species of fish to another species of fish - are we just nibbling down a shrinking pie from the edges?

As biomass continues to drawn down - how can stocks replenish themselves? I read about a year ago about research being done in BC about tackling the biomass issue at the rivers to build salmon stock. At the time - it sounded like dumping alot of compost (fertilizers) into the rivers but that the initial data looked good. I read this in the Vancouver Sun - have not seen any follow up. Just a lot of hocus pocus?

Would be interested to hear from those much more informed then myself.

[Sam Salmon]

This thread has been very interesting.

One thing that I am not clear on is what steps are being taken (or can be taken) to replace the depleted biomass?  My fear is that as we switch from one species of fish to another species of fish - are we just nibbling down a shrinking pie from the edges?

←

What you're talking about is called Fishing Down the Food Chain and is indeed a serious problem-one some deny even exists.

As biomass continues to drawn down - how can stocks replenish themselves?  I read about a year ago about research being done in BC about tackling the biomass issue at the rivers to build salmon stock.  At the time - it sounded like dumping alot of compost (fertilizers) into the rivers but that the initial data looked good. I read this in the Vancouver Sun - have not seen any follow up.  Just a lot of hocus pocus?

←

No Hocus Pocus at all but a scientifically accepted technique to rebuild the nutrient base.

The Ferry across Arrow Lake for instance has been used to dribble fertiliser into that cold barren water, helicopters above Chilco Lake spread fertiliser to help Sockeye smolts, coastal streams have 'drips' that slowly release nutrient-there are many other examples.

[Daddy-A]

An extensive article in yesterday's Vancouver Courier titled: The Price of Sushi. Discussion includes environmental costs of seeking out the fish required to satisfy our huge appetite for sushi, impacy on the local fisheries, and farmed fish .

A good read ...

A.

[jamiemaw]

An extensive article in yesterday's Vancouver Courier titled: The Price of Sushi.  Discussion includes environmental costs of seeking out the fish required to satisfy our huge appetite for sushi, impacy on the local fisheries, and  farmed fish .

A good read ...

A.

←

Thanks for posting the link to this cogent and well-written article, Daddy-A. It should be required reading for all Forum members.

[Keith Talent]

We're getting homework assignments now? Screw that.

The central point of the Courier article was idiotic, in my opinion. The damnation of fish due to the loss of energy inputs required to harvest is a deeply flawed piece of thinking, and dangerous as it automatically turns off anyone not of a radical environmental agenda. If we are going to insist that our food provide more energy than goes into the creation of it, enjoy your diet of winter rye in your backyard, because that's pretty much all you'll be dining on.

I watched a documentary on PBS about fish farming, I wish I'd known about it before it aired, as it would have been excellent for those interested to view. While it was certainly biased, anytime David Suzuki is being touted as an impatial source of information, you know that you're witnessing some bias it did allow both sides of the story to be told.

I thought the most interesting point made was by a representitve of the BC Fish Farms Association stating that yeah there are problems, but bear in mind that it's a new form of argriculture, land based agriculture has been in exisytance 6000 years, salmon farmed for thirty, there's a learning curve to everything, and to completely dismiss it will not allow the development and perfection of techniques.

[jamiemaw]

We're getting homework assignments now? Screw that.

I watched a documentary on PBS about fish farming, I wish I'd known about it before it aired, as it would have been excellent for those interested to view. While it was certainly biased, anytime David Suzuki is being touted as an impatial source of information, you know that you're witnessing some bias it did allow both sides of the story to be told.

I thought the most interesting point made was by a representitve of the BC Fish Farms Association stating that yeah there are problems, but bear in mind that it's a new form of argriculture, land based agriculture has been in exisytance 6000 years, salmon farmed for thirty, there's a learning curve to everything, and to completely dismiss it will not allow the development and perfection of techniques.

←

There was also an excellent interview on CBS Sunday Morning early this am; I didn't catch the name of the biologist because I was only watching with one eye. But she very articulately made a strong point: The worldwide fishery has been depleted by as much as 90% in her generation (she looked about 60). Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all.

Fish farming is not a new technology--it's been practiced globally for eons and almost as long as land-based farming. On the Big Island, I've stayed several times beside the ancient fish ponds (the ancient Hawaiiian's equivalent of a 7-11) at Mauna Lani. What is new is the size, pollution and disease that has been created during the 'learning curve'. In the face of rapidly mounting eveidence, especially with regard to the rapacious effect of concentrated sea lice populations on wild stock migrating near fish farms, I no longer buy the argument that the 'development and perfection of techniques' (i.e. deployng 'Slice' to remove sea lice) promoted by farm lobby associations is an option.

Although I've tried to come at this issue with an open mind over the past decade (and certainly realize that David Suzuki and Rafe Mair are biased), after reading the best research that I can find, as well as interviewing a number of the players and visiting affected areas, I've come to the conclusion that the farming of Atlantic salmon on this coastline is devastating and in many different ways.

Further, I think that if more consumers could visit fish farms they would draw the same conclusion. Let me put it this way: fish farms benefit from being largely invisible. If the cow you were about to consume was covered with leeches, would you be eating quite as much steak?

But on June 25th, you'll have the chance to make up your own mind, when we convene our Sustainability Lunch with well- and hopefully neutrally-researched guest speakers.

Watch this space. We'll be posting the details as early as next week.

Cheers,

Jamie

Edited May 1, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Keith Talent]

Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all.

See? More eco doomsaying that makes anyone that is on the fence, or takes a middle road position say to themselves, "screw these loonies, pass the negitoro rolls." No fish? What about the species that are so prevelant that you couldn't swing a dead haddock in a circle in the middle of the Pacific without hitting at least three of them, species like squid? It's like the plot of that idiotic new Micheal Criton novel brought to life, find extremeists so far detached from sane rational thought as to totally alienate anyone that isn't already a zealot.

I no longer buy the argument that the 'development and perfection of techniques' (i.e. deployng 'Slice' to remove sea lice) promoted by farm lobby associations is an option.

Granted, everything I know about agriculture was learned at the petting zoo at the barns of the PNE, but if your going to claim that sea lice is such an insurmountable problem that all salmon farming sound be suspended is ludicrous. I'm certain that in the previous 60 centuries, commercial agriculture has faced problems that have seemed insormountable, thank God previous generations of farmers didn't have Dr. Suzuki wagging his pious finger in their faces telling us how technological advancement is wrong, because a few wild fish might meet an unfortunate end.

If the cow you were about to consume was covered with leeches, would you be eating quite as much steak?

I dunno, according to Eric Schlossers "Fast Food Nation" the steak I ate last night was covered in feces at the slaughterhouse, so a few leeches probably wouldn't bother me much. Squeemishness isn't for the avowed omnivore. The bread I ate with dinner was made using flour that contained ground bugs, the salad had more than a few whole bugs, however small in spite of washing. Sea lice look no worse than oysters, maybe they're delicious with a nice tart mignonette and crisp steely chablis.

[Leonard]

Last week, I turned down the special of Chilean Sea Bass that was REALLY being pushed. Perhaps I should put this in the thread about language barriers because when I told the server I didn't want it because it was close to being extinct he continued to describe what kind of fish it is and all the ways they could prepare it for me. I don't know how close it is to becoming extinct, it's just not one of my faves. I just wanted to test the waters and see what the reaction would be. Some people might think I was intentionally being ignored, but I have a feeling the server didn't understand the word extinct. Obviously, the chef of this restaurant isn't concerned about sustainability.

←

Take a look at this link:

www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_ChileanSeabassFactCard.pdf#search='chilean%20seabass'

Leonard

C GM

[jamiemaw]

Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all.

See? More eco doomsaying that makes anyone that is on the fence, or takes a middle road position say to themselves, "screw these loonies, pass the negitoro rolls." No fish? Sea lice look no worse than oysters, maybe they're delicious with a nice tart mignonette and crisp steely chablis.

←

Nice try, Keith. But really, how much time have you spent on the farms?

Thought so. Now, If you'd care to debate these and other points, swim by on June 25th.

Yours, etc.,

Jamie

Edited May 2, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Vancouver Lee]

It's like the plot of that idiotic new Micheal Criton novel brought to life, find extremeists so far detached from sane rational thought as to totally alienate anyone that isn't already a zealot.

←

I agree that the plot of "State of Fear" is idiotic - in fact, that probably understates it. The book is quite fascinating, however, and the research I've done since finishing it is even more interesting.

Crichton's premise in the book is essentialy that a) we know jack about the environment and know even less about how to "manage" it to obtain a desired result, b) virtually all environmental research is (mostly, but not always, unintentionally) biased, and c) changing our behaviour to be more environmentally-friendly is good, but most of the people who scream "global warming is going to melt all the polar ice and flood the earth", "killer bees are coming", or, case in point "don't eat fish", are alarmists.

I'll be the first guy to admit that I know virtually nothing about fish farming or the sustainability of fish stocks in our oceans. I don't know who is right, and who is wrong. But anytime I hear someone say things like:

"The worldwide fishery has been depleted by as much as 90% in her generation (she looked about 60). Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all"

...my "hyperbole and bullsh!t" detector goes off.

I'll be eagerly awaiting the details about the upcoming Sustainability event. In the meantime, I suggest you read this speech that Crichton gave last year (click the "A speech to the Joint Session AEI-Brookings Institution - January 25, 2004" link to read the speech). It provides some interesting context to the discussion such as the one going on here, and will save you having to wade through the ridiculous plot in "State of Fear".

[jamiemaw]

It's like the plot of that idiotic new Micheal Criton novel brought to life, find extremeists so far detached from sane rational thought as to totally alienate anyone that isn't already a zealot.

←

I'll be the first guy to admit that I know virtually nothing about fish farming or the sustainability of fish stocks in our oceans. I don't know who is right, and who is wrong. But anytime I hear someone say things like:

"The worldwide fishery has been depleted by as much as 90% in her generation (she looked about 60). Blame the Sushi Generation if you will, but she chooses to eat no fish at all"

...my "hyperbole and bullsh!t" detector goes off.

←

Unfortunately, Lee, it's too bad that--about 15 years ago--Fisheries Canada didn't believe their own data in the face of what had become obvious to local onshore fishermen: That the Atlantic Cod was indeed commercially extinct. Then the information got worse--the biomass was so depleted (including the web of food that the cod fed upon), that it currently appears unlikely that the Atlantic Cod will ever recover in any meaningful way.

Today another bell tolls for the bluefin tuna. In an article last week in The Guardian, science editor Tim Radford quoted Stanford scientist Barbara Block:

Scientists call for urgent action to save Atlantic tuna

Scientists warn today that the Atlantic bluefin tuna faces extinction unless urgent action is taken. "In my lifetime we've bought this majestic species to the doorstep of ecological extinction in the western Atlantic Ocean," said Barbara Block of Stanford University in California. Radford says "There are two populations, (including) a western one that has declined by 80% in the past 30 years."

Access the special series on the global fishery crisis from The Guardian here.

But it sounds to me as if you think that the biologist interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday might have been exaggerating in her claim of 90% depletion. At first blush it does sound like an extraordinary claim.

So, a question for you. What do you think the global depletion figure actually is? 10%? 50%? 70%? And further, if the figure could be substantiated at more than, say 50%, would you agree that this is a serious issue?

One study that I found helpful was carried out by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. It reported that 70% of global fish stocks are "fully exploited, overfished, depleted, or rebuilding from previous over-fishing."

There's other interesting math at work. Due to government subsidy, of the approximately $82 billion of fish annually harvested (globally), it's estimated to have cost more than $100 million to extract the harvest. This may help explain why some species do not sharply spike in price just before the fishery is completely depleted and fishermen move on to other species. The orange roughy is a case in point.

There are a number of studies out there--of all manners of veracity and bias. But I think that if you study those of reliable organizations (such as those cited above), that you will come to a considered conclusion.

I know that I did--at least thus far.

I hope that you'll find the discussion on June 25th both interesting and informative.

Jamie

Edited May 2, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Vancouver Lee]

Scientists warn today that the Atlantic bluefin tuna faces extinction unless urgent action is taken.

←

"Scientists" have been warning us for decades about one thing or another, and a great many of these dire warnings turn out to be false. I remember being scared to death as a little kid reading my Dad's newspaper about how killer bees were about to invade from Mexico - that turned out to be wrong. "Scientists" in the 70's said that we would completely run out of oil by 2000 - that turned out to be wrong, too. "Scientists" have been claiming for many years that our climate is getting warmer (indeed that our climate has never been hotter) - well, the data that much of these studies are based on has been shown to be false, and the claim that the planet has never been hotter is just plain wrong. Perhaps the most eggregious example is the horrific field of eugenics. At the time, "scientists" and institutions no less venerable than the Carneige and Rockefeller Foundations, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Associations, and the US National Research Council claimed that the human gene pool was deteriorating because the "right" people weren't reproducing enough and the "wrong" people were reproducing too much (forgive me if my one sentence summary doesn't completele capture the sickening truth perfectly). Despite all the "scientists" who backed this theory, it turned out to be based on faulty research and was completely wrong.

I'm not trying to shout you down, Jamie, I'm just saying that I think we should be very very sceptical of claims made when they are backed up by anyone whose justification is "scientists say that ....". Which scientists? Who funded them, and was the funding blind and open-ended? Were the studies themselves double-blind? Were they directly observable or computer simulations? What is the margin for error in the simulations?

Don't get me wrong - I'm a total believer in science, and think that science will ultimately provide the means to solving most of the majojr issues of our time. I just think that the way we fund science today politicises it, and that inevitably distorts the results.

But it sounds to me as if you think that the biologist interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday might have been exaggerating in her claim of 90% depletion. At first blush it does sound like an extraordinary claim.

So, a question for you. What do you think the global depletion figure actually is? 10%? 50%? 70%? And further, if the figure could be substantiated at more than, say 50%, would you agree that this is a serious issue?

←

I have absolutely no idea what the actual global depletion figure actually is. Absolutely none. And I don't believe that either side of the debate knows for sure, either.

If we could substantiate with statistical certainty that the figure was more than 50%, absolutely I'd think it was serious. In fact, I'd think it was serious at a much lower number than 50%. What to do about it would be a whole other issue entirely - again, I don't think we understand enough about our enviroment to manage our way to rectifying it. Between the law of unintended consequences and our demonstrable failure at managing natural systems (look no further than Yellowstone Park and our attempts to manage the animal population there), I believe it is folly to think that we can manipulate the natural world to achieve a desired outcome. I wish that we could, I just haven't seen any evidence that we know how.

There are a number of studies out there--of all manners of veracity and bias. But I think that if you study those of reliable organizations (such as those cited above), that you will come to a considered conclusion.

Jamie

←

I wish I could, Jamie. But I just don't have any faith in the conclusions of "reliable organizations". Everyone has a bias, even government ministries, and unless the scientists in the field are a) unaware of who funds them, and b) "double-blind" i.e. seperated into groups between those that collect the data and those that analyse it, it is well documented that bias inevitably creeps into scientific results.

In many ways I wish I never read State of Fear, as that book is what led me down this road to being a serious skeptic. All I believe now is that I believe very little of what I read.

Intuitavely (<---spelling?) I suspect that we are probably overfishing, and doing things like releasing Atlantic salmon into the Pacific ocean is harmful. Are these issues to be concerned about? Yes. Should we be studying them and trying to learn more about the issue? Absolutely. Do we have enough data today on which to base conclusions? I don't believe we do. Do we have enough knowledge and understanding of our environment to determine appropriate policies? Absolutely not, IMHO.

Sorry for the long rant - I hope you didn't interpret this as a flaming. I'm enjoying the discussion quite a bit.

Edited May 2, 2005 by Vancouver Lee (log)

[Vancouver Lee]

As I re-read what I posted above, it occurs to me that the important thing isn't that the data may be unreliable. The point is that if we're going to make policy decisions (like banning salmon farming or implementing the Kyoto accord) that will incur large costs for our society, they need to be made based upon science that is reliable and accurate, and not biased or politicized.

Are our fish stocks depleted? Perhaps (certainly the Atlantic Cod is, and I'm sure others are, too). But before we do and make sweeping policy decisions, we need to understand what's going on a lot better.

I'll shut up now.

[jamiemaw]

Are our fish stocks depleted?  Perhaps (certainly the Atlantic Cod is, and I'm sure others are, too).  But before we do and make sweeping policy decisions, we need to understand what's going on a lot better.

I'll shut up now.  

←

Lee,

Although I'm not sure that this discussion belongs in the realm of killer bees, it certainly does in a forum of well-researched analysis. In fact, I agree with you that it's entirely appropriate to be sceptical of government reports on various fisheries, if only because the data is notoriously difficult to retrieve. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that we are highly efficient predators and that as our fishing technologies have become more efficient we have over-fished many global stocks.

Bear in mind that Fisheries Canada turned a blind eye both to its own data retrieval and to onshore fishermen 15 years ago with regard to the severe depletion of the Atlantic Cod. Had they acted on that information, the fishery might well have been saved.

French fishermen, who began the orange roughy fishery in one of the most aggressively fished areas of the world--the waters surrounding the British Isles--have since moved on to other species.

The blue fin tuna is now severely threatened. The wild Atlantic salmon is as rare as a sense of humour in an environmentalist. Chilean sea bass sales took off after it was rebranded from Patagonian Toothfish. Then they plummeted. Do you disagree with any of these statements?

As I re-read what I posted above, it occurs to me that the important thing isn't that the data may be unreliable. The point is that if we're going to make policy decisions (like banning salmon farming or implementing the Kyoto accord) that will incur large costs for our society, they need to be made based upon science that is reliable and accurate, and not biased or politicized.

As the topic header portends, just how many species have to be depleted before education and action are undertaken by governments and consumers? Secondly, do you have time to wait for the 'science to become reliable and accurate' before you will take action? As these other fisheries strongly suggest, probably not: Counting fish populations is notoriously inexact and is reliant on the anecdotal evidence of those who have the most to lose: the fishing industry.

So while we should always be critical and even sceptical when analyzing this sort of information (we are certainly reliant on the research of others), I would ask you this: Have you read any reports recently that suggest that bluefin, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, sturgeon, Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, hoki, rockfish, ling cod, swordfish, turbot, or grouper stocks are stable or improving? If so, I'd like to be made aware of them.

Throughout your posts you mention your relative ignorance of the status of the global and local fisheries. So I hope that you read the reports compiled by journalists for The Guardian (I posted the link upthread). I consider them well researched and dispassionate.

But going beyond that, the issue is important and is not going to go away. And that's precisely why I helped organize the lunch at C: to help educate ourselves and then to take appropriate action.

I'll be bringing $40 and an open mind. I look forward to seeing you there.

Jamie

Edited May 3, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[seanw]

Jamie,

Daniel Pauly, head honcho of the fisheries programme at UBC,

would be an informative inclusion on your guest list. A recent documentary viewed on a Seattle network looked into fisheries management, with astute commentary from Pauly. Aquaculture must be part of a solution but with emphasis on sustainable practices, Pauly highlights the growing & significant contribution of shellfish aquaculture(an increasingly important segment of BC fisheries economy). In Spain Bluefin Tuna stocks are being managed, however their carniverous nature requires huge amounts of fish input for precious little output(albeit tasty) thus not an entirely sustainable resource. China, unsurprisingly, is a leader in land based fish aquaculture with such species as Tilapia(herbivore's so require no fish matter) proving to be an important food source but also it fair share of environmental impacts.

I think that their is a false assumption that the Government is concerned with accurately assessing fish stocks, resources are being cut. In BC the lLiberals have forgiven hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines to Salmon farms who have broken laws & indeed returned fines that had already been paid. An aggressive policy of the same party has increased the number of licences to further Salmon farming, seemingly without fear of punishment & carte blanche to adopt questinable practices. Oh & blatantly unaware of the impact to wild marine life, recent reports display how ignorant we are of the numbers,ecology & lifestyle of our fish resources & flippant disregard governments display can only compound this.

I find it interesting that people question the validity of those that fear for the levels of our fish resources here in BC. Yes fishermen just love to go further & further away just so they can prop up the poor ailing oil economy of Alberta. The evidence exists in various quarters.

I could go on, but it takes too long to type....i'll give it a rest

[Keith Talent]

Jamie,

            Daniel Pauly, head honcho of the fisheries programme at UBC,

would be an informative inclusion on your guest list. A recent documentary viewed on a Seattle network looked into fisheries management, with astute commentary from Pauly.

←

This is the PBS programme I referenced above. The gentleman from UBC seemed to be the most unbiased of all interviewee's. I'd certainly be interested in hearing more of what he had to say.

Quick google uncovers the fact that he's only perhaps the most fascinating man on earth. Read NY Times artice to read fact stranger than fiction. Article also cites hims as being quite radical, yet on the PBS doc he was very balanced.

[Hugh]

The fear about farmed salmon is not simply a product of the imagination of environmentalists and scientists funded by shady organizations. In the 1980s Norway had a thriving farm fishery, and an even stronger sport fishery (People came from all over Europe to fish there, and it brought far more money into the country than the fish farms did.) Unfortunately, because of the fish farms they had blooms of a parasite called Gyrodactylus. The fish farms ultimately became non-viable because of the problem and it was also destroying the sport fishery. The problem became so extreme that they ended up using the pesticide rotenone to purge 27 rivers of the parasite. Everything was killed. To this day the Norwegian sport fishery has never recovered. The Norwegian governement put severe restrictions on fish farming after that point, and they continue to farm fish, but it is much more sustainable then it used to be. Many of the large companies that farmed fish in Norway complained about the new restrictions and ended up moving operations overseas. They set up in Canada. Last year the Norwegian companies, Stolt-Nielson, Pan Fish, and Cermaq controlled 73 of the 131 fish farming licenses in BC. Many of the farms are set up at the mouths of rivers. A study done at one of the farms showed that 25% of wild salmon young caught were infected before the farm with the sea lice parasite, and 100% afterwards. That is not biased, and I think it is quite unambiguous. If the results of this study are repeated (and there are studies underway at other sites) in other areas I think it is worthwhile to consider the moratorium once again. The benefits of this industry may not outweigh the costs. Does this seem like Doomsdaying or scare-mongering to you? Are the numbers biased? I think there is certainly cause for concern here.

[Vancouver Lee]

Although I'm not sure that this discussion belongs in the realm of killer bees, it certainly does in a forum of well-researched analysis.

←

OK, perhaps the killer bees example was a little inflammatory. My point was that there is a long list of supposed calamities that were imminently going to befall mankind, according to the most serious and learned scientists, and they were often wrong.

Bear in mind that Fisheries Canada turned a blind eye both to its own data retrieval and to onshore fishermen 15 years ago with regard to the severe depletion of the Atlantic Cod. Had they acted on that information, the fishery might well have been saved.

French fishermen, who began the orange roughy fishery in one of the most aggressively fished areas of the world--the waters surrounding the British Isles--have since moved on to other species.

The blue fin tuna is now severely threatened. The wild Atlantic salmon is as rare as a sense of humour in an environmentalist. Chilean sea bass sales took off after it was rebranded from Patagonian Toothfish. Then they plummeted. Do you disagree with any of these statements?

←

I have a bit of a quibble about "severely threatened" (in that I don't know enough to agree wholeheartedly with such a bold statement), but in general I wouldn't disagree with your statements.

As the topic header portends, just how many species have to be depleted before education and action are undertaken by governments and consumers? Secondly, do you have time to wait for the 'science to become reliable and accurate' before you will take action?

←

And therin lies the dilema. What actions do we take? There is a long body of evidence that shows we have no idea how to manage something as complex as our natural environment. And when we try, we invariably screw it up in unexpected ways. We can generally change one variable in the environment in the short run, but there are *always* unintended consequences, and they can be worse than the original problem. See Hugh's post above about how attempts to eradicate a parasite ended up wiping out all marine life instead. I would argue that we have little choice but to wait until we have reliable and accurate science before we take action.

I'm currently reading a fascinating book about how the US Parks Service tried to manage the population of different species of animals in Yellowstone Park to try and get the park back to the state it was in prior to the public beginning to use the area (the book is here is anyone is interested). With the best of intentions and the blessing of the best scientists available, unwittingly one species after another was brought to the brink of eradication in an attempt to restore the population of a different, almost-eradicated species. It is a textbook case of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and a cautionary tale to anyone who claims to know how to restore the population of any species, fish or fowl, on this planet.

I am not arguing that we should do nothing. Far from it - I think we've been doing nothing for too long. But what should we do? All actions carry costs, and those costs need to be VERY carefully considered and thought out before we as a society decide they are worth incurring.

You mention education - I couldn't agree more that we desperately need more education on these topics. Our media has proven itself woefully lacking in it's ability to convey the facts of such a nuanced and complex debate to the public, so events like the one you are helping organize are a great place to start. My argument is that we need a lot more education before we start taking action.

There is a great quote in the appendices of Crichton's book: "There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence". Doing the wrong thing very often leads to a result just as bad as doing nothing. Something to think about, at least.

So while we should always be critical and even sceptical when analyzing this sort of information (we are certainly reliant on the research of others), I would ask you this: Have you read any reports recently that suggest that bluefin, orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, sturgeon, Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, hoki, rockfish, ling cod, swordfish, turbot, or grouper stocks are stable or improving? If so, I'd like to be made aware of them.

←

No, I haven't read any reports to that end, and I am not arguing that everything is fine in our oceans. I'm saying that a lack of evidence that fish stocks are healthy does not by itself prove that fish stocks are unhealthy. My gut says there is a problem here, and I certainly make choices as a consumer to the best of my ability based on what I know about the issues, but I think it's a bad idea to make sweeping public policy decisions based on how little we know today.

Throughout your posts you mention your relative ignorance of the status of the global and local fisheries. So I hope that you read the reports compiled by journalists for The Guardian (I posted the link upthread). I consider them well researched and dispassionate.

←

I will certainly do so, Jamie. Thanks for the links.

I'm eagerly looking forward to the C event. You are to be commended for organizing this, Jamie.

Edited May 3, 2005 by Vancouver Lee (log)

[Vancouver Lee]

Interesting post, Hugh.

Many of the farms are set up at the mouths of rivers. A study done at one of the farms showed that 25% of wild salmon young caught were infected before the farm with the sea lice parasite, and 100% afterwards. That is not biased, and I think it is quite unambiguous.

←

(Playing devils advocate here......) How do you know the results are not biased?

If the results of this study are repeated (and there are studies underway at other sites) in other areas I think it is worthwhile to consider the moratorium once again.

←

Agreed. However....

The benefits of this industry may not outweigh the costs.

←

As I see it, the benefits include the fact that lower cost fish encourages more people to eat healthier diets, which in turns leads to lower health care cost, longer lives and therefore more economic output from people, etc. Doing accurate cost/benefit analysis is very complex and, I suspect, probably not as anti-fish farming as one might expect.

Does this seem like Doomsdaying or scare-mongering to you? Are the numbers biased? I think there is certainly cause for concern here.

←

No, it doesn't seem like scare mongering, but I'll bet media reports of that study you mention would end up being a lot more sensational. Are the numbers biased? I have no idea. My guess is probably, depending on how it was funded and how the study was conducted. But I do agree with you that there is cause for concern.

My brain hurts. I'm going to bed.

[jamiemaw]

Interesting post, Hugh.

Many of the farms are set up at the mouths of rivers. A study done at one of the farms showed that 25% of wild salmon young caught were infected before the farm with the sea lice parasite, and 100% afterwards. That is not biased, and I think it is quite unambiguous.

←

Vancouver Lee(Playing devils advocate here......) How do you know the results are not biased?

←

Lee,

As it appears that you may not have had the opportunity yet to read about the methodology of the study, herewith a useful brief. As to your 'devil's advocate' position on the issue, we've yet to see any refutation--scientific or otherwise--from the farming lobby, who are usually quick to respond. Have you?

Salmon farms teeming with lice threaten wild fish

Tim Radford, science editor

Wednesday March 30, 2005

The Guardian

Canadian scientists have confirmed that salmon farms are a threat to wild salmon. Researchers monitored 5,500 baby salmon along a 37-mile long migration route past a fish farm, to find the juveniles exposed to 30,000 times the normal risk of parasitic infection.

Sea lice are a hazard for all salmon. But freshly hatched salmon heading for the sea - no bigger than a little finger - are particularly at risk. If there are enough of the parasites, sea lice can quite literally eat their host alive.

Environmentalists have argued for years that farmed salmon spread disease to the highly prized wild fish. Now new research in British Columbia - published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society - has underlined the scale of the hazard.

"Our research shows that the impact of a single farm is far reaching," said Martin Krkosek of the University of Alberta.

"Sea lice production from the farm we studied was four orders of magnitude, 30,000 times, higher than natural [levels].

"Infection of juvenile wild salmon was 73 times higher than ambient levels near the farm and exceeded ambient levels for 30km [19 miles] of the wild migration route."

The team followed baby pink and chum salmon, 3cm long and some weighing only half a gram, on their journey to the sea. They caught them every one to two and a half miles, looked for parasites, and returned them to the water.

The fish had to pass through a long, narrow fjord, packed with anchored cages of captive salmon. The team found almost no sea lice on the juveniles before the farm - but heavy infections as they approached it.

The researchers then found a second danger. The outward bound school of wild juveniles became a moving cloud of contagion. Sea lice larvae matured on the young salmon, to produce up to 800 eggs each.

"The lice will attack other species, not only salmon but other fish such as herring which are the spark plugs of entire ecosystems - everything depends on them, from salmon to seabirds to whales," said John Volpe of the University of Victoria, another of the team. "Every commercially important fish is either directly or indirectly dependent on herring."

Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector of the food business. Farmed Scottish salmon now brings in £700m a year over shop counters. Salmon farming in Scotland is bigger than the Highland beef and lamb industries combined.

Scottish salmon farmers have been under pressure from environmentalists. A study published in Science last year reported that Scottish farmed salmon had greater concentrations of toxic pollutants than wild salmon.

No, it doesn't seem like scare mongering, but I'll bet media reports of that study you mention would end up being a lot more sensational. Are the numbers biased? I have no idea. My guess is probably, depending on how it was funded and how the study was conducted.

I disagree with you that the numbers are 'probably biased'. The methodology was seemingly sound (qualified bioligists from two accredited universities and published by the Royal Society), the funding independent of its stakeholders, and, unlike salmon farms themselves, the conclusions inescapable.

As I see it, the benefits include the fact that lower cost fish encourages more people to eat healthier diets, which in turns leads to lower health care cost, longer lives and therefore more economic output from people, etc.

First, farmed salmon is not significantly less expensive than wild salmon, especially during the summer months. Second, and using your own argument, how do you know that farmed salmon constitutes 'a healthier diet'? You might retract that statement if you were able to see firsthand the concentration of pollutants nearby salmon farms, or to study the evidence in Canada and other nations as noted above.

PS: As you learn more about these and other related issues, it may well provide an excellent opportunity for you to knit left and right brains and compile a photographic study of the evidence at hand. Do you have a scuba certificate?

edited for postscript

Edited May 3, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[Vancouver Lee]

As it appears that you may not have had the opportunity yet to read about the methodology of the study, herewith a useful brief. As to your 'devil's advocate' position on the issue, we've yet to see any refutation--scientific or otherwise--from the farming lobby, who are usually quick to respond. Have you?

<snip>

I disagree with you that the numbers are 'probably biased'. The methodology was seemingly sound (qualified bioligists from two accredited universities and published by the Royal Society), the funding independent of its stakeholders, and, unlike salmon farms themselves, the conclusions inescapable.

First, farmed salmon is not significantly less expensive than wild salmon, especially during the summer months. Second, and using your own argument, how do you know that farmed salmon constitutes 'a healthier diet'? You might retract that statement if you were able to see firsthand the concentration of pollutants nearby salmon farms, or to study the evidence in Canada and other nations as noted above.

←

You are correct - I have not yet had the opportunity to read the Guardian studies (my pesky day job got in the way yesterday), and I should not have been so flippant in my comment that the study was "probably" biased. My approach to these things is to assume they are biased unless proven otherwise, and I should have made that assumption more clear. The fact that the study was carried out by "qualified bioligists from two accredited universities and published by the Royal Society" doesn't mean that the study is accurate, however in all fairness I should withold judgement until I have read it myself.

And re your point about farmed salmon not being significantly less expensive than wild, my thin knowledge of the specifc topic at hand is revealed. I agree, I may well retract that statement once I become better educated about it. And better educated I shall become, I can promise you that.

[Vancouver Lee]

PS: As you learn more about these and other related issues, it may well provide an excellent opportunity for you to knit left and right brains and compile a photographic study of the evidence at hand. Do you have a scuba certificate?

←

I don't, and the idea of scuba diving gives me the heebie-jeebies, so I don't see myself strapping on fins and a tank, no matter how worthy the cause. However, I did have exactly the same thought you did, about compiling a photographic exploration of the subject. I may just do that......

[Daddy-A]

This is a really interesting discussion, and I'm really looking forward to hearing more at C next month ...

BUT (you knew that was coming didn't you?)

This is the Vancouver, BC & Western Canada forum. While this thread started off speaking to the issue of sustainability in BC, it's now drifting into "General" territory. If we can add to this discussion as to how these issues affect our region only, let's hear about it. Otherwise, I'd encourage you to continue this discussion in any of these threads:

Wild Atlantic Salmon

Wild Salmon You Say?

Farm Raised Salmon, Wild Salmon is safer - old thread, but still a good one.

Thanks,

A.

Note: just because a professor is from UBC, that doesn't make the issue local