Island News & Views
World Food Traditions · 12th August 2007
Ray Grigg
At some point in the accumulation of incriminating evidence, denial sounds just plain silly. This is the point the BC’s salmon farming industry has reached with respect to the transfer of sea lice from its open net-pens to migrating wild juvenile salmon. The evidence is now so overwhelming that the industry should just admit culpability and take the measures that will mitigate damage to wild stocks. Further delays could do irreparable damage to these stocks while leaving the industry with a reputation akin to the tattered ethics of cigarette manufacturers.
The bad news keeps getting worse for the salmon farming industry. It can probably be excused for the skulduggery being revealed at the criminal trial of Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk in which a heckler was allegedly paid $100 to disrupt an anti-aquaculture protest in Victoria. Aquaculture didn’t likely expect such devious expressions of loyalty for its generous contributions to Liberal campaigns. Nonetheless, the allegations taint the image of salmon farming, making it seem devious, if not by intention, then at least by association.
The shady dealings revealed through the courts are bad enough. But the worst news comes from two provincial-government funded organizations, the BC Wild Salmon Forum and the Pacific Salmon Forum.
An audit of salmon farming, commissioned by the BC Wild Salmon Forum, gave BC’s industry only 41 out of 80 possible marks when comparing it to the rest of the world’s salmon farming nations (Courier-Islander, June 29/07). Among other failings, the audit faulted BC’s industry — giving it only 1 mark out of 10 — for siting its farms within a kilometre of the mouth of salmon streams. In the Broughton Archipelago, the audit noted that of 25 farms, 16 were located “directly on wild salmon migratory passages to and from the sea.”
The evidence from the Pacific Salmon Forum is more damning. A 2006 report, written for the Forum by Craig Orr of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, cites a “precipitous decline” of pink salmon stocks on BC’s Central Coast near salmon farms, compared to thriving stocks on the North Coast where no salmon farms exist. The report concludes that salmon farms are “the main source of lice on juvenile salmon”, with infections “70 times greater on migrating wild salmon captured within 30 kilometres of farms compared to those captured at a greater distance” (Ibid. July 4/07). The report also found that “90 to 98 per cent of wild salmon captured near fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago each bore at least 6 lice, compared to 0.3 and 3 per cent of fish captured at remote distances...”. These levels of infection can be fatal for young salmonids.
But all this is simply a collation of findings from many scientific studies. What’s new about the report is that it was government funded, confidential and never published — The Vancouver Sun somehow “obtained” a copy. Furthermore, Orr notes difficulties getting the most current studies because the government would not release that research data. This is the kind of secrecy and obstruction that smells of the devious expressions of loyalty suggested in the Basi and Virk affair.
The reputation of salmon farms is not helped when Brian Riddell, a veteran researcher with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, concedes an infection problem when he says that, “There isn’t any question that farms need to be managed for this risk of sea lice” (Ibid.). He acknowledges that individual fish are infected but expresses uncertainty that this could pose a risk to entire populations — as if entire populations are not made up of individual fish. Such an exercise in analytical hair splitting sidesteps DFO’s mandate to protect wild salmon. It also sounds like a tobacco executive arguing that, although more cancers occur in people who smoke than don’t smoke, no individual cancer can be attributed to smoking. While this may be technically correct, the statistics are condemning. Similarly, salmon farming can no longer deny it spreads sea lice to wild stocks.
But the most damning evidence against salmon farming comes from the industry itself — not from what it has done but from what it won’t do.
The Pacific Salmon Forum had asked the salmon farming industry to help in a new scientific study that would examine the correlation between sea lice infections in net-pens and infections in wild stocks. “Much of this project required the assistance and co-operation of the industry,” said Dr. Dill, one of the three scientists attempting the study (Globe & Mail, June 11/07). “We needed to know from them how many fish were in their pens and how much lice they had and how much chemicals they’d been using to treat them.” The industry refused co-operate.
This refusal leads to only one conclusion: the salmon farming industry only wants the evidence that suits its purposes, otherwise it will keep the science as vague as possible by stalling inquiry. “Really,” said Dr. Dill, “the farms don’t want us to find an answer, let’s be honest about that. The answer is one they don’t want to hear” (Ibid.).
Perhaps the study proposed by Dr. Dill and his colleagues would be too illuminating, leaving the salmon farming industry with no hiding in the shadows of uncertainty. Scientists working from hypothesis to a definitive conclusion with the aid of data provided by the salmon farming industry would produce incontrovertible evidence linking fish farms to the spread of sea lice, precisely what the industry does not want. Or, perhaps, Dr. Dill already knows too much. “As a scientist,” he said, “I have absolutely no doubt that the farms are causing a [sea lice] problem. And I think all the scientific data that I’ve seen is virtually unanimous on that point” (Ibid.).
The salmon farming industry has long professed an objective of peaceful co-existence with wild salmon. If it is serious about this objective, it knows what to do. So it should start now, while it still has a reputation worth saving.
The bad news keeps getting worse for the salmon farming industry. It can probably be excused for the skulduggery being revealed at the criminal trial of Liberal aides Dave Basi and Bobby Virk in which a heckler was allegedly paid $100 to disrupt an anti-aquaculture protest in Victoria. Aquaculture didn’t likely expect such devious expressions of loyalty for its generous contributions to Liberal campaigns. Nonetheless, the allegations taint the image of salmon farming, making it seem devious, if not by intention, then at least by association.
The shady dealings revealed through the courts are bad enough. But the worst news comes from two provincial-government funded organizations, the BC Wild Salmon Forum and the Pacific Salmon Forum.
An audit of salmon farming, commissioned by the BC Wild Salmon Forum, gave BC’s industry only 41 out of 80 possible marks when comparing it to the rest of the world’s salmon farming nations (Courier-Islander, June 29/07). Among other failings, the audit faulted BC’s industry — giving it only 1 mark out of 10 — for siting its farms within a kilometre of the mouth of salmon streams. In the Broughton Archipelago, the audit noted that of 25 farms, 16 were located “directly on wild salmon migratory passages to and from the sea.”
The evidence from the Pacific Salmon Forum is more damning. A 2006 report, written for the Forum by Craig Orr of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, cites a “precipitous decline” of pink salmon stocks on BC’s Central Coast near salmon farms, compared to thriving stocks on the North Coast where no salmon farms exist. The report concludes that salmon farms are “the main source of lice on juvenile salmon”, with infections “70 times greater on migrating wild salmon captured within 30 kilometres of farms compared to those captured at a greater distance” (Ibid. July 4/07). The report also found that “90 to 98 per cent of wild salmon captured near fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago each bore at least 6 lice, compared to 0.3 and 3 per cent of fish captured at remote distances...”. These levels of infection can be fatal for young salmonids.
But all this is simply a collation of findings from many scientific studies. What’s new about the report is that it was government funded, confidential and never published — The Vancouver Sun somehow “obtained” a copy. Furthermore, Orr notes difficulties getting the most current studies because the government would not release that research data. This is the kind of secrecy and obstruction that smells of the devious expressions of loyalty suggested in the Basi and Virk affair.
The reputation of salmon farms is not helped when Brian Riddell, a veteran researcher with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, concedes an infection problem when he says that, “There isn’t any question that farms need to be managed for this risk of sea lice” (Ibid.). He acknowledges that individual fish are infected but expresses uncertainty that this could pose a risk to entire populations — as if entire populations are not made up of individual fish. Such an exercise in analytical hair splitting sidesteps DFO’s mandate to protect wild salmon. It also sounds like a tobacco executive arguing that, although more cancers occur in people who smoke than don’t smoke, no individual cancer can be attributed to smoking. While this may be technically correct, the statistics are condemning. Similarly, salmon farming can no longer deny it spreads sea lice to wild stocks.
But the most damning evidence against salmon farming comes from the industry itself — not from what it has done but from what it won’t do.
The Pacific Salmon Forum had asked the salmon farming industry to help in a new scientific study that would examine the correlation between sea lice infections in net-pens and infections in wild stocks. “Much of this project required the assistance and co-operation of the industry,” said Dr. Dill, one of the three scientists attempting the study (Globe & Mail, June 11/07). “We needed to know from them how many fish were in their pens and how much lice they had and how much chemicals they’d been using to treat them.” The industry refused co-operate.
This refusal leads to only one conclusion: the salmon farming industry only wants the evidence that suits its purposes, otherwise it will keep the science as vague as possible by stalling inquiry. “Really,” said Dr. Dill, “the farms don’t want us to find an answer, let’s be honest about that. The answer is one they don’t want to hear” (Ibid.).
Perhaps the study proposed by Dr. Dill and his colleagues would be too illuminating, leaving the salmon farming industry with no hiding in the shadows of uncertainty. Scientists working from hypothesis to a definitive conclusion with the aid of data provided by the salmon farming industry would produce incontrovertible evidence linking fish farms to the spread of sea lice, precisely what the industry does not want. Or, perhaps, Dr. Dill already knows too much. “As a scientist,” he said, “I have absolutely no doubt that the farms are causing a [sea lice] problem. And I think all the scientific data that I’ve seen is virtually unanimous on that point” (Ibid.).
The salmon farming industry has long professed an objective of peaceful co-existence with wild salmon. If it is serious about this objective, it knows what to do. So it should start now, while it still has a reputation worth saving.