Salmon "ranching" Tom fletcher Sockeye and the sazukki foundation.

Do you have a link?

It's the "Suzuki" Foundation. Check his site for background.

"Salmon ranching" does not refer to the release of hatchery-raised fry, a practise that has been widespread for decades and aims to boost wild stocks (it should not be necessary, but has become so).

"Salmon ranching" refers to fish farming, which involves raising salmon in enclosed nets or tanks just off shore, feeding them with the byproducts of other fish, and dealing with the sea lice caused by unnatural crowding by using medication. All of the byproducts of these wind up in BC's coastal waters.

In addition, many of the salmon raised are not one of the five native species; often they are Atlantic salmon and they are escaping into the wild (generally when seals rip open the nets containing the farmed salmon); this is raising huge concerns about the genetic integrity and survival of BC's wild salmon stocks. Destruction of spawning beds by logging debris and logging- assisted landslides has been a massive contributor to the degradation of wild stocks, which led to the growth of the farmed-fish industry in the first place.The impact of small scale Native and non-Native fisheries, the commercial fishery, and American fisheries on wild stocks have been hotly debated in BC for decades, often with very racist accusations in tow.

I have no idea who Fletcher is, and also haven't the time to back all this up with links at the mo. Suffice to say that the industry is very controversial, and exists because of continued public demand for salmon, plus the subsidies available to said industry, at a time when wild salmon stocks are falling off a cliff.

Salmon ranching is the practise of raising fish in a hatchery and releasing them into the wild.  Apparently, BC releases some hundreds of millions but Alaska, Russia and Japan release billions of fish.  The theory is that these fish are putting too much stress on the feeding grounds and the true wild fish can't find enough to eat.

Salmon Ranching

Incidentally, I dropped in at a wildlife centre on the sunshine coast this summer.  The university student who was running the place told me that hatcheries can damage biodiversity because they tend to operate on a limited gene pool.

I'm from BC and I've never heard "salmon ranching" refer to hatchery fry released into the wild. I have heard of it applied to salmon farming. Either way, they are two different but arguably related things. And I agree totally that hatcheries are not an ideal or even good set up; I've no doubt that there could be a bio diversity impact given that they're using eggs taken from a smaller number of fish than would be propagating in the wild.... could that "wild" support them as well as it did before non-Aboriginal humans and our industrial logging came along. The trouble is, wild salmon might have gone extinct by now without them, given the utterly massive watershed damage and decline of small scale commercial fisheries that took place in the 60's through the 90's and beyond.

"Salmon ranching" appears to be an American term, for the most part.... almost all the links I found touched on Alaska.

Also, the "ranching" seems to focus on release of smolt. I believe many BC hatcheries release fry, which are very young fish. Smolt can take 1-3 years to reach the stage where they will journey to salt water (I don't have the details for different species).

Wow.  I was wondering about the 'wild pacific salmon' I buy at Safeway.  I would be interested in finding out more about what is happening in Alaska, especially around the issues of the maturity of the fish when released.  I always thought Alaska did so well because they protected their rivers.

I am pretty sure that the ranching he refers to is not about farming the  fish to maturity like fish farming. 

The fish get released into the sea. 

Perhaps it is at a much later stage in the lifecycle than the typical BC release? 

I do not know.   

Fletcher seems to be fighting the corner of the farmed fish in BC. 

He has sarchastic remarks about sazuki and morton overblowing the pesticide risks, etc from farmed salmon.

I am sorry I do not have a link, I looked at black press online but could not find it.

I checked out fletcher too.  But the article has not showed up in my search. It was in the wednsday edition.

(I used to like fletcher's articles). But lately he seems to have gone outside his area of knowelege (he is their ledge reporter and did a good job of it in my opinion).

I am still not sure what "salmon ranching" is.   When the guys put the salmon in the cage for a week to get them used to the salt water, there was lots of birds around in anticipation of a snack.  Seegull and herons.  (Herons do not usually tollerate each other but we counted 12 on about 200 m of beach at that time). And no doubt there were otters and seals waiting around too.   It may not be salmon ranching but I think it has implications for genetic diversity too.

And how will these baby salmon ever find their rivers where they were spawned?

They got milked from their mums and went into a hatchery. Then they got relocated at least 2wice before release.

But what else is to be done? If they leave it up to the DFO, the salmon in BC  will all be gone in a few years.

Anyway, I know almost nothing about this so I await further explanation.

Brian

Here's another link re: salmon ranching.

As much as I hate to admit it, the fish farm people may have a point.  Dumping a whole lot of extra fish into the ocean is probably going to have a negative effect on the ecosystem.  Why can't people leave nature the hell alone - at least until they know what they're doing?

Thats exactly what they are doing just down the road from saanichton.  Probably on a much smaller scale.

It is called ranching in the usa. What is it called here?

Did anyone find a link to fletcher's article or  discover more about Vivian Krause? 

Thank you

I think salmon farmers who introduced atlantic salmon here with all their diseases are not on the side of the environment. Morton has already won a case that said that farming in the sea is illegal or something close to illegal.  Focus mag also noted that they are not allowed to shine lights in the ocean but that they do it as a matter of practice. (The lights attract wild salmon closer (as does the smell of the food).

Brian

"The former corporate development manager for Nutreco North America has been asking some pointed questions about the anti-fish farming lobby out west.Thus far, she's not getting many answers from such lead anti-fish farm zealots as the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF).

Of course, a lot of people might question Krause's impartiality on the issue, she once being in the employ of the former fish farming behemoth turned feed producer.But it's not Krause's impartiality that's on trial this time around." Now we get it! just a couple of years ago she was a higher up in the atlantic salmon farming business.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/69229517.html is the tom fletcher article that I mentioned at the start.

http://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/ [11] shows that it is a major marketing attack by the atlantic farmed fish boys.  "Today, Canadian journalist Tom Fletcher has released an article in OVER 70 NEWSPAPERS which describes the clever (and quite possibly illegal) marketing of U.S. salmon. "

Do not be fooled by their rubbish. 

I wonder how the boys just down the road from saanichton feel now!  They thought they were helping the pacific salmon survive.  Actually they are "ranching" the salmon. 300, 000 of those damn ranched salmon!  I could almost hear them moo!

  Bunch of sneaky bastards. Ship them off to america.  Deport the fuckers.

 We dont want no salmon ranching here, no sur ee.

I wondor how many other small "ranching' opperations there are up and down the coast naievely trying to help the pacific salmon survive?

In bowker creek in victoria, they do cleanup campaigns to make the creek a bit more habitable so that maybe it can become a salmon river again.

I guess the salmon farmers will think up some catchphrase to discredit that too?

What an absolute crock of shit fletcher is contributing to.  Who is paying for HIS campaign?   Seems that alaska has banned atlantic salmon for many years and the fish farm boys are keen to discredit them because they are losing the marketing war.

Morton says that the fraizer river salmon get killed off as they migrate past salmon farms and other salmon rivers in BC  are doing just fine! No missing fish at all.  The fletcher group are saying that the alaskan salmon are eating  or outcompeteing the bc salmon.  Do they really travel that far?  And why are they only outcompeteing specific salmon that return to specific rivers?

Mortons stuff is mentioned is in focus magazine and you can download it in pdf form.

Even as harper is launching a review of the missing wild salmon, the bc salmon farmers are launching a sneer campaign to counteract it.

Lets head off those rotten sneaky scum before this gets any further.  If we let them get away with it, the whales will starve, they eat wild and "ranched" salmon and the bears will starve. They eat wild and "ranched" salmon and the eagles and seaguls will starve too.

They eat? you guessed it. Wild and "ranched" salmon too.    Krause has one lovely line to give credit to the farmed salmon.  It has only 1/3 of the  permitted levels of pcb's in it!   Good job PCB's are so easliy excreted by the human body, eh?

  They are, arn't they?

Brian

Farmed salmon get antibiotics, don't they?

From MsMorton's desk:

The Terms of the Judicial Inquiry called by Prime Minister Stephen Harper into the demise of the Fraser sockeye are both sweeping and specific enough to get to the bottom of what happened to the Fraser sockeye and recommend the changes to how Fisheries and Oceans Canada is run to benefit all wild fish in Canada. We have made HUGE progress!

I posted a link to the Terms on my blog http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/ [14]

This means we are no longer on the outside but we cannot abandon this process, we cannot rest assured it will do what we want if we don't stay with it. Please make your concerns known to me and the Inquiry.

This Inquiry will take 2 years and in the meantime we still need to push as hard as we can to get the Fisheries Act applied to the fish farms right now.  The recent revelations around the farm salmon escape at Port Elizabeth highlight the importance of this (see most recent blog post).

So I have embedded a flyer on my blog that you can download and post.  We need to see the Fisheries Act applied ASAP. I will continue to lay charges under the Fisheries Act with your financial help, but this is a stop gap effort. The government should be doing this not us!  We need 100,000 signatures on our letter at http://www.adopt-a-fry.org/ [15]

Next week is a Global Week of Action on salmon farms http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=167112434482&ref=ts... [16]

Please view the film trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eggrGn0V0fg [17]

The entire film will be posted in a week.  If you would like to get a CD of this film to set up a viewing please contact the filmmaker Damien Gillis damien@slingshotcommunications.com [18]. If you are in Vancouver there will be a showing at:

Date: Thursday, November
Time: 7-9 PM
Location: SFU Segal Centre  - Room 1500-500 Granville St. (Downtown Vancouver - Granville & Pender)
Cost: $10 for Public / $5 for Students & Seniors

For more information on the global issues with salmon farms: http://www.farmedsalmonexposed.org/ [19]

Thank you all for staying with this..... We are in the homestretch!

Remind, what do you think of the fletcher article?  In my opinion, those guys up near saanichton are doing a smaller version of what they are doing in alaska,

They are helping the salmon survive. They take salmon male and female (I think from the cowachan river) strip them of eggs and fertalize them and breed them in a hatchery. Then they bring them to the sea and release them.

What other option is there?   There was a big diesol polution incident somewhere on the cowachan river last year and as we all know there are more and more people up there. Salmon do no like the smell of people or poop and asphalt and the runoff from curing concrete.  And silt from clearcuts blocks their spawning grounds too.

Fletcher is makeing a very direct attack on people that are trying to help the pacific salmon through this period of their existance,

He isn't just attacking the alaskans. He is attacking people here too.,

They are doing their best. He is just doing a propaganda job for his masters.

I think we need to counteract it and fast.

Set up a screening in your community of the film Morton talks about above...get ahold of Denise and see if she would like to get on board...

actually get a hold Alexandra herself....and ask her her blog link is above...

personally  am going to speak with some other eco-feminists here and see if we can't get a screening of it up here at the headwaters, maybe we can build a movement this time from the head down.

 tried a few years back, but could net get buy in from people at the coast...and nowadays there are way more environmentalists around here, we even have a couple of straw bale homes these days.

Brian, I think you may be oversimplifying.  Where hatcheries are used to restore and/or maintain populations while habitats are being restored and where hatcheries are run in a manner consonant with producing virbrant, viable populations, that's great.

Where hatcheries are used to maintain populations in place of habitat restorations mainly for economic reasons, that's less great.  And it's ultimately a losing battle.

If hatcheries are being used simply for economic stimulation without proper regard for the environmental supportability of the resulting populations, that's bad.  I understand that BC hatcheries release in the order of half a billion fry/smolt annually.  Alaska releaseses 1.5 billion and Japan 2 billion.  I haven't been able to discover what (if any) science is behind those numbers.  Are the numbers related to the ocean carrying capacity or is this just a way for the interested parties to pump up their share of the returning salmon.  Does anyone even understand the net impact of dumping all those salmon?

I understand that the fish farms are pointing the fingers at the "ranches" as a way of taking the heat off themselves but that doesn't necessarily mean that hatcheries are good for salmon.

Let's hope the judicial inquiry can shed some light on this issue and the fish farm problems.  Here are some links:

Salmon ranching examined

Salmon hatcheries can deplete wild stocks. [23]

Risks to wild salmon from hatchery stocks [24]

Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program Summary [25]

With respect to the Saanichton hatchery, maybe we should go down and ask them what they're doing and how it works with the natural environment.  Do you know if they do tours?

How many young salmon used to reach the sea before mankind stopped them spawning?

They do not hatch the salmon in saanichton. It is upisland somewhere. Then they bring them down in tanks and release them just down the road from saanichton.

I grew up near an atlantic salmon river in ireland. There used to be salmon, brown trout and river lamprey coming up and breeding beside the farm. There were many eels too.  The lampreys were the most interesting creatures.  No attempt was ever made to do a hatchery.  Now all the salmon, all the lampreys and all the brown trout are gone. (There are rainbow trout in the river  because they illegally put in a fish farm beside the river). I thik the salmon were already gone by then.  And that is the way of it. Once humans start to live in greater numbers by the rivers the fish start to go.

  So if you want salmon to continue, you have to help them out. 

Habitat restoration is never going to happen quick enough or widespread enough.  Thank you ReeferMadness for the half billion number.  Is there a number for the former productivity of the salmon rivers of BC? How many fry/smolt were making it to the sea and how many are making it now?  Just on the fraizer, there are what? 10 million? adult salmon missing that would have gone up and spawned.  I hope nobody is telling me that they would only have produced 10 million fry? that would then go down to the sea. They would have produced a lot more than 10 million.

It is way too late to become a hands off environmentalist and let Gods will be done.  Nobody has any hope of saving the salmon without hatchery stock.

By all means regulate the numbers and try to select randomly for adult salmon and try to make the hatcherys more natural.

But you aint going to save the pacific salmon if you do not help them breed.

well why are they not breeding atlantic salmon over in  atlantic  feeding streams and rivers?

I agree brian,

start screening the movie trailer linked to above and get some orgs on board...to show it to the broader community

Brian, I agree that hatcheries have a role to play in maintaining the salmon populations and will continue to have one for the forseeable future.  But hatcheries alone won't save the salmon - habitat preservation and restoration are essential.   Also, hatchery salmon have the potential to harm true wild salmon stocks with which they compete.  The real question is whether we have enough science behind us to understand what we're doing.

If BC salmon are competing with Alaskan and Russian salmon for food in the open ocean, then hatchery programs should be subject to international cooperation.

I certainly hope the inquiry produces answers.

Another video.  SFU behavioral ecologist Larry Dill talks about the risks posed to salmon by sea lice and the failures of DFO in how they've dealt with the threat. 

Note that he says the science isn't complete.

Science is never complete.  In a thousand years, it will still not be complete. 

Scientists depend for their livelyhood on it not being complete.

So when they say it is not compelete it is a political and economic statement and a competitive plea for more money for HIS branch of science.

You just have to take the science that he gives you as the best you have at the moment because there is no gaurantee that his branch will get extra money.

I agree that we can't wait for perfect information.  Personally, when I can't gather enough information to feel comfortable, I try to act in a way that leaves the most options open for the future when I have better understanding.  That's a lot like the precautionary principle.

Applying that to our salmon situation would mean moving fish farms to closed containment and avoiding releasing salmon in areas where there are already viable wild populations.  The key, however, is still habitat restoration and preservation.

I don't understand your justification for impugning Dr. Dill's motives.  Have you watched the video?

I did not watch the video and I am not impunging his motives. 

I was just stating a fact. 

  I see the salmon farmers  have already successfully moved the battleground  in your head.  Now the number 1 is no longer the clear. "Close the atlantic salmon farms" .

Now it is "get more evidence", '

"Put less baby pacific salmon in the sea!" and

"clean up the salmon farms" when the science becomes overwhelming

(i.e. when the only pacific salmon that are left breed in alaskan and washington waters). 

Fletcher released his article in  OVER 70 NEWSPAPERS ACROSS CANADA, atlantic salmon farmers are OVER THE MOON about it.

And it would be interesting to find out if there were deeper connections between fletcher and the marketing dept. of the atlantic fish farms.

It is an ATTACK AD on any wild pacific salmon that get caught anywhere from alaska to the washington coast.

Nobody can tell a hatchery bred wild salmon from a run of the river wild salmon, can they?

The salmon farmers are at war with the wild salmon.  Every wild salmon that ends up on your table is fewer dollars in their pockets.

If they can get the half billion fry that hatcherys release in BC stopped, it is one step closer to eliminating the competition.

Be careful that they do not suck you in any further.

Brian, you referred to saying the science is incomplete as "a political and economic statement and a competitive plea for more money for HIS branch of science."  How can that not be read as impugning his motives?

I agree with you that fish farmers and their supporters are using this as a way of diverting attention from themselves; but that doesn't make it a non-issue.  And it isn't just the half billion smolts we release, there's a billion and a half released by Alaska.  Plus the ones released by Russia.  When fish go to the ocean to feed, they don't respect borders.

Finally, it isn't just Fletcher that questions whether hatcheries are hurting wild salmon.  Read the links I posted.

No, ALL scientists try to divert funds to THEIR area of research. If it was a landmine researcher (trying to make more effective landmines) he would say exactly the same thing. It is competitive and there is not enough money to fund everyone.

Any scientist saying, we need more research is really saying "we would welcome another contract and more funding". He is saying it to you (and indirectly to his political masters through you).

It is just the nature of their business. A quiet scientist will go hungry.

Imagine engineers and scientist making a bridge. 

The scientist are so concerned with getting it right that they just research, research, research.

The engineers just build the damn bridge based on the information (and money) they already have.  

We need more research but we need to make decisions right now. We need to be engineers (not scientists afraid to move in case their shadow moves too).

Also, a little reality check for people.  The  researchers claim that fishing is removing the top carnivore fish from the food chain.  Remember those claims?

They are not going to suddenly breed faster to counteract their removal. (We know that because we are destroying their spawning grounds more every year).

But half a billion fry from hatcherys may make a  bit of a difference.

Basically on this issue,  you need to choose a side. You are on the side of the atlantic salmon farmers or you are on the side of the pacific salmon in the ocean.

Yup!!!!!

Call to action:

"Salmon raised in open net fish farms pose dramatic
problems for the environment and public health -- but
it doesn't have to be so, if the aquaculture industry
were to adopt strong protections on salmon farms.


The waste from millions of captive fish at fish farms
empties directly into the ocean, polluting the water
with untreated sewage, toxic chemicals and other
wastes.

Additionally, captive farmed salmon make ideal hosts
for highly contagious diseases and parasites; escapees
compete with and threaten wild salmon in British
Columbia and Europe's wild Atlantic salmon and sea
trout.

Two companies -- Marine Harvest and Cermaq -- are the
world's largest salmon producers, with open net cage
operations in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Chile and
Canada. As a citizen, your voice matters most! Tell
Marine Harvest and Cermaq  to clean up their act in
Canada!"

http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFr2p/zJ.v/bAdK6

That sounds an awful lot like George Bush when he said "You're with us or you're with the terrorists".

In this case, I'm not with the the salmon farmers.  I'm all for wild pacific salmon but I'm not sure that hatcheries are helping more than they are hurting.

Also, as I said earlier, it's not just the half billion fry/smolts released in BC.  There's also the four and a half billion (or so) released by Alaska, Russia and others.

Reefer, am sorry, just do not get your point of that, even though you are saying it repeatedly. What does it mean to you?

as this is how I see it:

Those Alaskan, Japanese, and Russian salmon never spawn back down here, if we do not keep the numbers up that spawn back here, there won't be any spawning back here.

Fraser River and  VIsland River salmon, have just as much of a chance competing for the food sources, as do the other salmon who never venture down this way.

It is not like the other country's salmon form ocean gangs, based upon country of origin, to keep those pesky Canadian salmon from eating.

remind, releasing too many hatchery fish has the potential to damage the real wild fish in many ways.  They compete for food in the streams on the way to the ocean.  They compete for food in the ocean.  They can interbreed and weaken the gene pool.  Read the links.

The reference to hatchery fish from Alaska, Russia, Japan and elsewhere reflects the reality that there is only one ocean and we share it.  Their hatcheries release fish that compete with our fish for food. From what I've read, there isn't a lot of consideration for the ocean's carrying capacity when it comes to figuring out how many fish to release.  It seems to be based on maximizing the economic return.  I thought that was how we lost the cod fishery on the east coast.

If there are too many fish chasing too little food, that could be part of the reason that we are seeing lower returns.  In fact, I would say the worst case scenario would be that too many fish are released, causing a collapse in krill.  If that were to happen, releasing more hatchery fish would just make the problem worse.

There are so many variables that affect the salmon population and the salmon population is one variable itself that affects the biosphere.  We need to learn to be more careful in what actions we take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon

This not my first time at this dance reefer...hatchery fish that are released elsewhere into the ocean do not compete in any streams with any other fry, as they are released "into the ocean."

With salmon spawning down to 3% in some rivers I do not think there is a problem with competing for food stocks, unless the food stocks are diminishhing themselves.

The salmon stocks in Alaska are doing just fine....and they have aggressive hatchery programs...the difference is IMV, and amongst many others, is because they do not allow  fish farms in  wild salmon waters....

This is a thought terminating cliche actually... the scientific numbers on declining fish stocks show that the carrying  capicity of the oceans is for more than there currently are.

Do you have any evidence that krill stocks are collapsing, for example?

Moton fought to get this inquiry so we can find out what is happening and really there is no point in stating anything to much definitively

But I will say fish  hatcheries managed the fish stocks quite fine, until we got a neo-Liberal government that  has allowed for these huge polluting fish farms to expand.

all of a sudden now for some reason, 40 years or so after hatcheries have been proven successful and we have fish farm lobby interests going on they are not "sustainable".

Just a note that Fletcher continues his Attack Adverts  for the fish farms today in the victoria news. (If I find links, I will post them).

Presumably these Attack ads are sindicated across Canada again this week.

He trys especially to discredit Morton today.  

corporate interests  brook no dissenters, the fight coming is not going to be pretty

Don't released salmon return to rivers and spawn?  If so why are they not real Pacific Salmon?

It is unsure which rivers they return to and they probably find the rivers with greater difficulty than the salmon that grew up in those rivers. (Except for fraser river salmon)   8 million or so of them got lost.   The fraser river probably smells like crap to the returning salmon but even so 8 million is a lot of missing spawn and milt.

Morten says it is because the fry migrate past some salmon farms on their way to the sea and get picked by sealice on the way. And you got to imagine what a salmon farm smells like to a hungry fish. It smells like food! So they swim straight into the awaiting lice plague.The lice latch on and kill them off over the next few days or weeks. Even if a louse does not kill, it slows the fish down.

The fish farms are even lighted to guide them closer. (It is ILLEGAL to have the lights on but it is a regulation that has been ignored and uninforced for years).

You can read about the lights and other salmon issues in focus magazine online.

The LAW IS THE LAW (but only if it is inforced).

This is a tangential comment, but heard a quick news clip last evening, and have been trying to find something on it all morning but can't, about penguins committing what the scientists studying them believe is suicide.

Apparently, the lone penguins, who are not mated, are  walking away from feeding grounds, and even if brought back to the feeding grounds they will turn around and leave again.

The report said scientists believe this is something to do with global warming and lack of food supply, and a triggering of species self-preservation instincts.

Have you heard anything about it Brian?

I have not heard of it.

I can imagine the salmon turning away from the Fraser river if it is too smelly and polluted.  

A few months ago the scientists were concerned here about the killer whales having peanut heads (from starving) because there were no adult salmon for them to eat.   I have not heard more about this and I do not know if they eat sockeye  or other species of salmon.

Mortons theory would best explain it, I think. The baby salmon make it as far as the fish farms and get wiped out. Thus, no adult salmon to feed the whales near Victoria or to return to the Fraser river.

Hmmm....I think there is a bunch of stuff going on, and am not sure if it is one thing in specific, though I do believe Morton is correct about the salmon farms being the largest contributor.

Seal populations, krill havesting for pet food, nasty pollution of the Fraser an the warmer temp of it, I think also play a part...as well perhaps as the coral reef die offs and the deed zone of the ocean along the coast of Washington state.

going to keep looking for that info on penguins