: Well Duh.... Study results on sea lice from fish farms on native salmonids...
04-01-2005, 02:04 AM
Been a way for a while, don't know if anyone caught this story yet. Research that pretty much confirms the influence of fish farms on sea lice occurance on native salmonids... And the usual head-burried-in-the-sand response of the industry... :eek: :tsk_tsk:
I find it interesting the delays in news getting out to the general public, and how slow this stuff is in getting out there... Seem to recall better part of a year ago, this concern was being raised in these circles....
Thanks for bringing this important issue to our attention. The current story link seems to have expired, here is another link to try:
or LISTEN: (npr, a good audio report)
NPR audio report (http://www.npr.org/chrome/icon_listen.gif)
04-01-2005, 10:59 AM
"Clouds of Lice" infected juvenile Wild Salmon "for nearly 19 miles" around a farm that is only 1/8 mile (aprox 800') long. That makes the "Parasitic Footprint" 150 times larger than the farm itself!
150 times? What in the blazes are these people thinking! Where the he** is the government?
Look, 4 years ago posts were being made here (see FFF archives) talking about these same problems. Obviously, no one in the fish farming industry or local governments is doing squat to address this! Imagine the implications and damage that has been done to the Wild Fish stocks, WORLDWIDE, over the last 4 years!!!!!
And the killer here is the fact that, this problem has been around for alot longer than that!
Countless articles have been written, dicussions have ensued, subjects have been tossed back and forth. And people in high places still call it "Fear Mongering"
So I will repeat my stand. The only thing that will bring some change to the, IMHO, "Brutal Assault" on Wild Stocks by Fish Farms, is to STOP purchasing fish products that are Farm Raised! Tell everyone you know, and have them repeat the story to someone else. I have had good luck with this strategy. People get turned off real fast to fish that they might think have had lice on them at some point in the past.
And that brings up the last point, cause its these poor geneticaly modified fish kept stuffed in these cages that suffer the most damage. They don't know any different! Imagine what would happen to someone in any one of these countrys that was found with a couple thousand cats or dogs stuffed into a cage, for any reason! they would be hauled off to jail so fast for animal abuse it would make your head spin!
IMHO there is no difference between the two.
Still say this is what has happened to our Puget Sound Steelhead. But you know certain experts say our smolts migrate out the Strait. Those experts wouldn't say any other thing and don't want to set up a study to find out if our smolts do migrate North before heading out to open ocean. Ever wonder why everything in both BC and Washington sound area below the farms is almost gone as far as steelhead go? :(
04-01-2005, 06:57 PM
Another Yahoo link that lists a bunch of different articles regarding this study, with a few industry articles and responses thrown in to boot...
My guess is they'll study this issue to death, kinda like the value of wild steelhead release, until there aren't any wild fish left to worry about... Of course, they'll then FULLY understand what a big f**k-up the farmed fish were to the coastal systems and wild salmonids, but by then, to late....
04-01-2005, 07:13 PM
Regarding animal abuse. Who are you to speak of this, as a game angler you have no right to point your finger at this issue.
As a game fisher why would Deerhawk have no right to point a finger? I'm a bit confused. Would love to hear more on what you are trying to say.
04-02-2005, 02:06 AM
So lets discuss this topic, I'm game.....
As a responsible Angler, my very basic premise when I am enjoying this sport, and I do LOVE this sport, is to treat each animal with the utmost care and respect.
I practice 100% Catch and Release, in an effort to keep our dwindling fish stocks in check.
I am regularly involved in projects that help promote the natural structure that the fish lives in, stream restoration, clean-up,etc, and continuing education of all individuals that will lend an ear about the SUPREME importance of a balanced and sustainable fishery. If you came to my home state of Oregon, I would be glad to have you come along to some of the most pristine Blue Ribon, 5 Star flyfishing anywhere on this ball we call Earth! I would take you to, and make you understand how important they are! Most of which, I might ad, have been saved from sure destruction by the efforts of myself and other like minded individuals that would think nothing of leaving behind there gear and pick up a shovel or trash bag to spend a day MAKING SURE that these streams and rivers in this already fragile e co-system stay sustainable!
In the past I have asked for representitives of the Fish Farming Industry to step forward on this forum or any other in an effort to see if there might be even ONE that might be doing things right. But so far......SILENCE!
If I even thought that there was one out there I would be glad to give them the benifit of the doubt. But Anders, the truth speaks for it self. These Farm Opperations cause huge ecological problems everywhere they get set-up, THAT is the bottom line!
If you think that catching a Trout with a hook and line is tantamount to animal abuse, then neither I nor anyone else will change your mind about that, but it does make me wonder why you bothered regestering on the Forum, are you not an Angler yourself?
For years these problems have plagued this industry, for years the storys keep comming. When will the ABUSE of these animals for profit STOP. Do you hold the answer Anders? Do you know some responsible Fish Farmers that are doing things right? I am passionate about how I feel in regards to the fish, because quite frankly, the poor bastards need people like me and others here on the Forum to stand up for them. Do you share that same passion, Anders?
I look forward to your response.
I must admit that you have a point: how could a person who tracks down, tricks and captures an animal acuse anyone else of abuse?
Perhaps 'abuse' was not the most succint term to describe Deerhaawk's point, who has no reason to defend his shining record as a proactive environmentally dedicated steward of the resource. His actions speak loudly on his behalf. A more appropriate term would have been "genocide", which more accurately describes a systematic plague-like destruction of one of earth's precious and fragile miracles, our native anadramous salmonids.
I would make two points of my own:
1) No faction of human life cares more deeply for the welfare of fish than the C&R angler, if not for this growing active interest group no one would care but for a few lonely biologists. No one would fight for protective regulations like the WSC, no one would fight for removal of dams, no one would work to raise public awareness, fight to protect habitat, or care enough to stop the problem of fish farming side effects. We are the fish's best friend in the hard reality of our world today.
2) The bottom line is how fish are affected. If we are to be called abusers for a pin prick in the lip in exchange for our intense appreciation and desire to understand a species, then so be it. However if someone next door is eating that same fish dressed and filleted from the market having been caught in a gillnet, they too are abusers to a higher degree as the fish had to give it's life and body tissue for the table.
If a biologist captures and tags a fish with a radio transmitter to study it's movements, then he too must be an abuser. Even though his data has proven to be of immense value in understanding the behavior of the species as a whole.
Those salmon holding boxes in Scandinavian rivers - pure torture. In fact tagging of any species must fall into that category.
For that matter disciplining my dog to stop him from crapping on the living room carpet as a puppy, or ultimately forcing my own children to do their algebra before they went out to play, tears in their eyes as the other kids laughed and rode their bikes. How cruel I am, but this boy is now pulling a 3.8 GPA in college.
The PETA activists are obsessed with the 'pin prick' while they are part of the big societal steamroller that rolls over entire strains of dwindling fish species turning a blind eye to the real causes that affect our fish, like sea lice infestations in the sea. They don't see the forest for the trees when if comes to how fish are affected. These individuals are so lost they only think of individual animals feelings while entire races of these animals perish. Perhaps the right term for this is "hypocrisy".
Deerhaawk has everything to be proud of in terms of his record on behalf of fish, and I know he is just getting revv'ed up. I don't think it matters so much what the little terms are - abuse, genocide, hypocrisy etc. It matters most that he is actively involved, and cares about the species as a whole and is willing to invest time and energy toward their well-being. If everyone were as dedicated as he, the fish would be much, much better off.
Juro - thanks for providing the link to the NPR story. I was fortunate to hear the broadcast coming home the other night. I thought the most compelling evidence of the problem was the capturing of smolts emmigrating out of the river and going past the fish farming operation. The fish captured and examined before the trap had no evidence of these lice. When fish were captured after passing the farming operation approximately 100% of them showed that they had the parasitic lice. Bad news not only for the fish from that stream, but when the congregate with other fish from other rivers in the ocean - then they pass along the lice to these other fish. So it is just not an issue that is limited tp a specific river's fish.
Anders - care to provide more of your opinions, or elaborate a little to your post. From first reading it would seem like you are trolling for conflict, or have another agenda. Why shouldn't Deerhawk be concerned over the issue? He (like the majority of the rest of us) are concerned when there is an issue that can impact wild fish stocks. I may not fish for wild pacific salmonids, but I still value them. If there is a specific issue affecting their ability to survive, then that should be looked at and addressed. Just because we recreationally fish does not mean we cannot offer our opinions on the issue. The money raised from our recreational license fees/fuel taxes/taxes on hunting and fishing gear is what contributes to the managment agencies ability to study these issues.
04-02-2005, 11:58 AM
C'mon Juro, to say that no one cares more han C&R anglers just aint so. The vast majority of anglers (C&R included) don't do squat for fish. There are certainly those that do a lot, and judging from Deerhawk's description of some of his endeavors he does (Thanks DH), but most just talk.
And Anders, assuming you are correct for sake of argument, why wouldn't DH have a right to speak his mind? Do we lose our rights to opine if we are a hypocrite?
Well I respect a good debate as long as it's civil and friendly, and I agree that the vast majority don't (directly) do squat, but please allow me to ask you a question -
who cares more about fish than C&R anglers then?
04-02-2005, 02:18 PM
Well I respect a good debate as long as it's civil and friendly, and I agree that the vast majority don't (directly) do squat, but please allow me to ask you a question -
who cares more about fish than C&R anglers then?
I don't know who cares the most. I don't think it's a question that we can answer. I suppose I'd say the amount a person cares is reflected in the amount they do on behalf of the fish -especially those that could make more money by doing other things. Actually, some of those who care the most in therse parts are (gasp) commercial fisherman. Of course there is the rape-and-pillage variety of com fishers too -just like their are in the rod-n-reel crowd. One of those helped get southeast Alaska as a defacto catch-and-release for steelhead was a commercial fisherman who is directly responsible for the deaths of more salmon, halibut and black cod then most of of us could ever imagine being able to hook.
I can tell you one party who sure doesn't seem to give a damn about fish and that is our federal government. They've been trying hard to promote a steelhead harvest fishery here in southeast Alaska for subsistence and they are using all their (our) abundant resources to do just this. And this is mostly on tiny streams with annual runs on the order of only 50 fish or so. Right now, I can legally go out and snag native fish and the only reportig of the harvest is on the honor system. Of course, if I can't find my snagging gear I could just use a pitchfork to legally spear these fish. The state is resisting but its tough to fight those with all that money and resources. It's all about power and politics.
Thanks for taking my post in the devil's advocate context in which it was made. I've been expecting someone to lay into me about calling poor ol' Deerhawk a hypocrite.
No problem, I hope this debate is not taken out of the friendly point-counter-point context it is intended to be kept to; in fact your replies only confirms that we are just people who care (all of us in this thread).
However, I must point out in the spirit of debate that you did not answer my question and I remain quite convinced that if not for the C&R angler there would be no meaningful assembly of humans who give a damn about the preservation of gamefish species.
Percentages of those who participate? Agreed, it's shamefully low.
Luckily there are people like Deerhaawk who are not in that silent majority.
04-03-2005, 01:09 AM
In natural resources economics, the plight of natural resources, publically owned such as wild (and hatchery) salmonids, is called the "tragedy of the commons." Everyone, and at the same time no one, owns them, and thus everyone, and no one, is a caretaker for them. What does that mean? When you ask the average "Joe" or "Jane" on the street, do you care about the plight of native/wild salmon, the majority, usually a strong majority, will say yes - they don't want them to go extinct, they want healthy runs for their children's children, etc. But when you ask them what THEY are doing for the health and long term longevity of those same fish - blank stare... "but they're not MY fish, I don't have a personal stake in their existence, that's somebody elses/the government/the fisherman/woman's responsibility..." Or "Saving the salmon and steelhead by removing the Columbia River dams would kill me w/ the increased cost of electricity - I can't have that! There must be another way (hatcheries any one???)".
It's human nature to fail to take action, or interest, until something affects you personally. Whether it be in the pocket book, your living/working conditions, or, as pretty much everyone who is a part of this forum, the ability to enjoy the natural world and all its parts, whether that be the mountain vistas, wild elk and deer, waterfowl, the wild fish in our streams, etc. Every significant human action, whether it be the union movement of labor against management, revolutions of citizens against tyrannic governments, or the long history of sportsman/women conservationists ponying up in $$ and sweat equity to challenge threats to the wild places and wild things we hold near and dear to our hearts - those actions came about because individuals, and groups of like-minded individuals, were adversely affected to the point that they needed to take action. The unfortunate thing about public resources, including our native fish, its seems that it takes the 10th or 11th hour to get enough people concerned to make a difference. That's not to say people weren't concerned earlier. There are many who were blowing the wistle on the travesty of what was happening to our wild salmon and steelhead stocks DECADES ago! But not enough people were personnally affected that resulted in effective action. The common example I come back to is waterfowl - it wasn't until the market gunning, loss of habitat, etc. that finally wiped waterfowl populations so low, that so many avid hunters finally stopped and took notice, that action in the form of federal laws and development of conservation organizations finally came about. I'm not terribly familiar with either species, but it seems to me similar things can be said about striped bass and redfish on the east coast. Certainly the same is being said for the west coast salmonids now. The actions and activities of concerned fisherman and women are louder now than at any time in the past 50 years. Let's hope its not to late... And, incidently, that's why its the hunters and fishermen/women that are the first to step up and take notice, and take action. We recongnize the direct effects first...
I aplaud folks like Deerhawk, who invest many hours of personal time, and many dollars, in "giving back" to a public resource, that at once he does, and doesn't own. I do the same, and have the opportunity to work with dozens of similarly minded folks volunteering to enhance wildlife habitat, at a great personal expense and sacrifice to themselves. All because they CARE....
In response to Pescaphile's comment about the Federal Government "not giving a damn", I have to take some exception to that remark. For two reasons - First, I am the federal government - as a federal employee of a large land management agency, I am the face and action of the Federal Government. And I stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the most active and passionate conservationists on this planet. People that live, breathe and sleep natural resources, including the wild salmon and steelhead all of us cherish. And these individuals do it because they care about the public's resources, and have a strong desire to provide the public with the resources that they desire. And given the current environment of general fed bashing that seems rather prevalant these days, I can speak from first hand experience that your pretty much have to love natural resources to put up with it!! :Eyecrazy: And second - Not only am I the Federal Government, so are you! Every citizen of the United States of America is the Federal Government. YOU elect the congressmen and representatives and presidents. YOU pay your taxes that goes into (or DOESN'T go into) the programs that manage natural resources, dependent upon the elected officials YOU elected. YOU write/don't write your elected officials and tell them what you do and don't want from your natural resources. And through those avenues, YOU direct/don't direct the actions of the Federal Government, and all YOUR employees in the management of your cherished natural resources.
Is that to say the Federal Government's perfect? Hell no! There are many a decision made by the agency of my employment that I can only scratch my head and wonder "what the Hell were they thinking?!?!" :Eyecrazy: :eek: But those decisions, those programs, those activities were funded and implemented because someone, in the general public, wanted them. And they spoke up for them. Hydroelectric power? Cheap timber off the Tongass? Oil platforms in the ANWR? Cows on the range? Cyanide strip mine in a bull trout watershed? Commercial access to wild fisheries? Someone in the US wanted access to that resource, and voted accordingly, and contributed $$'s accordingly, to get that response. Yet another part of the "Tragedy of the Commons" - everyone wants everything from every natural resource, and it simply cannot be provided, especially with the ever burgeoning human population...
Pescaphile - take no personal offense to your comment, there's many a time I share a similar view point. But pointing the finger at a nameless and faceless Federal Government won't change anything. I hope you are taking the opportunity to participate as a part of that Federal Government, as that is the only way change will come in that realm...
Finally - and sorry for this overly long-winded response - the comment that got this whole discussion started - Anders' comment in regards to animal abuse and the hypocritical context of a fisherman "calling the kettle black". To me, Anders' response to Deerhawk's rant is comparing apples to oranges. And it comes down to the resource at hand - wild versus farm raised. In my mind, and I think this is where Deerhawk was coming from, there is a VERY distinct difference between the packaged "salmon"/elk steak/pheasant/venison that I may buy wrapped in celophane at a super market or order at a restaurant; and the WILD salmon/elk/pheasant/venison that I took part in the killing, processing, and consuming (or in the case of C&R, caught and released). Its the difference between an animal's/fish's life spent in a cage/fenced enclosure/warehouse, being fed processed food/hormones/antibiotics, killed by an unknown individual, removed of blood and guts and gore, placed in plastic wrap or on a plate, and served to me with out any appreciation for where it came from or how it lived; and an animal/fish that lived its existence in the wild, free of enclosures and control, eating "natural" things (until it hits my traditional spey fly.... :lildevl: ), and me taking direct responsibility for its death, demise, and my consumption (or in C&R - release). Its about quality of life. Life is violent - Death happens, regularly. I, for one, choose to be an active participant in that process, and prefer to take part in an animals life and death, that had the opportunity to live as it's species has evolved to live - not in a cage or pen...
Some one PLEASE knock the soap box from underneath my feet before I rant again!!!! :rolleyes: :chuckle:
04-03-2005, 01:42 AM
04-03-2005, 03:19 AM
Every time there is a thread like this, fish farm problems, pollution + fish, dams + fish, irrigation rites + fish, etc, etc. I am reminded of the old Native American tale, repeated for those who have not heard it before;
After the Great Spirit created Man, He gathered all the other Animals he had created together and said, "Look at this which I have created!" Then He turned to all the Animals and said, "Who among you will help sustain that which I have created"?... And the first one to step forward..... was Slamon!
Its time to return the favor!
And thats what It's all about.... for me and many many other like minded individuals here on the Forum, we are returning the favor, taking care of the resource that we have been entrusted with, so that generations in the future, when they look fondly at pictures of us in our "Haydays" as Anglers, they can visit the same Streams and Rivers that we walked, and the water will be clear, and when they pick up a fly rod and make that cast , the Fish will still be there!
Be passionate about your Sport
Take care of the resource
Pass on that passion and knowledge, just like those that bothered to pass it on to us.
SO easy ;) , NOT rocket science :tsk_tsk:
I was studying tonight for another storyline. I came across these stats:
Pre-European runs of Salmon on the Columbia River were on the order of 10-16 million fish, all Wild I might add. Runs in the Pugeot Sound were 4 - 6 times that number! Now barley 2 million fish return to the Columbia, with 70% being Hatchery fish. The Sound has seen a 90% drop in runs. Out of an estimated 500 species that once roamed the waters, 200 are gone, never to return. Many of the rest are in various stages of decline. (from Trout and Salmon of North America by Robert Behnke / Joseph Tomelleri) There are similar storys all around the world.
Anders, I know that you have been following this post. I hope that this gives you a better picture of us as a group, and of us as individuals. I invite you to "Help" the fish!
Pescaphile, EASY on that "Poor Ol' Deerhawk" stuff.....I got $6 bucks 'n change, and I aint that old.....yet! :chuckle:
Feiger, Juro, OC, Pete, Pescaphile, Anders; Thanks, we need more dialog like this
04-03-2005, 03:26 AM
By the way, That's Salmon, not Slamon :eek: :whoa: :roll:
04-03-2005, 04:16 PM
I guess I misread your question as "who cares the most" rather than "who cares more than C&R anglers." Regardless of which question is asked, the answer isn't one that can be definitivly answered -who's to say what constitutes caring? It certainly manifests itself differently in different people. I think most would agree that eco-terrorists actions are perverted though I don't think one could say they don't care.
In an attempt to anwer you directly, I'd say those that care more about fish are those who do something on the behalf of fish. These folks come from a wide range of groups, eg, tribes, commercial fisherman, conservation groups, scientists, and yes sport anglers too. People can debate what is best or even whether a certain practice is even good at all, but they're all doing something. By your own admission, the fraction of C&R anglers that actually do something is "shamelessly low." Given this, I'd say those that do something for fish care more. But who's to say? What does it mean to care in the first place?
I can show you a couple small tributaries where C&R anglers pursue steelhead in these parts. These are spawning areas and those anglers are pounding these poor fish on the redds. Many of them have guides. I'm sure many have seen the video of the infamous angler with the fly named after him pounding some poor fish with cast after cast until the fish finally is hooked. What a wonderful thing to teach anglers! (sarcasm intended).
Don't misunderstand me. I'm certainly pro C&R and think in balance we ahve a positive influence. My point is only that the vast majority of us don't do anything directly to aid the fish.
Feiger -my post was made with a brush about as broad as the Pacific. And most of it was made in my exasperation with the federal resource managers here who seem hell bent to expand the killing of small runs native steelhead in small streams. One of the leaders of that program here has been arrested twice for poaching and the last time a small stream here was closed to fishing due to a poor return, this steward was out there as soon trying to fill his cooler with sockeye as he got wind of the stream would be closed in two days -I'm definitely not referring to a faceless federal govt here. Of course I realize this individual is the exception. I just wish some people could be fired from the feds -something that seems impossible. As I said its aout power and politics, I don't see any way this particular program could be seen in a pro-fish light.
The driving issue for statehood for Alaska was to get local (state) management of fish and game. I remember my dad talking about how the King Crab in Kachemak Bay were wiped out in three seasons under federal management in the 50s. They still haven't recovered. I don't think we'll be seeing fish traps at the mouths of salmon streams like there used to be then, but the feds are wrestling control from the state through the subsistence issue. I hope for the best and do what I can, but it's discouraging at times.
I have no doubt you're working to do beneficial things as are most. Sorry if you got a little bit of paint from my overly broad brush.
OC - I suspect you may be on to something -certainly in part. Hopefully, someone will take a good objective look at your hypothesis to see for sure.
Deerhaawk - That comment was meant to sympathize with ya for being drug into this whole mess by Anders (where'd he go anyway?) and having me insinuate you're a hypocrite with my devil's advocate questions. Six bucks eh? You're definitely buying should we ever get the chance to meet and talk fish... Just no "hardhat beer" okay? ;)
04-03-2005, 06:33 PM
Wow! Quite a respons! :)
I myself is a game angler, and coud not agree more; fish frams is a threat to the environment they are kept in. They`re a plauge.
DH: Animal abuse was probobly a strong word to use, talking about C&R. I just wanted to remind you about the opposition, the radicals. The ones that mean C&R is animal abuse. Because some people think it is. Our opposition is growing. During last winter the government in Norway made a proposal to make c&r in put&take ponds illegal. I myself do not Think of it as animal abuse, but i am avare that many people don`t understand why we catch fish an then releas it, and that i have fun getting trout to take my dry fly, playing it and then releas it. What i am trying to say: I would not like it if somone sat a hook in my mout, played me and then relased me, just to do it al over.... :)
It is sad that money is the only thing that matters. There is a great deal that could bee done to reduce damage done by fish farms, but that cost`s money. We would manage with out fish farms, but there is a great deal of money in it. (Beside oil, export of salmon (from fish farms) is a large income for Norway).
I just wish that someone could sodd the money, and think about the environment for once.
(Sorry if my english is bad. Crap english is better than norwegian, at least for you guys) :)
04-03-2005, 08:53 PM
Anders, your english is just fine. Glad to have you here on the Forum. Looking forward to your input, and a Norwegian perspective!