Canadian salmon threatened with 'extinction' in ten years

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

This is a mathematical model, but the researchers say they’re looking at a “100% probability”.

Researchers at the University of Edmonton concentrated on British Columbia pink salmon populations. Punches aren’t pulled in this BBC article:

“Using a mathematical model of population growth rates, they show that sea lice from industrial fish farms are reducing the numbers of wild pink salmon - a Pacific salmon species - to the extent that the fish could be locally extinct in eight years or less.

Dr Krkosek (lead researcher) said the population growth rate was "severely depressed".

"It means that the probability of extinction is 100% and the only question is how long it is going to take," he told BBC News.”

The problem is proximity. The salmon farms are described as “havens” for sea lice, and the wild salmon are exposed by swimming near them. Adult fish can tolerate some sea lice, but juveniles are severely affected. Migratory patterns are working against the salmon, because the farms are close to their migration routes.

The idea is to move the fish farms. Dr. Krkosek has a diplomatic streak, apparently, and has a constructive perspective:

"Salmon are considered a natural treasure to Canadians, but salmon farming has a lot of economic opportunity - we really need economic activity to supplement coastal economies where fisheries and other resource centres are not doing as well," he explained.

"So there are economic benefits to having salmon farms, but the way that it is currently being done is very damaging to the environment and there are better ways of doing it."

Which is great science, but in business terms, there’s the matter of paying for it. Fish farms are big money, high maintenance, and they have contracts to consider. It’s not impossible to do, but costs are the inevitable resistance point. There’s not much point in putting financially strapped fish farms into depressed fisheries areas.

The move would have to be phased, after harvest, and to avoid exposing migration routes to further damage.

A further consideration is that sea lice aren’t a good sign in fish farms. No infestation of parasites in any population is a good thing. Commercially, a potential disease spreading organism just isn’t a great idea.

To make things a lot less healthy, some officialdom in Canada don’t buy the data from the research. According to the New York Times:

“But not everyone accepts this view of sea lice. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, a government agency responsible for developing aquaculture while safeguarding wild fish stocks, “no direct cause and effect” has been established between sea lice and salmon mortality. The agency says sea lice prevalence is “a complex ecosystem puzzle” in need of further study.”

Associated Press/Google has another quote from this agency:

"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which regulates salmon farms and is responsible for protecting wild salmon, said the study overstates the risks, which are not consistent with figures for pink salmon returns since 2002, when populations collapsed.

"They are asking us to believe 80 percent mortality is from one source," said Brian Riddell, head of the salmon science branch of the department's Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, B.C. "That's simply unrealistic."

Not wishing to be pedantic, but an 80% mortality rate is an 80% mortality rate.

The problem isn't so much that it’s unrealistic, it’s that 80% of your fish are dead.

It also rather demands identification of any other sources of such a high rate of death in a species. Where are these other sources? What's being done about them?

Unless the Department is in a hurry to have its jurisdiction (and perhaps its credibility) reduced to a goldfish bowl in its head office, someone might like to put some thought into these comments.

I somehow doubt that the Minister’s legislative powers include raising the dead.

The cost to Canada, and BC in particular, could be colossal.