Fish Farm Diseases Caught by Wild Salmon - IHN, 2001 to 2003

Here is a report that should be read: http://www.marineharvest.ca/globalassets/canada/news-pdf/ihnv_report_2003.pdf. Sonja Saksida wrote the paper and has been employed by Norwegian fish farm companies many times over the years. This is how issues of conflict of interest begin.

The way to understand conflicts, you Google the papers of the person of interest, copy the names and then look up their publications. You will find that those who are connected with fish farms end up doing work that is positive to them, while the mainstream scientists are not. How big an influence you ask? Well, Marine Harvest has 90 research projects going at the present time to solve the issue of lice being unkillable, largely because the cocktail of chemicals don't work, in time. See the post two below this one and it tells you the chemicals: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/cancer-causing-chemicals-in-farmed.html.

You will note in the acknowledgements to the Saksida paper that many levels of government were also involved. As you will recall, the most important recommendation in the Cohen report was for DFO to be relieved of the conflict of interest in supporting fish farms and wild salmon at the same time, and for it to just get on with saving wild salmon. The Harper government did not do this. The Trudeau government has not done it either.

One of the real disappointing things in Norwegian fish farms is that in Norway, they spend a very long time criticizing anyone who complains about fish farms, and this has migrated to wherever in the world fish farms go. I will do a post comparing Norway and BC shortly, and you should buy from Glydendal publishers in Norway an e-book of Kjersti Sandvik's book Under the Surface that systematically works through many problems in Norway. Most follow them around the world. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/under-surface-kjersti-sandvik-gyldendal.html.

The Saksida report details the IHN epidemic in farmed fish in BC in 2001 - 2003. Some 12 million farmed salmon caught the disease and died. It ravaged one fish farm after another, many on Vancouver Island, where the capital of BC, Victoria, is located. The premier, Christy Clark, has not gotten fish farms out of the water either.

I will have more to say on this, and for now, see the Table of Contents:

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements                                                                     2

Introduction                                                                                 3

IHN 2001-2003                                                                            5

What is the case definition for IHN in Atlantic salmon?               5

What was the scope (i.e. how many farms were

affected) of the recent epizootic?                                                5

What was the initial source of the infection?                               5

What does the mortality curve associated with an IHN

case look like?                                                                             6

What were the cumulative mortality rates associated 

with the cases of IHN?                                                                 6

Summary of IHN cases during the 2001-2003 outbreak              7

IHN cases in Area1                                                                      7

IHN cases in Area2                                                                      8

IHN cases in Area3                                                                      9

IHN cases in Area4                                                                      9

IHN cases in Area5                                                                    10

What changes  were made at the sites afteran IHN 

diagnosis was made?                                                                  11

What is the status of IHN as of December 2003?                       11

Risk Factors and their management                                           12

Source of Infection                                                                      12

Freshwater introduction or vertical transmission                         12

Horizontal transmission in seawater                                           13

A/ Wild sockeye salmon                                                              13

B/ Waterborne transmission                                                        15

C/ Other fish species that can carry IHNV                                   17

D/ Movement of farmed salmon in and between areas               19

E/ Shared equipment and common boat traffic                            20

F/ Harvest by-products from IHNV infected populations              22

Other Risk Factors                                                                       24

Lag time between suspicion and confirmation of an infection      24

Stress in the Atlantic salmon                                                        25

Lack of an effective IHNV vaccine                                                26

Research Needs                                                                           27

Summary                                                                                      27

Figures and Tables                                                                       29

References                                                                                   36

Here are the Acknowledgements: 

"I would like to thank the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food (BCMAFF) and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) for funding the study. I would also like to thank all the companies (Atlantic salmon producers and suppliers) who participated in the study. They were all extremely cooperative and very willing to spend a considerable amount of time helping me collectand validate the information presented in this document. I would like to thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Pacific Salmon Commission, Environment Canada and the District of Campbell River forbeing so prompt in providing me with information.

I would finally and especially like to thank Paula Galloway, Darlene Hanson, Gary Robinson, Garth Traxler and Dr. Craig Stephen for their assistance in editing the document. Their input was invaluable and, I know, increased the quality of the final product."  

Go look them up. Government is in a conflict of interest here and the fish farms paid for them, also a conflict of interest.

Brief Summary

During the outbreak of IHN, 36 fish farms were infected. Smaller fish caught IHN at 70% while larger fish, over 2 kg, were infected at 40%. Take a look at Fig 9 as it shows the prevailing currents in the area north of Campbell River where sockeye salmon smolts travel out to the ocean. Note the sections on viral outbreak being spread to nearby farms, starting on page 7, one of the prime causes appears to be wellboats transporting smolts close to infected sites, particularly through the dense maze of channels north of Campbell River.

See Figure 8 for Vancouver Island infections, apparently Clayoquot Sound. 10 farms were infected only one was not infected. BC also had IHN infections from 1992 to 1996. Origins of infection could be wild salmon returning [those fish that Kristi Miller's work showed had a high viral signatures, however, 600,000 to 1 million farmed fish are by definition stressed and leach out 56 billion viral particles per hour once infected, infecting many sites in its path].

Page 15 quote on transmission: "If the assumption is made that the east coast Vancouver Island isolate originated in Area 1, then waterborne exposure of the smolts, in Areas 2 and 3, to IHNV could have occurred as they were being live hauled through Area 1. In addition, a low titre exposure to the virus may explain why the onset of disease in the population did not appear until several weeks after the last group of smolts had been entered.
 

The presence of an IHN positive population, undergoing an epizootic, could provide a continuous reservoir of virus not only for the infected site itself but also to the 16 surrounding area (i.e. downstream)."

See the recommendations on non-movement of farmed salmon stock (p 19), use of common equipment, wellboats, fallowing and etc. on 16-17 and succeeding pages.  

This report makes no mention that 12 million farmed fish were lost, nor does it mention how much taxpayer money, if any, the federal government paid for diseased dead fish. Nor does it estimate how many wild salmonids were killed by IHN.

Also, if you check the papers sited, you will find that Michael Kent is mentioned. He did work on SLV while working for DFO. He left DFO and recanted his work on the Cohen stand - one of four scientists who made the same disappointing choice. It has to be asked: what does one do with papers from recanted work, and shouldn't all wages and benefits paid to Kent for this work be paid back to the Canadian taxpayer?

Marine Harvest Executives Make the Big Bucks, and Cash in Shares, Workers get Fired, Updateed April 9, 2016

There is a discrepancy in the incomes and share options of senior executives, including CEO Aarskog, and the workers that are the first to get laid off when things go badly, including the algal bloom losses of 20 million salmon, some 100,000 metric tonnes of dead fish in Chile.

Scan the bold faced entries in the following post to find layoffs of workers in the last eight months, including, Chile, Scotland and other countries: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. 

Here is the share trade-in for $2.69 million (.16 exchange rate, Mar 23, 2016): https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/03/22/marine-harvest-execs-cash-out-shares/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=2b44826f76-Americas_briefing_Mar_22_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-2b44826f76-92426209. 

Senior executives with Marine Harvest have earned a combined NOK 16.8 million ($1.4m) (as noted above, by the current exchange rate this is actually $2.69 Million) by cashing in share options awarded under the firm's remuneration scheme.

On March 21 2016, participants in Marine Harvest's senior executive share option scheme exercised 594,621 options in the company, corresponding to 594,621 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share.

On the same date Marine Harvest purchased 594,621 own shares at a price of NOK
129.30 per share to settle its obligation to deliver the shares.

Alf-Helge Aarskog exercised 105,500 options in Marine Harvest, corresponding to
105,500 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, for a combined NOK 2.99m.

Ivan Vindheim exercised 63,823 options, corresponding to 63,823 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, making NOK 1.8m.

Marit Solberg exercised 56,844 options, corresponding to 56,844 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, for NOK 1.6m.

Ola Brattvoll exercised 46,817 options, corresponding to 46,817 shares at a strike price of NOK 28.37 per share, for NOK 1.3m.

Marine Harvest's board awarded 1.2m options under its senior executive share option scheme with effect from 2012, to the current participants in the option scheme.

The option scheme forms an important part of its long term remuneration policy for such senior executives, the company said.

                                                                  ***

Now, see a list of problems in the fish farm/seafood industry. Scan the boldface titled for a minute. I think you will be shocked:  http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

And, here is Marine Harvest's annual report for 2015. Look at the risks to be overcome:  http://hugin.info/209/R/1999866/737534.pdf.

Cancer-Causing Chemicals in Farmed Salmon - Ireland, Updated Mar 23, 2016

Inconsistencies in the presence of organic pollutants in Irish farmed 'organic' salmon and the negative health impacts in humans, including cancer and genetic mutation, are discussed in a recent article from Ireland. You will note that the government body that is responsible for the issue of chemicals in farmed fish, did no testing, and would not comment on testing done by the companies themselves, something that should not happen. You will also find that for each chemical there are contradictory indications.

There is a long history of academic articles on these chemicals; one of them lead me to start this blog:
fish farms discrediting the Hites et al article in the January 9, 2004 issue of Science. Go back to 2011 to find the David Miller spinwatch.org article on the 'neutralizing'. (Or take this link: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2011/10/key-document-fish-farm-tactics.html).

"When asked about the results, The Department of Agriculture consulted the Marine Institute, its scientific advisor, which informed it that as the test results were undertaken for a private company, it would not be appropriate for it to comment – in spite of the fact that the record was created as part of the Marine Institute’s statutory regulatory role, by its own Inspector.

The Minister for Health, who controls the Food and Safety Authority, referred the matter back to the Minister for Agriculture." Hmm.

The ten chemicals used in 'organic' farmed salmon are: emamectic benzoate (SLICE), deltamethrin, tricaine mesilate (MS222), oxytetracycline, oxytetracycline ethoxyquin, ethoxyquin DMK, BHA, BHA butylated hydroxytoluene, malachite green, leuco malachite green dyes.

Doesn't this list just make you want to eat a farmed salmon. Mmm.

Of oxytetracycline, WHO is very concerned: "The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified Oxytetracycline in 2009 as “Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine”. These are defined as “used as sole therapy or one of few alternatives to treat serious human disease” including in this case Lyme disease, brucellosis, and pneumonia. WHO is seeking to restrict the use of this antibiotic on animals “in order to preserve their effectiveness in human medicine”."

 Read the article on cancer-causing and other chemicals in 'organic' farmed salmon in Ireland: http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2016/03/salmon-eile/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=f9490efb27-Salmon_News_Mar_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-f9490efb27-214661381.

Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik, Gyldendal Norway, Updated April 28, 2016

A new book on the fish farm industry in Norway is out in 2016 from Kjersti Sandvik, published by Gyldendal. Sandvik has worked as a fish farm journalist for many years in Norway, and after a long hard look, she has come to the conclusion that there needs to be changes in the country where fish farms are from - Norway.

I doubt Norwegians realize just how bad a name they are getting around the globe for their unsustainable, environmentally damaging industry they are taking everywhere they can for the sake of shareholders only. People who have to live with Norwegian fish farms come to overwhelmingly reject them. 

Norwegians need to wake up that these 'farms' need to be put on land, and to get on with the rest of the world now grappling with climate change rather than polluting the world's oceans and increasing the carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous loading of the most important creator of oxygen that everything on earth depends on. The world needs to say no to movement offshore where no one can keep tabs on Norwegian fish farms. They need to be on land.

In what I have read so far of Sandvik's text - a Google translation - because there is no English translation at the moment - is fair. Do read this. I will have more to say as I read the book.

Do note that at this time, Norway is moving to get fish farms out of the water by offering them a $9- to $ 12-million dollar subsidy in the form of a free license for on land farms. The auction price for an in-ocean license comprises the hefty fee that is foregone. 

Here is the beginning of the book [my boldfacing]. Please note that while this starts slowly it becomes riveting for those of us in the press and fish farm world. The history of fish farming in Norway, right from the beginning has the same problems it does right now, decades later: boom bust industry, mountains of money, high stakes speculation, huge growth, huge catastrophes, diseases, workers getting laid off, bankruptcies, bureaucracy failures, government business conflict of interest, fish 'iceberg' protectionism, fraud, corruption, arguments with the EU and USA governments, tariff to 26%, the realization that there was more money in fish farm feed than the total transport of grain for human consumption in Europe. And it goes on. 

Go to my post on the News Bites problems in fish farms/seafood industry around the globe - more than 400 in less than a year. I think you will be taken aback: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html. 

Read and stay tuned:

Under the Surface - Kjersti Sandvik

CONTENTS

Preface 9

PART I : Adventure champions 13

PART II : Adventure losers 73

PART III : Solution or problem 201

Conclusion 244

PREFACE

Norway is the world's largest producer of Atlantic salmon. Farmed salmon is our ikea, our Ibérico ham, our champagne. Salmon is the only people in faraway countries associate with Norway. The industry produces over 1.3 million tonnes of salmon a year, which is 14 million meals each today sent out to 100 different countries. farmed salmon creates jobs and optimism in rural areas and gives money to the Treasury. If everything goes as planned, production will be increased fivefold by 2050. These are the good version, the story industry itself and politicians likes to tell us. But there is a more nuanced version. We have an industry that is more keen to talk out of environmental problems than to solve them, an industry meetings criticism "either you are with us or you are against us" and accusing all critics to be driven by "oppdrettshat ".

Despite major unresolved environmental problems have we an industry and a government that will have more growth. The premise is clear: The salmon industry will grow and be one of the country's economic mainstays when oil and gas it ends. Some environmental problems, disease and emissions is a reality, but why be so negative, why not just pushing them below the surface and give the industry deserved applause?

As I worked on this book, it became increasingly clearer to me that the authorities have been too cautious to set standards for the industry. Industry associations - As Seafood Norway, formerly the fisheries Norwegian Seafood Federation (FHL), and Norwegian Seafood Association (NSL) - have been important forerunners. For them, environmental hinder growth. Salmon farming adds increasingly occupy commons along the coast. New environmental problems occur, they require

new treatments which could be harmful environment. Shellfish door, wild fish are inedible, sea fishermen are in danger of losing livelihood and other fish species are threatened. The willingness to admit problems and do something about them on hold. When scientists cannot put two hyphens the answer to how much farmed sea environment resistant, used this research-based uncertainty for all theis worth and misinterpreted where possible. Should industry be controlled for the best available scientific knowledge, or by the industry's need for growth and desire speculation about how little they affect the environment? There has been too much of lately. It is so easy to criticize the aquaculture industry, I get hear. Come with me solutions, not more criticism.

My impression is the opposite. The simplest is to cheer industry. Allow it to hear what it most wants to hear. Breeding represents the future. Farmed salmon is Norway gift to the world. If there were a sulky rich man fly fisherman in a river and complaints, we must ask ourselves: What is most important? Obtaining food to the world, or to make sure the hobby fisherman gets a

salmon on the hook? Yes, we have indeed some challenges with lice resistance to treatment lotions, residues of toxic delousing agents, drug residues and large quantities of fish dirt that goes right into the sea, but the challenges we will soon get rid of, is the slogan.

In the environmental debate has climate skeptics. In aquaculture we find environmental skeptics who internalises the knowledge that after all there is. The rhetorical grips coincide. The changes in the environment might as well due to natural fluctuations, or unknown, natural conditions there must be more research on. Other industries are much worse than us, and how should we produce more food in the future if not in the ocean? I have no other motives for writing this book than pointing out what I mean driver industry in the wrong direction. Shall This remains an important industry in the future, and it should it be, production must take place in a different way than Today. That is more environmentally friendly solutions. the public Measures must be tighter. Politicians and public management must hear more on independent researchers than on industry's own lobbyists.

Lice Numbers Don't Match Up in BC and with Marine Harvest CEO, Updated Feb 26, 2016

You may have read the Randy Shore article in the Vancouver Sun, or heard a news clip on CHEK and other television stations in BC that fish farms, Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg Seafood et al think that sea lice on outbound salmon fry don't come from fish farms.

Marine Harvest CEO Aarskog asked for help last year because lice are the number one problem around the world in fish farms. Hmm.

Here is the research that BC Marine Harvest has overlooked that show that fish farm lice infect wild salmon fry in BC. It is a long list:

Peacock, S., M. Krkosek, A. Bateman & M. Lewis, 2015. Parasite-mediated release from predation in a juvenile salmon food web. Ecosphere. 6:art264.

Rees, E., S. St-Hilaire, S. Jones, M. Krkosek, S. DeDominicis, M. Foreman, T. Patanasatienkul & C. Revie, 2015. Spatial patterns of sea lice infection among wild and captive salmon in western Canada. Landscape Ecology, 30, 989-1004.

Krkosek, M. & J. Drake, 2014. On signals of phase transitions in salmon population dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281, 20133221.

Peacock, S., B. Connors, M. Krkosek, J. Irvine, & M. Lewis. 2014. Can reduced predation offset negative effects of sea louse parasites on chum salmon? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281, 20132913.

Krkosek, M., J. Ashander, L.N. Frazer, & M. Lewis, 2013. Allee effect from parasite spill-back. American Naturalist, 182, 640-652.

Patanasatienkul, T., J. Sanchez, E.E. Rees, M. Krkosek, S.R.M. Jones & C.W. Revie, 2013. Sea lice infestations on juvenile chum and pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, Canada from 2003 to 2012. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 105, 149-161.

Rogers, L., S. Peacock, P. McKenzie, S. DeDominicis, S. Jones, P. Chandler, M. Foreman, C. Revie, & M. Krkosek, 2013. Modeling parasite dynamics on farmed salmon for precautionary conservation management of wild salmon. PLoS ONE. 8: e60096.

Peacock, S., M. Krkosek, S. Proboszcz, C. Orr, & M. Lewis, 2013. Cessation of a salmon decline with control of parasites. Ecological Applications. 23, 606-620.

Ashander, J., M. Krkosek, & M. Lewis, 2012. Aquaculture-induced changes to dynamics of a migratory host and specialist parasite: a case study of pink salmon and sea lice. Theoretical Ecology. 5, 231-252.

Frazer, L.N., A. Morton, & M. Krkosek, 2012. Critical thresholds in sea lice epidemics: evidence, sensitivity, and subcritical estimation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 1950-1958.

Krkosek, M., B. Connors, M. Lewis, & R. Poulin, 2012. Allee effects may slow the spread of parasites in a coastal marine ecosystem. American Naturalist, 179, 401-412.

Morton, A., A. McConnell, R. Routledge, M. Krkosek. 2011. Sea lice dispersion and salmon survival in relation to fallowing and chemical treatment on salmon farms. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 68, 144-156.

Krkosek, M., B. Connors, A. Morton, M. Lewis, L. Dill, & R. Hilborn, 2011. Effects of parasites from salmon farms on wild salmon populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 108, 14700-14704.

Krkosek, M., R. Hilborn, R. Peterman, & T. Quinn. 2011. Cycles, stochastcity, and density dependence in pink salmon population dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 278, 2060-2068.

Krkosek, M., & R. Hilborn. 2011. Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestations and the productivity of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 68, 17-29.

Krkosek, M., B. Connors, H. Ford, S. Peacock, P. Mages, J. Ford, A. Morton, J. Volpe, R. Hilborn, L. Dill,& M. Lewis, 2011. Fish farms, parasites, and predators: Implications for salmon population dynamics. Ecological Applications. 21, 897-914.

Krkosek, M., A. Bateman, S. Proboscsz, & C. Orr. 2010. Dynamics of outbreak and control of salmon lice on two salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. 1, 137-146.

Connors, B., M. Krkosek, J. Ford, & L. Dill. 2010. Coho salmon productivity in relation to direct and trophic transmission of sea lice from salmon aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ecology. 47, 1372-1377.

Krkosek, M. 2010. Host density thresholds and disease control for fisheries and aquaculture. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. 1, 21-32.

Krkosek, M. 2010. Sea lice and salmon in Pacific Canada: Ecology and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8, 201-209.

Krkosek, M., A. Morton, J. Volpe, & M. Lewis. 2009. Sea lice and salmon population dynamics: Effects of exposure time for migratory fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 276, 2819-2828.

Krkosek, M., J. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele, & M. Lewis, 2008. Response to comment on "Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon". Science. 322, 1790-1791.

Connors, B., M. Krkosek, & L. Dill, 2008. Sea lice escape predation on their host. Biology Letters. 4, 455-457.

Krkosek, M., J. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele, & M. Lewis, 2008. Sea lice and pink salmon declines: response to Brooks and Jones. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 16, 413-420.

Morton, A., R. Routledge, & M. Krkosek. 2008. Sea lice infestation of juvenile salmon and herring associated with fish farms off the east central coast of British Columbia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28, 523-532.

Krkosek, M., J. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele, R.A. Myers,& M. Lewis, 2007. Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon. Science. 318, 1772-1775.

Krkosek, M., A. Gottesfeld, B. Proctor, D. Rolston, C. Carr-Harris, & M. Lewis, 2007. Effects of host migration, diversity, and aquaculture on sea lice threats to wild Pacific salmon populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 274, 1341-3149.

Krkosek, M., M. Lewis, A. Morton, L.N. Frazer & J. Volpe. 2006. Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 103, 15506-15510.

Morton, A.B. and Williams, R. 2006. Response of the Sea Louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestation levels on juvenile wild Pink, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, and Chum, O. keta, salmon, to arrival of parasitized wild adult salmon. Canadian Field Naturalist. 120:2

Morton, A. B. and Routledge (2006) Mortality rates for juvenile pink and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha and keta) infested with sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) in the Broughton Archipelago. Alaska Fisheries Research Bulletin. 11:2, 146-152.

Krkosek, M., M. Lewis, J. Volpe, & A. Morton. 2006. Fish Farms and sea lice infestations of wild juvenile salmon in the Broughton Archipelago – A rebuttal to Brooks (2005). Reviews in Fisheries Science. 14: 1-11.

Morton, A.B., Routledge, R, and Williams R. 2005 Temporal patterns of sea lice infestation on wild Pacific salmon in relation to the fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms. American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25: 811-821

Krkosek, M., M.A. Lewis, & J.P. Volpe. 2005. Transmission dynamics of parasitic sea lice from farm to wild salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272, 689-696.

Krkosek, M., A. Morton, & J.P. Volpe. 2005. Non-lethal assessment of juvenile Pacific salmon for parasitic sea lice infections and fish health. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 134, 711-716.

Morton, A.B., Routledge, R., Peet, C. and Ladwig, A 2004 Sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, infection rates on juvenile chum and pink salmon in the nearshore marine environment in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 61: 147-157.

Morton, A.B., and Williams R . 2003 Infestation of the sea louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) on juvenile pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum) in British Columbia, Canadian Field Naturalist, 117: 634-641

- See more at: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2016/02/bc-salmon-farmers-dodge-responsibility-for-sea-lice.html#sthash.2HwY3Sjr.dpuf. 

Yes, a long list, indeed - more than 30 published papers -that Marine Harvest ignores. Now, the short list from them:

1. http://marineharvest.ca/globalassets/canada/pdf/asc-dashboard-2016/broughton-archipelago-sea-lice-2015.pdf.

2. http://marineharvest.ca/globalassets/canada/pdf/asc-dashboard-2015/quatsino-sound-sea-lice-2015.pdf. Do read these as they are fascinating accounts of beach seining, if nothing else.

Now, DFO's own numbers from Quatstino Sound summer of 2015:
http://www.livingoceans.org/sites/default/files/oceans-update/dec15/salmonFarming_farmsOverLiceThresholdClassified_oct2015.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Oceans%20Update%20-%20December%202015&utm_content=Oceans%20Update%20-%20December%202015+CID_1fc9093a2ee700e75fc65e3bc396340b&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Map%20of%20salmon%20farms%20with%20sea%20lice%20infestations.

Yes, all the fish farms in Quatsino were over the 3 lice limit last year. And one was 300% to 800% higher than the limit, coming in at more than 27 lice per fish.

So how is it that Marine Harvest figures are so low and they claim lice don't come from fish farms? Seems a pretty shaky assertion to me.

I would add that the April - May time period may catch chum and pink - there aren't that many in Quatsino. But coho migrate to saltwater in July and chinook are estuarial for as much as 6 months after leaving their river of origin, in the summer, not April/May.

I would add that the beach seines were right across from farms so the discrepancy is likely the result of finding figures in the wrong place, as well as at the wrong time. It is not common for fry to be found on beaches, other than chum.

But I would add that as they only found one searun cutthroat trout, that is strong evidence - not followed up - that fish that spend their lives in shallow water just aren't there. They may have died from sea lice and thus not be in the sample, a species of greater interest given that they spend their whole lives in Quatsino Sound -  on beaches in 3 feet of water. No steelhead fry were found either. I can't speculate on their number being zero, but they are the species of greatest concern for being near the limits of extinction given their small population size - often runs can have as few as 150 individuals.

                                                                  ***

Now, go look at a list of problems in fish farms/seafood industry. Scan the boldfacing. I think you will be shocked: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

Norway Royal Salmon - Consumers Don't Buy Environmentally Unsafe In-ocean Salmon

Here is an example of a fish farm company in Norway that just does not get that the world no longer wants fish farms in the ocean. See this and the PDF, which is a Powerpoint presentation and thus easy to read quickly: https://www.seafood.no/content/download/202235/2508847/.../NRS.pdf. 

When you consider the following posts in the same context, it is clear that Norway Royal Salmon is 
getting left behind. Consumers don't want in-ocean fish farm salmon anymore because of its
climate change footprinit. Fish farms put more climate change sewage in the oceans of Norway than
the entire human population.

Now, go to the two posts that are on the Sami and Clayoqwuot First Nation summit in Norway, 
and that the concensus - in Norway - in 2016 - is that fish farms are coming out of the ocean because they are 
non-sustainable: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/02/clayoquot-and-same-aboriginals.html, and, 
http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/02/key-document-aboriginals-of-world-say.html. 

See the NRS website: http://norwayroyalsalmon.com/no.

Clayoquot and Sami Aboriginals, Norwegians, Scientists, Politicians, Public: Fish Farms Need to be On Land

Well, the Clayoquot Action Group that went to Norway to call on the Sami peoples, Norwegians, Norwegian government, scientists, environmentalists and Cermaq, in fact everyone they talked to said this about getting fish farms out of the water:

"A clear consensus has emerged over the past two weeks, through meetings with wild salmon advocates, academics, and an investigative journalist. When asked the question, “how can Canada avoid the problems Norway is experiencing with open-net pen salmon farming?”, without hesitation every single person replied: “Shifting to closed containment production is the only way forward”." 

See: http://clayoquotaction.org/2016/02/tide-change-in-norway/. Do read this entire article with the Cermaq, Marine Harvest, Grieg Seafood in-ocean fish farms being described as 'dinosaur technology'.

So, now you have heard  what the reaction is in Norway. What we need in Canada is for Justin Trudeau and Hunter Tootoo to take fish farms out of the ocean. In BC, there are 73 Million wild salmon, in Atlantic Canada there are only 170,000 wild Atlantic Salmon left in the sea. BC has 99.8% of all the salmon in Canada, and we want fish farms on land or they can take their small GDP contribution (part of only $61.9M) and their few jobs (BC Stats says  only 1700 multiplier jobs, and I have looked and found it is only 795 actual jobs) back to Norway and set up on land because the Norwegian government is so fed up with them it is handing out free licences to get out of the ocean and set up on land, a $9- to $12-Million subsidy, representing the auction price of a licence in the ocean.

So it is on land in Canada, and Norway. The movement is spreading because the public and aboriginals where there are fish farms overwhelmingly reject them in the ocean. In BC, the petition to stop expansion and get fish farms out of the water received 110,000 signatures.

Here is another quote from the Clayoquot Site:

"Signs of a tide change beginning to sweep the industry are breaking daily in major Norwegian media. Dagbladet, the country’s second biggest paper, ran a story pointing out that catches are plummeting in the Alta, “the world’s best salmon river” as the amount of farmed salmon in the nearby Altafjord increases. The production manager of Grieg Seafood’s operations in Alta was quoted saying: “The only solution is to get the fish into closed containment”.

The following day the front page of the paper in Bergen read: “CEO of Marine Harvest prepared to invest US $100M: if everything works as planned, closed containment systems will replace open-net pen salmon farms”.

The Delegation also met with MP Frank Bakke-Jensen, from the governing party, and suggested that with the clear consensus emerging in Norway finally being acknowledged by industry, the government runs the risk of no longer providing leadership, unless they get out in front of the parade."

Here is my last post on this issue: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/02/key-document-aboriginals-of-world-say.html. 

Thank you Clayoquot Action Group for taking your stand to Norway and contributing to fundamental change in the way our ocean is treated. No more fish farm climate change sewage.