VICTORIA - Alexandra Morton has taken some serious abuse for her research showing that sea lice from fish farms were killing wild salmon.
“Questionable research methods,” critics said. “Blatant misrepresentations.” Unqualified and biased.
Turns out she was right. The question now is what are the federal and provincial governments are going to do about it?
Morton lives in the Broughton Archipelago, the dense scattering of islands off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island. She moved there to study whales 27 years ago and has been doing research ever since.
In the last few years she has been alarmed at the spread of sea lice from salmon farms on to migrating wild salmon. The sea lice are like blood-sucking tiny tadpoles. On a five-kilogram Atlantic salmon in a net cage, they’re a nuisance. On a wild salmon as long as your little finger, they’re life-threatening.
Morton didn’t just work up a theory. She did the research, spent the days and weeks on the ocean. Her work has been peer-reviewed and published.
But the critics kept sniping. The provincial government ordered some fish farms along the migration emptied for a few months as a precautionary measure. The industry continued to say Morton was wrong. Governments said nothing was proven.
So Morton launched a private prosecution under the Fisheries Act, charging a company and federal and provincial governments with releasing sea lice into the salmon habitat, harming the wild fish.
Private prosecutions rarely go ahead. Generally, the Crown takes over the case and stays the charges.
This time, because the province was charged, an outside lawyer, Bill Smart, was named special prosecutor. He decided to hire an independent science expert to review Morton’s research and look at the allegations.
And the expert, Dr. Frederick Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick, found she was right.
Morton alleged the salmon farm was releasing millions of sea lice a month. Whoriskey calculated the farm would produce 55 million sea lice eggs per year. Studies had found 95 per cent of sea lice off a section of Ireland’s coast came from salmon farms.
Morton charged that sea lice from the farm infected passing young salmon. Whoriskey, after reviewing her research and studies from around the world, concluded that is also true.
And Morton alleged that the pink salmon smolts were vulnerable to sea lice and many were killed. There hasn’t been a definitive study, Whoriskey reported, but sea lice infestations have found to weaken and kill young salmon.
Whoriskey summed up. “The evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon,” he found.
And the independent expert also commented on her research. “Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work,” he wrote. It meets “the globally accepted procedure for good science.”
Smart, the special prosecutor, said Morton’s charges were sound and raised an important public issue. “It appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton’s assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago”, he reported. “There may be debates about the extent of the problem or risk, those debates cannot obscure the existence of the problem itself.“
Smart still decided the prosecution shouldn’t go ahead because convictions were unlikely. The law prohibits the release of harmful species, but the sea lice weren’t really released. And the company could argue that it had obeyed all the governments’ rules.
But he noted that while he had to apply a strict test in deciding whether to go ahead with case, governments don’t when it comes to “addressing the potential environmental consequences of fish farms.”
Morton won the important victory. An independent review by the government’s own prosecutor found the evidence showed the fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks.
Now it’s up to government to say what it’s going to do about that reality.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the legislative committee looking at the aquaculture industry is heading back out for another round of hearings this fall. The committee, which has an NDP majority, has been hearing completely contradictory and equally passionate views from the industry’s supporters and opponents. It’s trying for an interim report before the end of the year and a full report next May.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
The history of fish farming in BC shows only one certainty - fishfamers and their supporters will lie and smear any opponent to their untenable claims.
Ms. Morton should be compensated for the slander she has been subjected to by both the Fed and the Prov. Govt's. and by the industry, and by those behind the industrie's PR machine. She should be compensated for any damage to her reputation and for all the other abuse that has been heaped upon her these last several years (eg. being arrested and charged for "illegal fishing" when she collected her first examples of dead and dying pink salmon smolts for her reserch). If reasonable compensation is not voluntarily paid then she should sue, and ask for punitive damages as well. Shame on Campbell and his cronies!! What , i have beenasking myself for years, is in it for them?
The really sad thing is the way she has been treated, no doubt. Almost as sad is the way the folks who can't get any other job in their communities,or first nation ,are stuck between a rock and a hard place. So they end up at ralies supporting the companies as they really have no other choice if they want a job. Ever wonder why places like Alaska, Washington state, and Oregon are dead set against fish farms? Ever wonder why the supporters of those places that occupy our parts of the ocean, argue so hard against containment on shore? Its called profits. And why do those same companies not do fish farms in their own countries? Well maybe its becasue those countries won't let them. I'm no fisherman but I do believe their bumper sticker. Real fish don't eat pellets, or real fish don't do drugs. Eat farmed salmon? You have to be kidding. So way to go Dr Morton, you put your money where your convictions are and you are right. So lets all get on the phone to our elected folks and tell them to either go ashore or shut them down. Ocean Sciences in Pat Bay near the airport used to hang plastic containers to sample something or other years ago. Spent a lot of time chasing the pieces across the bay after a bit of a wind. Do governments never learn? They react not act so thanks for reminding us Paul
The facts do not support Ms. Morton's conclusion. Why are the returns of spawning pink salmon higher on average since salmon farming started than before? It is so easy to pick bad one year and scream foul. Research the numbers instead of listening to the rhetoric. Farmed salmon is the most sustainable agricultural livestock farmed today. I certainly will not condone further damaging wild salmon stocks, but pointing the finger at salmon farming is not the answer. By the way, Alaska farms more salmon than BC, but they release their stock into the wild to compete with truly wild salmon. They call it ocean ranching. I call it stealing food from our BC wild salmon. If you are truly concerned about wild salmon, how about sounding that alarm.
Glad everybody's so darned sure of themselves over in blog-land. But that's always the case, isn't it?
While bloggers do their thing, scientists, who generally have to be at least somewhat honest, are bound to disagree that a causal link has been discovered among farms, lice and mortality. At the very least, things are a little grayer than Paul would like:
"(There is) no direct evidence of a causal link between L. salmonis on farmed salmon in this area and mortality of wild juvenile salmon. These data have led us to believe that high spawner densities contributed to the low survival of the 2000 brood year", (Ian V. Williams, 2002 submitted to the David Suzuki Foundation)
"This study cannot provide a causal link among salmon farms, sea lice, and juvenile wild salmonid infection rates", (Alexandra Morton et al, 2004)
"No general conclusion can be made on the transmission dynamics of lice from farm to wild salmon based on this study alone", (Krkosek, Lewis, Volpe 2004)
Add to that list the statements (no, not the ones Paul cited, but OTHER ones, ones from the same report that don't support Paul's piece) of Dr. Fred Whoriskey:
"The weakness of correlative evidence is that a weakness does not necessarily imply cause and effect." (Whoriskey 2006)
and...
"Pink salmon populations have historically fluctuated, sometimes on an immense scale. By chance, we could be in one such cycle.” (Whoriskey 2006)
Compensate Ms. Morton for slander? I don't see that. Make an effort to be a little more judicious about an issue that's not as simple as freelance political columnists might wish? Ya, I'd be down for that.
Sorry -- that should have been:
"The weakness of correlative evidence is that a weakness does not necessarily imply cause and effect." (Whoriskey 2006)
But then, anybody with Philosophy 100 knows that! Paul? Time for a night course?
The poster who placed all of those cherry picked and out of context quotes, knows that Ms. Morton's research and conclusions which lend support to the certain fact that fish farming as currently being practiced in the Brighton and other parts of coastal BC is destructive to pink salmon, is good science, and correct.
He chooses to pretend Ms. Morton's position is only a theory. If it is then it is as sound as the Theory of Evolution. Statements like "no direct evidence"; "the study cannot provide..."; "not neccessarily"; are simply red herrings. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - just open your eyes and your mind.
The fish farms and farmers are also responsible for an incredible and so far mostly unreported amount of ecological damage (eg by introducing large amounts of antibiotics; anti-lice treatment which kills other crustaceans such as crabs and shrimp; I could go on).
Ms morton is not a scientist. she is the daughter of the rich American heiress Barbara Marks Hubbard. She's from Boston. Ms Mortons grandpa made his millions from those little plastic green army men.
Ms Morton does not have a degree in science, she has a bachelor of arts- music I think. I nearly gagged whn a poster above referred to her as Dr. Morton. Through her connections within the activist movement she was able to become a member of the Registereerd Professional Biologists- Otto Langer from the Suzuki foundation was president at the time.
Years ago, among many scares she tried to engineer against salmon farming, Ms Morton tried to convince the public that farms were scaring away the whales (later studies showed that the whales distribution was linked to the distribution of their primary prey chinook salmon).
Real scientists do not state in the press conclusions that are completely contrary to their own research. Most scientists do not have the connections and backings of a rich family that allows them to purchase press kits to reach the media and become a celebrity. Most scientists do not have a parent who owns a production company and can have their bios distributed to the media to gain sympathy. Most scientists have to rely on the peer review of their research. Peer review begins AFTER you are published, when your research is repeated and intensively examined by the scientific community at large. To get published a handful of experts who have time are selected to review the paper for glaring problems. So far, large scale studies by DFO support Ms Mortons central conclusion: there is no aparent causal link between salmon farms, sea lice and pink salmon returns.
Those quotes from the scientific journals posted above were not cherry picked. If she had said she found a causal link (as she repeats on radio and TV constantly) then her study would not have been published because her results, even as biased as they were, simply do not support the theories she purports in the press.
The pink salmon are doing very well in the Broughton. They had their best year ever since salmon farming started. They returned in excellent numbers in 2005 despite Ms Mortons predictions they were decimated. The biomass of farmed salmon in the Broughton has remained steady, with and without fallowing, over the years since sea lice were being looked at.
Pink salmon populations have always fluctuated wildly. It is a complex puzzle, but appears, so far, that sea lice are not a significant factor. Water temperature, salinity, snowpack levls, feed availability, spawning ground condition, fishing and predation however show strong correlation with pink salmon return rates.
These are variables completely ignored by Ms Morton- not surprising since she has no training in ecology, biology, fish health or fisheries.
Paul Willcocks could have produced a vastly different story on sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago had he actually taken the time to read the report of the BC special prosecutor. (“Battling researcher proves a sea-lice point” - August 22).
Instead, he seems to have used activist news releases to cobble together a very biased portrayal of what was in fact a clear-headed recommendation of the BC special prosecutor not to prosecute fish farms regarding sea lice.
Willcocks claims "Morton didn't just work up a theory. She did the research, spent the days and weeks on the ocean...Her work has been peer-reviewed and published... But the critics kept sniping. The industry continued to say Morton was wrong."
Then Willcocks states Dr. Frederick Whoriskey of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in New Brunswick "found she was right." In fact, Willcocks is the one who’s wrong.
Among other criticisms, Whoriskey’s report states that Morton’s “dip net methodology used to collect the fish has been questioned as it may have biased the sampling towards infected fish.”
The report also notes that Morton’s research failed to control for particular uncertainties, “opening the results to question that the source of many of the lice was a marine fish species other than a salmonid that happened to be resident in the vicinity of the farm at the time of the work.”
Whoriskey identifies further flaws in Morton’s work, highlighting the fact that in one of her experiments, “the experimental enclosures most probably stressed the fish and affected their feeding behaviour, both of which could be argued to have aggravated mortality.”
Noting that correlative evidence like that presented by Morton cannot on its own imply "cause and effect," Whoriskey also clearly states that “it is more difficult to attribute the declines in pink salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago, to the single cause of sea lice infestations. Other factors could be acting independently or synergistically of lice to contribute to mortalities.”
Most importantly, the report notes that “pink salmon populations have historically fluctuated, sometimes on an immense scale. By chance, we could be in one such cycle.”
While readers would never have learned it from Willcocks' skewed writing, the fact is the special prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute the BC government makes clear that fish farms are in full compliance with tough federal and provincial regulations
How come BC political columnist Paul Willcocks knows so much more about science than the scientists do?
Take his recent column in the Prince George Citizen: Battling researcher proves a sea-lice point (August 22).
Even the anti-salmon farming activists have been quite up front about the fact there is no proven case against the farms as regards sea lice. Here are quotes from three of the papers that are trotted out again and again to imply sea lice are causing some terrible problem:
"(There is) no direct evidence of a causal link between L. salmonis on farmed salmon in this area and mortality of wild juvenile salmon. These data have led us to believe that high spawner densities contributed to the low survival of the 2000 brood year", (Ian V. Williams, 2002 submitted to the David Suzuki Foundation).
"This study cannot provide a causal link among salmon farms, sea lice, and juvenile wild salmonid infection rates", (Alexandra Morton et al, 2004)
"No general conclusion can be made on the transmission dynamics of lice from farm to wild salmon based on this study alone", (Krkosek, Lewis, Volpe 2004)
Add to these crucial activist disclaimers another one – this time by special prosecutor Bill Smart’s expert consultant Dr. Frederick Whoriskey. In spite of the fact Willcocks wrongly claims Whoriskey, by reviewing correlative data, has shown fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks, Whoriskey states:
“The weakness of correlative evidence is that a correlation does not necessarily imply cause and effect.”
Willcocks might think science is advanced through opinion polls and fostered by journalistic innuendo. But even the Suzuki Foundation, the Atlantic Salmon Foundation and green activist-related scientists are ready to admit no link has been shown.
Bottom line: I generally like his columns, but he’s no scientist. He shouldn’t pretend to be one.
To the poster who complained about cherry picking and out of context quotes... It's simple: the disclaimers from various scientists -- including Suzuki-supported scientists -- go to the central issue of whether or not a causal link has been shown among farms, lice and pink mortality.
Willcocks claims that "evidence show(s) the fish farms are hurting wild salmon stocks." The scientists' disclaimers say that's not correct.
Who are we to believe? -- scientists (including activist scientists who would love to tell prove causality but can't), or a freelance political columnist who knows as much about biology as he's read in the latest Living Oceans Society news release?
I say the post is worth repeating because it's a statement of science, not of politics:
"(There is) no direct evidence of a causal link between L. salmonis on farmed salmon in this area and mortality of wild juvenile salmon. These data have led us to believe that high spawner densities contributed to the low survival of the 2000 brood year", (Ian V. Williams, 2002 submitted to the David Suzuki Foundation)
"This study cannot provide a causal link among salmon farms, sea lice, and juvenile wild salmonid infection rates", (Alexandra Morton et al, 2004)
"No general conclusion can be made on the transmission dynamics of lice from farm to wild salmon based on this study alone", (Krkosek, Lewis, Volpe 2004)
"The weakness of correlative evidence is that a correlation does not necessarily imply cause and effect." (Whoriskey 2006)
and...
"Pink salmon populations have historically fluctuated, sometimes on an immense scale. By chance, we could be in one such cycle.” (Whoriskey 2006)
"We've had a pink failure here (on the North Coast) and to top it off, the Alaska fisheries has also had a pink failure" Joy Thorkelson, UFAWU-CAW northern representative, Prince Rupert Daily News, August 16, 2006 Front Page.
Considering neither Alaska nor the North Coast are homes of farm salmon and they , like all other areas supporting pink runs, have fluctuating return rates, it seems pretty obvious that something other than sea lice from farm salmon are a primary determinant in return rates.
Its amazing how gullible the public and media (eg Paul Billocks)is that they not only buy Ms Mortons unsubstantiated claims (remember her own 'science' finds no link) but they also buy the idea we can save the wild salmon by eating more of them.
If the enviros were so concerned for the wild salmon lives why dont they protest against the 20 million + wild fish that are LEGALLY slaughtered every year by our commercial fisheries. I'll tell you why not: the commercial fishers are a major source of funding and support especially the native fishers. And don't get me started on poaching.
It is so frikking obvious that we must farm salmon and it cannot, and should not, be done on land.
Its also so intuitive that natural sea lice is not a major threat to the wild salmon. The number one threat we can control- OBVIOUSLY- is a targetted fishery designed to kill them for profit.
Ms morton and her ilk are not in this to save the wild salmon. If they were they would protest bottom trawling and commercial fishing on the whole. they are in this to raise donations, to secure funding and thereby power.
the public have swallowed their hook and they are reeling us in and laughing all the way to the bank and the TV studio- LOOK MOM IM ON TV!!!IM FAMOUS!!
I'm beginning to think a couple of people on this line are working for the fish farm industry as they attempt to smear Morton and Wilcox.Maybe a DFO person or two? Ever wonder why so many restaurants won't buy the stuff? Stores advertise fish , so when asked is this farmed, they get evasive. We like to tell the manager if you lie about fish whatelse do you lie about and go elsewhere. The idea of growing fish for sale is probrably a decent idea, but if they are using open top nets in our waters, foreign species the results are as we have seen. Massive escapes. First it was the seals fault and recenty it seems a total of less that 60 escaped this year, down from thousands. Are they making better nets, or are the inspectors telling the companies when they are going to show up? And when dealing with thousands of fish, how can anyone claim such a definite number. Are they using GPS on each little guy? Sea lice? None around here but we will close down some pens till the wild litttle guys go by. If the industry is so clean why would that happen?
Set up some big tanks on shore , pump in some water and then count the fish and do something about the drugs and waste results. Otherwise take what most folks tell us with a grain of salt. My fish is wild, I can get it across town, it costs a fair amount but that's what this family eats. Anyone know just what these companies are paying for the water lots they are using? I doubt if it's very much. For those of you who think Atlantic salmon in the pacific ocean is just great, well fill your botties and buy lots of the stuff because a lot of us certainly wont.
Instead of speculating about regulations and inspections, why don't you actually go read what is involved.
Here is the link:
www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/
aqua_report/2004-5/index_2004-5.htm
I have always thought it was a good idea to know what you are talking about before you start spouting off.
Fish farms were stopped by a moritorium. The present government gets elected with bundles of money from fish farm potential operators and lo and behold fish farms abound. A government committee is doing the rounds right now to talk with the taxpayers about their support or concerns. While this is going on a very large number of BC citizens simply do what consumers do when not satisfied with a product. They don't buy it. The big supporters can tell the potential buyers all is just great but if the folks won't buy the stuff, go find some other market.
A previous poster talks about the standards and people spouting off. Sea lice has been reported to be a big concern for young fry. I don't fish but if the little guys want to be big guys they won't get there if lice is killing them. Are the supporters saying sea lice isn't a problem or escapes either? The so called experts told us that if there were escapes it wouldn't matter because the fish wouldn't live. By gosh, they were wrong. Then they said they couldn't spawn. Hey wrong again. So why should the consumer believe any of the so called experts who are trying so hard to sell this stuff to the customers? Am I missing something? If a researcher they don't like is from a US family really doesn't mean all that much to me. And please don't tell us DFO doesn't screw up. They keep talking about no fish in someplaces and there ends up being tons of fish. Then they say a area will have tons of fish and that doesn't happen. So maybe some government experts arn't so hot either. Th earlier writer who says he doesn't eat farmed salmon is pretty normal it seems as so many places won't sell it. Let's see what the comitte figures out, but even then if nobody wants the stuff you are all farting in the wind
Farmed Atlantic salmon is British Columbia's largest agricultural export
When I read the above comments I couldn't help thinking at least half of them were posted by the same person. Whoever that is they done an astonishing amount of research on the background and history of Morton. Smearing Ms. Morton does nothing to persuade me that her research should be ignored. Perhaps her scant research budget (eg having to use dip nets?) has more to do with her having been fired from her position with Fed Fisheries for raising the alarm in the first place. Why won't the government(s) simply fund the project properly so that we don't have to split hairs about credibility and geneology, and whether Morton is a BA or a PhD. What have they got to hide? What have they got to loose?
One thing that I would really like to know is, if there is any doubt about the potential for harm, which it would seem could be catastrophic, and obviously there is plenty of doubt, why is the onus not on the fish farmers to prove their operations are harmless?
Farmed Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon can coexist
Farmed Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the Pacific coast of Canada according to new peer reviewed research published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science. This research led by principal investigator, Dr. Richard Beamish, focused on the 2002 brood year of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago and concluded that during active and viable salmon farming, wild fish showed high levels of marine survival. The report authors conclude that levels of sea lice on farmed salmon and pink salmon could not have been harmful at the population level for the observed high marine survivals to have been achieved. To read the full study, click here.
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/files/07_27_06_b.html
Hey , no one is slandering or smearing Ms Morton. They are saying she is correct and supported by real scientists. Her own study and others show no causal link between salmon farms , sea lice and pink salmon return rates.
She is further vindicated because the pink populations were doing great before her study and they are doing very well since her study- no collapse it turns out, just a regular, predictable, low return year- thus further supporting her published study's central conclusion: she cannot link sea lice to pink return rates.
The fact that she is a rich American heiress (google Barbara marks Hubbard + Alexandra Morton + marks Toys) with no scientific training and was totally biased against salmon farming before she even did her "study" is not slander, it means that even with no scientific background whatsoever she seems to have come to the same conclusion as real scientists.
Thats not slander, that's something to be proud of!
BY gosh, the story by Paul Wilcox is now in the Victoria newspaper. maybe the naysayer on this line will be writing to the editor to have him banned. Which fish farm are you the PR person or are you simply a "Concerned citizen"
If its in the "Victoria newspaper" it must be true! ;0)
Dosen't anyone remember the saying, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. I believe it is important for people to make up their own minds using the information that is available to them. It seems that many of us jump on the bandwagon for smypathetic causes, such as mrs. mortons. I am in support of salmon farming, it is a viable industry and if those that are in protest, so be it, everyone needs something to take up their precious time and whine about. Plus, many of the people that will not eat farmed salmon do so as a result of what they hear, hah, if i believed everything that i hear, i wouldn't leave the house.
"The sea lice are like blood-sucking tiny tadpoles. On a five-kilogram Atlantic salmon in a net cage, they're a nuisance. On a wild salmon as long as your little finger, they're life-threatening."
First off there is no evidence to suggest that in natural conditions a healthy smolt can be made sick by a few sea lice stowaway.
Wild smolts have been exposed to sea lice in the natural environment for millenia.
DFO pink returns stats show that the numbers of pink returns has, on average increased since the advent of salmon farming. A recent study (published and peer reviewed) by Dr. Dick Beamish (http://www.salmonfarmers.org/files/07_27_06_b.html )concurs with Ms Mortons research that there is no apparent causal link between salmon farms, sea lice and pink returns. Dr. Beamish showed that sea lice infection rates on wild smolts do not correlate with farm salmon biomass.
In other words farm salmon do not appear to be significant contributor of sea lice to the environment.
The whole bloodsucking thing is just media hype- trying to scare you into believing rather than looking at the facts.
We do not appear to even have a damaged pink salmon population in the Broughton. The return rates have been fluctuating for ever- just as all pink populations fluctuate up and down the Pacific coast.
This whole thing is like a trial drama. However there is no body, no weapon and no motive. We have no evidence a crime even took place. In fact we have DFO stats that tell us the alleged victim- the pink salmon-is doing wonderfully well, 2005 was a terrific year of returns despite Ms Mortons claims of imminent extinction.
Lets not lose sight of the real, established threats to salmonids in BC:
-logging
-urban and agricultural development
-over fishing
-pollution
Sea lice as a culprit (assuming there was a crime) would let alot of folks off the hook. But according to the science (not the media hype) of Ms Morton and her peers: that dog won't hunt.
Post a Comment