Reintroduction of Salmon Farming in Bertraghboy Bay..

Well done to Joyster and Bradan for an honest debate on this issue. For so often on “Hot Topics” like this one the Mods end locking down the topic because it gets personal. View points and statistics were coming in fast and hard and kept the topic, 1202 views, a good read.
Ye were never going to solve the problem but a least ye dealt with it in an honest way.

Cheers Donal
I've no problem personally with any of the guys involved in fish farming, everyone has to make a living, and I accept that we all have to share the resource. So I'm not going to start slagging off someone with an opposing viewpoint, I think honest open debate is the only way forward, and insulting someone ain't going to achieve that! I hate those threads (C&R usually!) where you know its only going one way

Joyster, I'm back in work next week and will try to get my hands on those figures...

Bradan,
Could you also tell us where we can find access to the paper/study you have mentioned regarding the two smolt releases, one treated with lice resistants and one not. I have not been able to find any reference to it. I also look forward to seeing the historical figures of seatrout returns if you can find them as you said you think you can. Your obviously well connected.

I agree with the last few sentiments about a balanced and respectful debate. I do not agree that all observed this. One recent and obvious post basicallly wished that one forum members livelyhood would cease to exist. That was uncalled for in an open and obviously emotive debate.

Caz

Bradan,
Could you also tell us where we can find access to the paper/study you have mentioned regarding the two smolt releases, one treated with lice resistants and one not. I have not been able to find any reference to it. I also look forward to seeing the historical figures of seatrout returns if you can find them as you said you think you can. Your obviously well connected.

I agree with the last few sentiments about a balanced and respectful debate. I do not agree that all observed this. One recent and obvious post basicallly wished that one forum members livelyhood would cease to exist. That was uncalled for in an open and obviously emotive debate.

Caz

I'm not sure if it has been published in a journal yet, it was an EU-funded project called SUMBAWS (don't ask me what the acronym is for!), lead researcher was Dr. Paddy Gargan of the CFB, so if its published already do a search for his name if you have access to a scientific library (I don't). Having had many conversations with people involved in the project I can tell you the basic results: batches of smolts were treated with SLICE - a chemical treatment that confers some resistance to sea lice infestation, and released with control batches of smolts (untreated) from several fisheries in Connemara with trapping facilities. The control groups had very poor marine survival rates, whereas the treated groups had much higher survival.
Bear in mind this was on salmon smolts, who are supposedly in coastal waters for much shorter periods of time than sea trout, and therefore supposedly have lower exposure to sea lice larvae.
As I said, I'll post the sea trout returns when I can get my hands on them.

hi bradan, just a couple of coment and a question or 2,. SLICE is a very effective treatment in the control of lice , it acts by enabling the fish to produce more slime tha it normaly would which prevents the lice larvae from settling.
was the estemate of survival reates done as the fish returned from their marine growth phase?
how many trials were done or was it a once off?

any luck with those return figures bradan? I have tried the sites from the marine institute, western fisheries board, central fisheries board and fishcounters . com and have not been able to get any returns after 2003 and no figures from any of the counters in the rivers at all , I wounder why that is .
I did manage to access the sea-lice report for 2008 that you quoted in a previous comment and i must say that you were very selective in the amount of info from the report that you put in your reply, if anyone is interested in reading the FULL report it can be accessed from the marine institute web site at MARINE.IE.

any luck with those return figures bradan? I have tried the sites from the marine institute, western fisheries board, central fisheries board and fishcounters . com and have not been able to get any returns after 2003 and no figures from any of the counters in the rivers at all , I wounder why that is .
I did manage to access the sea-lice report for 2008 that you quoted in a previous comment and i must say that you were very selective in the amount of info from the report that you put in your reply, if anyone is interested in reading the FULL report it can be accessed from the marine institute web site at MARINE.IE.

Out of the office a lot last week and didn't get a chance:

Ballynahinch Sea Trout Rod Catches 1985-2008

1985 - 5196
1986 - 3652
1987 - 3399
1988 - 1922
1989 - 64
1990 - 100
1991 - 237
1992 - 140
1993 - 100
1994 - 418
1995 - 730
1996 - 959
1997 - 300
1998 - 224
1999 - 347
2000 - 775
2001 - 1110
2002 - 440
2003 - 415
2004 - 89
2005 - 1114
2006 - 1433
2007 - 815
2008 - 1599

Data shown on attached chart also. The rather dramatic collapse (to put it mildly) in 1989 was associated with the introduction of fish farming in Bertraghboy Bay, there were no other major changes in the catchment that year. You can also see the recovery in stocks over the last 4 years.
No need to wonder why you can't get figures, there are reams and reams of data stored in all state agencies, many are published in annual reports but you can't publish everything, there's just too much. Why would anyone want to hide this data?

As for selective quoting, well I quoted directly from the report, from the main summary which is written by the MI themselves, the statistics are pretty damning whichever way you look at them. I notice you weren't able to quote any part of the report which refutes the figures I quoted. The 2008 report is nothing new, sea lice stats have been like this for years and nothing is done about it, by the farmers or the MI. Even a slight reduction in 08 doesn't mean anything when the data over a number of years shows consistently high levels of sea lice on farms.

hi bradan, just a couple of coment and a question or 2,. SLICE is a very effective treatment in the control of lice , it acts by enabling the fish to produce more slime tha it normaly would which prevents the lice larvae from settling.
was the estemate of survival reates done as the fish returned from their marine growth phase?
how many trials were done or was it a once off?

Again, I don't know if the report has been published yet, but AFAIK the trials were done over several years to eliminate year to year variability. The survival rates were calculated based on numbers of adult fish returning from sea from batches of smolts released in several rivers, all with complete trapping facilities a short distance upstream of the river mouth - Erriff, Gowla and Invermore. The project is part of a much larger study involving several countries, including Norway and Scotland, so I'd say the final report of that study will contain the full data.
FYI, it looks like there will be an offical complaint to Europe relating to breach of the Habitats Directive, similar to the case the Wessex Trust in the UK brought against Ireland which culminated in the permanent removal of mixed-stock fisheries for salmon (drift netting). While sea trout are not a protected species under the Directive, salmon are an Annex II species, and since salmon smolts are also being affected hopefully the Commission will rule against Ireland on this matter too.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

hi bradan, thank you for the figures.
the reason i did not quote from the lice report is that i would rather let the visitors to the discussion read the whole report themselves rather than pick bits out of it.
i was looking for the COUNTER figures , which i had been told by a member of the MI are accessable on line, i have so far , been unable to access these figures.
i notice fron the catch figures that there wasa decline in the rod catch from over 5000 in 1985 to less than 2000 in 1988 , before salmon farming started in the bay. would this not suggest that the decline in the sea-trout numbers is not totaly attributed to the farm?
does the increase in the rod figures in the last few years result from the lifting of the ban on sea- trout fishing.
were there significant numbers of trout in the system during the years of low angling effort and before the counter was put in place and if one has an intrest in these figures HOW ARE THEY ACCESED!.

hi bradan, thank you for the figures.
the reason i did not quote from the lice report is that i would rather let the visitors to the discussion read the whole report themselves rather than pick bits out of it.
i was looking for the COUNTER figures , which i had been told by a member of the MI are accessable on line, i have so far , been unable to access these figures.

The counter at Ballynahinch was only installed 2 or 3 years ago, I might be able to find the counts. The counter at Inagh is older but AFAIK was not operational for a number of years - lack of investment by MI. Now the counters are run by WRFB they are all operational and checked frequently. MI would have the data, I know the data was meant to be online but I too have not been able to find it.

i notice fron the catch figures that there wasa decline in the rod catch from over 5000 in 1985 to less than 2000 in 1988 , before salmon farming started in the bay. would this not suggest that the decline in the sea-trout numbers is not totaly attributed to the farm?

I would have to check what year the farm actually started operating, it may have started earlier than 88 and taken a couple of years before smolt production would have been affected by falling number of spawners. Yes it is possible that the decline would have been due to other factors too, but that is really clutching at straws again. A fall to 64 fish from 1944 in one year certainly points to a single event.

does the increase in the rod figures in the last few years result from the lifting of the ban on sea- trout fishing.

What ban on sea trout fishing? There is a ban on killing sea trout, which is still in place, but no ban on fishing for them, and never has been. Some smaller fisheries have voluntarily implemented a ban as there just weren't enough fish to catch, but Ballynahinch has never implemented a ban.

were there significant numbers of trout in the system during the years of low angling effort and before the counter was put in place and if one has an intrest in these figures HOW ARE THEY ACCESED!.

If there were significant numbers of trout there then even the low numbers of anglers visiting would have reported good catches. Fishery managers are keen to report good fishing as it boosts business, the fact they didn't speaks for itself. You can go on and on looking for data to the nth degree, but the lack of fish is an accepted fact.
Why don't we put counters on every little river and gather at least 20 years of data before we make up our minds eh, another 20 years of salmon farming and lice production before anything is done. Delaying tactics and denial have been the weapons of choice of the fish farming industry but time is running out.

Look joyster, I can see you will never admit that fish farming is responsible, the same as Brian Cowen will never admit that he messed up the economy, but everyone else can make up their own mind. Over 2,500 people have signed the petition now, thats a lot of people who have rejected your industry's argument. Down the road, the country will probably be held in breach of the Habitats Directive and farms will have to be moved away from salmon rivers or closed. Either that or pay punitive daily fines to the EU Commission. We'll see then how valuable the industry is regarded...

is there figures for other rivers in Ireland that there is no fish farm near them
i know a man that fished the mountain lakes on the river owenboliska that flows trough spiddle,one of the lakes he fished is called sea con and he said the numbers of sea trout he caught dropped in the 50 years he fished it
this river system has very few houses near it and no fish farm,most of it is in mountains with a lot of forestry and very little over stocking of the land
has any research been carried out on the affects of forestry on rivers

is there figures for other rivers in Ireland that there is no fish farm near them
i know a man that fished the mountain lakes on the river owenboliska that flows trough spiddle,one of the lakes he fished is called sea con and he said the numbers of sea trout he caught dropped in the 50 years he fished it
this river system has very few houses near it and no fish farm,most of it is in mountains with a lot of forestry and very little over stocking of the land
has any research been carried out on the affects of forestry on rivers

Have you read the whole thread? Do it again and search for Owenboliska - the forestry issue there has already been discussed.

As for other rivers away from salmon farms, that data if available would be held by Marine Institute or the relevant fishery board. But here's an interesting journal article which shows that distance from a salmon farm is directly proportional to the number of sea lice infesting wild sea trout. The research was carried out over a 10 year period and clearly shows the relationship between salmon farming and sea lice infestation.

http://www.cfb.ie/pdf/seatrout.pdf for anyone who wants to read the full article. Abstract (summary) below. Again, I've highlighted important points, but joyster, feel free to tell me I'm being selective, but this time please provide refuting evidence.

The Relationship Between Sea Lice Infestation, Sea Lice Production And
Sea Trout Survival In Ireland, 1992-2001.

ABSTRACT
The relationship between sea lice infestation on sea trout with distance to salmon aquaculture
sites for a broad geographic range of Irish rivers was examined over a ten year period.
Highest mean levels of total lice and juvenile (chalimus stages) lice were recorded at sites
less than 20 km from farms. The mean total lice infestation was lower at sites less than 30 km
from farms and beyond 30 km, very low mean total lice levels were recorded. Chalimus lice
stages dominated the sea lice population structure at distances <20 and <30 km. At distances
<60 and <100 km chalimus and post chalimus stages are equally represented and at sites
>100km post chalimus stages predominate. A model was fitted to pooled 10 year data time
series for sea lice infestation and distance from marine salmon farms to indicate an overall
relationship that could be used to support management actions. The average abundance of
lice per fish expected very close to farms (1km) was 50.6. Regression of log-transformed data
for individual years showed significant relationships in all years except 1994 and 1999
although substantial variation existed in the data particularly close to farms. Infestations at
distances greater than 25 km, never reached over 32 lice per fish and were usually much
lower. At distances less than 25 km the full range in infestation occurred.
Sea trout have been shown to experience physiological problems and osmoregulatory
imbalance at lice levels of approximately 0.7 lice larva.g -1 fish weight. The overall mean size
of trout in the present study carrying lice was 79g giving an indicative stress level of sea lice
infestation of 55 lice/fish. Twenty nine percent of the infested trout had lice levels above this
indicative stress level. For fish sampled in bays without farms, 3.4% of the infested trout
were above this indicative stress level while for fish captured in bays with farms this level
rose to 30.8%. There was a relationship between the proportion of fish in each sample above
55 lice per fish and distance from salmon farms. There was a significant negative relationship
between sea trout marine survival and the level of lice infestation on sea trout in four bays in
the mid-West.
A linear model of the relationship between the total number of ovigerous lice produced in
two bays between March to mid-May and the average number of sea lice infesting sea trout
in nearby rivers showed a significant positive relationship between lice reproductive potential
and infestation of trout.
The relationships shown in the present study indicate that sea lice from marine salmon farms
were a major contributory factor in the sea trout stock collapses observed in aquaculture areas
in western Ireland. If recovery of depleted sea trout stocks is to be achieved in this area it is
critical to ensure that ovigerous sea lice levels are maintained at near zero levels on marine
salmon farms over the spring period prior to and during sea trout smolt migration. This must
be achieved on a consistent annual basis for a successful sea trout recovery.

If recovery of depleted sea trout stocks is to be achieved in this area it is
critical to ensure that ovigerous sea lice levels are maintained at near zero levels on marine
salmon farms over the spring period prior to and during sea trout smolt migration. This must
be achieved on a consistent annual basis for a successful sea trout recovery.

This is probably the clearest way of putting the crux of the problem, and this is clearly not happening on salmon farms in the west of Ireland.

Hi Bradan,

MI would have the data, I know the data was meant t,o be online but I too have not been able to find it.

The Marine Institute dont have the data I have asked.

Thank you for the Ballanahinch figures. Have you got the figures for the Gowla river that also runs into Beirteraghbui bay? There should surely be an increase in returns there similar to the other fisheries in such a small bay. AS I have said before I have found the figures for all the rivers in Ireland from about 1980 to 2003. As its copyrighted can the MODS let me know if I can refer a link here to it?. That way everyone can get all the data available and make up their own minds instead of biased opinions.

Also Bradan your quote from 1 paper is again only giving one brief snapshot and not the whole picture. (Does not say what species of lice, time of year, randomness of catch effort, were the fish tested for other diseases/pathogens etc)

Joyster is on the other side of the fence but in fairness all he has asked for is the same as I have asked for. ALL the data to be available to all the people to make up thier own minds. Lice levels on farms are published every year and are monitored by the MI and the WRFB. Getting returns from fisheries for fish counters anging returns and Catch per unit effort (CPUE) are very difficult. I am not even going to get into sheep levels on hills, increase in forestry, better fishery management etc.etc. that all have an effect on catchment areas.

Come on Bradan. If you have access to this data tell us where we can find it.

For what I think is a balanced un-biasedview look at this link which is a review from all angles on this debate. http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads ... IR1206.pdf

While sea trout are not a protected species under the Directive, salmon are an Annex II species, and since salmon smolts are also being affected hopefully the Commission will rule against Ireland on this matter too.

If they do rule against Ireland whats to stop salmon being totally protected and a ban on salmon angling totally? I am being very serious.


Caz

Hi Bradan,

MI would have the data, I know the data was meant t,o be online but I too have not been able to find it.

The Marine Institute dont have the data I have asked.

Thank you for the Ballanahinch figures. Have you got the figures for the Gowla river that also runs into Beirteraghbui bay? There should surely be an increase in returns there similar to the other fisheries in such a small bay. AS I have said before I have found the figures for all the rivers in Ireland from about 1980 to 2003. As its copyrighted can the MODS let me know if I can refer a link here to it?. That way everyone can get all the data available and make up their own minds instead of biased opinions.

The Gowla fishery was closed in the early 90s and has not been fished since, so there is no angling data. The only data I've seen is trap returns for the last 4 years - the trap has only been operated for that period, it was installed as part of the SUMBAWS project.
2005 - 20
2006 - 17
2007 - 277
2008 - 292

Also Bradan your quote from 1 paper is again only giving one brief snapshot and not the whole picture. (Does not say what species of lice, time of year, randomness of catch effort, were the fish tested for other diseases/pathogens etc)

It would be ridiculous to have the whole paper quoted verbatim. Of course I quoted only a small part - the abstract, which anyone who reads scientific papers would know is the main summary. I also posted a link to the PDF so you, or anyone else, could read the rest of the paper and maybe not have to ask these questions here.

Joyster is on the other side of the fence but in fairness all he has asked for is the same as I have asked for. ALL the data to be available to all the people to make up thier own minds. Lice levels on farms are published every year and are monitored by the MI and the WRFB. Getting returns from fisheries for fish counters anging returns and Catch per unit effort (CPUE) are very difficult. I am not even going to get into sheep levels on hills, increase in forestry, better fishery management etc.etc. that all have an effect on catchment areas.
Come on Bradan. If you have access to this data tell us where we can find it.

The fish counters were managed by the MI for all but the last couple of years, since then the number of counters and standard of maintenance has been hugely increased, I don't know why the figures aren't available either, ask the MI what they've done with them. I have access to very limited data in my job, but I can still read scientific papers and understand their findings.

For what I think is a balanced un-biasedview look at this link which is a review from all angles on this debate. http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads ... IR1206.pdf

For a review paper the authors really leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind, they don't draw any firm conclusion. Plenty of papers quoted backing up the argument against salmon farming in inshore areas though. The authors do a lot of dithering but fail to quote any papers that I can see that disprove the link.

While sea trout are not a protected species under the Directive, salmon are an Annex II species, and since salmon smolts are also being affected hopefully the Commission will rule against Ireland on this matter too.

If they do rule against Ireland whats to stop salmon being totally protected and a ban on salmon angling totally? I am being very serious.


Caz[/quote]


They have already ruled against Ireland under the Habitats Directive for mixed-stock fisheries for salmon, and didn't insist on no angling - why should angling suffer now for the wrongs of fish farming when they didn't cause the problem. Salmon anglers have taken their share of the pain with reduced quotas, closed rivers, etc for a problem they didn't cause.

Now how about you guys on the other side of the dabate answer a few questions?

Do you serioulsy contend that salmon farming is not reponsible for the collapse in sea trout stocks in Connemara?

Do you simply not believe scientific research proving the link, or choose to ignore it? Can you provide any scientific evidence that salmon farming is not responsible?

As current salmon farming industry practice is clearly not working to protect wild stocks, what do you see as the way forward? (Keeping the status quo is not an option)

hibradan, i have said through out this discussion that lice on the salmon farms is one of the factors effecting sea trout returns, but i believe that it is not the ONLY one.
the use soleily of catch returns to estemate the nos of fish in the systems is crazy and un-scientific.
it is crazy that you can access all the info you need on salmon farms, yet, when you try to get the fish return figures on a system that has a fish counter on , these figures cannot be obtained.
if the wrfb operate and maintain thef ish counters in ballinahinch and inagh ,why are the return figures not available from them
has any research been done in relation to the health of the freshwater envoirnment for sea trout in respect of the changesto the use of the land in the catchment areas
i will leave you with this thought,
DRIFT NETS KILL SALMON----- BANNED
SALMON FARMS-------------TRYING TO BAN
ANGLERS KILL SALMON--------NEXT IN LINE

Hi Bradan

Do you serioulsy contend that salmon farming is not reponsible for the collapse in sea trout stocks in Connemara?

I do not agree that salmon farming is solely responsible for the sea-trout collapse in connemara. I have already listed all the other problems that can affect sea-trout stocks in the area in previous postings. There are too many dead fisheries in connemara that died/were killed off long before salmon farming came around.

Do you simply not believe scientific research proving the link, or choose to ignore it? Can you provide any scientific evidence that salmon farming is not responsible?

I have posted a link to a paper that reviews all the papers concerned with sea-trout, lice and farms, by an independent person. IMO your the one who is chosing to ignore scientific research. I have tried to give a balanced view and have pleaded from the outset for all the information to be made available so that people can make a balanced and informed view. That still hasnt been done. Farms are also monitored by the Marine Institute, WRFB, Dept of Marine, Dept of environment, organic certification authorities from outside this state and county councils. All the information is published by the aquaculture side annually. Wheres the data from the fisheries side. I will keep asking.

As current salmon farming industry practice is clearly not working to protect wild stocks, what do you see as the way forward? (Keeping the status quo is not an option)

The way forward is to sit down together with ALL (forestry,farming, land owners, fishery owners, fish farmers etc) the interested parties in a neutral atmosphere where each side will listen to each other and come up with a proper management plans. Despite what you think of the economics of fishfarming it started of in the middle of one recession (70's and 80's) and while high tech and manufacturing industries have come and gone, fishfarming is still here, in the middle of this recession.

I think I have answered your question honestly and fairly and now I have one question for you.

How do you expect the fishfarms to move from esturies, such as Beirteraghbui bay, when the likes of the Western Regional Fisheries Board object to EVERY Aquaculture licence application?

Caz

heres a report with another slant on this by FIE

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment ... .12.08.pdf

well, once again nature has made an ass of us humans with our predictions of doom and gloom ( not all of us) about the demise of the sea-trout fishing in connemara!
I read with a smile on my face the article by dereck evans in the angling notes of the irish times today. He decribes a trip to fish in connemara last week and what clearly comes across is that there are plenty of salmon and sea-trout in Ballinahinch, inagh and Kylemore fisheries, all of which flow into bays with salmon farms in them.
Mother nature provided us with a cold wet winter, for once, which kept the sea-trout smolts in freshwater until the sand eels had emerged in the easturies. the numbers of sand eels in Bertaghbui bay this year is truely amazing. this ment tht the smolts have had a feeding bonanza since they went to sea , ensuring healthy fish . these fish will soon re-enter the rivers for the summer months.
The one disturbing note on the article is the photo of the angler with the 4.4kg salmon that he has killed. this is obviously a spring run salmon. Would this fish be of better use to the fishery if it had been returned and allowed to spawn.
If the average hen salmon produces 3000 eggs and about 1% of these survive to return , then this fish was worth 30 fish to the fishery.
Better to take a photo and return the fish to the water than have it end up in a septic tank somewhere, if you want to eat salmon ,eat organic farmed salmon
This angler could take a leaf out of the sea-anglers- CATCH AND RETURN

Only joined today! Hope my signature isn't to late to help on this.

Just back fishing two months after a fifteen year break and like you I'm fond of both fresh and salt water.

Not very proficient on this forus yet and tried to post this reply earlier.

righthook

organic farmed salmon

No such animal, as far as I'm concerned. It's either wild (good to eat) or farmed (not fit for consumption). This "organic, farmed" label is a smokescreen, imo.

That's a personal opinion based on personal prejudices.

given a choice I to would eat a wild fish over a farmed fish, however I am also of the belief that wild salmon should be left to do as nature intended and if I get a hankering for afeed of salmon then an organic farmed salmon is your only man or fish.
this is also a personal opinion based on personal prejudices.

just a heads up to anyone hoping to catch a salmon or sea-trout , there has been a mini monsoon in the connemara area since 2 pm today, and it is forecast to continue through the night so there should be a good run of fish into all the systems localy.