Reintroduction of Salmon Farming in Bertraghboy Bay..

[Bradan]

i agree with caz that proper management stratagies will help in this case.
there is an onus on the fishery owners, both state and private, to manage all aspects of their envoirnment, be it spawning grounds, river bank and bed maintenance, predator control, returning fish and smolt to sea counts, and angler management.
also with the sheep farmers and forestry owners tha planting is not done up to the stream banks, sheep numbers are not at a level as to cause over-grazing, any fertilising of the catchment area is done in the proper manner and at the correct time.
fish farmers should ensure that lice levels on their fish should be kept below the targets set by the authorities.
the state should place counters on ALL salmon and sea-trout fisheries, to ensure that within the management plan, there are accurate figures for returning and decending fish within the system. the counts from these counters should be made available to all interested parties .
what has happened to the western fisheries over the last 20 years or so is the responsability of all the users of the catchments, and as such the onus is on these people and organisations and stste authorities to sort out this sorry mess!

I'm out of the office until next week, will try to dig out the catch record data I have then. But to address the points above, yes, all these factors will impact on sea trout stocks. But the way the post is worded suggests that they are all equal, and everyone has an equal impact - NOT TRUE. Fish farms alone are by far the biggest factor in the sea trout collapse, to claim otherwise is pure fantasy. Fish farming should take a good look at itself and how the industry is regulated, if they don't the government should. But we all know thats not going to happen, the fish farmers were wise enough to join the biggest and best lobby group in the country, the IFA. Unfortunately, as with sheep farming and many other agricultural practices, business comes first at the expense of the environment, and the IFA are too powerful for the govt to really take on.

[joyster]

again i will say that the fish farms are ONE of the causes of the decline in sea-trout numbers. unfortunatly, some people think it is the only one.
as regard regulation of the fish farms, this is carried out by the state and it is the responsability of the state to ensure that this is done properly.as it is also the job of the state toregulate all the other activities within the catchments.
i hope that bradan will publish the return figures that we would all like to see!
there is now aneed, more than ever , for all interested parties to pool their collective knowledge,information and goodwill, to try and improve the plight of these wounderful creatures. because, if the fighting and bickering continues, the only thing that suffers are the sea-trout.

[gfkelly1969]

came across this website with a video that explains a bit about Salmon and sea lice http://www.watershed-watch.org/sealice.html

put me thinking,how many farmed Salmon do they keep per cage? and if there were only 2 oviderous lice per fish and like in clifden bay there are 6 cages then that is a lot of lice in a bay that is about 4 miles long and less then 1 mile wide

[joyster]

most cages would have 20-30000 fish per cage.
the results of the lice counts on fish are an average of the number of lice per fish.
it is my experiance of 25 years working for a salmon company, that reaching high levels of lice on our fish is the exception rather than the rule. for example today i did a lice count on 100 fish from one of our cages, the dept usualy do 30, the total number of lice that i found on allthe fish was 12, of which 2 were oviderous. even though the overall numbers are low i will be commencing an in feed lice treatment tommorow and by next week i would expect the count to be close to zero
this is a example of the type of management stratagies that we use to control lice numbers. this treatment is not being done at the behest of the dept, it is being done because we know that an increase in lice numbers will effect the appetite of the fish and hence the profitability of the farm.
because just like the fishery owners we are in this business to make a profit!

[Bradan]

most cages would have 20-30000 fish per cage.
the results of the lice counts on fish are an average of the number of lice per fish.
it is my experiance of 25 years working for a salmon company, that reaching high levels of lice on our fish is the exception rather than the rule. for example today i did a lice count on 100 fish from one of our cages, the dept usualy do 30, the total number of lice that i found on allthe fish was 12, of which 2 were oviderous. even though the overall numbers are low i will be commencing an in feed lice treatment tommorow and by next week i would expect the count to be close to zero
this is a example of the type of management stratagies that we use to control lice numbers. this treatment is not being done at the behest of the dept, it is being done because we know that an increase in lice numbers will effect the appetite of the fish and hence the profitability of the farm.
because just like the fishery owners we are in this business to make a profit!

You must be the best-managed and most responsible fish farm in Ireland so. See the latest report from the Marine Institute on sea lice: http://www.marine.ie/home/services/oper ... +_2008.htm

Some extracts: (BTW I was wrong about treatment levels, its 0.5 ovigerous lice per fish, not 2)

Atlantic salmon 2006 (two-sea-winter salmon)
At the beginning of 2008, two-sea-winter salmon were stocked on 4 fish farm sites. A total of 15 visits were undertaken to these sites before harvesting was completed, with 47% of inspections exceeding treatment trigger levels.

Atlantic salmon 2007 (one-sea-winter salmon)
One-sea-winter salmon were stocked in a total of 13 sites in 9 bays in 2008. One hundred and fourteen visits were undertaken to this generation of fish. Ovigerous Lepeophtheirus salmonis levels greater than the treatment trigger level were recorded in a total of 49 inspections (43%) on one-sea-winter fish. Within the critical spring period, sea lice levels were in excess of 0.5 ovigerous females per fish on 29 inspections (48%) and outside of the spring period 20 inspections (38%) were in excess of 2.0 ovigerous female sea lice per fish.

On one-sea-winter salmon sea lice levels exceeded treatment trigger levels for 53% of inspections in the West and for 29.1% of inspections in the Northwest. During the spring period 54.1% and 37.5% of inspections exceeded the lower treatment trigger of 0.5 ovigerous sea lice per fish in the West and Northwest respectively. There were no one-sea-winter fish stocked in the Southwest in 2008.

Of the 15 inspections carried out on two-sea-winter fish, between Dec/Jan 08 and the last inspection in May, prior to completion of harvest, a maximum of 71.5 mobile sea lice per fish was recorded in the West and a maximum of 11.44 mobile sea lice per fish in the Northwest. This represented a reduction on maximum infestation levels recorded in 2007. The maximum level recorded for an individual site was 118.11 mobile L. salmonis per fish in 2008, compared to 142.5 in 2007.

Now if thats not an indictment of fish husbandry standards across the industry I don't know what it is. Clearly the industry cannot regulate itself without harming wild stocks. Unfortunately, as already stated, the government refuses to do it too.

[joyster]

i do not claim to work on the best managed farm in the country, what i am trying to do is explain the practices we use to moniter and control the lice numbers on our fish.
our strategy is this ,1- daily observation of the fish for lice numbers, 2- fortnightly counting of lice on the fish, 3- treatment of cages when there are numbers of adult lice present.
our aim is to treat the cages Before the females reach maturity, that way we try to keep the lice numbers at background levels.
the figures from the dept are not unfortunatly done on a farm by farm basis, as i know from experiance that the lice issue is much greater for some sites than others. obviously the more sheltered sites are not as effected by weather when it cimes to treating cages.
another fact that needs to be put out there , is that lice are a naturaly occoring parasite in the marine envoirnment. i have been involved in setting up a new salmon on growing site , with no salmon farm within 20km and no river within 17km ,and yet after 3 weeks at sea we had to treat our fish, we put fish into 2 sites that the bays had been fallow for 3 and 5 years respectively and again after 3 weeks we had to treat. these were smolt that we put to sea not growers from another site.
where did these lice originate from, do they have a secondary host, do the larvae form cysts if they do not find a host and sink to the bottom and re-emerge when conditions are suitable or triggered by something else like plankton does.
the lice issue is the biggest one effecting farmers and fishery owners , unfortunatly the state does not have the balls or the resources to try and find the answers to the questions or the solution to the problem and i write this as a farmer and an angler, both sea and game!

[gfkelly1969]

i assume some of the pellets fed to the caged salmon would fall to the sea floor

would this not attract the wild salmon smolts in numbers and in turn attract predatory fish and seals and otters that would feed on the wild smolts leading to a decrease in the wild smolts numbers?

[joyster]

we try to limit to an absolut minimum the amount of wastage when feeding fish by slightly under feeding our fish, sure, a very small amount of food will be wasted but i have never seen a wild salmon smolt near our cages .
the main area to find the predators is at the mouth of the rivers, where the decending smolt are concentrated in a small area . next time you pass the eastury of a river , especialy in the spring and early summer,at low water, stop and look for any predators, i would be surprised if you did not see a heron, cormorant, seal, otter ,shag, merganser,mink or maybe all of the afore mentioned.
what i guarntee you will not see is anybody trying to prevent these predators from killing these fish
on a related topic, i read in a journal recently where a batch of micro tagged salmon smolt were caught in a mackrel trawlers net, not unusual you might think, but these fish were released from a wild salmon hatchery 4 days previously in connemara and were caught in the MULL OF KINTYRE! i think this might dispel the myth that salmon smolt hang around the bays after going to sea.

[corbyeire]

joyster i fail to see why your reiterating the point as regards the natural predators

confusing

is it that culling these species would result in more natural smolts and cast the decline in salmon/seatrout numbers away from the farms?

2 wrongs dont make a right

[joyster]

i am reiterating the predator issue because they eat fish the more they
. eat the less fish return tothe river .
i am not calling for acull, what i am calling for is the proper management of predators in the easturies at certain times of the year. often it only takes a human presence to scare off these predators thus allowing the smolts a better chance to go to sea.
i am also not trying to say that these controls will limit the effect of the farms on the problem, as farmers we have an obligation to limit the effects on the marine envoirnment as much as possible. but the other users of the catchment also have a responsability to assist the fish to survive and particularly the fishery owners. after all a river system wth a good run of fish is what they are looking for and if you want to partake in this abundant return you have to pay for it and in most cases it is not cheap, because like the fish farms they are in the business of making a profit each year.
if the fishery owners are so concerened about the survival of salmon and sea-trout then maybe it would be better if the did not allow any fish to be caught on their waters

[Tanglerat]

if the fishery owners are so concerened about the survival of salmon and sea-trout then maybe it would be better if the did not allow any fish to be caught on their waters

Only the smilie saved this remark from being binned.

You may have been being facetious, but you were bordering on being offensive and insensitive. I can't think of the amount of time and energy I've spent, and money my club's spent in clearing banks, clearing "tunnelling" overgrowth, buying gravel for spawning beds, raking spawning beds, watching out for poachers and a million other tasks connected with a fishery - and we don't even own the fishery! And what interest, help or involvement do we get from commercial operators? Exactly nil, none at all. They leave it to someone else.

We do it for the sake of the fish and the sake of the sport - not for commercial gain. And you reckon no fish should be taken from a fishery? We've already got that, thanks to all the river being closed up this way.......

[joyster]

apologies for any upset!!!! i to am a member of a club and have spent many happy! days raking ,shoveling in the river to try and improve the lot of the fish.
unfortunatly, not all fishery people have the same commitment and throw in the towel when the going gets tough and expect the state authorities to sort it out , meanwhile their fisheries are let decline. i know of 3 formerly excellent fisheries close to me that have had no maintenance whatsover in the last 15 years or so and yet the owners of these waters expect the state to solve all the problems that they are having!
the point i was making is that if the owner or operator of a fishery is not going to maintain the resource, then they should be removed and replaced with people who are willing to do so ,in good times and bad.
a lot has been written about the duty of salmon farmers to operate properly , well there is an onus on all people in the catchment areas to do the same , regardless of who they are.
again my apologies for any upset, it was not intended!

[Bradan]

apologies for any upset!!!! i to am a member of a club and have spent many happy! days raking ,shoveling in the river to try and improve the lot of the fish.
unfortunatly, not all fishery people have the same commitment and throw in the towel when the going gets tough and expect the state authorities to sort it out , meanwhile their fisheries are let decline. i know of 3 formerly excellent fisheries close to me that have had no maintenance whatsover in the last 15 years or so and yet the owners of these waters expect the state to solve all the problems that they are having!
the point i was making is that if the owner or operator of a fishery is not going to maintain the resource, then they should be removed and replaced with people who are willing to do so ,in good times and bad.
a lot has been written about the duty of salmon farmers to operate properly , well there is an onus on all people in the catchment areas to do the same , regardless of who they are.
again my apologies for any upset, it was not intended!

I have a good idea of the fisheries you're talking about, probably Invermore, Inverbeg, Gowla would be 3 good candidates. The problem is the fishery owners have zero income from rod fishing to spend on maintenance - all down to the fact that there are no sea trout left in those fisheries since fish farms appeared in the local bays. Meanwhile, the fish farms that cause the problem repeatedly breach lice levels with impunity, go bankrupt, are bailed out with government grants, benefit from EU trade tariffs on imported salmon, etc. ad nauseum.
See the pattern here? Yet you think its up to the fishery owners to solve.

[joyster]

those are not the fisheries i was writing about, but the theme is the same ,those fisheries
are not being maintained .
as far as i know there are no counters on these systesms,this coupled with the fact that it is not being fished or maintained means that to say there are no sea-trout in the rivers is missleading. the ballinahinch system , which shares the same bay, has had good runs of sea-trout recently.when fish do return to these systems, will the spawning beds be in a fit state to use, a basic requirement in any fishery and one that is neither epensive or paticularly hard to maintain,again management.
the impression is given by bradan that salmon farms are lice growing, bankrupt,government subsedised,and prtected from the realities of world trade.
1- lice are aproblem that we try to keep to as low a level as possible
2-the company I work for has not gone bankrupt in the last 25 years
3-whilst we are all members of the E.U, most of our production is exported outside the E.U.
4-we avail of gov grants when they are available, like any other business.

[Bradan]

those are not the fisheries i was writing about, but the theme is the same ,those fisheries
are not being maintained .
as far as i know there are no counters on these systesms,this coupled with the fact that it is not being fished or maintained means that to say there are no sea-trout in the rivers is missleading. the ballinahinch system , which shares the same bay, has had good runs of sea-trout recently.when fish do return to these systems, will the spawning beds be in a fit state to use, a basic requirement in any fishery and one that is neither epensive or paticularly hard to maintain,again management.

There are full trapping facilities on 2 of those systems that the WRFB and CFB monitor, even more accurate than fish counters. Both of those systems have been used to carry out surveys including work comparing treated smolts with untreated smolts - the survival rates of treated fish were far in excess of untreated, showing the effect of sea lice.
Contrary to what you say, spawning bed maintenance is quite expensive, both in terms of manpower and machinery. The fishery owners are not in a position to maintain these. But if fish returned there would be ample spawning habitat still available. Once again you are throwing mud and refusing to acknowledge the problems with your own industry,

the impression is given by bradan that salmon farms are lice growing, bankrupt,government subsedised,and prtected from the realities of world trade.
1- lice are aproblem that we try to keep to as low a level as possible

Your farm may try to do this, but the figures from the MI survey speak for themselves, other farms have a dismal record of lice control.

2-the company I work for has not gone bankrupt in the last 25 years

The fish farm in Bertraghboy Bay, which is what this thread is about, has gone bust at least 3 times in the last 20 years. Each time, it gets back on its feet through government intervention.

3-whilst we are all members of the E.U, most of our production is exported outside the E.U.

Yes, but salmon producers outside the EU can produce salmon for cheaper than Irish or Scottish farms. But they are prevented from selling inside the EU at that price, import tariffs are in place to protect EU fish farmers from competition. I always try to buy Irish, but given the choice I would prefer to buy Norwegian farmed salmon - at least there I know they take lice control seriously and value their wild fisheries more. But I don't have the choice because of import tariffs.

4-we avail of gov grants when they are available, like any other business.

As a taxpayer, I object to grants being paid to an industry that consistently breaches statutory lice levels, and has contributed to the collapse of a once viable and sustainable industry. I posted earlier in this thread about the total sum of grants invested by govt in the sector and the return on jobs - in any other sector the paltry return would not be tolerated and would not be rewarded with further grants.

[joyster]

well it is obvious that this debate is going round in circles , so i am going to leave it at that . i hope some of my entries have helped to educate some people ,if not, no harm!
bradan , i would be interested to know of the fish counts of the fisheries in the bertagh, if this info is available. if u cannot help maybe u could let me know who to contact, thanks and cheerio

[fishermannum1]

PETITION SIGNED

only thing i have to say on this is........
i hope them killer jellyfish stop in at the farm...

[donal domeney]

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.

[The Austrian]

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.

very well said

[doggie3131]

have to agree with donal,that was one of the best debates i have read on the site,and it opened my eyes to some of the issues brought up.well done lads