Campbell & Co. are eco-terrorists of the worst sort. Their extermination of coastal salmon, for the sake of a few dollars in the Liberal coffers, from the fish farmers is nothing sort of criminal! They all should be in jail.

It will take Campbell's beloved Americans to stop this Salmon extinction and a good thing too! Rafe deserves an order of Canada for his Salmon watch, but he need not worry, the 'elites' will never allow it, as they prefer cheats, theives, CBC personalities and a few 'token' types in their midst.

One day British Columbians will wake up from their stupor and see just what this traitor and his cronies have done and take action.

Rafe has earned more than a "Gong" that has
lavatory output. He deserves the right to
winnow out the chalf on that "Order" and maybe then, with his consent.

Mulrooney is a prime example of that old saw;
"Pride is the only sin the poor(in character)
can afford" The Order of Canada! give me a
break.
There are a lot of these characters on the
"Farm Fish" file.

This is curious. I asked just recently -- of people who should know -- whatever became of the dire predictions for the crash of pink salmon returns to the Broughton this fall.

The reply was that pinks returned to the Broughton in great abundance this fall, compared to the numbers that went out for this brood year, thus throwing doubts on the whole sea lice connection.

Who is right?

"Every single independent scientist who has studied the subject has made the irrefutable connection between failed salmon runs and the fish cages".
To quote Rafe again.....'bullshit'. Here is 3 (direct) quotes from those studies that Rafe refers to:

"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 lead 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)

Irrefutable eh Rafe? Do you even know what that word means?

Passion, high stakes and complexity all contribute to muddy waters here, Andy, with nuances that are easily misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented.

One can see an "irrefutable connection" without concluding that there is a definitive causal connection between fish farms and substantial negative impacts on wild populations due to negative health impacts of sea lice.

I doubt any serious scientist would contend that there is no connection between lice on farmed and wild fish (they'd have to prove that no louse ever left a farm and attached itself to a wild smolt, which is just plain silly).

The key unresolved questions, as I understand them, relate to three points:

1) Are sea lice from fish farms the primary source of lice on wild smolts?
2) If so, do lice from fish farms have a significant negative impact on the health and survivability of these wild smolts?
3) If so, is this a major factor negatively affecting run sizes?

Scientists disagree on how much proof is needed on these questions to prompt radical reform of open-pen fish farming. However, the fact that even the industry has accepted the need to do far more to control sea lice in net pens in recent years is ample evidence that both sides recognize that there's enough concern to warrant some caution.

CTV news last night reported that a new study may show that up to 30% of global warming could be attributed to the sun. Flare ups, solar wind etc. I'm looking forward to finding out who's study it was, because CTV didn't say. They interviwed a few people who had opinions on the issue, but did not reveal the source. Probably corporate scientists. First they said there was no global warming, now they say 30% of it is the suns fault. It's at the point now where science is just another tool used by corporations to continue the assault. The assault on your intelligence. They don't believe you will do anything about it. They expect you to continue to consumme. Look how ridiculous TV commercials are. Buy the toothpaste, have fresh breath, get the girl... They obviously don't respect you and they now just flaunt there power right in front of you. You eat, buy, drive, crave and desire worthless junk. Farmed salmon is just one more diversion from the real problems. The real fish are disappearing, along with traditional seeds for agriculture replaced by GMO's and enslavement to Monsanto and Cargill. You see David Suzuki, and Michael Moore as leftwing nuts, because they think there might be a better way of doing things. You are going to get what you give. So enjoy eating those fast foods, the ones that support rain forest destruction and McJobs. Keep serving your guests farmed Salmon, don't buy organic or free range, cause you know better. Humanity is a frog in a pot of soon to be boiling water. The frog dies before the water gets to a rolling boil..... Oops! Sorry, I gave away the ending....

Climate change overall is a natural event, yes because of population concentrations there is localized change, but overall it is natural. Check out this website,friendsofscience.org
I would like to see Rafe make a comment on this. And there is a big run of Pinks.

Campbell government is to blame. But the stupid peole who voted for the BC Liberal are responsible for this disaster as well.

Willy, may I suggest you take your friendsofscience and toss it into the same great big heap of bs you and the other deniers continue to spew.

It's a "natural event" all right. Nature is naturally reacting to the toxic mess you are pretending to ignore and thereby justify.

That's quite a list. Two scientists apparently make up friendsofscience and, of course, they are more qualified than the thousands of scientists who are pleading for world powers to start dealing with our worst nightmare yet.

Willy, if anyone takes you seriously then you are a danger to the earth and all of us on it.
[B]

Sea lice is only one aspect of the travesty that is modern salmon farming. Let us not forget escapement and subsequent spawning of Atlantic salmon in West Coast river, the harvesting of krill ( a keystone species)to feed the pathetic creatures, and the high levels of toxins in farmed salmon.
The pinks had a high survival rate in the open ocean this year. That is something to celebrate, but does not excuse a serious objective assessment of salmon farming from all perspectives.
M

Allan all I ask is read and then apply a thoughtful comment. Do you believe everything you hear without any research. Just read it that is all I ask, or are you willing to spend trillions of dollars in the wrong direction. Clean up pollution yes, but make sure we are spending wisely. There are more scientists questioning if mankind caused global warming, than there are supporting mankind global warming. The climate is dynamic ever changing, we are in more danger of an iceage once this suns present cycle is over. Too bad more people didn't take science in school than the easy out liberal arts. Everyone trashing fish farms have you ever checked them out or is the only thing you know about any type farming is Save-On foods.

Suggested reading: A Short History of Progress by Ronald B. Wright.

Seems Planet Earth had 4 previous civilizations. Each lasted about 1,000 years and then self-destructed, pursuing "progress" right to the very end.

We are the 5th civilization, different in two ways:

* we cover the entire planet (they were localized)
* we know what destroys civilizations.

The awesome question Wright leaves us with is: how will we convince everyone to stop plundering and polluting the resources of the planet now?

Willy, put something on - your ignorance is showing. Your link to the cutely-named "friends of science" uncovers a fragment of the scientific community representing a tiny minority. I don't claim to be an expert, but if thousands of respected and accredited scientists say one thing, and a handful of (possibly corporate-sponsored) naysayers say another, I will believe the former. Another point - do you honestly believe burning 100 million of barrels of oil every day (and increasing) can have no effect on the atmosphere? Take a single 45 gal/205 L barrel of oil, bring it to your back yard. Set it on fire. Think of the result. Consider the reactions of your neighbours. Now extrapolate that 100 million times. I do not argue that weather is complex and our understanding is superficial. I don't disagree that solar activity may be more important to our planet - if our star belches we could all die. Fast. Or a period of volcanism may occur, and atmospheric conditions may change radically. Ice ages have come and gone. Agreed. Does that mean we should continue to experiment? Like titrate the concentration of CO2 until the effects are unmistakable? Or should we attempt to reduce our use of oil? Bush and his corporate puppet masters see only trillions of dollars. I see potential disaster.

Well said, tommymoore.... and the fact that an asteroid, a superbug or a nutcase with WMD could wipe us all out next week doesn't detract from the need to face up to climate change either.

People are catching on to this habit of coralling a few hired or oddball scientists to create the suggestion that a near-consensus is an equally-weighted two-sided debate.

Granted, the side of near-consensus has turned out to be wrong on rare occasions in the past. Those who benefit from the status quo--big oil, big SUV makers, etc. are betting the bank on it, but we'd be foolish to bet our lives on it.

It's pretty much the same game with the aquaculture/ wild salmon debate. And those who are raising legitimate concerns for debate on this issue argue that they are being required to meet sky-high standards of proof, while the flimsiest of doubts is enough to justify the status quo.

I'd still like to hear more details on the pink returns for this year, though. Rafe is usually pretty well informed but I'm wondering if he screwed up on the "wipeout" that's the basis of this particular column.

Tommymoore instead of frothing at the mouth like Allan and calling names like a grade school child, all I ask is read the whole site then post a comment. How can one comment without reading. Heres a site on fish farming that gives another perspective http://www.salmonfarmers.org check out the pink returns. Hey I try to look at the whole picture pro and con to figure out what is going on.

Yeah, looks like Rafe screwed up. Got to give him a break, he's a busy man. Doesn't leave him much time to actually look into an issue. Unfortunately, Rafe has a few environmental groups feeding him some bogus information - 2005 returns are now higher than 2003. I'm glad he's passionate about an issue, but this was a mistake. I wonder if Rafe would apologize for this mis-information?!?!?

Below are the #'s from the link that willy gave.

1987:
Record odd year low pink salmon returns to Glendale
6,000 fish
Total returns to 5 indicator streams
115,000 fish

1988:
The year salmon farms begin operating in the Broughton
Â*
2001:
Record odd year high pink salmon returns
1,350,000 fish
Total returns to 5 indicator streams
1,450,847 fish

2003:
Glendale returns
161,876 fish
Total Returns to five indicator streams
185,642 fish

2005:
Actual numbers for Glendale returns so far this year*
178,700 fish
Actual total return numbers to five indicators streams so far this year*
204,434 fish

This bullshit has to stop. Numbers? Listen,
I have been fishing since I could walk. I've seen these fish change. The sockeye have gotten smaller. The pinks no longer fight like they used to. Abundance of fish? What part of the world are you all living in? Up until 10 years ago, I could pull out a pink, then a sockeye, another pink, a sockeye, any fish I wanted. Right now, its tough to even hit my limit, which is 2 pinks per person. Get some new numbers, this time, actually get it right from a person monitoring the river. As for the Broughton, if we are blaming sunlight, we aren't sunspots hitting the fish on the Fraser, the Vedder, the Harrison, the Chehalis?
That sunspot argument is a pile of horseshit. I took my brand new boat out there this year and I tell you, I pulled in a few pinks and they looked ugly. I even found lice clogging their gills and I've been up and down our coast and I have never seen these lice as big as they are now. They are almost the size of dime.
In summation, I am not opposed to the fish farming, it can be done on land, and as far as I'm concerned, even close to a body of water as long as the intake and discharge are all filtered, we can all co-exist. It is a significant upfront investment which is cheaper long run than farming on the coast. I even went as far as to send mail to one of these companies suggesting that they buy an older oil tanker, replace the oil tanks and put new ones in and they have a floating fish processing plant that doesn't even need to move and it already has the infrastructure to pipe water in, filter it and send it out. This idea doesn't take up land space, we don't need to cut down any trees and it can sit right on the sea. If these retards used their imaginations, we could have some healthy fish farmed fish and really firm-fleshed wild fish and we wouldn't have the commercial fisherman butting heads with the bureaucrats on a yearly basis.
Thanks.
PS. Props to you Mr. Mair for keeping this
issue in the spotlight.

Hey Tristan...did you notice that Willy's link is to an industry web-site? Hmmm...scientists not linked to industry or the government are saying the returns are low this year. Who should we believe? Salmon farmers who make money by keeping these sea lice infested farms open (and the scientists and politicians they pay), or independent scientists who don't have to make up environmental tragedies to occupy their time? I could easily quote many "scientific studies" to back up either side of the argument. All you have to do is follow the money to know who is telling the truth.

The fact is, there is conclusive evidence that sea lice from fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago have caused the collapse of pink salmon there. Every spring that there have been sea lice infestations in the fish farms, the returning runs a year and a half later have been very low. The little smolts leave the rivers all healthy and ready to venture out. But as soon as they pass by the infested farms they are covered in sea lice. This has been witnessed and documented by scientists and fishermen. These levels of sea lice are never seen on wild smolts away from fish farms. Europe has experienced the same collapse in wild salmon caused by sea lice infestations from fish farms. Their scientists warned our government of the problems they had, yet that information was ignored. What more evidence do you want?

The information from industry and the BC Liberals is denial, rhetoric and propoganda. Don't believe their BS. It's just business as usual regardless of the impact on our health and the environment.

DON'T BUY FARMED SALMON...TELL YOUR FRIENDS NOT TO BUY IT EITHER... AND TELL THE GOVERNMENT YOU WANT OPEN NET-CAGE SALMON FARMS OUT OF BC WATERS.

I try to look at all sides and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. It would be interesting to now how much if anything Morton and Suzuki Fuondation recieve from fishing resorts in these areas. There seems to be quite a proliferation and increase in size of these resorts. There is one resort owned by the London Drug company that has a private golf course, sure fits in with the local landscape. If one gets near their docks the private guards sure give you the once over! There is one resort across from Stewart Island that is beginning to look like a mini Whistler. These resorts do not exist for the common man, only the well healed. They stand out like a sore thumb compared to a low profile fish farm. A fishfarm in their area probably is not a good fit soooo would there be any connection between them and Raife Susuki and Morton. Just wondering, I like conspiracy theories. If you don't like fish farms I think these resorts are becomming just as much a blight. The Broughton archipelago is no longer wild and unspoiled.

Oh the pain of no brain. Self destruction befits the fish sewer pen fans. Sadly, those who care go down with them. The world is so close to midnight one despairs for the innocent next generation.
Power and greed are the two deasdliest sins. Those who pursue these ways will wreak terrible pain on all mankind.

A note: A majority of pens in our inlets on the west side are dying out entirely from algae suffocation and filth from their own refuse. Come see! ye who do not believe.

Willy said

Willy, what would happen if the environmentalists were wrong on this one? What is the worst case scenario? The farmers lose, and the sport fishers and commercial guys win? Who knows.

Even though I do not have a science degree, I have played my share of poker.

You don't gamble what you cannot afford to lose. Would you really gamble the wild stocks?

Well Willy, I used to like conspiract theories too, in fact, trusting the source, I very recently got sucked into one and displayed my gullibility for all to see on a Tyee site. It's genuinely hard to sort the fact from what we want to believe.

And so I've been watching Andrea Morton's fight with DFO, the Salmon Farmers Association, and the Provincial Government - all unfailing allies of the Corporations.

One by one, Andrea has destroyed the continuing flood of scientific bafflegabbing "facts" these people bring out via their biostitutes.

Since I am not a scientist, it's not my place to enumerate and describe that story, but I do have some scientific knowledge about environmental matters and a long-standing interest in Ocean Science, and my read is that Andrea has all the science and numbers on her side.

For those who are interested in pursuing their own investigations, they can start out with this one indisputable fact, illustrative of the many scientific blunders "money uber alles" leads us into.f FD FD

As Michelle Y pointed out above, the sea lice, which are the key issue here, get the fingerlings just after they leave the river, on their way out to open sea.

This is NOT a natural phenomenon. The lice originate from mature salmon which have been overwintered in the salmon farms. This never happens in a wild situation, since adult salmonids usually die while spawning or leave the rivers and inshore for the ocean afterwards.

Thus the fingerling has not evolved any natural defrnces against the sea louse, since there has never before been any need. The farmers will reply that other species harbour the lice too, which will in turn bring out the always predictable quandry such matters devolve into: "Where's the Science?" As usual, the trustable science is just not there, and DFO's not going to spend any money looking for it. It's an old trick, but it still works - for some.

I seem to be fixated on calling Alexandra Morton "Andrea", even though Rafe gave the correct name. My apologies to Alexandra.

Willy
What do fishing lodges have to do with fish farms and sea lice? Are you suggesting that the lodge clients are infesting wild salmon with sea lice, thereby causing them to die? This is not about 'fit' or asthetic 'blight', this is about the fish.

Willy, you are a corporate whore and you smell very farmed fishy.

It would be interesting to find out how much, if anything, you get from the corporate fish farm operators or flashing us with that bunk stuff.

The final sentence above should have read "for flashing us with. . ."

That's an ignorant statement and a false dichotomy. Most schooled folks must study both liberal arts and sciences. (Most folks I know who make such statements are unhappy physical science guys who don't understand social sciences.)

Moreover, even if the science identified the cause of an environmental problem, such as the impact of sea lice on salmon smolt, it would still take people with a background in liberal arts to act upon the scientific conclusions and craft a policy that would work within our social and economic institutions.

Humans are stupid enough without slicing their intellectual heritage in half! The challenge of sustainable development is to find a way of integrating economic, ecological and social imperatives -- that is, holism.

Willy,

I enjoyed looking over the friends of science web site. I think good arguments are about looking at the evidence, and the evidence presented on the site does critique the human-induced global warming theory.

But, as you know, it is difficult to be scientific about climatology because we don't have another earth to test our "null hypothesis". So the scientific evidence for --or against -- human-induced global warming is going to be partial evidence or flawed.

Given the incomplete state of knowledge, plus the weight of evidence gathered over the last decade that supports the human-induced climate change theory, I think it is fair to invoke the precautionary principle until we know better how to proceed.

Unlike when some radicals invoke the precautionary principle, this does not need to be an argument against all forms of human activity -- this is an argument in favour of moderate proposals, such as the Kyoto protocol. If human-induced global warming is true, then we may find that the Kyoto protocol did not go far enough.

So the question, for me, is how much we are willing to pay today to take precautions in case human-induced global warming is true. I think the Kyoto protocol is an acceptable price while we gather more data.

... and this isn't even including the potential economic benefits of adhering to the Kyoto Protocol, such as the incentive to develop and export new, cleaner, more efficient technologies ...

Am I missing something here? The pink salmon returns in 2005 are HIGHER (ie: increasing)than the cycle that begat them ( 2003).

If lower pink salmon returns are to be attributed to salmon farms, to what can we attribute the record HIGH return of pink salmon to this area in 2001? We are not seeing the whole picture here people.

That's my point, c otter. I'm wondering if Rafe and Alex Morton got this one wrong. Either that, or there's more to it than is explained by the numbers alone, and some explanation is in order.

That doesn't undermine the broader case that's been made re potential risks of fish farming --the best minds will occasionally slip up, and the most wrong-headed argument will occasionally feature perfectly valid points.

...which brings me to agreeing with Willy on one particular point. Don't think that there are not also powerful business interests driving the case against fish farms. BC's wilderness lodges are big business with economic clout and well organized, effective lobbies. But the very fact that they see their business interests as so threatened by fish farms I think adds weight to the arguments presented by Rafe, Morton and co.

Ok. I do NOT eat Farmed Salmon. Haven't since the second week I lived out here.

But here's my simple perspective on the issue:

there is nothing wrong with farming salmon.

there is everything wrong with farming a non-native species in it's non native environment (i.e. Atlantic Salmon in Pacific Ocean)

most people eat farmed meat of some sort; if they choose to eat farmed salmon, so be it. i just don't want atlantic salmon in the broughton archapelego

They also farm native species--millions of chinook and ??

I don't think many people see the native/non-native issue as the crux of the matter. Big problems in Europe occured with farming of native species. Plus the use of non-native species is not an issue on land-based farms.

The issue is farming in ways that don't jeopardise important wild species and valuable natural habitat.

Rafe
I hear what you are saying. I have eaten farmed fish once and don't like it. But put a lid on this issue it's burnt out.

I wonder if we could harvest Sea lice and Pine beetles and create a new food source?
Or better yet if they contain enough fat/oil we could solve the current oil crisis?
Or how about this if we could get sealice to eat the pinebeetles.. or better yet the pine beetles eat the sealice... wait a minute something is missing here! Ahh, it is commonsense.
But then again maybe the sunspots--currently responsible for global warming--will give the pine beetles chitin cancer and give sea lice heat stroke and then we can all go back to watching NHL hockey

Hey all I am saying is look at the whole picture. All farming has problems animal and vegetable, they are all evolving and further improvements are always required. I find it interesting that there is a big press release about sea lice when the pink return is way up as predicted. Settle down Allan you are going to blow a gasket.
I don't work for fish farms or have anything to do with them except I know some very hard working people who do work on them.

The way we mass produce meat, fish, poultry, beef etc, has lead to some of the nastiest diseases known to mankind. Just because most people eat it doesn't make it right. Talk about the dumbing down of the species. Keep eating from feedlots, it can't be that bad for you......@#*&@#

"
"Rafe
I hear what you are saying. I have eaten farmed fish once and don't like it. But put a lid on this issue it's burnt out."

The fist farm issue still exists, so good for Rafe for continuing to resist. I think your the one wisemonkey who
is burned out. Don't crap on those people who have passion. Yea Passion- You can look it up in Webster's if
you need to.

And Willy thanks for finally coming clean "I don't work for fish farms or have anything to do with them except I know some very hard working people who do work on them"

You were sounding very desperate and defensive and now we know why, you have friends and loved ones who work in
the industry. It is typical to go crazy when you see an already marginalized rural population under attack, their have
been proposals to have closed above ground fish farms and not the open net style. Their are always ways to do things
properly. If we leave it up to industry we are in big trouble. We should be developing healthy sustainable long term jobs in the rural areas , not exploiting a desperate people, ( like the folks in Cache Creek begging for Vancouver's garbage)

Stuart whats up, wes I know people in the industry thats why I can also look at the other side of the page. I want to see the whole picture pro and con. I am no fan of this government but fish farms do supply employment in rural areas of the province. Yes clubofrome production of meat does cause problems and agriculture doesn't where are getting your information. The pinks are running and running quite well, read the information. There are still many questions about lice that need to be resolved, but what I have seen so far I don't think its the problem its been made out to be. Farmed salmon on the barby is great.

Willy, ask your "friends and loved ones" if their bosses ever came clean and paid those fines they had been assessed before.

You know the ones. Remember Liberal politicians had the fines suspended, although I don't know why. Maybe you'll clarify.

Farmed salmon operations off the hotseat is great too, eh?

Allan do some research. What are you so mad madabout?

Corporate agriculture has many issues to address. Erosion, loss of nutrients, irrigation, use of poison chemicals, GMO, loss of diversity, monoculture, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, hostage to Monsanto and Cargill, the food tastes like shit, disappearance of traditional seeds, ground and surface water pollution, loss of wild habitat, loss of native species of grasses. Did I miss anything Ed? Oh yeah, it's unsustainable.

Willy, the research says you are full of farmed fish or something else that shouldn't be poisoning our public waterways.

The only madness I have seen on this entire thread has been your insistance that fish farms have nothing to do with the massive swells in sea lice over the past decade.

Oh yes, your two industry-fed scientists who are challenging virtually the rest of the world scientific community, also seem a bit off the beaten track, if you will.

They ought to change their group's name to friendsofsciencefiction.

He writes similar to that other guy.... C.I.R.E. Some refer to him as a resident troll. They certainly came from the same school! "The school of a lot of hard knocks to the head."

I still haven't heard anyone explain the reason for the never before recorded historic high (1.3 million adults)return of pink salmon to the Broughton ( Glendale Creek to be exact) area in 2001, 13 years after salmon farming started in this area................................................silence......crickets

Hahhaah! c otter -- you highlight the utter futility of our efforts to manage resources by trusting, in our damn-fool arrogance, that we can impose certainty where nature keeps reminding us that her only constant is to keep throwing uncertainty back in our faces!

So c otter do you have an explanation for the high returns, are these returns really high or just by todays numbers, are they high compared to the runs in the 60s or the 20s probably not.

Salmon stocks in B.C. have decreased and will continue to do so until we address all the issues threatening them from fish farms to forestry and an increasing human population here on the coast and on the major rivers.

Are you from B.C. and old enough to remember what it used to be like to fish here, people who have been living here for a few years seem to think there are lots of fish and wildlife, not what we used to have. My 83 year old father born and raised three miles from where he lives today west of prince george would give you one hell of an argument about fish and wildlife populations being high!

Talk to the old timers in places like Rupert and you will find out how badly we have screwed up the Salmon on this Coast. Have you ever tasted Abilone from local waters, We used to go diving off Nanaimo in the early 70s and get a few for dinner, not any more. I think eventualy the Salmon will be in the same state as the east coast cod.

What is going to happen to the Salmon population when the bugs kill off most of the Boreal Forest they need cool shaded water to spawn in, not shallow water exposed to direct sun.

That's right Name, and distilling the population dynamic equation of pink salmon down to only three inputs, namely (1) pink salmon, (2)sea lice, and (3) farmed salmon is too simplistic for grade 6 science class, but that seems to be the pablum thats being spooned out in the media and eaten up by many.

Ursus, there are salmon stocks in BC that are in trouble, some that are in grave danger, and some that are extremely healthy. I'm old enough to remember chinook salmon fishing in Barkley Sound (I recall trolling with a chrome J-plug near Pill Point when Mount St.Helens erupted)in the 1980's and doing reasonably well, I remember the chinook fishing taking a downturn in the 1990's , particularly after some El Nino years and decimation of the outward migrating chinook smolts by mackerel, and recently the fishing has been better than I ever remember it being, maybe I'm more adept at catching them now but the stocks seem pretty healthy out there, as well as Nitnat, Port Renfrew area, Sooke etc.

Ursus, the DFO graphs that I've seen go back to the 1950s and show fairly consistent returns, actually reletively low but stable for several decades in the Broughton area, certainly nothing as high as the 2001 year class.
I don't know about you, but when I think about 1.3 million salmon returning to one creek, especially pink salmon which typically spawn very close to the ocean (ie. no long migration) , I'm thinking it maybe more salmon than can be supported by the system. Assuming a 50/50 sex ratio that would be roughly 650,000 females at around 1600 egs per female we would be looking at a staggering 1,040,000,000 eggs.

C otter, as I recall, the Chinook stocks are being managed these days for two primary purposes: 1/ the returns to the Columbia River, and 2/ the Sports fishery.

So you should catching a few of them.

Not once in all these commentaries did I read one bit about the bears and all the other living creatures that live in area 12 and depend upon healty salmon runs. There's much more at stake here than just a few hundred fish farming jobs. Oh and by the way tourism isn't all its cracked up to be either. Its often filthy.I should know, I live here.

Best regards
Arctos

Right on, Arctos. And how about all the Sea lions shot on the sly??

Maybe all those Broughton fish are the ones that FOC mysteriosly 'lost', you know those millions that never made it to the Fraser. Someone should teach those fish how to navigate.

Willy - I think you and Ron E should conduct a scientific experiment on how many sealice a person would have to eat before it became fatal.

Hmmmm - an enlightening discussion on many levels. As a former salmon farmer (packed it in during the early 90's) I found the enterprise the most challenging and engaging part of my life. I raised chinook, loved the life and was very proud of my product, impressing many people who swore they would never eat a farmed salmon. It is possible to grow a high quality salmon. No, it's not the same as wild but then beef ain't moose.
Sea lice were never a problem. Are lice a problem in current farmed chinook?
Today's industry has made amazing progress from those years and addressed many issues along the way.
I am concerned about the biomass being cultured on some sites though. When you're talking in the range of a million fish, that's an impact no matter how you look at it.
Ooooops, Turkey's on! gotta go - - -Happy Thanks giving,all.
ps: fish farmers are people too
pps: As a way of bringing sanity and perspective into the issue we desperately need a way of gauging the relative impact of all our activities on this coast and putting them all on the same table so we can get an idea who wields the heaviest environmental impact. Methinks there are many big players really enjoying the roasting that salmon farming gets in the media while they go about business as usual. Has anybody attempted to do this?

C Otter. in answer to your comment below:

"I still haven't heard anyone explain the reason for the never before recorded historic high (1.3 million adults)return of pink salmon to the Broughton ( Glendale Creek to be exact) area in 2001, 13 years after salmon farming started in this area."

The answer to your question is that the Glendale spawning channel is one of the most successful Pink salmon projects ever undertaken. The Glendale did have 1.2 million Pinks in 2001, but not this year; nothing even close. The success of the spawning channel is often used to skew the statistics, and it is a Red Herring, if you will pardon the pun. There are other species in the area that are better indicators, including coho, but of course the Pinks get the headlines because of the numbers.

For anyone interested in a good book on the history of salmon, read David R. Montgomery's 2003 book titled "King of Fish - the Thousand-Year Run of Salmon". It records the steady decline of European and North American Atlantic stocks, and the Pacific salmon of the West Coast. It puts the mental gymnastics of the opponents and proponents of salmon farms into perspective.

There is no doubt that salmon farms affect wild stocks, through sea lice, and viral diseases. Farms breed disease, period, through overcrowding. Why else would the salmon farming industry spend millions of dollars immunising their fish? Why the Federal Government ever allowed Atlantics into Pacific waters is beyond me. I guess Ottawa is a long way from either coast.

By the way, BC Fish and Wildlife tried, for 50 years (from 1905 to 1955), to introduce Atlantic salmon into the Cowichan River system without success. The records are in the files. Over 50 million eggs, fry and fingerlings were transplanted, and they never took. The Brown trout did, and many anglers appreciate the effort.

Thanks for your insight Fish-counter, I found a copy of this book at abebooks, here's a description of it:
Book Description: Westview Press. Hardcover. From Publishers Weekly Drawing on a combination of scientific, historical, sociological and political research, Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington, traces the tragic and steady decline in salmon populations in Europe, New England, Eastern Canada and the Pacific Northwest. Using his detailed analysis of the destruction of native salmon runs at each site, Montgomery demonstrates that the decline has been caused by the same four actions: polluting rivers in the name of technology, changing the natural environment by damming rivers and clear-cutting forests, overfishing, and ignoring regulations and laws imposed to help salmon populations recover. Montgomery's history of salmon moves from awe inspiring (their ancestors go back some 40 million years) to heartbreaking (Lonesome Larry was the only sockeye [salmon] that made it back [to Redfish Lake] in 1992). But when the book's focus changes from fish to the likes of Queen Anne, King George, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, who were all unsuccessful in stopping the salmon's slide toward extinction, Montgomery's tone becomes decidedly bleaker. Though the nature of the salmon's struggle to survive against these recurring threats to its life and habitat causes the book to be somewhat repetitive, Montgomery saves his best writing for the last chapter, where he courageously outlines the scientific evidence surrounding the salmon's plight and presents a no-nonsense plan for the fish's tenuous hope for survival. You can find a copy here: http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?y=13&tn=King+of+Fish+-+the+Thousand-Year+Run+of+Salmon&x=49