High and low: The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee held the first session of their new inquiry into salmon farming this week. The convenor said that the intention of the inquiry was to understand whether any progress has been made since the last inquiry in 2018. Whether the committee members were able to deduce anything from the evidence provided was another matter. How the list of witnesses for the committee members to quiz was compiled is something of a mystery. The first part of the session comprised of two representatives of groups who have previously stated that they will only be happy if salmon farming is removed from Scottish seas. The second part of the session comprised of scientists working alongside the aquaculture sector. Of the five scientists, only two really contributed to the evidence and even then, their evidence was swayed towards their own particular interests. This led to some distortion of what was understood.
For me, there was much said that would require explanation so as a transcript of the proceedings as well as the video of the meeting will be available on the Scottish Parliament website for anyone to consult, I would prefer to focus on a couple of issues which I saw as highs and lows of the evidence.
The definite high arose from an exchange between Sir Edward Mountain who sat in on the meeting due to his position as convenor overseeing the previous inquiry in 2018. Sir Edward was keen to get Professor Sam Martin to admit that sea lice kill salmon. Professor Martin had previously said that sea lice can lead to secondary infections that can kill the fish. Sir Edward suggested that this means that sea lice were therefore responsible for killing the fish. In his attempt to clarify what he said, Professor Martin added that it was more likely that it was the stress of repeated treatments that could lead to the secondary infections and mortality.
Following this exchange Rachel Hamilton MSP said, “My colleague Edward Mountain has got my cogs working”. She continue “Obviously the government have brought in this new regulatory obligation for fish farms to meet in terms of the threshold of sea lice and then the ways we are controlling the sea lice are clearly having an impact on fish heath and specifically on the gill health so basically, we have brought in something and then created a new problem so do we as a committee need to be looking at whether sea lice control is being done in the correct way because this could be the reason why mortality levels have increased so dramatically.”
Her reference to gill health was made because gill health is Professor Martin’s specialisation, and this is what he preferred to talk about. However, Mrs Hamilton had realised that it is the Scottish Government’s regulation that is responsible for the increased mortality seen in recent years in the salmon industry. What no-one giving evidence could explain is that salmon farmers must treat their fish against sea lice to meet the regulations rather than treat the fish in the interests of the fish’s health and welfare. This is something I have highlighted repeatedly but is ignored by those who have imposed the regulation. They prefer to satisfy the claims of the wild fish sector who blame salmon faming for declines of wild fish rather than address whether the regulation serves any real purpose. The regulation also overrides the expertise of those working in fish health care who must treat fish to meet the regulation rather than when their health and welfare could be compromised.
Whilst I very much welcome Mrs Hamilton’s realisation that it is sea lice regulation that is undermining fish welfare and leading to increased mortality, she has posed the wrong question. It is not how the fish are treated but why are the fish treated that should be considered.
Sadly, questions to the witnesses from the convenor about sea lice research were met with blank faces and replies that ‘this Is not my area of expertise’. Sea lice are a major reason why the first inquiry took place and why this new inquiry is also taking place yet, there is no sign of any sea lice expert in the list of witnesses for this session or any of those that follow.
I see Mrs Hamilton’s realisation about regulation very much as a high of the meeting. By comparison, one of the lows occurred in a response from John Aitchison, representing the Coastal Communities Network, a group who want to see the end of salmon farming in Scottish waters. In response to a question about the Sea Lice Risk Framework, Mr Aitchison said “Wild salmon are declining for lots of reasons and the reasons are probably different in different places. So, on the east coast where there are no farms the decline there will be for a different set of reasons to the west coast where there is aquaculture. So, one of the things affecting wild fish is sea lice from the farms – it is pretty well established”.
Those opposing salmon farming are very good at making claims they cannot substantiate yet making out they are proven facts. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that the decline of salmon on the west coast are for a different reason than elsewhere in Scotland. Given that the decline of numbers of salmon caught from east coast rivers has been catastrophic in such a short time, it is surprising that the Rural Affairs and islands Committee is spending time investigating the salmon farming industry. Instead, surely it should be asking why east coast rivers are so affected and how such declines are going to impact on rural lives, jobs and economy. If the declines continue unabated, which they show every sign of doing, then it will not be long before wild salmon will be extinct from many east coast rivers. Even Sir Edward Mountain, who declared an interest in an east coast river fishery and acknowledged that salmon farms have no impact on east coast rivers, seems more interested in sea lice than what is actually happening to fish stocks in his own river.
More about the inquiry next week.
Ireland: The Irish broadcaster RTE reported that there has been a catastrophic decline on wild salmon returning to Ireland. Inland Fisheries Ireland said that numbers have fallen from 1.76 million in 1975 to 171,000 in 2022 with a ‘blend’ of threats impacting salmon populations. IFI told RTE that it could be due to changing oceanic conditions and impacts of climate change but that it is very hard to put a finger on one particular aspect of that. Interestingly, Dr Cathal Gallagher, Deputy CEO of IFI did not mention salmon farming as being a potential issue even though a small group of IFI scientists have long tried to implicate sea lice from salmon farming as a cause of declines in some west coast rivers.
RTE spoke to Dr Gallagher because IFI just hosted the Annual General Meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) in Co Mayo on behalf of the European Union. Discussions included government fisheries managers and scientists from the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the EU and the UK. The NASCO president Kimberely Damon-Randall said that in particular, we will be looking at the challenges faced by this iconic species such as invasions of pink salmon.
The NASCO website provides a provisional agenda for the meeting as well as some of the meeting papers. This includes the report of the status of salmon in Irish rivers. Interestingly, despite a catastrophe decline in salmon numbers in Ireland, 43 rivers for 2024 are deemed to have a harvestable surplus, 22 are advised to be catch and release only whilst 77 are closed to angling. Surely, if the declines in numbers is so catastrophic then all rivers should be closed to fishing. It makes no sense that if numbers are so low any river can be deemed to have a harvestable surplus. However, as NASCO are an organisation that is effectively run in the interests of anglers, it is unlikely that they will conduct an emergency debate as to how to combat such declines as seen in Ireland and Scotland. They are more interested in issues such as pink salmon and salmon farming. It is interesting to see that the Irish report also includes a graph of sea lice numbers on salmon farms in May, Over the years, sea lice numbers have shown a significant reduction, which rather undermines claims from anti-salmon farming groups that sea lice are responsible for declines of Irish wild salmon.
This week has also seen the publication of the latest issue of Trout and Salmon magazine. This includes fishing reports from all the major Irish rivers, including the Corrib, Delphi and the Erriff. These fishing reports are from April but the report from Delphi includes landing fish of 17lb, 12lb 8.5lb, 10.5lb, 7.5lb and one of 10lb. No mention is made of returning any of the fish, nor of the wider problems of declining fish numbers. Instead, the report highlights that the 10lb fish was caught using a remarkable split cane rod inherited form the angler’s grandfather. Fish numbers may be in catastrophic decline in Irish rivers, but it is still business aa usual.
Uncertainty: The Scottish Government report for NASCO includes a section on sea lice. This raises a number of issues concerning sea lice that I would be more than happy to discuss with Marine Directorate scientists. One of these concerns uncertainty.
The report states that scientists from the Scottish Government (MD SEDD) began working with SEPA, the Institute of Marine Research (Norway) and Fiskaaling (Fareoes) to review and report on the best ways to deal with uncertainty in sea lice dispersal modelling. They are also developing best practice for the presentation of uncertainty in model results to support policy development and decision making through a Technical Working Group that met in September 2023. Scottish Government scientists are also working specifically with SEPA within the context of this working group to develop an evidence map to support the SEPA sea lice risk assessment framework. The Technical Working Group will report in September 2024.
I have a special interest in this uncertainty because whilst MD SEDD, IMR, and Fiskaaling focus on uncertainty I prefer to look at what is certain. In fact, my interest in certainty led me to being barred from attending the Technical Working Group meeting in September. I was told that if I had any specific questions, these could be asked on my behalf and the answer would be relayed back to me at a later date. I have experience of such answers since they never seem to address the specific question posed. However, MD SEDD will claim that I have received a response, and they have nothing further to add. Simply, MD SEDD and IMR don’t want to hear anything that may derail their established view on sea lice.
Several dispersal models have been developed for sea lice in different countries. They all involve uncertainty, and this is for the simple reason, not one of the models has been validated. They all predict how many sea lice larvae should be present and where they are, yet any attempts to find these lice in the fjords and lochs has failed. This leads to the uncertainty they are trying find the best ways to deal with. The truth of the matter is that the lice larvae the models predict are just not there. MD SEDD are unwilling to discuss this possibility because it would invalidate the models and the narrative.
I was interested to see that MD SEDD are also trying to develop an evidence map to support the SEPA framework. I already have 109 graphs of salmon trends that provide clear evidence that salmon farming and sea lice have no connection with changes in trends of salmon populations. In addition, the graph of trends of west and east coast salmon populations should be sounding alarm bells for those who promote the view that sea lice are an issue but like all the other evidence that is available, if it is not discussed, it is therefore not on the agenda.