Lost its way; What is it about Norwegian scientists that they are happy to share their views in newspaper articles but seem unwilling to discuss the issues directly with other scientists and the industry. The Sea Lice Steering Group, made up of just three scientists, one of each from Institute of Marine Research, Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, and the Veterinary Institute, has written a commentary for the online newspaper E24 and Intrafish.
The Steering Committee say that the salmon farming industry does not protest when their farms receive a green light, but they criticise the science when they get a yellow or red light meaning that production must be reduced. Yet, they say it is the same science that underlies both growth and reduction. Thus, they say that if the science is bad when reductions are imposed, then it must also be considered bad even when production is allowed to grow.
From my perspective, I want to be absolutely clear that I consider that the science is bad, and it makes no difference whether the Sea Lice Steering and Expert Groups pronounce a green, yellow, or red light for salmon farmers. The science is still bad.
I suspect that the salmon farming industry is simply resigned to accepting the regulation when the green light is applied because it doesn’t impact their short-term plans, and that they have a hope that their situation will not change. However, as we have seen in Northern Norway, change can happen, and the recent high lice counts may yet affect future assessments and cause green to turn yellow. I have argued and will continue to argue that the Traffic Light System is based on a false narrative backed by poor science and that the industry should continually fight to have the Traffic Lights removed.
The Steering Group writes that the farming sector wants to cast doubt on the scientific assessments and attack the people and institutions that work with the system. This is simply because the scientific sector has isolated itself away from those who live and work in the real world and have refused to listen to legitimate concerns. It is only necessary to look at the membership of the Sea lice Steering Group, the Sea Lice Expert Group and the Scientific Committee for Salmon Management (VRL) to see that they consist of a clique who all work for a few key research institutions. There are plenty of people with higher degrees who work outside the scientific environment and are more than qualified to contribute to the discussions but are excluded from the debate. In addition, most of the scientific community who participate in the sea lice groups are also directly involved in some of the research bringing into question whether they can be really objective or not. They are not going to agree that the science is wrong when it is their own science under the microscope.
In their commentary, the three members of the Steering Group refer to the paper by van Nes et. al. and say that the claims made by van Nes are wrong as can be seen from a new study that compares the effects of the Traffic Light System with the legislation for the management of wild salmon. This ‘new’ study was published in April 2024 and is titled ‘Report on how the Traffic Light System affects the work to achieve the goals set in the Quality Standard for wild salmon.’ The report’s authors were chaired by a Professor from the University of Bergen and included representatives from IMR (2), NINA (2), VI, the Fish Directorate, the Environment Directorate and the Food Safety Authority. With such a makeup of scientists, this group might not be open-minded to the possibility that the science could be wrong. At the time of publication, I wrote to the leader expressing some concerns about their conclusions and in common with most such representations, I failed to receive a reply. I pose the question whether there could be a real possibility that it is not van Nes et.al. that are wrong but rather it is the Steering Group.
However, my greatest concern about the Steering Group’s failure to understand the salmon farming apprehension about the Traffic Light System is when the Steering Group write that it is not those who manage the Traffic Light System’s assessment to judge whether the alleged impacts of sea lice actually affect wild salmon populations. Surely, if they cannot judge whether sea lice have an impact on wild salmon numbers, then who can? According to the Steering Group, that assessment is left to the scientists in VRL.
If the salmon industry needs to be reassured that they should have confidence in VRL’s assessment, it only needs to read the follow paragraph of the Steering Group’s commentary. They write:
“VRL say in this year’s report that ‘overall, scientific investigations show that salmon lice from farming have had populations effects in the form of reduced penetration of spawning salmon from the sea and reduced harvestable surplus in the most farming intensive areas in Norway’. In 2018, the loss in the intake of salmon due to sea lice was calculated at approx. 29,000 and in 2019 to approx. 39,000 salmon.”
The last time I looked at my calendar it was October 2024. If my calculations are correct 2019 was five years ago and VRL are still quoting these calculated numbers as an estimate of loss of salmon from the Norwegian population. The salmon farming industry is expected to accept such outdated estimates of sea lice infestation to support this outdated regulation.
I have written many times previously that in 2019. VRL say that the greatest threat to wild salmon is the loss of these 39,000 salmon smolts, allegedly infested as they swim out to their marine feeding grounds. Yet in the same year, the loss of 83,179 returning adult salmon caught and killed by anglers and a further 12,933 fish caught and killed by commercial fishermen are not considered by VRL to represent any threat to Norwegian salmon stocks at all. The fact that these 96,112 fish were all adult fish returning to Norwegian rivers to breed and propagate the next generation of wild salmon, but were prevented from doing so, seems to have no relevance to VRL because to them killing fish for sport is OK, but farming fish is not. VRL have not been able to verify that even one of the 39,000 fish they estimated to have died actually did so, yet the 96,112 fish killed on their return journey are all clearly documented as dead by Statistics Norway.
The Steering Group say that the reputation of Norway’s salmon farming industry is in free fall, but have they considered that this is because the industry is not allowed to defend the fact that its reputation is being undermined by the same scientists who are supposedly responsible for management of wild salmon stocks. In addition, have they considered that the sea lice thresholds set for salmon farms may be not just set too low but also unnecessary and that the treatments needed to maintain the excessively low lice levels on farm are directly responsible for the increased mortality for which the salmon industry is being criticised. The Steering Group are totally out of touch between the theoretical science they use and the reality of modern-day salmon farming.
Finally, the Steering Group write that conflict is not the solution and the Steering Group encourages the various stakeholders to be open, engage in constructive discussion and be respectful of each other’s roles. If conflict is not the solution, then why have not one of the three Steering Group members responded to emails requesting further discussion of these issues. It is no wonder there is conflict.
The Steering Group claim to be responsible for managing the impact of salmon farming on wild fish numbers, but their steering has clearly lost its way.
£600,000: I seem to have uncovered the way to persuade the scientists from the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research to speak to those of us on this side of the North Sea. Shower them with money. According to an FOI, SEPA are to give £200,000 in return for knowledge about sentinel cages.
For readers who don’t know about sentinel cages, they are small, enclosed pens that are tethered in sea lochs or fjords and stocked with about 50 farmed salmon smolts. In Norway, these fish are left (unfed) for up to 3 weeks after which the fish are recovered and any lice on them are counted from which infestation pressure on wild salmon smolts is calculated.
SEPA are planning to use sentinel cages to validate their model despite the fact that the fish in them can be and are most likely to be infested with lice from passing fish rather than the ‘clouds’ of infective sea lice larvae that exist in SEPA’s models but after at least twenty-five years have yet to be found in the open water.
SEPA’s plans to seek advice from IMR also ignore the fact that sentinel cages now play a very small part in the Traffic Light assessment process, now being deployed in just two fjords.
I wonder if SEPA would like to pay me £200,000 too for my advice on not just sentinel cages but the impact of the whole sea lice risk framework. I suspect not, given that SEPA are so reluctant to speak to me even for free.
However, not content with donating money to Norway, SEPA are also paying a further £400,000 to extend their model to include the Northern Isles. Given that the Marine Directorate class Orkney as having no catches of these fish and Shetland has seen increased catches of sea trout over recent years, as shown below, inclusion of these islands into the framework seems a pointless waste of time and money. This would appear to be confirmed by the fact that despite the presence of many farms, catches of sea trout in Shetland have been increasing over recent years.
England and Wales too: The Environment Agency has just published their report of salmon stocks and fisheries in England and Wales for 2023. Despite a rod catch of just 4,911 salmon with a further catch of 488 fish by commercial netsmen, the Environment Agency report runs to 98 pages, considerably more than the reports for Scottish salmon fisheries despite a much bigger catch north of the border. This is perhaps something that might be noted by the Scottish Marine Directorate.
The conclusion from the latest statistics is 2023 is the worst year ever for salmon catches in England and Wales.
No real explanation is provided as to why salmon numbers are so low, probably because like in Scotland, no-one has any real ideas, however unlike Scotland, the Environment Agency do not point the finger at salmon farming. There is a short reference to salmon farm escapes highlighting that after the Carradale incident in 2020, nine fish were fund in five north-west rivers but nothing since.
Despite the lack of any evidence, I suspect that the usual suspects will blame salmon farming anyway because that is just what they do. And they have no other ideas.
What caught my interest about the Environment Agency comment on wild salmon was that:
“Investigating the causes of the decline in wild salmon populations is actively ongoing through NASCO (the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, an international organisation of which the EA is part of the UK delegation headed by Defra) and the Missing Salmon Alliance through the Likely Suspects Framework (LSF) initiative. These work programmes are considering the limiting factors both within freshwater, transitional waters and the marine environment.”
NASCO was formed in 1984 and over the intervening 50 years, they have overseen the continued decline of wild salmon stocks yet are reported to be still investigating the causes of the decline in wild salmon populations. Surely, after all this time, investigations should have run their course and instead NASCO should be overseeing solutions. One paper updating the state of knowledge was presented at the last NASCO meeting, but it seems that the only knowledge NASCO were interested in updating related to salmon farming, sea lice and escapes.
The Environment Agency also mentioned its England Fisheries Group. They state that:
“The EA-organised England Fisheries Group (EA, Angling Trust, Institute of Fisheries Management, Rivers Trust, Wild Fish, Atlantic Salmon Trust, Canal and River Trust, Wild Trout Trust, Angling Trades Association) regularly discusses salmon management and we are looking at how we can work better with our partners to support salmon management.”
Here is another example of those involved in discussions about wild salmon who are primarily interested in managing the fisheries rather than safeguarding the future of this fish. Interestingly, amongst the members of this group is Wild Fish, who say almost nothing about managing fisheries on their website. Instead, Wild Fish say that they are working to protect wild fish and their waters. I mention Wild Fish because they are the subject of the next commentary.
Finally, in their response to the news of the lowest catch ever of salmon from English and Welsh rivers, Wild Fish say that ‘The species’ rapid decline is proof that our rivers, lakes and streams are in crisis – devasted by years of pollution, over-abstraction and intensive fish farming. I’m glad that Wild Fish have made it clear who they think is to blame!!!
Off the trolley: At the beginning of October, Wild Fish announced their latest recruit to take over from the now departed Matt Palmer as Wild Fish’s new farmed salmon campaign manager who is responsible for managing Wild Fish’s OFF THE TABLE coalition campaign.
Wild Fish’s new recruit is someone who is not unknown to the salmon farming sector. She is Lex Rigby and according to Wild Fish she has worked at the forefront of animal protection for almost two decades tirelessly striving for greater conservation through high-impact campaigns and hard-hitting investigations.
What Wild Fish do not say is that Lex has joined them after working on campaigns for the charity Viva. For those of my readers who have not heard of Viva, they describe themselves as the UK’s leading vegan campaigning charity. Lex has said in an interview that she has been a vegan advocate for over twenty years. She spent much of her time with Sea Shepherd campaigning against whaling.
In another recent interview Lex said that she didn’t think animals should be killed nor should they be exploited.
Catching salmon, whether by rod or nets and whether legal or not, has always been described as exploitation which is exactly what the membership of Wild Fish do. As already highlighted Wild Fish are members of the EA’s Fisheries Group and therefore are intimately involved with exploitation.
In 2023, 1,188 salmon were caught and killed by anglers in Scotland. A further 1,172 sea trout were also killed for sport. The latest EA data shows that 267 salmon were caught and killed from English and Welsh rivers. I wonder how Lex will explain how the exploitation and killing of wild salmon for sport will sit with her vegan advocacy?
Lex has said that her new role overseeing the OFF THE TABLE campaign will call on the hospitality sector to remove farmed salmon from their menus but not farmed beef, lamb, pork or chicken, all animals that are farmed and killed for the table.
Perhaps, when Lex accepted this job, she hadn’t realised that the world she had now entered was not about campaigning for the protection of wild salmon for protection’s sake but rather to protect wild salmon from salmon farming so anglers would potentially have more wild salmon to catch and kill for their sport.
This is clearly a very strange world where a confirmed vegan who objects to the exploitation and killing of animals is willing to join forces with anglers, who exploit and kill wild fish for sport simply to attack the salmon farming industry.