There’s the catch: The Vancouver Sun has reported on a five-year study from the University of British Columbia on behalf, of amongst others, the Pacific Salmon Foundation. The aim of the project was to review catch and release angling as a way of protecting stocks of wild salmon. The project was promoted because historically research into catch and release angling has been ‘pretty scant’.
Over 1,500 wild chinook and coho salmon were caught and tracked in BC waters and what was found was that many of the salmon did not survive because of injuries to fins, scales and eyes. The study found that such injuries reduced survival by 20% up to 10 days after release compared with fish in good condition when released. A further loss of 20% occurred within 40 days after release. The researchers said that this loss was simple to fix. Fish released without an eye injury, that did not bleed and did not lose too many scales are said to have a 100% chance of survival over the first 10 days.
In addition, fish caught when the water temperature rose above 18oC suffered higher mortality.
The researchers issued 15 recommendations, although some may not be relevant to salmon fishing on this side of the Atlantic.
The recommendations include:
Use small hooks
Land fish as quickly as possible
Avoid any exposure to air
Avoid using landing nets
Limit contact with the fish
Handle with wet hands
Keep fish at the water line
Release immediately
Avoid fishing when water temperatures are above 18oC
Back in March, the Scottish Wild Salmon Strategy Implementation Plan update stated that following a period of warm weather, in 2023, the Scottish Government issued advice on angling in warm water to protect fish welfare. FMS would work with Angling Scotland and the Missing Salmon Alliance on refreshing best practice for catch and release.
It will be interesting to see how many of the Canadian recommendations are incorporated into refreshed Scottish guide to Best Practice. The current guide on the FMS website appears to be dated 2017 and can be downloaded at https://fms.scot/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/170601-Catch-and-Release-leaflet-2017.pdf
Cancelled: Salmon Business and Fish Farming Expert have reported about the latest example of cancel culture. This actually involves me.
One of the readers of reLAKSation alerted me to the fact the Rachel Mulrenan, Scottish Director of Wild Fish (formerly the Salmon & Trout Association) was speaking at an event in Edinburgh on Thursday 5th. Tickets for the free event were available through Eventbrite and I obtained one for myself.
As I am keen to be open and honest with those who oppose salmon farming, I wrote to Rachel to say how pleased I was to be able to meet her at long last. No reply was forthcoming but a couple of days later, I received a message to say that my Eventbrite ticket had been cancelled. This was followed by a short mail from the event organiser saying access to the building where the talk will be taking place will not be permitted.
The mail continued that this decision was made to ensure the comfort of all attendees and to maintain the values of their community event. In my opinion I can only presume that the only person who might be uncomfortable with my presence would be Rachel Mulrenan. The programme allowed 30 minutes for questions and no doubt I would have tried to ask a question or two. My experience would suggest that those who oppose salmon farming do not like to be questioned about the claims they make about salmon farming.
According to Fish Farming Expert, the event organiser had said that my ‘attitude’ towards Rachel in the past meant that my presence would be inappropriate. I can only assume that Rachel does not like being written about in reLAKSation as someone who has continually avoided any engagement with me or the salmon farming industry but is quite ready to offer her own criticism.
Earlier this year, Rachel appeared before the Rural Affairs and Island Committee salmon inquiry, and she was happy then to express her views on salmon farming but then the MSPs were unlikely to ask the type of searching question that I might pose.
Surely, those who oppose salmon farming should express their concerns direct to the industry first. My understanding is that Rachel has been invited to visit a salmon farm but has refused to do so. Could it be that if she did, that she might find that the reality does not match her narrative?
This is a sad indictment of those who are not willing to engage in open and honest debate.
Not just antis: Sadly, it is not just those opposing salmon farming that refuse to engage to discuss the science of sea lice. It is now coming up for a year since I requested a face-to-face meeting with SEPA’s Head of Ecology Peter Pollard. I am sure that SEPA have spent much more time than the hour I requested in telling me why I can’t meet him.
Scottish Government scientists are proving equally reluctant to meet me, but it is well over ten years since I first requested a meeting with scientists at Pitlochry. I was told at the time, that a meeting could be arranged once I had had a paper published. I have now had two in print, yet these scientists are proving just as elusive.
This week I received the latest official reply from the Marine Directorate, this time in response to a letter I sent to the Cabinet Secretary which included the following graph of the rate of decline of sea trout catches in which I asked for an explanation from her scientific colleagues that if sea lice associated with salmon farms were responsible for the declines in the west, then what was causing an almost parallel decline of sea trout catches in salmon farm free areas including the east coast.
The answer given is as follows:
You will recall that similar plots were made available and discussed in a Marine Directorate publication – Using catch data to examine the potential impact of aquaculture on salmon and sea trout (https://www.gov.scot/publications/using-catch-data-to-examine-the-potential-impact-of-aquaculture-on-salmon-and-sea-trout/) where it was also noted that catches of wild salmon have declined more steeply in areas with aquaculture than those without.
Sadly, I recall this document all too well as I wrote about it extensively at the time it appeared. Questions about its accuracy began on page 1 with the map of the salmon farming zone failing to include the area covered by Loch Eriboll on the north coast with its two long-established farms.
The main point refers to the graph showing wild salmon catches from 1952 to 2014/5. The report states that the graph (below) highlights that from roughly 1990, the farmed areas decline relative to non-farmed areas is consistent with their being an impact of salmon farming on wild salmon. Yet, the report also states that analysis of catch statistics is consistent with an impact of salmon farming on wild salmon but does not prove a causative link.
In my opinion, the report’s authors have not taken an objective view of the data. Whilst my graph features the actual number of fish caught, this report expresses the catch as a percentage of the total salmon catch. Their opinion is that there is a decline relative to non-farmed areas. Thus, in the graph, the area below the black line is the west coast catch, and the area above represents the east coast catch.
However, it is possible to flip the chart so the area above the black now becomes the west coast catch and the area below the east coast catch. If instead of the west coast catch be perceived to be declining, the east coast catch had increased, it would reduce the percentage of the catch in the west making it look to be in decline.
It is only necessary to look at the official graph of salmon catches, issued annually by the Scottish Government, to see the total catch, that is dominated by catches from rivers where there are no salmon farms (90% of the total), showed increased catches for many years.
I would argue that it is impossible to infer anything from data presented as a percentage. It is also impossible to infer anything from rod catch alone because as has been well documented, one reason why rod salmon catches had increased was due to the ongoing closure of netting stations meaning more fish entered the rivers to be caught by anglers.
If the salmon catch is to be properly analysed, then all salmon caught irrespective of method of capture needs to be included. Professor Phil Thomas, then Chairman of the salmon industry produced the following graph in 2011.
Sadly, because this graph dd not fit into the established narrative, there has been no reference to it from Scottish Government scientists despite the data being collected by them.
It is possible to see from this graph that total salmon exploitation not only increased in the non-salmon farming areas but also inconveniently, in the west coast aquaculture zone.
Finally, on this issue, my recent request did not concern the reasons why catches had declined in the west but rather if sea lice are to blame for the declines in the salmon farming areas, then what is causing the decline elsewhere, especially as the rate of decline runs parallel for both areas.
The letter says that there is a wide range of factors that affect rod catches. In fact, the report which is mentioned in the letter says that
‘..there are many other factors that may cause changes in fish populations and may differ between the regions of coast that were considered. For example, catches of sea trout have declined over recent decades on both farmed and non‐farmed areas in Scotland and it is plausible that different factors are responsible in the two regions.’
This report was published in 2016, which is now nine years ago. It seems that we still don’t know why catches of both salmon and sea trout are in decline in areas without any salmon farms. Surely, as both salmon and sea trout are in decline, efforts should have been made during these last nine years to identify the reasons why these fish are in decline. After all, if Scottish Government scientists are sure that sea lice do have an impact on west coast stocks, it should not be that difficult to identify the reasons whey salmon and sea trout are in decline elsewhere.
The letter also states that:
‘Potential for damage due to sea lice is informed by a number of scientific publications, including those reporting on controlled, replicated studies showing increases in number of returning salmon when anti-lice agents were applied to groups of smolts.’
This reminds me of the Scottish Government’s summary of sea lice science (https://www.gov.scot/publications/summary-of-information-relating-to-impacts-of-salmon-lice-from-fish-farms-on-wild-scottish-sea-trout-and-salmon/) which the current letter writer has previously referred in responses to me. The summary cites four different papers concerning smolt return studies, but they do not include reference to the most important study of this type. This is by Jackson et al. 2013. This is despite the fact that the summary was published at least eight years after the Jackson paper. The Scottish Government summary does cite Jackson’s earlier paper published in 2011 but only as one of a number of studies and not in its own right. The summary says that these papers indicate a reduction in numbers of returning salmon in the range of 0-39%. Seemingly they focus on the 39% rather than consider the fact that at least one study found little difference between treated and untreated fish.
Jackson’s 2013 paper, which was not well received by those including Scottish Government scientists who continue to argue that sea lice associated with salmon farming exert a negative impact on wild salmon and sea trout, found that using 352,142 smolts that sea lice induced mortality is a minor and irregular component of marine mortality. Jackson found that the difference between untreated and treated groups was around 1%, which did not go down well with those who believe differently. It is unclear why the Scottish Government summary does not reference this important paper except that it doesn’t fit in with their narrative about sea lice.
Unfortunately, the narrative which I now promote also doesn’t fit in with the one put forward by Scottish Government scientists and like the 2013 Jackson paper is something that they prefer to both ignore and avoid.
The Scottish Government can easily prove me wrong by arranging a meeting between Marine Directorate scientists, or at least the one who continues to provide the text for the official responses, and myself. I repeat yet again that if they are confident of their narrative then they should have no problem in standing up and defending the narrative whilst showing me that my narrative is wrong. Clearly, that confidence is lacking otherwise, they surely would have stood up to me long ago.
As an afterthought, there was one other comment in the letter sent from the Marine Directorate to me that I would like to share. They write:
Sea trout and wild salmon have different life cycles and biology. Sea trout tend to remain within the coastal zone with the potential to return frequently to freshwater habitats whereas wild salmon smolts disperse widely at sea.
Who knew!