Paradoxical: Sea West News has recently reported that anti-salmon farming activists have again challenged the Department of Fisheries and Oceans claims that salmon farms in BC pose minimal risk to wild salmon stocks. These activists claim that there is a conspiracy between DFO and the salmon farming industry, which threatens wild salmon, yet they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claims.
Sea West News claims that ultimately the true objective of these activists is to manufacture a crisis by distorting the facts to fit a predetermined ant-salmon farming agenda. The latest episode requests that the Information Commissioner should demand the disclosure of additional records relating to the 2023 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) report. This peer reviewed scientific publication concluded that sea lice on farm raised salmon do not impact sea lice levels on wild juvenile salmon in BC. The CSAS report debunked a key activist claim about sea lice promoted the activists to file multiple Access to Information and Privacy requests insisting that the government’s findings contradict their preferred ‘independent scientific research’.
Yet, analysis of the activist’s own data from the Salmon Coast Field Station shows that the majority of wild juvenile salmon sampled over twenty years were totally free of lice.
If sixty percent of the fish sampled are lice free, they cannot be at risk of mortality as the activist’s claim.
A preprint copy of a new paper has come to my attention authored by Gary Marty from the University of California at Davis and five others which provides an alternative perspective to claims that pathogens from salmon farms have impacted wild salmon stocks. This twenty-two-page paper plus references goes into a great deal of detail as to the claims made about salmon farming and then offers an alternative perspective.
As a starting point the new paper focuses on a review paper written by Martin Krkosek and fifteen other known anti-salmon farming authors including Alexandra Morton, published in a special issue of Science Advances which was unable to offer any positive view of salmon farming.
The new paper provides an alternative perspective for 49 of the review paper’s citations plus then included a further 69 citations to support their perspective. The paper is very long and detailed, but the overall conclusion is that salmon farms have minimal impact on wild salmon stocks.
What is interesting about the situation in Canada is that Government scientists have produced evidence that salmon farming has little impact on wild salmon, but the politicians have ignored this evidence and implemented a programme of salmon farm removal The wild salmon sector have claimed that the Government scientists are in cahoots with the industry to promote salmon farming in BC.
Meanwhile in Scotland, Government scientists are claiming that salmon farming does have an impact on wild salmon stocks and that the industry needs to be regulated in order to protect these wild fish. This is despite the Scottish Government desire to see a viable and productive salmon farming sector in Scotland. Unlike in Canada, the wild fish sector has been more than happy to accept the perspective offered by Scottish Government scientists on sea lice and salmon farming. By comparison, these scientists have been extremely reluctant to engage with those with a contrary view.
Although it is unlikely to be sent for publication because of time and costs, I have now reviewed the third version of the five-page sea lice summary document which was published in March 2021 but has never been updated since. I have previously written extensively about the section of observational data, but I have decided that the time is right to examine the whole document on which it seems Scottish Government policy is based. The main conclusion is that that it is not surprising that the Scottish Government scientists are so reluctant to speak to me. In my opinion, the science used is extremely selective, but it does not support the claims that sea lice associated with salmon farms are having any impact on wild fish. I agree with the conclusions of the Canadian Government scientists rather than those from Scotland.
Spiteful: The Summary of Sea Lice Science document that I have now critiqued includes a list of 41 referenced papers. Rather strangely, five of the referenced papers are not actually cited in the text and one other is referenced incorrectly.
Eighteen of the papers are written by Scottish Government scientists of which over the years I have obtained copies of 13 of them. The remaining five papers are all available behind paywalls, despite the fact that the content was most likely funded by Scottish taxpayers. To obtain copies of these papers and without the benefit of my own personal library, as available to Scottish Government scientists, would cost me the grand total of $242.45.
When new papers are published, one of the authors is identified as the corresponding author. Usually, a short request to this author results in a copy of the paper by return. These authors are only too delighted to share their work, and they often suggest that I get in touch if I would like more information. This may be true of most scientists not those working for the Scottish Government in relation to salmon farming.
These five papers that are missing from my files go back to 2009 and some of the corresponding authors have moved on whilst others now have a new email address. I therefore sent a general request to the Marine Directorate to ask if I could be supplied with copies of these five papers.
The reply firstly highlights the five websites where the paywalled copies can be obtained and then states:
Under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIRs, we do not have to give you information which is already publicly available and easily accessible to you in another form or format.
Scottish Information Commissioner Guidance states that
“Information may be reasonably obtainable even if a requester needs to pay for it. Information which is held by the public authority, but which is also commercially available, such as Ordnance Survey maps, journals or books, is covered by this exemption. The market price for information which is commercially available will generally be taken as “reasonable”.
Historically, I would point out that I have previously written to individual Scottish Government scientists to request a copy of a new paper and have usually received it without a problem, However this time, it seems that the official stance is that even though it would only take a couple of minutes to attach a pdf copy of a paper to an email, it seems that they prefer to spend more time, identifying websites and then writing a long letter to me telling me why I can’t have the papers.
It very much seems that Scottish Government scientists are now so determined to stand in the way of anything I try to do that they have simply become spiteful. This is not science as I know it. It is just a reflection of the fact that these scientists have so little confidence in their research that they are unwilling to open it up to scrutiny.
As for my critique of the five-page summary, it is now thirty-six pages long and there is more to add. It’s no wonder that they don’t want to talk to me and have avoided doing so for over ten years.
Nothing: I would like to share my latest correspondence with the Scottish Government who replied thanking me for my mail but telling me that they had nothing further to add. Unfortunately adding nothing to nothing means nothing. The only response I have received is the news that the science of sea lice has been settled. If this is the case, they believe that there is nothing to discuss. Clearly, I need to tell the authors of the paper mentioned in my previous commentary that they are wasting their time because there is nothing else to discuss. Perhaps, the Scottish Government should consider making their scientists redundant as the science of sea lice is settled, there is no need for any new research on the subject.
Dismissed: The West Highland Free Press was about the only newspaper to accurately report the background behind the failed legal bid by Wild Fish. However, they were incorrect in their description of Wild Fish as an environmental charity.
Wild Fish and Animal Equality had objected to the application to change the PGI for Farmed Scottish salmon to Scottish salmon on the basis that this would mislead consumers. Rachel Mulrenan of Wild Fish said that they were disappointed as the name change is just a continuation of the industry trying to make misleading claims about the reputation of Scottish farmed salmon in the eyes of consumers. Unfortunately, Rachel doesn’t appear to understand the point of the change, nor that as PGI’s are rarely used in consumer labelling, consumers cannot be misled.
Wild Fish also said that objectively referring to this intensively farmed product as Scottish salmon gives consumers less information about how the fish was brought to supermarket shelves. Wild Fish seem unaware that this case does not affect current labelling legislation which requires origin and method of production be displayed on fish labels. Rachel Mulrenan said that this is a clear case of greenwashing, and she should know as director of an organisation formerly known as the Salmon & Trout Association.
What is interesting about this case that was not reported in the mainstream press is that the First Tier Tribunal who in dismissing the case said that Wild Fish and Animal Equality lacked a legitimate interest in the case.
This raises the question as to how, should Wild Fish have won the case, leaving the name as Farmed Scottish salmon on the PGI would have in any way safeguarded the future of wild Atlantic salmon in Scotland. In fact, I don’t seem to remember that Wild Fish have done anything positive for wild Atlantic salmon in Scotland. Even the salmon farming industry through their Wild Fisheries Fund has done more to protect wild salmon than Wild Fish have done.
Not learned: Having failed to convince the authorities that they had a case to challenge the UK Government, Wild Fish have now called on the Charity Commission to investigate the RSPCA Assured charitable status.
In a press release saying that aside from our longstanding concerns about greenwashing, Wild Fish (greenwashing experts formerly known as Salmon & Trout Conservation and the Salmon & Trout Association before that) said that the RSPCA Assured operates in an overtly commercial manner that is very unusual from a charity. They add that they have raised concerns with RSPCA Assured but they have not responded. This comes from the charity Wild Fish who have never responded to any attempt to discuss the issues they claim are impacting wild salmon and sea trout.
However, before Wild Fish attack the RSPCA Assured, they should consider their own position as a charity. Their governing document states their objects as: :
1 TO PROMOTE FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THE CONSERVATION, PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION OF SALMON, TROUT AND OTHER FISH STOCKS OF UNITED KINGDOM ORIGIN, AND THE CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEMS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO THRIVE.
2 THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT AND THE INTERACTION BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND FISH, WHETHER THROUGH ANGLING OR OTHERWISE;
3 TO PROMOTE FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, TRAINING IN WATER SAFETY, KNOWLEDGE OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF AND RESPECT FOR ITS DEPENDENT SPECIES, INCLUDING FISH, WHETHER THROUGH ANGLING OR OTHERWISE;
4 TO PROMOTE RESEARCH AND TO PUBLISH THE USEFUL RESULTS THEREOF IN RESPECT OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL REGENERATION OF SALMON, TROUT AND OTHER FISHERIES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM INCLUDING THE GENERAL ECOLOGY OF RIVER CATCHMENTS AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND THE EFFECT OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS.
Firstly, it is unclear how challenging the charitable status of RSPCA Assured fits in with these objectives, just as promoting a campaign to persuade restaurants and consumers to stop eating farmed salmon. Certainly, if Wild Fish were prepared to stop and listen to the science, they would know that salmon farming is not negatively impacting the wild fish they aspire to conserve.
But more interestingly, their first aim is rather contradictory. By its very nature exploitation, is the exact opposite of conserving and protecting wild fish. As Wild Fish paid for IUCN to reassess salmon as threatened, any exploitation cannot be considered sustainable. Surely, those who work to stop the rapid decline of salmon stocks, especially on the east coast where there are no salmon farms must challenge Wild Fish’s objective of allowing any form of exploitation.
No doubt Wild Fish will claim that they have evidence from their research obtained by commissioning two engineers to develop a model that, based on flawed science, would argue that east coast rivers are impacted by salmon farms in the Northern Isles, even though previous research from other organisations in the wild fish sector showed that east coast rivers were not impacted by salmon farming from at any time during the forty years from 1970 to 2010.
Wild Fish continue to clutch at straws. If they really want to save wild salmon, they should encourage a wider discussion of what is happening to wild salmon rather than wasting their time challenging labelling and the charitable status of others. One thing is already clear, and that is removing salmon farming from Scottish waters will do nothing to halt wild salmon’s final journey towards extinction.