Republished from The Hill Times. Read the original article here.
CONTRIBUTED TO THE HILL TIMES BY: GARY D. MARTY, SENIOR FISH PATHOLOGY CONSULTANT, ABBOTSFORD, B.C.
Published: June 5, 2024
Republished from The Hill Times. Read the original article here.
Re: “Will Canada gamble Pacific salmon on DFO Science?” (The Hill Times, May 27)
Regarding the question about marine net-pen salmon aquaculture in British Columbia, Tony Allard recommends, “our elected officials should treat the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s advice with skepticism and caution.”
Based on my 20 years of experience as a board-certified veterinary pathologist diagnosing fish diseases in British Columbia, I agree that advice related to major decisions should be treated with skepticism and caution. Indeed, Allard's opinions should be treated with skepticism and caution.
Allard melodramatically describes how “endangered wild Pacific salmon migrate through plumes of pathogens and parasites that enter the water from industrial feedlots of Atlantic salmon.” And yet, among the B.C.-farmed Atlantic salmon exposed 24/7 to these "plumes of pathogens and parasites,” only about three per cent die each year from infectious disease. In contrast, migrating wild Fraser River sockeye salmon in B.C. are exposed to salmon farms only a few hours during their entire lives.
Despite the potential of salmon farm threats- known and unknown-average annual adult returns of Fraser River sockeye salmon did not decline from the years before salmon farming began (6.8 million fish per year, from 1962-1989) to the years when salmon farms were active (eight million per year, from 1990-2022).
In relation to salmon farms, Allard cites "a bibliography of 59 independent peer-reviewed papers confirming the harm they caused." However, many of these scientific papers support the conclusion of minimal harm, e.g., "In general, our data suggest that [infectious] agent distributions may not have substantially changed because of the salmon aquaculture industry.”
Finally, Allard accuses DFO of relying on "rigged ‘science’” to claim that the virus “PRV doesn't cause harm to wild fish.” Rigged or not, DFO's conclusion of minim al risk is essentially identical to independent assessment by American fish health professionals that Piscine orthoreovirus is low risk to Pacific salmon (source: Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee).
All animal populations must deal with infectious disease. Medical science guides people to manage infectious disease and protect human populations. Likewise, fisheries and veterinary sciences provide strong evidence that salmon farm diseases have no more than minimal effect on wild salmon populations.
Gary D. Marty
Senior fish pathology consultant
Abbotsford, B.C.