HATCHERY FISH HARVEST AND EXTINCTION OF WILD SALMONIDS

12-28-09

To: WDFW Commission

Fr: Sam Wright

Re: Hatchery Fsh Management Zones and Extinction of Wild Fish

WILD FISH EXTINCTIONS CAUSED BY THE LONG-TERM USE OF HATCHERY FISH ZONES TO MANAGE PACIFIC SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS) IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON

A common management practice in Washington and Oregon since the early 1960s is the planned, deliberate overfishing and eventual extinction of wild Pacific salmon populations in order to harvest comingled populations of salmon that are produced by artificial production (Wright 1993). In Washington, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Wild Salmonid Policy identified 89 separate naturally spawning Pacific salmon populations that were being subjected to this practice or nearly one-third of all existing Pacific salmon populations in the State (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997: Table II-1, p. 9).

I was the project leader and lead author for this EIS process and had to work with an Assistant Attorney General (AG) assigned to WDFW. My original language in Table 3 described the process in part as “planned, deliberate overfishing and eventual extinction of wild salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish”. The AG stated that “this sounded like something illegal” and changed the language of the Table title to “Current fish management plans and practices overfish 89 wild stocks in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish at rates that are not sustainable by wild populations.” This is an example of one of many ways that have been used to disguise the process.

My initial attempt to stop this practice occurred in the early 1980s when I was administrator of the Habitat Management Division for the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). My work included involvement in a wide array of habitat protection, enhancement and mitigation projects. I soon began to wonder if I was knowingly committing illegal acts. Was it illegal to commit public funds to habitat improvement work when I knew that viable adult salmon spawners were never going to be provided to reap projected project benefits? Was it illegal to force a landowner to correct an upstream fish passage problem when I knew that spawners were never going to be provided to utilize habitat above the obstruction? Was it illegal to force a developer to fund a costly mitigation project when I knew that spawners were never going to be provided to justify the expenditure? I was also concerned that the “secret” would eventually be revealed to the public and that this could destroy our future ability to protect salmon habitat.

In 1982, I advised WDF that it was essential to end this practice since it was probably illegal in several different respects. The practice appeared to be illegal under the legislation that created WDF and had never been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). In addition, all of the more recent hatcheries requiring environmental reviews did not even hint at this practice in their environmental documents. At best, the practice was simply very poor resource stewardship. I then provided a plan to eliminate this practice that was later described in Wright (1993).

The first part of my recommendation was to mark all hatchery Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and all hatchery coho salmon (O. kisutch) by removal of their adipose fins. The basic principle involved was the ability to manage wild and hatchery salmon as “separate species” and the adipose mark enabled this to be done in practice. The second part of my recommendation was that natural spawning escapement objectives needed to be established for all existing naturally spawning salmon populations and that all fisheries would then be managed to achieve these objectives. The third part of my proposal was that existing and planned hatchery programs would be adjusted as necessary to make them compatible with achieving these natural spawning escapement objectives.

The adipose marking proposal was initially rejected by everyone, but gradually came to be accepted and is now widely implemented. The problem is that it was decoupled from both the establishment and management for natural spawning escapement objectives and the need to make hatchery programs compatible. Adipose marking is meaningless by itself when the same high exploitation rates continue to be applied in non-selective fisheries harvesting comingled wild plus hatchery salmon and hatchery programs continue to be incompatible.

My only successful attempt to expose this problem in a formal publication occurred in Wright (1993). The subtitle was “Salmon managers need to abandon the use of hatchery fish management zones.” WDF tried to stop publication but had to settle for a disclaimer stating that “The views in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Washington Department of Fisheries.” There was a great deal of luck involved in the peer review process since two of three reviewers were not from Washington or Oregon. Two subsequent attempts to expose the problem in formal publications failed when the majority of peer reviewers were from Washington and Oregon.

I initially had high hopes for resolution of the problem when Puget Sound Chinook and Lower Columbia River Chinook were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Both areas had many Chinook populations on the list of 89 that were being deliberately overfished (WDFW 1997). However, all of these same populations were then assumed to be indistinguishable from hatchery Chinook or “genetically extinct” as wild populations. In Puget Sound, a total of 37 defined Chinook salmon populations were divided into 22 “A” and 15 “B” populations, with the latter group judged to be extinct. The situation in the Lower Columbia River was far worse, with North Lewis River fall Chinook being the only remaining population that was not determined to be extinct.

Unfortunately, my prediction of mass extinctions had been fulfilled. This extinct classification allowed the status quo practices of existing hatchery programs and high exploitation rates to continue for all of these populations. Some even had “escapement goals” identified to complete the public illusion of responsible resource management. Many hatchery Chinook never make it all the way back to existing hatchery traps and end–up spawning naturally. These can then be identified as an escapement goal without compromising the desired hatchery programs and high exploitation rates.

Over the years, there have been many varied attempts to disguise hatchery fish zones such as the “escapement goals” established for 15 Puget Sound “B” group Chinook salmon populations. The only citable reference that precisely identifies salmon populations where there is clear, unambiguous management intent to put adequate numbers of viable natural spawners on the spawning grounds is the Salmon Fishery Management Plan of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PMFC 2003: Table 3-1,15p.). This confirms the solitary status of North Lewis River fall Chinook and that both the entire Columbia River system and the entire South Puget Sound Region are huge hatchery fish zones for coho salmon. As predicted for wild Chinook salmon, there have also been massive extinctions of wild coho salmon populations.

The common practice of deliberately overfishing naturally spawning salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish continues to be alive and well in Washington and Oregon (albeit with some new disguises commonly called “hatchery reform”). The solution is still exactly what it was in 1982. At a minimum, resource managers in Washington and Oregon should at least be honest about what they are doing so that countless millions of dollars will not continue to be spent in hatchery fish zones when the same money could be spent much more productively in wild salmon zones. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent and the management status (wild or hatchery zones) has never been used (as a criteria) to prioritize competing project proposals.

References

PFMC 2003. Fishery management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fishery off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California as revised through Amendment 14. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

WDFW 1997. Final environmental impact statement for the Wild Salmonid Policy. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Wright, S. 1993. Fishery management of wild Pacific salmon stocks to prevent extinctions. Fisheries 18(5):3-4.

Author: Sam Wright, 1522 Evanston Ct. NE, Olympia WA 98506 (360-943-4424, sam.wright@att.net)

Pathways to Resilient Salmon Ecosystems

Pathways to Resilient Salmon Ecosystems

“Resilience - the ability of a system to absorb disturbance without losing its characteristic structure or function - is the key idea that links articles in the issue.”

Introduction:

Human and salmonid societies are linked as well as integrated. What we do to salmon populations and to the habitats that sustain them affect the health of salmon populations as well as that of our own. Wild salmon in the Northwest and the Northeast of North America are suffering. They are in decline and many have been lost forever. Those of us who live in these regions are responsible for their future and the ecological services a healthy environment provides for all of us. Salmon are a primary indicator that our landscape is healthy and productive, diverse as it is from mountains to valleys and from forests to grasslands. Our commitment to having a healthy environment includes a place for salmon as well as our economy since they are fully linked.

I have provided the following abstracts on salmon resilience to introduce the topic, and there is a link to the full studies that are on an open access web page at the end of each abstract for you.

Reconnecting Social and Ecological Resilience in Salmon Ecosystems

ABSTRACT. Fishery management programs designed to control Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) for optimum production have failed to prevent widespread fish population decline and have caused greater uncertainty for salmon, their ecosystems, and the people who depend upon them. In this special feature introduction, we explore several key attributes of ecosystem resilience that have been overlooked by traditional salmon management approaches. The dynamics of salmon ecosystems involve social–ecological interactions across multiple scales that create difficult mismatches with the many jurisdictions that manage fisheries and other natural resources. Of particular importance to ecosystem resilience are large-scale shifts in oceanic and climatic regimes or in global economic conditions that unpredictably alter social and ecological systems. Past management actions that did not account for such changes have undermined salmon population resilience and increased the risk of irreversible regime shifts in salmon ecosystems. Because salmon convey important provisioning, cultural, and supporting services to their local watersheds, widespread population decline has undermined both human well-being and ecosystem resilience. Strengthening resilience will require expanding habitat opportunities for salmon populations to express their maximum life-history variation. Such actions also may benefit the “response diversity” of local communities by expanding the opportunities for people to express diverse social and economic values. Reestablishing social–ecological connections in salmon ecosystems will provide important ecosystem services, including those that depend on clean water, ample stream flows, functional wetlands and floodplains, intact riparian systems, and abundant fish populations.

Bottom, D. L., K. K. Jones, C. A. Simenstad, and C. L. Smith. 2009. Reconnecting social and ecological resilience in salmon ecosystems. Ecology and Society 14(1): 5. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art5/

Evolutionary History, Habitat Disturbance Regimes, and Anthropogenic Changes: What Do These Mean for Resilience of Pacific Salmon Populations?

ABSTRACT. Because resilience of a biological system is a product of its evolutionary history, the historical template that describes the relationships between species and their dynamic habitats is an important point of reference. Habitats used by Pacific salmon have been quite variable throughout their evolutionary history, and these habitats can be characterized by four key attributes of disturbance regimes: frequency, magnitude, duration, and predictability. Over the past two centuries, major anthropogenic changes to salmon ecosystems have dramatically altered disturbance regimes that the species experience. To the extent that these disturbance regimes assume characteristics outside the range of the historical template, resilience of salmon populations might be compromised. We discuss anthropogenic changes that are particularly likely to compromise resilience of Pacific salmon and management actions that could help bring the current patterns of disturbance regimes more in line with the historical template.

Waples, R. S., T. Beechie, and G. R. Pess 2009. Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic changes: What do these mean for resilience of Pacific salmon populations? Ecology and Society 14(1): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art3/

Resilient Salmon, Resilient Fisheries for British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT. Salmon are inherently resilient species. However, this resiliency has been undermined in British Columbia by a century of centralized, command-and-control management focused initially on maximizing yield and, more recently, on economic efficiency. Community and cultural resiliency have also been undermined, especially by the recent emphasis on economic efficiency, which has concentrated access in the hands of a few and has disenfranchised fishery-dependent communities. Recent declines in both salmon stocks and salmon prices have revealed the systemic failure of the current management system. If salmon and their fisheries are to become viable again, radically new management policies are needed. For the salmon species, the emphasis must shift from maximizing yield to restoring resilience; for salmon fisheries, the emphasis must shift from maximizing economic efficiency to maximizing community and cultural resilience. For the species, an approach is needed that integrates harvest management, habitat management, and habitat enhancement to sustain and enhance resilience. This is best achieved by giving fishing and aboriginal communities greater responsibility and authority to manage the fisheries on which they depend. Co-management arrangements that involve cooperative ownership of major multistock resources like the Fraser River and Skeena River fisheries and community-based quota management of smaller fisheries provide ways to put species conservation much more directly in the hands of the communities most dependent on the well-being and resilience of these fisheries.

Healey, M. C. 2009. Resilient salmon, resilient fisheries for British Columbia, Canada. Ecology and Society 14(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art2/

Freshwater Ecosystems and Resilience of Pacific Salmon: Habitat Management Based on Natural Variability

ABSTRACT. In spite of numerous habitat restoration programs in fresh waters with an aggregate annual funding of millions of dollars, many populations of Pacific salmon remain significantly imperiled. Habitat restoration strategies that address limited environmental attributes and partial salmon life-history requirements or approaches that attempt to force aquatic habitat to conform to idealized but ecologically unsustainable conditions may partly explain this lack of response. Natural watershed processes generate highly variable environmental conditions and population responses, i.e., multiple life histories, that are often not considered in restoration. Examples from several locations underscore the importance of natural variability to the resilience of Pacific salmon. The implication is that habitat restoration efforts will be more likely to foster salmon resilience if they consider processes that generate and maintain natural variability in fresh water. We identify three specific criteria for management based on natural variability: the capacity of aquatic habitat to recover from disturbance, a range of habitats distributed across stream networks through time sufficient to fulfill the requirements of diverse salmon life histories, and ecological connectivity. In light of these considerations, we discuss current threats to habitat resilience and describe how regulatory and restoration approaches can be modified to better incorporate natural variability.

Bisson, P. A., J. B. Dunham, and G. H. Reeves. 2009. Freshwater ecosystems and resilience of Pacific salmon: habitat management based on natural variability. Ecology and Society 14(1): 45. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art45/

The Social Construction of Fishing, 1949

ABSTRACT. The theoretical construction known as maximum sustained yield (MSY) exists in three realms: as science, as policy, and as a legal concept. Despite substantial criticism by scientists and economists, MSY remains at the heart of fisheries science and fisheries management. This paper suggests that its institutional resilience springs more from its policy and legal roles than from its scientific strength. Maximum sustained yield was adopted as the goal of American fisheries policy in 1949. Between 1949 and 1955, the State Department pushed for its adoption internationally. In this paper, I first look briefly at the relationship between fishing and foreign policy goals during this period. Second, I look at how fishing was understood during 1949, when the American High Seas Fishing Policy was adopted. Third, I look at the actions of the 1955 International Technical Conference on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea and how American actions shaped the development of fisheries science and the modern fishery management process.

Finley, C. 2009. The social construction of fishing, 1949. Ecology and Society 14(1): 6. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art6/

Resilience in Lower Columbia River Salmon Communities

ABSTRACT. In 1992, the first listings of Columbia River salmon under the Endangered Species Act occurred. Regulation of the Columbia River gillnet fishery since that time has greatly reduced fishing time and economic return to the fishing fleet. The counties where two-thirds of the gillnetters reside have registered negative social statistics during this period, including drug and alcohol abuse rates, incomes, and mortality rates, among others. The fishing communities’ attempts to cope with this change, their strategies for resilience, and the potential consequences for their ability to advocate on behalf of salmon should they be further weakened are discussed. The possibility exists that the gillnet population could abandon its commitment to the Columbia River and settle in other areas.

Martin, I. E. 2008. Resilience in Lower Columbia River salmon communities. Ecology and Society 13(2):23. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art23/

The Fate of Coho Salmon Nomads: The Story of an Estuarine-Rearing Strategy Promoting Resilience

ABSTRACT. The downstream movement of coho salmon nomads (age 0), conventionally considered surplus fry, has been an accepted characteristic of juvenile coho salmon for the past 40 to 50 yr. The fate of these nomads, however, was not known and they were assumed to perish in the ocean. Several studies and observations have recently provided new insights into the fate of nomads and the role of the stream-estuary ecotone and estuary in developing this life history strategy that promotes coho resilience. Chinook and sockeye salmon have developed the ocean-type life-history strategy to exploit the higher productivity of the estuarine environment and migrate to the ocean at age 0. Nomad coho can acclimate to brackish water, and survive and grow well in the stream-estuary ecotone and estuary, but instead of migrating to the ocean they return upstream into freshwater to overwinter before migrating to the ocean as smolts. Nomads may enter the estuarine environment from natal or non-natal streams, rear there throughout the summer, and then emigrate to a non-natal stream for overwintering and smolting in the spring. These estuarine and overwintering habitats have enabled coho to develop this unique nomad life history strategy that may help to ensure their resilience. Restoring estuarine habitats may be essential to the recovery of depressed populations of coho.

Koski, K V. 2009. The fate of coho salmon nomads: the story of an estuarine-rearing strategy promoting resilience. Ecology and Society 14(1): 4. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art4/

Institutions for Managing Resilient Salmon (Oncorhynchus Spp.) Ecosystems: the Role of Incentives and Transaction Costs

ABSTRACT. Institutions are the mechanisms that integrate the human and ecological spheres. This paper discusses the institutional challenge of integrating salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) ecosystems and human systems in ways that effectively promote resilience. Salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin demonstrates the challenge. Despite the comprehensive scope of Basin salmon management, it has a number of problems that illustrate the difficulties of designing institutions for ecosystem and human system resilience. The critical elements of salmon ecosystem management are incentives and transaction costs, and these comprise a large piece of missing institutional infrastructure. Once the focus is placed on incentives and costs, a number of different management strategies emerge as options for salmon ecosystems, including refugia, property rights to ecosystem goods and services, co-management, and markets in ecosystem services.

Hanna, S. S. 2008. Institutions for managing resilient salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) ecosystems: the role of incentives and transaction costs. Ecology and Society 13(2): 35. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art35/

FISH MANAGERS RESIST SCIENCE

THIRTY YEARS OF RESEACH TELLS A STORY:

As an advocate for wild salmonid conservation and protection I rely on research to make may case, for I rely on facts. Getting ahead of the facts can be temping in the heat of a debate but should never be practiced. Consequently, it takes years of following the research papers as they are published to develop a factual case upon which to base a conclusion.

With regard to the fitness divergence between hatchery and wild steelhead, the research by Reginald Reisnbichler and Jack McInyre in 1978 initiated the inquiry into a remarkable difference between what can only be said are two forms of the same species: the domesticated and the wild forms.

Many scientific papers have been published since that initial work helping to define the various attributes of these two forms of fish and their performance in natural streams. In 2008 and 2009 research was published by Araki et al about hatchery steelhead derived from wild parents and compared to the performance in nature with wild steelhead. This research concluded that hatchery steelhead survival was less than that of wild steelhead in the first generation, and that this divergent performance persisted through the second generation in natural spawning and rearing conditions.

Hatchery culture changed the hatchery fish genetically in the first generation of hatchery culture and natural selection did not remove the effect of artificial propagation.

After 31 years of research on the question of hatchery and wild steelhead divergence, a conclusion can be made: hatchery culture degrades the fitness and survival of steelhead. This research also concludes that the interbreeding between hatchery and wild steelhead in streams reduces the fitness of wild steelhead, degrading their natural productivity. Even though Reisenbichler’s research defined a future path of inquiry, it took 31 years to determine conclusively that hatchery culture creates a domesticated animal in the first generation, reducing its fitness and acting as a degrading influence on wild populations in nature.

The fish management agencies resisted evaluating the efficacy of hatcheries for over one hundred years, for they did not have to prove they worked to get public funding from state and federal governments. Belief in hatcheries is all that is required and the fish agencies believed. Having no factual information has not been important to justify funding. A belief doesn’t require accountability. The consequences have been severe, if one counts the number of wild populations that have gone extinct and those listed as endangered species. The fact that salmonids today are just 5% of historic abundance should be enough to cause a shift in management policy.

It will take at least another ten years for the fish management agencies to adjust their policies and procedures to improve the conservation of wild steelhead by changing how hatcheries are used. This shift in institutional commitment takes a long time, too long given the scientific evidence, but fish management is not designed to be responsive to science. It takes a strong, long-term public advocacy to force changes in fish management policy. In the meantime, there will be considerable damage to what remains of our wild steelhead, for wild fish and their habitat are considered irrelevant to the mission of fish management agencies.

CURED SALMON EGGS KILL JUVENILE SALMONIDS

CURED SALMON EGG BAIT KILLS JUVENILE SALMON AND STEELHEAD

In 2007 Jeff Misler asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to test cured salmon eggs for toxic compounds, for he was concerned juvenile salmonids were being killed by ingesting the bait.

Oregon State University and ODFW researchers conducted the study for ODFW and made the following discovery: Cured salmon eggs killed juvenile salmon and steelhead.

The research discovered that within a 23 day span 30% of the juvenile salmonids were killed. Upon further investigation, they found that eggs cured with sodium sulfite were lethal. It is this chemical that kills the fish.

They also tested the eggs by giving them a soak to see if they were less lethal. They were testing whether fishing softened their impact. Soak times ranged from 30 seconds to 10 minutes, but the results were the same: the fish died.

Salmon eggs are a favored bait used by anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead. Anglers cure their own eggs or buy them, but if sodium sulfite is used in the curing process they are fishing a poisoned bait.

Additional research on nutrient enrichment of salmon and steelhead streams has pointed out the fact that eggs are preferred by juvenile salmonids. Most salmon eggs are available in early winter months when the juvenile fish are seeking food in cold water when other food supplies are less abundant.

Juvenile fish are seeking the fat rich eggs and anglers fishing steelhead and salmon are using cured eggs. The combination is lethal.

ODFW officials said in a news release that “We’ve already talked with several manufactures and we’re encouraged by their commitment to solving this problem.”

However, ODFW researchers said they “…cannot predict what impact, if any, the ingestion of cured eggs by juvenile fish has on the final size of the adult population.”

In the research proposal to investigate the toxic effect of cured salmon eggs on juvenile salmonids, there is evidence of even more mortality than what was found in the OSU research. A 1979 study showed that consumption of borax cured eggs led to decreased growth and an increase in plasma corticosteroids in chinook and rainbow trout juveniles. Furthermore, we recently observed between 50-60% mortality in a preliminary study feeding cured salmon eggs (Clements Pers Obs).

Measuring the impact based on the effect on adult salmon and steelhead production, is like taking pins out of the voodoo doll. They can reason that not all juveniles survive to return as adults, so the loss of a few or even a gob of young fish is, at best, immaterial and mitigates any need to manage the use of eggs as bait.

At a time when most of our wild salmon and steelhead are depleted and designated a threatened species, sensitive species, and candidate species for ESA-listing, one would hope that the management authorities would recognize a problem rather than trying to minimize it.

SEA LICE THREATEN WILD SALMON

Sea lice infestation associated with salmon farms (primarily Norwegian firms) along the coast of British Columbia, Canada, continue to devastate wild salmon populations that must pass by the farms. There is mounting concern about this problem especially after the Fraser sockeye run failed this year and wild smolts were found to be covered with lice as they migrated through the inside passage. The combination of escaped salmon and sea lice infestation is a major issue in Norway, but the government in both Norway and Canada refuse to resolve the issue.

Norway is managing the extinction of wild salmon!

The Director of The Directorate for Nature Management, Janne Sollie, says today that Norway is not managing the farmed salmon business, but the extinction of wild salmon!

She says this is due to the fact of record high and disastrous levels of sea-lice in the farmed salmon farms. If this is allowed to keep on, all wild salmon will be history!

The Directorate for Nature Management is the national governmental body for preserving Norway's natural environment. The directorate serves as an advisory and executive agency under the Norwegian Ministry of Environment.

The Government do not listen to their warning! It's shameful how Norway's officials are promoting and protecting the business of farmed salmon! An unsustainable business ruining wild life!

Norwegian Salmon Association – Saving Wild Salmon

http://norwegian-salmon.com/salmon/extended-en.php?recID=26

Norway's national broadcaster NRK and newspapers across Norway are reporting on the sea lice crisis, chemical resistance and the controversial use of chemicals to kill sea lice.

NRK reports today under the headline: "Lice dispute threatens Norwegian exports: Export Council fears that the dispute about the lice will threaten the export of Norwegian salmon"

NRK, Dagbladet, Aftenposten and Adresseavisen reported yesterday on the use of two controversial chemicals to kill sea lice despite an agreement in 1999 signed by the Norwegian Government not to use them.

NMF reported yesterday (in English):

"The use of these chemicals was stopped after the agreement was signed in February 1999, and fish farmers have used other drugs instead. However, since the salmon louse has developed resistance against the drugs used, these controversial chemicals are again being thrown into Norwegian salmon cages. The industry respected the agreement until now, and we claim the minister of fisheries to be responsible for breaking the agreement."

VG reported yesterday "Tolerance limits for farmed salmon exceeded 6 to 10 times: fish farming in Norway is very far from sustainable, says the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)".

VG quoted Professor Tor Einar Horsberg at the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science who said: "The harsh treatment that is needed to reach lice limits will lead to more resistant and multi-resistant lice. There is a dramatic development, and I'm worried how this will end."

Professor Tor Einar Horsberg was also quoted in a front page article in Fiskeribladet/Fiskaren titled: "Lice cure will give even more resistant lice."

The Green Warriors of Norway said in a press release - "Sea Lice Situation is Out of Control" - issued earlier this week:

"The sea lice situation is now out of control along the entire coast of Nordland and south. Green Warriors of Norway requires complete slaughter of all salmon biomass with multi-resistance against lice medicines."

NRK reported yesterday that the "Directorate for Nature Management (DN) believes that the number of farmed salmon along the coast from Rogaland to Nordland must be reduced by the Spring."

Last month, VG reported that the Norwegian Fisheries Minister (who was formerly the head of the Norwegian salmon farming association and is an owner of a salmon farming company) had been reported to the police for "repeated violations of the salmon regulations."

Aftenposten also published an article - "Monsternæringen" ("Monster Food") - by award-winning journalist Niels Chr Geelmuyden ending with:

"Incompetent: Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect imminent action from the sitting government. Finance Minister Johnsen comes straight from the post of chairman of Cermaq (A salmon farm corporation). Fisheries Minister Berg-Hansen for her part, co-owner of fish farming company Sinkaberg-Hansen, who recently was reported to the police for a year's greatest salmon escapes. Combined with that, she has been chair of the Fishery and Aquaculture Industry Association and board member of Aker Seafoods, she would in most decent societies have been considered completely incompetent in his current ministerial role. But even this seems to be interested Norwegian media people worth mentioning."

Last week in Norway, the Norwegian Fisheries Minister convened a crisis meeting on the sea lice issue. The day before the sea lice meeting WWF Norway issued a press release (25th November) warning that Norwegian farmed salmon would be given a "red light" unless the issue of sea lice and escapes was tackled. The press release included:

"The management of the aquaculture industry in Norway is not environmentally sound. For several years the Government has increased the number of fish in the sea and provides for even more fish next year, contrary to the recommendations of its own environmental authorities," said Secretary-General Rasmus Hansson of WWF-Norway. The amount of sea lice has exploded along the coast, despite the measures industry and governments have implemented. It shows that the Norwegian regulations are not good. "WWF-Norway will make a new assessment of the sustainability of the Norwegian farmed salmon next year. Such developments on the environment page in Norwegian aquaculture industry is now, it seems that the salmon can get a red light - which in practice means that we will ask consumers worldwide to avoid buying farmed salmon from Norway," said Rasmus Hansson, and Maren Esmark, head for Nature Conservation Department, WWF-Norway."

This week, the Norwegian Hunters and Fishers (NJFF) published a news story headed - "A Lot of Talk - Little Action" - referring to a:

"......life-threatening situation for our wild salmon along the coast is informed by a disaster. The trend of increasing resistance to the main treatment methods are cause for great concern. The organizations ask that the Minister immediately initiated after a standstill for further growth in the industry......We will increase the pressure in this case. The battle is now."

Thanks to Don Staniford of Pure Salmon Organization 12-2-09 for providing NFS with this important information.