alexandra morton

The remarkable salmon returns 2024

 What are the 2024 salmon returns telling us?

Homiskanis (Don Svanvik),

Alexandra MortonJanuary

January 2025

Figure 1. Unexpected, large returns of chum, and other salmon, occurred throughout east Vancouver Island, the adjacent mainland inlets and Puget Sound in 2024, this marine corridor is where most salmon farms have been recently closed.

DFO forecasted poor chum salmon returns to the BC South and Central coast for 2024.  While chum salmon did continue to collapse in parts of the Central Coast and elsewhere, unexpectedly huge returns occurred in a swath from Alert Bay through Puget Sound. Something significantly benefitted the salmon of this region.

Because chum salmon have been in such steep decline in recent years, it seems important to understand why this generation suddenly rebounded increasing 10-20xs in a single generation. While this report is focused on chum because the DFO chum data is the most complete, pink, Coho and Chinook salmon also rebounded in 2024 throughout the same region.

Salmon survival is linked to freshwater, nearshore and open ocean conditions.  In Figure 1 it is clear the explosive increase in chum returns occurred precisely where industrial salmon farms had recently been removed.  Science informs us that removing the ~12 million farm salmon from this region reduced levels of waterborne infectious pathogens, but is this the reason salmon rebounded?

Most chum salmon that returned in 2024 migrated to sea in 2021, the very first year after the 2020 closure of salmon farms in the Discovery Islands.  Salmon farms were also closed in the Broughton Archipelago and Puget Sound (Fig 1).  We know sea lice infection of young pink and chum salmon migrating through the Discovery Islands in 2021 dropped by 96%  compared to previous generations back to 2005 and this raised the question – would this relief from infection increase survival of this generation.  Sea lice are just one pathogen released by salmon farms. This briefing provides a preliminary record of the pattern of salmon returns in 2024 in hopes we can understand what salmon are telling us to ensure this trend continue.

Overview

This report is for First Nations concerned about the decline of salmon.  The 500 km stretch of coastline from Alert Bay through Puget Sound is the first place in the world that salmon farms have been removed.  The impact of this on salmon returns has not been studied until now.  From 2018-2023, 50% of salmon farms in BC and 100% of salmon farms in Puget Sound were closed by First Nations, Canada, and Washington State to protect wild salmon. This required significant effort.

We know ocean conditions influence salmon survival, and that the recent and persistent La Ninã conditions, which typically cool the North Pacific, is expected to have had a positive effect on salmon survival coast wide.  Conversely, damage to freshwater salmon habit occurs coastwide, but only impacts salmon survival in specific rivers.  Ocean productivity, high seas trawling, Alaskan interception and many other factors are also known to negatively influence salmon survival coast wide. The puzzle of the 2024 returns is that something undetected by DFO’s forecasting models caused explosive returns up to 20 times greater than previous generations in one region of the coast and that region correlates precisely with where salmon farms were removed.

It may not be immediately obvious how pens 600,000+ of farm salmon could influence salmon returns. Over the past 20 years researchers from Canadian universities and scientific organizations have painstakingly examined young salmon as they approached and migrated past salmon farms; recording sea lice, bacteria and virus infection, length, weight, and condition.  The water was sampled, measuring pathogen loading around salmon farms and the immune response of salmon exposed vs unexposed to salmon farms was analysed. Measurable and significant impact is correlated with salmon farm (see Appendix1). 

When Mamalilikulla, Namgis, and Kwikwasut’inuxw Haxwa’mis began closing salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago in 2018, the industry was granted a few years to demonstrate lack of impact, but these Nations required access to all the remaining farms in their territories.  This is unprecedented. No independent research has ever been allowed in salmon farms. Their members, with DFO and Pacific Salmon Foundation scientists, screened the fish in the farms for pathogens and disease–related organ damage. They counted farm lice monthly and documented the impact of industry lice treatments. Based on what they learned, the leadership of these nations closed 17 farms in the Broughton.  This ground-breaking research is now being published in peer-reviewed journals and serves as a warning: salmon are attracted to the farms, where they are exposed to elevated levels of infectious viruses and bacteria.  Informed on the state of disease in salmon farms, Namgis is taking the companies and Canada to court for failure to screen for the foreign Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) and suing Canada for issuing salmon farm licences until 2029. They are doing this out of concern for what happens to their salmon beyond their territory as young salmon migrate past salmon farms off Port Hardy and the Central Coast and so we can compare salmon returns to regions with and without salmon farms.

Another 17 salmon farms were closed in 2020 by Canada in the Discovery Islands. This region was flagged by the Cohen Commission into the decline of the Fraser sockeye due to the risks associated with high farm salmon pathogen loads in narrow migratory waterways.  The Kwiakah, Gwawaenuk, shíshálh, and Nuchatlaht First Nations closed another 16 salmon farms out of concern for wild salmon. On Feb 15, 2018, the Washington State House and Senate passed bills to phase out salmon farms in Puget Sound at the urging of local tribes.

Approximately nine First Nations in Clayoquot, Nootka, Esperanza, Port Hardy, Klemtu, the southern Broughton and Johnstone Strait have agreed to allow salmon farms to continue to operate, allowing comparisons in salmon survival between farmed and farm-free regions.

Important to understanding what happened in 2024, is the 2003 provincial Pink Salmon Action Plan.  In 2001, young out-migrating Broughton pink salmon were so infected with sea lice that 98% were forecast by researchers to die.  When this generation collapsed by 99% across the seven Broughton rivers, the Province of BC responded by requiring salmon farms on a migration corridor through the Broughton to have zero sea lice in the spring of 2003.  The farms had to be empty or stocked with freshwater smolts only (which have no lice.).  The result was very similar to what we saw in 2024.  Broughton pink salmon survival sky-rocketed by 1480% according to DFO.  Pink salmon survival in the Hada River was 49.83% whereas typical pink salmon survival is 5.2-0.7%. Despite the remarkable success of this “Action Plan”, the salmon farms were allowed to restock in 2004, lice infection returned and salmon fisheries in the Broughton Archipelago collapsed.

This report was written to flag the extraordinary pattern of salmon returns in 2024.  Large hatcheries were omitted due their reluctance to share production details that could influence hatchery-only returns.  This report relies on numbers and graphs released by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), First Nations and Washington State media. This report is preliminary.

Regions

North Coast

No salmon farms have ever operated on the north coast of BC.   Salmon returns there were good with some large pink salmon returns and slightly depressed Chinook returns.  Overall returns were reported to have remained steady compared to recent years.

Along the Alaskan border pink salmon returns to Portland Inlet (Area 3) were the highest since record keeping began in 1950.  While not the huge increases experienced further south, this may be evidence of good ocean conditions and the state of the freshwater habitat.

Figure 2. Pink salmon, even cycle returns 1950-2024 for DFO Area 3, the most northern region of the BC mainland (missing 1996, 1998, 2000)  Graph Source

 

Sockeye returns to tributaries in the Skeena varied widely.

Figure 3. Sockeye returns to Skeena tributaries were variable. The cause of the large increase in Boucher Creek is unknown  Graphs source  

 

Preliminary returns for all species to the Nass River were fair to excellent.

Figure 4. Preliminary Nass Salmon and Steelhead Escapement charts for 1992-2024. These graphs can be accessed from the 2024 DFO Post Season Review

 

Central Coast

The Central Coast has six active Mowi Atlantic salmon farms in Kitasoo Xai’xais territory in DFO management Area 7 (Fig 5). While there were anecdotal reports of good returns to some Central Coast creeks, the data and locations were not made available or confirmed.  Below are quotes from the Central Coast DFO Post Season Review. 

Figure 5. DFO Area 7 of the Central Coast has six active Atlantic salmon farms. These are the only salmon farms north of Vancouver Island.

“Area 7 salmon returns fell short of pre-season expectations for the eighth consecutive season. Pink escapements are below, Chum escapements continue to be far below target for all the key streams in Area 7 (Fig 6).

Poor expected Chum returns were once again realized throughout Area 7 as the season progressed. There were no commercial gillnet or seine openings in Area 7 during the 2024 season.

The McLoughlin Bay hatchery [near Bella Bella] fell well short of the 2.5 million target with 290,990 on hand, Kitasoo hatchery [in Klemtu] fell short of their 1.5 million target with 390,000 eggs collected. Additionally, a die-off event occurred at the Kitasoo hatchery, the exact number of eggs lost is uncertain at this time.

The Kitasoo Fisheries Program collected approximately 24,000 [sockeye] eggs from Mary’s Cove for their Victor Creek facility. However, a storm caused damage to their water intake system, leading to a malfunction that resulted in 55% mortality of the collected eggs. Meanwhile, the Heiltsuk (HIRMD – Aquatics) did not collect any eggs from Tankeeah for the Emily Lake hatchery due to poor Sockeye returns.”

Area 7 prospects for the 2025 season include no anticipated pink or chum salmon commercial fisheries. “Over the past eight years, there have been consistently poor returns of Area 7 Chum. A positive rebuilding trend must be observed before commercial Chum fisheries can be considered” (DFO Post Season Review Central Coast).

Pink and chum salmon returns were low for the key Central Coast Rivers (Fig 6).

Figure 6. Pink and chum salmon 2024 returns (red line) vs the target number that fishery managers thought might return (blue line) to nine “key” rivers on the Central Coast.   Data from DFO Post Season Review, pages 21, 22

South Coast

West Coast Vancouver Island

Chinook - The West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) has 5 distinct sounds, three are used to farm salmon - Quatsino, Nootka/Esperanza and Clayoquot Sound and two are without salmon farms - Kyuquot and Barkley.  This allows an informative comparison between farmed and wild areas (Fig 7).  DFO reports, Chinook in Kyuquot “have seen an improving trend in escapement” while Chinook in Clayoquot “have been consistently below their lower biological benchmark for 30 years with few signs of improvement” (Fig 7).  Thirty years corresponds with the arrival and presence of salmon farms in that region.  

Figure 7. DFO post-season review graphs placed on a map showing wild Chinook and chum salmon returns from the 1990s through 2024 for Kyuquot (no salmon farms) Nootka/Esperanza (salmon farms) and Clayoquot (salmon farms). Graph source

The DFO 2024 Marine Risk Assessment for Natural-Origin West Coast Vancouver Island Chinook provides further insight into WCVI Chinook survival. 

“Of all the regions in BC, open-net salmon farms in WCVI sounds carry the largest potential for impact to Chinook as juvenile WCVI Chinook salmon spend up to a full year cohabitating with high density farms, exposing wild and hatchery Chinook to various pathogens and parasites.”

This 2024 report notes WCVI Chinook are more infected with bacteria, viruses and parasites compared with Chinook from other regions of BC. Unfortunately, the report lumps all 5 WCVI sounds together, but the graphs in Figure 7 show large increases where there are no salmon farms and very low returns in the areas still used to farm salmon.

The DFO WCVI Post Season Review had little to say about Coho but noted: “Coho returns in 2024 appear variable, with peak counts to date ranging from less than half the 8-year average to just above the 8-year average… Survival rates have been relatively poor in the last ~15 years compared to historic estimates.”  However, escapement in Carnation Creek, (no farms, Fig 7)  “was an improvement from last year and close to the 12-year average” (Source).

Chum - Wild chum returns increased significantly in Kyuquot (no farms) but remained below target levels in Esperanza/Nootka (farms, Fig 7). However, the 2024 chum salmon returns to Clayoquot Sound (farms) did see improvement.  Clayoquot is the one anomaly in the 2024 pattern and provides valuable perspective.  An examination of what occurred there is provided below on page 13.  

East Vancouver Island

While industrial salmon farms are still in operation under agreements with First Nations off the northeast tip of Vancouver Island, most salmon farms south of there have been removed between Vancouver Island and the mainland (Fig 7). Three farms do remain in Tlowitsis territory in the southern Broughton Archipelago (Fig 8) and two farms remain just north of the Discovery Islands in Johnstone Strait because they were considered outside the “Discovery Islands” (Fig 7), the region cleared by Fisheries Minister Bernadette Jordan in December 2020.

The removal of so many salmon farms (~12M farm salmon) from this region provides information on the relationship between salmon farms and salmon returns. We know from recent research that closing salmon farms significantly lowers farm-pathogens. It is important to note what year each species of salmon went to sea. The Discovery Islands were cleared of salmon farms in the spring of 2021.  This means 2024 was the second pink salmon return and the first 4-year-old chum salmon return post-salmon farms.

The number of sea lice infecting juvenile pink and chum salmon migrating through the Discovery Islands has been studied since 2005, and so the impact of removing salmon farms was measured.  The chum salmon that returned this year were 96% less infected with sea lice in the Discovery Islands than previous generations when they went to sea in 2021.  It was anticipated by the research team that this might boost survival.

 

Pink Salmon - Broughton Archipelago

The salmon farming industry used the Broughton Archipelago from 1989-2023. Today, 19 Mowi and Cermaq salmon farms have been closed.  Three Grieg salmon farms on the south side of Knight Inlet remain operational in Tlowitsis Territory (Fig 8).  

Figure 8. Nineteen salmon farms have been closed by four First Nations in the Broughton Archipelago. Three remain in operation under agreement with another First Nation.

Pink Salmon – Pink salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago have increased substantially since the removal of salmon farms.  The first generation of pink salmon to return to the Hada River after nearby salmon farms were removed increased 10-fold in 2022 from approximately 1000 to 10,000 fish. In 2024, the next generation doubled to 20,000 (Fig 8, 9). Historically, up to 60,000 pinks returned to this river. (Formally called the Ahta)

Pink salmon returns to the Ahnuhati River went from 11,879 over the past three generations to 106,453 in 2024 (Fig 8, 9). Historically over 300,000 pinks have returned to this river.  The pink salmon of the Embley River had collapsed to an average of 283 fish over the previous three generations.  After Gwawaenuk First Nation removed the two large Cermaq farms near this river (Fig 8), pink salmon returns increased ten-fold to 2,241 in 2024.  Historically up to 100,000 pink salmon have spawned in the Embley.

 

Figure 9. The 2024 returns to five Broughton pink salmon rivers vs average returns for the previous three generations. DFO data source

Figure 10. Average returns 1950-2023 vs 2024 for Knight Inlet rivers Data source

Figure 10 presents data from the DFO South Coast Salmon Bulletin September 11, 2024 Escapement Update Pink Salmon – Area 12 Mainland Inlets which provides the average number of pink salmon that returned 1950-2023 vs 2024. The1950-2023 period includes before and during salmon farm operation. The Ahnuhati and Glendale Rivers are both in Knight Inlet (Fig 8). While eight salmon farms have been closed on the migration route for fish from these rivers, three remain. Because the Glendale River is much closer to the remaining farms, salmon from that river would be significantly smaller than Ahnuhati pinks as they pass through Grieg salmon farm effluent. Ahnuhati pink returns now exceed the previous 36 generation average, while Glendale pinks remain at less than half. 

Pink Salmon - East Central Vancouver Island

Most pink salmon rivers south of the Broughton also saw very large increases in 2024. The 2024 Phillips River pink return was 6 times the previous 3 generations (166,950 vs 1,000,000) and the Quinsam run tripled (Fig 11).  Note the Kwiakah First Nation, who removed the Mowi farm near the Phillips River, report 1M pinks in that river. The Puntledge River saw a smaller increase from 2400 – 3100 and interestingly, the pink salmon return to the Salmon River, adjacent to the two salmon farms still operating in this area (Fig 7), didn’t increase, remaining at ~800 fish (Fig 11).  Mowi also has Atlantic salmon hatcheries on the Salmon River.

Extensive research on lice infection on juvenile pink and chum salmon swimming past salmon farms documented visible impacts on body condition (Fig 12).  Adult salmon, clad in large scales, are relatively immune to sea lice. But young pink and chum salmon have no scales when they first enter the ocean and so the lice puncture holes in their skin, graze away the protective mucus and eat into the flesh.   Salmon infected at this stage pictured in Figure 12 are thin, weak, and vulnerable to predation by birds and larger fish. The pink salmon in both photos in Figure 12 are approximately 4-5 cm long.  For publications on this see Appendix 1. 

Figure 11. The 2024 pink salmon returns to east central Vancouver Island vs the average three previous generations. Data source  

Chum Salmon - Vancouver Island

Chum  Salmon

In September 2024, DFO forecasted poor chum salmon returns to eastern Vancouver Island “due to decreasing trends in marine survival observed in recent years (2017-2023)”.  However, by the end of October DFO reported “Fall chum stocks are the big news story of 2024, with exceptional numbers of chum being reported in various streams across the region”.

Instead of declining as expected, chum returns to rivers in the Strait of Georgia and Broughton Archipelago skyrocketed (Fig 13).  For example, the Viner River (Broughton) was 22xs higher than the previous four years. Historically, up to 75,000 chum returned to the Viner and supported a seine fishery. The 2024 Theodosia chum return was 12xs higher than the four-year average.  These rivers received no enhancement during this time period but were part of the unexpected surge in chum salmon returns that extended the length of Vancouver Island (Fig 13).

Figure 13.  Average chum returns for previous generations (column 1) vs 2024 (column 2). Dark green graphs - exceptional increase, brown graphs - decrease. Grey background - chum that were transferred out from the same hatchery.  Green circles - chum salmon from these rivers migrated through regions where salmon farms had been removed.  Light blue line – major salmon migration route. Light blue graph - Clayoquot Sound, unique salmon farm management (see text)  Broughton data, East Vancouver Island south data, West Coast data, hatchery reporting

The Oyster and Puntledge Rivers are highlighted in grey  in Figure 13 because interestingly neither increased as much as the other systems and the Oyster River appears to have received eggs from the Puntledge.  Notably, chum returns declined in both the Goldstream and Sooke rivers at the south end of Vancouver Island (Fig 13).

Clayoquot Sound

Chum - Clayoquot is the only fish farmed region where chum salmon returns increased in 2024 and provides very valuable insight (Fig 13).  In 2021, when this generation of young chum salmon was migrating past Cermaq’s farms in Clayoquot, Ahousaht leadership had just initiated a 1.5 lice limit per farm salmon. This is ½ the level DFO allows salmon farms on the rest of the coast. 

In 2021, Cermaq breached the Ahousaht limit 31 times, with up to 5 lice per fish.  In 2022, they breached the limit 82 times, with infections as high as 21 lice per fish (DFO farm lice database).  In 2024, Cermaq doubled the number of de-lousing treatments (Fig 14) and in August 2024 they stopped publicly reporting their lice numbers.

 

 

Figure 14.  Cermaq more than doubled the number of lice treatments during the spring juvenile salmon outmigration (Mar – Jun) from 2021 to 2024 Data source

According to research just published by DFO and others, de-lousing treatments are by far the biggest cause of death of farm salmon. See dark brown bars (Fig 15). The dark green bars are total deaths per year. This study does not include 2024 when Cermaq’s number of lice treatments doubled.

Figure 15. The highest cause of death of farm salmon in BC is treatments used to control sea lice figure from source*

Figure 15 suggests that keeping lice low enough to protect migrating salmon, is killing large numbers of farm salmon, and thus threatening profitability. If Cermaq’s lice levels determined how many chum salmon returned to Clayoquot in 2024, next year’s run should begin to decline again and continue in subsequent years.  Unfortunately,  no fish farm company has ever achieved long term sea lice control anywhere in the world.

Chinook - Whatever benefitted the 2024 Clayoquot chum did not support survival of Clayoquot Chinook, the most under-performing Chinook stock in BC. Only 2 males returned to the Kennedy River near Tofino signaling extinction.  The Cypre River declined to 14 Chinook and the Tranquil, already at 3% of historic numbers declined further (Fig 7).  

Combatting sea lice requires increasingly aggressive treatments.  At first in-feed drugs worked. Today, farm fish are pumped into hydrogen peroxide filled tanks or through tubes with water jets and scrubbers to remove the lice. The stress caused by these treatments is linked to outbreaks of mouthrot and mass mortality in farm salmon.

The remarkable scientific paper co-published by three Broughton Chief Councillors, DFO, and the Pacific Salmon Foundation on December 28, 2024, reports 1.) Chinook salmon are attracted to salmon farms, and 2.) eleven infectious agents are elevated in the ocean around salmon farms.  They state that “after considering the evidence of negative consequences of infection” Pacific salmon exposed to salmon farms are at risk.

Figure 16. Juvenile chum salmon migrating past salmon farms off Port Hardy exhibited the classic open sore lesions that are associated with the disease Tenacibaculosis, caused by a  bacteria common to BC salmon farms where it cause mouthrot.

Coho - East Vancouver Island  DFO reports, “Early indications suggest above average escapement [for Coho], with strong marine survival for the 2023 ocean entry year”

Figure 17. 2024 preliminary coho returns to Black Creek are “dramatically above” recent average and the 2nd best observed since 1996. Source

 Fraser River

Chinook and Coho - Fraser River

Fraser River Chinook and Coho salmon returns are not available from DFO until spring of 2025.  However, the Albion gillnet test fishery recorded a significant increase in catch of both species compared to the previous 20 years (Fig 18).   

Figure 18. The Albion test fishery, located on the lower Fraser River at Albion, BC (near Fort Langley), uses gill nets to assesses Fraser River chinook, Coho and chum salmon returns.  The 2024 results are higher than observed in this 24-year data set. Data source

Chum salmon - Fraser River

The Fraser River produces the largest chum salmon population in BC.  The Albion test fishery detected a substantial increase in chum salmon in 2024 compared to the 29-year average (Fig 19), consistent with the pattern in nearby rivers.

Figure 19. Albion test fishery 1994-2024. Graph from

As well, informal reports from fishery biologists describe the 2024 Fraser chum return as exceptional. In some areas Chum salmon went from “rare since the early 1950s to potentially thousands this year”. The fish were observed in small side channels, spawning in places never seen before.

Sockeye - Fraser River DFO forecasted the 2024 Fraser sockeye return at 567,000 fish for the entire river, the lowest on record, 85% below the historical cycle-line.  DFO reports 474,000 Fraser sockeye returned in 2024 (Fig 20).  Fraser sockeye either did not benefit from the factor/s that boosted other 2024 salmon returns, or negative impacts specific to Fraser sockeye were so great that they outweighed the positive.  Without the positive impacts benefitting other species, would even fewer sockeye have returned to the Fraser River? Fraser River salmon have suffered repeated catastrophic in-river events including release of ~25 million m³ of Imperial Metals toxic mine tailings into Quesnel Lake, the 2019 Big Bar and 2024 Chilcotin landslides.  The Columbia River, which enters the Pacific Ocean off western Washington, saw high sockeye returns in 2024.

Figure 20. DFO Preliminary post-season Fraser sockeye returns. Table source

Figure 21 was submitted to the Cohen Commission into the 17-year decline of the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon. The salmon farm notation has been added.  The red graph tracks productivity (how many sockeye returned for each member of the parental generation) in all Fraser sockeye and reveals a sustained collapse that corresponds with the arrival of salmon farms. The blue graph shows Harrison River sockeye did not collapse.   

Figure 21.  Submission to the Cohen Commission by Mike Lapointe, Pacific Salmon Commission, authored by Dr. Randall Peterman and Brigitte Dorner, titled “Widespread decrease in productivity of sockeye salmon on the west coast of North America”. Salmon farm notation added for this report

According to DFO research Harrison River DNA has not been detected in young sockeye migrating through the Discovery Islands. Instead, their DNA was found off west Vancouver Island.  This suggests Harrison sockeye migrate to sea via southern Vancouver Island, not through the Discovery Islands and so were not exposed to salmon farm pathogens.  As well, Harrison sockeye leave the river shortly after hatching.

If the red graph was extended to 2024, this line would fall even lower.  Fortunately, the massive prespawn mortality that was killing millions of Fraser sockeye through the 1990s just prior to spawning has ceased. Evidence suggests this also has salmon farm linkages. The DFO scientist who discovered this suffered consequences for her work.  As a member of the Cohen Commission, A. Morton received access to .5M DFO documents and produced this report.  Government and industry tried to block it, but in the end Justice Bruce Cohen accepted it.  

Washington State

Washington State closed the salmon farms operating in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.  The 2024 salmon returns to Washington State are described as exceptional.  The 2024 chum salmon return to Puget Sound was the highest in at least a decade Seattle Times Dec 2, 2024.  While habitat restoration was credited and undoubtably contributed, these returns are consistent with the pattern of exceptional chum returns as far north as the Broughton Archipelago (Fig 1), but not on the Central Coast or across West Coast Vancouver Island.

Carkeek Creek just north of Seattle reported chum salmon returns more than double any return as far back as 2019 (Fig 22). The 2024 Hood Canal chum salmon return is the highest since available recording keeping began in 1974 (Fig 23).

Figure 22. Carkeek Creek chum salmon returns 2019-2024 report more than doubling in size this year over previous ten years Data source here Carkeek Creek is approximately half way down Puget Sound on the eastern shore

 

Figure 23. Hood Canal chum returned in 2024 in the highest numbers since record-keeping began in 1974.  Seattle Times

 

Yukon River

The Yukon River is a western Canada salmon river, that enters the Bering Sea, not the Pacific Ocean, and so exists outside the scope of this report but deserves mention.   Chum and Chinook runs to this river were exceptionally low:

Chum - “The 2024 preliminary return of Yukon River Canadian-origin chum salmon is the lowest on record, while the return to the Porcupine River [a tributary to the Yukon River] was among the lowest recorded.”

Chinook – “The 2024 cumulative passage at Eagle sonar was 24,112, which is well below average ...” (DFO Yukon River Salmon Update)

While there have never been salmon farms near the Yukon River,  it is perhaps significant that Yukon River Chinook salmon were used to breed the farmed Chinook salmon stock used by Creative Salmon near Tofino. Creative is the only Chinook farming company in BC and the source of research finding impact of the North Atlantic virus Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) on Chinook salmon. PRV appears to cause Chinook red blood cells to rupture en mass leading to organ failure.  This is DFO research, another group of DFO scientists and industry do not acknowledge this impact. The Kennedy River, close to the infected Creative Salmon farms,  saw only 2 male Chinook return this year.  PRV is reported seeping out of most salmon farms tested in BC, in most farm salmon sold in markets and increases in wild salmon exposed to salmon farms. 

In 2019, Chinook salmon milt was sent back to the Yukon from Creative Salmon.  Perhaps just a curious coincidence, but since the collapse of Yukon Chinook salmon remains severe and unknown, screening for the virus PRV could at least rule out this pathogen to restore Yukon Chinook. The strain of PRV in the Creative salmon is genetically unique and identifiable.

Summary

This report presents the remarkable pattern of the 2024 salmon returns.    Any questions contact us.

Respectfully,

Homiskanis, [email protected]

Alexandra Morton, [email protected]

Appendix 1

partial list of scientific papers reporting impact of salmon farms on salmon

*Sumit Jyoti1, Beibei Jia1, Sonja Saksida1, Henrik Stryhn1, Derek Price2, Crawford W. Revie3 & Krishna K. Thakur1  2025. Spatiotemporal patterns of mortality events in farmed Atlantic salmon in British Columbia, Canada, using publicly available data. Scientific Reports 14:32122 http://creativecommo ns.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Dear Premier your Environment Minister is under investigation.

Dear Premier David Eby,

I am writing to inform you that your Minister of Environment and Climate Change, George Heyman and his ministry are under investigation for refusing to screen farm salmon blood for the virus PRV before it is being released by the Brown’s Bay Processing Company into the Fraser River salmon migration route in the Discovery Islands.

On June 18, 2024, the BC Ombudsperson office informed the provincial Minister of Environment George Heyman that his ministry is under investigation for refusing to test for and control the virus PRV flowing from a farm salmon processing plant.

Seven years ago I informed Minster Heyman that this blood water was infected with the foreign salmon virus PRV. First Nation leadership from the Fraser River and the public demand that the Browns Bay farm salmon processing stop releasing this virus into the ocean . Heyman promised to do so. However, an October 2023 Warning Letter to the plant by Heyman’s compliance staff reports:

“the Director did not require Brown’s Bay to test for pathogens in the effluent or take action to minimize discharge of pathogens” (Warning Letter, Oct 2023, page 9). 

WHAT!!! So, it was all a lie that your government was taking care of this?  The federal government removed ALL SALMON FARMS from the Discovery Islands and your government is allowing free flow of infected blood into the same area? For what possible reason are you being so careless?

In fact, records show the Ministry of Environment increased the bloodwater discharge rate in 2019. Then in 2023 DFO reported that young salmon placed exposed to this blood water become infected with the virus.  And still nothing was done. In fact, Heyman tried to convince me and First Nations that the effluent looks cleaner, as if viruses are visible - while never requiring the plant to even test for the virus. 

Independent scientists trace PRV genetic sequence to the North Atlantic (Science Daily) arriving at the same time as Atlantic salmon farms were established on this coast.  On May 15, 2024, Namgis First Nation announced they intend to reopen their lawsuit to stop DFO from allowing PRV-infected farm salmon into fish farms.  PRV infects most farm salmon in BC, and research shows it causes the red blood cells of Pacific salmon to rupture en masse leading to organ failure.

Unfortunately, the Ombudsperson can only make recommendations.  You can still choose to do nothing.  Clearly I have misjudged your capacity to understand the importance of wild salmon to this coast.  Now there is an investigation.  DFO science are also under investigation for disregarding the science on the impact of this virus on wild salmon.  In my view taxpayer dollars are being wasted, as scientists from leading universities and the Pacific Salmon Foundation have shown that this virus is more dangerous to Pacific salmon than to Atlantic salmon, because it was imported.  That should have been warning enough got Minister Heyman to instruct Browns Bay Packing Company to pump their waste into a tank and dispose of it properly.  

In my view it is unconscionable to allow a foreign virus to flow into the Pacific.

Alexandra Morton

 

Will Trudeau Walk the Talk... or not?

Dear Minister Jonathan Wilkinson,

I am writing to you as you are BC’s senior federal cabinet member.  In a matter of weeks your government will receive a DFO memo on what to do about salmon farms.  Prime Minister Trudeau said they needed to get out of BC waters by 2025, clearly the industry doesn’t want to go, DFO staff are dangling the possibility they will be allowed to stay another 6 years, these Norwegian-based companies keep suing their host country and so Canadians are unsure who is in charge: the prime minister, DFO bureaucrats or the industry?  On July 1 we will have our answer.

Prime Minister Trudeau made his decision on this matter in 2019 when he instructed his Minister of Fisheries in his mandate letter to transition salmon farms out of the ocean by 2025. 

Since then, approximately half the salmon farms in BC have been closed, most by First Nations (see blow).  The industry has shipped its large well boats, Viktoria Viking and Roy Kristian back to the Atlantic, as well as smaller aquaculture industry tenders.  Where the farms have been removed remarkable wild salmon rebounds are being observed. This year will be the first farm-free Fraser River sockeye and 4-year chum salmon that were not exposed to salmon farm pathogens in the Discovery Islands when they went to sea as juveniles.

July 1, 2024, all federal BC salmon farm licences will expire. New licences must be issued before then to every farm still in existence.  To align with the Prime Minister’s mandate, these new licences should provide instruction on decommissioning i.e. what level of sea floor cleanup is required, whether fish already in the farms are permitted to grow to harvest size, etc., similar to the instructions provided to Mowi and Cermaq by First Nations in the Broughton Archipelago before they removed 17 salmon farms.

Inexplicably, DFO Aquaculture staff are moving in the opposite direction as if the mandate letter to their minister is of no consequence - openly suggesting that salmon farm licences might be renewed for six years. Intended or not, these public musings dangerously mislead the aquaculture industry with serious consequence to your cabinet.

For example, over the past 4 years DFO Aquaculture staff have repeatedly invited salmon farming companies to pay for licences in the Discovery Islands before the minister repeatedly announced these licences would not be reissued.  Predictably, industry lawyers used this in defeating the Minister of Fisheries in court.  The industry paid for licences, they argued, thus creating the expectation they would receive them, and the judge seemed to agree.  I have asked DFO staff to please refrain from doing this again, but in a sense they already have.  By publicly signalling 6-year licences might be issued, as if the prime minister didn’t matter, the industry might sink costs into filling their hatcheries with eggs, rearing fry and vaccinating juveniles in anticipation of stocking marine farms six years into the future.  As the lawyers told the court - when bureaucrats create false expectations, industry invests money and your government loses in court.

Before this power struggle between DFO Aquaculture staff and the Prime Minister lands on your desk I would like to offer two considerations:

1. The stigma of your government’s reliance on science recently flagged as potentially fraudulent accompanies this decision. The entire premise of granting salmon farm licences is based on a standard of “minimal harm” to wild salmon.  A year ago, senior Canadian scientists warned that DFO science that the minister was relying on to ensure minimal harm appears to have selectively omitted data and tampered with conclusions to suggest sea lice from salmon farms are not harming young wild salmon. Internal documents attached to their letter clearly show the edits that reversed the report's original conclusion, even providing the initials of the author of these edits. This conduct lands squarely within the definition of scientific fraud.  The scientists who wrote this have published extensively on exactly this, they are tenured professors, senior editors of scientific journals, expert witnesses and work with many First Nations, but somehow the Minister of Fisheries has not seen fit to even answer them.  Their request to reanalyze the data to confirm minimal harm to wild salmon has effectively been denied.  Beyond violating the basic principle of science that any result must be reproducible, hiding evidence is not a good look for any government when the stakes are this high.

2. British Columbians are watching this closely. Can we trust our prime minister or not?  When Trudeau issues a mandate does this mean he will walk the talk? Will salmon farms be moved out of BC waters in 2025 or not?  Was his mandate letter just a political chess move he had no intention of honouring?  Or did he actually intend to follow through, but now is willing to sacrifice wild salmon because he is afraid of three Norwegian – based companies Mowi, Cermaq and Grieg?  We will have our answer by July 1, 2024 when BC salmon farm licences are reissued.  Will the new conditions of licence inform the industry on the steps required to decommission their farms? Or will the licence override Prime Minister Trudeau and provide this industry opportunity to reap profits at the expense of the public resource and beloved wild salmon?

Minister Wilkinson, you are a man of science and politics, a rare and important blend in the maelstrom of today’s world.  Globally, we have become acutely aware that our very survival depends on governments bringing industrial activity into compliance with what our planet can bear.  Your government made the decision to remove salmon farms.  Fraser River and Coastal First Nations and the Union of BC Indian chiefs successfully petitioned the court and supported the Minister of Fisheries in keeping 17 salmon farms in the Discovery Islands on the Fraser River salmon migration route closed.  When has that kind of support ever been offered to a federal government before?  

Fraudulent or not, DFO science is no longer a factor because the Prime Minister of Canada made the decision to move salmon farms out of the Pacific Ocean, similar to the U.S.  The previous Fisheries Minister was apparently working on this transition plan just before she was sacked.  Now your government has allowed uncertainty to persist right up to the deadline causing chaos for those employed by the industry and playing into the hands of this litigious industry.

Very soon it will be your turn to decide whether to honour the Prime Minister’s mandate, or go back on his promise and cave to the salmon farming industry.  Is this just a gamble?  Which is the least damaging to the Liberal Government - upsetting the Norwegian salmon farming industry, or betraying the Prime Minister’s promise to Canadians?  

 

Please confirm that you have read this and let me know if you require further information.  

Thank you and all the best,

Thank you,

Alexandra Morton

[email protected]

 

• 17 farms closed by three First Nations in the Broughton Archipelago
• 8 farms closed by Shíshálh First Nation
• 3 farms closed by Gwawa’enuxw First Nation
• 1 farm closed by Kwiakah First Nation
• 1 farm closed by Homalco First Nation
• 17 farms closed by Minister of Fisheries (salmon farmers only sued in response to these closures)

 

Minimal harm vs research fraud

February 5, 2024

Dear Minister Diane Lebouthillier,

J'espère que votre année commence bien et en bonne santé. Nous vivons certainement une période tumultueuse et j’apprécie les personnes comme vous qui ont le courage de s’engager dans un leadership en ce moment de l’histoire de l’humanité.

As I understand it, all federal salmon farm licences in BC will expire by July 1, 2024 and your department is currently modifying the conditions of the licences you will issue to marine salmon farms before then.  This is a bit confusing as Prime Minister Trudeau’s 2019 Mandate Letter, reaffirmed in 2021, included transition away from open net salmon farms by 2025 just 6 months after the licences expire.  Hopefully the new licences will provide certainty and instruction on closure of the last of the open net salmon farms in BC?   

As you prepare for this important decision, there is an issue that should probably be resolved so as to allow public confidence in your decision.

The entire premise of Canada granting salmon farms a licence to operate is based on a standard to ensure only minimal harm to wild salmon.  To carry out this policy of minimal harm Canada tasked the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) to assess the level of harm caused by sea lice from salmon farms. The resulting Sea Lice CSAS concluded that salmon farms are not a significant risk to wild salmon[1].  This was surprising.  Scientists outside DFO widely report the opposite and so naturally these results elicited scrutiny.  

I reviewed internal DFO Science communications to understand how Canada’s Science Advisory Secretariat could reach this conclusion.  I found documents revealing that DFO scientists did link salmon farms to sea lice risk, but this conclusion was altered to suggest the opposite before it was included in the Sea Lice CSAS and before it reached your office.  If true, this is an act of falsification which is defined as research misconduct[2] and research fraud[3].  This is a global problem faced by regulators[4] around the world.  The definition of research fraud and misconduct includes:

• …. omitting data so that the research isn’t accurately represented in the record¹.
• Any type of research fraud usually involves publishing conclusions, or even data, that were either made up or changed.[5] 

No one wants this to be true, but the evidence is compelling. 16 senior scientists advised the Minister one year ago that there are serious problems with the Sea Lice CSAS report. On page 19 of their letter, we see how the results of the DFO sea lice study were altered internally.

If true, this activity lands squarely within the definition of research fraud - conclusions that were changed. Furthermore, these scientists warn: “statistically significant results were omitted” and that fits the definition of research misconduct.  To resolve whether the Sea Lice CSAS can be relied on to achieve Canada’s goal of minimum harm to wild salmon, the scientists requested access to the data used to produce the CSAS so that it could be reanalysed.  Open access data is a standard of science. It is accepted that scientific results that cannot be replicated are not trustworthy.   Your office has strongly adhered to this principle in other science disputes.

The test for misconduct and fraud hinges on whether reinserting the omitted data reverses the conclusion of the Sea Lice CSAS.  Specific to your June decision - would you, could you reissue licences to open net salmon farms if your science advisory secretariat concluded that farm lice are a significant risk of harm to young wild salmon?  This critical measure of harm is embedded in the data used by the Sea Lice CSAS.

Inexplicably, the scientists’ request was met with silence from the previous minister.

What began as omission of significant data and the appearance of government tampering with scientific results, has escalated to blocking resolution of this serious matter by the office of the minister.  How is the possible?  I am bringing this to your attention 5 months ahead of your decision how to renew salmon farm licences in BC providing enough time for reanalysis of the Sea Lice CSAS data by the 16 scientists who brought this to the attention of your office.   You will see in their letter they are leaders in Canadian fisheries science, from our top universities, serving on the editorial boards of international and Canadian scientific journals and working with First Nation governments.  They have published decades of research into impact of industrial aquaculture lice on wild salmon.  I don’t see how you can make your decision without knowing the result of reinstating the omitted data.

Wild salmon are elemental to the ongoing production of clean air, water and food by BC ecosystems and so Canada’s judgement on which risks these fish must endure has far-reaching consequences.

You will know better than me how this should be resolved.

Thank you for considering this matter.

Alexandra Morton

[1] “No statistically significant association was observed between infestation pressure attributable to Atlantic Salmon farms and the probability of L. salmonis infestations on wild juvenile Chum and Pink salmon in Clayoquot Sound, Quatsino Sound, Discovery Islands, and Broughton Archipelago” page 23, 4^th paragraph

[2] https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct

[3] https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/manuscript-review/research-fraud-falsification-and-fabrication-research-data/

[4] https://theconversation.com/scientific-fraud-is-rising-and-automated-systems-wont-stop-it-we-need-research-detectives-206235

[5] https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/manuscript-review/research-fraud-falsification-and-fabrication-research-data/

Dear Minister you cannot un-know the disease findings by First Nations

Dear Minister Diane Lebouthillier,

Thank you for your willingness to travel to BC and meet with myself and many others.  Not an easy trip in winter.  I greatly regret not being able to take you up on your offer to meet, it seems my grandchildren passed me a cold.

My exposure to salmon farms began in 1989 when, as a resident of the Broughton Archipelago, the first salmon farms moved into the area where I was doing research on whales. I thought the industry was a good idea - take pressure off wild salmon while providing jobs. I took a job on a farm.  But as a scientist living in the area, I saw the biological evidence of impact.  I have now spent 35 years publishing on this impact and more recently on the impact of removing salmon farms.  I would like to offer three considerations.

Biological

When Chief Rick Johnson, Ḵwiḵwa̱sut'inux̱w Ha̱xwa'mis First Nation, submitted his application to intervene in support of the Minister of Fisheries closing salmon farms on the Fraser River migration route, he attached collaborative scientific results from his Nation, two other nations, DFO and the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

The number of pathogens tested for, the number of samples, the multi-year study duration, the number of farms and the tests showing the escape of these pathogens into the waters of his territory is unprecedented - globally.  Previously, even DFO was not permitted this level of access to farm salmon. The work reveals viruses, some identified as Atlantic salmon specific, can are replicating in the marine feedlot-type environment at levels known to trigger novel, virulent mutations. Dangerously amplified levels of endemic bacteria that have been over-exposed to antibiotics are also being released. According to DFO and Canadian university research, these industrial aquaculture pathogens are wafting out of the pens, passing over the gills of wild fish as they breathe, entering their bloodstream and triggering an immune system response - disease. 

To put this in context, what the poultry industry is doing to contain avian flu is impossible in marine salmon farms. There is no barn door to close, no walls or even a floor.  One might be tempted to ignore Chief Johnson’s affidavit as unpublished.  However, this is DFO science.   Even as Mowi and Cermaq, I am sure, did their best to prevent release of pathogens as they face further closures by other First Nations, the First Nations doing this work are now keenly aware of the industry’s capacity, or not, to achieve this.  Legal implications of enormous magnitude are suddenly presenting as salmon farm pathogens are essentially “fingerprinted” and now followed through the marine environment by leading Canadian Universities.

Private Fishery?

 As you prepare to decide which fishery to protect, I offer the following. In 1984, Canada commissioned the legal opinion of Bruce Wildsmith.  He told Canada that federal regulation of salmon farms did not appear to be supported by Canadian legislation.  The issues he identified were left unresolved when the federal government responded by transferring salmon aquaculture regulation to the provinces where they were dubbed “farms”.  However, Morton vs Canada 2009, determined that salmon farmers require a fishing licence to recapture escaped farm salmon, unlike the farmer who does not need a hunting licence to fetch stray cattle.  The cattle belong to the farmer, not so the fish in the pens.  

Salmon are a federally regulated fish and salmon “farms” exist in federal jurisdiction (the ocean) and so it was established that salmon farms are a “fishery” albeit a private fishery, (as the companies do not allow anyone else to fish in their pens). Morton vs Canada 2009 handed salmon farm regulation back to the federal government, but only in British Columbia, even though federal laws should apply coast-to-coast and private fisheries are not supported by the Fisheries Act. 

The legal grey area in which salmon farms exist can be seen on the boats transporting salmon to and from the farms.  Every commercial vessel packing fish in BC must openly display a licence number on the wheelhouse, except vessels transporting salmon for Cermaq, Mowi, Grieg and Creative Salmon.  Why?  Are farm salmon packers unlicenced because DFO does not have the regulatory power to issue private fishery licences?  Your office has remained silent on this question for several decades.

Impact of Salmon Farm Closures on Communities?

 Seventeen salmon farms were closed in the Broughton Archipelago. Have you spoken the chiefs, mayors, Area Representative for Alert Bay, Port McNeill and Sointula, the communities closest to these farms, to ask for evidence that these closures have impacted the economies of these small coastal communities?  Employees at the Mowi processing plant in Port Hardy would be affected by further closure of Mowi farms, but has anyone briefed you on the potential of that plant processing the recently exploding pink salmon returns to the area, the shrimp locally fished or other species?  Is this plant unable to pivot similar to what the Walcan Plant accomplished when the industry withdrew their contract?  I believe only minimal processing is done at this plant, could it be upgraded to value-added processing when the transition to wild fisheries is made?

The salmon farming industry  depends on a long supply chain with many weak links, including “acute shortage” of wild fishmeal and oil, foreign grain production threatened by rapid global warming and it attempts to replace carbon-neutral migrations of wild fish with high carbon producing transport of feed, smolts, and product.

In closing, I would like to suggest that you speak at length with the three First Nations who initiated salmon farm closures in the Broughton.  They have done the research required to evaluate and validate the Minister's decision in the Discovery Islands, they closed the farms without being sued, their communities have absorbed the loss of jobs successfully and they are ground-truthing what happens when salmon farms are closed for the first time in the history of salmon farming.

This summer will be the 1st return of Fraser River sockeye salmon that were not exposed to salmon farms in the Discovery Islands when they went to sea as juveniles. 

Merci encore pour l'opportunité de communiquer avec vous.

Meilleurs vœux à vous et à votre famille pour la nouvelle année.

Alexandra Morton

Broughton Archipelago - now farm salmon-free north of Knights Inlet

The Fish Are Talking - Thank you Trudeau and Ministers

Open Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau and Fisheries Ministers past and present:

August 14, 2023

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau, Joyce Murray, Bernadette Jordan and Minister of Fisheries Diane Lebouthillier,

I am writing to thank you for your roles in what is rapidly becoming one of the most remarkable environmental successes we have seen in this country. The pink salmon returning to southern BC are not only making a comeback, they are making history.  In the last few days, the Pacific Salmon Commission has reported the largest number of pink salmon ever caught in DFO test sets along northeastern Vancouver Island.  The increase over the last three generations is jaw-dropping!

This is not entirely a mystery. This generation of pink salmon was protected from exposure to salmon farms by the Prime Minister’s mandate to remove salmon farms from the BC coast, and by then Minister Bernadette Jordan’s 2020 prohibition on restocking farms in the Discovery Islands. When Joyce Murray took over the portfolio, she maintained the prohibition. And so these pink salmon that are returning in historic numbers went to sea as juveniles in 2022 when all the salmon farms in the Discovery Islands had been closed by the federal Liberal government.

 In my recent paper with Dr. Rick Routledge, Effect of government removal of salmon farms on sea lice infestation of juvenile wild salmon in the Discovery Islands (in press), I examined this generation of pink salmon as they swam through the region. They looked healthier than they have since I began studying them in 2005. Sea lice infestation on this generation was 96% lower than in 2020 when eight salmon farms were operating in the Discovery Islands.

This astonishing pink salmon rebound after salmon farm removal is not a one-off event. 

In 2003, following a profound pink salmon crash, the Province of BC enacted the Broughton Archipelago Action Plan wherein adult farm salmon were prohibited on the Broughton pink salmon migration route for one year.  That generation of pink salmon survival surged to 34%[1]!  Typical pink salmon survival is 2-5%. 

In 2022, the pink salmon returning to the Ahta River increased 10-fold in a single generation after the salmon farms near that river had been removed by the Broughton Archipelago Transition Initiative.

Also of note, the 2023 Fraser River sockeye test fishery is showing a remarkable increase in over the previous 3 generations.  These sockeye passed through the Discovery Islands as juveniles in 2021, when all the salmon farms in along the narrow channels had been removed.  DFO has increased their preseason estimate of the Early Stuart sockeye return by 50%! This population had to navigate the devastating Big Bar slide and yet their offspring are showing an uptick in survival!

I understand there will be claims all of this is a coincidence, unrelated to your efforts to remove salmon farms.  However, it would be wrong to ignore the repeated strength of the growing evidence that removing salmon farms increases wild salmon – first by the Province of BC, then the Broughton First Nations, and now your government which removed salmon farms from the Fraser River salmon migration route. It will be important for you to review returns for Quatsino, Gold River, the Central Coast, Port Hardy and Clayoquot Sound to determine if those heavily-farmed regions have enjoyed the same remarkable rebound.

Thank you to each of you for your role in allowing this generous fish to reach the open ocean - the fish who feed the trees that are drawing the dangerous levels of carbon out of the atmosphere. This is shaping up to become the greatest environmental success of any Canadian government. 

With gratitude,

Alexandra Morton

[1] Beamish et al 2006

Removing Salmon Farms Saves Wild Salmon

A short video with the crew I work with to monitor the health of young wild salmon in the Discovery Islands since 2005

 

 

Is this Research Fraud?

Dear Dr. Simon Jones,

I write to you again regarding scientific conclusions that you provided on impact of the salmon farming industry that do not appear to be supported by your own research. 

While you continue to refuse to answer my letters, they provide a public record of DFO Aquaculture’s suppression of scientific evidence of the risk from salmon farms to wild salmon, should an audit occur.  Today, the salmon farming industry is aggressively pursuing the Minister of Fisheries for not relying on what appears to be manipulated science, some of it yours, and this is a serious threat to wild salmon.  

Below is the evidence that you misrepresented findings by your lab on the threat of sea lice released by the industry’s hydrogen peroxide de-licing treatments.  Your conclusions were used by the salmon farming companies to satisfy their Condition of Licence 6.13.  Five months later, DFO staff reviewed ATIP material I requested that included internal comms on this research, appear to have recognized your conclusions were misstated, and wrote media lines correcting your work in case media got wind of this. 

The evidence

The 2020 condition of licence s.6.13 required the companies to conduct research into whether hydrogen peroxide treatments used to dislodge sea lice from farm salmon was releasing sea lice into the ocean that were capable of infecting wild salmon.  You entered ACRDP agreement 21-P-01 with Cermaq, Grieg and the BC Salmon Farmers Association to complete this study. 

On May 31, 2022, the day before the study was due, Cermaq sent an email to DFO veterinarian Dr. Laura Sitter titled “Smon Jones ACRDP Presentation to AMD Staff” stating, “Here is the Cermaq summary for the ACRDP project conducted by Simon Jones.”  Attached was PDF “2022-05-30 Condition 6.13”.

This PDF states: “The conclusions from the above studies showed that laboratory treatment with 500 and 1500 ppm H₂0₂ caused: …. Significant reduction in infectivity of adult female L. salmonis [salmon lice].” This suggests that the lice released after hydrogen peroxide (H₂0₂) treatments would not infect young wild salmon and so were not a threat.

However, the data provided to you by your staff Eliah Kim on April 1, 2022, does not support this conclusion.  In some trials it was the opposite – there were more treated than untreated lice infecting young salmon.  

Despite this, Mowi and Cermaq used the conclusions you provided, that H₂0₂ treatments significantly reduced sea lice capacity to reattach to salmon.  This matters to wild salmon because these treatments may dislodge millions of sea lice into the ocean.

Then in October 2022, DFO Communications was reviewing an ATIP containing the ACRDP 21-P-01 results that was about to be released to me.  They sought a second opinion on your conclusions.  DFO epidemiologist, Dr. Derek Price described the results of your work as “inconclusive” not “significant”:

“The hydrogen peroxide exposure studies were conducted through an ACRDP partnership between DFO Science (Simon Jones) and the BC Salmon Farmer's Association. The results of these studies agree with existing scientific literature that sea lice are immobilized for several hours after treatment with hydrogen peroxide. The studies also suggested reattachment is unlikely, but the results were inconclusive...”

This means Dr. Price does not agree with your interpretation of your data and it means that when millions of farm lice are broadcast from treatment vessels into wild salmon habitat DFO doesn’t know what will happen.

The difference between “significant” and “inconclusive” looms large for the salmon farming companies using BC waters. DFO veterinarian Dr Laura Sitter looked at the study and recommended “…filtration should be considered as a mitigation on vessels performing hydrogen peroxide treatments…” (Nov 14, 2022)

However, filtration of H₂0₂ effluent is problematic for the industry. The window of time between removing the lice and killing the farm salmon is slim.  If the tanks are not purged immediately at the end of a treatment, the farm salmon may be burned alive.  Filtration slows purging, lowering risk for wild salmon, but elevating risk for the farm salmon.   

Your interpretation of your results could lull managers into thinking further filtration is unnecessary.  Good for the salmon farmers, risky for wild salmon.

These internal communications suggest that senior DFO management staff in the Pacific Region know that ACRDP 21-P-01 contains overstated, inaccurate conclusions and that the hydrogen peroxide lice treatment effluent does pose a threat to young wild salmon.  Whether they did anything about it is unknown.

I recommend that your research reported via ACRDP 21-P-01 as submitted by Mowi and Cermaq to DFO in compliance with their 2020 Licence be evaluated using the international principles of research fraud. It is a simple checklist.  Were results suppressed that altered the conclusion, benefitted the salmon farming industry and put wild salmon are risk?  Here is a link to the documents I have described.  Please note this document contains an email from Jay Parsons that includes his recommendation that DFO not release internal communications about development of your CSAS sea lice science.  However, it was released to me and 16 independent scientists who objected to your conclusions where you ignored some results which happened to benefit the salmon farming industry.  

I have copied First Nation leaders who are receiving information from you on the impact of farm lice on the wild salmon that they are responsible for as they pass through their territory.  If they want wild salmon to survive, I believe an audit of the information you are providing to them is essential to their achieving their goals.

Respectfully,

 

Alexandra Morton

Recent Evidence DFO science fraud

May 5, 2023

Dear Minister Joyce Murray;

Every measure that protects life in the ocean is so critical.

I have copied you and your staff on my emails to DFO regulators and scientists, but with all you must deal with I am not sure the overarching pattern is clear.  The evidence of out-of-control regulatory capture is inescapable.  As well, there is an urgent need to apply the international definition of “research fraud” to the record that exists within some DFO science groups.  The department must reconcile why DFO labs are reporting opposite conclusions.  The salmon farming industry cannot be both low and high risk to wild salmon.  This dichotomy has put you at legal risk and has destroyed public confidence.

Regulatory capture. I hope you will consider the sequence of events below, just one of many incidents, that suggests some DFO staff are so responsive to the needs of the salmon farming industry, that regulations are being manipulated in a way that defeats the intent to protect wild fish.

For the past 16 weeks senior DFO management has refused to answer a simple question.  Which licence was used to determine Cermaq would not be charged for a breach of licence (reported by DFO staff) just prior to awarding that farm a near 50% production increase?  Was the licence in effect at the time of the breach upheld?  Or was it the licence issued 3 months later, edited to provide relief from the specific condition that had been breached?  

Initially, I was told the answer would be forthcoming.  When it was not, and I contacted the senior staff who had reported the Bawden farm was in compliance, I was instructed to solely address my question to the Director of Aquaculture.  Months of silence later, I was told to solely direct my question to the Regional Director General. After 30 more days of silence, she informed me that my communications might be ignored because an unspecified email from me, on an unspecified date had not met DFO values.  My request for the email she was referring to has been met with ongoing silence.  Now I understand the RDG is on vacation until retirement and the question remains unanswered. 

The Director of Aquaculture, Brenda McCorquodale and RDG, Rebecca Reid do not want to answer how was a salmon farm owned by the Mitsubishi Corporation was not charged for violating the laws of its host country and then granted an increase in production which the company had been urgently requesting. 

As they attempt to avoid one question, they have raised a larger one - has the right of Canadians to know what their government is doing been forfeited at the whim of a bureaucrat?  While my emails are considered a breach of DFO values, a DFO scientist is reporting her staff are suffering “character assassination” from within DFO.

Regarding the evidence of science fraud.  The record provides substantive evidence strongly suggesting falsification of some DFO scientific research.  Falsification is defined as omission of results that significantly alter the conclusion of the research. Each of the examples I have encountered via the Access to Information Act, has significantly benefited the salmon farming companies using BC waters.  A few examples:

• 2016 - Dr. Kyle Garver received results from Dr. Espen Rimstad’s lab in Norway. The virus PRV found in BC is a disease agent. Section 56 of the FGR prohibits transfer of fish infected with a disease agent. Mowi told the court if  prohibited from transferring farm salmon from PRV infected hatcheries, they would be “severely” impacted (s.11, p82s).  Mowi co-funds and co-publishes with Garver on papers that ignore the Norwegian results repeating that PRV is not causing disease.  A DFO lab, independent of industry, reporting the opposite, PRV is a disease agent is ignored.  PRV is known to have originated in the north Atlantic, arriving in BC concurrently with 30 million Atlantic salmon eggs.  Because it has never been designated as a disease agent ORV has been allowed to spread to wild salmon, causing reduced survival of Pacific salmon.

• 2019 Cermaq was never charged when the heavily restricted anti-lice drug Lufeneron was found by DFO staff on the sea floor in Clayoquot Sound in a 1.5km radius around a farm that did not have permission for this drug. The public was never warned even though Health Canada refuses to permit this drug for lice treatment in sea pens due to human health concerns.  A farm salmon treated with this drug in a hatchery cannot be consumed for 12 months due to its persistence.

• 2022 DFO research demonstrating that Tenacibaculum, found in most salmon farms, is a disease agent has been repeatedly wiped from the DFO record. As a result, it is also spreading to wild salmon and may have killed up to 56% of young Fraser sockeye migrating through salmon farms in the Discovery islands.

• 2022 - Dr. Simon Jones provided Mowi with a favourable conclusion that hydrogen peroxide treatment significantly reduces sea lice infectivity, even though his staff reported the opposite. Mowi and Cermaq provided this false result to DFO to satisfy a condition of their licence to farm salmon in BC.

• 2022 - Dr. Kyle Garver terminated his investigation into persistence of the virus PRV in farm salmon processing plant effluent when his lab reported that young salmon exposed to this effluent were becoming infected.  Provincial Minister George Heyman, in charge of regulating the effluent from these plants, was never informed.   As a result while 15 salmon farms were closed in the Discovery Islands, the impact of the industry continues via the effluent from the farm salmon processing plant on the Fraser salmon migration route.

• 2023 - Mowi told the RDG to be sure to use an upcoming sea lice CSAS to soften regulations because regulations were impacting their financial performance. Tasked with writing this CSAS Dr. Simon Jones crossed out the sentence written by his staff that implicated salmon farms in lice infections on young wild salmon, and Jones wrote in a sentence stating the opposite. This edit carried over into the 2023 sea lice CSAS.  When 16 Canadian scientists provided you with this evidence and requested access to the data Simon Jones to confirm his findings, they were silently refused. 

Because scientists in your department are publishing opposite conclusions, i.e., salmon farms are both low and high risk - you are forced to ignore a portion of DFO science every time you make a decision about the salmon farming industry.  This is exposing you to repeat legal challenge.  

The 2023 sea lice CSAS is a good example. Over a dozen BC scientists have researched impact of salmon farms on sea lice infection of young wild salmon.  The outlier nature of Dr. Jones’ conclusions would require transparency to be accepted.  Yet the supporting data remains confidential, and the evidence of result tampering is undeniable.  The 2023 sea lice CSAS is confirmation that DFO science is not to be trusted.

It’s the same with the CSAS results for Tenacibaculum and PRV.  A review of edits to the many drafts of these CSAS documents reveals repeat wiping from the record of all evidence that these common farm salmon pathogens are harming Pacific salmon exposed to the farms. 

The core problem is that farm salmon pathogens cannot be regulated to protect wild fish because the economic viability of the salmon farming industry depends on releasing its waste into wild fish habitat. 

I certainly commend your efforts to date, but someone needs to directly address the issues of fraud and regulatory capture in DFO as the current behaviour is unacceptable in a democratic government.  There must be consequences for crossing out inconvenient results and refusing answer simple questions why multinational corporations are not being charged.

Thank you for considering this evidence,

Alexandra Morton

DFO Science, Fraud, Integrity?

To:

The Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister Natural Resources  

Dr Paul Snelgrove Departmental Science Advisor for BC

Estelle Couture, National Manager Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS)

Alain Magnan, BC Coordinator Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS)

I am writing to you to request your assistance in upholding scientific integrity in the government of Canada.  Prime Minister Trudeau has expressed that he wants Canadians to trust science as a core principle of his government.  A DFO Sea Lice report was published on the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat website January 2023.  Sixteen non-government Canadian scientists wrote to Minister of Fisheries, Joyce Murray warning that this report omitted key results which reversed the conclusions. Thus this appears to meet the international standard of “research fraud”. 

I am bringing this to your attention because Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not appear structured to deal with this in house.  Prime Minister Trudeau may need you to weigh in here.

Briefly, the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat posted a study authored by employees of DFO Aquaculture Management and Science that reports no significant link between salmon farms and the harmful impact of sea lice infestations on wild salmon.  While the report claims to have found “no statistically significant association” between farm lice and lice on the young wild salmon, internal documents reveal that there were “significant” results, but they were omitted, which reversed the conclusions which originally did link salmon farms and wild salmon lice infestations.

Furthermore, internal documents show that Dr. Simon Jones received the analysis for this report from a junior scientist in his lab including a table highlighting 15 “significant” results in bold text between sea lice released from salmon farms and wild salmon lice infestations in Clayoquot Sound, Quatsino, Discovery Islands and the Broughton Archipelago.  Dr. Jones (identified by his initials in the “comment”) appears to cross out the sentence reporting this connection and a new sentence is added that completely changes the conclusions.  

The January 30, 2023 letter from sixteen highly qualified scientists includes this evidence and they state “statistically significant results were omitted”. 

 As you may be aware, this conduct lands squarely within the definition of “research fraud”.

Elsevier, one of the biggest publishers of scientific journals in the world, states:

 “Falsification includes changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented. A person might falsify data to make it fit with the desired end result of a study. Both fabrication and falsification are serious forms of misconduct because they result in a scientific record that does not accurately reflect observed truth.”

 This situation has enormous ramifications for wild salmon, one of Canada’s most treasured natural resources and for the integrity of the Trudeau government.  This Sea Lice CSAS was released just days before Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray’s decision was due - whether to reinstate salmon farms on the Fraser salmon migration route.  The BC Salmon Farmers put out a release on it and the Sea Lice CSAS is being described as “
” by the local Strathcona Regional District Board, who are tasked to approve or not the restarting of salmon farms in the Discovery Islands.  That board cannot be expected to evaluate whether this government report is fraud or not.   Furthermore, the Sea Lice CSAS affects decisions on all BC salmon farm licence renewals.

Following conversations with many colleagues, I would like to offer a path forward to restore trust and protect Canada’s Pacific wild salmon.

• Honour the request of the 16 academics. Immediately provide all the industry data used in the Sea Lice CSAS for reanalysis.  A core principle of science requires results to hold up to the standard of reproducibility.
• Given the evidence that research fraud was committed - suspend the DFO Sea Lice report by removing it from the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat website until such time the re-analysis and an explanation from the DFO science team is forth coming. It is urgent that this document be removed prior to any decisions to pre-empt its use in a legal challenge to the minister’s decision.
• Suspend Dr. Simon Jones from his position as a DFO senior “Aquaculture Regulatory Scientist” until the issue of omitting the significant results is resolved, at which time he could be reinstated, or fired.  There are other DFO scientists who put their name to this document, despite receiving the original results including Dr. Derek Price, and Dr Stewart Johnson and also senior bureaucrat Jay Parsons.
• Issue a statement on the CSAS website to disregard this paper so that regional and First Nation governments who are depending on DFO science to evaluate the risks/benefits of approving renewal of salmon farms licences understand that they cannot rely on the DFO Sea Lice CSAS at this time.

In closing, I know what I am asking is difficult, but I cannot stress enough, that the tampering evident in this Sea Lice CSAS is not an isolated episode within the DFO Aquaculture and Science division.  This CSAS report is dated Aug 2, 2022 and yet it was not posted on the CSAS website until days before the Discovery Islands salmon farm decision was due and now even after the Minister has been informed, it remains as DFO science.  

Thank you for reviewing this matter,

 

Alexandra Morton

Independent Scientist  

Author JS, Jones, Simon, crosses out sentence reporting salmon farms are linked to sea lice infection in young wild salmon