Norway too: Is it just me or am I missing something. I remain totally baffled as to how journalists can interview representatives of the wild fisheries sector about the decline of wild salmon and not ask them the most obvious of all questions.
NRK in Norway published an article on the internet titled – “The numbers for wild salmon: – This is dramatic.” This says that the numbers of wild salmon caught by anglers is falling sharply with 2023 being the worst year ever. NRK spoke to Torfinn Evensen, General Secretary of Norske Lakseelver, the representative organisation for 123 salmon fisheries and river managers, who apparently has no hesitation in blaming sea lice from salmon farms for the decline of wild salmon in Norwegian rivers.
What is baffling is why the NRK journalists didn’t ask Mr Evensen whether the killing in 2023 of 70,593 adult fish returning to Norwegian rivers to breed, down from 97,678 in 2022 might have in some way have something to do with the decline. Instead, the article focusses on sea lice and the alleged impacts on wild salmon.
NRK also spoke to Torbjørn Forseth of NINA and the Scientific Committee for Salmon Management (VRL). He said there is poor survival at sea, which may or may not be due to climate change and there are man-made local conditions of which sea lice are the dominant factor. They kill salmon on the way out to sea (unlike anglers who kill them on the way back from the sea). Unfortunately, VRL only consider over-exploitation as a threat. This is distinct from exploitation which they do not sea as a threat to wild salmon.
The VRL salmon management report of which Dr Forseth is part states that for sea lice over the years 2010 to 2014, VRL estimated that 50,000 fewer salmon returned from the sea due to sea lice. For 2018 they estimated 29,000 fewer fish and for 2019 the estimate is 39,000 fish lost. VRL have not made any estimates for the years since 2019. Of course, it is important to stress that these are just estimates and in my opinion these estimates are far from reality.
However, taking a typical estimate of a loss of 40,000 smolts as predicted by VRL, then for the 31 years from 1993, then sea lice, according to VRL, would have killed 1.24 million smolts. By comparison, the official Norwegian statistics show that anglers have caught by rod and line a total of 3,319,911 wild salmon which have all been killed. A further 306,835 salmon were caught and returned. That equates to about 8.5% of the total catch over all 31 years. In addition, the loss due to salmon farming is only an estimate and is just a third of the officially confirmed loss due to angling.
Why does no one ask the anglers if they accept any responsibility for the declines. If they follow the example of their colleagues in Scotland, then the answer will be no. As Arianne Burgess MSP told one newspaper, angling is not to blame.
Dr Forseth told NRK that river anglers in Norway have no more tools left to save wild salmon. After many years of restriction and limitations in salmon fishing, the tackle shed is now empty. He said salmon fishermen pay the price by reducing catch opportunities so now it is the other sectors such as salmon farming that must be the ones to be controlled. I would suggest otherwise but any attempt to discuss this with Dr Forseth has failed. He is not interested in hearing that future controls on salmon farming will not safeguard the future for wild salmon. However, Dr Forseth is wrong. The tackle shed is not empty. Anglers could stop killing wild salmon. Had they put every fish they caught back in the river in 2023, another 51,767 wild fish would have been able to breed and create the next generation of wild fish. Sadly, the killing continues even as Mr Evensen points out, wild salmon have been placed on the ICUN red list. Perhaps, he doesn’t think that the threats to salmon include killing fish for sport.
Mr Evensen says that wild salmon are Norway’s ‘panda’ and is a living environmental indicator of how Norway manages its waterways and fjords. There would be a global outcry if Mr Evensen and his colleagues went out killing panda’s so why is killing wild salmon for sport still considered acceptable?
Letters: A letter recently appeared in the Press & Journal headlined ‘Unfettered growth of fish farming threatens our wild salmon’. This was written by Ken Reid from Banchory in Aberdeenshire. As the letter talks a lot about angling then the presumption must be that Mr Reid is a passionate salmon angler. Unfortunately, like most of the angling sector, he clearly lives in a world that is far from reality. The many claims made against the salmon farming industry are generally unsubstantiated but what makes Mr Reid’s letter interesting is that even the claims he makes about his own sector can be shown to be false. The truth is that the angling sector just make their narrative up as they go along. As I have written many times previously, the salmon industry is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention away from the angler’s activities. Someone recently wrote on X that I am obsessed with anglers, but this too is untrue. Nothing would give me greater pleasure to have nothing to do with the angling sector, but Mr Reid’s letter is just the latest example of an unfounded attack on salmon farming rather than addressing the fundamental issues.
The wild fish sector often say that there are issues which they can address and issues they cannot. Undoubtedly, the biggest problem for wild salmon occurs out at sea and the angling sector have convinced themselves that this is something outside their capability but that is another story. The issues that they say can be addressed are, and top of their list, is salmon farming. Some parts of the sector are also trying to prevent rising water temperatures by planting trees but that is about as far as it goes. One thing they could easily address is their own activities. Stop killing fish and stop fishing in grade three rivers but as discussed previously, angling is not responsible for the declines in wild fish, so there is no need to change the focus away from salmon farming.
Back to Mr Reid’s letter, which is low on fact and high on rhetoric. He drops in names such as David Attenborough and Chris Packham both who made be excellent naturalists but likely to know little about salmon farming.
What I would like to highlight is that Mr Reid writes that ‘anglers. and the public in general, haven’t been eating wild salmon for decades. Instead, we are encouraged, through fancy packaging to eat farmed salmon through fancy packaging which is a poor substitute for the real thing’. He also says that ‘anglers no longer catch, kill and eat wild salmon and return carefully to the river what they catch.’
Mr Reid lumps anglers together with the general public but despite what Mr Reid says the public in general have never really eaten wild salmon. It was always priced out of the range for general consumption. It was always consumed by those who could afford it, or it was used for special occasions. Most of the public’s experience of wild salmon was a can of red salmon imported from Canada. It was the advent of salmon farming that brought salmon into everyday consumption, and I don’t know where Mr Reid shops, but the public certainly are not encouraged to eat farmed salmon through the use of fancy packaging. In fact, there is little encouragement for the public to eat farmed salmon at all. The public chose to eat salmon because it tastes good and because it represents value for money.
Mr Reid says that anglers no longer kill the fish they catch. The official Scottish Government statistics tell a very different story. In 2022, anglers killed 1,461 salmon that could have been left to breed and create the next generations. If these fish weren’t killed for consumption, then why were they killed? Perhaps, Mr Reid might like to explain why these fish were killed.
Mr Reid is quick to blame salmon farming for the demise of wild salmon but since salmon farming began on Scotland’s west coast, anglers have caught and killed 2,521,257 wild salmon for their sport. Of course, they were not the only ones, as commercial nets have caught and killed a further 6,857,871 salmon over the same period. In total, this equates to the death of 187,582 wild salmon every year since the early 1970s.
To put this into perspective, the VRL estimate of smolt deaths if applied to Scotland would amount to a loss of just under 5,000 smolts allegedly due to salmon farming. As I have previously suggested, there is much wrong with this estimation, so I use it purely as a comparison and not in any way as proof that salmon farming has an impact.
Unfortunately, narratives like Mr Reid’s are commonplace in the angling fraternity. This is because they never get to hear the other side of the story. The angling press refuses to print anything other than negative stories about salmon farming., The wild fish organisations refuse to discuss the issues, they certainly refuse offers to speak at their meetings or conferences. As I have pointed out even FMS’s previous Interaction Managers have refused to meet but then why would the angling sector admit that salmon farming is not to blame when such an admission would put themselves into the firing line?
Down under: With all the noise that goes on about the evils of salmon farming, it is easy to miss the rare, good news story about the sector. Two stories have emerged from the Tasmanian industry that are worth repeating.
The first comes from Fish Farming Expert with the news that A$10 million (about £5 million) study of Storm Bay in Tasmania has found that fish farming has not harmed the area. The study by the University of Tasmania that has taken four years has had the aim of assessing whether salmon farming can expand in the Bay without harming the environment. Measurements were made in an area of 1.5 km from existing farms and found that the health of the area has not suffered frm the presence of these farms.
In Scotland, community groups and environmentalists would have everyone believe that the seas have turned into enormous cess pits of filth but unlike the Tasmanian approach have not provided a shred of evidence to support their claims. Surely after forty years, there must be masses of evidence of proof of harm in Scottish waters yet despite the claims such evidence appears to be in very short supply.
The second story comes from Salmon Business who report that a new survey conducted by the Tasmanian newspaper The Mercury has found that 65% of respondents are supportive of the local Tasmanian salmon farming industry and that 58% of them regularly consume the fish produced. The newspaper also highlighted a 15% improvement in public understanding of industry monitoring.
The survey suggests that a few loud voices dominate the narrative about salmon farming in Tasmania whereas the silent majority are not only happy about the presence of the industry but are happy to eat such local production.
With salmon dominating UK fish sales, it would seem a similar picture should emerge in Scotland. It is just a few loud voices, supported by no real evidence, who appear to dominate the narrative but that even though their stories get into the press the public are more likely to yawn in boredom with the endless repeated coverage.
Soiled: Wild Fish have yet again shown that they are more interested in attacking the salmon farming industry in order to deflect attention away from the activities of their membership. Their latest stunt is to write to the Soil Association to demand the removal of the organic standard for farmed salmon. Organic salmon constitutes a tiny part of Scottish salmon production, and this stunt will make absolutely no difference to safeguarding the future of wild salmon.
As usual, the science promoted by Wild Fish leaves a lot to be desired but of more interest is the claimed support for this action. Wild Fish write in their press statement that ‘more than 30 Scottish, community groups, UK NGOs and international campaigning organisations have joined forces in calling on the charity the Soil Association to stop certifying Scottish farmed salmon as organic. The Guardian newspaper actually calls these groups ‘charities’. The paper says these charities have accused the Soil Association of misleading consumers. Wild Fish should know about how to mislead, since they are proving to be so expert at it.
Their letter to the Soil Association is accompanied by 33 logos of what are supposed to be supporting organisations. The list is led not surprisingly by Wild Fish but also included is the logo for ‘Off the Table’. The Guardian newspaper repeats a line from the press statement issued by Wild Fish. This states that more than 160 chefs and restaurants are supporting Wild Fish’s Off the Table campaign. Off the table is a Wild Fish campaign not a separate organisation and this has no place on this list.
There are other examples of repeated presence on the list but of more interest is the fact that the majority of logos belong to groups from outside the UK including Chile, Canada, USA, France and Australia. Can Wild Fish not garner sufficient support from in the UK to deal with this UK issue that they must bolster the support with overseas groups?
The Guardian newspaper has repeated the Wild Fish press release highlighting that the aim of Off the Table is that it asks chefs and restaurants to take farmed salmon off their menus. It then continues to use the Wild Fish press release that quoted Claire Mercer Nairne, owner of supporting Perthshire restaurant Meikleour Arms who says that ‘many well-meaning restaurants serve farmed salmon because of reassuring organic certification. Organic for most people means better for the environment but in this instance that could not be further from the truth.
The press release has Mr Mercer Nairne finishing by saying ‘Organic or not, it’s time to take farmed salmon off the table.’ This is not about organic salmon at all but salmon farming in general.
This is not the only time that Mrs Mercer Nainre has appeared in a news article in recent weeks. The Courier reports on the opening of the river Tay salmon fishing season with special guest comedian Paul Whitehouse. She is described as Tay Salmon Fishery Board member and owner of the Meikleour Arms but she also jointly hosted the event. She is pictured leading the opening procession with Paul Whitehouse and then again in the boat when he made the first cast. Mrs Mercer Nairne is clearly not a typical restaurateur when it comes to salmon. Her whole business is built around angling for wild salmon.
Salmon Business also raised questions about the way that newspapers write their articles about salmon farming. In this case, the Guardian headline suggests that those opposing organic labelling are charities when in fact the majority are activist groups, and not even based in the UK to boot. Salmon Business says that whilst some of the organisations are charities, their primary role is advocacy. Wild Fish do hold a charity auction, offering mainly angling experiences, but that is about it.
Salmon Business suggests that charities focus on providing direct support, resources or aid to individual or communities in need. They engage in activities like fund raising, delivering essential services and alleviating immediate suffering.
By comparison, Wild Fish just moan on about salmon farming without understanding that salmon farming is not the problem why wild salmon are under threat. Maybe, they should start engaging with the industry if they really want to safeguard the future of wild salmon because then they may see that the real problems lie elsewhere.