Action not inaction: Over the recent weeks there has been much speculation in the mainstream press about the future of the Scottish Parliament. One of the issues discussed was why, in the light of so many MSPs and ministers indicating that they are not planning to stand again at the next elections, why the First Minister has not reshuffled his cabinet. One strand of thought is that he is hoping that some of those elected will have Parliamentary experience and they can be parachuted into some of the vacant positions. However, this will leave existing ministers in roles which they may think that they will now have little impact and hence they might simply tread water until they relinquish their post. However, I very much hope that this is not the case. Certainly, the Minister for our sector could take action that should have a meaningful impact on the future viability of the industry.
The Scottish Government has previously highlighted the importance of salmon farming to Scotland yet at the same time, they appear to want to stifle its development through the imposition of the Sea Lice Risk Framework. The framework is the consequence of repeated claims by the wild salmon sector that salmon farming is having a negative impact on wild salmon stocks. They are perfectly entitled to their view but much of the salmon farming industry, including myself, have a very different point of view. The problem is that there is little discussion between the two sets of views. I would say that it is not for the want of trying, but sadly those supporting the framework, including SEPA and the Marine Directorate, appear extremely reluctant to engage in any discussion and not just with me.
I am not suggesting that the Minister should put a pause on the framework or anything similar, but I would suggest that there cannot be any harm in encouraging SEPA and the Marine Directorate scientists to sit around the table with the industry to discuss the science that underpins the framework. After all, what is the point of enforcing this framework if it does not help safeguard the future of wild salmon. The science and the evidence would suggest that it won’t. However, it can only be through active discussion that its success can be judged. Clearly those who promote the framework must be confident that it is the way forward so should be happy to discuss and defend the regulation. If they are not, the Minister should be worried that the imposition of this framework is the right choice not just for salmon farming but also for Scotland and not forgetting those wild fish that this framework is supposed to protect.
If the Minister would like an illustration of why she should be concerned I cite the example of FOI submitted to SEPA. The requested information referred to the undertaking to carry out sea lice counts on wild fish and asked, who has been commissioned to undertake the work; at what cost and is there a protocol in place for the sampling process. The request was made on September 1st and a reply was received on Monday 6th October following a notification that there would be a delay.
The reply states that as no one has been commissioned to undertake this work there is zero cost. The reply continues that the farm operator is responsible for conducting sea lice counts. The third question was answered with a link to a performance standard for conducting sea lice counts but this is for salmon farms not wild fish.
view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sepa.org.uk%2Fmedia%2F1lpfqdkk%2Fsea-lice-count.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
It seems SEPA aren’t able to distinguish between farmed and wild salmon. This is because their whole focus in on salmon farms and although protecting wild fish is the intention of the regulation, it seems monitoring wild fish is of minor importance. It would appear that SEPA have not yet even set up the mechanism for monitoring wild fish, so it is impossible to see how the regulation can be judged to be effective or not.
In fact, the evidence is clear, which is the Framework can never be effective which is why it is critical that SEPA and the Marine Directorate meet with the industry to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, both SEPA and the Marine Directorate refuse to consider such discussions which is why the Minister should act. If Scotland wants a thriving salmon industry to help boost the economy, then an open review of the science is essential. What harm can there be to simply sit down round a table to discuss the science? At best, Scotland can have better regulation whereas without such discussion, Scotland is guaranteed to lose out.
Storm Amy: It seems that in the aftermath of Storm Amy fish have been lost from farms in both Scotland and Norway. No farm wants to lose any fish at any time, as it represents more than just a loss of fish to any company. However, such losses are always accompanied by an onslaught of misinformation from those who wish to deflect the blame towards others for the demise of wild salmon stocks. It hasn’t taken long for the anglers’ representatives, Wild Fish to make a comment. On Linked In they say:
If/when these fish become sexually mature and they enter rivers, they will likely add to the genetic introgression that plagues west Highland and Island rivers. A Scottish Government study in 2021 confirmed that many wild salmon populations in the west Highlands and Islands are already severely compromised with farmed salmon genes. The levels of genetic introgression have serious implications for the “fitness” and thus the future survival prospects of already depleted wild salmon populations.
As experts in the impacts of salmon farming, it would be interesting if Wild Fish could actually quantify the alleged impacts of escaped fish on wild stocks. Instead, they just talk about implications for the fitness and future survival prospects for already depleted salmon populations. In much the same way, it is possible to consider the fitness and future survival prospects of the salmon their members catch and drag round by the mouth in pursuance of their sport. The reality is there is no evidence that actual escapes have had any impact on wild fish populations. The fact that the angling fraternity and Marine Directorate drag their feet every year over the release of catch data so it will be another six months before even the basic data is available. It’s easy to make accusations but a lot harder to back up the claims with real facts.
The reality is there is very little understanding of genetics on wild fish. With salmon, the claims of genetic introgression arise because anglers and rivers managers are convinced that the salmon in their river are genetically different to every other salmon in every other river. This is despite the Scottish Government spending £1 million back in 2012 trying to show that differences did occur. They didn’t. Yet the idea that differences do exist still persist.
Now, the latest news from Norway is that cod farmers are to face stricter rules to reduce introgression into wild cod stocks. Farmers must stop fish from maturing and spawning in the pens and any fish that might spawn must be culled.
The assumption is that these farmed cod, which were wild fish which were taken from wild stock not that long ago are now so genetically different that they may have a negative impact on wild fish. It seems that because there is a view that farmed salmon are said to negatively impact wild salmon, farmed cod must also do the same to their wild counterparts. It would be interesting to see the evidence, or is this just those fishing for wild cod feel threatened by an industry that could produce cod all year round?
The most interesting news about escapes comes from the Institute of Marine Research who have developed a model to see what happens if and when all genetic introgression is stopped. IMR say that the model shows that even in fifty years’ time, there will be a clear genetic trace from farmed fish even if there are no farmed salmon in the spawning grounds. They continue that the trace will probably never disappear but as long ats any genetic interference can be stopped, the largest negative biological effect will be reduced in a few generations. What IMR do not include is any attempt to quantify how much the population is affected by the largest biological effect.
According to the model, the genes that currently have a negative effect in wild salmon will not survive in nature over time. They say this is natural selection. When they are bred out, the traces left will be neutral with any active function. I suspect that these are the genetic markers which can be found on all salmon and in most cases are used to identify potential origins.
I have written before on this subject. If there is a negative impact resulting from the potential crossing of an escaped and wild salmon, then natural selection will act, and those fish affected by that impact will not survive. Equally, such crossing could have a positive impact which would confer an advantage on the resulting progeny. Of course, positive outcomes are never considered because the established narrative to which IMR subscribe is that salmon farming has a negative impact on wild fish irrespective of whether it is escapes or sea lice. It should also not be forgotten that tracking genetic markers is big business. There are many companies offering to provide people’s ancestry in terms of the genetic markers that are part of their makeup. Thirty percent of Shetlanders have Viking origins whilst the number in Orkney is 25% and 17% in Caithness. In Yorkshire the number is as low as 5% This does not mean that these people with Viking origins act like Vikings of old.
Just because fish have a farmed salmon marker does not mean that they behave differently to other fish, they are simply carrying a marker. Of course, claiming negative impacts makes a good story for those who wish to blame salmon farming for all the problems of the wild fish sector.
Award: It was nice to see that Bob Kindness from the River Carron has received the conservation ‘Helping It Happen’ award from Scottish Land & Estate and sponsored by NatureScot. The Ross-shire Journal writes that Bob’s work on the River Carron has transformed fish populations through an innovative stocking programme and captive broodstock facility releasing 150,000 fry each year. The award says that he has revitalised the river’s salmon and sea trout numbers providing a blueprint for sustainable fisheries management admired across Scotland and beyond.
I have known Bob for many years and this award is well deserved. However, I would question whether his work is admired across Scotland and beyond, certainly amongst the wild fish sector. Over the years, my impression is that Bob’s work has been consistently ignored because he spoken to and received help from the salmon farming industry. Certainly, the scientists at Marine Scotland held a negative view on what he was doing, and this was picked up on by their friends in the wild sector. This was because they claimed that the restocking programme was cosmetic and that numbers could not be sustained if the restocking stopped. Yet, the collaboration with UHI has shown that his restocked fish are successfully breeding and helping maintain fish number in the rivers.
I was also interested to see that the Atlantic Salmon Trust’s west coast tracking project is up for an award. This is at the 2025 Nature of Scotland Awards which is run by the RSPB in association with NatureScot. The award is on the Coastal and Waters category and is listed as the Magnificent Migration – A Wild Salmon’s Journey. This is a very fancy name for what was a project intended to highlight that migrating wild salmon smolts were/are at risk of sea lice infestation by swimming past salmon farms.
Although the fieldwork finished in 2023, the AST has not issued a report on the project except to highlight a couple of papers on their website which indicate that salmon do not follow any specific routes in their migration (the two links on their website pull up the same paper). I make the assumption that if they had any stunning and relevant results to reveal they would have done so by now. Instead, it seems that they have entered their project for an award to get maximum publicity without having to explain the results. It will be interesting to see what they say should their project win.
The Atlantic Salmon Trust claim that science is at the heart of what they do with an evidence -led approach. However, they have never shown any interest in looking at the evidence that does not fit in with their narrative.
Interestingly, this week the AST have posted on their website that they are looking for a new research director.
Their website states about the research position that
‘As a leading conservation charity our aim is to improve the freshwater and marine populations of Atlantic salmon and sea trout from catchments flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. Evidence obtained and co-ordinated through both our own and others’ research and monitoring activities is a vital component to power and drive this work forward.’
Yet, whilst the AST say that they will consider evidence from others, it seems that are not interested in hearing any evidence that is contrary to their own view. This is surprising as one of their five goals is to define why salmon are declining and to fill the knowledge gaps. Their policy statement on aquaculture begins
It is beyond doubt that wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout can suffer from the presence of open pen salmon aquaculture, due primarily to a combination of harm from sea lice infestations and interbreeding with farm escapees.
They also say ‘we firmly believe and advocate that the continuation of this industry must not be at the expense of wild fish populations’ and that ‘the Atlantic Salmon Trust will always put their well-being above all other considerations’.
The AST’s annual auction is to be launched on the 18th of this month. Last year this included ‘wonderful fishing trips in the UK and overseas’. As with other wild fish organisations it seems that the well-being of wild salmon is not placed above all other considerations but is secondary to the interest of the angling fraternity who continue to exploit this threatened species.
Meanwhile, it will be towards the end of November before the announcement is made as to whether the Magnificent Migration has won the award or not. At least the wild fish will then be having some respite from the pressure of fishing rods before the next fishing season begins in early January.