Fisheries scientists call out Ottawa for 'flawed' sea lice report

A DFO report that found 'no statistically significant association,' between salmon farms and sea lice in wild juvenile salmon is being challenged by 16 scientists calling out flaws in its analysis.

A group of 16 fisheries scientists are calling out the federal Fisheries Department for what they call a flawed report that concluded sea lice from salmon farms on the West Coast posed little risk to juvenile wild salmon.

The report, released Jan. 24 through the Canadian Science Advisory Secreteriat, examined the findings of scientific data gathered about sea lice around salmon farms, which raise Atlantic salmon in open-net pens in the Broughton Archipelago, Discovery Islands, Clayoquot and Quatsino Sounds.

That document concluded “no statistically significant association was observed,” between salmon farms and sea lice, and their transmission to juvenile wild salmon.

At stake is a decision over the renewal of salmon farm licences in the Discovery Islands off the East Coast of Vancouver Island near Campbell River, which support some 1,500 jobs and a big chunk of the coastal economy, according to the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.

The letter adds to the heated debate over science associated with salmon farming, with the industry supporting the report’s conclusions because they back previous work it argues show the same results.

However, the group of outside scientists argue the conclusions were made on selective analyses, excluded other analyses and ignored previous studies that do demonstrate a relationship between salmon farms and sea lice on juvenile salmon, and signed a letter to Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray raising their objections.

“The report is so flawed that we would want the DFO and minister to admit its mistake and its breaches to scientific conduct and then withdraw the report,” said marine ecologist Sean Godwin, soon to be with the University of California, Davis, and a signatory to the letter.

Sea lice, Godwin said, pose a risk to the physiology, immune systems and ultimately the survival of juvenile salmon.

Their criticisms of the final report include that its reporting methods and results appeared to be selective, that contributors to the report were almost all salmon-aquaculture-focused Fisheries staff with no external scientists not affiliated with the industry, and that the only outside reviewer was a scientist associated with the industry.

The Fisheries report forms part of the advice Murray is expected to rely on in making her decision, which is expected any day.

Godwin said the group would like Fisheries to publish all of the data collected during the study and that more broadly, the scientists believe the department needs to rework its process for gathering science advice, because in their opinion, the existing system is too prone to influence from vested interests.

An industry representative characterized the group as “activist scientists,” who are disappointed that the report doesn’t support their research on the association between salmon farms, sea lice and wild salmon, which he argued isn’t definitive.

“It’s inappropriate for me and this sector to be defending our regulator, we don’t like being in that position,” said Brian Kingzett, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.

“But we know that the department has evaluated their own science processes after criticism at the fisheries standing committee and my understanding is those internal reviews came out that objectivity was happening.”

The department did not respond to Postmedia requests for an interview by deadline, but Kingzett said he wished the department would come out more squarely in defence of its own scientists, which he called lead researchers in the field, because other researchers believe the report didn’t go far enough.

“There’s another group of researchers, who I trust, who I think are objective, who are actually saying the report was highly conservative,” Kingzett said.

If this group of scientists object to the report’s findings, Kingzett said they should have published their own critical review, not write a letter to the minister.

To industry critics, however, the findings of the academic scientists support the contention they’ve long held that the department is in a conflict of interest between its roles of regulating the industry and being the department responsible for promoting the industry.

Kingzett argued that Fisheries is “doing anything but promote the industry” and First Nations fisheries representative Bob Chamberlin said the timing of its release seemed conveniently timed to Murray’s impending decision.

“It’s a political chess move with tailored science,” argued Chamberlin, chairperson of the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance.

Chamberlin has long argued that the department’s fisheries managers have interfered in the scientific process around fisheries and aquaculture.

“They’re not supporting the minister, they’re undermining her,” Chamberlin said. “They’re tailoring science to meet an outcome that supports one part of the equation.”

Jesse Zeman, executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, said the findings in the scientists’ letter mirror what it has discovered through freedom of information requests about departmental advice around studies of endangered steelhead trout.

Those, Zeman argued, show clear cases where fisheries managers leaned on scientists or ignored what scientists were saying in relation to listing steelhead as a species at risk.

Zeman said at a minimum, the science advisory process needs to be clearly removed from Fisheries management.

“This is going to be a political route,” Zeman said. “It’s very clear that the bureaucracy inside of DFO has lost its way, and that’s not fixable without a political solution.”

depenner@postmedia.com

twitter.com/derrickpenner