As U.S. tariffs loom and the “Buy Canadian” movement gains momentum, anti-fish farm activists continue to dismiss credible science to push fear over facts about salmon farming in British Columbia.
Analysis
By Fabian Dawson
SeaWestNews.
For decades, anti-fish farm activists in British Columbia have built their campaigns on one unwavering premise: farming salmon in the ocean is an ecological disaster that must be shut down.
Any study that challenges this assumption is met with immediate skepticism – not on the basis of scientific merit but through accusations that the research is industry-funded and, therefore, illegitimate.
This tactic has become a hallmark of their strategy, effectively stifling debate and dismissing credible evidence that contradicts their narrative to maintain a steady flow of donations into the coffers of anti-fish farm groups.
Yet another glaring example of this phenomenon is the reaction to the recent study Pathogens from Salmon Aquaculture in Relation to Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon in Canada: An Alternative Perspective, authored by fisheries experts from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Washington State University, Oregon State University, and the University of California.
This research critically examined existing claims about the impacts of farmed salmon pathogens on wild salmon populations and found that the risks have been greatly exaggerated.
The peer-review pending study concluded that the removal of open-net salmon farms would have no detectable effect on wild salmon productivity.
Despite being backed by scientists with decades of experience in fish pathology and marine biology, the study is under attack by activists insinuating it was “bought and paid for” by the aquaculture industry.
As always, this reaction lacks any detailed critique of the methodology or findings but aligns with the activists’ core mantra that all studies refuting their claims must be inherently flawed or compromised.
Over the years, multiple studies have shown that the presence of salmon farms has not led to declines in wild salmon populations.
For instance, the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, a comprehensive investigation conducted by the Canadian government, concluded in 2012 that “data presented during this Inquiry did not show that salmon farms were having a significant negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.”
Anti-fish farm activists, instead of acknowledging this, cherry-picked parts of the final inquiry report that suggested “potential risks” while ignoring the broader conclusion that the evidence of harm was weak.
The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) has also published ten peer-reviewed government studies to determine that ocean-based salmon farms in B.C. have only a minimal impact on wild fish.
Despite these and other authoritative conclusions, activists continue to push their falsehoods, claiming that government agencies, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), are under industry influence.
While activists are quick to label any research contradicting their views as industry-funded propaganda, they conveniently ignore the fact that many of the studies they cite, are funded by organizations opposed to salmon farming in B.C.
A blatant example of this is a study referred to by researchers as The Review (Krkošek et al. 2024). The publication of The Review was hailed by activists as an “independent assessment” of B.C.’s farmed salmon industry. However, several co-authors of The Review are directly affiliated with groups that openly push for salmon farm closures. They include;
- The Pacific Salmon Foundation has publicly stated that it will continue to advocate for removing salmon farms. Nine of The Review’s co-authors are affiliated with or funded by PSF.
- The David Suzuki Foundation has also long advocated for removing salmon farms, yet it funded research used in The Review. Six co-authors of The Review have been involved in research backed by the foundation.
- Alexandra Morton, a leading anti-fish farm activist, is a co-author of The Review and has repeatedly called for fish farm removals in alignment with activist groups.
Despite these clear conflicts, The Review continues to be presented as an unbiased analysis. It also does not meet widely accepted definitions of independent scientific review, which require that researchers be free from advocacy-driven influence.
Additionally, a comprehensive assessment of The Review has found that its findings do not reflect reality, are based on unreliable test results that might be false positives and are based on imaginary data.
By attacking credible research rather than engaging in constructive debate, anti-fish farm activists have created an echo chamber where only one perspective is allowed to thrive.
This not only misleads the public but also undermines the social license of salmon farming, pushing policy decisions driven by fear instead of facts.
It has led to the Canadian government’s recent decision to phase out open-net salmon farms in British Columbia post 2029 – a move heavily influenced by activist pressure despite the lack of scientific consensus supporting such a policy.
At a time when the threat of U.S. tariffs looms large and the “Buy Canadian” movement gains momentum, dismissing credible scientific research in favor of ideological activism is reckless.
Instead of allowing misinformation to dictate policy, Canada must prioritize evidence-based decision-making to ensure a secure and resilient food system in the face of both economic and environmental challenges.
For that to happen, activists and the Liberal Government need to accept the reality that science is not about taking sides; it is about following the evidence wherever it leads.
(Main image shows a salmon farm audit by DFO)