IT seems that Dr Martin Jaffa (Letters, July 17) is engaging in a cynical manipulation of statistics to further his thesis that salmon farms cause no significant damage to wild salmon and sea trout stocks.
He maintains that sea lice from salmon farms only kill one or two per cent of the wild salmon population in the west Highlands and Islands and that is trivial compared with the overall 95 per cent losses at sea.
What he conveniently fails to acknowledge is that sea lice from salmon farms kill the juvenile wild salmon (smolts) as they migrate from rivers on their way out to sea. In order to reduce the population from five per cent returning to three per cent returning (as adults following their marine migrations), the lice must be killing 40 per cent of the smolts. The remaining 60 per cent are then reduced by 95 per cent by other factors, giving a three per cent return rate. There are indeed other factors at play in marine survival but the great majority of these, unlike sea lice releases from salmon farms, are outwith the control of managers.
In round terms, the kill rate of juvenile west Highland wild salmon by lice is about 40 per cent. To put this in context, on the River Erriff in Ireland, which has been extensively monitored for more than 30 years, Inland Fisheries Ireland (a government body) has demonstrated that returns of wild salmon can be reduced by more than 50 per cent in years in which lice levels on salmon farms are high.
As regards the causes of the calamitous decline in wild sea trout numbers in the west Highlands and Islands, the views of Dr Jaffa, a diehard lobbyist, in support of the aquaculture industry to which he is connected, have no credibility. There is overwhelming acceptance by eminent fishery scientists that salmon farming is responsible for the significant, sea-lice-induced, reduction in marine survival.
Andrew Graham-Stewart,
Director, Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland,
Siskin, Bonar Bridge, Sutherland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel