I disagree because this is not what the evidence is showing when you look at the technical reports, testimony and exhibits from the Cohen Inquiry. Although the final report is not complete yet it is important to consider all the evidence – not just evidence provided during the aquaculture hearings. I highly recommend you start looking here first:
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/TechnicalReports.php
I believe it is a very simplistic view to say at this point that if you remove fish farms that Sockeye can remain sustainable. There is still a large amount of uncertainty so anyone that promotes the concept that if we remove salmon farms it will result in sustainable Sockeye does not know what they are talking about. You need to look at the all the testimony – not what is filtered and edited for you by Morton and Staniford. For instance, we know very little about the early marine survival of Fraser River Sockeye smolts once they leave the Fraser. We also know very little about the impacts of diseases on the survival of wild salmon – especially Fraser Sockeye. This is just a small sample of the uncertainty that remains.
I take MSC certification with a grain of salt because when you have a multitude of Fraser River Sockeye CUs, populations and demes, most in either the yellow or red (conservation concerns), combined with a predominate mixed-stock commercial fishery on our coast in the lower river that can indiscriminately target weaker CUs amongst stronger ones then it may not be as sustainable as one might believe. However, if it makes you feel warm and cozy at night then that's great. Those that actually work with these fish know different.
You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#newThe study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located. The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.
Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included). The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves. There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish). These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery. The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery
can be sustainable. Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks. This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.