You know, this response has come up a number of times recently whenever someone new enters the debate (I myself was met with the same response a year to two ago), that "this has all been discussed before" and so is "irrelevant." On the contrary, while this HAS indeed all been "discussed" before, nothing has been resolved. In fact, after being told that same line months ago, I was treated with the patience for a noob to the debate, and was allowed to engage at length. However, nothing that came out of that debate served to ease my worry or convince me that my worries were "irrelevant." At best, I was left with the following arguments for the continuation of open net salmon farming in BC:
1. The environmental factors are different in BC than in all the other parts of the world where open net salmon farming has had a negative impact on the local ecosystems, so we have nothing to worry about here.
2. The "old" studies are no longer relevant because the industry in BC has learned from those mistakes and has cleaned up their act here.
3. The ocean is very large so salmon farms (which are very small) cannot possibly have a significant impact on the local ecosystems.
4. The decline of wild salmon in BC cannot be attributed solely to open net salmon farming, so leave the farms alone until you deal with all the other factors that may be affecting the salmon.
Even the sea lice study that Steve posted conclude that the sea lice infections of migrating pink salmon were ultimately reduced by fallowing the farms during their out migration. Brauner et al. also ended their study with the suggestion that the sea lice infections at these critical life stages, while perhaps harmful, may not be as significant as other factors (as though having to dodge one bullet is not as significant as having to run through a mine field). You know, I get that open net salmon farming may not be the only factor contributing to the decline of wild salmon, but no one has convinced me they have no impact, and while many here may be willing to accept the impacts they do have as "insignificant" or "irrelevant," I am not one of them. Salmon farms are symptomatic of our failure as a species to manage our ecosystems responsibly; they are a sign that we are resigned to accept the destructive force that is human "progress," just as Dave, champion of wild salmon and steelhead, is willing to accept them as a necessary part of our future.
I think your interpretation of the arguments you suggest you are left with is a bit off the mark.
1. The physical, biological and regulatory environments are different here than in other salmon farming jurisdictions and that means that in order to be relevant the arguments against farming here need to be based on outcomes that happen here under our circumstances. One can't make a blanket condemnation of BC farms based on, for instance, Norway where the problems are largely a result of an introduced parasite and interbreeding between farm and wild stocks or Chile, where problems are a result of a very lax regulatory regime. That isn't to say that there are no valid criticisms of the BC industry, but that any criticism must be based on outcomes that happen here.
2. Older studies usually reflect conditions that occurred in the past as the industry climbed the learning curve. If the farms did not learn from the mistakes of the past and did not change their practices to reduce their impacts, the older studies would be valid criticism. For example, industry practices with respect to sea lice reduction have changed as sea lice problems have been better identified and defined and consequently, criticism of the older practices isn't relevant to the current situation. The link Dave commented on used as it's basis a study which, on closer examination, specifically suggested that Coho did not appear to be affected and which specifically based it's conclusions about Pinks on Kroksek's conclusions which have subsequently proven to be incorrect. It's conclusions are outdated and not relevant. Coincidentally, the author of that study, along with Kroksek sit on the advisory board of Morton's latest venture, her research institute.
3. Our discussion about the scale of salmon farms was based on some claims about the magnitude of the effects of farms and involved developing a scale of magnitude in order to be able to determine the relative importance of the waste outputs of the farms and to put them into the context of an open system rather than dealing with them as cumulative absolutes. The farms
are very small compared to the environment within which they operate and the effects
aren't sufficient to push the system past a tipping point. Inconclusive studies of the effects of high density aquaculture in the warm water Mediterranean are not evidence of damage here; without evidence of damage here it simply isn't accurate to suggest that the farms are causing damage.
4. There are many factors that are known to negatively affect the wild stocks here. Fish farming has been hypothesized by some to affect the stocks. It isn't a reasonable notion that we should focus our attention on fish farms that
might be a source of problems and ignore all those other things we
know are the cause of declines. That isn't to say we should ignore farms, but farms are responsive and change their practices as required once problems are defined; they are actively working to minimize their footprint. If we really want to improve the outlook for the stocks our energies would be far better spent focusing on those things such as overharvesting, habitat destruction, gene pool degradation and the multitude of other factors that we are certain have negative effects on the fish. All of those slip under the radar because of the noise about fish farms and addressing them would give us concrete rather than speculative improvements to the outlook for the wild stocks. It's just basic common sense.
When people suggest that it has all been discussed before it is because it has, over and over and over and at length. Nearly everyone who approaches the debate does so based on a picture developed by Morton and her cohort and much of that picture is simply not true. I've lost count of the number of times I've started at the beginning yet again to walk someone through it and to try and provide a more accurate picture and the almost invariable response is anger when those Morton based claims that are taken to heart are shown to be inaccurate. Some, like yourself, have an adult response but most get reduced to schoolyard taunting and what could most charitably be called nonsensical trash talk. And then there is always someone else who shows up repeating the same timeworn criticisms. It's no wonder that those who have some understanding of the fish and the farm business get frustrated and develop such a low opinion of Morton. Though there is no firm resolution, it isn't reasonable to expect one. What has been resolved is that many of the arguments used against fish farming are either irrelevant or untrue and that in order for them to be relevant they must be based on fact rather than opinion and relate to the industry as it operates here.
Author
Topic: Petition to restrain Alexandra Morton (gag order request) (Read 74725 times)