Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: aquapaloosa on April 05, 2012, 09:56:26 AM
-
http://salmonfarmscience.com/tag/correlationisnotcausation/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/tag/correlationisnotcausation/)
http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/04/04/conspiracy-theory-nonsense/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/04/04/conspiracy-theory-nonsense/)
http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-language-of-protest-pt-3-of-4/ (http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-language-of-protest-pt-3-of-4/)
http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/the-language-of-protest-pt-4-of-4/ (http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/the-language-of-protest-pt-4-of-4/)
http://www.seafoodintelligence.com/EditModule.aspx?tabid=1&mid=382&def=News%20Article%20View&ItemId=30651 (http://www.seafoodintelligence.com/EditModule.aspx?tabid=1&mid=382&def=News%20Article%20View&ItemId=30651)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/eat-more-fish-risks-overstated/2012/04/02/gIQARwPNrS_story_2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/eat-more-fish-risks-overstated/2012/04/02/gIQARwPNrS_story_2.html)
http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/)
Second item down: http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/)
http://sustainablefishfarming.blogspot.ca/ (http://sustainablefishfarming.blogspot.ca/)
-
http://salmonfarmscience.com/tag/correlationisnotcausation/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/tag/correlationisnotcausation/)
http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/04/04/conspiracy-theory-nonsense/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/04/04/conspiracy-theory-nonsense/)
http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-language-of-protest-pt-3-of-4/ (http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-language-of-protest-pt-3-of-4/)
http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/the-language-of-protest-pt-4-of-4/ (http://protestingtheprotesters.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/the-language-of-protest-pt-4-of-4/)
http://www.seafoodintelligence.com/EditModule.aspx?tabid=1&mid=382&def=News%20Article%20View&ItemId=30651 (http://www.seafoodintelligence.com/EditModule.aspx?tabid=1&mid=382&def=News%20Article%20View&ItemId=30651)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/eat-more-fish-risks-overstated/2012/04/02/gIQARwPNrS_story_2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/eat-more-fish-risks-overstated/2012/04/02/gIQARwPNrS_story_2.html)
http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/)
Second item down: http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/03/24/closed-containment-farm-fails/)
http://sustainablefishfarming.blogspot.ca/ (http://sustainablefishfarming.blogspot.ca/)
Reminds me of those annoying fish farm commercials..... ;D
-
Thanks aquapaloosa, it's a good site to get the other side of this issue. Wonder how many people will take the time to read your link ::)
-
Reminds me of those annoying fish farm commercials..... ;D
Thanks I will not have to read the propaganda. ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks aquapaloosa, it's a good site to get the other side of this issue. Wonder how many people will take the time to read your link ::)
See above. ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks I will not have to read the propaganda. ;D ;D ;D
So let me get this straight.............It's propaganda if the farming industry speaks up but it isn't when the reactionaries do?
I've been surprised to see how quiet you've been since Staniford got the boot and isn't providing the talking points anymore.
-
So let me get this straight.............It's propaganda if the farming industry speaks up but it isn't when the reactionaries do?
I've been surprised to see how quiet you've been since Staniford got the boot and isn't providing the talking points anymore.
Sorry, been fishing, here is some for you. ;D
Clues to wild salmon deaths surfacing
Pamela Suzanne Smyth, Special To The Star
Published: Thursday, April 05, 2012
Algal blooms, parasites, bacteria and viruses may be contributing to the decline of wild salmon stocks in BC, Dr. Kristi Miller, head of the Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the Pacific Biological Station, told the annual general meeting of the Qualicum Beach Streamkeepers Society Saturday.
Miller and her genomic fisheries management team are trying to understand such stock stressors so survival strategies can be implemented in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
They look at diseases, changes in physiology and environmental factors associated with salmon migration and performance.
PAMELA SUZANNE SMYTH PHOTO
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****"Dr. Kristi Miller deserves the Order of Canada and I feel relieved that Harper's budget did not chop her lab," said Anissa Reed, director of the Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society, who saw Miller testify at the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River.
"We heard her give evidence that her lab could test 200 fish for 30 pathogens in a single day. Up to 90 percent of the Fraser sockeye are dying in the river before spawning and no one could figure it out.
"In 2006," Reed said, "DFO tasked Miller to figure this out, and she discovered that the ones dying are fighting a virus and the ones that survived weren't. This is the first concrete clue we have to explain why entire runs of Fraser sockeye are dying on the river banks."
The lab's testing capabilities have since been increased.
In her talk, titled 'How do we recognize dead fish swimming,' Miller said one hypothesis is that algal blooms are smothering fish gills, causing them to suffer hypoxia or oxygen deprivation.
In 2007, the finding of toxic algae in fish gills indicated higher annual blooms than in 2008, she said. The fish grew more slowly than in 2008, she said, and, "they didn't appear to be outright starving."
As well, she said, "in the Fraser River, they're carrying quite a few pathogens and parasites."
Parvovirus and flava bacteria are most prevalent, Miller said. "Parvovirus," usually associated with cats and dogs, "has never been shown to be in fish before," she said.
Stress likely plays a role in the presence of the fatal virus, she said.
As the fish swim upstream to spawn, she said, their energy goes towards the journey and their immune system response shut downs, which makes them more susceptible to pathogens.
In 2010, she said, tagged and radio-tracked fish showed a 9.5 percent lower probability of making it to the spawning grounds if they were carrying the parvovirus in three tissues, such as muscle, brain and liver.
"Harrison River is the only sockeye stock increasing," she said, and in that river, "we've yet to find fish that test positive for parvovirus."
As well, Harrison sockeye spend six to eight months in fresh-water lakes, while others spend up to two years in fresh water. She said there's evidence some Harrison salmon migrate through the Johnston Strait.
Fish farms in Johnston Strait have been a source of controversy, though Miller didn't mention them.
Harrison sockeye, she said, appear to spend less time in fresh water and don't migrate as quickly into northern Pacific waters as do all other sockeye.
Fish that die in deep ocean waters pose a challenge to research, she said, "because you can't see them die."
-
So let me get this straight.............It's propaganda if the farming industry speaks up but it isn't when the reactionaries do?
I've been surprised to see how quiet you've been since Staniford got the boot and isn't providing the talking points anymore.
More. ;D ;D
How many statements from historic studies of our fisheries could Justice Cohen use to communicate his conclusions? From 1998: "With Atlantic salmon now cultured in Pacific waters, we are back studying the possible impacts of escaped Atlantic salmon. Regrettably, research on wild–cultured interactions operates in a politically charged and antagonistic environment where there are those who favor aquaculture and those who favor the wild fish. Moreover, their lack of biological knowledge and the political implications of conflict have largely paralyzed government agencies with a mandate to foster both. As a consequence, the needs of specific research programs on the interactions between wild and cultured fish are often overlooked." Mart R Gross from One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross/Gross1998.pdf
-
1998? :D :D :D
-
Here are one of my favourite snipets from the "propaganda":
From the "language of protest" blog:
Recent research shows that above 22kg/m³, increasing density is associated with lower welfare for caged Atlantic salmon. However, in order to provide a safety margin, CIWF and WSPA believe that the maximum stocking density for Atlantic salmon in sea cages should ideally be 10kg/m³, with farmers who achieve a high welfare status and in particular low levels of injuries, disease, parasitic attack and mortality being permitted to stock up to a maximum of 15kg/m³.
Net pens in BC farm at a density that is between 15kg/m³ and 20kg/m³, and try to keep it as low as possible, which, as this study suggests, is optimal. In fact, for each net pen, only 3% of volume of pen is taken up with fish. This is far from the image of feedlots and battery chickens that Ms. Morton and her ilk try to portray.
Am I missing something here? First they cite research that states that maximum stocking density should be under 15/m³ (and ideally 10/m³), and then admit that BC net pens (note I did not call them industrial feedlots) stock at densities between 15/m³ and 20/m³ and say that it is "optimal."
-
I also enjoyed the other "language of protest" blog that, in their attempt to show that the use of the term "industrial feedlot" to describe salmon farms is not only inaccurate, but also unfair, perpetuates the "necessity of industrial feedlots to feed the world" argument:
There are environmental issues to consider, too. Would free range cattle be able to feed the growing population of this world? Free range cattle need a lot of grass to graze on. That is land that could be used for growing crops. Soy is being grown not just for food but also as an alternative diesel fuel. What is the best use of agricultural land?
The fact of the matter is that people, especially people in the west (those consuming the vast majority of meat produced today world wide), already eat too much meat. The average American consumes 122kg/yr (well over twice the recommended intake), and the average Canadian is consumes almost twice as much as needed (http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy). The argument that feedlots are necessary to meet the demand is erroneous, as the demand was falsely created by shifting people's diets toward a high meat/high fat, fast food diet that serves the economic needs of the cattle industry. Create an abnormally high (and unhealthy) demand, and then claim that highly efficient but ultimate less healthy feedlots are necessary to meet the demand. (I particularly loved how they defended feedlots as providing cattle a roof over their heads: "no shelter, no diet control, no salt lick, no medical care" on a free range farm. What did those poor animals do before we domesticated them?)
While the arguments for eating more salmon are more legitimate than eating more beef, and while salmon is certainly one of the more tasty sources of Omega 3 fatty acids, it remains to be seen if we really need salmon feedlots any more than than we need cattle feedlots, to "feed the world." If people ate more responsibly, the need for salmon would be less as they would already have a reduced risk of heart disease and would get their Omega 3 from a variety of sources as well.
What it seems to me, is that salmon farming industry is as guilty as the "reactionaries" of using the "language of protest" (they ARE "protesting the protestors" after all), when they make these claims. It seems that their argument is: "the wild salmon are already done (and it isn't our fault), so we are now the only way to get salmon to the masses of people that need it."
-
What it seems to me, is that salmon farming industry is as guilty as the "reactionaries" of using the "language of protest" (they ARE "protesting the protestors" after all), when they make these claims. It seems that their argument is: "the wild salmon are already done (and it isn't our fault), so we are now the only way to get salmon to the masses of people that need it."
You certainly hit the nail squarely on the head with that observation!
-
Harrison Sockeye spend 6 to 8 months in freshwater lakes? Not sure whether it is Ms. Reed misinterpreting what was said by Dr. Miller or an error from the media source, but Harrison Sockeye juveniles are immediate migrants. They can spend up to a few months in the Fraser River estuary before going out into ocean. They do not rear in the freshwater. The whole argument used by Morton and her supporters for the Harrison Sockeye is flawed with very little understanding of the fish itself, age structure, behaviour and assessment on the ground. I totally agree that the Harrison Sockeye have performed exceptional in recent years, but fish farm critics leave out other relevant information about this unique CU (Conservation Unit). Harrison Sockeye are composed of 3 and 4 year olds. In 2009, the 3 year old component return was great, but the 4 year old component was not. The truth is that the 4 year old component of the Harrison in 2009 actually did worse than the rest of the 4 year olds in the rest of the Fraser River watershed (the majority of Fraser Sockeye return as 4 year olds). In fairness, there is likely more than one explanation for this, but the could be said for the exceptional success of the 3 year olds that year. It underscores the fact that Fraser Sockeye can show differences in returns amongst age classes.
Secondly, Harrison Sockeye do not avoid prespawn mortality. In fact, they experience a great deal of prespawn mortality at the beginning. The Harrison Sockeye adults migrate over a protracted period of time into the Harrison starting as early as August right through into the fall. The adults hold in the lake then drop back downstream and spawn in the river. Between August and the peak of spawn in mid-November, Harrison can experience as much prespawn mortality as most places in the Fraser Watershed. However, from the peak of spawn onwards, spawning success improves greatly. Critics talk about the “success” but overlook the clear mortality in front of them. If farm critics are going to look at other prespawn issues in the Fraser watershed and suggest that it is ISA, salmon leukemia or this unidentified “novel virus” then why are they overlooking at the prespawn mortality that has been going on at the Harrison for years now.
Lastly the ocean conditions from 2008 were never mentioned either. Apparently, the waters off the Pacific Coast of Canada were the coldest in 50 years. In addition, surface phyto and zooplankton concentrations were the highest in a decade of observations across the Gulf of Alaska in August and September of 2008. All of this information is available for the public to view here:
http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/publications/index-eng.asp
-
SS, you should know by now facts are irrelevant when it comes to this issue ;) A scapegoat is needed by a few people and attempting to show fluctuating wild salmon populations are caused by fish farming is easier than admitting other factors are in play. I have come to realize their minds are made up, no matter what new information arises.
Hell, some don't even bother to read your posts because you continually disprove the misinformation spouted by Morton et al and they don't like that.
-
Come on Dave, it's obvious that Steve's post is using the "language of protest". It must be propaganda! ;)
-
And then there were none.
-
Hell, some don't even bother to read your posts because you continually disprove the misinformation spouted by Morton et al and they don't like that.
I hope you have taken the time to watch the 4 videos I posted from what Craig Orr said and I await what you and some others of the pros can say to dispute what he has said. ;D
I am sure he and many others of us would like your input on the information he has provided.
If you and the others missed the links here they are again. ;D ;D
http://youtu.be/960LVs-dS6s
http://youtu.be/g9PLAnuc-ZM
http://youtu.be/NkQBrHwW5QM
p://youtu.be/sDrAv9BeDKY
-
I did see all 4 links of Craig talking to 6 or so people. Text book anti salmon farming chitty chat under the title of saving wild salmon. Even he said " ISA LIKE Virus. And he sure did not talk to much about that. He also mentions alaska not having fish farms. What a load a carp that is. All these types want to talk about is salmon farms when it come to solving wild salmon issues. If you ask me I would say that he couldn't really get into the alaska thing or commercial fishing. That would axe the funding pretty quick. IMO
-
Well Chris I looked through the first 3 videos and noted the following right away:
1. Craig Orr doesn't seem to remember the Terms of Reference of the Cohen Inquiry. For being an active participant at the inquiry and doing many media interviews, I am surprised that he made such a obvious mistake during his presentation; however, I do not imagine that his audience would have picked up on it because they probably thought that he knew what he was talking about in this regard. Contray to what Craig says, the inquiry was not about seeking to find fault. This is what the Terms of Reference says in this regard:
"to conduct the Inquiry without seeking to find fault on the part of any individual, community or organization, and with the overall aim of respecting conservation of the sockeye salmon stock and encouraging broad cooperation among stakeholders." http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/TermsOfReference.php
2. I wonder why Orr never talked more about Broughton Pink Salmon. How well did those correlative studies in 2007 do in predicting the extinction of Pink Salmon there? How well did Pink Salmon there do before and after fish farms? Did he take a look at Pink Salmon escapements before fish farms and after fish farms? What are the major Pink producing systems in the Broughton and were they all represented in previous studies? When you consider that computer modelling are based on certain assumptions being true, would it be a good idea to ground truth these computer modelling/correlative studies done in the Broughton with what the fish are actually doing? What have these populations been doing over the long term? Why do farm critics generally only talk about the odd Pink years when even years are substantially more dominant? He avoids all of these in his presentation. Who is doing the "SCAM" now?
-
I see Mr Orr is a big follower of Goebells just like those other 2...... ;D
-
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2012/04/more-isa-virus-test-results.html
-
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2012/04/more-isa-virus-test-results.html
As Don S. himself would say," when in a hole, stop digging."
-
As Don S. himself would say," when in a hole, stop digging."
What has "digging a hole" in common with having someone out there who for no personal benefit is doing everything they can to ensure the survival of the wild salmon. Reading salmon farm commercials from folks like yourself are not doing anything to ensure the survival of our wild salmon, all they are doing is trying to convince the public that they are not responsible for killing them.
-
What has "digging a hole" in common with having someone out there who for no personal benefit is doing everything they can to ensure the survival of the wild salmon. Reading salmon farm commercials from folks like yourself are not doing anything to ensure the survival of our wild salmon, all they are doing is trying to convince the public that they are not responsible for killing them.
If AM was truly serious about saving wild salmon she would be doing all she could to stop overharvesting by all sectors and asking questions about Alaska's salmon ranching policies.
Pushing for habitat protection would help too.
-
If AM was truly serious about saving wild salmon she would be doing all she could to stop overharvesting by all sectors and asking questions about Alaska's salmon ranching policies.
Pushing for habitat protection would help too.
There is only so much a volunteer can do, these would be good challenges you noted for the pro fish farm members on this forum to take up but maybe they are busy as volunteers like you and I. ;D ;D :-\
This afternoon I went fishing and spent some time pulling 2 large BC Conservatives election signs out of the Vedder. Nearly fell in, I sure would not have wanted to drown for those guys but could not leave that type of pollution in the water. :o ::)
Must phone them so they can come an retrieve them from the side of the Rotarty Trail.
-
If AM was truly serious about saving wild salmon she would be doing all she could to stop overharvesting by all sectors and asking questions about Alaska's salmon ranching policies.
Pushing for habitat protection would help too.
But no, strangely she chooses not to. If it was truly for no personal benefit don't you think she would be covering all the bases. Salmon farms= smoking guns is her perspective and that just is not a fact.
-
But no, strangely she chooses not to. If it was truly for no personal benefit don't you think she would be covering all the bases. Salmon farms= smoking guns is her perspective and that just is not a fact.
Too bad the government is not doing what you suggest. ???
-
But no, strangely she chooses not to. If it was truly for no personal benefit don't you think she would be covering all the bases. Salmon farms= smoking guns is her perspective and that just is not a fact.
It's almost impossible to catch you fish feedlot supporters off guard..... Your message is consistent whether you run commercials, news releases or forum posts.
For clarification; salmon farms = smoking gun is a fact. Logic dictates that you can't dump the crap you guys dump in the ocean and then suggest you aren't harming the ocean life.
-
For clarification; salmon farms = smoking gun is a fact.
Which salmon stock has it obliterated as you suggest?
Logic dictates that you can't dump the crap you guys dump in the ocean and then suggest you aren't harming the ocean life.
This is a good example of your lack of understanding of the effects/coverage and protocols on bottom management. It is not as simple as the anti's would lead you to believe. Bottoms under salmon farms are closely monitored and regulated.
I am a salmon farm supporter, proud of it. Proud to see the leaps and bounds the industry has made to reduce risks to both farm and wild stocks. What is interesting is that the other supporters on this forum are not salmon farmers like myself. They have nothing to benefit from supporting salmon farms and they come from various walks and are very knowledgeable. The fact is that some of the supporters here are accomplished fish biologists that have worked in other (salmon)fields entirely and for many years. Those individuals seem to bring the most to this forum when it comes to information about salmon management. So why would they support salmon farming in BC? Why? How could it be? Insert conspiracy theory here, I guess.
-
Which salmon stock has it obliterated as you suggest?
This is a good example of your lack of understanding of the effects/coverage and protocols on bottom management. It is not as simple as the anti's would lead you to believe. Bottoms under salmon farms are closely monitored and regulated.
http://youtu.be/4QKwEsaACsk
-
Hilarious Chris. Ewey yucky it smells. It must be bad.
Thanks for posting the logic behind the campaign. ;D
-
Looks like sediment from the lower Fraser River ;D
Great fertilizer I bet; maybe we could use it on the Chilliwack ;)
-
It did look pretty sandy for fish farm sludge.
Anti's see it as poison, and others see it as gold. If I could stand the smell myself I would have it in my garden for sure. ;D
-
While in Port Hardy last November, my brother in law took my wife and I for a short boat tour and fishing trip. I asked to see a salmon farm so he stopped at the first one outside of Hardy Bay. We drifted about 100 m away and did some jigging for bottom fish ... I was the only angler and in about 45 minutes caught 4 species of fish, including a small ling cod.
According to him fishing for species like that is always more consistent near farms. Kinda like ducks and geese attracted to farmland in the Fraser Valley.
Where do you hunt your ducks Chris? :D
-
Looks like sediment from the lower Fraser River ;D
Yes, it does, but it is not. One would expect as much from a river like the Fraser which, while it has improved greatly in the last few decades, still drains half the province's industrial and agricultural waste. This is sediment from coastal BC. It should not look like that. If the sites were as well flushed as the farmers like aquapaloosa suggest, then it should not look much different than any other part of the coastal sea floor. We know, however, that this is not the case. Despite the "close monitor[ing] and regulat[ing]," they are still having a clear negative impact on the substrate. This may be good fertilizer for your garden, but studies have shown that this is not good for the biodiversity of the local ecosystem. I know you are going to say we need to accept that, as an industrial operation, fish farms are going to damage the environment just as any industrial agricultural operation on land does, but I just do not see that way. I am tired of being told I need to sell my children's future healthy environment for jobs and economic benefits today.
-
I am tired of being told I need to sell my children's future healthy environment for jobs and economic benefits today.
I hear you there, but to suggest that an area about the size of stanly park being effected by salmon farms will have an effect on your childrens future is a bit much. Get on google earth and look to see the size of stanly park compared to all the ocean floor out there. It is really quite insignificant. Most of the google earth is now in high definition and the farms can be seen. Take a look.
-
I hear you there, but to suggest that an area about the size of stanly park being effected by salmon farms will have an effect on your childrens future is a bit much. Get on google earth and look to see the size of stanly park compared to all the ocean floor out there. It is really quite insignificant. Most of the google earth is now in high definition and the farms can be seen. Take a look.
We used to say the same thing about dumping garbage in the ocean...it is so big that we cannot possibly do any harm. We used to think the same about the atmosphere...it is so big we cannot possibly have an effect on it. What is stopping the expansion of the farms? If the "antis" as you like to call us, all go away and stop bothering your employers, then what is to stop the expansion of the salmon farms into every cove on the BC coast? It is free enterprise, right? If Mainstream can farm here, why can I not open a farm in the next inlet? or across the inlet? There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed (although you may argue that they cannot be removed for economic reasons). If you are arguing that there is no harm in farming Atlantic salmon in open net pens on the BC coast, then you must be saying that they should be able to expand all over the coast, so their foot print is inevitably going to be larger than it is today.
-
I actually do not support expansion at this point in time. What is commonly mistaken as expansion is the relocation of sites to better locations to improve reduce the footprint.
-
I actually do not support expansion at this point in time. What is commonly mistaken as expansion is the relocation of sites to better locations to improve reduce the footprint.
But that is because you have to admit that they are harming the environment and so their locations have to be carefully chosen to minimize the amount of damage they do. I am still waiting for a good reason why we need the farms, when we could be spending our efforts to protect and support the wild stocks. With all we now know about the environment and our impacts on it, why are we still trapped in this exploitation model where the environment continues to be a resource to be exploited as cheaply and efficiently as possible, for the good of the economy, as opposed to a resource that needs to be protected, conserved, and managed for the benefit of future generations. It is too easy for governments, and the people they serve, to claim that doing the right thing today is too harmful to the current generation (read stockholders), so we need to continue on a destructive course that will ensure our grandchildren inherit a world significantly worse off than we did.
-
Sandman, I believe aquapaloosa was referring to Dr. Tony Farrell’s recent on line seminar regarding Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon/sea lice studies and aquaculture issues.
Farrell said the space taken up by all of BC salmon farms is roughly the size of Stanley Park.
Now, put that in perspective considering the size of BC’s coast. Absolutely and totally insignificant in the big picture..
Future salmon farming will governed like any other commercial industry; expansion will of course happen when wild stocks are no longer a viable option as a commodity and the market will guide that.
-
We used to say the same thing about dumping garbage in the ocean...it is so big that we cannot possibly do any harm. We used to think the same about the atmosphere...it is so big we cannot possibly have an effect on it. What is stopping the expansion of the farms? If the "antis" as you like to call us, all go away and stop bothering your employers, then what is to stop the expansion of the salmon farms into every cove on the BC coast? It is free enterprise, right? If Mainstream can farm here, why can I not open a farm in the next inlet? or across the inlet? There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed (although you may argue that they cannot be removed for economic reasons). If you are arguing that there is no harm in farming Atlantic salmon in open net pens on the BC coast, then you must be saying that they should be able to expand all over the coast, so their foot print is inevitably going to be larger than it is today.
Fish farming isn't going to expand everywhere just because you say it is and no-one is saying they should be able to in spite of your suggestion to the contrary. You're attempting to set up a fallacious argument; developing erroneous premises that suit your personal, unscientific conclusions. In other words, it's nothing more than meaningless rhetoric in support of your attempts to paint salmon farming as evil.
If farms are going to expand, they will only do so in areas that meet very specific biological, oceanographic, environmental and legal criteria. They will only do so if there is a sufficiently undersupplied market to absorb the production and they will only do so after following a fairly rigorous approval process.
-
Fish farming isn't going to expand everywhere just because you say it is and no-one is saying they should be able to in spite of your suggestion to the contrary. You're attempting to set up a fallacious argument; developing erroneous premises that suit your personal, unscientific conclusions. In other words, it's nothing more than meaningless rhetoric in support of your attempts to paint salmon farming as evil.
If farms are going to expand, they will only do so in areas that meet very specific biological, oceanographic, environmental and legal criteria. They will only do so if there is a sufficiently undersupplied market to absorb the production and they will only do so after following a fairly rigorous approval process.
It is not a fallacious argument to say that if there is an established industry already in BC and another player wanted into the market, then the industry would expand. Competition laws demand it. The fish farm industry has already expanded, even under a moratorium on new farms, by expanding capacity of existing operations. You have stated repeatedly that fish farms are necessary to meet a high world demand for salmon that cannot be met by wild salmon, therefore, it stands to reason that this "demand" will continue to rise with population a drive expansion. It stand to reason that if allowed to expand, the fish farm industry would. The very fact that there needs to be "very specific biological, oceanographic, environmental and legal criteria" supports my argument that they have a negative effect of the natural ecosystems.
-
The very fact that there needs to be "very specific biological, oceanographic, environmental and legal criteria" supports my argument that they have a negative effect of the natural ecosystems.
Yes and the same goes when we build a school, a road, hospital, , release free range cattle, license a pig farm or a strawberry farm. Your argument is up there with "ewey, it smellls bad".
-
It is not a fallacious argument to say that if there is an established industry already in BC and another player wanted into the market, then the industry would expand. Competition laws demand it. The fish farm industry has already expanded, even under a moratorium on new farms, by expanding capacity of existing operations. You have stated repeatedly that fish farms are necessary to meet a high world demand for salmon that cannot be met by wild salmon, therefore, it stands to reason that this "demand" will continue to rise with population a drive expansion. It stand to reason that if allowed to expand, the fish farm industry would. The very fact that there needs to be "very specific biological, oceanographic, environmental and legal criteria" supports my argument that they have a negative effect of the natural ecosystems.
Moving the goal posts yet again? This isn't at all the claim you made about expansion that elicited my response to you.
If another player wanted in the market all those siting criteria would still apply and so would the requirement for unsupplied market demand to absorb the production and the requirement to go through the rigorous approval process to establish new sites. It may work for your argument to ignore world supply conditions but it isn't accurate or honest. Those specific criteria are to ensure the health of the farm stocks and the shared use of coastal waters, not to minimize damage to the environment.
-
Yes and the same goes when we build a school, a road, hospital, , release free range cattle, license a pig farm or a strawberry farm.
Hydroelectric dams, mines, landfills, culvert installations, marinas, golf courses, ski hill developments, sewage treatments, bridges, railways, airports, etc...etc....
I would also be concerned about those that bypass regulations or any assessment on purpose. In this day and age, this is done quite often by average Joe Public. They get the old Bobcat in there doing work without any approval at all.
-
Moving the goal posts yet again? This isn't at all the claim you made about expansion that elicited my response to you.
If another player wanted in the market all those siting criteria would still apply and so would the requirement for unsupplied market demand to absorb the production and the requirement to go through the rigorous approval process to establish new sites. It may work for your argument to ignore world supply conditions but it isn't accurate or honest. Those specific criteria are to ensure the health of the farm stocks and the shared use of coastal waters, not to minimize damage to the environment.
How am I moving the goal post? How is this NOT the claim I made? My claim is that if the industry expands, as demand for salmon is not going down (according to fish farmers themselves who cite the world demand as their reason d'etre), then the foot print is going to be larger than Stanley Park. It is only as small as it is today because the industry was not allowed to expand geographically under the moratorium (so they expanded the individual operations capacity instead). Clearly, an "unsupplied market" is not necessary to preclude expansion as the initial expansion of salmon farms drove down the price of salmon, indicating their was a surplus of salmon created by the expansion of salmon farming.
-
Hydroelectric dams, mines, landfills, culvert installations, marinas, golf courses, ski hill developments, sewage treatments, bridges, railways, airports, etc...etc....
I would also be concerned about those that bypass regulations or any assessment on purpose. In this day and age, this is done quite often by average Joe Public. They get the old Bobcat in there doing work without any approval at all.
Exactly. While Absolon would have you believe that being concerned about one means you must not or cannot be concerned about the others, I myself do not feel that way. I can be as equally concerned about a new hydro electric project on a summer steelhead stream as I am about the prospect of a plethora of open net salmon farms on key wild salmon migration routes. I have never claimed, as Absolon would have you believe, that salmon farms are the devil and the one and only reason wild salmon are in decline. I have only ever indicated that the scientific research I have read about the negative effects of open net salmon farming has lead me to conclude that the benefits of the farms to the economy is not worth the risks to the environment. Furthermore, while I appreciate that there are all sorts of government bureaucrats in charge of ensuring the safety of our environment, you will forgive me, in light of the most recent revelations about those government safety nets, if I am less than confident that they have the best interest of the wild salmon, or the environment in general, in mind.
-
There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed (although you may argue that they cannot be removed for economic reasons).
Actually I should have used this quote also...
Essentially, all development that is carried out "impacts" the environment in one way or another so I am not sure where you are coming from. If harm is to be shown (any harm whatsoever) by any industry or development does this mean that it should be removed? You realize what this would include and the impact it would have? There is scientific research on many impacts to the environment - not just aquaculture....Where does one start? I mean let Google be the gateway to many reports. A person can be up all night downloading reports. Kemano comes to mind....even the Bridge River where most of that watershed is now a huge reservoir. That's why I made that little list...which could be added onto quite extensively. I will agree that following the last federal budget that habitat issues seem to be on the radar, but I do not think that it will necessarily mean that fish farms will be popping up all over the place with no assessment or consideration (as Aquapaloosa and Absolon have already stated).
-
How am I moving the goal post? How is this NOT the claim I made? My claim is that if the industry expands, as demand for salmon is not going down (according to fish farmers themselves who cite the world demand as their reason d'etre), then the foot print is going to be larger than Stanley Park. It is only as small as it is today because the industry was not allowed to expand geographically under the moratorium (so they expanded the individual operations capacity instead). Clearly, an "unsupplied market" is not necessary to preclude expansion as the initial expansion of salmon farms drove down the price of salmon, indicating their was a surplus of salmon created by the expansion of salmon farming.
No, this is your original claim:
What is stopping the expansion of the farms? If the "antis" as you like to call us, all go away and stop bothering your employers, then what is to stop the expansion of the salmon farms into every cove on the BC coast? It is free enterprise, right? If Mainstream can farm here, why can I not open a farm in the next inlet? or across the inlet? There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed
As I pointed out, there are considerable physical and biological limitations on where the farms can expand as well as substantial economic restrictions on that expansion not to mention further regulatory restrictions. Contrary to your suggestion, it is not nor will it become "open season". Assuming they haven't slipped your mind, you might refer back to several links that Chris has posted about the current supply situation in the salmon market as well as do a little research yourself on trends in Chilean and Norwegian production versus world demand.
You might also bear in mind that contrary to your suggestion to Steve, I've said nothing that would indicate that a person cannot be concerned about "the others" if that person if that person is concerned about "one". The closest I've come to that is to suggest that a person who is concerned about "one" should ensure that the reasons for their concern are real and not manufactured to support a preordained position.