Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: aquapaloosa on May 11, 2012, 04:08:24 PM

Title: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 11, 2012, 04:08:24 PM
Context counts (and sexy graphs help)

Salmon Farm Science, May 10, 2012

We’ve had a lot of fun with Ms. Alexandra Morton’s ridiculous use of one particular graph to claim that salmon farms in BC brought about a decline in wild salmon productivity.
Without any context, her argument sounds reasonable.
But in context, it all falls apart as we showed in an earlier post and again in this post.

http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/05/10/context-counts-and-sexy-graphs-help/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/05/10/context-counts-and-sexy-graphs-help/)
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 11, 2012, 07:06:47 PM
Context counts (and sexy graphs help)

Salmon Farm Science, May 10, 2012

We’ve had a lot of fun with Ms. Alexandra Morton’s ridiculous use of one particular graph to claim that salmon farms in BC brought about a decline in wild salmon productivity.
Without any context, her argument sounds reasonable.
But in context, it all falls apart as we showed in an earlier post and again in this post.

http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/05/10/context-counts-and-sexy-graphs-help/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/05/10/context-counts-and-sexy-graphs-help/)

Sounds like they have a theme for another round of pointless commercials.....
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: chris gadsden on May 11, 2012, 08:43:53 PM
Sounds like they have a theme for another round of pointless commercials.....
Yes the TV stations just love the thousands they make from them. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 12, 2012, 08:22:01 AM
af, Chris, your posts are losing their usual bite.  Makes me think you're tiring of defending your respective positions against salmon farming or maybe, have come to the realization they're here to stay in BC.  Time to funnel your energy into important things like overharvesting, IPP’s and pipelines ;)   
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 12, 2012, 08:44:33 AM
af, Chris, your posts are losing their usual bite.  Makes me think you're tiring of defending your respective positions against salmon farming or maybe, have come to the realization they're here to stay in BC.  Time to funnel your energy into important things like overharvesting, IPP’s and pipelines ;)   

Is that wishful thinking or just a pro feedlot farmer dreaming?   :-\
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: chris gadsden on May 12, 2012, 10:45:00 AM
af, Chris, your posts are losing their usual bite.  Makes me think you're tiring of defending your respective positions against salmon farming or maybe, have come to the realization they're here to stay in BC.  Time to funnel your energy into important things like overharvesting, IPP’s and pipelines ;)  
Just watch the video I filmed of Eddie again in Victoria and some changes I believe will be in the offering in a years time.

At least hopefully there will be more transparency to the whole issue than now as we all know or should know the gag law continues in so many government departments and could get worse.

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 12, 2012, 11:39:53 AM
Now Chris, you know that had nothing to do with salmon farms and I won't be losing sleep over it.  And, I thought we had an agreement on where you and I draw the line regarding on line comments  ;)
Wonder what I would have caught if I had used a barbed hook?

Back on topic, if the NDP win the provincial election, what changes in aquaculture do you see them making?  Seems to me there would have been a much larger opportunity for aquaculture reform if AM had not pushed for federal responsibility.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: chris gadsden on May 12, 2012, 03:23:13 PM
Now Chris, you know that had nothing to do with salmon farms and I won't be losing sleep over it.  And, I thought we had an agreement on where you and I draw the line regarding on line comment's ;)
Wonder what I would have caught if I had used a barbed hook?

Back on topic, if the NDP win the provincial election, what changes in aquaculture do you see them making?  Seems to me there would have been a much larger opportunity for aquaculture reform if AM had not pushed for federal responsibility.
I will apologize for that and I will delete that part of my post but this topic is way out of line  and is in very bad taste to start with, a person can disagree with what a person says, in this case Alex but to say "fun with Alexandra Morton" is not a thing to say.

It is easy for many to sit behind a computer and say such things but Alex is working very hard on her position and is travelling the Province, in the Adams River now giving talks about the issue. You and others can disagree on what she is doing but all should show respect.

It may have come to the time that this topic on fish farms comes an end. I will talk to the moderators on this as once again this thread has deteriorated and I am guilty of that too. :-[
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 12, 2012, 04:17:40 PM
Chris, the title here was a paraphrase of the article linked to and that article referenced having fun with Ms. Morton's claims, not fun at her expense. There has been no rudeness towards the woman either here or at the links and by putting her claims out there, she opens herself to whatever was said about those claims. The only cheap shot in this thread was the one you took against Dave.

What it really sounds like you are saying is that no-one can criticize what she says and does, that her status as tireless campaigner fighting fish farming entitles her to misrepresent information in any way that suits her cause. What you are forgetting is that for years she has been making quite nasty representations against farms and the regulating agencies. Those that do not believe in her are now standing up and combating those claims far more vigorously than they have in the past and exposing the inaccuracy and inappropriateness of her presentations. She does not have the right to misrepresent the facts and she is not immune from having her misrepresentations challenged.

Indeed, there are many who think her actions have been one of the larger obstacles to actually finding a solution to the problems in our fish stocks. In spite of her attempts to present it as such, it was not the Cohen/Morton Inquiry on Fish Farms and it's purpose was not to sandbag fish farms. We would have been far better off keeping responsibility for farms at the local level and we would be far better off if much less attention was focused on her antics and much more on all the other factors that affect the stocks. The problem is not rooted in fish farms and it's well past time we moved on to deal with the real roots.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 12, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
Chris, the title here was a paraphrase of the article linked to and that article referenced having fun with Ms. Morton's claims, not fun at her expense. There has been no rudeness towards the woman either here or at the links and by putting her claims out there, she opens herself to whatever was said about those claims. The only cheap shot in this thread was the one you took against Dave.

What it really sounds like you are saying is that no-one can criticize what she says and does, that her status as tireless campaigner fighting fish farming entitles her to misrepresent information in any way that suits her cause. What you are forgetting is that for years she has been making quite nasty representations against farms and the regulating agencies. Those that do not believe in her are now standing up and combating those claims far more vigorously than they have in the past and exposing the inaccuracy and inappropriateness of her presentations. She does not have the right to misrepresent the facts and she is not immune from having her misrepresentations challenged.

Indeed, there are many who think her actions have been one of the larger obstacles to actually finding a solution to the problems in our fish stocks. In spite of her attempts to present it as such, it was not the Cohen/Morton Inquiry on Fish Farms and it's purpose was not to sandbag fish farms. We would have been far better off keeping responsibility for farms at the local level and we would be far better off if much less attention was focused on her antics and much more on all the other factors that affect the stocks. The problem is not rooted in fish farms and it's well past time we moved on to deal with the real roots.

I hope you have some links to credible sources that can back up an outrageous claim like that.  ???

You would have maintained your credibility and of course further defined your bias, if you had started the sentence with "In my opinion....."   ;D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Burbot on May 13, 2012, 06:22:02 PM
Quote
Back on topic, if the NDP win the provincial election, what changes in aquaculture do you see them making?  Seems to me there would have been a much larger opportunity for aquaculture reform if AM had not pushed for federal responsibility.

None because the courts ruled last year Fish farms are under federal jurisdiction now not provincial.

 I think personally they are harming wild salmon, just look what happened to native fish in Norway and Chile and now here. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure things out.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 13, 2012, 07:19:16 PM
What native fish in Chile are you referring to?
Do some research on Norway as well and you will see it was the importation of a parasite native to Baltic salmon rivers, Gyrodactylus Salaris, that decimated Norwegian Salmo stocks, not salmon farming as Ms. Morton would have you believe.
No, it's not rocket science at all.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Schenley on May 14, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
Quote
I will apologize for that and I will delete that part of my post but this topic is way out of line  and is in very bad taste to start with, a person can disagree with what a person says, in this case Alex but to say "fun with Alexandra Morton" is not a thing to say.

It is easy for many to sit behind a computer and say such things but Alex is working very hard on her position and is travelling the Province, in the Adams River now giving talks about the issue. You and others can disagree on what she is doing but all should show respect.

It may have come to the time that this topic on fish farms comes an end. I will talk to the moderators on this as once again this thread has deteriorated and I am guilty of that too. Embarrassed

Chris, you have nothing to apologize for.  I got told to play nice by Rodney earlier on when I responded pointedly in what I considered a one sided mocking of what Alex is trying to do for future generations of BC anglers .  The title "fun with Alexandra Morton" is typical of a small number of fish farm apologists on this board who mock and try to discredit the messenger when they see a threat to their right to screw up our iconic  Pacific salmon.   It has NEVER been a balanced discussion IMO.   Lets see how long this post remains........
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Rodney on May 14, 2012, 10:06:05 PM
I didn't tell you to do anything... lol... I don't tell participants what to do on the forum. If something doesn't belong in here, it gets removed. I said if you want more support, try more honey than vinegar because your way of going about it was not going to gain much support.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Schenley on May 15, 2012, 12:17:43 PM
Rod-- your board, you can make the rules... but there comes a time when the BS that is being fed us by the mocking, all knowing (NOT) fish farm apologists does NOT deserve a gentlemanly response.     Go back on  the board and have a close look at the spin that these guys have put on Alex Morton.  She deserves an Order of Canada, not the derision she is having dumped upon her by the likes a few here .   The tactics that the fish farm industry use to discredit anyone that disagrees with them smacks of the same tactics the tobacco industry unleashed on the public when we finally woke up that smoking is bad for living creatures (us). Oh ya-- seems to me I remember something about the the fish farm industry hiring the same spin doctors that the tobacco industry used....... just a coincidence , right???

Guess I will go  over to the knuckledraggers  board ( Gee-- I wonder where that mocking phrase came from???   Oh! It was one of the fish farm apologists on this board ) where they call this BS for what it is. 
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Bassonator on May 15, 2012, 12:26:40 PM
Dont let the door hit you on the way out...... ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: VAGAbond on May 15, 2012, 12:36:49 PM
The reference document compares average returns with the 2012 P90 forecast of 6.6 M .    That makes 2012 look not bad.   Shouldn't the comparison be to the P50 forecast for 2012 of 1.9 M fish making the expected 2012 return rather poor.  Do I detect a little bit of spin here?

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 15, 2012, 02:32:22 PM
Funny how when an individual apposed to salmon farms post stuff there is a discussion back and forth, sharing information and ideas.  When an individual posts pro information on the topic it explodes into pissy verbal exchanges where the content is just avoided.  

Thanks Vaga for at least reading the link.  Some hear refuse to even read them so they have stated.  How odd is this.  
  There are some interesting comments at the end of that link as well.

Could you expand on your post a little?  Its the P50 thing I am wondering about.



Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Easywater on May 15, 2012, 04:11:00 PM
Funny how when an individual apposed to salmon farms post stuff there is a discussion back and forth, sharing information and ideas.  When an individual posts pro information on the topic it explodes into pissy verbal exchanges where the content is just avoided.  

Umm, might have something to do with the fact that 99.9% of the people here are pro-wild salmon which makes them anti-farmed salmon.
I mentioned this before - it's like posting on the PETA site that people should eat tainted beef - not very welcome & no one believes you.

There's only 5 or so of you that are promoting farmed salmon:
Aquapaloosa - fish farm worker
Absolon - fish farm worker
Bassonator - not sure why
Shuswapsteve - not sure why
Dave - ex-govt pro fish farm

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: StillAqua on May 15, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
None because the courts ruled last year Fish farms are under federal jurisdiction now not provincial.

 I think personally they are harming wild salmon, just look what happened to native fish in Norway and Chile and now here. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure things out.
Might not be Federal responsibility for much longer.......if you read the changes Harper et al are planning to make to the Fisheries Act, they have opened the door so they can download Fed fish responsibilities to the Provinces.

You're right that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out....it takes many fish scientists, virologists, oceanographers, parasitologists, aquatic ecologists ..........
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 15, 2012, 04:40:04 PM
Hey, this thread is getting interesting again.  You bet I promote farming Atlantics but I also work hard to protect wild salmon; spent half the afternoon attempting that.  I believe the two can co- exist, especially in BC.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 15, 2012, 09:22:04 PM
Rod-- your board, you can make the rules... but there comes a time when the BS that is being fed us by the mocking, all knowing (NOT) fish farm apologists does NOT deserve a gentlemanly response.     Go back on  the board and have a close look at the spin that these guys have put on Alex Morton.  She deserves an Order of Canada, not the derision she is having dumped upon her by the likes a few here .   The tactics that the fish farm industry use to discredit anyone that disagrees with them smacks of the same tactics the tobacco industry unleashed on the public when we finally woke up that smoking is bad for living creatures (us). Oh ya-- seems to me I remember something about the the fish farm industry hiring the same spin doctors that the tobacco industry used....... just a coincidence , right???

Guess I will go  over to the knuckledraggers  board ( Gee-- I wonder where that mocking phrase came from???   Oh! It was one of the fish farm apologists on this board ) where they call this BS for what it is. 

I find it hilarious when anti-fish farm opponents seem to call foul when the questions start to become too hard to answer.  Contrary to what you might believe Ms Morton is not untouchable.  The fact is that Ms Morton is a RPBio who is involved in a very controversial issue, making some very controversial claims.  Seeing as though Ms Morton has shown no mercy on her blog for governmental scientists and regulatory agencies I believe it is only fair that those that she accuses of wrongdoing are allowed to defend themselves.  Morton and other high profile fish farm opponents have spared no expense to call out governmental scientists/biologists, regulatory agencies and industry representatives and publicly question their professionalism, research and ethics.  During the aquaculture testimony at the Cohen Inquiry, Ms Morton chose to post a cartoon of governmental scientists which seem to suggest that they were engaging in deception.  She also attacked Dick Beamish on her blog calling for his Order of Canada to be revoked.  Apparently, speaking or acting disparagingly of a colleague registered biologist is acceptable when it agrees with fish farm opponents’ point of view.

Although the thread title on this forum may suggest otherwise, the content of the post (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/05/10/context-counts-and-sexy-graphs-help/) is not derogatory and makes no rude remarks about Ms Morton.  The website attempts to challenge Ms Morton’s conclusions with relevant information.  The instant reaction from fish farm opponents is to lash out in some pretty juvenile attacks with little reference to the actual issue.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 15, 2012, 09:35:42 PM
The reference document compares average returns with the 2012 P90 forecast of 6.6 M .    That makes 2012 look not bad.   Shouldn't the comparison be to the P50 forecast for 2012 of 1.9 M fish making the expected 2012 return rather poor.  Do I detect a little bit of spin here?

It could be considered a bit of spin because forecasts are done over a range of probabilities and not just one.  However, one of the other fish forums on the internet (i.e. knuckledragger site as it has been called) was no better in its description of the forecast.  What people need to do is read the forecast for themselves and direct their questions to the person at the end of the document.  This way you get an accurate account of what the forecast is saying instead of hearing second-hand commentary from other blog sites.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_011-eng.pdf

Resource management typically uses the 50P, but in reaility forecasts can be highly uncertain due to variable survival rates from egg to adult.  Forecasting is only one step in a much broader stock assessment cycle which includes inseason test fisheries, catch monitoring, and spawning escapement surveys.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 15, 2012, 09:48:18 PM
Umm, might have something to do with the fact that 99.9% of the people here are pro-wild salmon which makes them anti-farmed salmon.
I mentioned this before - it's like posting on the PETA site that people should eat tainted beef - not very welcome & no one believes you.

There's only 5 or so of you that are promoting farmed salmon:
Aquapaloosa - fish farm worker
Absolon - fish farm worker
Bassonator - not sure why
Shuswapsteve - not sure why
Dave - ex-govt pro fish farm
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it; however, I suggest you know very little about the people you accuse and what they do day to day to help wild salmon.  I have never been one to jump on the bandwagon with others who believe they are right because they seem to have strength in numbers.  Makes no difference to me.  I am not really concerned if you or the 99.9% (as you call it) welcome my input or not.  I will let Rodney and the moderators do their job and toss out my posts if they deem them not appropriate.  Have a nice evening.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: troutbreath on May 15, 2012, 10:35:59 PM
ProFishfarmSteve..........I don't think you post on anything else but fishfarming. The pro side of it. So your really being a one issue kind of guy if you don't mind me saying. ::)
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: VAGAbond on May 16, 2012, 07:58:42 PM
Quote
Could you expand on your post a little?  Its the P50 thing I am wondering about.

See Table 7-11 on page 82 0f the 2012 Fishing Management Plan at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57165894/2012%20IFMPs/Draft%203-%20SC%20Salmon%20IFMP%20April%2030_clean%20copy.pdf   

I would add the table here if I knew how.

Anyhow, P90 for 2012 Fraser Sockeye is the 90% probability that the run will be less than 6.6 M fish.   There are is a full range of probabilities reported.    P50 is a 50% probability that the run will be smaller than 1.9 M fish.    And so on to P10 that is a 10% probability that the run will be less than 0.8 M fish.    The mean run estimate for 2012 is 3.8 M fish compared to a mean run size for all cycles of 7.6 M fish.

Where I work we use a P90 estimate to decide on a transport capability we provide, leaving a 10% probability that the need will not be met.  For fish harvest the statistics seem backwards to me.   Shouldn't the harvest be decided on a probability that the run size will be larger, not smaller, than the estimating point?

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 16, 2012, 08:58:00 PM
See Table 7-11 on page 82 0f the 2012 Fishing Management Plan at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57165894/2012%20IFMPs/Draft%203-%20SC%20Salmon%20IFMP%20April%2030_clean%20copy.pdf  

I would add the table here if I knew how.

Anyhow, P90 for 2012 Fraser Sockeye is the 90% probability that the run will be less than 6.6 M fish.   There are is a full range of probabilities reported.    P50 is a 50% probability that the run will be smaller than 1.9 M fish.    And so on to P10 that is a 10% probability that the run will be less than 0.8 M fish.    The mean run estimate for 2012 is 3.8 M fish compared to a mean run size for all cycles of 7.6 M fish.

Where I work we use a P90 estimate to decide on a transport capability we provide, leaving a 10% probability that the need will not be met.  For fish harvest the statistics seem backwards to me.   Shouldn't the harvest be decided on a probability that the run size will be larger, not smaller, than the estimating point?
A change was made in the 2010 forecast on how probabilities in the document are conveyed to the public.  Before 2010, the lowest probability was associated with the highest forecast.  However, from a conservation perspective it was decided that the reporting the probability of returning below the specified forecast was more suitable.  However, I see your point that it appears to be counter intuitive.  Maybe Troutbreath will be a little easier on me for posting about something more than salmon farm protesters. ;D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 16, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
ProFishfarmSteve..........I don't think you post on anything else but fishfarming. The pro side of it. So your really being a one issue kind of guy if you don't mind me saying. ::)

It's because some fish farm opponents are such fun loving people I can't help but reply.  :D   
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 16, 2012, 09:12:29 PM
Thanks for your response Vaga.  Forecasting salmon stocks is new to me. 
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 17, 2012, 07:32:11 AM
Thanks for your response Vaga.  Forecasting salmon stocks is new to me. 

The concern for forecasting salmon stocks is likely foreign to most pro fish farmers. It is understandable......

Why be concerned about something that may point to harm caused by your industry?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 17, 2012, 08:27:09 AM

Ha ha.  Just another post that dodges the content.  

AF, you can try to portray myself and others in your preferred light but the reality is that such a suggestion is just one more thoughtless assumption.

Your post suggests that you think I am the source of salmon farming in bc but the truth is I am just a guy. I am not a politician, I do not work in an office, I do not own a salmon farm.

Salmon forecasting is new to me.  I am learning.

Your last post is down there with the old "he doesn't really fish" comment...
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 17, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
Ha ha.  Just another post that dodges the content. 

AF, you can try to portray myself and others in your preferred light but the reality is that such a suggestion is just one more thoughtless assumption.

Your post suggests that you think I am the source of salmon farming in bc but the truth is I am just a guy. I am not a politician, I do not work in an office, I do not own a salmon farm.

Salmon forecasting is new to me.  I am learning.

Your last post is down there with the old "he doesn't really fish" comment...

Awww aquapaloosa.....     judging by your response, I think I may have hurt your feelings.  :( 

Watch your mail for a letter which will contain my apology.   :D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 17, 2012, 01:13:12 PM
Awww aquapaloosa.....     judging by your response, I think I may have hurt your feelings.  :( 

Watch your mail for a letter which will contain my apology.   :D
Hm mm, I think Chris would say  "Losing it", followed by  ;D ;D ;D

af, I'm guessing you're off aquapaloosa's Christmas card list now  :D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 17, 2012, 01:47:27 PM
The concern for facts about salmon farming is likely foreign to most anti fish farmers. It is understandable......

Why be concerned about something that may point to the lack of substance in your arguments?

Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 17, 2012, 08:52:43 PM
The concern for forecasting salmon stocks is likely foreign to most pro fish farmers. It is understandable......

If it is so foreign to people like me (a "pro fish farmer"...lol) perhaps you can enlighten me?  Hurry up because the palm trees and white sand are calling me soon.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: gilbey on May 17, 2012, 09:03:11 PM
Why don't you stay there in that warm white sand and farm your salmon down there?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 18, 2012, 12:51:45 AM
Why don't you stay there in that warm white sand and farm your salmon down there?

Actually the wife might love down there so you never know...lol.  I love it...Anybody that has an opposite opinion must work in the industry.  :D
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 24, 2012, 03:58:30 PM
I read through the suggested internet website from the main thread and quickly ascertained that it leaps around a few questions in elementary logic that have never been met by fish farming proponents.

First:

There is something many ecologists believe is paramount in the management of our environment called the precautionary principle, which states that in the absence of scientific consensus that something is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. In a medical context is the principle of Primum non nocere, or "First, do no harm".

So:

It has been demonstrated time and time again that fish farms have negative impacts on the environment around them and to wild fish populations as they are point sources for high densities of viral particles and parasites. They entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, produce poor quality fish when compared to wild alternatives, are a horrible waste of marine biomass due to conversion inefficiency from fish feed, have invasive potential from escapes, among many other problems up and down marine food webs. From personal observation, they smell horrible, operate in otherwise ideal passageways for wild juvenile salmon, create intense parasite loads on surrounding wild juveniles, are prone to dangerous viral outbreaks that may at any moment decide to cause disease to wild fish, among many other negatives.

Then:

If the above block of text causes you any hint of doubt that they may be bad - then refer back to the precautionary principle and the review the material provided in the link on the first page of this thread and ask yourself if you are convinced they exist in a vacuum, and have zero impact on anything.



Jon
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: troutbreath on May 24, 2012, 10:40:29 PM
Jon your a voice of reason. I took courses in assessment and what you say is so true. Some of these guy's on here would tell you that you could spray "round up" on you veggies. Gets the dirt off to serve em to your kids. They eat those dirty fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 25, 2012, 07:43:28 AM
I read through the suggested internet website from the main thread and quickly ascertained that it leaps around a few questions in elementary logic that have never been met by fish farming proponents.

First:

There is something many ecologists believe is paramount in the management of our environment called the precautionary principle, which states that in the absence of scientific consensus that something is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. In a medical context is the principle of Primum non nocere, or "First, do no harm".

So:

It has been demonstrated time and time again that fish farms have negative impacts on the environment around them and to wild fish populations as they are point sources for high densities of viral particles and parasites. They entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, produce poor quality fish when compared to wild alternatives, are a horrible waste of marine biomass due to conversion inefficiency from fish feed, have invasive potential from escapes, among many other problems up and down marine food webs. From personal observation, they smell horrible, operate in otherwise ideal passageways for wild juvenile salmon, create intense parasite loads on surrounding wild juveniles, are prone to dangerous viral outbreaks that may at any moment decide to cause disease to wild fish, among many other negatives.

Then:

If the above block of text causes you any hint of doubt that they may be bad - then refer back to the precautionary principle and the review the material provided in the link on the first page of this thread and ask yourself if you are convinced they exist in a vacuum, and have zero impact on anything.



Jon


Thanks Jon, great post.

That reasoning exposes the shameful approach the fish farms are using to carry out their dirty little business. The problem is that as long as the public continues to buy their "we're not hurting anything" story, they will continue till it's too late for our wild salmon.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 25, 2012, 11:23:14 AM
The precautionary principle is an interesting concept. It certainly embodies a noble principle but is rather questionable for use as a decision tool. It is qualitative, subjective and non-rational in that it is inconsistently defined and applied, focuses on but a single aspect, and doesn't attempt to quantify either risk or reward. Consistent application of it would tend to preclude the great majority of current human activity. Indeed, the result of using the principle to examine the use of the principle as a decision tool could be interpreted to suggest that it's use as a decision tool should be precluded.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 25, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
I read through the suggested internet website from the main thread and quickly ascertained that it leaps around a few questions in elementary logic that have never been met by fish farming proponents.

First:

There is something many ecologists believe is paramount in the management of our environment called the precautionary principle, which states that in the absence of scientific consensus that something is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. In a medical context is the principle of Primum non nocere, or "First, do no harm".

So:

It has been demonstrated time and time again that fish farms have negative impacts on the environment around them and to wild fish populations as they are point sources for high densities of viral particles and parasites. They entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, produce poor quality fish when compared to wild alternatives, are a horrible waste of marine biomass due to conversion inefficiency from fish feed, have invasive potential from escapes, among many other problems up and down marine food webs. From personal observation, they smell horrible, operate in otherwise ideal passageways for wild juvenile salmon, create intense parasite loads on surrounding wild juveniles, are prone to dangerous viral outbreaks that may at any moment decide to cause disease to wild fish, among many other negatives.

Then:

If the above block of text causes you any hint of doubt that they may be bad - then refer back to the precautionary principle and the review the material provided in the link on the first page of this thread and ask yourself if you are convinced they exist in a vacuum, and have zero impact on anything.


Jon


The Precautionary Principle does not state "when in doubt - do not do it".  Hint of doubt??  If that were the case there would be absolutely no development whatsoever in and around water.  For fish management purposes it means in the absence of scientific certainty of risk proceed cautiously and put measures in place as if those risks are indeed real.  You have described some impacts, but you have failed to describe what the BC fish farm industry does to minimize those impacts.  Secondly, it is unrealistic to believe that fish farming will ever have zero impact.  Basically any industry that is located in and and around water has impact.  The City of Vancouver has impact on the marine environment, a ranch that utilizes water in the interior of BC for hayfields impacts the environment, and your fishing impacts the environment.  All of what you describe above can be put in that doubt category according to your arguement.  Thirdly, what does "smelling horrible" have to do with the Precautionary Principle?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 25, 2012, 01:47:52 PM
This is why I hang out on this site far too much ;) Great discussion by bright people, on both sides.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Easywater on May 25, 2012, 02:24:02 PM
The Precautionary Principle does not state "when in doubt - do not do it".  

The Precautionary Principle does state when in doubt - do not do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

The rest of the post is another case of the pro-farmers saying "everyone else is ruining the environment - why can't we?"

Jon, once they attack you personally, the circle will be complete and you will know that you made an impact.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: alwaysfishn on May 25, 2012, 07:11:11 PM

The rest of the post is another case of the pro-farmers saying "everyone else is ruining the environment - why can't we?"


Nicely summarized!

An accurate reflection of the entire pro-feedlot argument.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 26, 2012, 09:55:14 AM
Hey guys,

Please read, sign, and share:

http://www.change.org/SalmonFlu (http://www.change.org/SalmonFlu)


Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 26, 2012, 10:23:01 AM
For fish management purposes it means in the absence of scientific certainty of risk proceed cautiously and put measures in place as if those risks are indeed real.

Who decides that this is what it means for "fish management"? You? I certainly hope not. The decision should be in the hands of the people of British Columbia what should be done in the absence of certainty of risk. Enough evidence has been provided demonstrating their negative impacts that it's a no-brainer to get them out of the ocean until a safer alternative can be developed and implemented. Closed pens or land facilities, it's time to innovate ways to minimize the impacts. In China they are growing sockeye in freshwater closed containment facilities. The degree to which we choose to mitigate the risk shouldn't be decided by fish farmers, it should be decided by the people. If we let people like you make all the decisions, we would sacrifice our moral obligations for profit and a steady income each and every time.

The City of Vancouver has impact on the marine environment, a ranch that utilizes water in the interior of BC for hayfields impacts the environment, and your fishing impacts the environment.

It's true. The city of Vancouver has an impact on the marine environment. In terms of accomplishing something with respect to protecting our environment and wild fish, what is a more realistic goal? Eliminating the nutrient loading and pollution of the city of Vancouver? Or banning fish farms? One requires the collective action of 2 million people and would have an impact, the other would require the collective action of the muscles in the hands of the minister of environment/fisheries and oceans to ink some legislature banning the existence of open net pens in British Columbia. Which goal is more tangible?



Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 26, 2012, 01:59:11 PM
Hey guys,
Please read, sign, and share:
http://www.change.org/SalmonFlu (http://www.change.org/SalmonFlu)

While you're at it, don't forget to donate to the latest Ms. Morton campaign.  This time it's to pay for the analysis of the samples she had tested for one of the latest scares – think she needs another 15 k or so.   My cheques in the mail ;)
Here's your chance anti’s – send this lady your cash to save the salmon.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Every Day on May 26, 2012, 02:21:36 PM
So:

It has been demonstrated time and time again that fish farms have negative impacts on the environment around them and to wild fish populations as they are point sources for high densities of viral particles and parasites. They entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, produce poor quality fish when compared to wild alternatives, are a horrible waste of marine biomass due to conversion inefficiency from fish feed, have invasive potential from escapes, among many other problems up and down marine food webs. From personal observation, they smell horrible, operate in otherwise ideal passageways for wild juvenile salmon, create intense parasite loads on surrounding wild juveniles, are prone to dangerous viral outbreaks that may at any moment decide to cause disease to wild fish, among many other negatives.


1) Yep they do entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, but seine/gill nets and bottom trawling for wild fish kills most likely just as many, along with a number of dolphins, and other non target fish species that get thrown over as by-catch (dead).

2) True they farmed salmon may be of lesser quality than wild. What do you propose we do? Eliminate fish farms completely and commercially fish for wild fish to replace the production amount? Good luck with over fishing every stock to the point of extinction. It isn't doable to maintain the worlds population on wild fish at this point, or any longer for that matter. Point is farmed fish are still healthy for you.

3) Horrible waste of marine biomass? First off fish have the highest conversion efficiency when compared to any animal. Farmed fish most likely achieve a higher conversion efficiency than wild fish, and do so by using less marine biomass than wild fish do (wild fish eat all fish, farmed fish eat pellets composed of plant, fish, and other content). If a fish farmer has a conversion efficiency of over 1.0 (weight gain per amount of food fed) they get fired.

4) Atlantic's could have potential to be invasive, yes. Take into consideration however that years ago DFO released millions of Atlantics into our waters to try and establish sport fishing populations. None of these ever took. Generally Atlantic's have terrible immunity to things like IHN which is carried by 99% of pacific salmon. Therefore the chance of an Atlantic to compete with a pacific for spawning ground, spawn, hatch and make it back to the ocean is very very low.

At this point with the world's growing population, I think it is inevitable to have fish farms producing most if not all of our fish. If we were to fish on wild stocks to support our desire for fish it would be over fishing making these fish a thing of the past, and not farms. In the end we would be stuck with farms any ways and no wild fish at all. Right now they are obviously finding a way to work together with wild fish, as the runs of wild fish the past few years have been record breaking at times, and none have been pointing towards an extinction event as so many will claim.

Lastly, everyone always comes back to that parasite loading on wild salmon thing. If you read the other thread (can't remember at this point, been so many of these) I provided articles showing that wild fish are not being eliminated due to sea lice. I still have yet to see a viable paper showing that sea lice densities (of parasitic stage) are present around farms.

Lastly, sure all of a sudden some virus' are popping up. As I said before, who is to say we don't have our own strain of ISA present here and that anti-farmers are just finding it now because they are looking for a way to eliminate farms? The ocean is a big connected body of water. Isn't it a little foolish to think that if it isn't one place in the ocean it can't move around due to currents and such? This IHN thing is actually pretty sad to be honest, all pacific salmon and herring are carriers, they just don't show symptoms or die from IHN, Atlantic's do. If you guys are worried about IHN "spreading" from Atlantic's to pacific's you need to get your facts straight, because it is most likely the other way around.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 27, 2012, 02:45:48 AM
1) Yep they do entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, but seine/gill nets and bottom trawling for wild fish kills most likely just as many, along with a number of dolphins, and other non target fish species that get thrown over as by-catch (dead).

2) True they farmed salmon may be of lesser quality than wild. What do you propose we do? Eliminate fish farms completely and commercially fish for wild fish to replace the production amount? Good luck with over fishing every stock to the point of extinction. It isn't doable to maintain the worlds population on wild fish at this point, or any longer for that matter. Point is farmed fish are still healthy for you.

3) Horrible waste of marine biomass? First off fish have the highest conversion efficiency when compared to any animal. Farmed fish most likely achieve a higher conversion efficiency than wild fish, and do so by using less marine biomass than wild fish do (wild fish eat all fish, farmed fish eat pellets composed of plant, fish, and other content). If a fish farmer has a conversion efficiency of over 1.0 (weight gain per amount of food fed) they get fired.

4) Atlantic's could have potential to be invasive, yes. Take into consideration however that years ago DFO released millions of Atlantics into our waters to try and establish sport fishing populations. None of these ever took. Generally Atlantic's have terrible immunity to things like IHN which is carried by 99% of pacific salmon. Therefore the chance of an Atlantic to compete with a pacific for spawning ground, spawn, hatch and make it back to the ocean is very very low.

At this point with the world's growing population, I think it is inevitable to have fish farms producing most if not all of our fish. If we were to fish on wild stocks to support our desire for fish it would be over fishing making these fish a thing of the past, and not farms. In the end we would be stuck with farms any ways and no wild fish at all. Right now they are obviously finding a way to work together with wild fish, as the runs of wild fish the past few years have been record breaking at times, and none have been pointing towards an extinction event as so many will claim.

Lastly, everyone always comes back to that parasite loading on wild salmon thing. If you read the other thread (can't remember at this point, been so many of these) I provided articles showing that wild fish are not being eliminated due to sea lice. I still have yet to see a viable paper showing that sea lice densities (of parasitic stage) are present around farms.

Lastly, sure all of a sudden some virus' are popping up. As I said before, who is to say we don't have our own strain of ISA present here and that anti-farmers are just finding it now because they are looking for a way to eliminate farms? The ocean is a big connected body of water. Isn't it a little foolish to think that if it isn't one place in the ocean it can't move around due to currents and such? This IHN thing is actually pretty sad to be honest, all pacific salmon and herring are carriers, they just don't show symptoms or die from IHN, Atlantic's do. If you guys are worried about IHN "spreading" from Atlantic's to pacific's you need to get your facts straight, because it is most likely the other way around.

Are you saying you would prefer we have all farmed fish over wild fish?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: troutbreath on May 27, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
It's like some people have never heard of swine or avian flu's. So they don't get the concept that virus's mutate especially in animal farming situations. One big blank look when it comes to seeing the inherant risks that have wiped out millions and millions of farmed fish. Amasing, and it's probably caused by eating things aren't good for you.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Every Day on May 27, 2012, 12:33:52 PM
Jon.

I'm saying that I would rather see most of the population eat farmed fish rather than fishing all stocks to extinction, and then only being left with farmed fish in the end any ways. People don't realize that without farmed salmon and other fish many stocks would have already been fished down to the point of extinction due to demand from a massive population.

All in all I'm very neutral about salmon farming. I don't 100% agree with it, but I can't disagree with it due to all the shoddy science around from the "anti's". I have still yet to see actual scientific backing (not models, predictions, or just plain bad science) to say farms are the demise of wild fish. If there was more legitimate proof that these farms are a bad thing I'll jump the wagon in a heart beat. However up to this point in my eyes, they are actually keeping wild salmon from extinction. You know how the government works... Eliminate fish farms = more demand for wild fish (more money for gov) = more fishing on wild stocks that CANNOT handle the pressure = stocks in worse shape than they are now = no fishing for us any ways. 
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Bassonator on May 27, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
Awesome post Everyday.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 12:14:21 PM
Jon.

I'm saying that I would rather see most of the population eat farmed fish rather than fishing all stocks to extinction, and then only being left with farmed fish in the end any ways. People don't realize that without farmed salmon and other fish many stocks would have already been fished down to the point of extinction due to demand from a massive population.

All in all I'm very neutral about salmon farming. I don't 100% agree with it, but I can't disagree with it due to all the shoddy science around from the "anti's". I have still yet to see actual scientific backing (not models, predictions, or just plain bad science) to say farms are the demise of wild fish. If there was more legitimate proof that these farms are a bad thing I'll jump the wagon in a heart beat. However up to this point in my eyes, they are actually keeping wild salmon from extinction. You know how the government works... Eliminate fish farms = more demand for wild fish (more money for gov) = more fishing on wild stocks that CANNOT handle the pressure = stocks in worse shape than they are now = no fishing for us any ways.  

I find a couple of things really alarming with your logic:

What you are saying essentially is that due to increased demand, we will go ahead and fish down wilds to complete extinction. I think all of those involved in regulating total allowable catch, population level risk assessment, stock identification, test fishing, modeling, and conducting panel meetings throughout the harvest season to set safe total allowable catch would find that insulting. You think there is no system in place to monitor population numbers and address concerns about over-exploitation?

You are assuming that net pens are the ONLY WAY to get the job done with respect to providing alternatives to wild fish on the market. This can not be further from the truth, there has been amazing results with closed containment facilities all over the world, IMTA (Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture) is likely the way of the future, farming fish like Tilapia that consume plant-based protein/omega-3 FA's instead of forage fish in horrible conversion efficiency, or simply eating lower on the foodchain and buying a bag of lentils or quinoa instead of chucking a big chunk of frankenfish on your barbeque are all exceptional and totally viable alternatives to farming in the open ocean. I am not telling you you can't eat meat, but I am telling you that we can have our fish and eat them too and it doesn't require the destruction of the oceans - all it requires are lower profit margins for the huge megacorporate complex reaping all the monetary benefit from the degradation of our ocean. They pay nothing to use our ocean as a filtration system, they pay nothing to create an aquatic environment suitable to grow their fish in. This is a classic tragedy of the commons and if you can't see that there are alternatives then you are plain ignorant.  
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 12:27:02 PM
While you're at it, don't forget to donate to the latest Ms. Morton campaign.  This time it's to pay for the analysis of the samples she had tested for one of the latest scares – think she needs another 15 k or so.   My cheques in the mail ;)
Here's your chance anti’s – send this lady your cash to save the salmon.


Are you implying that Alexandra is using donations for something other than those tests?

Why are you bringing up donations when I am referencing a link that sends people to a petition and letter about supermarkets selling fish infected with viruses?

Is it safe to assume you would have no issue eating this type of fish?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 12:48:44 PM

Lastly, everyone always comes back to that parasite loading on wild salmon thing. If you read the other thread (can't remember at this point, been so many of these) I provided articles showing that wild fish are not being eliminated due to sea lice. I still have yet to see a viable paper showing that sea lice densities (of parasitic stage) are present around farms.


Take this from me, I have sampled for Alexandra's long term data set in the Broughton and personally observed increased parasite loads on fish in proximity to farms. Most of these parasites had egg strings so they were "of parasitic stage". Which, by the way, includes every life stage after they become motile which is quite early in their development. They begin to degrade mucous, flesh, and consume blood almost immediately.

If my word is useless to you, then consider reading from the primary literature (not pro farming websites that don't have peer-reviewed literature).

I have provided an exhaustive list here:

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234321#msg234321
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234322#msg234322
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234323#msg234323
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 12:50:57 PM
1
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 28, 2012, 12:54:49 PM
It doesn't matter how irrefutable the science behind population management, it is still trumped by politics. Just ask the Atlantic cod fishermen. So long as fishing pressure exists, it will take the last fish.

If we can all eat lentils or quinoa or tilapia and therefore don't need farmed salmon, why do we need a commercial fishery for salmon?

Can you point to a single successful standalone closed containment system for rearing salmon or explain how the laws of both biology and physics can be overcome sufficiently to make the practice possible?

Can you explain why the elemental nutrients produced by the decomposition of farmed salmon feces are a destructive influence on the ocean while those produced by the 2 billion ranched Alaskan salmon aren't?

Since you believe they can operate on reduced profit, could you enlighten us as to what profit margins the "huge megacorporate complex" farming in BC are making?




Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 28, 2012, 01:01:59 PM
Are you implying that Alexandra is using donations for something other than those tests?

Why are you bringing up donations when I am referencing a link that sends people to a petition and letter about supermarkets selling fish infected with viruses?

Is it safe to assume you would have no issue eating this type of fish?

1. Read what I said, the money is for Morton's latest anti salmon farm attack.
2. If people are concerned about salmon infected with whatever virus she has found that particular day I gave them an opportunity to donate to this ridiculous cause.  I will not be donating - how about you?
3. And correct, I have no issue with eating fish carrying IHN .... been doing it for about 50 years, as has every other person who consumes Fraser River sockeye. 
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Apparently one drop of seawater has approximately 10 million viruses.  Can someone point me into the right direction to find some sea food that is virus free?

http://www.futurity.org/earth-environment/millions-of-marine-viruses-ebb-and-flow/


Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 01:35:13 PM
Quote
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234321#msg234321

This was a good thread.  I would not call your list "exhaustive".  It was 3 clicks likely.  highlight/copy/past. 
The thread is worth re-reading.  I like the part where the moderator steps in to delete some of Jon5's posts for their negative nature. 
I hope your donating jon5 ;)
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 03:51:37 PM
And the personal attacks begin..

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 04:04:10 PM
It doesn't matter how irrefutable the science behind population management, it is still trumped by politics. Just ask the Atlantic cod fishermen. So long as fishing pressure exists, it will take the last fish.

So we're just pretending to manage our fisheries? We employ hundreds of people with our tax dollars to pretend that they are actually doing something?

If we can all eat lentils or quinoa or tilapia and therefore don't need farmed salmon, why do we need a commercial fishery for salmon?

I suggested these are reasonable alternatives for humans to consume, I never said they should replace salmon on your dinner plate. Please don't put words into my mouth.


Can you point to a single successful standalone closed containment system for rearing salmon or explain how the laws of both biology and physics can be overcome sufficiently to make the practice possible?
Swift Aquaculture, Sweet Spring Salmon, Agrimarine has operations in BC and China

Since you believe they can operate on reduced profit, could you enlighten us as to what profit margins the "huge megacorporate complex" farming in BC are making?

I think you may have misinterpreted the point I was making. Our oceans cold recirculating salt water is being used at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few.





Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
This was a good thread.  I would not call your list "exhaustive".  It was 3 clicks likely.  highlight/copy/past. 
The thread is worth re-reading.  I like the part where the moderator steps in to delete some of Jon5's posts for their negative nature. 
I hope your donating jon5 ;)

I'm not going to argue about the usage of the word exhaustive with you. If the correct application of an adjective and personal shots at me are the crux of your argument.. /golfclap
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 04:10:02 PM
Quote
And the personal attacks begin..

I doubt the moderator is stepin' in on this one as they have with you previously.  You mentioned another thread, i replied about that thread.
Hardly personal.  A bit off topic ya.  I am sorry for that.

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 04:10:48 PM
1. Read what I said, the money is for Morton's latest anti salmon farm attack.
2. If people are concerned about salmon infected with whatever virus she has found that particular day I gave them an opportunity to donate to this ridiculous cause.  I will not be donating - how about you?
3. And correct, I have no issue with eating fish carrying IHN .... been doing it for about 50 years, as has every other person who consumes Fraser River sockeye. 

Dave,

Do you eat atlantic farmed fish?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 04:13:27 PM
Quote
Swift Aquaculture, Sweet Spring Salmon, Agrimarine has operations in BC and China

This reply fails to answers the question.
Quote
a single successful standalone closed containment system for rearing salmon or explain how the laws of both biology and physics can be overcome sufficiently to make the practice possible?

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Dave on May 28, 2012, 04:20:15 PM
Dave,

Do you eat atlantic farmed fish?

Yes
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 04:35:32 PM
This reply fails to answers the question.


There many recirculating and flow-through systems that are successful. A couple of well put together reviews of the various technologies are located on the farmed and dangerous website

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/08_05_Closed_System_Aquaculture_summary.pdf (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/08_05_Closed_System_Aquaculture_summary.pdf)

and

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ClosedSystemAqua-FINAL.pdf (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ClosedSystemAqua-FINAL.pdf)
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Every Day on May 28, 2012, 05:27:16 PM
Jon.

First of all if you don't think I know what a parasitic stage of copepod is, then you need to give your head a shake. How close in proximity were you sampling to these farms? How long did you observe the fish in NATURAL conditions (not hanging off the end of a dock in high densities and abnormal temps) to see if the sea lice had any effect? What methods did you use for sampling these fish? If you look at much of the research done, it clearly shows that all salmon after a certain size (which they attain in less than a wk of being in freshwater) can shake lice off or shed lice off without much of a negative effect.

If you don't think I have seen closed containment, then once again you need to give your head a shake. I worked in a brand new research recirculation facility funded by the government for 2 years while I went to VIU. I'm not saying closed containment fish farming can't be done. The problem is the cost associated with raising salmon. Freshwater fish are no problem, salt water fish are the problem. To transport salt water, chill it, etc is much too expensive. Even if they went to the measures to make all farms closed containment, the next thing you guys would be complaining about is the effluent.

Next, you say farms don't pay for anything at all? Many of these companies are the only reason there are eel grass beds being restored and/or being put into many estuaries. These companies constantly donate money for research to make less of an impact, and will try and help wild salmon as much as they possibly can by donating for research/restoration projects. If you don't believe me maybe look into it a little bit.

And your right, multi species integrated aquaculture is most definitely the way of the future. Many people are looking at raising fin fish in pens, surrounded by bivalves and seaweeds to filter out waste, and also having sea cucumbers at the bottom of the pens to filter out waste that drops to the ocean floor. Land based operations are using settling ponds with various plant species to help filter out waste (and to sell the plants) while they grow out fish.

And like I said... there are MANY places where they have scientists telling people not to fish on stocks, along with catch limits and such. In the end it all comes down to money and the government will ignore scientists and allow fishing any ways and people will poach, etc. If you're convinced that DFO will do a good job managing the stocks, then more power to you, but I would put trust in someone who says "too many fish will clog spawning grounds, we need to harvest a few million." Shows how educated they are eh.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 05:46:53 PM
Agramarine fails closed containment.

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29745.0 (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29745.0)
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 05:52:18 PM
Everyday,

  Good for you for being part of that project.  It shows in your post that you know what you are talking about!

What project was it you were on?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Every Day on May 28, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
Everyday,

  Good for you for being part of that project.  It shows in your post that you know what you are talking about!

What project was it you were on?

I worked in the ICSS for practicum both years.
It involved working with sturgeon in a recirculation facility, setting up the facility, etc.

Learnt a lot about taking care of baby sturgeon.

As said before, growing FW fish such as sturgeon in a land based recirculation facility is more than possible, just SW fish are the problem. You also need to take into consideration the fact that you may lose your whole stock of fish over night in closed containment. During my time there we lost 8000 sturgeon almost over night due to a bio filtration failure causing high levels of Ammonia. Something like that in an industry setting would probably come close to shutting a company down, luckily for VIU they were just research fish.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 06:08:38 PM
How close in proximity were you sampling to these farms? How long did you observe the fish in NATURAL conditions (not hanging off the end of a dock in high densities and abnormal temps) to see if the sea lice had any effect? What methods did you use for sampling these fish?

As close as 35-50 meters from the farm, probably at Glacier Falls in the Broughton fish farm was the closest sampling site. I'm not sure what you mean by observing the fish in NATURAL conditions. There are no docks where samples were taken, I can assure you we didn't hang off the end of any docks to do our sampling...  ::). We were sampling juvenile pink and chum salmon in high density schools around pens using 130' x 8' beach seines. The methods were to sample entire schools with our seines. We were always successful in getting a school in its entirety. From the school we pursed the net and sub-sampled with large dip nets, transferred them into 60L holding tanks and then randomly selected individual fish from each with smaller dip nets. The juveniles were then put into plastic bags with just enough water for them to breath, then held up to a hand lens for parasite enumeration. Other information was taken from each juvenile (Species, FL, predator scars, motile-scars, etc). The fish then went into a recovery tank and afterwards returned to the ocean. Other work that had consistent results with ours was being conducted around our sampling sites and involved preserving fish in ethanol and enumerating lice by microscopy back at the lab.  

If you look at much of the research done, it clearly shows that all salmon after a certain size (which they attain in less than a wk of being in freshwater) can shake lice off or shed lice off without much of a negative effect.

You won't see any argument from me about this. We are, however, talking about juvenile salmon when we bring up the topic of farm-wild parasite transfer.. and juveniles don't migrate back to the fresh water..

If you don't think I have seen closed containment, then once again you need to give your head a shake. I worked in a brand new research recirculation facility funded by the government for 2 years while I went to VIU. I'm not saying closed containment fish farming can't be done. The problem is the cost associated with raising salmon. Freshwater fish are no problem, salt water fish are the problem. To transport salt water, chill it, etc is much too expensive. Even if they went to the measures to make all farms closed containment, the next thing you guys would be complaining about is the effluent.

What I glean from this is that you have experience working at a closed-containment facility, but also that it's not feasible because it is too expensive. Is the price of transporting salt water, chilling it etc worth the cost of imperiling our wild fish?

Next, you say farms don't pay for anything at all? Many of these companies are the only reason there are eel grass beds being restored and/or being put into many estuaries. These companies constantly donate money for research to make less of an impact, and will try and help wild salmon as much as they possibly can by donating for research/restoration projects. If you don't believe me maybe look into it a little bit.

Here you claim that the ONLY reason eel grass beds are being restored are because of fish farms. Fish farming companies improving wild habitat is largely a strategy to improve their public image. This is similar to what Kinder Morgan does with local streamkeeper organizations. Also - they aren't the only ones restoring eel grass beds, there are NGO's and other volunteer groups raising awareness and volunteering to preserve these types of habitats. One of the farm sites (Sir Edmund Bay) was ideal eel grass habitat, but there was a giant dead-zone around the farm. This farm was decommissioned by the end of our sampling season.

And your right, multi species integrated aquaculture is most definitely the way of the future. Many people are looking at raising fin fish in pens, surrounded by bivalves and seaweeds to filter out waste, and also having sea cucumbers at the bottom of the pens to filter out waste that drops to the ocean floor. Land based operations are using settling ponds with various plant species to help filter out waste (and to sell the plants) while they grow out fish.

We're on the same page here, it's what we should be doing..

And like I said... there are MANY places where they have scientists telling people not to fish on stocks, along with catch limits and such. In the end it all comes down to money and the government will ignore scientists and allow fishing any ways and people will poach, etc. If you're convinced that DFO will do a good job managing the stocks, then more power to you, but I would put trust in someone who says "too many fish will clog spawning grounds, we need to harvest a few million." Shows how educated they are eh.

I work for a regulatory agency, and an enormous amount of work is done each year to establish test fishery data complete with stock identification profiles based on genetic and scale-based racial analysis as well as hydroacoustic abundance estimates and other metrics to manage the fishery. The information is gathered in-season and management decisions are made with the most current data available. If you do not believe in the mechanisms in place to protect the resource, then you are the problem to begin with. I can't imagine living with such a pessimistic view about humanity.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 06:12:18 PM
Thanks for your response.  You would think that sturgeon would survive pretty much anything a closed containment failure would throw at them.  It seems even more complicated than I thought and I know a fair amount about it.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: aquapaloosa on May 28, 2012, 06:16:10 PM
Quote
If you do not believe in the mechanisms in place to protect the resource, then you are the problem to begin with. I can't imagine living with such a pessimistic view about humanity.
Brutal :(

Quote
and then randomly selected individual fish from each with smaller dip nets.
Ya, I have heard about this "random selection".
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 28, 2012, 06:28:11 PM
So we're just pretending to manage our fisheries? We employ hundreds of people with our tax dollars to pretend that they are actually doing something?

No Jon, quite obviously those people are doing something and something constructive. The fact that a politician like John Crosbie countermands their work in order to keep the seasonal UI eligibility of east coast fisheries workers and consequently obtain their votes has nothing to do with the value of the work by those engaged in fisheries management. In every jurisdiction around the world stocks are fished to extinction as a matter of practice in spite of scientific evidence of the damage.

Quote
I suggested these are reasonable alternatives for humans to consume, I never said they should replace salmon on your dinner plate. Please don't put words into my mouth.


I put no words in your mouth. You suggested the following in your post:

....farming fish like Tilapia that consume plant-based protein/omega-3 FA's instead of forage fish in horrible conversion efficiency, or simply eating lower on the foodchain and buying a bag of lentils or quinoa instead of chucking a big chunk of frankenfish on your barbeque are all exceptional and totally viable alternatives to farming in the open ocean.

I am asking you why that does not also apply to wild fisheries. Ceasing commercial harvest would take immense pressure off the resource, far more than eliminating farms yet you haven't suggested alternatives for wild salmon, only the farmed version. There appears to be two sets of rules: one for salmon farms and one for everyone else. For instance, no-one mentions charging shellfish farms for use of the flushing or the feed it provides. No-one wants to charge boaters for the water holding up their boats of sports fishermen for the fish they haul out of the water. If farms should be charged for their use of the water, why not everyone else too?

Quote
Swift Aquaculture, Sweet Spring Salmon, Agrimarine has operations in BC and China

Swift is small scale producing few fish for a local niche market. Sweet Spring is larger, but still produces small fish that sell in the least valuable weight class and gets an annual boost in grant funds to the tune of about half a million dollars from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Their operation hasn't survived long enough or on it's own to prove the concept. Agrimarine is a joke. I've looked into it and estimate they have absorbed some $40 million dollars in grants and investor funds in order to have a system failure on their first crop in their first tank in Middle Bay. They, of course, describe the failure now as a "successful harvest".

Quote
I think you may have misinterpreted the point I was making. Our oceans cold recirculating salt water is being used at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few.

What expense? It is something not otherwise being used, it's use has negligible effect on the whole, it's use increases nutrient availability to the trophic web and if it is not used, the opportunity to use that energy is lost. It is more a case of capturing some value from it without harming it.

Those farmed and dangerous links do not specifically address salmon culture other than to suggest it is not yet feasible. An analysis of the energy cost to meet the requirement for oxygen delivery and metabolite clearance at economic rearing densities makes it plain that until energy is free, it simply isn't possible to rear salmon in closed containment and that is without even considering the capital cost of the required system and redundancy. There is a reason that in the 40 year history of farming salmon that there is no-one who has ever viably produced salmon in that manner and that reason is not the lack of effort.






[/quote]
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: Every Day on May 28, 2012, 06:30:59 PM
In one of Mrs. Morton's paper's she held juvenile pink salmon in little traps at the end of docks for observation. Obviously you were part of a different study. Even if higher lice levels were observed, I still have a hard time believing these are the reason for wild fish dying. Pacific salmon are very well adapted to having lice and can shed them after reaching a certain size (which is a matter of days after leaving FW).

You obviously read that part about juveniles very wrong. I never once said they go back to freshwater...

Yes I do have experience working at a closed containment facility. Yes I do stand by the fact that companies would go bankrupt trying to transport, chill and otherwise work with salt water for their fish. Add in the very real possibility of having all your fish die within minutes and companies just will not be willing to do that, and I don't blame them.

What is wrong with fish farms trying to improve their image by helping out wild fish? Why are you complaining that they are helping wild fish, is it because you want them to look bad? I find it very hard to believe a farm was on ideal eel grass habitat, and if it was it was placed wrong to begin with and you probably did them a favour in decommissioning it. Do you have a report/paper or anything else to back this up?

My pessimistic view on humanity is based on everything I'v watched humanity do. We destroy the world every chance we get. How is your view on humanity any less pessimistic than mine when you are attacking salmon farms with little ground to stand on. Isn't your opinion of if there is no proof that something is harming something, then we must just assume that it is, a little pessimistic?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
No Jon, quite obviously those people are doing something and something constructive. The fact that a politician like John Crosbie countermands their work in order to keep the seasonal UI eligibility of east coast fisheries workers and consequently obtain their votes has nothing to do with the value of the work by those engaged in fisheries management. In every jurisdiction around the world stocks are fished to extinction as a matter of practice in spite of scientific evidence of the damage.

Ludwig's ratchet is a well studied phenomena and I believe we learned something from the disaster with cod on the east coast. The major forces removing salmon from from our ocean are commercial and native fisheries. These are the most easily quantifiable so they are the primary targets for reductions. We should be confident in our estimates and it's uncertainty when setting our TAC and enforce it accordingly. With the Conservatives in power and all the budget cuts to fisheries and oceans it is more difficult, but these are things we should keep in mind when we go to the polls. I believe that people can and will stand up for wild salmon and protect their resource. I am one of those people. I advocate for responsible fisheries management as a matter of principle and I feel it is our responsibility as anglers to stand up for our resource when industry comes to plunder. If we all thought we had no chance against the unstoppable forces, then the feeling of futility would kill our willpower. You have to believe in your cause if you think you are going to have an impact.

I am asking you why that does not also apply to wild fisheries. Ceasing commercial harvest would take immense pressure off the resource, far more than eliminating farms yet you haven't suggested alternatives for wild salmon, only the farmed version. There appears to be two sets of rules: one for salmon farms and one for everyone else. For instance, no-one mentions charging shellfish farms for use of the flushing or the feed it provides. No-one wants to charge boaters for the water holding up their boats of sports fishermen for the fish they haul out of the water. If farms should be charged for their use of the water, why not everyone else too?

I would love to see reduced or eliminated commercial harvest, particularly to vulnerable stocks. All plunderers should be held accountable. However, changing the behavior of thousands of sport fishers and boaters and users of water is a fancy idea, but cost-benefit analysis would suggest that it's a much more tangible goal to impose limitations on open-pen aquaculture such that they mitigate or eliminate their negative interactions on wild fish. This is not to suggest the other factors should be outright dismissed but you should pick your battles wisely. Ideal world scenarios are difficult to imagine when there are so many plundering the resource, but if we stand by idle and throw our arms up in disgust because we think it's all futile then we are definitely going to lose our fish. You have to try.

Swift is small scale producing few fish for a local niche market. Sweet Spring is larger, but still produces small fish that sell in the least valuable weight class and gets an annual boost in grant funds to the tune of about half a million dollars from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Their operation hasn't survived long enough or on it's own to prove the concept. Agrimarine is a joke. I've looked into it and estimate they have absorbed some $40 million dollars in grants and investor funds in order to have a system failure on their first crop in their first tank in Middle Bay. They, of course, describe the failure now as a "successful harvest".

What is wrong with the idea of having many independents operating like Swift or Sweet Spring? With the correct legislature these types of operations would thrive. There is already market demand for sustainable seafood. If a consumer is presented with fish of comparable prices, they will always choose the more sustainable option. This type of market can not exist very well when large scale corporations are doing it in the ocean for free and with margins such that they can undercut any sustainable alternatives so drastically that consumers are forced to choose.

What expense? It is something not otherwise being used, it's use has negligible effect on the whole, it's use increases nutrient availability to the trophic web and if it is not used, the opportunity to use that energy is lost. It is more a case of capturing some value from it without harming it.
Pinniped death, whale death, disease transfer, parasites demolishing juveniles, escapement, benthic environment destruction, the effects of emamectin benzoate on other arthropods.. there are plenty of expenses.. To state that the ocean is not otherwise being used is totally absurd. The standard apologist rhetoric of nutrient loading comes out of you here, what you are essentially saying is that fish farms produce valuable organic matter to bolster marine food webs from the bottom up, therefor they are good? Do I have to really point out why this is horrendous logic? Nutrient loading is what creates hypoxia in our oceans, this type of activity leads to massive algal blooms and a cascade of other issues.
[/quote]

Those farmed and dangerous links do not specifically address salmon culture other than to suggest it is not yet feasible. An analysis of the energy cost to meet the requirement for oxygen delivery and metabolite clearance at economic rearing densities makes it plain that until energy is free, it simply isn't possible to rear salmon in closed containment and that is without even considering the capital cost of the required system and redundancy. There is a reason that in the 40 year history of farming salmon that there is no-one who has ever viably produced salmon in that manner and that reason is not the lack of effort.

People are already rearing them in closed containment therefor it IS possible. It may not be feasible to immediately replace everything in the ocean, but with the right technology and effort, anything is possible. It's simply not been addressed with as much fervor due to industries option of doing it for free, for mega bucks, in the ocean, at the expense of our ecosystem.







Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 28, 2012, 09:27:45 PM
In one of Mrs. Morton's paper's she held juvenile pink salmon in little traps at the end of docks for observation. Obviously you were part of a different study. Even if higher lice levels were observed, I still have a hard time believing these are the reason for wild fish dying. Pacific salmon are very well adapted to having lice and can shed them after reaching a certain size (which is a matter of days after leaving FW).

Do you really believe that this has no impact on fish in terms of their daily energy requirements, behavior, and survival? This is probably the most studied phenomena and there are many peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the negative impacts high densities of parasites have on wild juveniles.
(http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050330/050330_sealice_hmed.grid-6x2.jpg)

Yes I do have experience working at a closed containment facility. Yes I do stand by the fact that companies would go bankrupt trying to transport, chill and otherwise work with salt water for their fish. Add in the very real possibility of having all your fish die within minutes and companies just will not be willing to do that, and I don't blame them.

Swift and Sweet Spring are bankrupt? If there was no cost associated to protecting our wild fish then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Our government can enforce limitations on fish farming companies to avoid/mitigate impacts. Why not force industry to get creative? If you don't believe the farms are having impacts, you have your head in the sand - it's a no-brainer. There are dozens and dozens of scholarly articles written by independents, government, and industry showing that parasites and disease threaten wild fish. If you spend any time around an open pen farm sampling juvenile fish you would instantly recognize that wild fish are being impacted.


What is wrong with fish farms trying to improve their image by helping out wild fish? Why are you complaining that they are helping wild fish, is it because you want them to look bad? I find it very hard to believe a farm was on ideal eel grass habitat, and if it was it was placed wrong to begin with and you probably did them a favour in decommissioning it. Do you have a report/paper or anything else to back this up?

Nothing is wrong with that, but it's disingenuous to suggest that they are doing the world a favor without putting into perspective their motives and negative impacts on the ecosystem.

My pessimistic view on humanity is based on everything I'v watched humanity do. We destroy the world every chance we get. How is your view on humanity any less pessimistic than mine when you are attacking salmon farms with little ground to stand on. Isn't your opinion of if there is no proof that something is harming something, then we must just assume that it is, a little pessimistic?

My opinion is that we should take a precautionary approach with the use of natural resources, especially when dealing with sensitive ecosystems. Arguing the perceived optimism or pessimism about using the precautionary approach is not applicable, nor relevant to anything.

Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 28, 2012, 10:12:23 PM
Ludwig's ratchet is a well studied phenomena and I believe we learned something from the disaster with cod on the east coast. The major forces removing salmon from from our ocean are commercial and native fisheries. These are the most easily quantifiable so they are the primary targets for reductions. We should be confident in our estimates and it's uncertainty when setting our TAC and enforce it accordingly. With the Conservatives in power and all the budget cuts to fisheries and oceans it is more difficult, but these are things we should keep in mind when we go to the polls. I believe that people can and will stand up for wild salmon and protect their resource. I am one of those people. I advocate for responsible fisheries management as a matter of principle and I feel it is our responsibility as anglers to stand up for our resource when industry comes to plunder. If we all thought we had no chance against the unstoppable forces, then the feeling of futility would kill our willpower. You have to believe in your cause if you think you are going to have an impact.

No-one is suggesting that we should ignore the fish or the work of the DFO in attempting to manage the stocks but in a climate where the scientists working for the DFO are vilified simply because they don't support the views of the self proclaimed protector of the wild salmon and her campaign to eliminate farms, it's hard for people to realize that the blame rests entirely with themselves and their own refusal to support a government that will appropriately fund the agency and that will keep it's hands off the policies science suggests are required. It is ridiculous to pay for the expertise and then ignore the recommendations.

Quote
I would love to see reduced or eliminated commercial harvest, particularly to vulnerable stocks. All plunderers should be held accountable. However, changing the behavior of thousands of sport fishers and boaters and users of water is a fancy idea, but cost-benefit analysis would suggest it's a much more tangible goal to impose limitations on open-pen aquaculture such that they mitigate or eliminate their negative interactions on wild fish. Ideal world scenarios are difficult to imagine when there are so many plundering the resource, but if we stand by idle and throw our arms up in disgust because we think it's all futile then we are definitely going to lose our fish. You have to try.

Open pen aquaculture is already fully engaged in mitigating or eliminating their negative interactions and has proven their willingness to do as much as they can. They understand that it is entirely in their own interests to do so. Like the scientists and fishery managers at the DFO, they are also vilified unreasonably by the same small cabal. Their unwillingness to deal with that group has nothing to do with unwillingness to co-operate for the common good and everything to do with the futility of trying to work with someone who has a predetermined outcome in mind and is unwilling to listen to anything other than support for her own version of reality. Remember, it was Ms. Morton that torpedoed the fallowing agreement by forcing transfer of responsibility to DFO because she didn't like the terms. It wasn't the farms balking.

The costs of going after farms is much less than going after the real culprits but the benefits are negligible. If you took every farm out of the ocean you would still find yourself in fifty years wondering what happened to the salmon. That approach is comparable to amputating your left foot because you have a serious case of gangrene in your right leg; it will not prevent the inevitable extirpation of the stocks. Nobody is suggesting throwing your hands up in disgust; what I am suggesting is that you don't waste the few bullets you have left shooting at rabbits when you've got an angry grizzly circling the cabin.

Quote
What is wrong with the idea of having many independents operating like Swift or Sweet Spring? With the correct legislature these types of operations would thrive. There is already market demand for sustainable seafood. If a consumer is presented with fish of comparable prices, they will always choose the more sustainable option. This type of market can not exist very well when large scale corporations are doing it in the ocean for free and with margins such that they can undercut any sustainable alternatives so drastically that consumers are forced to choose.

You sound more than a little idealistic and not very realistic. Salmon go into a commodity market that circulates the product around the world. That market isn't interested in small fish and consequently pays very little for them. Small operations like you describe can't produce big fish and local markets can't absorb the production from more than a few economic scale local farms. You are suggesting that we eliminate an industry sector that has an economic impact on the province of some $800 million dollars a year and replace it with a sector that would be lucky to provide $50 million in impact and to do this based on fears that something could happen in spite of the fact that the industry has some thirty years successful and safe operating history and in spite of the fact that most of the percieved negative impacts are overblown hyperbole trumped up in service of Ms. Morton's objectives.

Quote
Pinniped death, whale death, disease transfer, parasites demolishing juveniles, escapement, benthic environment destruction, the effects of emamectin benzoate on other arthropods.. there are plenty of expenses.. To state that the ocean is not otherwise being used is totally absurd. The standard apologist rhetoric of nutrient loading comes out of you here, what you are essentially saying is that fish farms produce valuable organic matter to bolster marine food webs from the bottom up, therefor they are good? Do I have to really point out why this is horrendous logic? Nutrient loading is what creates hypoxia in our oceans, this type of activity leads to massive algal blooms and a cascade of other issues.

You seem to have lost the concept that the ocean is a dynamic open ecosystem with a substantial buffering capacity. Even though you are guilty of a little rhetorical hyperbole yourself, virtually all of those "expenses" occur with or without salmon farms and the system adapts and moderates the effects. The only danger lies in exceeding the capacity of the system to recover and salmon farms don't cause effects anywhere near that magnitude. Nutrient loading may indeed cause hypoxia in sufficient overabundance but in a recent thread here we worked through the calculation that the entire N production of the industry over one year if not taken up by any other organism would increase the N concentration of a patch of ocean 10 km square by 100m deep a whopping 0.2 ppm. Considering the much broader distribution of that increased N content, the increase would hardly be measurable. Hypoxia is not a risk and it doesn't appear that it is my logic that is horrendous.

Quote
People are already rearing them in closed containment therefor it IS possible. It may not be feasible to immediately replace everything in the ocean, but with the right technology and effort, anything is possible. It's simply not been addressed with as much fervor due to industries option of doing it for free, for mega bucks, in the ocean, at the expense of our ecosystem.

It appears Pauly's ratchet is at play here. You may not be aware of it, but there has been substantial work done over the years to make the proposition work. It actually has great attraction to the industry and for many years there was a belief that technology could overcome the challenge just as you are now suggesting. What has been accomplished is a much more precise definition of the problem but it hasn't moved the solution any closer. I will repeat myself one more time. The reason that farms are not in closed containment is not the lack of effort.








[/quote]
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: troutbreath on May 30, 2012, 07:52:29 PM
I can't imagine the reply one would get from the "pro" fish farmers will have when the my smelly socks hits the fan. ::)
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 31, 2012, 12:15:41 AM
Who decides that this is what it means for "fish management"? You? I certainly hope not. The decision should be in the hands of the people of British Columbia what should be done in the absence of certainty of risk. Enough evidence has been provided demonstrating their negative impacts that it's a no-brainer to get them out of the ocean until a safer alternative can be developed and implemented. Closed pens or land facilities, it's time to innovate ways to minimize the impacts. In China they are growing sockeye in freshwater closed containment facilities. The degree to which we choose to mitigate the risk shouldn't be decided by fish farmers, it should be decided by the people. If we let people like you make all the decisions, we would sacrifice our moral obligations for profit and a steady income each and every time.

It's true. The city of Vancouver has an impact on the marine environment. In terms of accomplishing something with respect to protecting our environment and wild fish, what is a more realistic goal? Eliminating the nutrient loading and pollution of the city of Vancouver? Or banning fish farms? One requires the collective action of 2 million people and would have an impact, the other would require the collective action of the muscles in the hands of the minister of environment/fisheries and oceans to ink some legislature banning the existence of open net pens in British Columbia. Which goal is more tangible?
You are hoping for a Utopian world which doesn’t exist, Jon.  Have you ever done any environmental monitoring, assessments or fish or fish habitat inventory?  If you did you will quickly find out that there is more to what you have just spoke about.  I certainly believe that there are well intentioned people out there that want the best for the environment, but many of these people from my experience are not thinking about the whole issue – only what they hear from one source and not the inter-relationships with different factors.  Decisions you talk about should rest in the hands to those that know what they are talking about and have the experience to leave the rhetoric and emotional arguments out of the picture.  Many fish farm opponents cannot seem to leave this out and this is why they are marginalized.  Secondly, you have basically contradicted your argument about the Precautionary Principle because now you are stating that there is “enough evidence” on the negative impacts.  Which is it?  The fact is that is also enough evidence that the industry in BC is conducting itself in a responsible manner and has less of an impact that what you have portrayed.

I counter by saying that if we left all these decisions to people such as yourself you might win the short term popularity contests with bloggers and cyberscientists that sit by their computers doing endless Google searches trying to second guess actual fisheries biologists and technicians, but in reality the decisions that you make will be likely be in haste with even worse consequences with no regard for the actual fish themselves.

The realistic goal is to finally admit that environmental impact is all around us and that the concept of BC fish farms having zero impact is totally unrealistic.  Many critics want this from fish farms but do not demand it elsewhere.  In my opinion, farm critics are going after the least offending party in order to feel like they are saving wild salmon.  Actually making changes on what the City of Vancouver does to the marine environment would require some legislation also (and enforcement) and some collective muscle from municipal, provincial and federal politicians.  The problem is that the public does not like to part with the modern conveniences or make those harder decisions that would impact their everyday life and would rather direct their attention to whoever makes the most noise in the press or internet – regardless if it is factual or not.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 31, 2012, 12:21:55 AM
If my word is useless to you, then consider reading from the primary literature (not pro farming websites that don't have peer-reviewed literature).

Maybe it's because you are not looking hard enough?  You can also try the Cohen Commission website.

http://salmonfarmscience.com/library/
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: shuswapsteve on May 31, 2012, 06:07:18 AM
The Precautionary Principle does state when in doubt - do not do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

The rest of the post is another case of the pro-farmers saying "everyone else is ruining the environment - why can't we?"

Jon, once they attack you personally, the circle will be complete and you will know that you made an impact.
No, the principle does not state “when in doubt – do not do it.”  Where does it say that in your quote?  Instead it refers to the absence of certainty of risk.  It means no information to properly assess risk of a certain decision.  It does not mean if you have doubts about your decision do not proceed.  Two separate things really when you think about it.  The principle was not developed as a crutch for certain environmentalists and some members of the general public to fall back on when they did not agree with another point of view.

There is always some level of doubt in whatever decision is made with regards to fisheries or wildlife management.  No one, even the best minds in the scientific community, can forecast what the precise results of a certain action.  If we could then most of these debates would be very short.  All one can really do is do some level of risk assessment and inventory of the best information available at the time.  Once risk is assessed then one can better determine whether migration of that impact is possible.  Whether you agree or disagree with certain mitigation actions they do exist and are common to many things you do and see each day.  For instance, take fishing regulations as an example.  Using your interpretation of the principle you would likely have your fishing opportunities curtailed quite a bit to almost non-existent.  Instead, risk is assessed and measures are put in place as if those risks are real.  Measures can include size limits, closures at certain times of the year, gear restrictions, access restrictions, quota limits, etc.  With all those measures there is always some doubt whether they will work or not.

No, “pro-farmers” or whoever else you are referring to are not saying well if “everyone else is ruining the environment so can we”.  What I am saying is that there are activities going on right now that have much more impact than salmon farming in BC which incorporate some level of mitigation to their impacts to environment and no one (especially farm critics) really says anything about it.  No mention about Alaskan salmon ranching.  No, all is good on that front.  Farm critics love to show the decline of Fraser River Sockeye on that graph with salmon farming in BC, but when you superimpose the increase in salmon ranching production in Alaska they tune right out.  There are greater boogiemen out there.  Thanks to a certain Conservative Party back east these Boogiemen will be more visible really soon.  This is what people should be up in arms about – not salmon farming.
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: jon5hill on May 31, 2012, 11:23:27 AM
Just curious if anyone knows of any cases where farms have been moved out of the way of migration corridors for juvenile salmon?
Title: Re: Fun with Mrs. Alaxandra Morton
Post by: absolon on May 31, 2012, 04:03:18 PM
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/solutions/emergency-protection/coordinated-area-management/ (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/solutions/emergency-protection/coordinated-area-management/)

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/changes-to-broughton-area-monitoring-program-bamp/ (http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/changes-to-broughton-area-monitoring-program-bamp/)