Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: aquapaloosa on June 26, 2012, 05:40:24 PM

Title: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: aquapaloosa on June 26, 2012, 05:40:24 PM
Morton’s latest error: dishonesty or ignorance?

http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/06/26/mortons-latest-error-dishonesty-or-ignorance/ (http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/06/26/mortons-latest-error-dishonesty-or-ignorance/)
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Easywater on June 26, 2012, 08:21:02 PM
So, she used a picture from the Internet to make her point - you can't refute the facts outlined that the disease is affecting salmon.

From the Q1 profit statement for the company in question "Marine Harvest":

"For Marine Harvest Canada, the 2011 profit was affected by exceptional customer
claims and discards at harvesting totalling NOK 67.7 million due to the parasite Kudoa thyrsites.

They are admitting right in their company information that they are having a major problem with this disease.
About C$11 million in farmed Atlantic salmon had to be discarded because of it.

As well, we are not sure that she had the wrong pic.
At the bottom of the Wiki post, it says "Probably Henneguya zschokkei" - it may or may not be kudoa.

More bad news:
"in their first quarter report, 2012, Marine Harvest suggests there will be no dividend paid to shareholders this year"
“The world's largest fish farmer, Marine Harvest, said first-quarter operating profit fell sharply even as harvested volumes were ahead of plan as salmon prices fell.”

Mainstream/Cermaq not doing too well either:
While Cermaq reported an EBIT of NOK 101 million, their BC operations reported a negative EBIT pre fair value of NOK 1.6 million, despite “certain cost reduction programmes.”

The beginning of the end:
We are risking all for an industry that is not only failing, it is failing most dramatically right here in BC.
The Chilean divisions of Marine Harvest and Cermaq are escalating and that is what is driving global farm salmon prices down.
The huge 2007-2010 ISA epidemic in Chile significantly raised the price of farm salmon enormously worldwide.
Everyone stocked their farms as fast as they could hoping for a few years of high prices, but the Chilean banks pushed Chilean operators to restock rapidly and so everyone was caught with too many fish in their pens.
British Columbia is the region of greatest loss to the Norwegians using coastlines around the world to grow "their" fish.


Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on June 26, 2012, 08:58:56 PM
It is not kudoa.  Salmonfarmscience is correct and Morton is wrong.  The white structures are Henneguya salminicola and it is a common parasite found in wild salmon off our coast.  When I saw the photo in Morton's blog I knew I had seen those white structures recently, but couldn't remember right away what it was until I looked back at my past correspondence.  Someone brought me a sample of wild sockeye awhile ago and saw this with my own eyes.  I wasn't completely certain what it was so I asked some fish health professionals (not Dr. Marty) who deal with this regularly.  I sent them the sample and they confirmed it as Henneguya salminicola.

On this photo and interpretation, Morton is busted - plain and simple.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on June 26, 2012, 10:00:50 PM
What I can't understand is why the feedlots aren't more forthcoming with the diseases they are growing?  Don't they realize that the public will always assume the worst and when the public assumes the worst, it's bad for the feedlot's business?

Morton's science is all the public is being given access to. We can only guess at what dirty little secrets the feedlots are keeping.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on June 26, 2012, 10:58:00 PM
The only one not being forthcoming in this case is Ms Morton.  Here's why....A photo with a description gets posted on her blog and is called Kudoa when it clearly is not.  Check where the photo came from.  If Morton is going to go on the offense here and blame fish farms over this then she needs to get her facts straight.  You should be demanding better from her.  Don't you think you deserve at least this much?

Morton's science is all the public is being given access to?  Incorrect.

In this particular case, the science is there but Morton either chose to ignore it on purpose or was totally oblivious to the fact.  It's not the fish farms fault.  The funny thing is that people like you and me have access to this sort of information.  You have had access to it for at least the last 2 years now.....

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-Report.pdf

In addition, you have access to a thing called the "internet" where this information is readily available:

http://jcm.asm.org/content/35/11/2815.full.pdf
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/disease/pdfs/fishdiseases/henneguya.pdf

Although I admire your efforts to try and salvage something out of this the fact remains that Morton was wrong about this.  I am astonished that she would try to pull this stunt.  She needs to print a retraction to try and save some credibility.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Easywater on June 27, 2012, 10:45:29 AM
The picture in question has been removed and replaced with a different picture.

That's the only retraction/correction required in this case.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on June 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
The picture in question has been removed and replaced with a different picture.

That's the only retraction/correction required in this case.
I disagree.  This is not the first time Ms. Morton has posted misidentified pictures.  Early on when she started her "sampling program" she posted a photo of a Harrison River sockeye but called it a coho. To me, that lack of professionalism is disgraceful.

How can a biologist do that? And how can her followers continue to believe her?  Hell, they even give her money to continue this folly.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: chris gadsden on June 28, 2012, 04:36:46 PM
I disagree.  This is not the first time Ms. Morton has posted misidentified pictures.  Early on when she started her "sampling program" she posted a photo of a Harrison River sockeye but called it a coho. To me, that lack of professionalism is disgraceful.

How can a biologist do that? And how can her followers continue to believe her?  Hell, they even give her money to continue this folly.
And we will continue to support her, must send some more funds especially with the pluck business being so good. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: troutbreath on June 28, 2012, 11:00:41 PM
I disagree.  This is not the first time Ms. Morton has posted misidentified pictures.  Early on when she started her "sampling program" she posted a photo of a Harrison River sockeye but called it a coho. To me, that lack of professionalism is disgraceful.

How can a biologist do that? And how can her followers continue to believe her?  Hell, they even give her money to continue this folly.


Dave, a person has maybe one too many glasses of dandilion wine and lets slip with the wrong name on the net. Stuff like that happens all the time. Do you remember everyones name?
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Terry Bodman on July 03, 2012, 04:03:25 PM
Oviously, Troutbreath, you are not a Morton fan. I am. The only people who don,t make mistakes are those who do nothing. She continues to have my support.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 03, 2012, 04:28:19 PM
Why do you support her Terry?  I'm not trying to pick a fight as I respect you and your opinions way too much, but perhaps you can add another dimension to this topic?
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: dnibbles on July 03, 2012, 05:01:04 PM
Morton's comments to a co-worker of mine who is very knowledgeable on all things fish health related: "Of course I think there are many unanswered questions relating to this research, but I could never say that in front of them" them being her followers. Paraphrased, and second hand, but it backs up my personal firsthand experiences with her as a master of media manipulation.

Sadly, she continues to focus attention away from what I feel are more pressing, acute pressures on salmon populations: harvest rates, habitat degradation, and the decreased productivity that is causing these issues to have such a dramatic effect in causing observed declines. And her followers tend to lump those who disagree as "industry apologists", when in fact I think we all want to see the same thing in the end; lots of fish.

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 03, 2012, 05:57:52 PM
Welcome to this debate dnibbles.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 03, 2012, 06:24:04 PM
Welcome to this debate dnibbles.

You guys need all the support you can get......   ;D

Do you get a chance to see the CTV news article that was just broadcast a few minutes ago on how the feedlots are selling their virus infected product to unsuspecting consumers?
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: dnibbles on July 03, 2012, 06:33:42 PM
Nope, was busy watching Global talk with Peterman about the declining productivity of sockeye salmon coastwide (i.e. not limited to the "hot zone" of the BC coast).

If I did see that piece on CTV, I would probably be frustrated right now as they tend to interchange the terms "Virus" and "disease", even though those two things are very different. Viruses are everywhere, but it's the expression of those viruses (i.e. disease) that concerns us primarily with respect to declining salmon populations.

Alex should get out and buy some nice T-bones, and see if she can find any viruses on them.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: chris gadsden on July 03, 2012, 06:35:10 PM
You guys need all the support you can get......   ;D

Do you get a chance to see the CTV news article that was just broadcast a few minutes ago on how the feedlots are selling their virus infected product to unsuspecting consumers?
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/parasite-ridden-salmon-sold-in-b-c-stores-1.864202
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: chris gadsden on July 03, 2012, 06:36:34 PM
Nope, was busy watching Global talk with Peterman about the declining productivity of sockeye salmon coastwide (i.e. not limited to the "hot zone" of the BC coast).

If I did see that piece on CTV, I would probably be frustrated right now as they tend to interchange the terms "Virus" and "disease", even though those two things are very different. Viruses are everywhere, but it's the expression of those viruses (i.e. disease) that concerns us primarily with respect to declining salmon populations.

Alex should get out and buy some nice T-bones, and see if she can find any viruses on them.
You will be happy I found it for you. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 03, 2012, 06:38:16 PM

Alex should get out and buy some nice T-bones, and see if she can find any viruses on them.

It seems that with all the diseases and viruses she is finding in the salmon feedlots, she has no time to go testing T-bones.

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: aquapaloosa on July 03, 2012, 07:11:05 PM
Quote
It seems that with all the diseases and viruses she is finding in the salmon feedlots, she has no time to go testing T-bones.

Your post suggest that mrs. morton is the individual that discovers viruses in farmed and wild salmon.  This is not the case.  She is re introducing  them in her fear mongering style which is often miss leading and not a clear representation of the facts that surround each individual case.

Parasites are in lots of food that we eat.  You eat pork?  Wild salmon has lots of para sites.  Halibut is off the charts for parasites. 

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on July 03, 2012, 07:41:50 PM
People should be more concerned with what Peterman had to say than this presence of Kudoa in farmed salmon fillets.

Many of these parasites already reside in wild Pacific salmon, so Volpe shouldn't be talking about ticking time bombs.  Henneguya salmincola (the parasite that Morton couldn't identify from Wikipedia), is common in wild Sockeye and doesn't look very appetizing, but it isn't going to harm you either.  Instead he should be taking more notice about about decline productively of Sockeye Salmon - coastwide.

dnibbles is right....people interchange viruses and disease even when both are different.   An animal can have virus and not necessarily have a disease from it.  Morton's discovery of reovirus are a perfect example of this.  Just because she found these reoviruses she started calling it a deadly heart virus which causes HSMI.  Well, for one thing she never found HSMI in those fish and the presence of reoviruses doesn't necessarily implies that something is wrong.  The "O" stands for orphan....meaning they are not necessarily associated with disease.  These reoviruses are already found healthy broiler chickens with no sign of disease.

It is an "almost" slick demarketing campaign to scare the consumer.  The reason why I say "almost" is because it is pretty plain to pick out the errors in Morton's conclusions.  She is gambling on the fact that the general public won't question her judgement.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: chris gadsden on July 03, 2012, 08:09:26 PM
People should be more concerned with what Peterman had to say than this presence of Kudoa in farmed salmon fillets.

Many of these parasites already reside in wild Pacific salmon, so Volpe shouldn't be talking about ticking time bombs.  Henneguya salmincola (the parasite that Morton couldn't identify from Wikipedia), is common in wild Sockeye and doesn't look very appetizing, but it isn't going to harm you either.  Instead he should be taking more notice about about decline productively of Sockeye Salmon - coastwide.

dnibbles is right....people interchange viruses and disease even when both are different.   An animal can have virus and not necessarily have a disease from it.  Morton's discovery of reovirus are a perfect example of this.  Just because she found these reoviruses she started calling it a deadly heart virus which causes HSMI.  Well, for one thing she never found HSMI in those fish and the presence of reoviruses doesn't necessarily implies that something is wrong.  The "O" stands for orphan....meaning they are not necessarily associated with disease.  These reoviruses are already found healthy broiler chickens with no sign of disease.

It is an "almost" slick demarketing campaign to scare the consumer.  The reason why I say "almost" is because it is pretty plain to pick out the errors in Morton's conclusions.  She is gambling on the fact that the general public won't question her judgement.
To bad we can not question the FF and the Liberals tried to gag us as well. Lack of transparency will defeat both of them, in time. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: troutbreath on July 03, 2012, 08:14:23 PM
So true Chris. Questioning someones opinion starts from what you want to hear. Hopefully at the end of the day we hear is what is really happening.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on July 03, 2012, 08:26:34 PM
To bad we can not question the FF and the Liberals tried to gag us as well. Lack of transparency will defeat both of them, in time. ;D ;D ;D
The BC industry is now under the regulatory control of the Federal government following the court ruling which Morton rallied behind.  If you are referring to the now abandoned Bill-37 it would have had no impact on the way fish farms report.  As for being forthcoming, you might want to ask Ms Morton why she has yet reveiled her recent lab results....or is transparency just a one-way street?

http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/hot-topics/bill_37.pdf
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 03, 2012, 09:39:57 PM
As for being forthcoming, you might want to ask Ms Morton why she has yet reveiled her recent lab results....or is transparency just a one-way street?

http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/hot-topics/bill_37.pdf
I again asked Ms. Morton that question on SFBC, today ... why not share this new data?  She has not responded but I was basically told to butt out by another forum member.
Thanks Rodney for this forum where people can express opinions freely if done respectfully and with common sense.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on July 03, 2012, 11:11:18 PM
I again asked Ms. Morton that question on SFBC, today ... why not share this new data?  She has not responded but I was basically told to butt out by another forum member.
Thanks Rodney for this forum where people can express opinions freely if done respectfully and with common sense.

I read the comment on SFBC.  Too bad that a legitmate question is answered with insults and more presumptions that you are an industry hack.  He sounded a tad paranoid in his reply.  It's funny that government is held to the fire to have data like this readily available to the public, but somehow Ms Morton can criticize her opponents with the conclusions of the data while holding back the reporting of this data at the same time.  If she wants transparancy then she is going to have show a little herself.  Her last report from those Superstore farmed fish was only forthcoming when pressed on her blog by her critics.  This only makes her look evasive now.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: JPW on July 05, 2012, 12:08:50 PM
I've hesitated on commenting on many of these threads because I don't feel I have all the information about what makes the most sense for our own health and that of the environment.  My feeling is that fish farming may be a necessity to satiate the global demand for seafood; we can't continue to rape the oceans with commercial fleets.  That being said, until it can be definitively proven that there is no harm to resident populations I believe they should be limited to closed containment.  Why take the risk?  I already know the answer, it's money and to me that is unacceptable.  There are many farming practices that also follow the same ethic circumventing focus on profitability and I disagree with those as well and believe they should change.  Unfortunately, that misuse of livestock and land is ingrained in our culture and will take longer to correct, but salmon farming is still new enough (relatively speaking) that we shouldn't make the same mistakes.  Despite assurances from the fish farm spokespeople about the safety of their industry the reality is that we know so little about the marine ecosystem that I ask again, why take the risk?  That brings me to this discussion about Morton's "error".

For better or worse, I believe in corporate accountability.  I also recognize that I am not the authority on all of the products I interact with on a daily basis.  That being said, from time to time despite my uneducated position I feel that if I'm concerned about a product I have the right to ask questions.  In my opinion a good company will provide a satisfactory answer, when it comes to food safety this is a must.  Many people on this forum seem to feel that Morton's science is questionable and they are entitled to their opinions, but in the case of Kudoa appearing in farmed fillets she was right.  She  had concern, she asked a relevant question, and I can relate to that.

To me it's disappointing that the pro fish farm users here and the spokespeople for the industry focus on attacking semantics (virus vs. disease, actual photo vs. example) rather than looking at the big picture.  I'm not going to drink the Morton Kool-Aid without asking questions, but the same goes for the fish farms.  In terms of credibility, Morton could skip the science altogether (I know many think she already does) and just post that she found "gross looking, mushy, fillets" that she doesn't think she be eaten and if she's right, she's right (that's exactly what happened with the linked CTV news story).  In fact even if she misidentified the cause completely, having the fish farm spokespeople count that as a win for their camp does NOTHING for their credibility in my opinion.  Take it for what you will, but I hold the corporation trying to sell me something to a higher standard than the biologist with the gifted degree.  I feel the onus is on them to provide me evidence contrary to the big picture issue Morton or any other consumer has identified.

More concisely I feel like these threads that try to discredit by focussing on the small details are basically like Morton blogging that she has found a horse that has been beaten to death and the fish farmers chalking up a win because they've found that the photo of said horse wasn't the actual horse and further investigation on their part has revealed that in fact it was bludgeoned to death!  The horse is still dead and that's really all that matters to me.

Can you imagine if Morton was just a concerned consumer, asking questions without even a hypothesis?  What would the pro fish farmers have to pick apart?

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 05, 2012, 01:08:24 PM
Good post and welcome to the debate.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 05, 2012, 01:26:17 PM
Good post and welcome to the debate.

I realize it's rare, but I agree with Dave 100%!   ;D
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 05, 2012, 07:20:39 PM
I've hesitated on commenting on many of these threads because I don't feel I have all the information about what makes the most sense for our own health and that of the environment.  My feeling is that fish farming may be a necessity to satiate the global demand for seafood; we can't continue to rape the oceans with commercial fleets.  That being said, until it can be definitively proven that there is no harm to resident populations I believe they should be limited to closed containment.  Why take the risk?  I already know the answer, it's money and to me that is unacceptable.  There are many farming practices that also follow the same ethic circumventing focus on profitability and I disagree with those as well and believe they should change.  Unfortunately, that misuse of livestock and land is ingrained in our culture and will take longer to correct, but salmon farming is still new enough (relatively speaking) that we shouldn't make the same mistakes.  Despite assurances from the fish farm spokespeople about the safety of their industry the reality is that we know so little about the marine ecosystem that I ask again, why take the risk?  That brings me to this discussion about Morton's "error".

For better or worse, I believe in corporate accountability.  I also recognize that I am not the authority on all of the products I interact with on a daily basis.  That being said, from time to time despite my uneducated position I feel that if I'm concerned about a product I have the right to ask questions.  In my opinion a good company will provide a satisfactory answer, when it comes to food safety this is a must.  Many people on this forum seem to feel that Morton's science is questionable and they are entitled to their opinions, but in the case of Kudoa appearing in farmed fillets she was right.  She  had concern, she asked a relevant question, and I can relate to that.

To me it's disappointing that the pro fish farm users here and the spokespeople for the industry focus on attacking semantics (virus vs. disease, actual photo vs. example) rather than looking at the big picture.  I'm not going to drink the Morton Kool-Aid without asking questions, but the same goes for the fish farms.  In terms of credibility, Morton could skip the science altogether (I know many think she already does) and just post that she found "gross looking, mushy, fillets" that she doesn't think she be eaten and if she's right, she's right (that's exactly what happened with the linked CTV news story).  In fact even if she misidentified the cause completely, having the fish farm spokespeople count that as a win for their camp does NOTHING for their credibility in my opinion.  Take it for what you will, but I hold the corporation trying to sell me something to a higher standard than the biologist with the gifted degree.  I feel the onus is on them to provide me evidence contrary to the big picture issue Morton or any other consumer has identified.

More concisely I feel like these threads that try to discredit by focussing on the small details are basically like Morton blogging that she has found a horse that has been beaten to death and the fish farmers chalking up a win because they've found that the photo of said horse wasn't the actual horse and further investigation on their part has revealed that in fact it was bludgeoned to death!  The horse is still dead and that's really all that matters to me.

Can you imagine if Morton was just a concerned consumer, asking questions without even a hypothesis?  What would the pro fish farmers have to pick apart?


Nice to see a rational presentation for a change. However, I take issue with a couple of your points. Nobody with the exception of one participant here speaks of this in terms of competition, teams and winning or losing. This isn't a contest. The representations here, at least from the people who don't agree with Morton and who actually know something about farms and salmon biology, are about correcting misinformation she provides and providing access to a better basis for making up your own mind. They aren't attempts to score "points".  You have every right to make your own decisions about farms but you can't make good decisions based on bad information.

What you call small details like the "difference between a virus and a disease" are not small details at all. In practical terms, they are critically important and differentiating them brings a required precision to the discussion. Morton's error has relevance because it is a blatant demonstration of her approach to making claims. Her concern isn't accuracy. It's impact, and the truth falls by the wayside in the pursuit of that impact. I can understand how the general public can be taken in, but how can she expect to be taken seriously by the scientists and regulators looking at the impacts of farms and for whom precision and accuracy are critical parts of their stock in trade when she displays such a disregard for those qualities. Precision and accuracy are critical in order to arrive at good understanding and good decisions.

I agree that food safety is critical but Kudoa is not a food safety issue in spite of all the attempts to frame it as such. None of the concerns Morton has recently raised in an attempt to put this subject on the table is a food safety issue in even the slightest degree. It is simply Morton's latest tactic in her battle to eliminate farms and needs to be exposed for that; the final decision about farms is still yours to make even after someone has pointed that relevant detail out.

You suggest that companies should answer the questions you have. How do you know they won't? Have you tried? It isn't reasonable to paint them as uncooperative or irresponsible simply because they aren't interested in responding to Morton. They know, as does Morton, that just because somebody makes a claim doesn't mean that it has a shred of reasonability or that it deserves an answer and they also know, as does Morton, that every time they respond, it keeps her claims and her name in the news and in front of the uninformed public who hasn't got sufficient tools to analyze the claim for truth. If you have a question for the farm companies, just simply send them a polite email and they will respond. If you have a question about disease, send the provincial vet's office or the fish health branch a polite email. There is no need to let Morton filter the information you need to work with.

Unfortunately, when the horse dies, or in this case, the wild salmon, you do need to know what killed them and to do that, you do need to know the details. This isn't a simplistic subject that lends itself to broad generalities though the people who have no patience for details or understanding of their importance will happily tell you otherwise. The details are where the truth lies and in order to get to it, you need to deal with the details. It may be repetetive but that is because the same old arguments against the farms are trotted out time after time after time with no regard for the fact that they have been clearly rebutted by presentations of fact. The fact that we need to go through this over and over speaks to the inability of the reactionaries to come up with plausible criticisms and their dogged determination to ignore anything that doesn't support their feelings about the subject.

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 05, 2012, 07:53:22 PM
Nice to see a rational presentation for a change.

You should have probably removed this comment when you edited your post..... as it has no relevance to how you tried to show how irrational you think JPW is.  ???

Seeing as how you and Dave seem to agree on everything, I'm now questioning the sincerity of Dave's comment.    ::)
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 05, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
I was sincere.
Like absolon I don't necessarily agree with all JPW said but it was the way it was presented that made me read it, twice.
I believe this issue is mainly bad marketing and a screwup somewhere along the quality control line, and Ms. Morton, being Ms. Morton,  jumped on it.  Really, she does need a few media points as she still has a way to go to reach her laboratory analysis bill.
Sorry, beating on AM again...but damn, its hard not to.

Ian Roberts was correct imo, when he said this product should not have been delivered to the store, which is also the case of many of Ms. Morton's previously submitted samples.   Do you blame the farmer when you get a rotten tomato, mouldy lettuce, or anything else faulty or untowards in a store?  Would you buy the salmon picured on her blog, the emaciated fish with the lesion? Errors have been made by someone and I bet they are fixed quickly.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 05, 2012, 09:53:33 PM
I was sincere.
Like absolon I don't necessarily agree with all JPW said but it was the way it was presented that made me read it, twice.
I believe this issue is mainly bad marketing and a screwup somewhere along the quality control line, and Ms. Morton, being Ms. Morton,  jumped on it.  Really, she does need a few media points as she still has a way to go to reach her laboratory analysis bill.
Sorry, beating on AM again...but damn, its hard not to.

Ian Roberts was correct imo, when he said this product should not have been delivered to the store, which is also the case of many of Ms. Morton's previously submitted samples.   Do you blame the farmer when you get a rotten tomato, mouldy lettuce, or anything else faulty or untowards in a store?  Would you buy the salmon picured on her blog, the emaciated fish with the lesion? Errors have been made by someone and I bet they are fixed quickly.

Good response Dave.

I am sure that you have also figured out by now that we believe the feedlots are harmful both to the environment and the wild salmon. As a result we want them out of our oceans. Unlike land based farming, where environmental contamination and diseases can be contained, it is impossible to do so in the oceans. You can argue as you pro-feedlot boys do, that the feedlots are not killing our wild salmon but you have no proof that is so and there is all sorts of proof of the damage they have caused in other parts of the world. It's an argument no one is going to win.

However a winner will be declared when the consumer decides to either buy the feedlot product or avoids it. News articles like the Kudoa parasite infected salmon sold in the Costco store are sales killers. This particular virus/disease (call it what ever) takes time to make the product mushy. Imagine buying a seemingly quality product and opening the package 2 days later and seeing a bunch of mush. I suggest that not many consumers will be repeat customers.

Then there is the issue of health.....   Are there long term tests on people that have eaten this Kudoa parasite infected salmon? If not how can anyone say that this salmon is not harmful to one's health?

I like the fact that Ms Morton recognizes that the battle to save wild salmon will be won in the minds of the consumer and that's why she is taking it there. If the government was looking out for the wild salmon, there would be no need for her to do so.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: JPW on July 05, 2012, 11:12:31 PM
I’m torn on this.  Absolon, I appreciate the time you put into replying to my post and respect your opinions,  I also don't simply want to re-state my opinions as counterpoints to yours as I feel that is at the root of these cyclic threads.

That being said, I do feel I owe you the courtesy to at least clarify some of what I wrote.  Firstly, let me be clear that my intent was not to belittle the importance of work being done on both sides of this issue.  Any analogous reference to this being a competition was only to highlight how foolish I think many arguments on both sides are becoming.  To me it’s disappointing that despite the severity of our current predicament so much energy is spent arguing over semantics and methodology.  

That brings me to your valid point about the differences between a virus and a disease not being a small detail.   I believe in most cases you are correct, but not always.  Context is everything.  The majority of my reply was directed to the kudoa discussion and how it was dealt with by the BCSFs.  In my opinion, less work should be focussed on trying to discredit Morton’s process and more attention should be given to the benefits and viability of farming and showing some accountability when a valid observation is made.  If that could happen I would certainly be more open to hearing what the BCSFs have to say.  Dave makes a good point in that I’m not going to crucify a farmer for his moldy lettuce or tomato, but I also doubt the farmer would go to the same lengths to discredit the reality that the produce was bad in the first place and that is the crux of my argument.  In the case of kudoa, regardless of how Morton arrived at her conclusion, the outcome was still the same.  As someone who recognizes the necessity of finding an alternative to commercial harvesting of wild stocks and is therefore open to hearing both sides of the discussion, I was pointing out that BCSFs approach to picking apart Morton’s methodology was a poor choice; especially because she was right.

Ultimately, farmed salmon is like any other product designed to take advantage of our consumerism and like those other products it comes at a cost.  At this point I feel the cost is too high.  I feel the risks are too great, not because I believe one sides scientists over the others, but because I know definitively that they disagree.  If there is even a chance the farms could negatively impact an increasingly fragile wild population, I’m not interested in supporting it.  Absolon, to answer your question, I have many times asked for clarification about a product and changed my buying behavior based on the response.  Farmed fish is no different.  Morton is not my filter, but she is one of many voices that have made me aware there could be a problem.  To that end, I’d like to reiterate that the reason for my post was that I am someone interested in both sides of this discussion and most of what I see from the BCSFs seems reactive rather than proactive and is often missing the point.  To further define what I mean, by “the point”, let me write to another of your thoughts regarding the importance of accuracy versus impact.  

Accuracy is a noble goal and should be the priority of any solely scientific endeavor, but so many people are complacent about serious issues plaguing the environment today and that apathy sometimes needs to be catalyzed into action.  That doesn’t happen with anything but impact.  Companies understand that better than anyone.  Millions of marketing dollars aren’t spent to ensure accuracy.  Fair or not, I think I’m like many other consumers who place the burden of proof on the corporation and when they spend so many resources trying to discredit one person it raises a warning flag for me.  It wasn’t that long ago tobacco spent quite a bit of money to assure the public that smoking was healthy!  Again, I’m not disagreeing that there is a time and place for scrutiny, but quite honestly I worry in the case of salmon, we don’t have the time.  In fact while we worry about whether farming or wild harvesting will kill the fish, they will have gone extinct by way of an oil spill anyway :(.

I speak with my wallet though and I don’t buy wild fish either.  It’s my opinion that fresh seafood should be a privilege rewarded for exemplary management of the resource, not a right that comes at a cost to future generations.

-Jared
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 05, 2012, 11:14:53 PM
You should have probably removed this comment when you edited your post..... as it has no relevance to how you tried to show how irrational you think JPW is.  ???

Seeing as how you and Dave seem to agree on everything, I'm now questioning the sincerity of Dave's comment.    ::)

Unlike the usual representations we see here, JPW has managed to string together a cohesive and coherent presentation that isn't based exclusively on what Ms. Morton has told him. He has obviously given it some thought, a rare occurence it seems, and I respect that even if I don't agree with a number of his points.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 05, 2012, 11:22:07 PM
Jared, thanks for another rational response. Too late tonight to respond and I'd like to give it some more thought, but I'll do so later.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Rodney on July 06, 2012, 12:28:41 AM
Unlike the usual representations we see here, JPW has managed to string together a cohesive and coherent presentation that isn't based exclusively on what Ms. Morton has told him. He has obviously given it some thought, a rare occurence it seems, and I respect that even if I don't agree with a number of his points.

X2
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Bassonator on July 06, 2012, 03:36:18 PM
x3
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 06, 2012, 04:27:07 PM
What the heck.......   x4
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on July 06, 2012, 05:48:17 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jared.  It is refreshing not having to deal with name calling and chest pounding comments that we find on another fish board.

I also believe in corporate accountability, but I also believe in accountability of those in the biological field that attempt to take on roles of expertise in areas where they have no expertise whatsoever.  Personally, I do not have a problem with Ms Morton’s observations of Kudoa in these farmed salmon fillets.  The consumer should be aware of what they are seeing and get answers to those questions.  However, I do take issue with how she portrayed it in her blog with very little context around it which is important to having an informed understanding.  For instance, mxyozoans like Kudoa thrysites and Henneguya salminicola are common parasites found in salmonids in BC, wild and farmed salmon.  Parasites along with other pathogens in BC waters were discussed at the Cohen Inquiry.  These mxyozoans were here even before salmon farms.  Although they are very unsightly and not very appetising they are not associated with any significant, if any, mortality.  The myxozoan that has been commonly associated with mortality in fish in BC, to my knowledge, has been Pavicapsula minibicornis (http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-Report.pdf#zoom=100).  She says in her blog:

Kudoa, the white balls in this picture releases an enzyme that liquifies the flesh after death. Salmon farms are almost certainly enhancing this parasite similar to how they enhance sea lice, viruses and bacteria

The first part is true, but the rest is just pure speculation.  It is important to note that Ms Morton has no formal expertise in virology, parasitology, of fish pathology.  She even admitted in her blog that she has never directly worked with Kudoa; yet, she makes a conclusion that salmon farms are enhancing this parasite with no basis.  She then attaches a report about Kudoa septempuncata in raw olive flounder in Japan, but fails to explain how this relates to farmed salmon in BC.  The Wikipedia photo posted in her blog was not even close to being Kudoa.  I have seen Henneguya with my own eyes and have consulted an actual fish pathologist to confirm this.  With Henneguya, the cysts are much larger; whereas, Kudoa grows along the length of the muscle fibres – appearing more like pseudocysts than actual cysts.  If she would have taken her time to get her facts straight before launching an attack on Marine Harvest she would have clearly found this out.  In my opinion, Ms Morton chose to use the Wikipedia photo of Henneguya because it was a good resolution photo which displayed large, unsightly cysts and soft flesh which agreed with her description in the text.  She did not count on the fact that someone would call her on it as most of her followers seldom question her knowledge.  That is why it is not wrong to question her conclusions.  We do it already for other scientists, so she should be no different.

Ms Morton is a Registered Professional Biologist.  With that comes some responsibility and accountability also.  She is not just an average citizen when she comes up these conclusions and criticizes other scientists.  You can check out the rules and policies here:

https://www.cab-bc.org/act-rules-and-policies

Personally, I am of the opinion that we should hold biological professionals to a high standard if they are making conclusions and informing the public of their findings – especially when it comes to public health.  It is clear that Ms Morton should a little more restraint that is becoming of a professional – especially if the topic is not in her area of expertise.
In my opinion, Ian Roberts from Marine Harvest did provide an appropriate response to these fish from Costco.  I agree with Dave that the product should not have been delivered to the store.  Even Mr. Roberts thought that it was unacceptable.  In fact, Marine Harvest has already taken this issue seriously already, but the softening usually happens when the product arrives to the store.  Marine Harvest talks about Kudoa on their website:

http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/blog/tag/kudoa/

Accountability also extends to Costco; however, anyone that has dealt with returns at Costco before realizes that they provide excellent customer service in this area.  When I was with my family was in Maui in May we bought some chicken thighs in Kahului and brought them back to our condo in West Maui.  When we opened up the package it smelled like rotten eggs.  When we returned to Kahului we forgot to bring back the package of chicken thighs with the receipt for a refund, but the Customer Service people at Costco refunded us the money quite quickly.  For field camps, I have bought pork ribs from Save-On which smelled like sulphur when I opened the package.  Do we blame the farmer that raised the pigs and crucify him or do we return the ribs to the store for a refund?  Does this mean I will never purchase pork ribs again or do I realize that out of the many, many packages of pork ribs I buy over a lifetime that perhaps a few of them could have something wrong with them – even the ones I think are the best quality?  Now this may turn a person off of purchasing farmed salmon from a store, but these same parasites can also found in wild salmon.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: JPW on July 06, 2012, 11:21:02 PM
Fair points Steve.  Perhaps because I take what Morton says with a grain of salt, I'm less critical of her process.  If she was presenting me with a scientific paper I'd hold her to a higher standard, but I treat what she blogs about as the musings of a concerned consumer.  I look at it much like I would a conversation with a lawyer or doctor I'm not seeing professionally.  I expect they have a better understanding of their field then I do, but I'm not about to take legal action or try a new medication based on that conversation alone.  However, if something I'm told concerns me or piques my interest I will go looking for more "official" information and draw my own conclusions.  

I also understand and agree with your concern that many Morton supporters will blindly follow her because they assume she is the authority on all areas of marine biology.  I'll even agree that her flare for the dramatic probably helps with those followers, but I wonder if that says more about her supporters than it does her?  She is campaigning her belief that farms are too great a risk.  The farms are doing the same to sustain and grow their business.  I have no doubt there have been embellishments on both sides, but as I've said before the fact there are multiple polarizing opinions on the risks (or lack thereof) is enough reason for me to be concerned.

Finally, let me say again that the gist of why I posted is that in this specific example my opinion is that Marine Harvest's strategy for dealing with Morton was the wrong one.  From a broader perspective, if salmon farming is as safe and as beneficial as the BCSFA claims it is, then I feel they would be better served focussing their attention on the positives.  Constantly trying to discredit a woman who is passionate about protecting wild stocks  does more to make me think there is some truth in her claims.

-Jared
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 09:35:17 AM
After giving some consideration to your responses, I have to say I'm having difficulty understanding what it is you expect from the salmon farmers. I wonder if you would clarify the following for me to help me to better understand your perspective:

-You suggest that their response to the discovery of kudoa was inappropriate because rather than acknowledging the problem, they are attacking Morton's methods. I haven't followed this closely and may have missed something, but it seems to me that their response was to acknowledge the problem, explain the relative seriousness of it and how it happened without any reference to Ms. Morton or her methods. I haven't heard of any attempt to duck the problem or deny it's existence or blame it on Morton's shoddy methods. I wonder if you could be a little more specific about where they have attacked her methods and what you think their response should have been?

-You've also suggested that you think the farms should be less reactive, that you think they spend an inordinate amount of time focused on a single person and that makes you wonder if there is truth to her claims. Given that the single person is constantly focused on attacking them with the stated purpose of closing them down, given that the person is responsible for virtually all the attacks on the industry and that those attacks are invariably based on questionable science and carried out through the media instead of direct discussion, what would you suggest their approach to her should be? Given Morton's propensity to constantly circle them looking for what she perceives as an opportunity to attack them, how can they be anything but reactive and how can their focus not be on her? Would you not keep your eye on the jackal circling you looking for an opportunity?

-On the one hand you suggest that the industry should be more proactive in presenting it's case yet on the other you talk about media campaigns by industries such as the tobacco industry that are intended not to ensure accuracy but to actually obscure reality. It appears to me that you have put the industry in an untenable damned if you do, damned if you don't position. In doing so, you overlook the reality that it is actually Morton rather than the industry who is running a guerrilla PR campaign to shape public perception, and that her presentations therefore deserve at least the level of scrutiny applied to the industry. The fact that her representations are based on such shaky foundations and are presented in a manner that circumvents any critical analysis by people with the appropriate tools to scrutinize them prior to them being presented to the public as fait accompli would seem to suggest that it is those representations that are questionable and yet you appear to believe that simply because she made those representations they may well be true and the onus is therefore on the industry to respond rather than on her to better substantiate those representations. Even further, you criticize the industry for questioning the methods she used to arrive at her accusations in spite of the validity and relevance under the scientific method of those very questions.

You appear to justify Morton's tactics on the basis of the importance of impact in rousing a complacent public; indeed you suggest that impact is more important than accuracy. I'm not sure that I see the benefit of having a mobilized public who believe in a cause that hasn't been appropriately justified and substantiated. It's a very gross example, but the recent American foray into Iraq is an example of the consequences of such an approach. The nature of modern society and the refinement of marketing science have led us to a point where we are constantly bombarded by campaigns to create public opinion to suit specific agendas; in such an environment, accuracy assumes a critical role in allowing us to discriminate between those that serve the public interest and those that serve private agendas. The relegation of accuracy and truth to a secondary or tertiary role serves the interests behind those campaigns because it removes from us the most important tool we have to evaluate the validity of the objectives of the campaigns. That isn't to say that Morton's objectives are automatically bad, but neither does it suggest that her representations shouldn't be questioned for accuracy and truth or that an absence of accuracy and truth is excusable. I'm wondering how you reconcile this with what you have stated?

And finally, though this isn't something you've mentioned, I'm wondering about your thoughts on why Ms. Morton chooses to go to the public rather than dealing with the scientists at the regulating agencies who are the people who must be convinced if there is to be a change. Do you believe, as Ms. Morton suggests, that they are willfully ignoring problems, that they are complicit with the industry, that they don't care about the future of the wild fish? Do you believe that the farms have no interest in reducing their impacts and aren't willing to co-operate to resolve valid problems? If you can't answer yes to those questions, can you explain why neither regulating agencies nor the industry is interested in collaborating with Ms. Morton?

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 07, 2012, 10:34:59 AM
It's interesting to see you soft peddling around the tactics Morton uses....   I find it amusing to see the restrain you are showing, when we know how you really feel about Morton and her ability to draw public attention to the plight of the wild salmon.

Would the feedlots have addressed the sea lice issue if Morton hadn't have brought the issue to the public?? .... not likely. Would CFIA have put in a "monitoring" program, (late as it was) if Morton's lawyers had not of raised the disease issues at the Cohen commission?? ... not likely. There are many other examples of how she has influenced changes in the industry and if it wasn't for Morton taking on this cause, I believe our wild salmon would likely be in worse shape and their future survival would be in jeopardy.

The reason the feedlots can't be trusted is two fold. First, any additional monitoring or application of medications costs the corporation money and in a competitive environment, this means lower profits. Second, it's impossible to believe they would care about the survival of the wild salmon, when the wild caught salmon is a direct competitor to the product that the feedlots are pushing. One of their main arguments is that commercial fishing should be curtailed. This would certainly help their business as it would remove a major competitor but if it is true that the feedlots are impacting the survival of the wild salmon, the survival of the wild salmon would still be in jeopardy.

While DFO is charged with protecting the wild salmon, they are also responsible for growing the feedlot industry. With such an obvious conflict of interest, any reasonable person can see that the wild salmon will lose.

Thank goodness for Ms Morton who appears to be the only one actually looking out for the wild salmon. Given the obstacles and the minimal funding available to her, she is doing what ever she can to make the public aware of the plight of the wild salmon. The public will be the ultimate jury on whether the feedlots will be allowed to continue growing their product in our oceans.

The fact is if there were no obvious negatives to the feedlot operations, Morton's campaign wouldn't have any traction. Suggesting Morton is making "errors" is just part of the feedlot's campaign to try and discredit her and I don't believe it's having any effect.

Here's an article that seems to define Morton quite well.... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018296338_viruslady27m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018296338_viruslady27m.html)
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 07, 2012, 11:11:57 AM
A good background article on Morton.  http://kickasscanadians.ca/dr-alexandra-morton (http://kickasscanadians.ca/dr-alexandra-morton)

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
Would the feedlots have addressed the sea lice issue if Morton hadn't have brought the issue to the public?? .... not likely. Would CFIA have put in a "monitoring" program, (late as it was) if Morton's lawyers had not of raised the disease issues at the Cohen commission?? ... not likely. There are many other examples of how she has influenced changes in the industry and if it wasn't for Morton taking on this cause, I believe our wild salmon would likely be in worse shape and their future survival would be in jeopardy.

If a person were to tell the whole story, a slightly different picture emerges. The farms responded to the sea lice issue with a fallowing plan to allow safe passage to migrating fish. Ms. Morton disagreed with that plan and by her own admission initiated the court challenge that ended up placing the responsibility for farms with the DFO in order to block it. In spite of that, and although they could no longer obtain regulatory approval to completely implement the plan, the farms went ahead with the parts already approved by the Provincial regulators. The result was a substantial and sufficient decrease in lice numbers such that the risk was averted. The other result was that responsibility for farms now rests in the hands of the DFO, the very agency you suggest is unfit to manage that responsibility. Well done Ms. Morton!

Quote
The reason the feedlots can't be trusted is two fold. First, any additional monitoring or application of medications costs the corporation money and in a competitive environment, this means lower profits. Second, it's impossible to believe they would care about the survival of the wild salmon, when the wild caught salmon is a direct competitor to the product that the feedlots are pushing. One of their main arguments is that commercial fishing should be curtailed. This would certainly help their business as it would remove a major competitor but if it is true that the feedlots are impacting the survival of the wild salmon, the survival of the wild salmon would still be in jeopardy.

Your comment betrays your ignorance about the guiding principles of livestock husbandry. You cannot rear animals in conditions that lead to them becoming diseased if you have any intention of anything but substantial losses as your outcome. All those things that will eventually impact on wild stocks will immediately impact on farm stocks and to a much greater degree and therefore cannot be ignored; farms do not exist in a vacuum. I challenge you to provide one instance where farms have suggested wild stock harvests should be curtailed in order to create better market conditions for their product.

Quote
While DFO is charged with protecting the wild salmon, they are also responsible for growing the feedlot industry. With such an obvious conflict of interest, any reasonable person can see that the wild salmon will lose.

Even if someone were to accept your interpretation as truth, I would simply point them at the reason farms are now managed by the DFO.

Quote
Thank goodness for Ms Morton who appears to be the only one actually looking out for the wild salmon. Given the obstacles and the minimal funding available to her, she is doing what ever she can to make the public aware of the plight of the wild salmon. The public will be the ultimate jury on whether the feedlots will be allowed to continue growing their product in our oceans. The fact is if there were no obvious negatives to the feedlot operations, Morton's campaign wouldn't have any traction. Suggesting Morton is making "errors" is just part of the feedlot's campaign to try and discredit her and I don't believe it's having any effect.

Denying Morton's errors is simply closing your eyes and refusing to acknowledge proven reality. Morton isn't looking out for wild salmon. If she were, she would also be addressing all those other factors that are having substantial and undeniable effects on them. She is exclusively looking to eliminate fish farms and uses saving wild salmon as a justification. The regulating agencies and not a very small sector of the public will be the ultimate jury on the continued existence of the farms. The general public will soon forget the issue as Morton fades into oblivion because she is no longer able to provide the spectacle that keeps them entertained and something more lively and more "feel-good" comes along; the slow pace of her current fundraising effort is testament. The issue has traction with a small group of followers who have already bought into her ideas but outside of places like this forum where 3 or 4 of you vociferously repeat her pronouncements (and even the number of forums where this occurs is in decline), for the vast majority her campaign is simply occasional entertainment in the news. Even the boycott campaign she is currently pushing is irrelevant. The portion of BC production sold in BC is small enough to be inconsequential and any small decrease in that amount not relevant. The rest goes into an undifferentiated, world-wide commodity market that is unaffected by and unconcerned with claims that the sky is falling here.


Bottom line is that you are just repeating ad nauseum the same arguments that have been presented and rebutted time after time after time. Ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

















Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 07, 2012, 12:37:40 PM
I don't expect to change your outlook on the subject, but I appreciate how persistent you are with promoting it.  ::)

You need to reread some of your own posts in order to really appreciate what "repeating ad nauseum" means.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2012, 12:42:28 PM
A good background article on Morton.  http://kickasscanadians.ca/dr-alexandra-morton (http://kickasscanadians.ca/dr-alexandra-morton)


af, you're starting to sound like the heathen who finds religion or a blind man who suddenly sees; your passion for Alexandra Morton is becoming a bit overwhelming for me to read.
I suppose I could counter your favourable account of Ms. Morton's achievements by saying she has been rebuked or shown to be wrong on virtually all fronts, from sea lice causing extirpations to PCB’s to yellow pinks to diseases to antibiotic use, etc, and that would enforce JPW’s argument that this debate just continues in circles.
So I won't.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 01:16:16 PM
It's interesting to see you soft peddling around the tactics Morton uses....   I find it amusing to see the restrain you are showing, when we know how you really feel about Morton and her ability to draw public attention to the plight of the wild salmon.


forgot to mention:

I would suggest that the reason for my approach is self-evident, but since it's you, I'll explain.

My approach to these discussions is to accord everyone the respect that their postings invite.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 07, 2012, 02:03:05 PM

I suppose I could counter your favourable account of Ms. Morton's achievements ........... that would enforce JPW’s argument that this debate just continues in circles.
So I won't.


I appreciate that.

Too bad Absolon doesn't take the same approach....
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 03:20:29 PM
LOL!

I bet you're great at dodgeball.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: JPW on July 07, 2012, 03:36:55 PM
Round and round it goes.  

I don't mean any disrespect by not answering all of your questions Absolon, but I feel a bit like I'm being baited.  I don't have all the answers, I'm just someone concerned about  whether or not my son will be able to enjoy fishing as much as I do.  I don't think salmon farms are the biggest threat to wild salmon, but I'm not convinced that open net pens are a risk free alternative to providing fresh fish to consumers; they may be the lesser of the evils, but I've yet to see anyone suggest it.  It seems for most people they are either the catalyst to fish armageddon or the saviour of wild stocks and our demand for fish.  My wish is that until we have a better understanding of the effect an open net pen has that they be moved to closed containment.  As I said in the very beginning, why take the risk?  A foreign companies GP isn't a very good reason in my opinion.

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: EZ_Rolling on July 07, 2012, 03:45:15 PM
OK I am jumping in now .....

I have heard a lot of reasons that the farms should be removed...
Can the Pro farm please provide any benefits that the farms give to the ocean in any way ......
Why should they be there?

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2012, 05:26:53 PM
OK I am jumping in now .....

I have heard a lot of reasons that the farms should be removed...
Can the Pro farm please provide any benefits that the farms give to the ocean in any way ......
Why should they be there?
Well, for a start, employment for all involved in the industry, including jobs in spin off business’s, mainly in coastal towns but, as in all economies, further reaching than that.  The tax base that comes from these jobs keeps many of these small communities alive financially.
 
The issue no one wants to address is that many wild Pacific and Atlantic stocks of salmon are now extinct and the remaining are fast on their way to extirpation.  As recent publications have shown this has been happening since the 1800’s world wide including North America from California to Alaska.   During the next 20 to perhaps an optimistic 50 years these remaining wild stocks will be under enormous pressures from all things anthropogenic.  Thing is we know these changes are coming and we are not, will not, and cannot solve the problems
Bottom line is wild salmon will soon be a memory and it’s time BC realizes that and gets behind aquaculture, specifically salmon farming before the rest of the world beats us to it.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: dnibbles on July 07, 2012, 05:33:48 PM
OK I am jumping in now .....

I have heard a lot of reasons that the farms should be removed...
Can the Pro farm please provide any benefits that the farms give to the ocean in any way ......
Why should they be there?



I'll answer, despite not being "pro-farm". FYI- Disagreeing with AM's methods and materials does not make one "pro-farm". It makes one "anti-propaganda". I also dislike fish farm propaganda. It's just not nearly as visible.

One reason: People like eating salmon. They can eat wild or farmed. Killing wild salmon for people to eat is harmful to said wild salmon. Providing a farmed fish for them to eat directly benefits wild salmon, as there is less demand for them to be harvested.

Yes yes, I know there's so much more, but take that for what it's worth. Disclaimer: I try not to eat farmed salmon. Not for ethical reasons, but I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to the taste. I think 97% of the public couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: EZ_Rolling on July 07, 2012, 05:49:08 PM
Neither of these replies answer my question what good do they do for the wild salmon or it's environment .

A very few jobs are not a good reason and supply and demand will drive salmon prices back up where a delicacy should be.
If all the money that is invested in farms and fighting farms was invested in habitat and restorations there could be more than enough Salmon to go around at least that is the gamble I wish for .... Not well they are going to die out anyways so what does it matter,

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: dnibbles on July 07, 2012, 06:08:46 PM
Neither of these replies answer my question what good do they do for the wild salmon or it's environment .

If all the money that is invested in farms and fighting farms was invested in habitat and restorations there could be more than enough Salmon to go around at least that is the gamble I wish for .... Not well they are going to die out anyways so what does it matter,



Huh? Farm funds going into habitat restoration instead? Ok.......

As I already stated (fun to have to restate), there is a global and local demand for seafood products, specifically salmon. Providing domestically raised salmon can function as a mechanism to directly benefit wild salmon populations by reducing harvest pressures upon them. To answer your question "Why should they be there?", that is one reason that, if conducted in a responsible manner aimed at minimizing impacts on wild ecosystems, salmon farms "should" be there.

Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: alwaysfishn on July 07, 2012, 06:21:38 PM

Bottom line is wild salmon will soon be a memory and it’s time BC realizes that and gets behind aquaculture, specifically salmon farming before the rest of the world beats us to it.


I must admit I thought I had heard all the pro-feedlot arguments until I heard that one.

You may want to read up on some of the benefits that the wild salmon bring to our entire eco system before wishing that wild salmon become a "memory" ....  
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 06:24:07 PM
Round and round it goes.  

I don't mean any disrespect by not answering all of your questions Absolon, but I feel a bit like I'm being baited.  I don't have all the answers, I'm just someone concerned about  whether or not my son will be able to enjoy fishing as much as I do.  I don't think salmon farms are the biggest threat to wild salmon, but I'm not convinced that open net pens are a risk free alternative to providing fresh fish to consumers; they may be the lesser of the evils, but I've yet to see anyone suggest it.  It seems for most people they are either the catalyst to fish armageddon or the saviour of wild stocks and our demand for fish.  My wish is that until we have a better understanding of the effect an open net pen has that they be moved to closed containment.  As I said in the very beginning, why take the risk?  A foreign companies GP isn't a very good reason in my opinion.



No disrespect taken and no answer required. Take it not as baiting but as points to consider.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 06:32:22 PM
Neither of these replies answer my question what good do they do for the wild salmon or it's environment .

A very few jobs are not a good reason and supply and demand will drive salmon prices back up where a delicacy should be.
If all the money that is invested in farms and fighting farms was invested in habitat and restorations there could be more than enough Salmon to go around at least that is the gamble I wish for .... Not well they are going to die out anyways so what does it matter,



It's not just a few jobs. It's some $850 million in economic impact every year.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2012, 08:12:33 PM
I must admit I thought I had heard all the pro-feedlot arguments until I heard that one.

You may want to read up on some of the benefits that the wild salmon bring to our entire eco system before wishing that wild salmon become a "memory" ....  
Jeez man, you think I don't understand this stuff?  I don't wish it, just expect it.
Correct me in 20 years.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: absolon on July 07, 2012, 09:33:42 PM
Dave, the problem is that one of you doesn't understand it and I'm fairly certain that with your background, it isn't you.
Title: Re: Mortons Latest Error
Post by: shuswapsteve on July 07, 2012, 10:17:47 PM
Dave, the problem is that one of you doesn't understand it and I'm fairly certain that with your background, it isn't you.

I am fairly certain it isn't you either, Dave...lol.