Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alwaysfishn]

Follow the funding trail on that one.  Geesh.

Did you check out the number of restaurants that are supporting their certification standards. Multiply that by the number of people that eat at those restaurants.

They apparently have no problem with the funding trail........   

[aquapaloosa]

They apparently have no problem with the funding trail........ 

Ignorance is bliss I guess.  Not to knock the average joe but the Ocean Wise program is designed to do the thinking for the public and given the funding source it is clear to me that they would demote farm fish and hold high alaskan salmon as hollyer  than thou to our oceans.  I think alot of restauranteurs sign up with the feeling that they have to just to look informed but the reality is many are just staying within the trends.(i know the trend is here to stay)  They are pretty much forced into it.
  Do not misunderstand me.  The Ocean Wise program does seem to show merit in some categories.  I just think that when it comes to salmon,  ocean wise is out to lunch and  "wild" salmon isn't so wild and free of harmful effects like they suggest.

[Easywater]

You guys are hilarious.

Why don't you go onto the PETA website and tell people there it is ok to eat tainted beef?

[alwaysfishn]

Ignorance is bliss I guess.  Not to knock the average joe but the Ocean Wise program is designed to do the thinking for the public and given the funding source it is clear to me that they would demote farm fish and hold high alaskan salmon as hollyer  than thou to our oceans.  I think alot of restauranteurs sign up with the feeling that they have to just to look informed but the reality is many are just staying within the trends.(i know the trend is here to stay)  They are pretty much forced into it.
  Do not misunderstand me.  The Ocean Wise program does seem to show merit in some categories.  I just think that when it comes to salmon,  ocean wise is out to lunch and  "wild" salmon isn't so wild and free of harmful effects like they suggest.

Ocean Wise has a tremendous amount of credibility in highlighting the difference between sustainable and unsustainable seafood. Read their criteria for sustainable aquaculture.  http://www.oceanwise.ca/about/sustainable-seafood

Aquaculture

One third of the world’s seafood production comes from aquaculture. If done in a sustainable manner, aquaculture can help to take pressure off of wild stocks and provide a source of protein in areas where other alternatives are scarce. However, aquaculture can also have a negative impact on the environment and may actually harm wild populations through habitat damage and degradation, pollution, and disease outbreaks. The destruction of critical habitats such as wetlands and mangroves to create ponds, localized disease or parasite epidemics, and the pollution of marine or aquatic habitats are all very real concerns with various systems of farming.

Shrimp and prawns (such as tiger prawns) are typically farmed in coastal ponds that are created through the destruction of mangroves and wetland habitats and should be avoided. Open net pen finfish farms such as those used for Atlantic salmon also create major environmental concerns and should be avoided.

Sustainably farmed options include shellfish such as scallops, mussels, clams and oysters, which are farmed on lines or trays suspended from rafts and are more sustainable than their wild counterparts. Inland, closed system farms are another good alternative and include species such as rainbow trout, tilapia, channel catfish, sturgeon, and Arctic char.

[Bassonator]

So I guess you support the MSC designation that BC Sockeye are sustainable??....gimme a break, anytime some one comes up with a negative for salmon farming you're the first on the boat,  besides in a few years all our salmon will come with a nice hint of 10/30 weight to the pallette if Enbridge gets their way.

[alwaysfishn]

So I guess you support the MSC designation that BC Sockeye are sustainable??....gimme a break, anytime some one comes up with a negative for salmon farming you're the first on the boat,  besides in a few years all our salmon will come with a nice hint of 10/30 weight to the pallette if Enbridge gets their way.

This is the criteria MSC uses to certify that BC Sockeye are sustainable:
“MSC certification of the BC sockeye fishery is confirmation that it is being well- managed for sustainability and includes specific conditions to improve the stock. Certification is not a conclusion that the stock is currently abundant or that fishing should or shouldn’t be taking place at any given time.

“Certification is not the end of the process; it is a management tool that for this fishery includes a set of 17 improvement actions for the Fraser River that in some cases must be completed in the first year. Mandatory annual surveillance audits will include stakeholder input, will be publicly available and will provide new data on the status of the sockeye salmon stock and the achievements of the management agency in meeting the conditions.”

If we get rid of the ocean salmon pens, evidence suggests that there is a good chance wild sockeye can remain "sustainable".

[shuswapsteve]

This is the criteria MSC uses to certify that BC Sockeye are sustainable:
“MSC certification of the BC sockeye fishery is confirmation that it is being well- managed for sustainability and includes specific conditions to improve the stock. Certification is not a conclusion that the stock is currently abundant or that fishing should or shouldn’t be taking place at any given time.

“Certification is not the end of the process; it is a management tool that for this fishery includes a set of 17 improvement actions for the Fraser River that in some cases must be completed in the first year. Mandatory annual surveillance audits will include stakeholder input, will be publicly available and will provide new data on the status of the sockeye salmon stock and the achievements of the management agency in meeting the conditions.”

If we get rid of the ocean salmon pens, evidence suggests that there is a good chance wild sockeye can remain "sustainable".

I disagree because this is not what the evidence is showing when you look at the technical reports, testimony and exhibits from the Cohen Inquiry.  Although the final report is not complete yet it is important to consider all the evidence – not just evidence provided during the aquaculture hearings.  I highly recommend you start looking here first:
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/TechnicalReports.php

I believe it is a very simplistic view to say at this point that if you remove fish farms that Sockeye can remain sustainable.  There is still a large amount of uncertainty so anyone that promotes the concept that if we remove salmon farms it will result in sustainable Sockeye does not know what they are talking about.  You need to look at the all the testimony – not what is filtered and edited for you by Morton and Staniford.  For instance, we know very little about the early marine survival of Fraser River Sockeye smolts once they leave the Fraser.  We also know very little about the impacts of diseases on the survival of wild salmon – especially Fraser Sockeye.  This is just a small sample of the uncertainty that remains.

I take MSC certification with a grain of salt because when you have a multitude of Fraser River Sockeye CUs, populations and demes, most in either the yellow or red (conservation concerns), combined with a predominate mixed-stock commercial fishery on our coast in the lower river that can indiscriminately target weaker CUs amongst stronger ones then it may not be as sustainable as one might believe.  However, if it makes you feel warm and cozy at night then that's great.  Those that actually work with these fish know different.

[Sandman]

I disagree because this is not what the evidence is showing when you look at the technical reports, testimony and exhibits from the Cohen Inquiry.  Although the final report is not complete yet it is important to consider all the evidence – not just evidence provided during the aquaculture hearings.  I highly recommend you start looking here first:
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/TechnicalReports.php

I believe it is a very simplistic view to say at this point that if you remove fish farms that Sockeye can remain sustainable.  There is still a large amount of uncertainty so anyone that promotes the concept that if we remove salmon farms it will result in sustainable Sockeye does not know what they are talking about.  You need to look at the all the testimony – not what is filtered and edited for you by Morton and Staniford.  For instance, we know very little about the early marine survival of Fraser River Sockeye smolts once they leave the Fraser.  We also know very little about the impacts of diseases on the survival of wild salmon – especially Fraser Sockeye.  This is just a small sample of the uncertainty that remains.

I take MSC certification with a grain of salt because when you have a multitude of Fraser River Sockeye CUs, populations and demes, most in either the yellow or red (conservation concerns), combined with a predominate mixed-stock commercial fishery on our coast in the lower river that can indiscriminately target weaker CUs amongst stronger ones then it may not be as sustainable as one might believe.  However, if it makes you feel warm and cozy at night then that's great.  Those that actually work with these fish know different.

You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new

The study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located.  The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.

Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included).  The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves.  There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish).  These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery.  The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable.  Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks.  This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.

[alwaysfishn]

You may want to check out this thread:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29374.new#new

The study discussed, both the proposed tagging study and the earlier study that was presented at the inquiry, suggest that something is indeed going on as the smolts leave the Fraser, but more importantly shortly after they leave the Johnstone Straits where a large concentration of salmon farms are located.  The proposed study is an attempt to expand our knowledge of the impacts of the farms on the survival of wild Fraser Sockeye.

Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included).  The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves.  There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish).  These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery.  The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable.  Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks.  This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.

Great analysis!

[aquapaloosa]

Also, the point AF made earlier was that the "Sustainability" designation of the MSC does not reflect the current abundance of the stock, nor does it suggest that commercial harvesting should be allowed at any given moment (the present included).  The sustainability of the wild sockeye lies in the proper management of the stocks (including harvest levels) and their ability to sustain themselves.  There current state of the stocks is not a reflection of the "unsustainability" of the fishery, but on the poor management of the negative impacts (including harvest rates) thus far. The lack of sustainability of the open net pen salmon farms lies in negative effects they have on both the environment (through pollution of the surroundings by their unfiltered outputs, and through their pressure on feed fish stocks) and on the wild stocks (through the potential transmission of parasites and disease to migrating fish).  These negative impacts (which you are welcome to refute and minimize despite the documented scientific evidence to the contrary) are inherent in the practice of open net pen farming, whereas the negatives in the commercial fishery are external to the fishery itself, that is to say, if the habitat loss, climate change impacts, pollution, etc. were controlled to allow the sockeye to spawn and rear successfully, then the harvest levels could be set to appropriate levels to sustain the stocks while providing for a viable fishery.  The fact that we are not there at the moment, does not detract from the fact the wild sockeye fishery can be sustainable.  Open net pens, on the other hand, while they may have made attempt s to minimize the negative effects they have on the environment, are still having a negative impact and could even be potentially damaging to wild stocks.  This is what make them "unsustainable" as they are now.

Oh I see, It can be sustainable.  But right now its not but on their website it says it is.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Now that I know exactly how Ocean wise works when it comes to salmon.  I now have even more doubts about their method.  Follow the funding folks.
Seems like a fairly fancy dance around the current state of the stock.

[Sandman]

Oh I see, It can be sustainable.  But right now its not but on their website it says it is.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Now that I know exactly how Ocean wise works when it comes to salmon.  I now have even more doubts about their method.  Follow the funding folks.
Seems like a fairly fancy dance around the current state of the stock.

The Fishery is sustainable, but the stocks are currently depressed.  If you do not understand that it is not the commercial harvest that is causing the collapse of the runs, then you are truly a lost cause.

[aquapaloosa]

You can stoop to name calling but It is only my opinion that ocean wise should not be supporting the sale of these socks if they have low numbers regardless of why. 

[aquapaloosa]

How do you find the alskas salmon ranching sustainable?  Does it not effect our wild stocks?
Why is ocean wise supporting that?

[Sandman]

You can stoop to name calling but It is only my opinion that ocean wise should not be supporting the sale of these socks if they have low numbers regardless of why. 

Why are you ignoring the fact they say "Certification is not a conclusion that the stock is currently abundant or that fishing should or shouldn’t be taking place at any given time"?

How do you find the alskas salmon ranching sustainable?  Does it not effect our wild stocks?

I have never supported Alaskan salmon ranching.

Why is ocean wise supporting that?

It is clear in their criteria that shows "how" they reach their designations.  The sustainability of "wild" fisheries is based on:

• 1. Impacts on the stock for which you want a recommendation
  Score = geometric mean (Factors 1.2, 1.3)
  2. Impacts on other species
  Score = Population Impacts Subscore (minimum of geometric mean (Factors 2.2, 2.3) across all
  assessed other retained/bycatch species) * Discard Rate (Factor 2.4)
  3. Effectiveness of management
  Score = geometric mean (Factors 3.1, 3.2)
  4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts
  Score = geometric mean (Factors 4.1+4.2, 4.3)

What they do not do, is take the impacts of the hatchery raised stocks on the wild stocks, which is the major problem I have with some of their recommendations: "Note that if wild stocks are assessed only in combination with hatchery‐raised populations, the health of the wild stock cannot be considered better than ‘unknown’." The "Unknown" score is a median, with a risk of overfishing.  Therefore, while they recommend the "wild caught" salmon, they are not able to properly assess the abundance of those stocks that are heavily augmented by hatcheries. It is the higher scores on harvesting methods and minimal environmental impacts of the fishery itself (the salmon nets do not drag the bottom of the ocean for example) that results in the overall sustainability score  for the "wild caught" Alaskan Salmon.

[Sandman]