How am I moving the goal post? How is this NOT the claim I made? My claim is that if the industry expands, as demand for salmon is not going down (according to fish farmers themselves who cite the world demand as their reason d'etre), then the foot print is going to be larger than Stanley Park. It is only as small as it is today because the industry was not allowed to expand geographically under the moratorium (so they expanded the individual operations capacity instead). Clearly, an "unsupplied market" is not necessary to preclude expansion as the initial expansion of salmon farms drove down the price of salmon, indicating their was a surplus of salmon created by the expansion of salmon farming.
No, this is your original claim:
What is stopping the expansion of the farms? If the "antis" as you like to call us, all go away and stop bothering your employers, then what is to stop the expansion of the salmon farms into every cove on the BC coast? It is free enterprise, right? If Mainstream can farm here, why can I not open a farm in the next inlet? or across the inlet? There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed
As I pointed out, there are considerable physical and biological limitations on where the farms can expand as well as substantial economic restrictions on that expansion not to mention further regulatory restrictions. Contrary to your suggestion, it is not nor will it become "open season". Assuming they haven't slipped your mind, you might refer back to several links that Chris has posted about the current supply situation in the salmon market as well as do a little research yourself on trends in Chilean and Norwegian production versus world demand.
You might also bear in mind that contrary to your suggestion to Steve, I've said nothing that would indicate that a person cannot be concerned about "the others" if that person if that person is concerned about "one". The closest I've come to that is to suggest that a person who is concerned about "one" should ensure that the reasons for their concern are real and not manufactured to support a preordained position.