Print

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

[aquapaloosa]

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...

[alwaysfishn]

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.   

[Dave]

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.   

Hm mm, I think Chris would say  "Losing it", followed by 

af, I'm guessing you're off aquapaloosa's Christmas card list now 

[absolon]

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.

[shuswapsteve]

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.

[gilbey]

Why don't you stay there in that warm white sand and farm your salmon down there?

[shuswapsteve]

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. 

[jon5hill]

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

[troutbreath]

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

[alwaysfishn]

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.

[absolon]

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.

[shuswapsteve]

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?

[Dave]

This is why I hang out on this site far too much Great discussion by bright people, on both sides.

[Easywater]

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.

[alwaysfishn]

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.