The question can be answered by reading any number of studies conducted around the world that show the impact that salmon farming in open net pens has had on wild salmon, but I suspect you know that. Your choice to ignore the main point of the article Chris posted and harp on that question is clearly meant to skirt the really question. why hasn't the Harper Government acted on any of the recommendation if this commission on which it spent tens of millions of tax payer dollars? This was just one expensive PR maneuver to present the illusion that this government has any desire to act in good faith on its mandate to protect of national resources and national heritage. The aquaculture industry is in direct competition with wild salmon (the fewer wild salmon in the oceans, the higher their price will be and greater demand there will be for farm fish). This puts DFO's responsibility to manage wild salmon AND to promote and expand aquaculture in A direct conflict of interest. So why don't you ask THAT question Bob? Because that question cannot be answered by a simple search of science journals, can only be answered by a Prime Minister who acts every bit the radical nut we knew him to be.
The Harper government's response to the Cohen report is an entirely different and unrelated subject that everyone who either voted for Harper or didn't vote needs to be asking themselves about, but contrary to those who attempt to conflate the two subjects, it has nothing to do with salmon farms. On the other hand, Bob's question goes directly to the heart of the point raised by the press release . There is an explicit but unsubstantiated assumption in it that the root cause of the problem Cohen examined is fish farming.
It is a primary rule of logic that conclusions are only as good as the premises on which they are based and Bob is, quite rightfully, asking that the assumption, the premise on which the conclusion is based, be substantiated in order to validate the conclusion. Studies of situations in other parts of the world are not sufficient to generalize specific conclusions about our specific situation; studies of our specific situation are required to accomplish that and it is quite reasonable to ask that they be produced in order to support the claims made about our specific situation.
If Bob made an error, it was in expecting an answer. It is far easier to spend your efforts crying wolf than it is to actually demonstrate there is a wolf about; however, the downside to this approach was demonstrated by Aesop many centuries ago and is well illustrated by the disinterest in the subject that is the consequence of the repeated cries in this forum of "wolf".
Author
Topic: The Tide Begins To Turn (Read 11562 times)