Print

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

[ClayoquotKid]

BC would be considered a precursor based on number of farms not timeline, currently Puget sound has 8 open net pen farms vs BC's 130.
  Based on this  Puget Sound could look to BC to see how BC's industry evolves,much like we look to Norway and Chile with concern about the state of their Farm industry
 The term sea lice and effluent was a metaphoric term, not to be taken literally .
 Funding from elsewhere with people holding similar beliefs in  protecting the environment,why would  anyone turn their backs on support.Their  is no conspiracy here,its true that we export farmed salmon to the US, which would be the biggest customer .The foundations spoken of simply have the same beliefs  in  environmental causes.To suggest that they are in some way linked to a lobby for more US farmed fish is a stretch.
  The damage south of the border does exist based on the virus outbreak in 2012.
     "In 2012, there was an outbreak of infectious hemotopoietic necrosis virus, or IHNV, in three of the farms – the Orchard Rocks, Fort Ward and Clam Bay facilities" all in Puget Sound."While the virus likely arose from wild salmon, the high densities in the net pens artificially elevated the outbreak. "
 The problems do exist down south, yet they are on a smaller scale, because they have a smaller operations.
   http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/nov/04/group-sues-to-stop-commercial-salmon-farms-in-puge/
 We have larger operations and larger problems in BC .
For now I will focus on BC cause that's where I live, and any support I get from people down south will be appreciated.

Here's some info on BC farms: http://bcsalmonfarmers.ca/

Here's a map of all the operating farms over the last few years: http://bcsalmonfarmers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/all_companies_2014-07_out_migration_sites1.pdf

Not all the tenures are in use, so the number is less than the 130 you quoted.

[salmonrook]

Here's some info on BC farms: http://bcsalmonfarmers.ca/

Here's a map of all the operating farms over the last few years: http://bcsalmonfarmers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/all_companies_2014-07_out_migration_sites1.pdf

Not all the tenures are in use, so the number is less than the 130 you quoted.

Thanks CK,
 Some good info there including the locations and number of sites which number to 98 based on the pdf file.
   Creative Salmon is front and center on there, they are organic and have a good record environmentally,glad they leading the way,even though they only have 1 farm.
I understand that some farms sites are rotated  as well .Good to know ,that explains the empty tenures I assume,being left to recover.

[shuswapsteve]

BC would be considered a precursor based on number of farms not timeline, currently Puget sound has 8 open net pen farms vs BC's 130.
  Based on this  Puget Sound could look to BC to see how BC's industry evolves,much like we look to Norway and Chile with concern about the state of their Farm industry
 The term sea lice and effluent was a metaphoric term, not to be taken literally .
 Funding from elsewhere with people holding similar beliefs in  protecting the environment,why would  anyone turn their backs on support.Their  is no conspiracy here,its true that we export farmed salmon to the US, which would be the biggest customer .The foundations spoken of simply have the same beliefs  in  environmental causes.To suggest that they are in some way linked to a lobby for more US farmed fish is a stretch.
  The damage south of the border does exist based on the virus outbreak in 2012.
     "In 2012, there was an outbreak of infectious hemotopoietic necrosis virus, or IHNV, in three of the farms – the Orchard Rocks, Fort Ward and Clam Bay facilities" all in Puget Sound."While the virus likely arose from wild salmon, the high densities in the net pens artificially elevated the outbreak. "
 The problems do exist down south, yet they are on a smaller scale, because they have a smaller operations.
   http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/nov/04/group-sues-to-stop-commercial-salmon-farms-in-puge/
 We have larger operations and larger problems in BC .
For now I will focus on BC cause that's where I live, and any support I get from people down south will be appreciated.

Thanks for CK for correctly explaining that not all farms sites are in operation at the same time.  So it doesn’t necessarily matter that the farms in Puget Sound are open net pens raising Atlantic Salmon similar to what is in BC, that fish farm critics are highly critical of……..it matters more that there is more of them now here (which you are not sure what the number is)?  So are you suggesting that as long as they keep them at a low number like 8 then it should be given a pass by environmentalists and these US foundations?  There are environmentalists in BC that not only disagree with ocean net pen aquaculture, but those same environmentalists also disagree with the massive numbers of ranched salmon being released in Alaska annually, but these same foundations do not seem to have it on their radar.  In turn, these Alaskan “wild” salmon get a clean bill of health from SeaChoice.  Doesn’t it make you wonder a bit why so much of their focus is here when there are clearly skeletons in the closet south of the border?  In my opinion, the reasons for this deflection away from operations south of the border (and north of our border) are lame and highly hypocritical especially if wild salmon are being held in such high regard.

I do not necessarily believe it is a good idea to say that Puget Sound can look at BC to see how the BC industry evolves much like we look towards Chile and Norway; 1) Because Atlantic salmon farming started in Puget Sound and Atlantic Salmon introductions in Washington State have as long or longer history than in BC; 2) Although there can be concerns with what goes in other countries like Chile and Norway it becomes a bit of a false crutch for environmentalists because having issues somewhere else doesn’t necessarily translate to problems here unless you can actually demonstrate it (i.e. ISA and HSMI for instance); and 3) the regulatory environments between BC and other places like Chile and Norway are not comparable.  Larger problems here?  What are these larger problems, Rook?  I will refer you to the Cohen Report where Cohen not just talks about potential risks of factors like aquaculture, but also says there is no evidence that diseases and viruses are out of control on BC fish farms either.  He also points to other factors also and not all his recommendations pertain to aquaculture.  Can you point to a part in the Cohen Report where it is stated that we have much larger problems than in Washington State and what these large problems are?  How do you know that issues down in Washington State are not on a smaller scale or are you just speculating based purely on the number of farms?  So if BC had less fish farms then you would be ok with ocean net pen aquaculture here?  As you can see I have a lot of questions for you.

The term sea lice and effluent was a metaphoric term, not to be taken literally?  Ok, I’m glad that has been taken off the table because it is best to stay away those bizarre theories and leave it up to those on the Salmon Are Sacred Facebook page.

Before you start down the IHNv/IHN path you should keep in mind the pathology of IHNv and its distribution.  This is what your source (again an opinion article with no reference for that assertion) is sorely lacking.  Adult Pacific Salmon like Sockeye are natural carriers of IHNv.  Although, juvenile salmonids are the most prone stage to IHNv they have evolved with this endemic virus for centuries off our coast from Alaska to California.  On the other hand, Atlantic Salmon have not developed similar immunity to IHNv.  Considering that fish farmers are on guard for this high risk, endemic virus (which can wipe out the fish in their pens) through routine testing it is not in their best interests to have this virus around and have the resulting disease proliferate throughout the farm and adjacent farms.  As I stated before, farmed fish that are destroyed before they become market size are a financial loss – not a subsidy bonanza as incorrectly stated by Jeff Matthews.  Not exactly sure what these Puget Sound farms did at the time, but in BC (and CK can confirm for you or correct me) the industry has become much more proactive in this regard since outbreaks in 2003.  Once farms here have a suspected case of IHNv they will destroy those fish instead of waiting for a confirmation test from the CFIA which could take more than a week.  This is what happened in 2012 on Mainstream’s Dixon Bay farms.  While waiting for results of a confirmation test, the virus could potentially spread to other farm operations in the area – causing more fish to be destroyed.  Can you show me some scientific documentation where these “high” densities in net pens artificially elevate the IHN outbreak?

[salmonrook]

 The number of farms in BC based on salmonfarmers pdf file , if you care to read it, is from my count = 98 .
 The link is there and it's not 30 pages long ,its on the first page and the info is from 2014.
 The fact that Puget sound has only 8 ,conversely you would think they would have less problems based on scale ,8 vs 98.
  Agree that 'thank god' we have a stricter regulatory environment here rather than Chile or Norway .
 Not sure that we see all the issues,Sea lice,disease outbreak,etc that come out , this was another argument about govt scientists being muzzled .
 Hoping the new govt can be more transparent about this .
 As for problems down south, they did have an outbreak in 2012, reported facts in the newspaper article .
 Maybe we had an outbreak and it was never reported?swept under the proverbial pen ,(sorry my favourite joke)
 Sorry not gonna quote Cohen report or some facebook page ,don't think it has information that it conclusive, you keep quoting these, likely exactly for this reason.
   Like the creative salmon model and kuterra, however I do understand it's probably more expensive.But we are talking about our precious environment that once gone is gone !It wont be suitable for farming either if its too polluted.
  The Alaska salmon ranching is similar to the hatchery system in BC .The fact also that it puts the fish back in the hands of the fisherman, not a large multinational .
  "Can you show me some scientific documentation where these “high” densities in net pens artificially elevate the IHN outbreak?"

  Don't have the scientific study in hand I will rely on you to point these out,you can google them .Its pretty clear that this concentration elevates the risk of disease transmission .
 Heres one
   http://www.thefishsite.com/diseaseinfo/4/infectious-haematopoietic-necrosis-ihn/
Some good info actually stating that these diseases are hardest on fry,including the wild fish migrating through these affected areas at the time of an outbreak.

[Fisherbob]

The number of farms in BC based on salmonfarmers pdf file , if you care to read it, is from my count = 98 .
 The link is there and it's not 30 pages long ,its on the first page and the info is from 2014.
 The fact that Puget sound has only 8 ,conversely you would think they would have less problems based on scale ,8 vs 98.
  Agree that 'thank god' we have a stricter regulatory environment here rather than Chile or Norway .
 Not sure that we see all the issues,Sea lice,disease outbreak,etc that come out , this was another argument about govt scientists being muzzled .
 Hoping the new govt can be more transparent about this .
 As for problems down south, they did have an outbreak in 2012, reported facts in the newspaper article .
 Maybe we had an outbreak and it was never reported?swept under the proverbial pen ,(sorry my favourite joke)
 Sorry not gonna quote Cohen report or some facebook page ,don't think it has information that it conclusive, you keep quoting these, likely exactly for this reason.
   Like the creative salmon model and kuterra, however I do understand it's probably more expensive.But we are talking about our precious environment that once gone is gone !It wont be suitable for farming either if its too polluted.
  The Alaska salmon ranching is similar to the hatchery system in BC .The fact also that it puts the fish back in the hands of the fisherman, not a large multinational .
  "Can you show me some scientific documentation where these “high” densities in net pens artificially elevate the IHN outbreak?"

  Don't have the scientific study in hand I will rely on you to point these out,you can google them .Its pretty clear that this concentration elevates the risk of disease transmission .
 Heres one
   http://www.thefishsite.com/diseaseinfo/4/infectious-haematopoietic-necrosis-ihn/
Some good info actually stating that these diseases are hardest on fry,including the wild fish migrating through these affected areas at the time of an outbreak.

First off. It looks more like Creative Salmon has 6 sites with 4 operating. Your link was very interesting, suggesting that IHN was introduced to Japan in the 60's by eggs from "Alaska" and has been around or should I say, "identified" since the 50's.
  If the American funded activists in Canada cared so much about our wild salmon they would have included the US Atlantic farmed salmon in their campaign years ago. The 2012 outbreak off IHN in Washington happened at peak emigration. Those salmon pass through our Canadian waters. Talking about hiding information under the pen LOL.

[ClayoquotKid]

The number of farms in BC based on salmonfarmers pdf file , if you care to read it, is from my count = 98 .
 The link is there and it's not 30 pages long ,its on the first page and the info is from 2014.
 The fact that Puget sound has only 8 ,conversely you would think they would have less problems based on scale ,8 vs 98.
  Agree that 'thank god' we have a stricter regulatory environment here rather than Chile or Norway .
 Not sure that we see all the issues,Sea lice,disease outbreak,etc that come out , this was another argument about govt scientists being muzzled .
 Hoping the new govt can be more transparent about this .
 As for problems down south, they did have an outbreak in 2012, reported facts in the newspaper article .
 Maybe we had an outbreak and it was never reported?swept under the proverbial pen ,(sorry my favourite joke)
 Sorry not gonna quote Cohen report or some facebook page ,don't think it has information that it conclusive, you keep quoting these, likely exactly for this reason.
   Like the creative salmon model and kuterra, however I do understand it's probably more expensive.But we are talking about our precious environment that once gone is gone !It wont be suitable for farming either if its too polluted.
  The Alaska salmon ranching is similar to the hatchery system in BC .The fact also that it puts the fish back in the hands of the fisherman, not a large multinational .
  "Can you show me some scientific documentation where these “high” densities in net pens artificially elevate the IHN outbreak?"

  Don't have the scientific study in hand I will rely on you to point these out,you can google them .Its pretty clear that this concentration elevates the risk of disease transmission .
 Heres one
   http://www.thefishsite.com/diseaseinfo/4/infectious-haematopoietic-necrosis-ihn/
Some good info actually stating that these diseases are hardest on fry,including the wild fish migrating through these affected areas at the time of an outbreak.

Public reporting of BC salmon aquaculture data is actually second to none when it comes to animal husbandry.

Fish health, sea lice, escapes, and other key information is either available through DFO, the BC Salmon Farmer's Association, or the companies themselves.

In today's regulatory and social license environment nothing gets, "swept under the proverbial pen" - so I hope we can put that one to rest.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/index-eng.html

http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada/news/press-room/public+reporting

As for IHN, it is correct that Cermaq pre-emptively culled a farm upon receiving internal confirmation that IHN was present - that is, the farm was culled prior to getting an order from the CFIA to do so, at management's discretion, in order to enact timely and effective controls on the outbreak.

In the past salmon aquaculture companies had not been as successful in managing viral issues, as can be seen here:  http://www.sfu.ca/grow/science/resources/1320968207.pdf

On the topic of disease transmission, Atlantic salmon are most certainly naïve to IHNv, although they can now be vaccinated against it.

A wild population hosting the virus will have developed resistance to it throughout their life cycle - most Sockeye will have been exposed to many pathogens in the freshwater environment while they co-exist with the dead and dying year-class entering the river they have not yet left...

From what we can tell, a wild population passing a farm has the potential to infect cultured fish if they are carriers - the virus will then spread throughout the population within the farm due to the relative proximity of fish in the area, and their potential lack of resistance.

The inverse is true for those same pathogens moving out of the farm - the chance of a wild fish picking anything up from a cultured population would be possibly the same, but for that pathogen to spread into other members of the population they would have to be found in sufficient numbers, proximity, and have no or little resistance to what would be an endemic virus to begin with.

So, in a nutshell, I guess what I am trying to say is this: The fish health risk appears to fall on the side of the farmers, and needs to be managed effectively through good husbandry and effective viral screening in order to ensure that we continue to put more than 90% of salmon entered into our pens to market as a premium product.

[chris gadsden]

Lots of FF news here for the PAP gang to get their teeth into as well to get the fingers typing. http://issuu.com/steelhead-salmon-society/docs/legacy1215

[Dave]

A quick glance at page 3, the table of contents, and I focused on salmon farms as you suggested ... clicked on someone by the name of Cooperman saying the low Adams return this year could be caused by climate change or fish farms.  Really? Does this dude follow any science on this stuff? 
Closed the link.
Read a bit about Anissa's soccer playing daughter. Monumental fail to get the Mother's agenda in the headlines.
Closed the link.
Another protest about consumers having the right to choose what they buy.  Give me a break!
Closed the link.

No more typing from me regarding this post Chris.

[aquapaloosa]

What Dave said. 

Chris, one would think that after all these discussions we have had on this thread you yourself could pick that piece you posted apart no problem.  Sadly you seem more than willing to support the spread of misinformation which your link is riddled with.  Oh, wait, I forgot you actually believe all that stuff despite repeatedly being pointed in the direction of actual facts about the topic that contradict your beliefs. Thanks for letting us see what out there tho, just don't think its actualy reality, ok?

I truly believe your heart is in the right place I just wonder if you ever personally question the integral aspects of posting/supporting distribution of information that is a gross misrepresentation of facts.

[chris gadsden]

A quick glance at page 3, the table of contents, and I focused on salmon farms as you suggested ... clicked on someone by the name of Cooperman saying the low Adams return this year could be caused by climate change or fish farms.  Really? Does this dude follow any science on this stuff? 
Closed the link.
Read a bit about Anissa's soccer playing daughter. Monumental fail to get the Mother's agenda in the headlines.
Closed the link.
Another protest about consumers having the right to choose what they buy.  Give me a break!
Closed the link.

No more typing from me regarding this post Chris.

A closed mind on this subject too?lol

Here is a video from the Wild Salmon Caravan I filmed last Spring, Some may take Eddie's talk to heart. https://youtu.be/1evjp0xGL00

[shuswapsteve]

The number of farms in BC based on salmonfarmers pdf file , if you care to read it, is from my count = 98 .
 The link is there and it's not 30 pages long ,its on the first page and the info is from 2014.
 The fact that Puget sound has only 8 ,conversely you would think they would have less problems based on scale ,8 vs 98.
  Agree that 'thank god' we have a stricter regulatory environment here rather than Chile or Norway .
 Not sure that we see all the issues,Sea lice,disease outbreak,etc that come out , this was another argument about govt scientists being muzzled .
 Hoping the new govt can be more transparent about this .
 As for problems down south, they did have an outbreak in 2012, reported facts in the newspaper article .
 Maybe we had an outbreak and it was never reported?swept under the proverbial pen ,(sorry my favourite joke)
 Sorry not gonna quote Cohen report or some facebook page ,don't think it has information that it conclusive, you keep quoting these, likely exactly for this reason.
   Like the creative salmon model and kuterra, however I do understand it's probably more expensive.But we are talking about our precious environment that once gone is gone !It wont be suitable for farming either if its too polluted.
  The Alaska salmon ranching is similar to the hatchery system in BC .The fact also that it puts the fish back in the hands of the fisherman, not a large multinational .
  "Can you show me some scientific documentation where these “high” densities in net pens artificially elevate the IHN outbreak?"

  Don't have the scientific study in hand I will rely on you to point these out,you can google them .Its pretty clear that this concentration elevates the risk of disease transmission .
 Heres one
   http://www.thefishsite.com/diseaseinfo/4/infectious-haematopoietic-necrosis-ihn/
Some good info actually stating that these diseases are hardest on fry,including the wild fish migrating through these affected areas at the time of an outbreak.

These IHN outbreaks certainly do not get swept under the proverbial pen.  Learn about the law in this respect, Rook. Not liking Cohen now because it is not conclusive enough? Well, I guess if it is not finding fish farms as the sole cause then it is a bust huh? Does that mean you do not agree with Cohen's recommendations?

Alaska salmon ranching has similarities to Federal salmon hatcheries and even fish farms here, but they are not the same. The obvious differences are that: 1) federal hatcheries here are not releasing billions of fish like they are in Alaska; 2) federal hatcheries here do not raise fish in ocean net pens like ranched salmon are; and 3) the fish released from federal hatcheries here are not the same size as those released from ranched salmon operations. Ranched salmon are released at a much larger size which could translate in a much better competitive advantage when it comes to foraging for food in the marine environment. Juveniles released from federal hatcheries here still have to migrate out of the freshwater and then adapt to the saltwater environment. Ranching essentially bypasses this freshwater phase that juveniles from federal hatcheries have to negotiate through.  Alaskan salmon fisheries were suffering before state management took over in the mid 70s. Without salmon ranching, they would likely be in even worse shape than in BC. I am not against salmon ranching, but I do take issue with Alaska's portrayal that ranched salmon are "wild" and that they do not rely heavily on aquaculture. Lastly, the release of billions of these ranched fish from North Pacific countries may not be so benign on the environment as many people think.

Rely on me to point this out for you? Ahhh....noooo...lol. I am not doing research for you...lol...but nice try.  It's not up to me to prove that the Atlantic Salmon in net pens are artificially elevating IHN.  You were the one that posted that so I believe the onus should be on you (or the individuals in that source you posted) to show me - not the other way around. If it's "pretty clear" then you should have no problem even tonight finding this documentation for me.  You are certainty entitled to your own opinions on this, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[salmonrook]

First off. It looks more like Creative Salmon has 6 sites with 4 operating. Your link was very interesting, suggesting that IHN was introduced to Japan in the 60's by eggs from "Alaska" and has been around or should I say, "identified" since the 50's.
  If the American funded activists in Canada cared so much about our wild salmon they would have included the US Atlantic farmed salmon in their campaign years ago. The 2012 outbreak off IHN in Washington happened at peak emigration. Those salmon pass through our Canadian waters. Talking about hiding information under the pen LOL.

Not sure what you are implying about the American funded activists in Canada .I am as much a conspiracy theorist as anybody,but I don't see the conspiracy Its seems straight forward to me , these groups just plain and simple have environmental protection  issues in mind .
 

[salmonrook]

Public reporting of BC salmon aquaculture data is actually second to none when it comes to animal husbandry.

Fish health, sea lice, escapes, and other key information is either available through DFO, the BC Salmon Farmer's Association, or the companies themselves.

In today's regulatory and social license environment nothing gets, "swept under the proverbial pen" - so I hope we can put that one to rest.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/index-eng.html

http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada/news/press-room/public+reporting

As for IHN, it is correct that Cermaq pre-emptively culled a farm upon receiving internal confirmation that IHN was present - that is, the farm was culled prior to getting an order from the CFIA to do so, at management's discretion, in order to enact timely and effective controls on the outbreak.

In the past salmon aquaculture companies had not been as successful in managing viral issues, as can be seen here:  http://www.sfu.ca/grow/science/resources/1320968207.pdf

On the topic of disease transmission, Atlantic salmon are most certainly naïve to IHNv, although they can now be vaccinated against it.

A wild population hosting the virus will have developed resistance to it throughout their life cycle - most Sockeye will have been exposed to many pathogens in the freshwater environment while they co-exist with the dead and dying year-class entering the river they have not yet left...

From what we can tell, a wild population passing a farm has the potential to infect cultured fish if they are carriers - the virus will then spread throughout the population within the farm due to the relative proximity of fish in the area, and their potential lack of resistance.

The inverse is true for those same pathogens moving out of the farm - the chance of a wild fish picking anything up from a cultured population would be possibly the same, but for that pathogen to spread into other members of the population they would have to be found in sufficient numbers, proximity, and have no or little resistance to what would be an endemic virus to begin with.

So, in a nutshell, I guess what I am trying to say is this: The fish health risk appears to fall on the side of the farmers, and needs to be managed effectively through good husbandry and effective viral screening in order to ensure that we continue to put more than 90% of salmon entered into our pens to market as a premium product.

 " In today's regulatory and social license environment nothing gets, "swept under the proverbial pen" - so I hope we can put that one to rest"

 I have read the reports and inspections ,whats concerning is that there are never any punitive consequences,for a higher level of sea lice,disease,or overcrowding ,either they just harvest or an infusion of fresh water,talk about flushing it under the pen .Not sure what the remedy's for this would be.This is allowed to happen over and over, never are they  proactive, seems the "organic "farms are, under the threat of losing their "organic " stamp.

 "The inverse is true for those same pathogens moving out of the farm - the chance of a wild fish picking anything up from a cultured population would be possibly the same, but for that pathogen to spread into other members of the population they would have to be found in sufficient numbers, proximity, and have no or little resistance to what would be an endemic virus to begin with."

 Of course the concentration of sea lice around the pen would be another issue that the wild salmon or even the vulnerable fry would have to deal with in such large numbers.Again the  close proximity of the biomass leading to a higher concentration of sea lice infestation .

[salmonrook]

These IHN outbreaks certainly do not get swept under the proverbial pen.  Learn about the law in this respect, Rook. Not liking Cohen now because it is not conclusive enough? Well, I guess if it is not finding fish farms as the sole cause then it is a bust huh? Does that mean you do not agree with Cohen's recommendations?

Alaska salmon ranching has similarities to Federal salmon hatcheries and even fish farms here, but they are not the same. The obvious differences are that: 1) federal hatcheries here are not releasing billions of fish like they are in Alaska; 2) federal hatcheries here do not raise fish in ocean net pens like ranched salmon are; and 3) the fish released from federal hatcheries here are not the same size as those released from ranched salmon operations. Ranched salmon are released at a much larger size which could translate in a much better competitive advantage when it comes to foraging for food in the marine environment. Juveniles released from federal hatcheries here still have to migrate out of the freshwater and then adapt to the saltwater environment. Ranching essentially bypasses this freshwater phase that juveniles from federal hatcheries have to negotiate through.  Alaskan salmon fisheries were suffering before state management took over in the mid 70s. Without salmon ranching, they would likely be in even worse shape than in BC. I am not against salmon ranching, but I do take issue with Alaska's portrayal that ranched salmon are "wild" and that they do not rely heavily on aquaculture. Lastly, the release of billions of these ranched fish from North Pacific countries may not be so benign on the environment as many people think.

Rely on me to point this out for you? Ahhh....noooo...lol. I am not doing research for you...lol...but nice try.  It's not up to me to prove that the Atlantic Salmon in net pens are artificially elevating IHN.  You were the one that posted that so I believe the onus should be on you (or the individuals in that source you posted) to show me - not the other way around. If it's "pretty clear" then you should have no problem even tonight finding this documentation for me.  You are certainty entitled to your own opinions on this, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 I know that this disease is not ignored ,this being a serious threat to populations,wild and farmed.
The cohen report is hard to draw any conclusion from , this is becoming a dead horse to me, of course any conservation recommendations I am all for.The fact is NONE of them have been implemented and until the govt has the kahunas to institute these, they still remain recommendations and is only a start on the road to environmental responsibility.

 The Alaska fish would be half wild , our own wild fish,unclipped coho ,IE, would be considered truly wild.Still like the idea of this ranching ,seems sustainable .
 I have lots of documentation to back up my opinions based on facts I have posted here .

[Fisherbob]

Alaska ranching uses open net pens also Rook. I hope your documentation is not from Doc Morton. Even Chris can not tell me what she has got right.
 
http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/06/26/mortons-latest-error-dishonesty-or-ignorance/


http://salmonfarmscience.com/2011/10/11/signs-of-a-crank-recognizing-pseudoscience/