Print

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

[arimaBOATER]

To me it's all about DOING THE MATH .... adding & subtracting..... salmon get taken by seals- whales -salmon sharks-eagles- other fish- then by nets--- fishing poles---[did I miss some?--maybe pollution---climates--- etc... BUT if MAJOR subtractions are caused by SEA LICE killing the the smolts -fry-juvenile salmon ......... possibly 50%[less or more] kill off of the salmon is done by these SEA LICE ........ the evidence seems to strongly indicate the facts. --------- Have ya seen the net samples [ on YOU TUBE] .... the salmon are LOADED with lice...how can any of them survive??? -------- I do not know what the answer is???  So much going on in this world......... where do we start???

[Folkboat]

     You are absolutely correct Arimaboater. We know from studies in the early 1960’s that up to 70% of smolts did NOT make it past 40 days in the marine environment. “Pre salmon farming”. Smolts under 10 grams are the most susceptible while smolts over 10 grams seem to not be affected from sea lice.
     So as I DO THE MATH, I see over 20 million $’s funded to anti-farming groups in B.C for a so called Alaska wild salmon advertisement from the Moore foundation in the U.S.

[Morty]

Hey Folkboat,

I'm having difficulty understanding your last sentence.  Could you expand on that for me please?

[Folkboat]

  Hello Morty.
  I will be more than happy to expand on my last sentence, and thank you for asking me to do so.
  If you are looking for funding, you may have come across a $190 million dollar “Wild Salmon Ecosystems” Initiative by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in the U.S. Sea Web in Washington D.C. was granted $560,000 for  "identification of antifarming audience and issues, integration of aquaculture science messages into antifarming campaign, standardization of antifarming messaging tool-kit, creation of an earned media campaign and co-ordination of media for antifarming ENGOs." According to page 76 of their 2004 tax filing to the Internal Revenue Service, the $560,000 grant to SeaWeb was to provide "a high quality tool-kit and coordination infrastructure for use by ENGOs (environmental organizations) in their campaigns to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon." Around the same time, "we do not expect to focus significant resources on salmon restoration in southern British Columbia or the lower 48 states of the U.S.," was on the Moore Foundation’s web site. To date the Moore Foundation has granted over $20 million to organizations in B.C.. All of which are opposed to salmon farming.
  Alexandra Morton was profiled as a photographer by Sea Web when Sea Web publicized sea lice research by the David Suzuki Foundation. At the same time, Sea Web was funded to "shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon."
  As for the sea lice study that ENGOs are standing behind in B.C. I would like to give a quote.
  “ Lack of quality assurance in the collection of field data. Pink and chum salmon
fry were collected using beach seines and subsampled using dip nets. Sea lice on the fry were generally enumerated without regard to species (Lepeophtheirus salmonis or Caligus clemensi) and then returned to the sea offering no opportunity for independent (blind) verification of the results. No quality assurance procedures are described to insure the accuracy of the counts. A credible quality assurance program would require, at a minimum, blind counts and the recounting of lice on a subset of the fry by independent observers and comparison of the results to insure consistency. Assistance in the field work was offered to Mr. Krkosek for the 2006 field season during a conference call between Mr. Clare Backman (Marine Harvest), Mr. Krkosek and Dr. Brooks. The offer was declined with Mr. Krkosek’s statement that he neither needed nor wanted assistance in conducting the field work. No claim of intentional bias should be inferred from this. However, unintentional bias in scientific work, particularly in field-work, is something that all experienced scientists aggressively guard against.
   The Standards, Protocols and Guidelines (SPG-2) developed by the British Columbia
Pacific Salmon Forum for Field Sampling Methods for Juvenile and Adult Pacific Salmon, and Caligid Zooplankton discusses the inherent biases associated with beach seining and dip netting, but fails to recommend quality assurance procedures to insure that collections represent random samples and that counts and identifications of lice are accurate.
   That is where my math come’s from Morty. Thank you once again for asking and sunny days to you.

[marmot]

Folkboat your quote is obviously from somebody representing the pro-farming community who was unhappy with the way in which the studies were carried out.  Rightly so that they would be unhappy about it but right to dismiss the findings altogether?  I don't think so.  It's sort of like when a criminal gets off in court on a technicality, at least thats what it feels like to me.  Again with the funding, so what if the money is coming from a source with another motive.  The ENGO's themselves do not share this motive, so what is the problem?  Funding is ALWAYS diverse....non profit organizations rarely get funding from "anonymous kind hearted souls"....at least not enough to make a difference.  To think that Alexandra Morton et. al. should refuse funding from sources that have other motives in mind is absurd and unrealistic.  We live in the real world where money and power come into play on a daily basis, the ENGO's are playing the game like everyone else and I for one hope they win.

[Morty]

Thank you Folkboat - I appreciate your willingness to add to the discussion.

I sense though that you may have misunderstood where I'm "coming from".  I am a Mortgage Broker by profession and am not connected with or involved in any of the farming, or non-farming organizations.  (actually I am not against farming, I do not favor the open net pens)

My position is from a one of the sport, the rivers, and the fish.  As far back as I can remember I loved water and fish.  When I was in grade 7 I started saving pennies toward buying my own aquarium and have had one running pretty much continually since then.  Even had a pond in the back yard for a while.  I grew up in New Westminster and would fish the Fraser from Annacis Island with my Dad and Uncle after dinner each evening when salmon fishing was open.  Sometimes travelled with my grandfather up to Silverdale Bar, or Derby Reach for bar fishing.  Same uncle occasionally took me to the Vedder Canal to fish Chum in the Fall.  Back in those days there was no trees or brush along the sides of the canal - mostly rock and a few grasses.  Have taken my children fishing on the river many times, and 2 daughters in their 20's still love to go out with me.  Now I'm showing 4 grandson's what it's all about. 

That's 5 generations!  I'd like it to be 6 and 7 and 8...

So, it's for for family and love of the water and these magnificent animals that drive my passion for this.  Not anti-farming.

Can you suppport me in this?

[Folkboat]

         Morty.
     Thank you for your pleasant reply. You must have me by a couple of years, but not by many. My family is 4 generations but could easily be 5. All of my family also have a love for fishing and the water since I can remember. In fact I was to young to remember the first time I was on my parents sailboat.
     My passion for the water and salmon has driven me to donate my time on a few salmon enhancement and stream restoration projects. About 8 years ago for 2 years in a row, I was going up to the mouth of a river on the west coast to feed smolts in an open pen each day for about 5 weeks. They were then released into the wild in hopes of enhancing the population in the river. Since that time, the annual salmon count has sustained itself and there has been no need to enhance the river. The kicker to this although, is that the smolts from this river have to migrate past at least 6 salmon farms on their way out to sea. All I can see from this, is that salmon farms were not the cause of the need for enhancement in the first place.
     I fully support you on saving the salmon and waters of the west coast Morty. But I truly believe the sea lice issue is not the problem. As I have said before, we knew from studies in the 1960s that up to 70% of the smolts did not make it past 40 days in the marine environment. (pre salmon farming era). Just my thought, but after seeing the lower U.S west coast salmon comercial and sport fisheries close down, was this caused by salmon farm sea lice, human activity on land, or possible over fishing? I am sure there are many factors that led up to the closure.
    Have a great day Morty and all.