Print

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

[absolon]

Why don't you post the standing biomass of the Alaskan, Washington, Oregon and Californian coast as well.

For the obvious reason that the standing biomass in all those areas is completely irrelevant.

I suggest that the BC salmon feedlots need the krill and DFO is providing it, ignoring the science that suggests krill should not be harvested.

The commodity market provides the krill used by salmon feed manufacturers. The BC harvest is so small as to be irrelevant to the commodity market. The sector that benefits from the BC harvest is commercial fishing and their profits come from providing the catch into the commodity market.

[Sandman]

I only say that when I know who I'm talking to has a propensity to create facts to suit his argument.

Hey! I resemble that remark

Wow, are you really that arrogant?  A fact used to support an argument you disagree with has to be "created" because Absolon could not possibly be wrong?  There could not possibly be evidence to the contrary of your opinion that is not a complete fabrication?  Wow, now I know we are done.

[absolon]

Wasn't that you observing hypothetical phenomena, synthesizing facts and massaging them into a semiplausible scenario?


Nah, must have been someone else..................

[Sandman]

Wasn't that you observing hypothetical phenomena, synthesizing facts and massaging them into a semiplausible scenario?


Nah, must have been someone else..................

How does someone "observe hypothetical phenomena"?  If you are observing it, then it cannot be hypothetical.  Now, it was I that saw evidence of a phenomena (disease transfer from wild fish to farmed fish and back again), and it was I that synthesized the facts gathered from a variety of scientific papers that showed that disease can be transferred from wild fish to farmed fish and from farmed fish to wild fish, and that the high population density in a net pen makes it ideal for a pathogen to flourish (were you refuting those facts?), and proposed a plausible hypothetical scenario of a wild fish passing a pathogen to a population of farmed fish, where it flourishes and multiplies in the crowded conditions of the pen and then is transferred to a passing wild fish on its way back to a nearby spawning bed where the pathogen is passed to a multitude of wild fish, crowed together in the river, whose immune systems are compromised by their spawning metamorphosis. I did not make any of it up.  I never even claimed it had already happened.  None of the "facts" were "created."  I leave it to the scientists to prove if it is not a possible risk.

[absolon]

How does someone "observe hypothetical phenomena"?  If you are observing it, then it cannot be hypothetical.  Now, it was I that saw evidence of a phenomena (disease transfer from wild fish to farmed fish and back again), and it was I that synthesized the facts gathered from a variety of scientific papers that showed that disease can be transferred from wild fish to farmed fish and from farmed fish to wild fish, and that the high population density in a net pen makes it ideal for a pathogen to flourish (were you refuting those facts?), and proposed a plausible hypothetical scenario of a wild fish passing a pathogen to a population of farmed fish, where it flourishes and multiplies in the crowded conditions of the pen and then is transferred to a passing wild fish on its way back to a nearby spawning bed where the pathogen is passed to a multitude of wild fish, crowed together in the river, whose immune systems are compromised by their spawning metamorphosis. I did not make any of it up.  I never even claimed it had already happened.  None of the "facts" were "created."  I leave it to the scientists to prove if it is not a possible risk.

The benefit of observing hypothetical phenomena (and you are observing hypothetical phenomena regardless of how you term it) and developing hypothetical scenarios to account for them is even greater than making up your own facts. When you're making up facts, you're stuck with them once you've announced them. When you're working with hypothetical problems and developing plausible hypothetical causes, you aren't confined to reality. You can move the goal posts any time you want, anywhere you want; it's a no-lose proposition if you can convince someone to play. Even if you can find someone foolish enough to take your approach seriously, you still haven't proven anything because you are working in the realm of the imaginary, not the real world.

[Sandman]

The benefit of observing hypothetical phenomena (and you are observing hypothetical phenomena regardless of how you term it) and developing hypothetical scenarios to account for them is even greater than making up your own facts. When you're making up facts, you're stuck with them once you've announced them. When you're working with hypothetical problems and developing plausible hypothetical causes, you aren't confined to reality. You can move the goal posts any time you want, anywhere you want; it's a no-lose proposition if you can convince someone to play. Even if you can find someone foolish enough to take your approach seriously, you still haven't proven anything because you are working in the realm of the imaginary, not the real world.

I was not "developing hypothetical scenarios" to "account" for anything. I was proposing a proposing a "hypothetical scenario" to illustrate the dangers present in locating salmon farms on migration routes.  And I was not proposing anything that had not been said already (over a decade ago, in fact):

[quote author: Mart R. Gross, 1998] The greater concern [greater than the transfer of exotic diseases to wild Pacific Salmon from farmed Atlantics] may lie in the loading of disease on Atlantic salmon relative to native species, due to the confines of aquaculture and selection programs for genetic resistance and disease tolerance. Disease amplification through exotic carriers, followed by transmission to and health reduction of native species, is not uncommon in the biological world.[/quote]

Gross, Mart R., (1998), "One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture" Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 131–144