Print

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

[aquapaloosa]

Problem is your sources have proven that they lie, deceive, withhold information and have not done the proper research to determine the harm these viruses can cause. You use those sources to try and convince us that we should be drinking your poison.

I think you  may have mistaken me for some other poster.  I general post on my own personal experience.  For ten years now the anti salmon farming movement has been on my radar.  Primarily for the massive input of shot gun misinformation it bombards the public with.   I like to have some job security you know so I follow this closely and have learned the process even though I am pretty sure i will remain employed.  I see the pattern and while it slowly evolves there is a pattern that repeats itself over and over and over again.  It goes like this for example:

1.  Some one finds few yellow fish dead in a river  Oh no what should we do
2.  Morton gets a hold of it and first things first...call the press  And the press is fed a story and gobbles it up.  And there off.  The presses rumble and the phones ring off the hook, what a story!  While the press machine churns out the stories and the phones ring(chris is cutin and pasting up a storm) the biologist that deal with this stuff have to take a look at what it really is or could be.  That takes time, more than enough time for the anti's to completely monopolize the media with there dire predictions and estimations and whatever else they are guessing at or making assumptions.  When the professionals and specialist  finally respond it is to late for them and the aquaculture industry.  The damage is done to both.
3.  When  an explanation arrives it gets whipped up into a conspiracy theory or the next dire crisis is revealed or it just isn't realy a big deal so there is no story.

I see this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

but i know, you can't see it that way.

[StillAqua]

Speaking of humor.....  I find it humorous that you and your "sidekicks" (shuswap, dave and stillaqua) all use "scientific" evidence to support your position. Your evidence has been provided to you by sources that have zero credibility, as proven through the questioning at the Cohen commission. 

You're always good for some hilarious extreme hyperbole AF  . But if I'm a sidekick, I get to be Kato guys..

[chris gadsden]

From Environmental News
FrankenSalmon. Coming Soon To A Table Near You.
In September of 2010 the FDA approved the first genetically animal safe for eating. The “product” is a genetically modified Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which they named AquaAdvantage Salmon (AAS). AAS can grow twice as fast as a normal salmon. This super speedy growth rate was gained by making two changes to the salmon’s genome, the addition of a growth hormone gene, and the addition of an antifreeze gene. AquaBounty see their salmon as an environmentally sustainable alternative to the current farmed salmon. AAS are to be raised in land-based facilities, which would reduce the environmental impact on coastal areas, and eliminate the threat of disease transfer from farms to wild fish. Land-based facilities would also allow people to live closer to their food facilities, reducing some of the costs associated with transporting fish. But many people are still worried about the health and environmental risks posed by genetically modified salmon.

The first worry people have about modified genetically modified salmon is “are they safe to eat?”  It’s a known fact that in the United States we’ve been eating genetically modified produce for years.  The main health concern with genetically modified foods is allergens. For AAS, the two proteins being introduced into the salmon’s genetic makeup are from other fish, so there’s not the same kind of worry as adding a protein from a peanut or shrimp.  But there is still the worry that adding proteins will increase the number of fish allergens inside the salmon.

A bigger concern may be environmental impact if the AAS salmon are accidently introduced into the wild.  AAS are designed specially for land based facilities, but precautions have also been taken to reduce their impact if they are accidently introduced into the wild. AAS salmon are all triploid females, which means that they are not only all female, but are sterilized as well.  The problem with triploid induction is that there is a very small percentage of fish where the sterilization doesn’t work. There is a failure of sterilization in .1 to 1% of fish, which is a pretty small number, except fish farms usually contain 500,000 to 1 million fish.  How this could impact wild fish populations is unknown. Personally this reminds me of the Movie/Book “Jurassic Park”.

Even sterilized fish may have a negative impact on wild salmon populations. AAS salmon grow faster and larger then natural salmon. This would make an AAS salmon more attractive for mating then a natural Atlantic salmon, which could negatively impact wild salmon populations.

When AAS hit the market, farming facilities need to be monitored to make sure there is no way for the salmon to accidently escape into the wild. This is especially important in areas where a salmon population is already present.  AAS could be an excellent way to increase the availability of fish without impacting wild salmon populations and the coastal ecosystem but strict monitoring is needed to keep these “mutants” from causing trouble.

For further information on the AAS Salmon Controversy and further concerns check out this story from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143453487/debating-genetically-modified-salmon?sc=emaf

[absolon]

 Morton gets a hold of it and first things first...call the press  And the press is fed a story and gobbles it up.  And there off.  The presses rumble and the phones ring off the hook, what a story!  While the press machine churns out the stories and the phones ring(chris is cutin and pasting up a storm) the biologist that deal with this stuff have to take a look at what it really is or could be.  That takes time, more than enough time for the anti's to completely monopolize the media with there dire predictions and estimations and whatever else they are guessing at or making assumptions.  When the professionals and specialist  finally respond it is to late for them and the aquaculture industry.  The damage is done to both.
3.  When  an explanation arrives it gets whipped up into a conspiracy theory or the next dire crisis is revealed or it just isn't realy a big deal so there is no story.

I see this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

It is easy to watch this torrent of verbiage that Chris and his sidekicks Larry and Curly present and feel a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume of it. That indeed is the intent of the campaign and Chris is nothing more than a tool used to convince you that there is a huge groundswell of support. The truth, however, is quite different. I think something that is important to remember is that for all the media campaigns, all the cutting and pasting of poorly reasoned, overblown rhetoric, all the dire predictions and the endless nonsensical bleating of a noisy few, the fact remains that a week later the public's interest will move on to some other topic that will briefly hold their attention until it is superseded by yet another spectacle. This "battle" is entertainment for the observing public, not a holy crusade. In their attempts to regain that lost media attention, the reactionaries will eventually destroy their own credibility as their claims become more and more extreme and less and less credible. That process is well along even as I write this; the disappearance of the multiple posts by true believers of the weekly updates from Morton on fishing forums across the web over the past two years is substantial proof of that. Chris is a relic, among the last of a dying breed.

In the meantime, the farms will continue producing fish by following the practices that they have safely followed since the industry began in the 1980s. They will continue to safeguard their stocks and the rearing environments in which they keep them. As has always been the case, the reactionaries will be unable to supply a single piece of scientific evidence that the farms are doing anything but that though that won't stop the bleating. They will continue to provide direct jobs and substantial benefits to the provincial economy and they will continue to work with the regulators and the scientists to improve husbandry practices and identify and minimize effects from their presence just as they have always done. The markets will continue to want their product; being labeled as ISA infected fish in the New York Times by Morton and that other jackass will have no effect on demand. The decline in demand is a response to the world economic climate, not the reactionaries though I fully expect that they will claim credit at some point.

At the same time, scientists will be looking into this virus that Miller has purportedly discovered as well as looking more closely at her methods. There will be attempts to identify it and identify any consequential effects over the last 25 or more years that Miller claims it has been in our waters. There will be investigations of why it hasn't caused disease outbreaks in the farm stocks and whether it has affected wild stocks. These all will proceed at the pace that good scientific practice dictates and no faster. That isn't a problem in spite of all the noise proclaiming doomsday because there is no impending disaster; a virus that has purportedly co-existed with wild and farmed salmon for decades won't turn rogue overnight and the research needs to be complete and thorough.

And finally, the Cohen Inquiry will produce a report about the declining sockeye that will take into account all of the testimony by all of the experts about all of the factors that could conceivably affect the stocks survival. The sideshow staged by Morton and cohort and the inflammatory comments arising from the blogosphere will have little effect on his deliberations; his mandate is to find and analyze the facts. It is almost an inevitability that one of the main conclusions will be that DFO must be given the resources to do the job they are mandated to do; the problem then will be whether the Harper government has the interest or political will to follow through.

The main thing to take away is that for all the organized, loud and well-funded campaign by the reactionaries to get the public onside, the science does not back them up and the decisions are going to be made based on the science by people who are not susceptible to and are probably getting more than a little annoyed by the incessant bleating. The public, in general and in spite of the noise, realize that they are better trusting in the science than in the claims of a small group with a big bankroll and an agenda.

[chris gadsden]

Well I have been called a lot over the years but never a relic, but you could be right this time as at 68 I feel like that some days.

[alwaysfishn]

At the same time, scientists will be looking into this virus that Miller has purportedly discovered as well as looking more closely at her methods. There will be attempts to identify it and identify any consequential effects over the last 25 or more years that Miller claims it has been in our waters. There will be investigations of why it hasn't caused disease outbreaks in the farm stocks and whether it has affected wild stocks. These all will proceed at the pace that good scientific practice dictates and no faster. That isn't a problem in spite of all the noise proclaiming doomsday because there is no impending disaster; a virus that has purportedly co-existed with wild and farmed salmon for decades won't turn rogue overnight and the research needs to be complete and thorough.



The main thing to take away is that for all the organized, loud and well-funded campaign by the reactionaries to get the public onside, the science does not back them up and the decisions are going to be made based on the science by people who are not susceptible to and are probably getting more than a little annoyed by the incessant bleating. The public, in general and in spite of the noise, realize that they are better trusting in the science than in the claims of a small group with a big bankroll and an agenda.

I find it hard to believe that you would repeat this sort of nonsense. Your statement suggests that Miller has been studying this virus for 25 years and only at the Cohen commission did DFO finally learn of it and now they are suddenly going to put all sorts of effort into studying it along with Millers methods.

The truth is that DFO has been successfully suppressing this information, hoping that they could expand the farming industry before the effects of these disease became too obvious and most of the wild salmon stocks became extinct. They are ignoring any science that doesn't support their "no problem" PR campaign. From an operational point of view there is a significant benefit from having the coast lined with fish farms and no wild salmon than the other way around.

What is changing is the public is becoming aware of the governments efforts to expand fish farming at the expense of the wild salmon and is having none of it! They are doing it on a tiny budget and a lot of heart!

[absolon]

Well I have been called a lot over the years but never a relic, but you could be right this time as at 68 I feel like that some days.

Chris, I have no doubt you are full of life but with respect to fish farms and the organized campaign against them, you are indeed a relic. The thing that is killing the role that people like you fulfill in that campaign is knowledge. More and more people who know about the industry and who recognize the untruths being propagated by the anti-farm reactionaries are stepping forward to question the nonsense and clear the air. The one thing the reactionaries campaign can't overcome is the truth.

[troutbreath]

"The one thing the reactionaries campaign can't overcome is the truth."


Tell Chile that. Just a matter of time before that happens here if they keep doing things the way they have been. Of course you could say it never happened in Chile and elsewhere enough times to yourself to belive it.

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4710-after-the-goldrush-chiles-doomed-fish-farms.html


never happened,never happened,never happened,never happened,never happened,never happened,never happened,

[absolon]

Do you have any understanding of the differences between Chilean fish farming and BC fish farming?


Of course not or you would realize how meaningless your statement is.

[Easywater]

http://www.oceanwise.ca/seafood/salmon/atlantic-salmon

“Not recommended”

[absolon]

It's not working...............

"Global farmed salmon production is expected to grow 8 to 10 percent next year and up to 12 percent in 2012, said Marine Harvest executives during the company’s annual capital markets day in Stavanger, Norway, on Tuesday.

According to the world’s largest farmed salmon producer, global farmed salmon output totaled 1.32 million metric tons in 2009 and should fall to between 1.22 million and 1.25 million metric tons this year — a drop of 5 to 8 percent.

The Norwegian company also projects global farmed salmon output to reach between 1.31 million and 1.38 million metric tons in 2011 and between 1.41 million and 1.55 million metric tons in 2012, returning the total to pre-2009 levels."

http://www.seafoodsource.com/newsarticledetail.aspx?id=4294998813

[aquapaloosa]

From easywater's link:

Sustainable alternatives:
Wild-caught Pacific Salmon from BC or Alaska would be a sustainable seafood alternative.

 What!!!  How so?

Wasn't over harvesting what started all this?

[absolon]

Here is where it gets interesting.

The Gordon and Betty Moore foundation in the US, the one that funded the study to develop the campaign against farmed salmon and provides substantial funding to the anti-farm campaign also funded the establishment of the Marine Stewardship Council, the organization that has taken upon itself the job of evaluating and rating the sustainability of world fisheries. This, of course, is a noble and valuable function that will help consumers decide on environmentally sustainable consumption practices and one would think they should be commended. A closer look, however, calls that into question.

Two of the fisheries that have been rated as sustainable might cause a little consternation among those who look a little closer. One is the Alaska ranched salmon program where hatchery reared fish are released to "pasture" on a free range basis. That fishery is considered by many to be upsetting the food web in the North Pacific and cause declines in many stocks among which are the wild salmon stocks. The other declared "sustainable" fishery is the BC sockeye fishery in it's entirety. Never mind that we are in a middle of a judicial inquiry investigating the precipitous decline of the largest of the stocks, the fishery proudly bears the label "sustainable" and can be sold to consumers by organizations like the one posted as an ecologically friendly choice.

The rating of "sustainable" is a marketing ploy designed to lure consumers to selected fisheries and away from the farmed product. It does not represent accurately the facts, just as the other elements in the anti-farm campaign do not represent accurately the facts.

[troutbreath]

Do you have any understanding of the differences between Chilean fish farming and BC fish farming?


Of course not or you would realize how meaningless your statement is.

Right back at ya smarty pants.

[Easywater]

The multistakeholder World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue commissioned a report on chemical use in salmon farming. The committee of expert scientists that authored the report explain that:

“…this use of large volumes of antibiotics can only be explained by excessive and prophylactic [preventative] use. Excessive and prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal husbandry is in general the result of shortcomings in rearing methods and hygienic conditions that favor animal stress, and opportunistic infections and their dissemination.”