Print

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

[jon5hill]

Hey guys,

Please read, sign, and share:

http://www.change.org/SalmonFlu

[jon5hill]

For fish management purposes it means in the absence of scientific certainty of risk proceed cautiously and put measures in place as if those risks are indeed real.

Who decides that this is what it means for "fish management"? You? I certainly hope not. The decision should be in the hands of the people of British Columbia what should be done in the absence of certainty of risk. Enough evidence has been provided demonstrating their negative impacts that it's a no-brainer to get them out of the ocean until a safer alternative can be developed and implemented. Closed pens or land facilities, it's time to innovate ways to minimize the impacts. In China they are growing sockeye in freshwater closed containment facilities. The degree to which we choose to mitigate the risk shouldn't be decided by fish farmers, it should be decided by the people. If we let people like you make all the decisions, we would sacrifice our moral obligations for profit and a steady income each and every time.

The City of Vancouver has impact on the marine environment, a ranch that utilizes water in the interior of BC for hayfields impacts the environment, and your fishing impacts the environment.

It's true. The city of Vancouver has an impact on the marine environment. In terms of accomplishing something with respect to protecting our environment and wild fish, what is a more realistic goal? Eliminating the nutrient loading and pollution of the city of Vancouver? Or banning fish farms? One requires the collective action of 2 million people and would have an impact, the other would require the collective action of the muscles in the hands of the minister of environment/fisheries and oceans to ink some legislature banning the existence of open net pens in British Columbia. Which goal is more tangible?

[Dave]

Hey guys,
Please read, sign, and share:
http://www.change.org/SalmonFlu

While you're at it, don't forget to donate to the latest Ms. Morton campaign.  This time it's to pay for the analysis of the samples she had tested for one of the latest scares – think she needs another 15 k or so.   My cheques in the mail
Here's your chance anti’s – send this lady your cash to save the salmon.

[Every Day]

So:

It has been demonstrated time and time again that fish farms have negative impacts on the environment around them and to wild fish populations as they are point sources for high densities of viral particles and parasites. They entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, produce poor quality fish when compared to wild alternatives, are a horrible waste of marine biomass due to conversion inefficiency from fish feed, have invasive potential from escapes, among many other problems up and down marine food webs. From personal observation, they smell horrible, operate in otherwise ideal passageways for wild juvenile salmon, create intense parasite loads on surrounding wild juveniles, are prone to dangerous viral outbreaks that may at any moment decide to cause disease to wild fish, among many other negatives.

1) Yep they do entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, but seine/gill nets and bottom trawling for wild fish kills most likely just as many, along with a number of dolphins, and other non target fish species that get thrown over as by-catch (dead).

2) True they farmed salmon may be of lesser quality than wild. What do you propose we do? Eliminate fish farms completely and commercially fish for wild fish to replace the production amount? Good luck with over fishing every stock to the point of extinction. It isn't doable to maintain the worlds population on wild fish at this point, or any longer for that matter. Point is farmed fish are still healthy for you.

3) Horrible waste of marine biomass? First off fish have the highest conversion efficiency when compared to any animal. Farmed fish most likely achieve a higher conversion efficiency than wild fish, and do so by using less marine biomass than wild fish do (wild fish eat all fish, farmed fish eat pellets composed of plant, fish, and other content). If a fish farmer has a conversion efficiency of over 1.0 (weight gain per amount of food fed) they get fired.

4) Atlantic's could have potential to be invasive, yes. Take into consideration however that years ago DFO released millions of Atlantics into our waters to try and establish sport fishing populations. None of these ever took. Generally Atlantic's have terrible immunity to things like IHN which is carried by 99% of pacific salmon. Therefore the chance of an Atlantic to compete with a pacific for spawning ground, spawn, hatch and make it back to the ocean is very very low.

At this point with the world's growing population, I think it is inevitable to have fish farms producing most if not all of our fish. If we were to fish on wild stocks to support our desire for fish it would be over fishing making these fish a thing of the past, and not farms. In the end we would be stuck with farms any ways and no wild fish at all. Right now they are obviously finding a way to work together with wild fish, as the runs of wild fish the past few years have been record breaking at times, and none have been pointing towards an extinction event as so many will claim.

Lastly, everyone always comes back to that parasite loading on wild salmon thing. If you read the other thread (can't remember at this point, been so many of these) I provided articles showing that wild fish are not being eliminated due to sea lice. I still have yet to see a viable paper showing that sea lice densities (of parasitic stage) are present around farms.

Lastly, sure all of a sudden some virus' are popping up. As I said before, who is to say we don't have our own strain of ISA present here and that anti-farmers are just finding it now because they are looking for a way to eliminate farms? The ocean is a big connected body of water. Isn't it a little foolish to think that if it isn't one place in the ocean it can't move around due to currents and such? This IHN thing is actually pretty sad to be honest, all pacific salmon and herring are carriers, they just don't show symptoms or die from IHN, Atlantic's do. If you guys are worried about IHN "spreading" from Atlantic's to pacific's you need to get your facts straight, because it is most likely the other way around.

[jon5hill]

1) Yep they do entangle pinnipeds which are sometimes killed, but seine/gill nets and bottom trawling for wild fish kills most likely just as many, along with a number of dolphins, and other non target fish species that get thrown over as by-catch (dead).

2) True they farmed salmon may be of lesser quality than wild. What do you propose we do? Eliminate fish farms completely and commercially fish for wild fish to replace the production amount? Good luck with over fishing every stock to the point of extinction. It isn't doable to maintain the worlds population on wild fish at this point, or any longer for that matter. Point is farmed fish are still healthy for you.

3) Horrible waste of marine biomass? First off fish have the highest conversion efficiency when compared to any animal. Farmed fish most likely achieve a higher conversion efficiency than wild fish, and do so by using less marine biomass than wild fish do (wild fish eat all fish, farmed fish eat pellets composed of plant, fish, and other content). If a fish farmer has a conversion efficiency of over 1.0 (weight gain per amount of food fed) they get fired.

4) Atlantic's could have potential to be invasive, yes. Take into consideration however that years ago DFO released millions of Atlantics into our waters to try and establish sport fishing populations. None of these ever took. Generally Atlantic's have terrible immunity to things like IHN which is carried by 99% of pacific salmon. Therefore the chance of an Atlantic to compete with a pacific for spawning ground, spawn, hatch and make it back to the ocean is very very low.

At this point with the world's growing population, I think it is inevitable to have fish farms producing most if not all of our fish. If we were to fish on wild stocks to support our desire for fish it would be over fishing making these fish a thing of the past, and not farms. In the end we would be stuck with farms any ways and no wild fish at all. Right now they are obviously finding a way to work together with wild fish, as the runs of wild fish the past few years have been record breaking at times, and none have been pointing towards an extinction event as so many will claim.

Lastly, everyone always comes back to that parasite loading on wild salmon thing. If you read the other thread (can't remember at this point, been so many of these) I provided articles showing that wild fish are not being eliminated due to sea lice. I still have yet to see a viable paper showing that sea lice densities (of parasitic stage) are present around farms.

Lastly, sure all of a sudden some virus' are popping up. As I said before, who is to say we don't have our own strain of ISA present here and that anti-farmers are just finding it now because they are looking for a way to eliminate farms? The ocean is a big connected body of water. Isn't it a little foolish to think that if it isn't one place in the ocean it can't move around due to currents and such? This IHN thing is actually pretty sad to be honest, all pacific salmon and herring are carriers, they just don't show symptoms or die from IHN, Atlantic's do. If you guys are worried about IHN "spreading" from Atlantic's to pacific's you need to get your facts straight, because it is most likely the other way around.

Are you saying you would prefer we have all farmed fish over wild fish?

[troutbreath]

It's like some people have never heard of swine or avian flu's. So they don't get the concept that virus's mutate especially in animal farming situations. One big blank look when it comes to seeing the inherant risks that have wiped out millions and millions of farmed fish. Amasing, and it's probably caused by eating things aren't good for you.

[Every Day]

Jon.

I'm saying that I would rather see most of the population eat farmed fish rather than fishing all stocks to extinction, and then only being left with farmed fish in the end any ways. People don't realize that without farmed salmon and other fish many stocks would have already been fished down to the point of extinction due to demand from a massive population.

All in all I'm very neutral about salmon farming. I don't 100% agree with it, but I can't disagree with it due to all the shoddy science around from the "anti's". I have still yet to see actual scientific backing (not models, predictions, or just plain bad science) to say farms are the demise of wild fish. If there was more legitimate proof that these farms are a bad thing I'll jump the wagon in a heart beat. However up to this point in my eyes, they are actually keeping wild salmon from extinction. You know how the government works... Eliminate fish farms = more demand for wild fish (more money for gov) = more fishing on wild stocks that CANNOT handle the pressure = stocks in worse shape than they are now = no fishing for us any ways. 

[Bassonator]

Awesome post Everyday.

[jon5hill]

Jon.

I'm saying that I would rather see most of the population eat farmed fish rather than fishing all stocks to extinction, and then only being left with farmed fish in the end any ways. People don't realize that without farmed salmon and other fish many stocks would have already been fished down to the point of extinction due to demand from a massive population.

All in all I'm very neutral about salmon farming. I don't 100% agree with it, but I can't disagree with it due to all the shoddy science around from the "anti's". I have still yet to see actual scientific backing (not models, predictions, or just plain bad science) to say farms are the demise of wild fish. If there was more legitimate proof that these farms are a bad thing I'll jump the wagon in a heart beat. However up to this point in my eyes, they are actually keeping wild salmon from extinction. You know how the government works... Eliminate fish farms = more demand for wild fish (more money for gov) = more fishing on wild stocks that CANNOT handle the pressure = stocks in worse shape than they are now = no fishing for us any ways.  

I find a couple of things really alarming with your logic:

What you are saying essentially is that due to increased demand, we will go ahead and fish down wilds to complete extinction. I think all of those involved in regulating total allowable catch, population level risk assessment, stock identification, test fishing, modeling, and conducting panel meetings throughout the harvest season to set safe total allowable catch would find that insulting. You think there is no system in place to monitor population numbers and address concerns about over-exploitation?

You are assuming that net pens are the ONLY WAY to get the job done with respect to providing alternatives to wild fish on the market. This can not be further from the truth, there has been amazing results with closed containment facilities all over the world, IMTA (Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture) is likely the way of the future, farming fish like Tilapia that consume plant-based protein/omega-3 FA's instead of forage fish in horrible conversion efficiency, or simply eating lower on the foodchain and buying a bag of lentils or quinoa instead of chucking a big chunk of frankenfish on your barbeque are all exceptional and totally viable alternatives to farming in the open ocean. I am not telling you you can't eat meat, but I am telling you that we can have our fish and eat them too and it doesn't require the destruction of the oceans - all it requires are lower profit margins for the huge megacorporate complex reaping all the monetary benefit from the degradation of our ocean. They pay nothing to use our ocean as a filtration system, they pay nothing to create an aquatic environment suitable to grow their fish in. This is a classic tragedy of the commons and if you can't see that there are alternatives then you are plain ignorant.  

[jon5hill]

While you're at it, don't forget to donate to the latest Ms. Morton campaign.  This time it's to pay for the analysis of the samples she had tested for one of the latest scares – think she needs another 15 k or so.   My cheques in the mail
Here's your chance anti’s – send this lady your cash to save the salmon.

Are you implying that Alexandra is using donations for something other than those tests?

Why are you bringing up donations when I am referencing a link that sends people to a petition and letter about supermarkets selling fish infected with viruses?

Is it safe to assume you would have no issue eating this type of fish?

[jon5hill]

Lastly, everyone always comes back to that parasite loading on wild salmon thing. If you read the other thread (can't remember at this point, been so many of these) I provided articles showing that wild fish are not being eliminated due to sea lice. I still have yet to see a viable paper showing that sea lice densities (of parasitic stage) are present around farms.

Take this from me, I have sampled for Alexandra's long term data set in the Broughton and personally observed increased parasite loads on fish in proximity to farms. Most of these parasites had egg strings so they were "of parasitic stage". Which, by the way, includes every life stage after they become motile which is quite early in their development. They begin to degrade mucous, flesh, and consume blood almost immediately.

If my word is useless to you, then consider reading from the primary literature (not pro farming websites that don't have peer-reviewed literature).

I have provided an exhaustive list here:

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234321#msg234321
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234322#msg234322
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24760.msg234323#msg234323

[jon5hill]

1

[absolon]

It doesn't matter how irrefutable the science behind population management, it is still trumped by politics. Just ask the Atlantic cod fishermen. So long as fishing pressure exists, it will take the last fish.

If we can all eat lentils or quinoa or tilapia and therefore don't need farmed salmon, why do we need a commercial fishery for salmon?

Can you point to a single successful standalone closed containment system for rearing salmon or explain how the laws of both biology and physics can be overcome sufficiently to make the practice possible?

Can you explain why the elemental nutrients produced by the decomposition of farmed salmon feces are a destructive influence on the ocean while those produced by the 2 billion ranched Alaskan salmon aren't?

Since you believe they can operate on reduced profit, could you enlighten us as to what profit margins the "huge megacorporate complex" farming in BC are making?

[Dave]

Are you implying that Alexandra is using donations for something other than those tests?

Why are you bringing up donations when I am referencing a link that sends people to a petition and letter about supermarkets selling fish infected with viruses?

Is it safe to assume you would have no issue eating this type of fish?

1. Read what I said, the money is for Morton's latest anti salmon farm attack.
2. If people are concerned about salmon infected with whatever virus she has found that particular day I gave them an opportunity to donate to this ridiculous cause.  I will not be donating - how about you?
3. And correct, I have no issue with eating fish carrying IHN .... been doing it for about 50 years, as has every other person who consumes Fraser River sockeye. 

[aquapaloosa]

Apparently one drop of seawater has approximately 10 million viruses.  Can someone point me into the right direction to find some sea food that is virus free?

http://www.futurity.org/earth-environment/millions-of-marine-viruses-ebb-and-flow/