Print

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

[aquapaloosa]

If you do not believe in the mechanisms in place to protect the resource, then you are the problem to begin with. I can't imagine living with such a pessimistic view about humanity.

Brutal

and then randomly selected individual fish from each with smaller dip nets.

Ya, I have heard about this "random selection".

[absolon]

So we're just pretending to manage our fisheries? We employ hundreds of people with our tax dollars to pretend that they are actually doing something?

No Jon, quite obviously those people are doing something and something constructive. The fact that a politician like John Crosbie countermands their work in order to keep the seasonal UI eligibility of east coast fisheries workers and consequently obtain their votes has nothing to do with the value of the work by those engaged in fisheries management. In every jurisdiction around the world stocks are fished to extinction as a matter of practice in spite of scientific evidence of the damage.

I suggested these are reasonable alternatives for humans to consume, I never said they should replace salmon on your dinner plate. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I put no words in your mouth. You suggested the following in your post:

....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 asking you why that does not also apply to wild fisheries. Ceasing commercial harvest would take immense pressure off the resource, far more than eliminating farms yet you haven't suggested alternatives for wild salmon, only the farmed version. There appears to be two sets of rules: one for salmon farms and one for everyone else. For instance, no-one mentions charging shellfish farms for use of the flushing or the feed it provides. No-one wants to charge boaters for the water holding up their boats of sports fishermen for the fish they haul out of the water. If farms should be charged for their use of the water, why not everyone else too?

Swift Aquaculture, Sweet Spring Salmon, Agrimarine has operations in BC and China

Swift is small scale producing few fish for a local niche market. Sweet Spring is larger, but still produces small fish that sell in the least valuable weight class and gets an annual boost in grant funds to the tune of about half a million dollars from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Their operation hasn't survived long enough or on it's own to prove the concept. Agrimarine is a joke. I've looked into it and estimate they have absorbed some $40 million dollars in grants and investor funds in order to have a system failure on their first crop in their first tank in Middle Bay. They, of course, describe the failure now as a "successful harvest".

I think you may have misinterpreted the point I was making. Our oceans cold recirculating salt water is being used at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few.

What expense? It is something not otherwise being used, it's use has negligible effect on the whole, it's use increases nutrient availability to the trophic web and if it is not used, the opportunity to use that energy is lost. It is more a case of capturing some value from it without harming it.

Those farmed and dangerous links do not specifically address salmon culture other than to suggest it is not yet feasible. An analysis of the energy cost to meet the requirement for oxygen delivery and metabolite clearance at economic rearing densities makes it plain that until energy is free, it simply isn't possible to rear salmon in closed containment and that is without even considering the capital cost of the required system and redundancy. There is a reason that in the 40 year history of farming salmon that there is no-one who has ever viably produced salmon in that manner and that reason is not the lack of effort.






[/quote]

[Every Day]

In one of Mrs. Morton's paper's she held juvenile pink salmon in little traps at the end of docks for observation. Obviously you were part of a different study. Even if higher lice levels were observed, I still have a hard time believing these are the reason for wild fish dying. Pacific salmon are very well adapted to having lice and can shed them after reaching a certain size (which is a matter of days after leaving FW).

You obviously read that part about juveniles very wrong. I never once said they go back to freshwater...

Yes I do have experience working at a closed containment facility. Yes I do stand by the fact that companies would go bankrupt trying to transport, chill and otherwise work with salt water for their fish. Add in the very real possibility of having all your fish die within minutes and companies just will not be willing to do that, and I don't blame them.

What is wrong with fish farms trying to improve their image by helping out wild fish? Why are you complaining that they are helping wild fish, is it because you want them to look bad? I find it very hard to believe a farm was on ideal eel grass habitat, and if it was it was placed wrong to begin with and you probably did them a favour in decommissioning it. Do you have a report/paper or anything else to back this up?

My pessimistic view on humanity is based on everything I'v watched humanity do. We destroy the world every chance we get. How is your view on humanity any less pessimistic than mine when you are attacking salmon farms with little ground to stand on. Isn't your opinion of if there is no proof that something is harming something, then we must just assume that it is, a little pessimistic?

[jon5hill]

No Jon, quite obviously those people are doing something and something constructive. The fact that a politician like John Crosbie countermands their work in order to keep the seasonal UI eligibility of east coast fisheries workers and consequently obtain their votes has nothing to do with the value of the work by those engaged in fisheries management. In every jurisdiction around the world stocks are fished to extinction as a matter of practice in spite of scientific evidence of the damage.

Ludwig's ratchet is a well studied phenomena and I believe we learned something from the disaster with cod on the east coast. The major forces removing salmon from from our ocean are commercial and native fisheries. These are the most easily quantifiable so they are the primary targets for reductions. We should be confident in our estimates and it's uncertainty when setting our TAC and enforce it accordingly. With the Conservatives in power and all the budget cuts to fisheries and oceans it is more difficult, but these are things we should keep in mind when we go to the polls. I believe that people can and will stand up for wild salmon and protect their resource. I am one of those people. I advocate for responsible fisheries management as a matter of principle and I feel it is our responsibility as anglers to stand up for our resource when industry comes to plunder. If we all thought we had no chance against the unstoppable forces, then the feeling of futility would kill our willpower. You have to believe in your cause if you think you are going to have an impact.

I am asking you why that does not also apply to wild fisheries. Ceasing commercial harvest would take immense pressure off the resource, far more than eliminating farms yet you haven't suggested alternatives for wild salmon, only the farmed version. There appears to be two sets of rules: one for salmon farms and one for everyone else. For instance, no-one mentions charging shellfish farms for use of the flushing or the feed it provides. No-one wants to charge boaters for the water holding up their boats of sports fishermen for the fish they haul out of the water. If farms should be charged for their use of the water, why not everyone else too?

I would love to see reduced or eliminated commercial harvest, particularly to vulnerable stocks. All plunderers should be held accountable. However, changing the behavior of thousands of sport fishers and boaters and users of water is a fancy idea, but cost-benefit analysis would suggest that it's a much more tangible goal to impose limitations on open-pen aquaculture such that they mitigate or eliminate their negative interactions on wild fish. This is not to suggest the other factors should be outright dismissed but you should pick your battles wisely. Ideal world scenarios are difficult to imagine when there are so many plundering the resource, but if we stand by idle and throw our arms up in disgust because we think it's all futile then we are definitely going to lose our fish. You have to try.

Swift is small scale producing few fish for a local niche market. Sweet Spring is larger, but still produces small fish that sell in the least valuable weight class and gets an annual boost in grant funds to the tune of about half a million dollars from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Their operation hasn't survived long enough or on it's own to prove the concept. Agrimarine is a joke. I've looked into it and estimate they have absorbed some $40 million dollars in grants and investor funds in order to have a system failure on their first crop in their first tank in Middle Bay. They, of course, describe the failure now as a "successful harvest".

What is wrong with the idea of having many independents operating like Swift or Sweet Spring? With the correct legislature these types of operations would thrive. There is already market demand for sustainable seafood. If a consumer is presented with fish of comparable prices, they will always choose the more sustainable option. This type of market can not exist very well when large scale corporations are doing it in the ocean for free and with margins such that they can undercut any sustainable alternatives so drastically that consumers are forced to choose.

What expense? It is something not otherwise being used, it's use has negligible effect on the whole, it's use increases nutrient availability to the trophic web and if it is not used, the opportunity to use that energy is lost. It is more a case of capturing some value from it without harming it.

Pinniped death, whale death, disease transfer, parasites demolishing juveniles, escapement, benthic environment destruction, the effects of emamectin benzoate on other arthropods.. there are plenty of expenses.. To state that the ocean is not otherwise being used is totally absurd. The standard apologist rhetoric of nutrient loading comes out of you here, what you are essentially saying is that fish farms produce valuable organic matter to bolster marine food webs from the bottom up, therefor they are good? Do I have to really point out why this is horrendous logic? Nutrient loading is what creates hypoxia in our oceans, this type of activity leads to massive algal blooms and a cascade of other issues.
[/quote]

Those farmed and dangerous links do not specifically address salmon culture other than to suggest it is not yet feasible. An analysis of the energy cost to meet the requirement for oxygen delivery and metabolite clearance at economic rearing densities makes it plain that until energy is free, it simply isn't possible to rear salmon in closed containment and that is without even considering the capital cost of the required system and redundancy. There is a reason that in the 40 year history of farming salmon that there is no-one who has ever viably produced salmon in that manner and that reason is not the lack of effort.

People are already rearing them in closed containment therefor it IS possible. It may not be feasible to immediately replace everything in the ocean, but with the right technology and effort, anything is possible. It's simply not been addressed with as much fervor due to industries option of doing it for free, for mega bucks, in the ocean, at the expense of our ecosystem.

[jon5hill]

In one of Mrs. Morton's paper's she held juvenile pink salmon in little traps at the end of docks for observation. Obviously you were part of a different study. Even if higher lice levels were observed, I still have a hard time believing these are the reason for wild fish dying. Pacific salmon are very well adapted to having lice and can shed them after reaching a certain size (which is a matter of days after leaving FW).

Do you really believe that this has no impact on fish in terms of their daily energy requirements, behavior, and survival? This is probably the most studied phenomena and there are many peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the negative impacts high densities of parasites have on wild juveniles.

Yes I do have experience working at a closed containment facility. Yes I do stand by the fact that companies would go bankrupt trying to transport, chill and otherwise work with salt water for their fish. Add in the very real possibility of having all your fish die within minutes and companies just will not be willing to do that, and I don't blame them.

Swift and Sweet Spring are bankrupt? If there was no cost associated to protecting our wild fish then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Our government can enforce limitations on fish farming companies to avoid/mitigate impacts. Why not force industry to get creative? If you don't believe the farms are having impacts, you have your head in the sand - it's a no-brainer. There are dozens and dozens of scholarly articles written by independents, government, and industry showing that parasites and disease threaten wild fish. If you spend any time around an open pen farm sampling juvenile fish you would instantly recognize that wild fish are being impacted.

What is wrong with fish farms trying to improve their image by helping out wild fish? Why are you complaining that they are helping wild fish, is it because you want them to look bad? I find it very hard to believe a farm was on ideal eel grass habitat, and if it was it was placed wrong to begin with and you probably did them a favour in decommissioning it. Do you have a report/paper or anything else to back this up?

Nothing is wrong with that, but it's disingenuous to suggest that they are doing the world a favor without putting into perspective their motives and negative impacts on the ecosystem.

My pessimistic view on humanity is based on everything I'v watched humanity do. We destroy the world every chance we get. How is your view on humanity any less pessimistic than mine when you are attacking salmon farms with little ground to stand on. Isn't your opinion of if there is no proof that something is harming something, then we must just assume that it is, a little pessimistic?

My opinion is that we should take a precautionary approach with the use of natural resources, especially when dealing with sensitive ecosystems. Arguing the perceived optimism or pessimism about using the precautionary approach is not applicable, nor relevant to anything.

[absolon]

Ludwig's ratchet is a well studied phenomena and I believe we learned something from the disaster with cod on the east coast. The major forces removing salmon from from our ocean are commercial and native fisheries. These are the most easily quantifiable so they are the primary targets for reductions. We should be confident in our estimates and it's uncertainty when setting our TAC and enforce it accordingly. With the Conservatives in power and all the budget cuts to fisheries and oceans it is more difficult, but these are things we should keep in mind when we go to the polls. I believe that people can and will stand up for wild salmon and protect their resource. I am one of those people. I advocate for responsible fisheries management as a matter of principle and I feel it is our responsibility as anglers to stand up for our resource when industry comes to plunder. If we all thought we had no chance against the unstoppable forces, then the feeling of futility would kill our willpower. You have to believe in your cause if you think you are going to have an impact.

No-one is suggesting that we should ignore the fish or the work of the DFO in attempting to manage the stocks but in a climate where the scientists working for the DFO are vilified simply because they don't support the views of the self proclaimed protector of the wild salmon and her campaign to eliminate farms, it's hard for people to realize that the blame rests entirely with themselves and their own refusal to support a government that will appropriately fund the agency and that will keep it's hands off the policies science suggests are required. It is ridiculous to pay for the expertise and then ignore the recommendations.

I would love to see reduced or eliminated commercial harvest, particularly to vulnerable stocks. All plunderers should be held accountable. However, changing the behavior of thousands of sport fishers and boaters and users of water is a fancy idea, but cost-benefit analysis would suggest it's a much more tangible goal to impose limitations on open-pen aquaculture such that they mitigate or eliminate their negative interactions on wild fish. Ideal world scenarios are difficult to imagine when there are so many plundering the resource, but if we stand by idle and throw our arms up in disgust because we think it's all futile then we are definitely going to lose our fish. You have to try.

Open pen aquaculture is already fully engaged in mitigating or eliminating their negative interactions and has proven their willingness to do as much as they can. They understand that it is entirely in their own interests to do so. Like the scientists and fishery managers at the DFO, they are also vilified unreasonably by the same small cabal. Their unwillingness to deal with that group has nothing to do with unwillingness to co-operate for the common good and everything to do with the futility of trying to work with someone who has a predetermined outcome in mind and is unwilling to listen to anything other than support for her own version of reality. Remember, it was Ms. Morton that torpedoed the fallowing agreement by forcing transfer of responsibility to DFO because she didn't like the terms. It wasn't the farms balking.

The costs of going after farms is much less than going after the real culprits but the benefits are negligible. If you took every farm out of the ocean you would still find yourself in fifty years wondering what happened to the salmon. That approach is comparable to amputating your left foot because you have a serious case of gangrene in your right leg; it will not prevent the inevitable extirpation of the stocks. Nobody is suggesting throwing your hands up in disgust; what I am suggesting is that you don't waste the few bullets you have left shooting at rabbits when you've got an angry grizzly circling the cabin.

What is wrong with the idea of having many independents operating like Swift or Sweet Spring? With the correct legislature these types of operations would thrive. There is already market demand for sustainable seafood. If a consumer is presented with fish of comparable prices, they will always choose the more sustainable option. This type of market can not exist very well when large scale corporations are doing it in the ocean for free and with margins such that they can undercut any sustainable alternatives so drastically that consumers are forced to choose.

You sound more than a little idealistic and not very realistic. Salmon go into a commodity market that circulates the product around the world. That market isn't interested in small fish and consequently pays very little for them. Small operations like you describe can't produce big fish and local markets can't absorb the production from more than a few economic scale local farms. You are suggesting that we eliminate an industry sector that has an economic impact on the province of some $800 million dollars a year and replace it with a sector that would be lucky to provide $50 million in impact and to do this based on fears that something could happen in spite of the fact that the industry has some thirty years successful and safe operating history and in spite of the fact that most of the percieved negative impacts are overblown hyperbole trumped up in service of Ms. Morton's objectives.

Pinniped death, whale death, disease transfer, parasites demolishing juveniles, escapement, benthic environment destruction, the effects of emamectin benzoate on other arthropods.. there are plenty of expenses.. To state that the ocean is not otherwise being used is totally absurd. The standard apologist rhetoric of nutrient loading comes out of you here, what you are essentially saying is that fish farms produce valuable organic matter to bolster marine food webs from the bottom up, therefor they are good? Do I have to really point out why this is horrendous logic? Nutrient loading is what creates hypoxia in our oceans, this type of activity leads to massive algal blooms and a cascade of other issues.

You seem to have lost the concept that the ocean is a dynamic open ecosystem with a substantial buffering capacity. Even though you are guilty of a little rhetorical hyperbole yourself, virtually all of those "expenses" occur with or without salmon farms and the system adapts and moderates the effects. The only danger lies in exceeding the capacity of the system to recover and salmon farms don't cause effects anywhere near that magnitude. Nutrient loading may indeed cause hypoxia in sufficient overabundance but in a recent thread here we worked through the calculation that the entire N production of the industry over one year if not taken up by any other organism would increase the N concentration of a patch of ocean 10 km square by 100m deep a whopping 0.2 ppm. Considering the much broader distribution of that increased N content, the increase would hardly be measurable. Hypoxia is not a risk and it doesn't appear that it is my logic that is horrendous.

People are already rearing them in closed containment therefor it IS possible. It may not be feasible to immediately replace everything in the ocean, but with the right technology and effort, anything is possible. It's simply not been addressed with as much fervor due to industries option of doing it for free, for mega bucks, in the ocean, at the expense of our ecosystem.

It appears Pauly's ratchet is at play here. You may not be aware of it, but there has been substantial work done over the years to make the proposition work. It actually has great attraction to the industry and for many years there was a belief that technology could overcome the challenge just as you are now suggesting. What has been accomplished is a much more precise definition of the problem but it hasn't moved the solution any closer. I will repeat myself one more time. The reason that farms are not in closed containment is not the lack of effort.








[/quote]

[troutbreath]

I can't imagine the reply one would get from the "pro" fish farmers will have when the my smelly socks hits the fan.

[shuswapsteve]

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.

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?

You are hoping for a Utopian world which doesn’t exist, Jon.  Have you ever done any environmental monitoring, assessments or fish or fish habitat inventory?  If you did you will quickly find out that there is more to what you have just spoke about.  I certainly believe that there are well intentioned people out there that want the best for the environment, but many of these people from my experience are not thinking about the whole issue – only what they hear from one source and not the inter-relationships with different factors.  Decisions you talk about should rest in the hands to those that know what they are talking about and have the experience to leave the rhetoric and emotional arguments out of the picture.  Many fish farm opponents cannot seem to leave this out and this is why they are marginalized.  Secondly, you have basically contradicted your argument about the Precautionary Principle because now you are stating that there is “enough evidence” on the negative impacts.  Which is it?  The fact is that is also enough evidence that the industry in BC is conducting itself in a responsible manner and has less of an impact that what you have portrayed.

I counter by saying that if we left all these decisions to people such as yourself you might win the short term popularity contests with bloggers and cyberscientists that sit by their computers doing endless Google searches trying to second guess actual fisheries biologists and technicians, but in reality the decisions that you make will be likely be in haste with even worse consequences with no regard for the actual fish themselves.

The realistic goal is to finally admit that environmental impact is all around us and that the concept of BC fish farms having zero impact is totally unrealistic.  Many critics want this from fish farms but do not demand it elsewhere.  In my opinion, farm critics are going after the least offending party in order to feel like they are saving wild salmon.  Actually making changes on what the City of Vancouver does to the marine environment would require some legislation also (and enforcement) and some collective muscle from municipal, provincial and federal politicians.  The problem is that the public does not like to part with the modern conveniences or make those harder decisions that would impact their everyday life and would rather direct their attention to whoever makes the most noise in the press or internet – regardless if it is factual or not.

[shuswapsteve]

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).

Maybe it's because you are not looking hard enough?  You can also try the Cohen Commission website.

http://salmonfarmscience.com/library/

[shuswapsteve]

The Precautionary Principle does state when in doubt - do not do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

The rest of the post is another case of the pro-farmers saying "everyone else is ruining the environment - why can't we?"

Jon, once they attack you personally, the circle will be complete and you will know that you made an impact.

No, the principle does not state “when in doubt – do not do it.”  Where does it say that in your quote?  Instead it refers to the absence of certainty of risk.  It means no information to properly assess risk of a certain decision.  It does not mean if you have doubts about your decision do not proceed.  Two separate things really when you think about it.  The principle was not developed as a crutch for certain environmentalists and some members of the general public to fall back on when they did not agree with another point of view.

There is always some level of doubt in whatever decision is made with regards to fisheries or wildlife management.  No one, even the best minds in the scientific community, can forecast what the precise results of a certain action.  If we could then most of these debates would be very short.  All one can really do is do some level of risk assessment and inventory of the best information available at the time.  Once risk is assessed then one can better determine whether migration of that impact is possible.  Whether you agree or disagree with certain mitigation actions they do exist and are common to many things you do and see each day.  For instance, take fishing regulations as an example.  Using your interpretation of the principle you would likely have your fishing opportunities curtailed quite a bit to almost non-existent.  Instead, risk is assessed and measures are put in place as if those risks are real.  Measures can include size limits, closures at certain times of the year, gear restrictions, access restrictions, quota limits, etc.  With all those measures there is always some doubt whether they will work or not.

No, “pro-farmers” or whoever else you are referring to are not saying well if “everyone else is ruining the environment so can we”.  What I am saying is that there are activities going on right now that have much more impact than salmon farming in BC which incorporate some level of mitigation to their impacts to environment and no one (especially farm critics) really says anything about it.  No mention about Alaskan salmon ranching.  No, all is good on that front.  Farm critics love to show the decline of Fraser River Sockeye on that graph with salmon farming in BC, but when you superimpose the increase in salmon ranching production in Alaska they tune right out.  There are greater boogiemen out there.  Thanks to a certain Conservative Party back east these Boogiemen will be more visible really soon.  This is what people should be up in arms about – not salmon farming.

[jon5hill]

Just curious if anyone knows of any cases where farms have been moved out of the way of migration corridors for juvenile salmon?

[absolon]

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/solutions/emergency-protection/coordinated-area-management/

http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/changes-to-broughton-area-monitoring-program-bamp/