Print

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

[Bassonator]

Hahaha, but you'll buy sockeye off an Indian at your back yard fence, hahahahaha !!!!!

Your hilarious, I love it

Yup I did...

[absolon]

Then for your situation think about what would have happened if Henry Ford would have said "To date, despite numerous attempts, there is no proven viable automobile."  I guess we'd still be driving horses and carriages......    

If Ford had said that he would have been correct, in fact he likely did, and it wouldn't have made a difference to the development of a machine that combined existing technologies.

[shuswapsteve]

After reading the document I did not get the impression that RAS technology was what opponents of net pen fish farms make it out to be (at least at the present time).  I agree with some of the others that say it can be marginally profitable at best.  Increased labour and energy costs are not the only major hurdles mention in the report.  If the price for farmed salmon changes once Chile ramps up production and other countries begin getting more involved in aquaculture (i.e. USA) it will definitely make RAS technology even less attractive.  Add to that the ROE compared to net pen systems and it looks like RAS technology on a larger scale on our coast will need some improvements and some luck on the market-side of things.  In my opinion, I just do not see it being a viable option anytime soon on a larger scale here in BC.  It was interesting to see how the other systems faired in comparison also.  I did not realize that the ROE on them was that poor.

I do not see the document as an admittance by DFO that net pen aquaculture is bad or “knows there is a problem”.  The thing is that the department has been heavily criticized by net pen opponents for not embracing RAS technology (or at least considering it), for not thinking about the well being of wild salmon and being in a conflict of interest with the BC industry.  What this document shows is that the department is trying to respond to these concerns from all sides of the debate by doing a thorough analysis (technical and financial) of RAS and other systems by utilizing numerous experts on this issue.  I think it is legitimate attempt to try to benefit all stakeholders (industry, environmentalists, and the general public) to see if there is some middle ground.  However, like most things in life you are damned if you do and damned it you don’t.  Doing a risk analysis is a pretty standard thing to do and does not necessarily mean that RAS will never work or be adopted, but with everything you need some sort of starting point and some information to make the best informed decisions possible.

[Sandy]

you would have to be pretty naive to expect that DFO would or will say anything negative about the fish farm industry, after all they are mandated to assist the aqua industry.

as for closed containment: if proven that it is less likely to pollute or contaminate the ocean then that is what should be used and yes effluent should be treated to the standards set out for other industries.

as for additional costs? hey , that is the industry's problem, just as with any of the other industries they also have to foot the bill, if that makes the product too costly, C'est la vie.

We have for too long underpriced the value of our wild stock, The production of the farmed fish may well allow the fare to be affordable to more markets but all the pro's and con's have to be weighed up. it is not simply price per pound it is what is included in that price per pound that is important.

to simply deny that there is any negative effect to the environment is dishonest and ignorant, as is blaming the Aqua industry for the demise of the wild stocks, that is simply not true either. With that said, I still do not like the practices of the Aqua industry and somewhat their attitude towards the general public. I think, what is required, is a completely impartial and unbiased review published, when that is complete a public referendum held on whether this industry should remain on our coast. There is no reason that with technology today , we can't do this.

The Environmental agencies whether federal or provincial, should be unfettered by politics and only have one mandate, that is to look out for the environment, all reports and operations should be completely transparent.

[EZ_Rolling]

Somehow it doesn't seem to matter if they harvest successfully they sell if it gets disease they kill them all and the taxpayers pay ...win win for them

[alwaysfishn]

Latest update on the K’udas Closed Containment Project:  http://www.namgis.bc.ca/CCP/Documents/Project%20Backgrounder%202012-06-14.pdf

[dnibbles]

you would have to be pretty naive to expect that DFO would or will say anything negative about the fish farm industry, after all they are mandated to assist the aqua industry.

as for closed containment: if proven that it is less likely to pollute or contaminate the ocean then that is what should be used and yes effluent should be treated to the standards set out for other industries.

as for additional costs? hey , that is the industry's problem, just as with any of the other industries they also have to foot the bill, if that makes the product too costly, C'est la vie.

What kind of car do you drive Sandy? Electric, or internal combustion engine? Electrics are pretty expensive hey? But they are proven to pollute less. Should we ban internal combustion engines tomorrow?

Just sayinnnnnn'

[Sandy]

What kind of car do you drive Sandy? Electric, or internal combustion engine? Electrics are pretty expensive hey? But they are proven to pollute less. Should we ban internal combustion engines tomorrow?

Just sayinnnnnn'

what is your point ?

perhaps you can try another comparative analogy?
Are Electric cars really less polluting ? not if you count indirect effects on the enviroment.

just sayin!

[AnnieP]

you would have to be pretty naive to expect that DFO would or will say anything negative about the fish farm industry, after all they are mandated to assist the aqua industry.

as for closed containment: if proven that it is less likely to pollute or contaminate the ocean then that is what should be used and yes effluent should be treated to the standards set out for other industries.

as for additional costs? hey , that is the industry's problem, just as with any of the other industries they also have to foot the bill, if that makes the product too costly, C'est la vie.

We have for too long underpriced the value of our wild stock, The production of the farmed fish may well allow the fare to be affordable to more markets but all the pro's and con's have to be weighed up. it is not simply price per pound it is what is included in that price per pound that is important.

to simply deny that there is any negative effect to the environment is dishonest and ignorant, as is blaming the Aqua industry for the demise of the wild stocks, that is simply not true either. With that said, I still do not like the practices of the Aqua industry and somewhat their attitude towards the general public. I think, what is required, is a completely impartial and unbiased review published, when that is complete a public referendum held on whether this industry should remain on our coast. There is no reason that with technology today , we can't do this.

The Environmental agencies whether federal or provincial, should be unfettered by politics and only have one mandate, that is to look out for the environment, all reports and operations should be completely transparent.

And that mandate was gifted them by the illustrious Alexandra Morton Ain't she sweet 

[alwaysfishn]

And that mandate was gifted them by the illustrious Alexandra Morton Ain't she sweet 

You are giving Morton a way too much credit......    "Under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the conservation and protection of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries. The Fisheries Act, first passed by Parliament in 1868, is the federal statute promulgated pursuant to this constitutional authority."

[absolon]

And you are trying to deny reality. As has been pointed out over and over and over and even acknowledged by Morton herself, it was her court challenge that transferred responsibility for the farms to DFO. Until that time, DFO was perfectly willing to accept that BC placed farms in the jurisdiction of agriculture, a provincial responsibility, and allow BC to manage them.

[alwaysfishn]

And you are trying to deny reality. As has been pointed out over and over and over and even acknowledged by Morton herself, it was her court challenge that transferred responsibility for the farms to DFO. Until that time, DFO was perfectly willing to accept that BC placed farms in the jurisdiction of agriculture, a provincial responsibility, and allow BC to manage them.

"Perfectly willing" didn't really line up with the law did it? In the end whoever prompted DFO to follow the law is irrelevant.  Try to get over it.

[absolon]

Nobody cared that perfectly willing didn't line up with the law. The situation was accepted by both DFO and the province until Morton, in an attempt to block a plan which would have seen fallowing of farm sites along a migration route during migration, decided that no-one could negotiate any solution without her personal approval and took the issue to court. Incidentally, the part of the plan which had been approved by the province before the case blocked any further permitting was implemented anyway and was successful. The only thing Morton accomplished was to force DFO to take responsibility and damage her own credibility.

[alwaysfishn]

Nobody cared that perfectly willing didn't line up with the law. The situation was accepted by both DFO and the province until Morton, in an attempt to block a plan which would have seen fallowing of farm sites along a migration route during migration, decided that no-one could negotiate any solution without her personal approval and took the issue to court. Incidentally, the part of the plan which had been approved by the province before the case blocked any further permitting was implemented anyway and was successful. The only thing Morton accomplished was to force DFO to take responsibility and damage her own credibility.

Do you see everything different from what really happened???

[absolon]

The reason for the legal challenge in Ms. Mortons own words in response to my question to her:

The reason I went to court started with a deal between Marine Harvest and a coalition of enviros I was part of. To allow Marine Harvest to fallow one route of Broughton every spring Marine Harvest said their farms and to be 2-3 times bigger. The enviros were good with that, but I wasn't because as part of my sea lice research I examined thousands of juvenile salmon (live) as they approached and passed the fish farms in Broughton. Sea lice is a numbers game. They are allowed only a few live per fish, but if they triple the number of fish of course the lice numbers increase. SO I left the coalition and found a lawyer to get an injunction and he said "you know what this whole thing is not legal" they are not farms and should not be managed by the province who have no responsibility to the wild fish. Actually the whole concept of fish farming in net pens runs counter to the Constitution of Canada because no one is allowed to privatize ocean spaces or own fish in the marine waters..... However, the feds are as bad as the province and with Harper hacking away at the Fisheries Act, there really is no progress except that the Broughton sites remain in their original size, most are expired because First Nations refuse to OK their renewal

Found here: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?19113-What-can-WE-do-to-help-save-the-salmon&p=229393&viewfull=1#post229393


Excerpts from the record of the abbreviated fallowing plan as described by one of the organizations opposing farms:

....In the spring of 2009 during the wild salmon out-migration (March 1st-June 30th), MHC began implementing CAMP. Only the farm at Wicklow Point at the far western end of Fife Sound was still stocked as the company could not obtain the necessary license amendments to move the fish to the Knight Inlet route that year.......

.......Analysis of the data is ongoing, however in July 2009, MHC and CAAR issued a joint media release noting that both their results and the results of independent Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) research suggested lower levels of sea lice in 2009 in the Broughton Archipelago. DFO researcher Brent Hargreaves independently conducted wild fish surveys in 2009 with results indicating that levels of lice on wild fish during March and April 2009 were generally much lower than the levels that occurred from 2003-2007...........


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