Print

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

[Sandman]

Filtered by the ground, processed or pollutes indirectly?  Hmmm.....well, if it "gets filtered by the ground" then why does NOAA suggest that 80% of the ocean pollution begins on land?  So pesticides and fertilizers are just "indirectly" making their way so that is not as bad?  We haven't even touched on storm drains or even ground water impacts.  How much precipitation falls in the Lower Mainland annually?  C'mon stop making me giggle, banx.

Short answer: Because over 80% of human activity takes place on land.  As we expand our activity in the ocean you can bet that percentage will change accordingly.  How is arguing that land based agriculture pollutes the ocean going to show that aquaculture doesn't pollute the ocean anyway? We have done a lot to MINIMIZE (but not eliminate) the agricultural runoff (expansion of the riparian zones so farmers cannot plow right to the stream course is one), because we know it is a major source of pollution but pesticide and fertilizers continue to be a major polluter of our waterways, and yes they lead to the ocean.   None of this changes the fact that open net pens discharge waste directly into the ocean with no filtration at all.  Does it make sense to force land based farmers to reduce their environmental impact, while agriculturalists are allowed to freely discharge waste directly into the ocean?   The argument that fish farms cover a small area becomes moot once government and industry talk about continued expansion.  That percentage is going to change.

[shuswapsteve]

Short answer: Because over 80% of human activity takes place on land.  As we expand our activity in the ocean you can bet that percentage will change accordingly.  How is arguing that land based agriculture pollutes the ocean going to show that aquaculture doesn't pollute the ocean anyway? We have done a lot to MINIMIZE (but not eliminate) the agricultural runoff (expansion of the riparian zones so farmers cannot plow right to the stream course is one), because we know it is a major source of pollution but pesticide and fertilizers continue to be a major polluter of our waterways, and yes they lead to the ocean.   None of this changes the fact that open net pens discharge waste directly into the ocean with no filtration at all.  Does it make sense to force land based farmers to reduce their environmental impact, while agriculturalists are allowed to freely discharge waste directly into the ocean?   The argument that fish farms cover a small area becomes moot once government and industry talk about continued expansion.  That percentage is going to change.

No, it is not meant to show that aquaculture doesn't pollute the ocean.  It is meant to show how skewed the criticism is of aquaculture waste into the ocean when the biggest offenders have been doing this for a long time now and share a much bigger percentage.  The same argument can be made that aquaculture has done a lot to minimize (but not eliminate) waste discharge into the ocean.  For instance, the amount of feed used is video monitored to help prevent the unnecessary waste and benthic monitoring is a condition of their licence.  Salmon farming in BC is likely the most regulated resource industry in the province and the regulations here are amongst the most stringent in the world.  Can't say the same about land-based agriculture, but of course salmon farming is the big Boogeyman so all those other impacts on land get pushed aside because "they are not on the water".

Even the latest report from NOAA dispels some of those myths:

http://www.seafoodsource.com/en/news/aquaculture/25232-noaa-coastal-aquaculture-environmentally-safe

[troutbreath]

Talking trash under the net pen Steve. That link you posted should come with TP. Thanks for the chuckle.


"NOAA has a chonic case of anal-cranial inversion. At a time when Canadians and others are looking to go from open water-net pen aquaculture to land-based contained facilities due to problems of feed loss, antibiotic and pesticide/herbicide use with net pens, and the continual problem of escapes, NOAA make the outrageous claim that marine cages are the future of aquaculture. This is pure nonsense and is not based on fact, but rather what NOAA perceives as its regulatory jurisdiction.
 
 

 "There are only two instances of the word 'disease' in this 170 page report; one in a section discussing the fact that marine mammals may stress caged fish and result in greater disease in the farmed fish, the other in a sentence referring to the notion that wild fish in tropical regions might contract diseases when they congregate around aquaculture cages. I realize this is only a "comprehensive review of some predominant environmental risks" but I think the conclusion is a bit premature and the headline just a tad overstated."


"Absolutely mind-boggling to think it's "environmentally safe." I totally agree with Zeke Grader's comments. Also, it's shameful that NOAA is not concerned with the health of the oceans, ecosystems and the livelihood of the fishermen. I reckon taking orders from the Department of Commerce is the reason NOAA published this report; business as usual."

[Fisherbob]

http://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default.asp?lang=En&n=235D11EB-1&offset=14&toc=show

[Fisherbob]

http://www.fishfarmingxpert.com/index.php?page_id=37&article_id=104158

[aquapaloosa]

http://salmonfarmscience.com/2014/03/06/calling-shenanigans-again-on-mortons-junk-graph/

[aquapaloosa]

http://blog.farmfreshsalmon.org/?p=758

[shuswapsteve]

Talking trash under the net pen Steve. That link you posted should come with TP. Thanks for the chuckle.


"NOAA has a chonic case of anal-cranial inversion. At a time when Canadians and others are looking to go from open water-net pen aquaculture to land-based contained facilities due to problems of feed loss, antibiotic and pesticide/herbicide use with net pens, and the continual problem of escapes, NOAA make the outrageous claim that marine cages are the future of aquaculture. This is pure nonsense and is not based on fact, but rather what NOAA perceives as its regulatory jurisdiction.

I am sure fish farm critics see problems with feed loss, antibiotic and pesticide/herbicide use with net pens.  That's the problem - they see lots of things, make things up to make them more real or use exaggeration.

"There are only two instances of the word 'disease' in this 170 page report; one in a section discussing the fact that marine mammals may stress caged fish and result in greater disease in the farmed fish, the other in a sentence referring to the notion that wild fish in tropical regions might contract diseases when they congregate around aquaculture cages. I realize this is only a "comprehensive review of some predominant environmental risks" but I think the conclusion is a bit premature and the headline just a tad overstated."

On the other hand, you will see the word "disease" used many, many more times in anti-fish farm propaganda.  If you use the word enough times it makes it more scary I guess.  Being informative is not consideration.

"Absolutely mind-boggling to think it's "environmentally safe." I totally agree with Zeke Grader's comments. Also, it's shameful that NOAA is not concerned with the health of the oceans, ecosystems and the livelihood of the fishermen. I reckon taking orders from the Department of Commerce is the reason NOAA published this report; business as usual."

Yeah, must be another conspiracy brewing.  Way to go for providing a reference for this, TB....lol.

[chris gadsden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576088/DDT-salmon-Pesticide-discovered-farmed-fish-sale-five-major-British-supermarkets.html

[Fisherbob]

http://www.fishfarmingxpert.com/index.php?page_id=258&article_id=104240

[banx]

Steve.... Actually not that I'm too excited to continue a conversation but they can be removed from the water.... Everything you listed can't easily be moved or engineered

And yes bob, farmed anything is not as good as anything natural. Beef is a huge example which aquapaloosa can vouche for... Grass fed beef contains the same good fats and cholesterol as wild fish. It's why Argentinians do not have the same heart problems as North Americans.  It's why sipping from the tit of your mother is better than anything called formula


What I got from that article is that eating is probably good for you. If you starve yourself it's probably not good for you or your brain. So if you have a chance reply on a full stomach 

[Fisherbob]

http://grist.org/sustainable-food/in-argentina-factory-farms-replacing-grass-fed-beef/

[banx]

Nice too see they already despise the North American way of feeding cows. I forwarded the link to my Argentinian colleagues. Guess they can't brag as much anymore. Thanks for the link bob

[Fisherbob]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dfo-fudging-the-numbers-court-finds-bars-commercial-fishery-off-vancouver-island/article17391117/?service=mobile

[absolon]

Absolutely terrible headline........should read Fisheries minister overrides DFO recommendation to not open fishery.........typical of the political slant of that newspaper.