How are my perceptions of farms false? what am I omitting?
You are omitting and in some cases exaggerating the facts of salmon farming in BC. It is right there in your posts. First, you keep contending that fish farm companies in BC have hired public relations companies and that the research from them is from a lobbyist point of view and it is paid for by them. I asked you who these “hired companies” are and have not received an answer. In addition, I explained to you already that much of the science referred to by the industry in their blogs is from peer-review studies done by non-governmental scientists (i.e. universities, Pacific Salmon Commission, Norwegian Veterinary Institute; even Ms. Morton, Dr. Krkosek, and Dr. Kibenge) and governmental scientists (DFO, MOE, WDFW). The Cohen Final Report is also referred to on those pro-fish farming sites you despise. These pro-fish farming blogs also refer to exact follow up tests (specifically ISAv and ISA) by Morton which does not support her findings. The funny thing is that many of these same studies are also on anti-salmon farm sites, but people like Ms Morton purposely misinterprets or omits important results in order for the study to align with her opinion.
Like anti-fish farm blogs, the BC fish farm industry and private individuals who have affiliation to fish farming and support it have the right to dispel false claims and incorrect assumptions. I don’t fish farm and I am not affiliated with the industry but I do see why they have these blogs. Social media is a powerful tool and if antis are going to use it then those who support fish farming are going to use it also. If you feel like it is incorrect then you are free to post a rebuttal on their blogs. On the other hand, in my experience, if people attempt to post fair comments on Morton’s blog or the Salmon Are Sacred webpage which do not align with the anti’s view of salmon farming they have their posts deleted. One gentleman attempted to correct one fish farm critic on the Salmon Are Sacred site who mistakenly called a Sockeye Salmon carcass a Chinook Salmon carcass. This critic then went onto blame salmon farms for lesions on the sides of the fish. The person who tried to correct the obvious species misidentification had his post deleted. Who is really covering up wrong doing?
Second, you make comparisons to cattle farming where I admit there are some similarities, but you stretch things a lot by saying they are pumped full of drugs – with reference to hormones and antibiotics. The industry openly admits to using antibiotics, but their usage needed clarification and context which you did not mention (note that the link I provided on this did not start with Salmonfarmscience). Hormones are not used by the BC industry, but one of your responses attempted to make this connection.
Third, you conclude that the way things are farmed in open pens (I suspect this includes BC) is wrong and then go onto to conclude that because of this fish will get sick, the product will be of a lesser quality and then someone will be needed to tell you how good the product is. Well, I admit that the industry will say how good their product is because they certainly are not going to denounce it. However, you have not articulated to me what exactly they are doing wrong which is going to cause their fish to get sick. More importantly, you have not articulated “the way things are done now in open pens” to me. If you started from a point of actual knowledge about what you were taking about I would not have replied the way I have. As I tried to explain to you there is a lot more to fish husbandry than what many fish farm critics think they know. Having sick fish is not in the best interests of someone trying to raise fish - either on a fish farm or in a fish hatchery. Although raising fish on fish farms and raising fish in hatcheries have their differences they also have their similarities – notably to be proactive in preventing and monitoring pathogens and having biosecurity protocols and procedures. I used to work at a couple fish hatcheries in my younger years.
I'm pretty sure they are done in the open ocean, the fish are kept in close proximity and a host of antibiotics and meds are used in the open ocean. You've actually gone as far to describe the husbandry techniques in great detail. thank you.
One thing for certain is that aquaculture is not going away. I am not certain net pens aquaculture worldwide is going to go close containment or not, but there is certainly demand for aquaculture products (not just finfish) worldwide and it is increasing annually. I feel that we are not going to meet demand by catching them commercially. Catching fish like we have been in mixed stock fisheries has been far more damaging than open net pen fish farming (IMO).
Honestly, I am not particular concerned if the industry here in BC ever decides to go to close containment. In fact, I encourage more science in this area even if the economics on a larger scale are not great right now. I also support the Cohen recommendations and I am willing to look at any new information that may come it – good or bad for the industry, but I don’t believe critics will accept anything contrary to their beliefs in 10 years from now.
you said salmon farming is not new, you gave me the years 1970 and 1985.
roughly 6 million years of evolution is a long time. 43 years seems 'early' to me. especially with pathogen mutation. these new pathogens have been introduced recently in my eyes as salmon have had millions of years to adapt or evolve to deal with the pathogens that were present in the environment during their evolution.
What new pathogens have been introduced recently here and how were they introduced? We need to start somewhere so let’s start here.
Look, a few years ago sea lice was blamed on farms. The public relations companies employed by farms downplayed the issue as much as saying that farms are not responsible. Of course now that more is known the song has changed...... the entire website called BC Salmon facts is a work of public relations art.
one fact they have on their homepage is "farmers work to protect wild salmon from sea lice" so theres your spin, from denial, to downplaying to now being stewards of the environment protecting wild salmon.
More is known about sea lice and there are also some unknowns. This was discussed at length in the Cohen Final Report. BC Salmon farmers do not deny that sea lice levels can amplify near farms, but critics do not tell the whole story which includes lice levels on farms; the lack of local extinction that was predicted for Pink Salmon in the Broughton area; the use of SLICE (how much, when, impacts); the increase of Pinks in the North Pacific; fallowing of sites; the involvement fish farmers with other groups (which includes environmentalists) with regard to sea lice management (BAMP); and how fish on farms are monitored for lice. Fish farm critics also fail to acknowledge research which runs contrary to their beliefs like the one below. In fact you won’t find this study on Morton’s blog or the Salmonconfidential.ca website. However, you will find it on those pro-fish farm blogs you dislike. I can find it for you on those sites if you want.
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/09/icesjms.fsq146.abstractthat is hypocritical. and ya so was I, and so have you been. I have been very 'real'. There is so much to lose steve and so much were doing wrong. we have no idea what the long term consequences will be. which you admit to. So how do you consider this endeavour a safe gamble?
Where have I been hypocritical? If you call saying “pumped full of drugs” being “real” then you have a much different interpretation than I. To clarify, I also said that there are no guarantees and this goes for many (if not all) activities we do in and around water. We do much more risky endeavours where we are actually seeing the results in some cases, but do not hold those activities to the same standard as fish farming. I do agree that there are data gaps and these were outline by Cohen. I am not unwilling to look at new research that comes available that might support your views, but I also realize that there are other things going on that may not have any connection to salmon farming that also need attention.
saying its safe now because there are no immediate consequences in the environment is one of the most ridiculously optimistic ways of looking at farms possible.
Again, fish farm opponents have repeatedly stated that exotic diseases have come here via egg imports. Egg imports are basically non-existent now as farms here use their own broodstock. However, if these exotic viruses bypassed the biosecurity measures I said earlier and the industry here is as “dirty” as you suggest then would it be reasonable to assume that exotic diseases like ISA would be killing millions of farmed fish – especially since diseases like ISA are lethal to Atlantic Salmon. All viruses originate from the wild and they will mutate with or without salmon farms. It does not mean that a non-virulent virus cannot become virulent, but I don’t think we need to be creating a lot of hysteria over possible mutations. I would rather see research like the one being proposed by DFO, the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Genome BC proceed to help provide greater insight. Like Dave, I believe there are much greater obstacles to salmon that we should be concerned about.
Author
Topic: Get your facts straight? (Read 1679483 times)