well steve, referring to you as "you guys" simply means you support pens in the ocean.
Here we go again. As Dave correctly stated, I do not care for media and activist induced phobia against salmon farms – especially from those that do not know what they are talking about (namely Ms Morton and Mr. Staniford). I do not really care if BC fish farmers decide to go close containment. What I do care about are the conclusions being made by activists to justify their position that net pens are as destructive on BC wild salmon as they claim they are. In my opinion, many of their theories are based on ignorance and misinformation and actually do science a disservice in the long run rather than enhance it. I care that wild salmon are actually being forgot by activists that seem more focused on an agenda against the industry instead of the long term viability of wild salmon and the research to find answers. I support defensible science done by people that know what they are doing - looking for answers instead of being solely focused on one culprit and trying to build a case around that. If pens are more than a minimal impact in those areas identified by Cohen then I am willing to change my opinions as I indicated earlier in this thread.
So the consequences are high, the recommendations are not being acted upon and the scientific process is slow. These are great ingredients for some troubling times..... hopefully we will find some answers.
Consequences can be high with other things we do in and around water; however, rarely does one factor work in isolation of another. This is why trying to find a “smoking gun” in this equation is often difficult to do – contrary to what anti fish farm activist lead us to believe. What you are doing is focusing solely on fish farms as the immediate and present danger and this is not what Cohen found or wanted people to take from the report. If you finally cared to look at the work from Peterman and Dorner in the report you will notice low Sockeye productivity is being seen outside of the Fraser River as far as some systems in Alaska. While reading the report you likely noticed this also:
“I am also satisfied that marine conditions in both the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Sound in 2007 were likely to be the primary factors responsible for the poor returns in 2009. Abnormally high freshwater discharge, warmer-than-usual sea surface temperatures, strong winds, and lower-than-normal salinity may have resulted in abnormally low phytoplankton and nitrate concentrations that could have led to poor zooplankton (food for sockeye) production.” (Volume 3, page 59)What this indicates is that there is likely much more going on which is going to involve further scientific investigation. When you notice the huge Pink Salmon returns this season along with the rebound in Sockeye numbers from the 2009 brood it also suggests that things are not so easily explained as some anti-fish farm activists think they are. This “pristine” ocean you are talking about is slightly more complex that you give it credit for. There is actually more going on. Like you said already, we probably know more about the moon than we do about our oceans. In my opinion, if fish farms here are so destructive as activists claim they are we would be seeing some of their theories come true; instead, when their theories don’t pan out they look for alternative answers which make no sense. For instance, one staunch anti-fish farm individual on another forum suggested that the reason BC fish farms cannot find ISAv was because they killed them for market before they died of ISA; if they lived longer they would have eventually die of ISA. Really? The fact is that ISA is a deadly disease for Atlantic Salmon – they would have died before they reached market size. It does not make any sense if critics are using Chile as an example.
Another theory from another staunch fish farm opponent was what if the ISA strain were an altered strain (something viruses do, he said) – that affected wild stocks, but was not as bad for Atlantics. The problem with theory is that it conflicts with what fish farm critics have been long saying about ISAv being spread by egg imports from Norway to Chile to here. So, am I to assume that ISAv was spread here by egg imports from Norway (the same thing that happened to Chile that killed millions of farmed Atlantic Salmon), mutated into a strain that was no longer highly pathogenic to Atlantic Salmon and only affects wild salmon off BC. That is one magic virus – like the magic bullet theory in Dallas, TX a long time ago. Not only is this theory not supported by any evidence, but it runs contrary to what we already know about ISAv and ISA. It runs contrary to what expert testimony (Miller, Kibenge, and Nylund) stated at the Cohen Inquiry.
Lastly, as for the recommendations not being acted upon, that needs clarification. The fact is that there are some things being acted upon and have been prior to the release of the report. One of the big problems here is that that this is not being reported in the media and relayed to the public. Somehow government is reluctant to let people know.
I find that an interesting observation considering the millions of tourists that visit BC yearly to see our 'pristine' ocean and coast line. Not even including the cruise ship passengers who pay thousands for a peek of what we live in. maybe you've seen more of BC than most. But I consider BC spectacular, especially our coast.
I did not say that our coastline was so polluted that it is scaring away tourists; however, our oceans are far from pristine now as we (you and me and everyone else) have all played their parts with impacts. So, when you talk about the benthic impacts of BC fish farms on our pristine ocean you then proceed to hop, skip and jump over many other players and minimize their contribution and focused solely on fish farms - as if fish farms have now created the imbalance. Look around you. Look at other industries and human activities in and around our “pristine” oceans before you start pointing fingers at aquaculture as the big offender. It is not deflection – it is about being fair with criticism.
I am well aware of what other industries do and how most are regulated. I just find it ammusing, and this is obvious where we differ in opinions. Your proud and boisterous of the fact that BC has the strongest regulations regarding aqualculture in the world. you love it... it's mentioned in nearly every post.
See, I think thats not even something to be proud of.... that should be a minimal expectation. So your proud the industry is not trying to screw everything up.[/quote]
LOL…..I am just saying that the BC industry here has some strong regulations that are actually more stringent than many places in the world that have aquaculture. You seem to believe that things are so lax and unregulated with BC fish farms. It is not about being “proud” or “loving it”. I have no idea what you are trying to say in the next paragraph. Ahh….yeah, I am glad the industry is not trying to screw everything up…..Yeah…you got me there….I am glad CN Rail has emergency procedures in place in case there is a train derailment……I am glad that when I fly in a commercial airline that the pilot is trained to not only fly the plane, but is able to deal with emergencies…….just like I am glad you stop at controlled pedestrian crosswalks to let pedestrians cross the road instead of hitting them….lol. Really?? But thanks for telling me how “aware” you are. I am comforted now.
Author
Topic: Get your facts straight? (Read 1680635 times)