When you look at the timeline when Atlantic Salmon were introduced to the Pacific Northwest, why would BC necessarily be thought of a precursor to what will happen in the US, specifically the Puget Sound. Look at the facts. In 1972, the first Atlantic Salmon farm on the Pacific Coast was established in Puget Sound. Look at the history of Atlantic Salmon introductions. In 1904, Atlantic Salmon was first brought to Washington State to start an ocean sport fishery. Besides that, explain to me how net pen aquaculture of Atlantic Salmon in the Puget Sound area is that different in order for BC to be considered a “precursor”? Possibly watching for what – to see if a large tide of sea lice and effluent is going to head south? So open net pen fish farms in Puget Sound do not have sea lice or effluent and this is basically a made-in-BC thing that threatens to move south like some large tide?
It’s kind of ironic hearing a fish farm critic accuse someone else on the opposite side of the debate for suggesting a conspiracy. Farm critics are full of some bizarre theories – like large tides of sea lice and effluent spreading south from BC.
Why would we care as long as long as we receive support, financial or in belief?? That statement suggests to me that you are willing to turn a blind eye to other similar operations south of the border (and any hypocrisy) so that money and verbal support continues to flow into BC from these foundations. As long as farm critics leading the struggle here are getting their money that’s all that matters (Yep..I said that…lol). Sort of the “ends justifies the means.” Nice.
So, “we” can see this damage and so can they (I guess you are talking about these US foundations) and “we” want to stop it or minimize the damage to our environment, but somehow farmed Atlantic Salmon in open net pens in Puget Sound or even ranched salmon in Alaska should not raise any concern at this time? What is this damage we and even they are seeing? If they can see this happening then why wouldn’t they take similar action south of the border unless you are attempting to tell me that this "damage" south of the border doesn’t exist yet – only in BC? Oh, that’s right, the tide of sea lice and effluent hasn’t quite happened yet, but it’s probably going to happen anytime soon.
BC would be considered a precursor based on number of farms not timeline, currently Puget sound has 8 open net pen farms vs BC's 130.
Based on this Puget Sound could look to BC to see how BC's industry evolves,much like we look to Norway and Chile with concern about the state of their Farm industry
The term sea lice and effluent was a metaphoric term, not to be taken literally .
Funding from elsewhere with people holding similar beliefs in protecting the environment,why would anyone turn their backs on support.Their is no conspiracy here,its true that we export farmed salmon to the US, which would be the biggest customer .The foundations spoken of simply have the same beliefs in environmental causes.To suggest that they are in some way linked to a lobby for more US farmed fish is a stretch.
The damage south of the border does exist based on the virus outbreak in 2012.
"In 2012, there was an outbreak of infectious hemotopoietic necrosis virus, or IHNV, in three of the farms – the Orchard Rocks, Fort Ward and Clam Bay facilities" all in Puget Sound."While the virus likely arose from wild salmon, the high densities in the net pens artificially elevated the outbreak. "
The problems do exist down south, yet they are on a smaller scale, because they have a smaller operations.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/nov/04/group-sues-to-stop-commercial-salmon-farms-in-puge/ We have larger operations and larger problems in BC .
For now I will focus on BC cause that's where I live, and any support I get from people down south will be appreciated.
Author
Topic: Get your facts straight? (Read 1688081 times)