Print

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

[Fisherbob]

A FF anywhere is still a FF.

  Unless it is in Doc Mortons home country.  LOL.

[Dave]

A FF anywhere is still a FF.

Really? You suggest a fish farm in Thailand, Vietnam or China is comparable to what we have in BC?
A Chilean, Norwegian or a Nova Scotian fish farm is comparable to what we have here?  As Aqua suggested, how is it possible you believe this after all that has been posted on this and other sites?  Take off the tinfoil hat Chris and do some research.  Show us a reason why we should believe you, give us some science to show why we should follow you, not just your opinion because you are embarrassing yourself and losing credibility to those that actually think for themselves.

[chris gadsden]

Really? You suggest a fish farm in Thailand, Vietnam or China is comparable to what we have in BC?
A Chilean, Norwegian or a Nova Scotian fish farm is comparable to what we have here?  As Aqua suggested, how is it possible you believe this after all that has been posted on this and other sites?  Take off the tinfoil hat Chris and do some research.  Show us a reason why we should believe you, give us some science to show why we should follow you, not just your opinion because you are embarrassing yourself and losing credibility to those that actually think for themselves.

Now now, stop getting personal after all it is near Christmas and, good will to all men.

[Fisherbob]

Now now, stop getting personal after all it is near Christmas and, good will to all men.

Happy season to you Chris. . I must say that you are the main reason that I jumped the fence. When I started on FWR and asked for help to answer questions from the anti-farming group, I found it very frustrating that all I got was, its there look for it. After looking for it, I found why you could not answer me, and still do not today. BS dog science and repetitive hearsay makes the news leaving real life to be just another day. Not being led by the nose today feels realy good.

[chris gadsden]

Happy season to you Chris. . I must say that you are the main reason that I jumped the fence. When I started on FWR and asked for help to answer questions from the anti-farming group, I found it very frustrating that all I got was, its there look for it. After looking for it, I found why you could not answer me, and still do not today. BS dog science and repetitive hearsay makes the news leaving real life to be just another day. Not being led by the nose today feels realy good.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, also glad you continue to contribute to this topic and came on board. The reason I post is to keep this topic going so people see both side of the debate and keep the thread going.

Busy these days going through my hundreds of 25 plus year VHS tapes and DVD so watch for some I post to my u Tube channel, you might even see Dave in a couple of clips later on, so people know what he looks like.

I have one I produced 19 years ago, "A River In Crisis" nearly ready to put up.It is about the Slesse Clay Slide on the Chilliwack River using some of my filming, other film I dug up and BC TV footage and reports. You never know it may start another topic, I know Dave will jump in.

All the best. Chris

[ClayoquotKid]

A FF anywhere is still a FF.

You sound like Don Staniford when you speak like that.

BC has it's own specific advantages and challenges when it comes to salmon aquaculture.

Right now the scientific community is still working on identifying the natural influencing factors in wild salmon population fluctuations, and is pretty far away (IMHO) from actually pointing to an accurate number when it comes to what salmon farms might impact either way.

The continued insular thinking by those who oppose the practice is predominately based on speculative, fill-in-the-blanks studies which only serve to provide peer reviewed fodder full of "may" "might" "could" weasel words which completely invalidate their findings.

As Dr. Beamish pointed out - that is part of science, and the rebuttals crafted in response to such papers clearly point out where the plot falls apart.

I am quite confident that current projects aimed at fish health matters and farmed/wild interactions will support what seems to be clear, at least anecdotally, which is healthy farmed salmon pose little risk to wild populations - and through effective management from the aquaculture side, those criteria can be achieved.

As I've pointed out before elsewhere - if there actually was a time when salmon aquaculture had a % mortality on wild salmon populations identified and supported by observation, it would then have to be compared to other impacts like the survival of released wild Coho and undersize Chinook by fishermen.

That's a double edged sword, and I have a hard time believing that whatever measurable impact aquaculture might have will rank higher than many common practices with grandfathered in "Social License".

[chris gadsden]

You sound like Don Staniford when you speak like that.

BC has it's own specific advantages and challenges when it comes to salmon aquaculture.

Right now the scientific community is still working on identifying the natural influencing factors in wild salmon population fluctuations, and is pretty far away (IMHO) from actually pointing to an accurate number when it comes to what salmon farms might impact either way.

The continued insular thinking by those who oppose the practice is predominately based on speculative, fill-in-the-blanks studies which only serve to provide peer reviewed fodder full of "may" "might" "could" weasel words which completely invalidate their findings.

As Dr. Beamish pointed out - that is part of science, and the rebuttals crafted in response to such papers clearly point out where the plot falls apart.

I am quite confident that current projects aimed at fish health matters and farmed/wild interactions will support what seems to be clear, at least anecdotally, which is healthy farmed salmon pose little risk to wild populations - and through effective management from the aquaculture side, those criteria can be achieved.

As I've pointed out before elsewhere - if there actually was a time when salmon aquaculture had a % mortality on wild salmon populations identified and supported by observation, it would then have to be compared to other impacts like the survival of released wild Coho and undersize Chinook by fishermen.

That's a double edged sword, and I have a hard time believing that whatever measurable impact aquaculture might have will rank higher than many common practices with grandfathered in "Social License".

They were talking the same in 2003, in an editorial I just read last night in BC Outdoors, may type it out one day.

Nice you know Don too.

[EZ_Rolling]

children

[chris gadsden]

children

but welcome to the topic.

[salmonrook]

As mentioned earlier the survival rate for Ranched salmon is much higher than regular hatchery smolts and fry because they are held so long to achieve the size that provides a high survival rate which is something most hatcheries have difficulty achieving due to lack of space.
Generally wild salmon covert 10/1 which is extremely high compared to farmed salmon.

http://seafood.oregonstate.edu/.pdf%20Links/Farmed%20or%20Wild%20-%20Both%20Types%20of%20Salmon%20taste%20Good%20and%20Are%20Good%20For%20You.pdf

  Some good info there,thanks for that but if you read the next sentence
 "However, it should be noted that the water content in live prey items is much higher than in feed. "
 So in effect what they are saying is that part of the weight of the feed would be water ,that would make the feed ratio smaller .
They also eat zooplankton which occur naturally ,rather than relying on other fish bycatch.Has anyone done a zooplankton study??
 Also mentioned  is the fact that the smolts would continue to contribute their biomass to the environment, sure the survival rate would be less but they would also provide feed for other species.As well when they spawn , they contribute to the river environment,providing feed for animals and significant nutrients to there environment when they die.

[ClayoquotKid]

They were talking the same in 2003, in an editorial I just read last night in BC Outdoors, may type it out one day.

Nice you know Don too.

You raise a good point - the discussion regarding the proposed/supposed impacts of salmon aquaculture on wild stocks in BC has been going on for many decades now.

While the least high-tech, and probably most effective, measure being comparing similar run fluctuations between areas with and without farms, we now wait for the very high-tech findings of researchers including Dr. Miller-Saunders which will show what might be present and transferrable - even if there is no correlation shown between farms and notable, abnormal declines.

And yes, I do *know* Don.

 

[troutbreath]

Pretty soon no one will care about studies about old style net pen fish farming because no one will be buying them. Except for the one's from the back of Bawb's truck. He might need some help so it's not all doom and gloom.

[Fisherbob]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/record-setting-bloom-toxic-algae-north-pacific

[Fisherbob]

http://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/news/salmon-enhancement-a-top-priority/

[chris gadsden]

http://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/news/salmon-enhancement-a-top-priority/

Good to see them putting some funds and work into this and a good P/R move too. I see they are blaming logging and habitat loss for the loss of wild salmon stocks to many rivers, no mention of other causes.