Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: fisherforever on June 22, 2024, 07:48:40 AM
-
Language warning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyiaEBIn_x4
-
This will hurt Fisherbobs ears I am sure.
-
This will hurt Fisherbobs ears I am sure.
LOL 😆. This is what happens when science does not meet the anti salmon farming agenda Chris. :)
-
there is a big difference between science and propaganda Bob. Articles in industry marketing journals are not science.
-
there is a big difference between science and propaganda Bob. Articles in industry marketing journals are not science.
Exactly Ralph, Shatner just proved your point.
-
Bob you missed the point with your hopeless deflection.
-
I think that Bob has made more winning points than ones that he has lost. And let’s remember that Shatner is just an old worn out actor and not, in any way an expert, and the easiest way to stop the salmon decline is to stop killing salmon. You don’t need to go where no one has gone before to realize that the commercial fisheries kill more fish than all the fish farms could ever kill. How about if we put 4,000 people in the commercial fishery out of work and see what the results are? Maybe stop the herring roe fishery? Shut down the shrimp trawlers that have decimated the oolichans? I keep saying that everyone on the West Coast knows what caused the East Coast cod collapse but they can’t figure out what they root cause of our salmon collapse.
-
I think that Bob has made more winning points than ones that he has lost. And let’s remember that Shatner is just an old worn out actor and not, in any way an expert, and the easiest way to stop the salmon decline is to stop killing salmon. You don’t need to go where no one has gone before to realize that the commercial fisheries kill more fish than all the fish farms could ever kill. How about if we put 4,000 people in the commercial fishery out of work and see what the results are? Maybe stop the herring roe fishery? Shut down the shrimp trawlers that have decimated the oolichans? I keep saying that everyone on the West Coast knows what caused the East Coast cod collapse but they can’t figure out what they root cause of our salmon collapse.
This ^^^
-
Sorry but the line that the bromide that "the science" is on the side of open net salmon farms has just gotten very tired. Research independent of the big farm companies and DFO says otherwise. DFO has basically been found to have a conflict of interest in managing both farmed and wild salmon.
While I am at it, I feel much the same about simplistic statements such as "...just stop killing salmon". You realize "Our" salmon is subject to at least 4 separate jurisdictions right? Well add the FNs and it is kind of 4 1/2 and maybe 5. Plus there is the high seas where it like the mythical wild west. No control. Oh and hey Gord, maybe you can talk the seals, whales, salmon sharks, hake and bears to sign on to that big plan.
..and Shatner is an old man whose made some bucks pedaling an act as a senile weirdo. Wish I could do the same. Some FNs not involved in salmon farming found the ad funny and say they use much the same descriptions.
Cheers
-
Gee, I notice that you take very small parts of my post and remove all the context. You know that my contention is that the commercial fishery is killing fish and you bring "4 separate jurisdictions" into play while intimating that governing the fishery is impossible. I guess you think that we should just throw up our hands and give up on managing the waters. And to suggest that wildlife killing salmon is part of the problem when for millenniums the fish and game got by just fine until man starting making money off of removing millions of tons of fish from the biomass. We are constantly complaining about exporting raw, unprocessed logs with no value added but say nothing when we do exactly the same with our fish. Why are we allowing all the salmon to be shipped out of country with absolutely no value added? This is the least value we can put on those fish and it is just plain dumb. At least the farmed fish is processed in Canada by Canadians.
As far as the science goes, we pick which side we want and then believe whatever they tell that we like, I choose to believe that there is very little data showing a negative impact from farms and that the fish they produce should lessen the pressure on wild fish. I understand that this is the less popular position but it is also one with enough evidence to defend itself.
-
Gee, I notice that you take very small parts of my post and remove all the context...
Yes I am very clever ain't I!
If you and Dave can get everyone else on board, I will join!. Have fun.
-
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/funders-of-hype-against-salmon-farmers#:~:text=Beginning%20in%202000%2C%20The%20Packard,to%20avoid%20farmed%20salmon%20products.
-
Yes I am very clever ain't I!
If you and Dave can get everyone else on board, I will join!. Have fun.
I can’t speak for Dave but I personally don’t need or seek your participation or validation. I am only offering my opinion to present another facet to the issue and not, unlike some, to build myself up as an expert on everything.
-
I can’t speak for Dave but I personally don’t need or seek your participation or validation. I am only offering my opinion to present another facet to the issue and not, unlike some, to build myself up as an expert on everything.
Oh I don't pretend to be an expert on anything but I still can think for myself as deeply as I can and just like you render, my opinion. Neither do I need to resort to ad hominem attacks such as saying the problem in this argument is my personality and not this particular idea you advanced. I am just pointing out some potential shortfalls in what is either a simple or simplistic idea. Not sure which it is but in my view very easy to say very difficult to do and even comprehend the ways in which "we" kill salmon... often unnoticed, such as how the chemical 6-PPD kills coho salmon and other salmonids. I also can't quite align this suggestion with the fact anglers haven't been able to kill wild steelhead for about 40 years now. How are they doing?
-
I didn't know the moderators gave Bob permission to post in this forum. colour me shocked.
-
OMG....
Get a room and a ruler, measure your dicks and get it over with
-
OMG....
Get a room and a ruler, measure your dicks and get it over with
;D
Have you found yours, recently?
-
https://seawestnews.com/open-net-fish-farms-can-continue-to-operate-in-b-c/
-
I didn't know the moderators gave Bob permission to post in this forum. colour me shocked.
Well, I guess that answers that!
-
I would comment but roeman says that we are not supposed to have discussions on the discussion board.
-
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/funders-of-hype-against-salmon-farmers#:~:text=Beginning%20in%202000%2C%20The%20Packard,to%20avoid%20farmed%20salmon%20products.
from your link:
Beginning in 2000, The Packard Foundation has granted over $75 million specifically for projects that influence seafood retailers and consumers to avoid farmed salmon products.
So? That might be a big deal if we lived in a oppressive dictatorship like Russia but in democracies with the right of freedom expression and speech, it is meaningless! It's an insult to those values to suggest otherwise and speaks ill well of those who see it as a major issue.
It's also beyond insignificant. Many of the major players in Salmon farming and aquaculture have billions in revenue year after year. For 2023Mowi - over 10 billion Canadian and over 16 billion in assets. Grieg 2 billion in revenue. Cemaq has an exemption from the Norwegian government and doesn't even have to report it's financials.
The publication you quoted is from 2010! It's over 14 years out of date. Get with both the times and the skill of good research. You are making a point like a loser. Submitting something like that in high school would earn an F.
Even at that, at best it's 7.5 million a year - if it is even correct. It's a tiny tiny of a fraction of a percent of both a corporation like Mowi's assets or of the Packard Foundations for that matter.
A far as " According to Vivian Krause, who has done extensive research into this subject, large foundations have gifted at least $126 million to ENGOs to create negative publicity for farmed salmon." Krauss is not a serious researcher. With her strong financial and BC ties to the oil industry and the BC Salmon farming industry she biased should not be taken seriously. She has never said that Canadian environmental groups are being used by US foundations and in fact she has zero evidence they are and also implicitly acknowledges these grants are legal as she has previously sought "legal advice" on the matter. If that advice indicated it was illegal she would have both written and said so.
https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/vivian-krause/
https://energi.media/deep-dives/debunked-vivian-krauses-tar-sands-campaign-conspiracy-narrative/
https://globalnews.ca/news/7883936/vivian-krause-anti-alberta-oil-inquiry-no-evidence/
-
What ever your point is Ralph, you can prove the anti-salmon farm “dog” science is not just propaganda by telling me where and when salmon farming has devastated wild salmon?
-
ha ha - the usual meaningless deflection. My point is you cant argue the issue and refer back to useless info from 14 to 15 years ago. Beside you know the examples of where wild salmon were devastated and have helped circulate the lies about that have been around for 20 years.
-
Beside you know the examples of where wild salmon were devastated
Feel free to prove it. All you have done so far is repeat things you have heard from the well funded anti-salmon farm dog science propaganda peddled out to the public. I am sure that if salmon farming has had a devastating affect on wild salmon, the feds would not have given salmon farmers a “5 year extension” on licences. Who knows, you may teach me something.
-
Feel free to prove it. All you have done so far is repeat things you have heard from the well funded anti-salmon farm dog science propaganda peddled out to the public. I am sure that if salmon farming has had a devastating affect on wild salmon, the feds would not have given salmon farmers a “5 year extension” on licences. Who knows, you may teach me something.
the document that DFO and the industry tries to make disappear.
https://psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Download-PDF387-1.pdf
-----------------------------
Is scientific inquiry still incompatible with government information control?
A case study using the example of salmon aquaculture
https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjfas-2022-0286
"[we]review how government science advice continues to be influenced by non-science interests, particularly those with a financial stake in the outcome of the advice. We use the example of salmon aquaculture in British Columbia, Canada, to demonstrate how science advice from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) can fail to be impartial, evidence-based, transparent, and independently reviewed—four widely implemented standards of robust science advice. Consequently, DFO's policies are not always supported by the best available science."
-------------------------------------
of course there is the Letter from 16 independent Scientists based at Canadian Universities who claim DFO has manipulated data and analysis to favor the Salmon farming industry. DFO has also acknowledged the industry effectively has a veto power of some sort to block release of scientific information gathered by DFO that may not favor their operations.
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/a-scientific-sin-16-canadian-salmon-scientists-claim-dfo-sea-lice-report-was-manipulated-6493604
-
Thank you Ralph. that was a bit of a read. Your first link in my eyes is based on opinion and even claims to be.
" Note that this document, and the information contained in it, are provided on an “as is” basis. They represent the
opinion of the author(s)".
The second link to me is simply an "advice" study.
The third is also an advice article simply arguing on how science should be done. Peer Review?
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/12/16/a-scientist-says-that-peer-review-is-obsolete/
It seems to me that there is a lot of "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine" In peer review these days.
Perhaps some one far more educated in the science field can correct me if I am wrong.
No mention of when or where salmon farming has been detrimental to wild salmon in my opinion.
-
Bob, if you don't think opinion is an significant factor in science and the scientific method then you seriously don't understand how either works. I long felt the "contribution" you make to this particular discussion demonstrates such a lack of understanding. Science isn't found in the marketing tabloids of the aquaculture industry to which you commonly supply links. Neither does science rest in the number of studies or scientists that support a certain theory or viewpoint. Another falsehood we hear a lot these days is that good policy should be based on 'science'. Mostly it's used by people like you who advocate for specific policies that will benefit them. But that is nothing new. Science often has little interest in policy. However policy such as policy about salmon farming has to consider a number things including cultural factors , cost, risk and the precautionary principle. As far as the link about "a scientist" (you can find a scientist who thinks just about anything fairly easily who thinks peer review is obsolete. Peer review (which I didn't mention) isn't done to keep scientists in check, reduce productivity or to prevent major paradigm change. If these are not what one scientist thinks they should be it may have something to do with other factors such as the lack of funding without implicit strings or the rising cost of research. Peer research basically to ensure a piece of research has what is accepted principles of experimental design and interpretation... most of which is based on statistics It's also not done by other scientists who agree with the particular with the findings and conclusions of the paper in question. It is also worth noting that when use of the net was used to publish paper many of questionable value went straight to new periodicals that did not conduct peer review creating great alarm in community.
BTW the review of the Broughton pink salmon collapse is the temporally closest and complete done at the time. It can't be done any better since DFO responded to late and in sufficiently to get it right. It makes a solid case the collapse was caused by a sea lice bloom associated with salmon farming operations and has had a long lasting influence on the farms operate. Typically there was denial by the industry and great foot dragging on their part to employ measures to reduce such blooms in the future.
I hope these comments make some sense to those reading them.
-
The question still is, where and when has salmon farming been detrimental to Pacific salmon?
No presumptions needed for this question at all.
https://www.cahs-bc.ca/2010/12/13/sea-lice-not-cause-of-wild-salmon-collapse-researchers-say/
-
Again that link is 14 years old. Much has changed as far research that shows harm and potential harms. Again I provided you the Federal paper (not DFO's) that stated on the balance of probabilities salmon farms in the Broughton were responsible for the pink salmon collapse. Adhering to the precautionary principle, it recommended that farms be pulled out of that area during the smolt migration areas for 2 subsequent years and that's what happened. That's more than good enough for me though I am sure it's not good enough for you and some others.
This is my last post to you. You can return to your regular programming of providing marketing and PR links from Seawest and other such organizations.
Enjoy the rest of your life. May it be long and filled with dreams of open net salmon farms. Cheers
-
There is nothing wrong with presuming Ralph, but disregarding research because it is old gets us no where. Accumulating information over the years is what stops new age presumptions from becoming fact.
https://www.crestonvalleyadvance.ca/news/sea-lice-numbers-not-necessarily-influenced-by-salmon-farms-industry-studies-5293873
-
the document that DFO and the industry tries to make disappear.
https://psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Download-PDF387-1.pdf
Didn't this go away because only a few years later the area had one of the largest pink returns on record?
I guess it does kinda acknowledge the boom or bust nature and how hard it is to prove, but yeah i think it's well established that sea lice outbreaks are bad for salmon but i believe farms have also improved on treatments both chemically and mechanically.
Relationship between sea lice and pink salmon declines
Even if there were absolute scientific proof that pink salmon were getting infected with sea lice
originating from salmon farms, it would not be entirely certain that the sea lice were the reason
for the declines in pink salmon. Typically pink salmon suffer very high natural mortalities.
However, the fact that populations of pink salmon in nearby waters to the Broughton Archipelago
did not plummet and generally increased in abundance suggests that the cause of the decline
originated in the waters of the Broughton. At this time no other factors that could have caused
these exceptional Broughton declines have been identified.
-
It was the 2002 return that crashed and in 2003 no adult salmon were raised in Broughton farms:
"In 2003, farms in the Broughton area were free of adult salmon during the outmigration period under the terms of the Broughton Archipelago Action Plan. In 2004, returns to the Wakeman River, Kingcome River, Ahta River, Kakweiken River, Ahnuhati River and Glendale Creek showed dramatic increases. A subsequent paper authored by, inter alia, Richard Beamish and Simon Jones, confirmed that early marine survival of pink salmon had increased from 1-2% to 34% and attributed the increase to a combination of reduced lice pressure and increased nutrients, saying, “The processes responsible for the high marine survival cannot be identified with certainty, but they could include increased freshwater discharge in 2003, which may have resulted in lower salinity less favourable to sea louse production, increased inflow of nutrient-rich water to the study area, and the introduction of a Provincial Action Plan that required mandatory louse monitoring and established a fallowed migration corridor for pink salmon.”
https://www.livingoceans.org/media/news/amazing-pink-salmon-returns-and-salmon-farm-closures#:~:text=In%202003%2C%20farms%20in%20the,Glendale%20Creek%20showed%2
Just to add. I have found the paper by Beamish and Jones mentioned above. They provide total pink salmon returns in the Broughton from 1990 through 2004.
Total returns in 2002 was 69,000, in 2003 187,000, 2004 912,000. Excluding 2004 (the year often described as the highest returns on record) In the 13 years (no returns were noted for 1999) total returns exceed 2004 6 times. The highest return on record was in 2000 at 3.461 million. I'd also note that of the years with higher returns than 2004 the lowest was 2001 at 1.36 million so 2004 was not an exceptional year though rather remarkable given how low the spawning escapement was in 2002.
I don't know where the frequent claim that 2002 was followed the highest return ever came from but that is clearly a false claim.