Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

I find this whole thing just a headshaker. Let's grow non native species of fish and feed them a bunch of drugs and food in the most sensitive areas in BC just so that these coorporations can get their hydro for free. Grow that **** somewhere else. Put it on land. Put it on land in an area of the world where land is cheap. Just a mess. People are idiots
 

Do you think the PSFA will move on to advocating the removal of fish farms in other areas or do you think they will end it with the discovery island?
 
Do you think the PSFA will move on to advocating the removal of fish farms in other areas or do you think they will end it with the discovery island?
It's a good question.

I would respond that good decision-making is based on good data/science/evidence where there is a compulsory tie between generating accurate, trustworthy data and decision-making - and a separation between those 2 processes.

As we all know - those crucial processes have been purposely avoided for decision-making for this industry up until Justice Cohen stepped in - and DFO Aquaculture needs to be relieved of its institutionalized collusion and conflicts of interest so these crucial processes can function. I think the last 2 Fisheries Ministers have likely seen this reality, as well - and the industry is feeling lost because the old lies aren't working anymore, and they can't pull the Fisheries Minister around by the nose anymore like they did with Gail Shae. Hard to know how far this process will proceed from here.

At least the PSF is in the forefront of new science investigating the links/impacts (Synthesis of findings of the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project, Version 1.0: https://marinesurvival.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021PSF-SynthesisPaper-Screen.pdf) - unlike DFO Aquaculture. Or maybe I should rephrase it as the PSF isn't beholden to a veto from the industry - and also doesn't hide data, outbreaks, inconvenient results and lie, obfuscate and gatekeep when it comes to inconvenient science like DFO Aquaculture.

And the tools they have developed (eDNA, fit chips, etc) and are using - makes DFO Aquaculture look like the amateurs they are and want to continue to be (nobody gets rewarded for change and taking the initiative and going against the speaking notes from the deputy minister in such an organization; and up until now - nobody wanted to say no to the industry wrt approved sites) - altho I realize not every employee in that branch wants this but are likely constrained by a few key individuals in that Branch/department (as detailed thru the ATIPs).

To answer your question directly - assuming the PSF operates on scientific data for their recommendations - I would say that there are noticeable problems/impacts between the FFs in Clayoquot Sound and the wild Chinook WCVI juvies found there - particularly with sea lice, PRv/Jaundice/Anemia and mouthrot/tenacibaculosis amplification and transmission. Those results have been published in actual science journals and posted on this thread and forum, previously.

WCVI CH risk 03 May 22d.png
wcvi ch ra april 4 2022yj.png
WCVI_Chinook_Risk_Assessment_Mordecai-0013.png
WCVI CH day 25.png
Another potential problem is the transfer of Tenacibaculum spp. to outmigrating Fraser River sockeye smolts in the Discovery Islands from both any Chinook and Atlantic FFs (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.15.448581v1) - and as far as I know - those Chinook farms are still operating?
 
Last edited:
Clayoquot is the areas where activists sure are focusing but is it the best area for wild salmon to be focusing on and more importantly does that help fraser sockeye that seems to be the main focus of first nations.
 
Not sure what those evil "activists" (incl the PSF in this moniker) are doing exactly - but as far as the known science to date - it is the next logical area to look for risk reduction to wild stocks.

Another change is within the recently updated Fisheries Act wrt obligations of the minister and risk assessments.
 
Not sure what those evil "activists" (incl the PSF in this moniker) are doing exactly - but as far as the known science to date - it is the next logical area to look for risk reduction to wild stocks.

Another change is within the recently updated Fisheries Act wrt obligations of the minister and risk assessments.

why is it the next logical area?. ive only seen activist groups focus on it, why is it different then say port hardy area fish farms?

i also made no connection between activists and psfa? if psfa has statements on Clayoquot as the next logical area please share that.
 
why is it the next logical area?. ive only seen activist groups focus on it, why is it different then say port hardy area fish farms?

i also made no connection between activists and psfa? if psfa has statements on Clayoquot as the next logical area please share that.
The available science is the answer, IMHO. A number of the researchers tied into the PSF are the ones doing that science under the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI):






 
Last edited:
you made this link not me, not sure why you went there perhaps some of your personal feelings towards the PSFA now?
I'm being a bit purposely facetious/sarcastic in order to illustrate how that inflammatory label is used by industry pundits to try to delegitimize any inconvenient & unwanted critiques/data.
 
Last edited:
i just thought maybe you were going off the elmo smolt pictures
That's why the "activist" label is so utterly and intentionally misleading. There are dozens of independent researchers in BC - hundreds World-wide. And they publish their science - hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed articles detailing the impacts. But within DFO Aquaculture and esp the ACRDP program that funds DFO Aquaculture Science and supposedly reports into CSAS - industry gets a veto on publishing inconvenient and embarrasing results.
 
Its all good remove the ones in clayoquote i don't fish there so don't have to worry when they close all salmon fishing at the same time there.
 
as I and many others have been saying for far too many years:

Recommendations 41-48:

 
Last edited:
Back
Top