I can well understand that FF pundits wish to minimize any potential or realized impacts to wild stocks by open net-pen operations by pointing out other potential and realized impacts.
AGAIN - this illustrates to me how unfamiliar pundits are with environmental assessments - since the open net-pen industry has been immune to these assessments since their inception due to political interference/collusion/corruption - unlike other industries.
Here's a somewhat dated (2011) peer-reviewed article from Norway that fairly well describes those risks and potential or realized impacts to wild stocks:
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._populations_with_special_reference_to_Norway
Some notable quotes:
"To our knowledge no study has addressed changes in pathogen prevalence and intensity in wildfish before and after establishment of intensive aquaculture, and in the case of salmonid farming in Norway, this would be too late."
"... increasing efforts are put into hydrodynamic modelling along the Norwegian coast. Hydrodynamic models used to estimate reciprocal relative water contact between local salmon farm sites, have also been integrated with statistical models on disease spread (Viljugrein et al., 2009). The integration of hydrodynamic models and disease spread models may contribute to quantify the risk of disease spread through passive drift of pathogens in the water current, as well as estimating the degree of potential infectious contact between sites. When disease spread models reasonably portray historic disease incidents, such models can be used as objective tools to simulate effects of intervention strategies. "
And DFO and CFIA hide the disease outbreaks in Canada - and refuse to use the available Hydrodynamic models for siting farms...
AGAIN - this illustrates to me how unfamiliar pundits are with environmental assessments - since the open net-pen industry has been immune to these assessments since their inception due to political interference/collusion/corruption - unlike other industries.
Here's a somewhat dated (2011) peer-reviewed article from Norway that fairly well describes those risks and potential or realized impacts to wild stocks:
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._populations_with_special_reference_to_Norway
Some notable quotes:
"To our knowledge no study has addressed changes in pathogen prevalence and intensity in wildfish before and after establishment of intensive aquaculture, and in the case of salmonid farming in Norway, this would be too late."
"... increasing efforts are put into hydrodynamic modelling along the Norwegian coast. Hydrodynamic models used to estimate reciprocal relative water contact between local salmon farm sites, have also been integrated with statistical models on disease spread (Viljugrein et al., 2009). The integration of hydrodynamic models and disease spread models may contribute to quantify the risk of disease spread through passive drift of pathogens in the water current, as well as estimating the degree of potential infectious contact between sites. When disease spread models reasonably portray historic disease incidents, such models can be used as objective tools to simulate effects of intervention strategies. "
And DFO and CFIA hide the disease outbreaks in Canada - and refuse to use the available Hydrodynamic models for siting farms...
