If you wanted to go back over the many posts and threads on this forum, BN - you will find that most posters (myself included) readily admit that it is death by a thousand cuts when it comes to impacts to wild salmon and their numbers. What we should be doing (IMHO) is reducing the numbers and intensities of those impacts where we can.
Since the open net-cage technology is "open" and impossible to mitigate since everything in the water (parasites & diseases, etc.) are amplified and re-emitted as a plume to the more vulnerable outmigrating juvenile salmon in particular - doesn't it make sense to go for closed containment? I think most people would agree.
In addition to that - that particular industry has co-opted the regulatory body of DFO - just go back a few pages to see that (Krisit-Miller Saunders, Justice Cohen, etc.).
In addition to that that particular industry has avoided all the normal checks and balances that other industries have - like an environmental assessment and reporting on disease outbreaks. They are the authors of their own demise in the realm of public opinion - despite the lies from the industry and DFO.
Since the open net-cage technology is "open" and impossible to mitigate since everything in the water (parasites & diseases, etc.) are amplified and re-emitted as a plume to the more vulnerable outmigrating juvenile salmon in particular - doesn't it make sense to go for closed containment? I think most people would agree.
In addition to that - that particular industry has co-opted the regulatory body of DFO - just go back a few pages to see that (Krisit-Miller Saunders, Justice Cohen, etc.).
In addition to that that particular industry has avoided all the normal checks and balances that other industries have - like an environmental assessment and reporting on disease outbreaks. They are the authors of their own demise in the realm of public opinion - despite the lies from the industry and DFO.