Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread
- Thread starter islandboy
- Start date
Obviously you too are baffled that the lead federal agency on fish in Canada wants us to believe that fish only swim 0.99km: "applications for new (NOT EXISTING) marine finfish facilities are required to include a survey of potential anadromous salmonid habitat in all streams within one kilometre of the proposed facility.
The very 1st thing that is supposed to happen in any environmental assessment is scoping the likely geographic extent of any impacts. That is done in a multiparty consensus-based exercise that tracks responses and decisions - again - unlike the siting criteria.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE FOR THIS INDUSTRY.
Next - the risk models that have been done for agent-based modelling and all ground-truthing of these models indicate that the lateral tidal excursions, in addition to estuarine and wind-driven surface flows - indicate that the plumes from open net-pens extends some DOZENS of km (not 0.99km). These geographic risk assessments can be referenced at:
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/359853.pdf (see Figs 18 & 19, & 21 pgs 32, 35 & 38)
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40712679.pdf
and not surprisingly, THESE MODELS HAVE NEVER BEEN USED FOR THIS INDUSTRY.
And fish obviously swim thousands of km and these fatally flawed siting criteria are no substitute for an an actual environmental assessment. I could go on - but I'll stop there and allow you and others to absorb just a little of how bad it is.
The very 1st thing that is supposed to happen in any environmental assessment is scoping the likely geographic extent of any impacts. That is done in a multiparty consensus-based exercise that tracks responses and decisions - again - unlike the siting criteria.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE FOR THIS INDUSTRY.
Next - the risk models that have been done for agent-based modelling and all ground-truthing of these models indicate that the lateral tidal excursions, in addition to estuarine and wind-driven surface flows - indicate that the plumes from open net-pens extends some DOZENS of km (not 0.99km). These geographic risk assessments can be referenced at:
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/359853.pdf (see Figs 18 & 19, & 21 pgs 32, 35 & 38)
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40712679.pdf
and not surprisingly, THESE MODELS HAVE NEVER BEEN USED FOR THIS INDUSTRY.
And fish obviously swim thousands of km and these fatally flawed siting criteria are no substitute for an an actual environmental assessment. I could go on - but I'll stop there and allow you and others to absorb just a little of how bad it is.
Last edited:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I know where your coming from I think. You believe that any fish that swims near a salmon farm is doomed to death. So it's no surprise that when you read "1km" you throw your chair back and put your hands on your face and are awe struck.
All that statement reads is a farm can not be within 1km of a fish bearing stream or river.
But how can you claim such doom and gloom when you know fair well that wild salmon populations where there are no salmon farms are in the same state in terms of returns as the ones on salmon migration routs. You go way far out of your way to presents hours and hours of reading and studies and links and videos and testimonials but yet even the most basic observations, supported by science and river counts etc, show there is no correlation of harm to wild salmon in terms of returns. Good returns is the endgame. Don't forget that. Its the goal in all this.
What I see you generally do here is present information that far exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend. You use invisible boogie men to support your stance which in the end are only backed by maybe. And others use scary photos of see lice and deformities which are not statistical representation of the facts.
You don't think that people understand that the skeena is suffering the same fate as the Fraser. No salmon farms anywhere near the skeena and there are many many systems suffering the same poor returns and better returns in both areas. There has never been a correlation of wild salmon declines where there are salmon farms present when compared to runs in areas that don't have salmon farms in BC, and Washington. It just doesn't exist.
Boogey men tho, ...! But you have to prove it. You have to show where not just maybe.
Your response will now be its up to industry to prove it. Well, you can prove a negative.
Then you'll back down a bit and say oh no I'm not saying its the only problem.
How about just address my points about the returns. They are the endgame after all. Its the whole point of all of this.
All that statement reads is a farm can not be within 1km of a fish bearing stream or river.
But how can you claim such doom and gloom when you know fair well that wild salmon populations where there are no salmon farms are in the same state in terms of returns as the ones on salmon migration routs. You go way far out of your way to presents hours and hours of reading and studies and links and videos and testimonials but yet even the most basic observations, supported by science and river counts etc, show there is no correlation of harm to wild salmon in terms of returns. Good returns is the endgame. Don't forget that. Its the goal in all this.
What I see you generally do here is present information that far exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend. You use invisible boogie men to support your stance which in the end are only backed by maybe. And others use scary photos of see lice and deformities which are not statistical representation of the facts.
You don't think that people understand that the skeena is suffering the same fate as the Fraser. No salmon farms anywhere near the skeena and there are many many systems suffering the same poor returns and better returns in both areas. There has never been a correlation of wild salmon declines where there are salmon farms present when compared to runs in areas that don't have salmon farms in BC, and Washington. It just doesn't exist.
Boogey men tho, ...! But you have to prove it. You have to show where not just maybe.
Your response will now be its up to industry to prove it. Well, you can prove a negative.
Then you'll back down a bit and say oh no I'm not saying its the only problem.
How about just address my points about the returns. They are the endgame after all. Its the whole point of all of this.
from the responses in your posts - actually I feel that do you not know where I am coming from nor what I think. I believe you are in simple denial of the evidence presented out of a misguided sense of loyalty towards that industry. That's always the wrong and destructive belief in both governance and resource management. Many examples of that - esp. the wrong approach - especially recently.
Good governance and appropriate oversight always require accountability and weighing available evidence. Kinda the intent of a serious scientific and rigourous environmental assessment - something this industry has successfully avoided like the plagues for years - and for good reason - as far as they are concerned.
Risk assessment is the multiplication of interactions times consequence. Risk management is mitigating that risk while accepting some.
So your assertion that I "believe that any fish that swims near a salmon farm is doomed to death" is an attempt to delegitimize those real but unacknowledged by industry on-the-grounds interactions. More religion than experience.
I am under no assumption I will change anyone's mind that wishes not to educate themselves but feel safer in their belief systems - and that cuts both ways, both sides. And if you go back on my previous posts - you will find that I am highly critical of any "side" trying that out.
My intent is rather to provide background and unresolved and largely unadmitted issues by our regulators and by the pro side so that a more detailed discussion can happen. And you are right - I have often admitted it is death by a thousand cuts. That still does not relieve this industry of their impacts.
And if the pro-farm pundits wish to ignore the science-backed issue I & other posters & other organizations have presented - that is their choice to live in denial. Just don't state there is no available science that demonstrates impacts when it has been presented.
Good governance and appropriate oversight always require accountability and weighing available evidence. Kinda the intent of a serious scientific and rigourous environmental assessment - something this industry has successfully avoided like the plagues for years - and for good reason - as far as they are concerned.
Risk assessment is the multiplication of interactions times consequence. Risk management is mitigating that risk while accepting some.
So your assertion that I "believe that any fish that swims near a salmon farm is doomed to death" is an attempt to delegitimize those real but unacknowledged by industry on-the-grounds interactions. More religion than experience.
I am under no assumption I will change anyone's mind that wishes not to educate themselves but feel safer in their belief systems - and that cuts both ways, both sides. And if you go back on my previous posts - you will find that I am highly critical of any "side" trying that out.
My intent is rather to provide background and unresolved and largely unadmitted issues by our regulators and by the pro side so that a more detailed discussion can happen. And you are right - I have often admitted it is death by a thousand cuts. That still does not relieve this industry of their impacts.
And if the pro-farm pundits wish to ignore the science-backed issue I & other posters & other organizations have presented - that is their choice to live in denial. Just don't state there is no available science that demonstrates impacts when it has been presented.
I don't think I am wasting my time on here Dave - anymore than you do or any other poster. And who says I am not influencing influential people - on here - or in person? This forum pops up on Google. Besides I am a student of history - and every bad dark thing starts with lies and setting people into camps where opposing views/narratives are systematically silenced and the expression of rational thought is verbotten. Many millions of deaths have sometimes been the result of that exercise of preying on loyalty. And we sacrificed our veterans to stop that. What is that exercise was instead never started? Some lessons to learn looking back in history that are still pertinent today...
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Maybe it just easier to inject each of the 5 salmon species in a lab setting and see how the fish respond to each pathogen of concern, which they have done extensively.
What you are suggesting here is like trying to find out if smoking is harmful by looking at the area around the smokers and saying YA we found traces of cigaret smoke. When it is far more efficient to just look at the smokers and see if smoking is harmful.
G
gone fishin
Guest
Sharing information regarding Fish Farms is about keeping people informed.
Accurate information is how intelligent people formulate opinions.
Why not just read the following report produced by unbiased, educated professionals whose only aim is to present the facts ?
www.salmoncoast.org
Sea-Lice Monitoring - Salmon Coast Field Station
Salmon Coast has been monitoring the relationship between sea-lice, wild juvenile salmon and salmon farms for over 18 years. Learn more about the project
www.salmoncoast.org
OMG .. trust is a subjective argument based on bias
Sport fishing is the end result of successful conservation and environment .. If you don't approve of who did the research then suggest a different report
This discussion of scientific rigour and trust is an ongoing example of the seemingly never-ending tribalism and lack of answers. I believe that if we used mostly evidence-based peer-reviewed science in an actual environmental assessment format that uses accountability and openness - most of that would disappear.
So the questions are:
Who benefits from not answering questions and keeping the debate acrimonious and unresolved?
and why are we stalled out in this debate when that has not been the case for other industries?
So the questions are:
Who benefits from not answering questions and keeping the debate acrimonious and unresolved?
and why are we stalled out in this debate when that has not been the case for other industries?
SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
They are coming for sporties , just look north of us...get your head out of the sand
Who’s coming for sporties?
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
The very same could be said of those that promote and defend an industry that pollutes and spread disease in the marine environment. An industry that has only lasted because of incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats and politicians who gag scientists and withhold information to prop up on unsustainable and harmful industry model. It is becoming obvious that net pen farms will be pushed on to land - so why do a small number of folks waste their time acting as hacks for this industry that needs to change?
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The part that concerns me is the method thst the government chose to remove the farms, essentially red washing the whole thing:
You do know about S.35 of the Constitution Act, WMY - and the case law that has developed since 1982? And the fact they they didn't discharge their fiduciary duty when they green-lighted the farms? That was the whole court case stuff and the basis for those negotiations. The honour of the Crown is inherent upon all of us - esp. the regulators.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
