Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

Yes, there are a lot of things governments have screwed up on, but that doesn't mean those thing should not be made right and not done again!
AND there is a big difference between introducing Atlantics to the wild and farming them in net pens. Would you not agree?
You asked a question, i replied, you dont like the answer, thats your problem,
They didnt take, never will
My thoughts are known here
In ocean FF will be here in some form for eternity, if not open net then closed containment for those "evil multinational corporations".
With UNDRIP being put forward, think you of all people will tell a native band what to do.
They will log, mine, farm fish, net rivers, drill for oil, what ever the fk they want.
Some circumstances companies being bought out with tax payers$$$$$$ and turned over to local bands, big $$$ being spent as I type.
AGAIN, In responce to OP,
Aquaculture IS improving!!
 
Last edited:
Industry pundits of open net-pen finfish aquaculture keep floating the assertion that it is "improving" - and altho that word sounds good - there are some glaring contradictions and omissions to that flawed and unsupported assertion:

1/ They don't do environmental assessments with scoping and vetted/refereed data and they are one of the few exempt industries, and in the water,
2/ They hide fish health data like outbreaks, so nobody can track the impacts to the wild stocks,
3/ DFO & CFIA are put in a conflicting and compromised position of defending this industry rather than defending wild fish and the public's resource,
4/ the industry currently gets nearly free real estate & free pumping and free sewerage disposal - which is why they are resistant to shifting methodologies,

and finally

5/ the open net-pen technology is still OPEN. Open to water flow and with it parasite and disease amplification back to impact wild stocks.

Until they are forced to go closed containment - no they have not "improved", nor will they.
 
For many years now activists, whether they be anti logging, anti oil or anti salmon farms have been red washing their campaigns using select indigenous members.
Let’s face it, BC has adopted UNDRIP which addresses firsts nations community’s rights and title to their traditional territories.
If First Nations want salmon farms or old growth logging, and the benefits to their communities that comes with that then they will have it.
I'm not sure there is much of a debate to be had anymore on the topic.
I doubt there are any indiginous groups that would be willing to risk much on closed containment given it can be done much closer to primary markets, ie California, and the technology is so new and unproven. I think they know very well closed containment in bc is a bad idea while open pens are succeeding on the markets. I do t think First Nations people are easily fooled and I think they also see that heavily funded projects via government
Just leaves them getting burned and left with little once everything comes out in the wash.
They want the real deal and now they are going to get it.
 
For many years now activists, whether they be anti logging, anti oil or anti salmon farms have been red washing their campaigns using select indigenous members.
Let’s face it, BC has adopted UNDRIP which addresses firsts nations community’s rights and title to their traditional territories.
If First Nations want salmon farms or old growth logging, and the benefits to their communities that comes with that then they will have it.
I'm not sure there is much of a debate to be had anymore on the topic.
I doubt there are any indiginous groups that would be willing to risk much on closed containment given it can be done much closer to primary markets, ie California, and the technology is so new and unproven. I think they know very well closed containment in bc is a bad idea while open pens are succeeding on the markets. I do t think First Nations people are easily fooled and I think they also see that heavily funded projects via government
Just leaves them getting burned and left with little once everything comes out in the wash.
They want the real deal and now they are going to get it.
As a group I think they are a lot smarter than to sell the future of a healthy ocean for a shiney penny. I guess we will have to wait and see.
 
Strangely enuff - I agree with much of BNs post. FNs have a right to whatever economic development they want as long as it is legal and in this case goes thru an environmental assessment which this industry has been exempt from along with hiding disease outbreaks and not considering tidal excursions, not considering estuarine flows and juvenile marine rearing/holding and migratory routes. No effective siting. No effective agent based models used. No effective risk assessment and management, in short.

And fish swim and water flows.

So...

What happens say if the odd FN decides that they want the risk? What happens if their FN neighbour's wild salmon are affected?

Does DFO inform and consult with neighbouring FNs on these potential impacts, currently?

And if the answer is "NO" - how does that gybe with the industry's assertions that they are working with FNs and that the minister doesn't listen to FNs?

And how is UNDRIP taken into consideration for the neighbouring FNs?
 
^^^ come on lol??!! all your questions , you know those answers,
the can of worms being opened has just begun spilling out,
UNDRIP is all about self governing and asserting those rights!!
But please enlighten us all here on what colonial laws the fn must follow regarding economic benefits in their territory as this country/prov continues down this path..

Some neighboring bands will, and have struck mutually beneficial deals, which will continue, but others cant agree on what day it is!
FF are perfect examples on both sides of the fence!!

Raping and pillaging will go foward, not like they did in days before evil colonials arrived but in extraction of natural resources ,how and when they want, $hit show is only getting started and you of all people know it
 
Strangely enuff - I agree with much of BNs post. FNs have a right to whatever economic development they want as long as it is legal and in this case goes thru an environmental assessment which this industry has been exempt from along with hiding disease outbreaks and not considering tidal excursions, not considering estuarine flows and juvenile marine rearing/holding and migratory routes. No effective siting. No effective agent based models used. No effective risk assessment and management, in short.
Environmental assessment? For salmon farms but not gill nets? More cherry picking. lol
 
So...

What happens say if the odd FN decides that they want the risk? What happens if their FN neighbour's wild salmon are affected?

Does DFO inform and consult with neighbouring FNs on these potential impacts, currently?

And if the answer is "NO" - how does that gybe with the industry's assertions that they are working with FNs and that the minister doesn't listen to FNs?

And how is UNDRIP taken into consideration for the neighbouring FNs?
Looks like you have it all planned out. Pitting FN's communities against one another and sending a lot of these salmon farm conflicts to court. Awesome great work, to which pretty much no FN community will benefit. This is quite problematic from my perspective which is why I have always had a lot of questions about BC's knee jerk movement to adopt undrip.
This pitting of FN's against one another will just take power away from FN community's rights directly into the governments lap.
 
Last edited:
^^^ come on lol??!! all your questions , you know those answers,
the can of worms being opened has just begun spilling out,
UNDRIP is all about self governing and asserting those rights!!
But please enlighten us all here on what colonial laws the fn must follow regarding economic benefits in their territory as this country/prov continues down this path..

Some neighboring bands will, and have struck mutually beneficial deals, which will continue, but others cant agree on what day it is!
FF are perfect examples on both sides of the fence!!

Raping and pillaging will go foward, not like they did in days before evil colonials arrived but in extraction of natural resources ,how and when they want, $hit show is only getting started and you of all people know it
And this is why FN elected organizations have been working hard to distance themselves from green NGO groups for years now. They see the writing on between the lines that they are being used.
 
...Some neighboring bands will, and have struck mutually beneficial deals, which will continue, but others cant agree on what day it is!
FF are perfect examples on both sides of the fence!!...
Of the 200-odd FN bands, only a small handful (5?) took on the risk of the open net-pens, and there is still considerable debate within those communities about that Faustian bargain If so, 97.5% oppose the open net-pen industry, and the question still stands:

And how is UNDRIP taken into consideration for the neighbouring FNs?

Environmental assessment? For salmon farms but not gill nets? More cherry picking. lol
2 different effects, BN - 2 different mitigation strategies. One of these things is not like the other - you know the tune.

Looks like you have it all planned out. Pitting FN's communities against one another and sending a lot of these salmon farm conflicts to court. Awesome great work, to which pretty much no FN community will benefit. This is quite problematic from my perspective which is why I have always had a lot of questions about BC's knee jerk movement to adopt undrip.
This pitting of FN's against one another will just take power away from FN community's rights directly into the governments lap.
Ya - I'm not the one pitting one against the other, BN. The colonial government does this. It will be interesting to see how that same government they resolve the impacts of open net-pens using UNDRIP on adjacent FNS is my point, along with that water flows and fish swim.

And I actually agree w you on the ENGO question.
 
Well, my knee-jerk reaction is to 1st state that if we are going around imposing "democracy" - we should 1st impose it upon ourselves. No parties. Democracy is supposed to be a consensus-based governance system that represents the citizens/electorate- not a privileged few at the top end of a party running away with the goodies by instead representing themselves, the party and their donors.

Remaining and existing hereditary systems could actually teach us something about consensus-based governance systems. The Band Council is a Indian Act construct - and both the colonial government and some large-scale industrial development sets one against the other and takes advantage of that rift - like the pipelines (as you mentioned).

My continued open question is how is the feds going to implement UNDRIP? - and how does that work with open net-pens as BN brought up earlier - in regards to impacts to adjacent FN resources like wild salmon?
 
My continued open question is how is the feds going to implement UNDRIP?

You want the feds to impose UNDRIP on to them? they are there own nation with there own laws. Its up to them to self govern and implement it. You want a colonial system of a bunch of MPs to decide that?
 
are you saying we should impose some kind of colonized democracy on them? like we did with the pipeline
We are going to get cheaper gas at the pump similar to Edmonton prices for taking this pipeline risk correct? Or was that just pablum for the masses until they got their way? It will be interesting to see how much cheaper the pump gas will be. Lol
 
We are going to get cheaper gas at the pump similar to Edmonton prices for taking this pipeline risk correct? Or was that just pablum for the masses until they got their way? It will be interesting to see how much cheaper the pump gas will be. Lol

Ask JT he bought it!
 
You want the feds to impose UNDRIP on to them? they are there own nation with there own laws. Its up to them to self govern and implement it. You want a colonial system of a bunch of MPs to decide that?
My understanding of the federal process is that they have approved and ratified UNDRIP but have not yet implemented it in their policies/dealings w FNs. If the open net-cage industry is "rallying for FN economic choices" on the basis of UNDRIP (again economics not legally a DFO priority), then impacts to adjacent FNs aquatic resources (with wild stocks and the FA being the main legal DFO focus) and impacts to harvesting opportunities from adjacent open net-pen operations would certainly also fall under UNDRIP. DFO has avoided this thorny situation of dealing with adjacent FN impacts from FFs until now, but needs to implement UNDRIP. Gonna be interesting to see how they do that. How do they identify whose resources might be impacted and consult & accommodate on those impacts? The siting criteria cant do that.
 
 
UBC Media Release
Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 10:30am
Journal link: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-021-01069-2

Media contact:
Collins Maina
collins.maina@ubc.ca
604-802-0779

Physical fitness of wild Pacific sockeye salmon unaffected by PRV

The respiratory performance of wild Pacific sockeye salmon functions normally even when infected with piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), according to a new study released today.

The findings by researchers at UBC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries are published in BMC Biology.

“We saw little to no effect on sockeye salmon’s respiratory fitness after PRV-infection and minimal impacts on their ability to sustain the vigorous activity needed to migrate, catch prey and avoid predators,” said Dr. Yangfan Zhang, a post-doctoral researcher in UBC’s faculty of land and food systems and the department of zoology, and the joint lead author of the study.

The nine-week study found no physiological differences between PRV-infected fish and a control group, injected with a salt solution.

“This means PRV poses a very low risk to British Columbia’s population of wild Pacific salmon,” Dr. Zhang says.

“The findings highlight that not all animal viruses cause notable harm during infection,” says joint lead author, Dr. Mark Polinski, a DFO researcher.

PRV infects most farmed Atlantic salmon and just a small proportion of wild Pacific salmon. The study used sockeye salmon to test the respiratory impacts of wild salmon because they migrate near salmon farms.

“This is the first study to show that sockeye salmon can be a carrier of PRV without untoward physiological effects to their respiratory system,” says Dr. Tony Farrell, a professor and Canada Research Chair with UBC’s faculty of land and food systems and the department of zoology, and one of the principal investigators on the study.

The research team ran their experiment on a total of 400 sockeye salmon at the DFO Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, BC.

One group of sockeye salmon was injected with a dose of purified PRV to induce a high-dose infection scenario, another with a saline solution, and a third group was injected with the more virulent infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) in a separate positive-control study.

None of the salmon died while carrying the PRV infection. But researchers noted IHNV triggered 30 per cent mortality and a temporarily reduced maintenance metabolism, although survivors were able to resolve the infection within weeks.

Researchers also measured the ability of red blood cells infected with PRV to bind oxygen, as well as the metabolic rate—or oxygen uptake—of infected salmon, to evaluate their ability to maximally use oxygen, recover from exhaustion, and function when oxygen is low.

“The experimental PRV infection of sockeye salmon shows that the virus had no substantial impact on their oxygen use during maximum exercise, or when oxygen is low,” Dr. Farrell says.

“Pacific and Atlantic salmon can resist a PRV infection without a major metabolic cost,” he says, addressing those concerned about the untested impacts of PRV on wild sockeye salmon.

The authors previously performed similar investigations with PRV-infected farmed Atlantic salmon with similar results, published in 2019.

The UBC researchers worked with scientists from the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada—which funded the study—with collaborative support from the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) who did not participate in the study design, data collection, and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to publish.

Read the study on BMC Biology.
 
Back
Top