fish farm siting criteria & politics

I looked-up some info on IHN.

Here's a quote for you:

Water current could carry [IHNv] virus to sites in close proximity that are downstream of infected sites”.

Sonja Sasksida, DVM, MSC - Sea to Sky Veterinary Services

Here's some more info:

Many sockeye (O. nerka) stocks are carriers of the disease, although few stocks have yet had viral titre levels tested, and there is no requirement for a risk analysis for interactions between net-cage Atlantic salmon (S. salar) and migrating sockeye stocks. Atlantic salmon have a high susceptibility to IHNv, and infected Atlantic salmon produce and shed higher amounts of the virus (Traxler et al. 1993).
 
Posted by Sockeyefry to Alexandra Morton....

"Why are you headed to court, on what charge?"
best to laugh this one off...
OMG
 
Not being very nice Island Girl. It was a legit question.

Agent,

I think they meant that since sockeye carry the virus anyway, and are obviously less susceptible that they are not at risk. Atlantics are very susceptible to it, and the only measure that a farmer can take is eradication of the fish on the farm. There is a vaccine, but it is very expensive and its coverage is in doubt, mainly because there has not been an outbreak since this last one.

Sockeye are very susceptible to this virus however at the sac fry to 1g size, especially in a hatchery situation. This of course is when they are in freshwater and no where hear a seapen site. It almost shut down the entire Alaskan hatchery sockeye system in the 90's, until they figured out how to basically avoid an infection.

Your point of farms ( and this is true of all farms, aquatic or terrestrial) can be multipliers of disease organisms is possible. However, it is not in the best interest of the farmer to have a bunch of diseased animals hanging around. There are also plenty of examples or government ordered, and voluntary culls of diseaesed fish and animals to prevent future problems. Please give some credit where it is due, as you make it sound like the farms are disease riddled festuring sites, which they of course are not.
 
sockeyefry, welcome back. This thread was getting a little stale w/o your input.
quote:Your point of farms ( and this is true of all farms, aquatic or terrestrial) can be multipliers of disease organisms is possible. However, it is not in the best interest of the farmer to have a bunch of diseased animals hanging around. There are also plenty of examples or government ordered, and voluntary culls of diseaesed fish and animals to prevent future problems. Please give some credit where it is due, as you make it sound like the farms are disease riddled festuring sites, which they of course are not.

I see from this posting, and previous ones made by both you and Alex Morton; that the industry and the industry's critics all agree that fish farms sites can be infection sites that can harbour various disease organisms - sush as IHN.

I can't understand why the industry can accept that they can transmit diseases (albeit unwittingly and unwillingly) to wild stocks (and vice-versa, of course) - BUT, somehow they are in a state of denial about the possibility that they transmit parasites (like sea lice) also to wild stocks (and again; vice-versa).

My point is not that I believe that open net-cage fish farms are "disease riddled festuring sites" - nowheres did I say that; but rather that we cannot predict, mitigate or probably even know about those disease and parasite transfers that constantly happening via the open-net cage technology.

The open net-cage technology does not safeguard the wild stocks, or even the farmed fish, from these interactions.

When we rarely do notice these interactions - it is not only after substantial harm has often ensued to the farmed stock; but we often do not even see the results on the wild fish until there are no fish left in the creek. Forensics is a reactive science; and it is too late to mitigate consequences by then.

Even then - when forensics is actually completed (e.g. Krkosek's and Ford's work) - the results are debated and denyed by the fish farming industry, as a stalling tactic - so that the industry can carry-on business as usual.

No; I honestly believe that fish farmers do not want their investment of time or money to be threatened by disease or parasite vectors. I also believe that they do not want to re-infect wild stocks, either. However, they really have no choice in the matter using open net-cage technology.

I think it's in the best interests of both the farmers and the public to seperate the 2 (wild and cultured fish) by something far more substantial than only a large, open net.

This open net-pen technology is not intended to protect wild stocks (and it doesn't); but rather has been developed only to protect the farmed fish from escaping, or to protect the farmed fish from predators that are trying to eat them. It can be argued that the open net-pen technology is only partially effective in even mitigating these interactions.

It's time to stop denying there is a problem with open net-cage technology. That's my point.
 
OK TO MAKE IT SIMPLE

You place 700,000 Atlantic salmon on a migratory route of Wild Pacific Salmon. The Atlantic's don't have any diseases because they were made by man and raised on SHORE until they were old enough. How many months? (10 to 14) So you drop the Atlantic's in the Open net pen along migratory routes (WTF meng) and what happens. They get exposed to things they weren't exposed to before LIKE Sea Lice IHN and who knows what else. So with population sizes think of it like when your kid goes to daycare. WHAM they are sick all the frikin time well at least my employees kids are sick all the time. Colds and bugs and viruses transmit as fast as they can; however they can. So when the wild adult salmon come home to spawn after being out in the open ocean for years they swim by the innocent little Atlantic salmon farms that some how got placed on Migratory routes (WTF) meng. OK so sea lice are now an ongoing problem. Not sure when the last outbreak of IHN happened in B.C. waters. So we have the wild salmon smolt swimming out to sea and along the way they encounter these well lit noise filled areas that they do swim by and check out. Lord knows what happens if they actually swim into a net pen. Are they eaten???? Salmon…......, both Atlantic and Pacific are carnivores. Does someone say "Hey they didn’t eat as much today wonder why?" We know there are sea lice around the salmon farms. They get them from the wild fish. The salmon farms just give them a place to winter over and create a home base so to speak. The Answer?? It's EASY; move them!! They are already on land for half their life as it is now. Raise the price. Wild salmon will be costing 30 to 40 bucks a lb. this year anyway. ALL FOOD PRICES ARE GOING UP. Its simple raise the price
 
Unfortunately, the business people (AKA multinational corporate interests) that apply political pressure to "stay the course" (from the speech-writers of George W.) - or, in other words: "diddle-around and do nothing until it is too late, and we have no options left" - have largely been successful up to now.

I believe the tide has recently turned - and we are now heading slowly towards a more responsible and engaged public debate and involvement in the political leviathan that currently controls the environmental impacts of industrial output.

Not only are we witnessing the birth of citizen-scientists like Alex Morton – but others are getting more directly involved in the political process. The world has become too small not to notice, anymore.

See the news article below, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509..._scientists;_ylt=AslxH40okFd7c88QZv1rFv4PLBIF :

A crash course in true political science

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Fri May 9, 6:11 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Daniel Suson has a doctorate in astrophysics and has worked on the superconducting super collider and a forthcoming NASA probe. Now he's heading back to school to take on an even trickier task — getting elected to public office.

He is among a growing number of scientists who feel slighted and abused in the public debate in recent years and are mobilizing for a new effort to inject "evidence-based decision making" into public policy.

On Saturday, Suson, dean of engineering, mathematics and science at Purdue University Calumet, will join more than 70 other scientists, engineers and students at a hotel at Georgetown University for a crash course on elective politics.

"I've always been interested in politics, but my participation has been limited to yelling at my television," said Jason Haeseler, a Florida engineer and former registered Republican who will take the class and hopes to run for office as an independent.

The workshop includes advice on putting together a campaign staff, raising money, keeping a budget and using the Internet to their advantage. There will be networking and cocktails, staples of Washington politics.

They will also learn the art of dealing with the media and mastering the all-important sound bite — something of a challenge for scientists more comfortable with the arcane.

Science has become a part of every major issue of modern life, said neurologist Alan Leshner, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"At the same time that's happening, there's increased tensions between science and society," he said.

Scientists cite the debate over global warming as an example of having their insights and warnings cast aside. They have also complained the Bush administration has censored some of their research on warming and endangered species.

Scientists are also pushing hard for a presidential debate this year focusing on climate change and other science issues. So far, they have not persuaded the presidential candidates to agree to the forum.

Rep. Bill Foster, a physicist elected to the House in March as a Democrat from the Illinois district once held by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, said the push for a larger role for science in politics is important.

"Politicians have thought they could get away with saying things that are quantitatively false," Foster said in an interview Friday.
Foster said he wants more fact and less ideology in political debate. He said the Bush administration's "twisting" and "abusing" of science policy has caused scientists to become more politicized.

The group running the course, Scientists and Engineers for America, doesn't ask political affiliation of its students and has teachers from both parties, said Lesley Stone, a lawyer who runs the organization.

"Scientists are trained to solve problems and use evidence-based decision making and we think those are really useful skills for elected officials to have," she said.

Congress already has a sprinkling of scientists — three physicists, three chemists, a microbiologist and a biomedical engineer. There are also 13 medical doctors, two dentists, three nurses, two veterinarians, a psychologist, an optometrist and a pharmacist.
That's nothing compared with 215 lawyers.

"Physics is a lot more fun than politics because it presents a great intellectual challenge. You're wrestling with the secrets of nature," said Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Mich., the most senior of the three physicists. "Politics is not hard. It's learning to work with people."

Ehlers described decision-making in Congress as "irrational" — not necessarily a bad thing because it may mean the decisions are connected to emotions and people.

Foster, the Illinois Democrat, said he already has seen a difference between his old world of physics and the new one of politics.

"Both worlds are populated by smart people, most of them trying to do the right things," Foster said. "The thought patterns and internal logic of why things happen are very different."

Suson, who recently moved from Texas to Indiana, says he's several years away from a first run for elective office. He worries that politics could be harder than physics: Learning physics went along "a fairly linear progression," he said.

"Politics is not that. You've got to do something that I find a lot of Ph.D.'s don't do well and that's listen," he said. "You have to pay attention to what people want."

But there's a risk, said Paul Light, author of the new book "A Government Ill Executed."

While the public perceives scientists as being objective, Light said he worries "the more active scientists and engineers in the political debate, the more they risk their objectivity."

Paul Bunje, a Californian who earned his doctorate studying snail evolution and works as a policy fellow at the Environmental Protection Agency, hopes Saturday's class isn't about big ideas and concepts.

The scientist in him wants to set the soaring rhetoric aside and learn the practical steps for an eventual dip into elective office.
"Just how different is this from the life of a scientist, and is this something scientists can be good at?" he wondered.

Light said it may mean making some personality changes for the scientists.

"Scientists will have to get rid of their pocket protectors and kind of improve their political skills and get a more visible sense of humor perhaps," Light said. "But I think they'll be fine politicians."

Academics may be used to the "backstabbing" of university life, Light said, but he added that politics includes something scientists could be less familiar with: "backslapping."
___
On the Net
Scientists and Engineers for America: http://sefora.org/
The push for a presidential science debate: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php
 
Court case ramps up controversy
Stephen Hume. Courier - Islander. Campbell River, B.C.: May 9, 2008. pg. 18

Copyright Southam Publications Inc. May 9, 2008


Debate over the future of fish farming on British Columbia's coast moved from skirmishing in scientific journals to a full-blown court battle Tuesday.

This time it's a challenge to the constitutional legality of the B.C. government regulating the same salmon farms whose rapid expansion it enthusiastically promoted.

For some time controversy has fulminated over threats to wild salmon posed by the industry, particularly in the Broughton archipelago at the north end of Vancouver Island where research links sea lice infestations in domestic pens to declines in wild stocks that must migrate through adjacent, parasite-laden waters.

Biologist Alexandra Morton, who first drew attention to the Broughton situation, the Wilderness Tourism Association, the Southern Gillnetters Association, the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of B.C. and the Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society are petitioning to have the province's right to regulate ruled constitutionally invalid.

Morton says 22 farms operating in the Broughton are operating on leases that have expired or are about to expire and thus require renewal by the province. But the court petition argues that Canada's Constitution, which lays out the areas of federal and provincial sovereignty, prevents delegation of this regulatory authority to the province.

Representing the petitioners is a highly skilled environmental lawyer. Gregory McDade, former head of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, who now works with Ratcliff and Co., a North Vancouver firm.

But this isn't simply a legal skirmish over arcane technicalities, it's a signal that the conflict is both escalating and polarizing competing economic interests in a way that seems certain to draw into the fray other heavyweights affected by aquaculture, say first nations and sports angling lobbies.

For example, government statistics indicate the salmon farming industry, largely owned by European multinational corporations that also operate in Scandinavia, the British Isles and South America, is a $370-million-a-year business in B.C. when production and processing are included.

The industry is able to mobilize sophisticated spin-doctoring to advance its case and to seek to neutralize the campaigns of opponents and critics, a strategy that brings to mind the so-called war in the woods that convulsed B.C. during the 1990s. Its supporters often portray salmon farms as essential both to the survival of wild salmon and coastal communities.

Salmon farming is said to lessen pressure on wild stocks severely affected by federal and provincial mismanagement that resulted in overfishing, loss of genetic diversity and habitat destruction, all amplified by climate change. Fish farms and processing facilities are said to be crucial to the economies of coastal communities that once relied on commercial fishing and a forest industry that has shed jobs for decades.

The provincial legislature's committee on sustainable aquaculture reported at end of 2007, however, that fish farming provided only about 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs, about the same number provided by commercial fishing. Sports angling for wild salmon provided 2,500 jobs.

By comparison, the Wilderness Tourism Association testified to the committee that it generates about $900 million in direct revenue and about $2 billion in indirect revenue, and provides 21,000 full-time jobs; about half this revenue and the jobs it supports rely on wild fish.

Vancouver Island and the central coast where most fish farms are concentrated generate about half the wilderness revenue in B.C. as tourists come to kayak, boat and view bears, eagles, orcas and other sea mammals sustained by wild salmon.

Surveys indicate that about a million tourists a year participate in hiking and paddling at least once while on a trip in B.C. As a whole, B.C. tourism generates about $9.5 billion a year in revenues and the Council of Tourism Associations estimates it creates about 117,000 jobs, one in every eight in the province, with another 54,000 jobs to come by 2015.

The Wilderness Tourism Association has for some time expressed "deep concern" that the impact of fish farms on its business activities "puts the future of this significant sector at risk."

So the emergence of a coalition of tourism and traditional fishing interests, independent science and environmentalists in this court case marks a significant evolution in the conflict, one that raises thorny questions for politicians about how and why they set their economic priorities.

Credit: Stephen Hume; Canwest News Service
 
sockeyefry, on May 01 you wrote;

"Agent,
Do you know of any alternate energy sources which could produce say 3000 kw of power, and at what cost? Power has always been the stumbling block. It takes energy to pump the necessary water flows through the big tanks. Of course in a net pen this energy is provided by the tides at no cost...I think that DFO, Industry, ENGO's, Academics should look at exploring land based technologies, rather than wasting energy bickering with dueling scientists. The first question is to solve the energy problem. If you solve that, then the farming companies would move the farms on land voluntarily."

Check out what the units these guys are manufacturing for pumping water in 'off the grid' situations. http://www.worldwater.com/
A solar array produces 3.2 kilowatts of electricity capable of pumping 30,000 gallons/day. 10 of these units would give you the 3000 kw of power you need to run the RAS.

There are also new developments in tidal power right here in Canada,
http://www.cleancurrent.com/
 
Cuttlefish,

I think that it would require 1000 of the units, not 10. I read the article, and it would require acres of solar arrays. However, it may provide a part of a ossible solution.

The other posting is regarding RAS systems, and is a report on the state of the technology. It appears well researched, and pretty complete with regard to current systems in use. However, it presents an overly rosey picture of RAS profitability and environmental friendliness.

As I have said before, I think this is an area where there could be joint partnerships with Government, industry, NGO's to look into the use of RAS for large scale salmon production. I think this would be a better approach than silly court challenges, and duelling science.
 
Sockeyefry,
You are right about the math, my mistake. I guess that's why I'm not a rocket scientist. I am curious to know, though, where does the 3000 kw figure come from? Correct me again if I'm wrong, but isn't that 3 MW? That sounds like an enormous amount of electricity just to pump water.
 
Cuttlefish,

That would be the total energy required. Probably 2/3 of this would be involved with pumping. The rest would bne used to operate other farm equipment such as feeders, lights, fish pumps & graders etc...

The figure probably for a flow through site would even be higher, if you were to make a on shore site to replace one net pen site. A site in Cape Breton I am familiar with had 6 200hp pumps to provide water to the tanks. This farm produced 450 tonnes. a typical net pen site produces 1500 to 3000 tonnes. Therefore the pumping requirement would be at least 3 times the 1200hp at this farm. It costs a lot of money to duplicate the tidal flush. This is why farms are in the ocean. In order to make it profitable at todays market prices which are dictated by the Chileans and Norwegians, not BC, production costs would have to be down below $2 per lb.

1200 kw/h @ 0.05/kwh is $60 per hour. There are 8760 hours in a year, as the pumps must be run 24/7/365 or the fish die.
The annual bill for power is: $525,600. Just the cost for the power gives you a production cost of $1.17 per kg or $0.53 per lb. A quarter of your allowable costs are gone, and you haven't paid for feed or labour which are the largest costs on a sea site.

That's why I say that the energies are misplaced with the bickering back and forth and court challenges, when the real work could be done in solving the hurdles to actually place the farms on shore.
 
Sockeyefry,
There are some interesting numbers included in the Future SEA Technologies report on the SEA System II trials run by Marine Harvest at Salt Spring Island in 2001 & 2002. This trial compared the floating 6 bags (2000 cubic metres/bag)to 2 net cages (14,400 cubic metres/net pen). The report is posted on the MAL website at;
http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/reports/MH_Economic_Performance_of_the_SEA_System.pdf
There is an economic comparison including a number of COP factors and the report discusses the problems encountered and hurdles to jump in the future, but on the last page of the report it talks about electricity used for sea water delivery.

"Electrical power costs for the SEA bags were within the expected range and accounted for 2% of the base COP. Electrical power is required predominantly for operating the SEA system pump. Each pump consumes approximately 6.2 kWh and delivers 40,000 to 60,000 lpm, depending on operating conditions."

The report doesn't specify if there was one or more pumps used for each bag, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume one pump per bag system. If the average net pen farm has 12 30mx30m net pens and produces 1500-3000 metric tonnes as you say, that is the equivalent of 40 SEA system bags and assuming each bag has one 6.2 kWh pump system, then that's 248 kWh of electricity. Using your numbers of $0.05/kwh, that works out to $108,624/year. If it takes 18 months grow out in salt water to produce 1500-3000 metric tonnes that would make the total cost for electricity $162,936 and would mean the additional cost for sea water delivery would be somewhere in between $0.055 and $0.11 per kilogram of fish harvested or roughly 2 to 5 cents per pound.

Please check my math, as I say, I'm not into rocket science.
 
Cuttle fish,

The power consumption I quoted was for an onshore farm. The Future Sea system doesn't require the power to supply the water mainly because it works on about 1 foot of head, and the bags being in the water float up and down with the tide, eliminating the need to pump up 20 or so feet. Basically the pumps on the sea bags are mainly current inducers, causing the exchange of water through the bags.

This system does not really change any of the issues around net pens, and adds the extra expense of the pumps. Although talked about, they did not really develop an effective effluent filter to keep the poo from entering the water. Sea lice freely travel in and out of the bags, and they still can be damaged by storms resulting in escapes. They actually are worse than a typical net pen system when effluent levels are considered. The number of fish produced in a netpen is dependent on how much natural current flush is available. This is due to the amount of oxygen required to keep the fish alive. In a Sea Bag type system, the current is provided by pumps, and the oxygen can be added to bring it above natural levels. This would allow a greater biomass of fish to be produced on the same leased area. A greater biomass means more poop produced. This could actually be worse for the site than what a regular old net pen system would produce.
Inorder to effectively remove the so called hazards of net pen culture, you have to go on shore, where you can effectively filter both the influent and effluent. The in water closed containment systems developed to date, if they have low energy costs, do not effectively filter the effluent, and are susceptible to storm damage.

I think that the development of a large scale Recirculation unit would be the only effective alternative to net pens.
 
Hi guys,

I must say this discussion is quite civil. The only type of containment that would satisfy BC NGO's is what is stated on their websites: "No transmission of parasites, waste,fish or disease".

The only technology that offers this is on-land recirculating systems. They work on a tiny scale with smolt salmon.

Scaling up to produce market size fish has failed miserably and repeatedly.

Future Sea Bags work too- as long as you are OK with 99% transmission ie NOT closed AT ALL in any way. Future Sea Bags have only worked for short peiods of time and usually fail within a production cycle.

Each pen costs about $200,000.00- thats about 3x the cost of a net pen. The Future Sea bag also tends to have a lifespan of 1 cycle/crop.

By the end of the Marine Havest Pilot project the bags were trashed and the net cages have been happily growing fish ever since (about 10x the lifespan for 1/3rd the cost).

Close containment does not exist for market size salmon beyongd pilot scale. It makes no sense. Its a dumb idea that has been thoroughly tested and at the pilot stage has failed, usually with disastrous results (eg fish escapes, mass mortality, huge financial loss). Why if the idea makes no sense on paper, fails repeated pilot tests would one want to pursue this idea further.

Freshwater recirc works quite well for high value fish worth about $50.00 per pound FOB, not on salmon worth about $4 per pound FOB.
 
quote:Originally posted by handee

Hi guys,

I must say this discussion is quite civil. The only type of containment that would satisfy BC NGO's is what is stated on their websites: "No transmission of parasites, waste,fish or disease".

The only technology that offers this is on-land recirculating systems. They work on a tiny scale with smolt salmon.

Scaling up to produce market size fish has failed miserably and repeatedly.

Future Sea Bags work too- as long as you are OK with 99% transmission ie NOT closed AT ALL in any way. Future Sea Bags have only worked for short peiods of time and usually fail within a production cycle.

Each pen costs about $200,000.00- thats about 3x the cost of a net pen. The Future Sea bag also tends to have a lifespan of 1 cycle/crop.

By the end of the Marine Havest Pilot project the bags were trashed and the net cages have been happily growing fish ever since (about 10x the lifespan for 1/3rd the cost).

Close containment does not exist for market size salmon beyongd pilot scale. It makes no sense. Its a dumb idea that has been thoroughly tested and at the pilot stage has failed, usually with disastrous results (eg fish escapes, mass mortality, huge financial loss). Why if the idea makes no sense on paper, fails repeated pilot tests would one want to pursue this idea further.

Freshwater recirc works quite well for high value fish worth about $50.00 per pound FOB, not on salmon worth about $4 per pound FOB.

Pursueing the Idea is what is needed, new technoligy is needed. Thinking outside the box (or net pen) is needed. For the salmon farming industry its about dollars, for the rest its about the preservation of a natural resourse, Wild salmon. We all admit that both sides lose when open net pens are used along migratory routes. Sadly wild salmon lose out more. There can be no comingling of farmed salmon and wild salmon. Pursueing the Idea that open net pen along wild salmon migratory routes is the best soultion is (for lack of a better word) assinine.

Quote
Failure is a learning tool. Thomas Edison failed a thousand times before he invented the light bulb. Failure is trying to do things others have not considered. It is a temporary byproduct of creativity. It is challenging the learning process. It is experiential education at work. The real winners in life tolerate failure and the agony it produces. Success is achieved by those who are willing to take risk and lose.
 
So, for the sake of discussion, let's say we all agree on the following;

1. Floating closed containment doesn't address the issues.

2. On-land re-circ is only economically viable for small scale production or for high end ($50/lb. and up) fish.

3. Salmon farming in open net pens should not be done on wild salmon migratory routes.

The only option we haven't looked at is open net pen salmon farming off migratory routes. The US is looking at offshore (outside 3 miles) aquaculture. What are the implications of moving salmon farming 3 miles off shore?

The reason I ask is because, if we are all in agreement with the three
statements above, and if we cannot find a safe place to locate open net pens full of salmon, then the conclusion would be that there is no place in BC for open net pens full of salmon. Perhaps salmon farmers should not be asked to transition to closed containment, but to transition instead to other species of fish.
 
i dont agree with number 3.

there is no evidence that farm salmon or chickens or cattle are harmful to the wild. au contraire, but manageable.

offshore farming is in its infancy, not likely to be any good for salmon. but its worth continuing to try. they are having some success 9ie not a complete failure) in Hawaii. Not that far offshore though.

we want to farm salmon because they are endangered. maybe if we stopped killing them on their migratory route, by fishing them, that would help. I'd start there before worrying about thinking out of the box with new technology. ochrams razor: go with the most obvious and simplest solution first..
 
handee,

Thanks for your opinion on open ocean aquaculture. It would be useful, at least to me, if you could forward any sources that helped you arrive at your conclusions. Easier to stay on track with addressing the issue around and ultimately finding solutions to farm siting that way.
You also wrote;
quote:we want to farm salmon because they are endangered. maybe if we stopped killing them on their migratory route, by fishing them, that would help. I'd start there before worrying about thinking out of the box with new technology.
It is news to me that we want to farm salmon because they are endangered. I thought the reason was for profit. If that's not the case, and the reason is, as you say, to protect endangered salmon, then it is even more important to minimize any potential negative impacts from our farming practices. Even if the negative impacts have not been proven conclusively, where there is doubt about the effects to the environment from our activities, it still behooves us to err on the side of caution. Canada is a signatory to the Rio Convention which includes the precautionary principle.

Recently, federal salmon managers have moved the commercial salmon fleet from ocean fisheries to a more terminal harvest scenario in order to better protect weak stocks while still allowing some harvest of healthy stocks. However, it is ture that terminal harvests are conducted on migratory routes of returning adult</u> salmon. So, if you have a beef with killing salmon on their migratory routes, perhaps you should take it up with DFO and not here.

I must say, for someone who lauds the civility of this thread, you are treading on pretty thin ice if you suggest to the readers here that they should stop killing salmon and embrace salmon farming. At the very least your style of dismissing anything that anyone says which contradicts your point of view does not assist in finding solutions that might work to advance your industry objective (profit) while protecting wild salmon at the same time. I believe we do need to think outside the box if that is our goal.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life”.

Count Leo Nicolaevitch Tolstoy
1828-1910

That, in my humble opinion, applies equally to us all.
 
Back
Top