fish farm siting criteria & politics

[sockeyefry]

Okay Gun, then all the dairy farmers raising holsteins are also hypocrits? Agriculture does not necessarily grow what is native.

Why can't I be involved with enhancement?

Aqua,

Your mathematical anlaysis would appear to the uninitiated to be correct except for one little issue: Appetite. Farmed fish are programmed to feed on Pelleted feed, and are fed to satiation. In other words their prey picture is a pellet shape not a fish shape, and they are kept satiated, full all the time for max growth. I have seen herring swim in and out of pens without being touched. Ususally when escapees are recovered they are founds with bits of bark etc. in their stomachs and no prey species. It has been suggested the bark resembles their food

 

[Gunsmith]

You are meandering. BC has a few lakes now with fish that don't belong in them.{ Holsteins?}
We are not talking math here why do you bring it up? These fish that are genetically designed to eat pellets only? So when they escape as they seem to do they must starve to death right? Bull. Your fish pen fields are sportfishing waters.

 

[Little Hawk]

Howdy,

Here's another letter from Steve Lawson I thought I'd share with you people. The fish farmers are getting desperate indeed.

The tide will turn...



Hello All, FYI...
....well the battle wages in Clayoquot Sound with Mainstream making it hard to get data. The Wild Fish Conservancy have their research boats and 3 people here doing sea lice studies and plankton tows to assess the problems here in Clayoquot. 2 of their people were with us in our boat about a month ago, when we went up the Bedwell Inlet to the Wilderness Resort to show them the number of farms in the inlet and the work that the Wilderness Resort has done in putting in spawning channels to help the wild salmon survive in the Bedwell River, when we were taking pictures in the area and approached a farm to get pictures of the underwater lights, but didn't touch the farm or ever step foot on it, something we would absolutely never do. When we dropped off the researchers in Tofino, they were met by Mainstream personnel who wanted them to go with them to the police station stating they had trespassed onto the farm. When the WFC people wouldn't go the the police station, Mainstream personnel called the police to come there, but the police basically dismissed it as there is no proof or anything to uphold their claims. I thought then we should charge Mainstream with harassment but didn't. Then two weeks ago, the WFC were doing research in Bedwell inlet, Mainstream called the police again, and were on the radio phone (which all the Ahousahts listen to) saying these guys (Wild Fish Conservancy) were on the farms again which was a lie, they never went within 300 yds of any farm. We have met with the Ahousaht Council to show them the work and planned research but yesterday the Ahousaht fisheries boat delivered a letter signed by Keith Atleo, Chief Councillor, who runs a big boat provided by Mainstream to deliver personnel to the farms. The letter prohibits WFC from doing any data collecting and research in their territory.
So today is another day, we are all determined to keep on going and getting the research, at this time with jurisdiction all over the map regarding fish farms, particularly here in Clayoquot and B.C. where F.N. consultation is ongoing, it is pretty interesting. We are also in the process of organizing, through the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Marine and Aquatic Committee, a wild salmon enhancement and protection program with a lot of major groups as well as DFO. It is pretty amazing what these fish farm corporations will do to supress knowledge about their activities, dividing communities and people and even calling in the police which we feel is a pretty radical action and it has become pretty serious here. Traditional Indigenous Rights are upheld everywhere such as hunting and fishing, but these big commercial corporations with their dirty tactics are a challenge. Clayoquot is becoming somewhat of a mafia lately with the corporate game plan and private profit for a few while everyone and everything loses. Many people in Ahousaht aren't getting any wild food fish to put away for the winter, like ourselves, something that has sustained them for centuries, yet some work with or for Mainstream. If it went to a referendum at Ahousaht, many people don't like what is going on and consider Mainstream a criminal but it is difficult to get people to speak out. The wild salmon are what we depend upon, and wildlife is suffering from the loss of sustenance with wild salmon stocks crashing here, more than anywhere on the coast from what I gather. The numbers on returning stocks are in from last year and it is pretty dire. Anyway, we will keep you informed, and thanks for all the good work Alexandra (silvertip, what a great name!) and everyone, wish you were here to help us but we will see what can be done. If you have any suggestions, they would be appreciated. It is an interesting time, that is for sure. All the best to you all, For All OUr Relations, Susanne and Steve

 

[Gunsmith]

I would curious to see what sockeye has to re-but.Since when does any water below high water mark become private property?

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry


Aqua,

Your mathematical anlaysis would appear to the uninitiated to be correct except for one little issue: Appetite. Farmed fish are programmed to feed on Pelleted feed, and are fed to satiation. In other words their prey picture is a pellet shape not a fish shape, and they are kept satiated, full all the time for max growth. I have seen herring swim in and out of pens without being touched. Ususally when escapees are recovered they are founds with bits of bark etc. in their stomachs and no prey species. It has been suggested the bark resembles their food

You know sockeyefry - I am NOT one of those uninitiated. We used to catch Atlantic's in pens using red devils (because they were cheap if you lost them because a fish swam into the netting and got the hook caught). Great fun.

AND NO - these spoons were not cleverly disguised as bits of bark - but silvery smolts. The reason bark remains in the guts long after other food had been digested is because bark is cellulose and non-digestible. So it makes sense that the small fish would be digested between a few hours and a day or 2 - while bark would be found remaining in the digestive system. I thought you would have even figured that part out.

AND if they are hungry enough to snap at bark because they are hungry - then think of how more rewarding and tasty real food would be. Real food like smolts, herring and other forage fishes.

Atlantics are - after all is said and done - FISH!! AND that's what big fish do - is eat smaller fish. Everyone on this forum knows what fish are, sockeyefry.

Atlantics were "preprogrammed" for many of thousands of years of evolution long before the fish farmers got to them. They still eat smaller fish, sockeyefry. This isn't a "Finding Nemo" movie where the sharks chant "fish are friends not food".

Penned Atlantics may decide to let the occasional fish get by them if they are satiated from pellets and don't feel like striking-out in aggression at the moment - but they have millions of net-cage companions that may decide otherwise.

Nice try, though. To the "uninitiated" - you might have made sense...

 

[Little Hawk]

Ha-ha-ha! I love it!

O.M.G...

 

[agentaqua]

Easy on Sockeyefry, Gunsmith. I think he's doing us all a valuable service here, by showing us the lies the fish farmers tell themselves so we can all see how foolish some of their claims are. I appreciate his input here.

 

[Gunsmith]

Yes you are right I sometimes get carried away by my REDNECK streak. He reminds me of a cat that wanders around tied dogs knowing just how long the leash is.

 

[cuttlefish]

When someone compares the aquatic ecosystem to a "desert" it is easier to understand why they think salmon farms are a boon. To quote sockeyefry;

quote:Lighting, like structure and nutrients actually have a positive effect on aquatic ecosystems provided they are not excessive. There was a study done in Puget sound which concluded that fish farms were actually good for the environment, there was also another study done in DScotland where they found that there was a "zone of enrichment" surrounding salmon farms, in which they found an abundance of sea life, in excess of levels farther from the farms. It seemed that the presence of the farm created an oasis in a desert so to speak.

I recall reading the Puget Sound "study" he refers to, it has done by Dr. Ken Brooks, a long time consultant to the industry and contains some interesting information but has not been peer reviewed. I don't remember seeing any consideration of the heavy metal, drug and pesticide residues in the farm's so called "zones of enrichment" either. I'll try to find the link.

 

[cuttlefish]

I found the Puget Sound report (not peer reviewed study). It does not look at heavy metal, drug or pesticide residues. It is on the BC Salmon Farmers website so you can assume what the conclusions might be;
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/attachments/02_08_08_Beneficial_Effects_of_Fish_farms.pdf.

It is not written by Dr. Brooks but I found another literature review (again not a peer reviewed study) by him at the following link;
http://books.google.ca/books?id=K7p...AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=#PPA159,M1.

Dr. Brook's literature review starts on page 159.

Finding the Scottish report is up to you sockeyefry.

 

[Little Hawk]

"OASIS IN THE DESERT?"

Ha - Ha! Keep spewing it Sockeye! You're getting stupid'er by the minute!

Nearly 10 years ago when I first started to learn about this filth you call net-pen salmon farming, there were something like 8-farms in the Pugeout.
Now how many are there?

Fact is, the Yanks don't want'em cause they know full well the terrible cost exacted on the ecosystem anywhere and everywhere this industry occurs.

It remains a mystery to me how anyone could eat this crap but one thing is for certain: Our American Brothers got it real good - WITH THE BIG NORWEGIAN-DOGGY CRAPPING IN OUR BACKYARD WHILE GROWING FISH TO FEED THEM.

 

[cuttlefish]

Monday, February 16, 2009

Where Does Fish Waste End Up?
GENERAL - If you are a fish eater, it's likely that the salmon you had for dinner was not caught in the wild, but was instead grown in a mesh cage submerged in the open water of oceans or bays.

Fish farming, a relatively inexpensive way to provide cheap protein to a growing world population, now supplies, by some estimates, 30 per cent of the fish consumed by humans.

Two hundred and twenty species of finfish and shellfish are now grown in farms.

Intuitively, it seems a good idea—the more fish grown in pens, the fewer need be taken from wild stocks in the sea. But marine aquaculture can have some nasty side effects, especially when the pens are set near sensitive coastal environments. All those fish penned up together consume massive amounts of commercial feed, some of which drifts off uneaten in the currents. And the crowded fish, naturally, defecate and urinate by the tens of thousands, creating yet another unpleasant waste stream.

The wastes can carry disease, causing damage directly. Or the phosphate and nitrates in the mix may feed an algae bloom that sucks the oxygen from the water, leaving it uninhabitable, a phenomenon long associated with fertilizer runoff.

It has been widely assumed that the effluent from pens would be benignly diluted by the sea if the pens were kept a reasonable distance from shore, said Jeffrey Koseff, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and co-director of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. But early results from a new Stanford computer simulation based on sophisticated fluid dynamics show that the icky stuff from the pens will travel farther, and in higher concentrations, than had been generally assumed, Koseff said.

"What we've basically debunked is the old adage that 'The solution to pollution is dilution,' " he said. "It's a lot more complicated."

The computer modeling (with new Stanford software that goes by the acronym SUNTANS) was conducted by Oliver Fringer, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering. He created a virtual coastal marine area resembling California's Monterey Bay.

Previous software, he said, has not been up to the task of accurately predicting where the unhealthy effluent from fish pens will end up, and should probably not be used by state or federal regulators when they approve locations for fish farms.

Existing software is typically derived from models that attempt to describe the drift of effluent from sewage outfall pipes, even though the substances and situations are different from fish farms. (Sewage outflow, for example, is often warmer than the ocean water.)

The fine details of modeling the flow of dissolved fish poop from a submerged cage are not as simple as they may seem. The design of the cage itself can affect the outcome. How much of the current flows through the cage, and how much goes around? Does the moving water swirl into eddies at the edges of the pen? Even the effects of the rotation of the earth on the waste plume comes into play.

The fish farmer would prefer that currents flush out his pens frequently, but as those currents take out the garbage they might unfortunately deliver it to a mangrove ecosystem or a public beach. On the other hand, insufficient flow through the pen can create a "dead zone" on the ocean floor as the fecal matter and uneaten food pile up beneath the fish.

Professor Fringer is designing his software so that it can be used to asses any site—Puget Sound, perhaps—where sufficient digital mapping of the area already exists. SUNTANS comes just in time, said Stanford oceans expert Rosamond Naylor, as federal and local officials begin spelling the details of new health and environmental regulations for fish pens.

Also participating in the research was former postdoctoral researcher Subhas Karan Venayagamoorthy, now at Colorado State University.

Stanford scientist Oliver Fringer spoke about what happens to the dangerous wastes produced by fish farms in the ocean at the AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago on yesterday.

The presentation, "Characteristics of Waste Plumes from Aquaculture Pens in the Marine Environment," was part of the session, "Aquaculture Impacts, Standards, and Sustainability."

TheFishSite News Desk

 

[sockeyefry]

*EDITED BY LASTCHANCE*


Agent, Fish do not always strike at fishing lures because they want to eat it. Sometimes it is because of territorial defense, or a reflex. Could it be possible that the fish struck at the Daredevil out of reflex, or territorial defense? Do you know why the fish struck at the loure. Or course not, so your argument is gone. In addition, just bnecause food items are present, does npot mean that an animal eats. Have you ever heard of prey types. This is especially true with fish. They concentrate on particular food items, and ignore others. Sort of like fishing the wrong fly during a mayfly hatch. The fish ignore your grasshopper because they are keying in on the mayflies. I would have figured someone with your knowledge would have known about this little bit of fish behaviour.

The bark resembles feed pellets. It is the feed type that they key in on. I have seen herring swim in and out of pens, and not get eaten. Small Cod and pollock will get into a net pen while small and grow righ along with the salmon. Why are they not eaten?

Cuttle,
Thank you for providing the link.

 

[Gunsmith]

I think I have struck a nerve because your spelling has gone downhill.[8D]

 

[Captain Dudds]

Does it matter why the fish attacked the lure? The point is that it did and now the lure is dead, so to speak.

Captain Dudds

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent, ...Agent, Fish do not always strike at fishing lures because they want to eat it. Sometimes it is because of territorial defense, or a reflex. Could it be possible that the fish struck at the Daredevil out of reflex, or territorial defense? Do you know why the fish struck at the loure. Or course not, so your argument is gone...

Sockeyefry, I just wrote above: "Penned Atlantics may decide to let the occasional fish get by them if they are satiated from pellets and don't feel like striking-out in aggression at the moment - but they have millions of net-cage companions that may decide otherwise"

Did you not read that, or just ignored it?

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent, ...Do you know why the fish struck at the loure. Or course not, so your argument is gone. In addition, just bnecause food items are present, does npot mean that an animal eats. Have you ever heard of prey types. This is especially true with fish. They concentrate on particular food items, and ignore others. Sort of like fishing the wrong fly during a mayfly hatch. The fish ignore your grasshopper because they are keying in on the mayflies. I would have figured someone with your knowledge would have known about this little bit of fish behaviour....

Pretty weak argument, sockeyefry.

Do I (or you) know exactly why the fish struck at the lure? Probably not.

BUT there's whole stores filled with fishing gear (including spoons) that sportsfishermen use to catch fish - which they do.

Do fishermen have to know exactly why the fish zeroed-in on their bait/spoon in order to justify using bait or spoons?

The answer is NO - it's called fishing. Only the fish can actually answer your question.

The fact that I (or you) don't know the answer to that question DOES NOT invalidate my observation that fish chase spoons, that look like forage fish.

The most plausible explanation for this behaviour is that the fish thought the spoon looked like something to eat.

Nice try, though. You're really scraping for some way to invalidate that observation, aren't you?

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Can you tell me what forage fish is red with a white stripe, like a daredevil? Fishing lures are attractors, which do not imitate real life, and immitators, which do.

 

[Last Chance]

Next personal threat or name-calling is going to get this thread canned and some users banned.

And no, I'm not interested in a rebuttle, just keep the thread on track.

Last Chance Fishing Adventures

www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

Can you tell me what forage fish is red with a white stripe, like a daredevil? Fishing lures are attractors, which do not imitate real life, and immitators, which do.

Wow - sockeyefry. Just when I think I have heard the most irrelevant or inane rebuttal; I am again surprised at the next rebuttal that unfortunately demonstrates to me that either you are stretching as far as you can to invalidate my observations - or alternatively you don't know any better, and lack the background and experience in matters dealing with fish.

The red-end of the visible spectrum of light is attenuated from somewhere between a few centimeters to a few meters in salt water (and fresh water, too - but fresh water is often clearer) - dependent upon the exact wavelength of red and the intensity of the available sunlight, and the turbidity (and colour and dissolved organics) of the water. As you go past 750 nm of wavelength of reflected red light you enter the infrared zone, which is absorbed within centimeters or less.

A good online article on this very topic can be found at:http://www.midcurrent.com/articles/science/ross_color.aspx

as explained by Dr. David Ross - a senior scientist emeritus at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the author of The Fisherman’s Ocean (Stackpole Books).

This red light attenuation is why when you are diving, everything looks blue/green once you get down to 5-8 meters depths, and why underwater photographers carry external lighting to get their reef shots. Otherwise, all they would end-up with would be shots of blues and greens.

What this means is that red looks black/dark grey to us and fish, at depths greater than a few meters.

Another important point is that the attenuation works due to the properties of the water, and the length of travel of that light wavelength through the water in all 3 directions. This means that the attenuation also occurs horizontally, as well as by depth.

So, once a fish is 5-8m away from the lure, even if it is shallow enough for not all the reds to be immediately attenuated - it will be attenuated over a short horizontal distance.

So a red lure turning while being trolled would look like a small forage fish (most forage fishes like smolts and herring are silver of the sides, and dark on the top) having problems with equilibrium and "flashing".

A small fish in trouble is a strong visual attractant to a larger predatory fish.

And what's more is that these lures work, and have for many, many years. Ask any of the fishermen on this forum.

What the heck IS your point?

That you are frustrated that I am making a valid point based on a legitimate observation???

 

[cuttlefish]

quote:Next personal threat or name-calling is going to get this thread canned and some users banned.

And no, I'm not interested in a rebuttle, just keep the thread on track.

I hear ya LC and hope others do too. There's lots of good info contained in these pages and it would be a shame to see this thread disappear. I'm not rebutting, just lamenting.