fish farm siting criteria & politics

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that article refers to preliminary data from a study in progress, and you should know the dangers of drawing conclusions before the completion of any study.

Firstly - we should never wait until we have absolute proof in order to act in a timely fashion. We already discussed this earlier on this thread.

Secondly - the DNA results and the sea lice infestation numbers are NOT "preliminary" - it's what they got for this year and last.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Did they determine if the lice loadings were from farms and did they kill the fish? Just because a fish has lice doesn't mean thay are going to be harmed by them.

Firstly - we all know that since there is repeated transfer between wild and cultured stock - DNA cannot be used to tell where the sea lice came from.

Secondly - we cannot use site-by-site farm-source sea lice loading as a point source because the numbers are unavailable because the government is protecting the farms from that kind of investigation. We already talked about this earlier, too.

So, NO - we currently have no method I know of to tell the source of any individual sea louse on any wild smolt.

However, we can look at modeling and other jurisdictions' experiences - all of which demonstrate the risk of transfer and population-level impacts are real and probable. Some authors have even quantified this risk.

Please don't insult all our intelligences by trying to claim that doesn't happen

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Just because a fish has lice doesn't mean thay are going to be harmed by them.

Yes and NO - the harm is dependent upon both the numbers and stages of lice (e.g. motile or subadult lice are much more lethal to their host) - as well as the size (read weight) of the host fish.

These levels of either sublethal or lethal harm have been quantified for some species - but are being debated between the 2 camps.

Generally something like more then 1 louse per gram of weight will kill a fish - while lesser levels can cause sublethal effects, including population-level increases in mortality. Please review earlier postings on this, and my last posting on how inadequate the trigger levels were (03/19/2009 : 10:53:15).

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

You cannot compare the Frasr which flows through the most heavily populated area in BC, and therewfore receiver of the most human impact, with the Skeena. Besides which there are years when the Skeena Sockeye experience low poulation levels.

Yea - why not?

And yes - some years both rivers show similar results with changes in numbers - but have been mostly out of synch - with the Fraser most often severly impacted.

You wish to somehow repudiate the comment: "It's likely that many juvenile sockeye from the Fraser get killed when they pass-by the Broughtons and get loaded by sea lice from the fish farms."

You think that's an illogical or improbable suggestion? Why?

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

I also cite the population fluctuations of pink salmon in thwe Broughton before salmon farming began, during which time frame the lowest runs on record occurred, and the greatest runs occurred during the period in which farms were present in the Broughton. Based on this data how come no one has drawn the conclusion that the farms were good for the pinks?

Wow, sockeyefry. You do have a sense of humour, even.

 

[sockeyefry]

Problem is I do not accept the studies done by Morton, Orr, Krkosek, Ford, and Volpe, for the same reasons you do not accept the studies done by the BCSFA, etc... They are not credible sources of info because of their affiliations, and chosen agendas.

I would like the science to rule the day, without the Lawyer like influence of proving ones own agenda. It amazes me how they could come up with the conclusion that the Fraser River sockeye are in trouble because of fish farm lice loads in the Broughton. Common sense would dictate that the sockeye fry by the time they reach the Broughton are beyond the size at which sea lice would have a lethal impact. In addition the fact that they could ignore all other possible detrimental human and natural effects from the creeks down through the city of Vancouver out into the ocean, and focus on a very small point source only illustrates they zeal at proving their agenda.

These types of reports, whioch are packaged for media consumption, and are produced by both sides are a waste of time, and really only serve to confuse delay solution to the real issues with the wild salmon.

I would suggest that the Government put in place a 3rd party monitoring ayatem of the fish farms and the lodge owners. In addition, under an umbrella group such as the PSF, all interested parties should come to one Table for discussion and consult into this issue, create a list of questions which need answers, and determine the research required to find them. All research would be done allong predetermined guidelines and have to be pre approved and sanctioned before proceeding. If it doesn't have the "Seal of Approval", then it would not be considered genuine, and not included in determining a farms net effect. I would further suggest that if a farm is shown to effect wild salmon in a negative way then it should be required to mitigate the effect, or be removed.

 

[sockeyefry]

From the BCSFA on the Sockeye topic:

BC salmon farmers live, work and raise our families on the coast. Most of us have enjoyed at least an occasional fishing adventure and we are all aware of how deeply rooted our Pacific salmon are to the history, traditions and life styles of coastal BC. As such, we care about our wild salmon populations. It is our responsibility to ensure that our practices do not contribute to the many factors that have and continue to affect our wild salmon.

Here’s what we do-

•Sea lice numbers on farmed salmon are monitored and managed to minimize possible transfer to wild populations. This work is audited by provincial authorities.

•BC salmon farms can only be sited in areas where water currents provide optimal conditions for fish well-being and environmental sustainability. This includes avoiding sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas.

•To limit nutrient pollution, salmon farmers employ state-of-the-art feed monitoring systems that use real-time technology, such as underwater cameras and sensors, to detect uneaten feed and adjust feed delivery to the appetite of the salmon.

What you should know about sockeye and other Pacific salmon species-

•Research shows that, except in their extreme infancy when first leaving their natal rivers, Pacific salmon are resistant to damage from sea lice.

•Sockeye salmon spend much of the first year of their life in freshwater and have fully developed immune systems by the time they migrate to saltwater.

•Sockeye fry linger in the Fraser Delta for up to 5 months until they (as underyearlings) emerge from the Fraser River plume in late July. Since wild salmon populations are either collecting in the delta or beginning their migration up the Fraser during this time, these adult wild salmon returns are a likely source of sea lice on juvenile salmon emerging from the river.

As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Here’s what we do-

•Sea lice numbers on farmed salmon are monitored and managed to minimize possible transfer to wild populations. This work is audited by provincial authorities.

•BC salmon farms can only be sited in areas where water currents provide optimal conditions for fish well-being and environmental sustainability. This includes avoiding sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas.

•To limit nutrient pollution, salmon farmers employ state-of-the-art feed monitoring systems that use real-time technology, such as underwater cameras and sensors, to detect uneaten feed and adjust feed delivery to the appetite of the salmon.

What you should know about sockeye and other Pacific salmon species-

•Research shows that, except in their extreme infancy when first leaving their natal rivers, Pacific salmon are resistant to damage from sea lice.

•Sockeye salmon spend much of the first year of their life in freshwater and have fully developed immune systems by the time they migrate to saltwater.

•Sockeye fry linger in the Fraser Delta for up to 5 months until they (as underyearlings) emerge from the Fraser River plume in late July. Since wild salmon populations are either collecting in the delta or beginning their migration up the Fraser during this time, these adult wild salmon returns are a likely source of sea lice on juvenile salmon emerging from the river.

As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle.

Ummmmmm... [xx(][xx(]nope!! Put the fricken things on the beach. There is no reason to take chances with our wild fish.

 

[Little Hawk]

Sockeye:

"...putting thousands out of work."

Another lie in the torrent of BS flowing from aquaculture apologists.

Show me more than 1000 or so full-time equivalent jobs as a result of fish-farming in our Province and I'll show you TENS OF THOUSANDS carried on the backs of WILD PACIFIC SALMON!

 

[Little Hawk]

Sockeye:

"...putting thousands out of work."

Another lie in the torrent of BS flowing from aquaculture apologists.

Show me more than 1000 or so full-time equivalent jobs as a result of fish-farming in our Province and I'll show you TENS OF THOUSANDS carried on the backs of WILD PACIFIC SALMON!

 

[sockeyefry]

LH

Do you have up dated figures?

I participated in surveys of anglers back east. The results are inflated as to how much each angler spends each year to fish. Back there they were purposely inflated to make the rec industry seem larger and more valuable than it actually is. Examples of this inflation are people who bought a boat during the survey year put it down as if they buy a boat every year.

Reality is both industries inflate their own worth to forward their agenda.

By the way is that all you got out of the last few posts between Aqua and myself?

Fish 4

Using your logic then we suspend all human activity in and around the water including and especially the most disruptive human activity to wild salmon which is fishing.

 

[sockeyefry]

LH

Do you have up dated figures?

I participated in surveys of anglers back east. The results are inflated as to how much each angler spends each year to fish. Back there they were purposely inflated to make the rec industry seem larger and more valuable than it actually is. Examples of this inflation are people who bought a boat during the survey year put it down as if they buy a boat every year.

Reality is both industries inflate their own worth to forward their agenda.

By the way is that all you got out of the last few posts between Aqua and myself?

Fish 4

Using your logic then we suspend all human activity in and around the water including and especially the most disruptive human activity to wild salmon which is fishing.

 

[agentaqua]

I think we are largely in agreement with 3rd party monitoring. There are a few points you made that deserve some additional comment:

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Problem is I do not accept the studies done by Morton, Orr, Krkosek, Ford, and Volpe, for the same reasons you do not accept the studies done by the BCSFA, etc...

As far as I am aware - the BCSFA has never put anything through peer-review science - although there are some authors who are thought of being industry-friendly that have their studies (or parts thereof) published in various science journals.

I actually accept studies that come through the peer-review process - although not blindly. There are critiques often about methodology, and how the different methodologies change the implications of that study - which deserve some debate.

So your assumption that I "do not accept the studies done by the BCSFA, etc" is incorrect.

The issue I have with the BCSFA is that they:

1/ Give little or no scientific references (with the almost sole exception of Brooks) to their many claims attempting to support the open net-cage industry, AND

2/ They sometimes lie, and often stretch the truth. See the bottom of this posting for concrete examples from their news release.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

PI would like the science to rule the day,

AND

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

It amazes me how they could come up with the conclusion that the Fraser River sockeye are in trouble because of fish farm lice loads in the Broughton.

AND

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Common sense would dictate that the sockeye fry by the time they reach the Broughton are beyond the size at which sea lice would have a lethal impact.

If you are truly interested in science - as you state, sockeyefry - then please re-read the earlier postings on lice mortality verses host fish size; as well as postings on smolt migration from the Freaser to the Broughton area.

Science, not just common sense indicates that the fish would be larger after taking about a month to reach the Broughtons. This means that they could take a larger load of lice dependent upon their size - but that capacity is not unlimited.

So, no common sense would NOT suggest that "sockeye fry by the time they reach the Broughton are beyond the size at which sea lice would have a lethal impact."
------------------------------------------------------------------
From your posting from of the news release from the BCSFA on the Sockeye topic:

"Sea lice numbers on farmed salmon are monitored and managed to minimize possible transfer to wild populations. This work is audited by provincial authorities."

we just went over how inadequate this monitoring and treatment trigger limits were. Look back a couple of postings.


"BC salmon farms can only be sited in areas where water currents provide optimal conditions for fish well-being and environmental sustainability. This includes avoiding sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas."

Again, we went over this near the beginning of this thread - like 30-40 pages ago. No, they do not avoid "sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas". This is complete BS.

"To limit nutrient pollution, salmon farmers employ state-of-the-art feed monitoring systems that use real-time technology, such as underwater cameras and sensors, to detect uneaten feed and adjust feed delivery to the appetite of the salmon."

True. They made improvements in this area. But overall there are definitely impacts (such as anoxic conditions and substrate changes); typically on the scale of several hundred meters.

"Research shows that, except in their extreme infancy when first leaving their natal rivers, Pacific salmon are resistant to damage from sea lice."

More BS. Missing a lot of important caveats to that suggestion.

"Sockeye fry linger in the Fraser Delta for up to 5 months until they (as underyearlings) emerge from the Fraser River plume in late July. Since wild salmon populations are either collecting in the delta or beginning their migration up the Fraser during this time, these adult wild salmon returns are a likely source of sea lice on juvenile salmon emerging from the river."

Without any science - this is pure conjecture. This does not take into account migration and numbers of caged fish and their sea lice in the Broughton.

"As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle."

This is much worse than conjecture - it is pure and bald-faced lies. The person who wrote this should be ashamed and embarrassed. We went over this in details at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=30

 

[agentaqua]

I think we are largely in agreement with 3rd party monitoring. There are a few points you made that deserve some additional comment:

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Problem is I do not accept the studies done by Morton, Orr, Krkosek, Ford, and Volpe, for the same reasons you do not accept the studies done by the BCSFA, etc...

As far as I am aware - the BCSFA has never put anything through peer-review science - although there are some authors who are thought of being industry-friendly that have their studies (or parts thereof) published in various science journals.

I actually accept studies that come through the peer-review process - although not blindly. There are critiques often about methodology, and how the different methodologies change the implications of that study - which deserve some debate.

So your assumption that I "do not accept the studies done by the BCSFA, etc" is incorrect.

The issue I have with the BCSFA is that they:

1/ Give little or no scientific references (with the almost sole exception of Brooks) to their many claims attempting to support the open net-cage industry, AND

2/ They sometimes lie, and often stretch the truth. See the bottom of this posting for concrete examples from their news release.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

PI would like the science to rule the day,

AND

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

It amazes me how they could come up with the conclusion that the Fraser River sockeye are in trouble because of fish farm lice loads in the Broughton.

AND

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Common sense would dictate that the sockeye fry by the time they reach the Broughton are beyond the size at which sea lice would have a lethal impact.

If you are truly interested in science - as you state, sockeyefry - then please re-read the earlier postings on lice mortality verses host fish size; as well as postings on smolt migration from the Freaser to the Broughton area.

Science, not just common sense indicates that the fish would be larger after taking about a month to reach the Broughtons. This means that they could take a larger load of lice dependent upon their size - but that capacity is not unlimited.

So, no common sense would NOT suggest that "sockeye fry by the time they reach the Broughton are beyond the size at which sea lice would have a lethal impact."
------------------------------------------------------------------
From your posting from of the news release from the BCSFA on the Sockeye topic:

"Sea lice numbers on farmed salmon are monitored and managed to minimize possible transfer to wild populations. This work is audited by provincial authorities."

we just went over how inadequate this monitoring and treatment trigger limits were. Look back a couple of postings.


"BC salmon farms can only be sited in areas where water currents provide optimal conditions for fish well-being and environmental sustainability. This includes avoiding sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas."

Again, we went over this near the beginning of this thread - like 30-40 pages ago. No, they do not avoid "sensitive wild salmon habitat, such as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas". This is complete BS.

"To limit nutrient pollution, salmon farmers employ state-of-the-art feed monitoring systems that use real-time technology, such as underwater cameras and sensors, to detect uneaten feed and adjust feed delivery to the appetite of the salmon."

True. They made improvements in this area. But overall there are definitely impacts (such as anoxic conditions and substrate changes); typically on the scale of several hundred meters.

"Research shows that, except in their extreme infancy when first leaving their natal rivers, Pacific salmon are resistant to damage from sea lice."

More BS. Missing a lot of important caveats to that suggestion.

"Sockeye fry linger in the Fraser Delta for up to 5 months until they (as underyearlings) emerge from the Fraser River plume in late July. Since wild salmon populations are either collecting in the delta or beginning their migration up the Fraser during this time, these adult wild salmon returns are a likely source of sea lice on juvenile salmon emerging from the river."

Without any science - this is pure conjecture. This does not take into account migration and numbers of caged fish and their sea lice in the Broughton.

"As the closest salmon farm is 110 km away from the Fraser River's mouth, there is no opportunity for outmigrating Fraser River salmon fry to come into contact with farmed salmon during the early stages of their life cycle."

This is much worse than conjecture - it is pure and bald-faced lies. The person who wrote this should be ashamed and embarrassed. We went over this in details at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=30

 

[fish4all]

quote:Fish 4

Using your logic then we suspend all human activity in and around the water including and especially the most disruptive human activity to wild salmon which is fishing.

Suspend it until the farms can prove without a doubt, with 3rd party independant science, that there is no impact on wild stocks.
It's obvious you know little about commercial fishing. If there is a hint of a stock being in trouble the commercials are the first off the water.

 

[sockeyefry]

Fish 4

Actually I know quite abit about commercial fishing. Maybe they should have been pulled off much earlier, like in the 80's and 90's when it was a free for all. Ever here of the Atlantic Cod, not so much anymore, cause commercial fisheries vacuumed the ocean clean. Ity seems to be okay in the commercial world to cause the damage then when the effects get noticed to blame everything and every one else.

Agent,

While you do post many article with "peer reviewed" status, alot of the stuff you post here has no references attached, such as the Mark Hume opinions.

The sea lice triggers and monitoring is only low in your eyes. Apparently the regulators feel it is adequate.

I see no difference in what the BCSFA posts and what Morton et al post. Both are spinning the science to prove their cases. Why is the BCSFA lying and the CAAR and Suzuki etc.. not lying when they do the same spinning?

What we need is a body to oversee proper management and research to answer the questions once and for all. This body would involve people from all groups and would direct the research, and advise government on appropriate measures. I do not mean the dog and pony show legislative committees, I mean a real working grooup which will set up the proper research and development looking not all questions, such as the sea lice issue, and looking into development of alternate culture techniques. I find there is too much BS on both sides, and very little fact.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

While you do post many article with "peer reviewed" status, alot of the stuff you post here has no references attached, such as the Mark Hume opinions.

As do you, sockeyefry. I think we both post news columns and articles in order to provoke thought and discussion. This is not a bad thing.

However, when we are discussing what science is available - I spend considerable time researching the science and I post those references to back-up points and opinions I have brought forward.

Just like the effects of smoking, or the sources of global warming - there is a denial machine operating and funded through industry and corporations that attempt to confuse the public in the media (since most people do not have the time to read all the science) and thereby delay the inevitable changes that must happen to these destructive industries; including the open net-cage industry.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

The sea lice triggers and monitoring is only low in your eyes. Apparently the regulators feel it is adequate.

Only the regulators here in Canada feel it is "adequate"; not in Norway or Scotland or anywhere else in the world with long-term experience with open net-cage technology. And it is not just lonely old me saying this - many others are as well.

This bland assumption that we are providing "adequate" protection will change as regulators are slowly forced to accept the inevitable truth of the destructive effects of the open net-cage technology.

Just think back like 8 years ago - when there was no monitoring for sea lice at all. We have come some ways forward - we have much longer to go.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

I see no difference in what the BCSFA posts and what Morton et al post. Both are spinning the science to prove their cases. Why is the BCSFA lying and the CAAR and Suzuki etc.. not lying when they do the same spinning?

You see no difference between peer-review science and news releases from the BCSFA? Come-on, sockeyefry - give us all a break here!!!

The BCSFA does NO peer-review science. They sometimes outright lie, even. You know this. I just demonstrated this to you in our last posting.

Do both sides manipulate the media? Yep.

Does the science support the conclusion that open net-cage technology is damaging to adjacent wild salmon stocks. Yep - bet your a** it does. Just re-read the past 45 pages or so.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

What we need is a body to oversee proper management and research to answer the questions once and for all. This body would involve people from all groups and would direct the research, and advise government on appropriate measures. I do not mean the dog and pony show legislative committees, I mean a real working grooup which will set up the proper research and development looking not all questions, such as the sea lice issue, and looking into development of alternate culture techniques. I find there is too much BS on both sides, and very little fact.

Well, unfortunately it will not be the Pacific Salmon Forum. Please read the posting below:

The BC Pacific Salmon Forum will close operations on Friday, March 27th bringing to an end four years of activity that resulted in the release on February 5, 2009 of their Final Report and Recommendations to the Province of BC .

http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/

NOTICE: The BC Pacific Salmon Forum completed its mandate to the Province of British Columbia with the delivery of a FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in January, 2009. The Forum is, therefore, closing its operations as of March 27, 2009. This website will remain active until March 2010. Some final research activity is continuing into the summer, 2009; a technical report will be issued in the autumn on these activities. If you have any questions regarding this activity please email joriorda@shaw.ca. All other email links on this website will no longer be active after March 27, 2009.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

I think that the research is being done with the wrong focus. I believe the focus one of a lawyer setting out to prove ones case. I think the focus should be one of more science which investigates then draws conclusions based on experimental result and observation. The danger I see with the lawyer approach is that information or evidence which does not prove the case will be ignored or down played. This is what I see with Morton et al. Their research is to prove farms do harm, not what harm do farms do? See the difference in the approach? Another disturbing trend I see with Morton et al is that what is contained in the reports conclusions and what gets reported in the media can be 2 different things. It seems that it is the headline that is sought rather than reporting what is contained in the report. I am not sure who is to blame here whather it is the reporter or Morton et al. One report and I forget which one, actually stated: ...that while no causal link could be demonstrated... then went on to draw a whole bunch of links. Most of which were reported in the media as being the conclusion of the study. The conclusion in reality was that nothing had been learned linking farms to the decline of wild salmon, although this was not the gist of the media reports.

So in response to your "science supporting the conclusion that farms affect wild salmon", I suggest that a select few scientists who really are acting like lawyers have selectively manipulated data and the media to resent the appearance of a weight of scientific evidence which does not exist.

Most people still believe that what they read in the media both printed and internet has been verified by an editorial board to be true, and accurate. The reality couldn't be farther from this, and both sides know it, and use it. An editor has probably a few hours to check a story, and usually relies on the person who is telling, and the form in which it is packaged. In other words, if the person is reasonably reputable and has a nicely presented story which fits well without a lot of editting gets the nod.

It is disappointing to hear that the PSF is no more. I really though they had a shot at bringing both side together to do some proper research.

 

[cuttlefish]

I don't think that getting published in scientific journals works like lawyering, sockeyefry.
The PSF spent three years and $5 million of our tax dollars to do research, come to their conclusions and make recommendations. One of their recommendations was to investigate closed systems for salmon farming. All that's left is for Gordo to ACT. Based on his prompt response to the Legislative Committee and the Finance Committee recommendations, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Fish 4

Actually I know quite abit about commercial fishing. Maybe they should have been pulled off much earlier, like in the 80's and 90's when it was a free for all. Ever here of the Atlantic Cod, not so much anymore, cause commercial fisheries vacuumed the ocean clean. Ity seems to be okay in the commercial world to cause the damage then when the effects get noticed to blame everything and every one else.

Perhaps they should have done something in the 80's and 90's. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do something now.

Also... with the cold water on the East coast the Atlantic Cod are making quite a come back.

On the beach or closed containment..

 

[sockeyefry]

Do either of you know anything about closed containment?

If you were really concerned about the wild salmon then you would also be advocating the beaching of the commercial and rec fleets.

Why are you only advocating stopping an activity in which you have no interest or requirement for, and not the one in which you have the interest?

When I refer to lawyers, I mean the attidude with which the research is approached. They are not asking what happens, instead they are saying this happens and set out to prove that it does. In other words, instead looking into possible effects of sea lice from farms, they already have determined that the farms are guilty, and then set out to find the evidence which supports this, and they ignore data sets which do not fit with their expected verdict. There is no science involved in a lot of the NGO research, just simply a few people who are trying to prove their opinions.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

I think that the research is being done with the wrong focus.

If you are talking about looking at potential and likely sources of impacts to wild stocks from fish farms, like sea lice research - I COULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU MORE STRONGLY.

We should always be proactive and look at what other jurisdiction's experiences and problems were (like Norway, Scotland, Ireland, New Brunswick, etc.) and monitor for those effects. We may even have to shut down the open net-cage technology, if necessary.

Any other suggestion is irresponsible and lacks the commitment to protecting the public's resources. This my kids and grandkids' future, sockeyefry - it is not a right by a corporation to destroy that future in the pursuit of their short-term gain. End of story.

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

[sockeyefry complains about Morton's research] ...Their research is to prove farms do harm, not what harm do farms do? See the difference in the approach?

It's up to industry to prove that their activities will not harm the environment. Every other industry in Canada has had to do this - with the glaring exception of the open net-cage industry. That's because they have never been forced to do - and DFO has been complicit in that cover-up.

I thank god that there are independent researchers like Morton that expose the destructiveness of this industry to the public.

I find it hypocritical that just the past few posts you were agreeing about the need for 3rd party observers. Maybe if the 3rd party observers never saw anything wrong with the open net-cage technology - you would agree with them more?

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

So in response to your "science supporting the conclusion that farms affect wild salmon", I suggest that a select few scientists who really are acting like lawyers have selectively manipulated data and the media to resent the appearance of a weight of scientific evidence which does not exist.

AND

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

There is no science involved in a lot of the NGO research, just simply a few people who are trying to prove their opinions.

Wow, sockeyefry. Just kinda ignored the past 40 or so pages of this discussion, eh? Every bad thing said about the open net-cage technology is all made-up by manipulated data. Nice safe box you barricaded yourself in, eh?

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

If you were really concerned about the wild salmon then you would also be advocating the beaching of the commercial and rec fleets.

I have always advocated more creel survey and observer work for the commercial sports fleet. The commercial fleet has seen many large changes in the past 20 years or so, and will see more. We already had the discussion on how poorly DFO manages fish stocks earlier on this forum.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Stop twisting my words.

What I am saying is I want proper research done overseen by a 3rd party, such as the PSF. I do not want the science debated in the court of public opinion by media hacks on either side.

I would like to see an end to this debate once and for all. Either prove the effects and get the farns out, or prove the effects are not as bad as portrayed and leave them to do their business.

There are people, you included who do not believe that the industry has done anything to safe guard the wild salmon. They inculding you believe that the industry has operated without restraint and insinuate that they are doing saomething so horrible and sinister as to impact the wild salmon for the future generations. You would not belive any research done by the industry, all the years of data collection to obtain sites, the 12 government agencies that have to review each application, and you say that the government is in on it. Yes its a big conspiracy. So it doesn't matter what the industry or government says, they are wrong. But a few researchers who happen to have provided the basis for your opinion, they are unequivocally right, beyond a shadow. Only becasue they are saying what you want to hear.

Give me a break.

All I ask is get a third part monitor and do the research right, and everyone lives by the results, whether you like it or not.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

All I ask is get a third part monitor and do the research right, and everyone lives by the results, whether you like it or not.

And all I ask is that they start closing some pens until the research is done. Especially when smolts are moving through.