sea lice have been in and around the broughton before salmon farms. there natural to the area. seal count in the 1970's where very low under 2000 pieces. there now over 100,000 pieces. you choice to ignore solid numbers why?
Fish Farm trouble in BC.
- Thread starter Chuck
- Start date
- Status
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
Now you know what it's like trying to have a conversation with yourself using your methods. Guess I've been brought down to your level. Is it frustrating you?
Can you point out what isn't intelligent in my previous response? I would think it should at least be on par with many of your responses when it comes to intelligent content.
"Actually I'm not trying to answer it. It's up to the Fish Farm industry to show their farms aren't killing wild salmon. I'm just asking you to show me a direct link in this study that says "wild salmon are not dying because of farmed fish"?
I've read it and don't see one. Use any study you like."
By the way, I'd like to see alot less seals, much like I imagine you would. But I'd also like to see alot less Fish Farms. You can't choose to ignore the science on fish farms showing they are having a negative effect, then say that the seals are the only thing killing salmon. Both should be culled according to the science imo... to give the wild salmon a fighting chance.
Can you point out what isn't intelligent in my previous response? I would think it should at least be on par with many of your responses when it comes to intelligent content.
"Actually I'm not trying to answer it. It's up to the Fish Farm industry to show their farms aren't killing wild salmon. I'm just asking you to show me a direct link in this study that says "wild salmon are not dying because of farmed fish"?
I've read it and don't see one. Use any study you like."
By the way, I'd like to see alot less seals, much like I imagine you would. But I'd also like to see alot less Fish Farms. You can't choose to ignore the science on fish farms showing they are having a negative effect, then say that the seals are the only thing killing salmon. Both should be culled according to the science imo... to give the wild salmon a fighting chance.
Last edited:
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
Not sure if it even worthwhile attempting to answer your questions, bones - as it seems to be fruitless when I keep answering questions with science that the other person chooses to ignore - or can't - or refuses to absorb. Not sure how many times I have answered the same questions - but this will be the last attempt on my end to do so:
There are other impacts to wild salmon from other sources besides FF. That does not excuse or justify those impacts from FFs since it is something we can and should have long ago acknowledged and dealt with. We are compelled by the Precautionary Approach to take them seriously. Since the FF lobbyists and lawyers have corrupted our regulatory agencies from the top end since the beginnings of the industry - industry workers and pundits either don't understand what and environmental assessment is - or don't want to know. There is substantial evidence from the world over (Norway, Ireland, Scotland, New Brunswick, NFLD, BC, etc) - some of which I have posted here - that there are numerous, documented impacts to wild salmon stocks. These impacts include - but are not limited to sea lice mortality, disease transfer, & benthic impacts. These impacts likely vary in space and time - and may have either a minor or a major impact depending on many factors. Over time - there have been demonstrated impacts to wild stocks - but in particular to the smaller, more vulnerable salmonids that hang-out nearer fish farms and interact - such as juvenile salmon and sea trout. Wrt sea lice - 2 genera are of concern to salmonids - Lepeophtheirus and Caligus spp. Quite a bit is know known about these interactions world-wide - some of that science I recently posted. Since the industry managed to avoid being made to look at background levels of sea lice before they started operating - people compare farmed areas with non-farmed areas to compare impacts. Generally, the prevalence of (average percent of the population with lice) lice is often 3-5% in non-farmed areas - with farmed areas often having prevalences above 90% some years in farmed areas. The intensity is the real indicator of host impacts - or the average number of lice per fish that have lice - with farmed areas having something a little bit more than 1 - while farmed areas often have 3-5 or better - occasionally 7 or above. When this is worked-out as a lice loading per gram of host - particularly the damaging motile lice stages - the morbidity is much more telling - and these are numbers and the discussions that the FF PR people never want to have anyone discuss, IMHO. Wrt disease transfer - the compromised regulators (CFIA, DFO, BCMoA) actively hide geographic co-ordinates and timing so no snoopy researchers can look at those impacts - but recently we have see some groundbreaking work done - particularly by Kristi Miller - amidst all the denials about PRv and HMSI from the industry. I also posted how both ISAv and PRv have been proven to be European/Norwegian strains - or recently diverged from these strains - again - something the industry pundits would rather have nobody discuss - given the only rational explanation as to how they got here on the West Coast - along with how CFIA magically makes weak positives into "false" positives w/o any supporting science. Another issue not discussed is how to do an environmental assessment rather than using highly flawed and indefensible siting criteria - since I am convinced the FF lawyers have threatened the regulators and government with suing them for lost revenue if they have to stop farming using open net-pens. That's a quick overview of how dirty this industry really is - and you can see it as one team verses another and refuse to read and acknowledge the science if you wish. That only demonstrates to me how inappropriate it is to have the same people promoting an industry - regulating it - something Justice Cohen also wanted changed.
There are other impacts to wild salmon from other sources besides FF. That does not excuse or justify those impacts from FFs since it is something we can and should have long ago acknowledged and dealt with. We are compelled by the Precautionary Approach to take them seriously. Since the FF lobbyists and lawyers have corrupted our regulatory agencies from the top end since the beginnings of the industry - industry workers and pundits either don't understand what and environmental assessment is - or don't want to know. There is substantial evidence from the world over (Norway, Ireland, Scotland, New Brunswick, NFLD, BC, etc) - some of which I have posted here - that there are numerous, documented impacts to wild salmon stocks. These impacts include - but are not limited to sea lice mortality, disease transfer, & benthic impacts. These impacts likely vary in space and time - and may have either a minor or a major impact depending on many factors. Over time - there have been demonstrated impacts to wild stocks - but in particular to the smaller, more vulnerable salmonids that hang-out nearer fish farms and interact - such as juvenile salmon and sea trout. Wrt sea lice - 2 genera are of concern to salmonids - Lepeophtheirus and Caligus spp. Quite a bit is know known about these interactions world-wide - some of that science I recently posted. Since the industry managed to avoid being made to look at background levels of sea lice before they started operating - people compare farmed areas with non-farmed areas to compare impacts. Generally, the prevalence of (average percent of the population with lice) lice is often 3-5% in non-farmed areas - with farmed areas often having prevalences above 90% some years in farmed areas. The intensity is the real indicator of host impacts - or the average number of lice per fish that have lice - with farmed areas having something a little bit more than 1 - while farmed areas often have 3-5 or better - occasionally 7 or above. When this is worked-out as a lice loading per gram of host - particularly the damaging motile lice stages - the morbidity is much more telling - and these are numbers and the discussions that the FF PR people never want to have anyone discuss, IMHO. Wrt disease transfer - the compromised regulators (CFIA, DFO, BCMoA) actively hide geographic co-ordinates and timing so no snoopy researchers can look at those impacts - but recently we have see some groundbreaking work done - particularly by Kristi Miller - amidst all the denials about PRv and HMSI from the industry. I also posted how both ISAv and PRv have been proven to be European/Norwegian strains - or recently diverged from these strains - again - something the industry pundits would rather have nobody discuss - given the only rational explanation as to how they got here on the West Coast - along with how CFIA magically makes weak positives into "false" positives w/o any supporting science. Another issue not discussed is how to do an environmental assessment rather than using highly flawed and indefensible siting criteria - since I am convinced the FF lawyers have threatened the regulators and government with suing them for lost revenue if they have to stop farming using open net-pens. That's a quick overview of how dirty this industry really is - and you can see it as one team verses another and refuse to read and acknowledge the science if you wish. That only demonstrates to me how inappropriate it is to have the same people promoting an industry - regulating it - something Justice Cohen also wanted changed.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
This might give you some concern.
Fish out of ocean water dampen aquaculture enterprise
Economics of land-based salmon farming not adding up for B.C. fish farmers
Employee Ryan Mitchell at Steve Atkinson’s Little Cedar Falls fish farm, which raises steelhead in land-based tanks | submitted
Some day, it might be possible to raise salmon in land-based closed containment ponds and make a profit.
But that day is still a long way off, and even when it does become economically viable, land-based aquaculture might be like organic farming: an option for consumers willing to pay a premium, but which can’t replace ocean-based salmon farming.
That’s not just the conclusion reached by the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA), it’s also the opinion of a Nanaimo businessman who owns a land-based fish farm.
“There’s nobody yet that’s made money, including us,” said Steve Atkinson, president of Taste of B.C. Aquafarms in Nanaimo, which raises steelhead at its Little Cedar Falls fish farm.
“As far as transferring the net cage industry into land-based operations, we’re years away, and probably it is not even a viable goal.”
The International Salmon Farmers Association (ISFA) agrees. A recent ISFA study concluded that land-based salmon farming is fine for raising smolts, but faces serious financial and technological limitations when it comes to raising salmon to maturity.
The biggest concern with ocean-based salmon farms is the fear that they might transmit diseases to wild fish, something Atkinson feels is not substantiated by science.
In response to letter writers in the Nanaimo News Bulletin last month that argued for the wholesale removal of salmon farms from the water and onto the land, Atkinson’s letter to the editor stated that “while there is a common perception that the technology currently exists to take the salmon farms out of the ocean and move them on land, it simply is not so.
“Atlantic salmon, which is the most cultured salmon, has simply not been successfully raised at commercial scale on land at a profit anywhere, other than at hatchery stage.
“Land-based salmon farming does have a future in B.C., and our farm is showing that. But, I see land-based salmon farming as a complement to ocean farming, not a replacement.”
B.C. is littered with failed attempts to grow either Pacific or Atlantic salmon in land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) over the past 20 years.
Kuterra, a land-based salmon farm near Port McNeill, has had some success, but only because of subsidies from government and non-profit organizations. It’s now being sold by its owners, the Namgis First Nation.
The Namgis started raising salmon at the fish farm in March 2013 and began selling its fish one year later. But in June, the Namgis put the facility up for sale.
“The Namgis have run from it,” said BCSFA director Brad Hicks, who last year did a financial analysis of Kuterra that concluded it is seven times more expensive than ocean-based salmon farming.
“They don’t believe in it, from a business perspective. If nobody that’s that close to it will put any money into it, that’s the biggest sign it’s not viable.”
But it’s not that the Namgis don’t believe in the project, said Namgis Chief Don Svanvik. It just needs to scale up to become profitable.
“If the farm is even twice the size it is now, we’d be making money,” Svanvik said.
But the Namgis can’t afford to keep subsidizing the operation and are looking to divest or otherwise attract new investors.
“We ended up having to put a whole bunch of capital into it that originally wasn’t part of the plan,” Svanvik said.
The project’s original capital cost was $8.8 million. It ended up costing $10 million, Kuterra chairman Eric Hobson confirmed. When operating costs are added, he said the total investment in the project thus far is about $15 million.
Canadian taxpayers covered close to half of those costs. The Government of Canada invested $6 million in the project – $5 million from Sustainable Development Technology Canada and $1 million from other federal agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Tides Canada and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provided $4 million through the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Fund. Another $1 million came from private donors. The Namgis covered operating costs totalling about $4.5 million – $1.5 million in equity and $3 million in loans. While Kuterra is not yet profitable, Hobson said it is breaking even.
Last month, while defending his minister of agriculture’s threats to shut down a Marine Harvest salmon farm, due to First Nation opposition, Premier John Horgan pointed to Kuterra as an example of the future of fish farming in B.C.
“The facility has proven itself to be effective,” Horgan said. “You can grow fish on land, you can market them and they’re taken up by the market because they say ‘closed containment.’ There’s a bigger appetite for closed-containment Atlantic salmon than there is for open-net fish.”
If that’s true, it fails to explain why grocery stores in B.C. sell farmed salmon from open-net pens, while West Creek Aquaculture can’t find buyers in B.C. for its land-reared coho and sockeye.
“We sell all of our coho everywhere outside of B.C.,” said Don Reed of Willowfield Enterprises, which owns West Creek Aquaculture. “No one in B.C. will buy our fish because it’s farmed fish. Our inability to sell our land-based salmon is directly related to the campaign against farmed salmon.”
Kuterra has been more successful in finding buyers in B.C., some of whom pay a 30% premium over farmed salmon from open net cages. As a technology demonstration project, Kuterra is a success story. It has shown that Atlantic salmon can be grown in land-based closed-containment systems. But that doesn’t mean it will be a profitable business.
“One of my favourite sayings is ‘You can grow wheat in a greenhouse – what’s your point?’” Hicks said.
He pointed out that some of the advocates of land-based fish farms are independently wealthy philanthropists who have not put any of their money into the project.
“It’s all been OPM – other people’s money,” Hicks said. “It’s government money, it’s been money from Tides, it’s been money from the natives. You can’t have an industry that’s dependent on government largesse.
“They’ve lost $16 million, as far as I can tell, and they’re not alone. The world is littered with carcasses of RAS facilities.”
nbennett@biv.com
@nbennett_biv
Fish out of ocean water dampen aquaculture enterprise
Economics of land-based salmon farming not adding up for B.C. fish farmers
Employee Ryan Mitchell at Steve Atkinson’s Little Cedar Falls fish farm, which raises steelhead in land-based tanks | submitted
Some day, it might be possible to raise salmon in land-based closed containment ponds and make a profit.
But that day is still a long way off, and even when it does become economically viable, land-based aquaculture might be like organic farming: an option for consumers willing to pay a premium, but which can’t replace ocean-based salmon farming.
That’s not just the conclusion reached by the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA), it’s also the opinion of a Nanaimo businessman who owns a land-based fish farm.
“There’s nobody yet that’s made money, including us,” said Steve Atkinson, president of Taste of B.C. Aquafarms in Nanaimo, which raises steelhead at its Little Cedar Falls fish farm.
“As far as transferring the net cage industry into land-based operations, we’re years away, and probably it is not even a viable goal.”
The International Salmon Farmers Association (ISFA) agrees. A recent ISFA study concluded that land-based salmon farming is fine for raising smolts, but faces serious financial and technological limitations when it comes to raising salmon to maturity.
The biggest concern with ocean-based salmon farms is the fear that they might transmit diseases to wild fish, something Atkinson feels is not substantiated by science.
In response to letter writers in the Nanaimo News Bulletin last month that argued for the wholesale removal of salmon farms from the water and onto the land, Atkinson’s letter to the editor stated that “while there is a common perception that the technology currently exists to take the salmon farms out of the ocean and move them on land, it simply is not so.
“Atlantic salmon, which is the most cultured salmon, has simply not been successfully raised at commercial scale on land at a profit anywhere, other than at hatchery stage.
“Land-based salmon farming does have a future in B.C., and our farm is showing that. But, I see land-based salmon farming as a complement to ocean farming, not a replacement.”
B.C. is littered with failed attempts to grow either Pacific or Atlantic salmon in land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) over the past 20 years.
Kuterra, a land-based salmon farm near Port McNeill, has had some success, but only because of subsidies from government and non-profit organizations. It’s now being sold by its owners, the Namgis First Nation.
The Namgis started raising salmon at the fish farm in March 2013 and began selling its fish one year later. But in June, the Namgis put the facility up for sale.
“The Namgis have run from it,” said BCSFA director Brad Hicks, who last year did a financial analysis of Kuterra that concluded it is seven times more expensive than ocean-based salmon farming.
“They don’t believe in it, from a business perspective. If nobody that’s that close to it will put any money into it, that’s the biggest sign it’s not viable.”
But it’s not that the Namgis don’t believe in the project, said Namgis Chief Don Svanvik. It just needs to scale up to become profitable.
“If the farm is even twice the size it is now, we’d be making money,” Svanvik said.
But the Namgis can’t afford to keep subsidizing the operation and are looking to divest or otherwise attract new investors.
“We ended up having to put a whole bunch of capital into it that originally wasn’t part of the plan,” Svanvik said.
The project’s original capital cost was $8.8 million. It ended up costing $10 million, Kuterra chairman Eric Hobson confirmed. When operating costs are added, he said the total investment in the project thus far is about $15 million.
Canadian taxpayers covered close to half of those costs. The Government of Canada invested $6 million in the project – $5 million from Sustainable Development Technology Canada and $1 million from other federal agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Tides Canada and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provided $4 million through the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Fund. Another $1 million came from private donors. The Namgis covered operating costs totalling about $4.5 million – $1.5 million in equity and $3 million in loans. While Kuterra is not yet profitable, Hobson said it is breaking even.
Last month, while defending his minister of agriculture’s threats to shut down a Marine Harvest salmon farm, due to First Nation opposition, Premier John Horgan pointed to Kuterra as an example of the future of fish farming in B.C.
“The facility has proven itself to be effective,” Horgan said. “You can grow fish on land, you can market them and they’re taken up by the market because they say ‘closed containment.’ There’s a bigger appetite for closed-containment Atlantic salmon than there is for open-net fish.”
If that’s true, it fails to explain why grocery stores in B.C. sell farmed salmon from open-net pens, while West Creek Aquaculture can’t find buyers in B.C. for its land-reared coho and sockeye.
“We sell all of our coho everywhere outside of B.C.,” said Don Reed of Willowfield Enterprises, which owns West Creek Aquaculture. “No one in B.C. will buy our fish because it’s farmed fish. Our inability to sell our land-based salmon is directly related to the campaign against farmed salmon.”
Kuterra has been more successful in finding buyers in B.C., some of whom pay a 30% premium over farmed salmon from open net cages. As a technology demonstration project, Kuterra is a success story. It has shown that Atlantic salmon can be grown in land-based closed-containment systems. But that doesn’t mean it will be a profitable business.
“One of my favourite sayings is ‘You can grow wheat in a greenhouse – what’s your point?’” Hicks said.
He pointed out that some of the advocates of land-based fish farms are independently wealthy philanthropists who have not put any of their money into the project.
“It’s all been OPM – other people’s money,” Hicks said. “It’s government money, it’s been money from Tides, it’s been money from the natives. You can’t have an industry that’s dependent on government largesse.
“They’ve lost $16 million, as far as I can tell, and they’re not alone. The world is littered with carcasses of RAS facilities.”
nbennett@biv.com
@nbennett_biv
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Ill be interested to see the response to obd's post. Will there be deflection, or ad hominem attack on the writer or can some one address the content of the article as something other than fact.
Never the less we will continue to see the use of the closed containment argument as a solution from all levels of activist or opinion, even the agent. The good news for closed containment salmon aquaculture believers is there is an amazing investment opportunity to be had. lol
To me its where facts meet logic when a operation such as kuterra simply can't find investors. Sadly once again a portion of the local native population are the only ones who really shows a loss here other than the taxpayer.
Never the less we will continue to see the use of the closed containment argument as a solution from all levels of activist or opinion, even the agent. The good news for closed containment salmon aquaculture believers is there is an amazing investment opportunity to be had. lol
To me its where facts meet logic when a operation such as kuterra simply can't find investors. Sadly once again a portion of the local native population are the only ones who really shows a loss here other than the taxpayer.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Unfortunate? Wasted tax payers dollars is unfortunate and not expected?
Well the world does not work that way, so it appears that the expensive experiment has been shown to be a failure.
Well the world does not work that way, so it appears that the expensive experiment has been shown to be a failure.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Ha, ya sure agent. Every one wants free range chickens and eggs and beef and elk and pork because it is natural and perceived better for what I do not even know but when it comes to farm salmon, its best to double stuff them into tanks with very high densities and low oxygen and cramped conditions. Oh ya thats a far better product! (sarcasm)
Id much rather eat a farmed salmon grown in the ocean where they belong.
Agent I think you mistake your opinion as facts quite often.
Ya so you can grow wheat indoors, so what.
"Closed containment failed because of open pen technology." Honestly I'm not surprised this is your level of logic. You can't polish a turd.
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
How many tax payer's dollars have gone to "lost" crop or harvest to the FF's over the years. How much tax payer's dollars went into the R&D of FF's to begin with. This is never brought up in the discussion because it is a disgusting waste of money. It is a money grab either way OBD. It's all about money not wild salmon. They get paid whether they sell them or not......
Just think for one moment if that money went back into habitat or other means to restore wild salmon populations. This alone is where IMO we should be taking the government to task but that is water under the bridge so to speak.
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
The truth is we will never know the true dollar amount that us tax payer's put into the R&D, establishment, and maintenance/compensation of fish farms on this coast over the years. The number would be too disgusting to talk about.
All of that money was taken away from the projects for more science, habitat restoration, and care of our wild salmon. Everyone please think about this and take your government to task about it.
All of that money was taken away from the projects for more science, habitat restoration, and care of our wild salmon. Everyone please think about this and take your government to task about it.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
94 million to salmon farmers in canada since 2011 of which only 4.1 million went to bc salmon farms for losses:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/farms+netted+million+compensation+diseased+fish/9788388/story.html
350 million to dairy farmers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dairy-compensation-announcement-ceta-thursday-1.3845003
600 million to cattle farmers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ceta-alberta-beef-1.3830405
2.7 BILLION canadian oil every year: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/softwood-lumber-announcement-1.4140300
867 million to soft wood: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/softwood-lumber-announcement-1.4140300
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/farms+netted+million+compensation+diseased+fish/9788388/story.html
350 million to dairy farmers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dairy-compensation-announcement-ceta-thursday-1.3845003
600 million to cattle farmers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ceta-alberta-beef-1.3830405
2.7 BILLION canadian oil every year: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/softwood-lumber-announcement-1.4140300
867 million to soft wood: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/softwood-lumber-announcement-1.4140300
Last edited:
Almost sounds like your talking about Private, Public Partnership Run of river projects with regards to wasted tax dollars. The Privates clean up the cash guaranteed by taxpayers and the taxpayer foots the bill. Since the environment and taxpayer already foot the majority of the bill on open cage SeaLice infested and diseased Open Net Cage Fish Farms why not move them onto land into closed containment? We could put all the money spent on slice into other areas of their operations and save the Wild Salmon while we are at it. A Win Win
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Again we will never know the true amount of tax payers dollars put into the r&d, establishment, and reimbursement of fish farms on this coast. The number will be deflected and criticized by everyone that has benifited by it. That would be by some people posting in this very thread.
Not sure where you get those figures from BN but I think these are closer to the mark http://commonsensecanadian.ca/salmon-farms-get-tax-dollars-diseased-dead-fish-provide-jobs/
- Status
