Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It will change my view if you agree this will change your view:

https://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/cermaq-ca/cermaq-canada/our-company/locations/barkley


Cermaq Canada believes they are farming fish here - maybe they are wrong?

Government seems to think there are fish farms there as well

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/bc-cb/docs/maps-cartes/mar-eng.pdf

Looking forward to your new and improved explanation....

Wow... did not know about those two as I was going from memory and what DFO website said.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/bc-cb/maps-cartes-eng.html
http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40597118.pdf

I wonder why they are not listed? I'll need to investigate why that is.
 
It will change my view if you agree this will change your view:

https://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/cermaq-ca/cermaq-canada/our-company/locations/barkley


Cermaq Canada believes they are farming fish here - maybe they are wrong?

Government seems to think there are fish farms there as well

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/bc-cb/docs/maps-cartes/mar-eng.pdf

Looking forward to your new and improved explanation....
Perhaps considering what looks like two maybe three in the whole of Barkley Sound it gives Wild Salmon a better chance to avoid the Sea Lice laden, disease riddled (including PRV) open net cage Fish Farms to make past them versus the Gauntlet dozens and dozens of these polluting Fish Farms in the Broughton where mostly all the smolts from the Southern SOG andPuget Sound need to pass on there journey. Might be why Barkley runs are stable and the SOG are not don't you think?
 
According to the DFO database (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/od-ds/...2011-2015-rpt-pac-dfo-mpo-aquaculture-eng.csv), Barkley was inactive between Feb., 2011 and Dec. 2014. So no fish means no additional sea lice and no disease shedding during both the inmigration of the 2012 parent inmigration or 2014 outmigration of the 2016 return cohort.
Or else, maybe not reporting and out of compliance? No evidence of that.
Irregardless, it was listed as "lens site" in Feb. 2011 so likeliy a nursery site for smolts fresh from the hatchery.
This actually lends support to the 'no fish farm, no harm to wild salmon' hypothesis.

I believe the other site at Jane Bay - site of the recent oil-spill-in-solid-form pollution event- was also inactive during that same time period. I'll double check.
 
According to the DFO database (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/od-ds/...2011-2015-rpt-pac-dfo-mpo-aquaculture-eng.csv), Barkley was inactive between Feb., 2011 and Dec. 2014. So no fish means no additional sea lice and no disease shedding during both the inmigration of the 2012 parent inmigration or 2014 outmigration of the 2016 return cohort.
Or else, maybe not reporting and out of compliance? No evidence of that.
Irregardless, it was listed as "lens site" in Feb. 2011 so likeliy a nursery site for smolts fresh from the hatchery.
This actually lends support to the 'no fish farm, no harm to wild salmon' hypothesis.

I believe the other site at Jane Bay - site of the recent oil-spill-in-solid-form pollution event- was also inactive during that same time period. I'll double check.
Yep, both sites were not reporting.
 
According to the DFO database (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/od-ds/...2011-2015-rpt-pac-dfo-mpo-aquaculture-eng.csv), Barkley was inactive between Feb., 2011 and Dec. 2014. So no fish means no additional sea lice and no disease shedding during both the inmigration of the 2012 parent inmigration or 2014 outmigration of the 2016 return cohort.
Or else, maybe not reporting and out of compliance? No evidence of that.
Irregardless, it was listed as "lens site" in Feb. 2011 so likeliy a nursery site for smolts fresh from the hatchery.
This actually lends support to the 'no fish farm, no harm to wild salmon' hypothesis.

I believe the other site at Jane Bay - site of the recent oil-spill-in-solid-form pollution event- was also inactive during that same time period. I'll double check.

Wow - this is quite a leap. Lets see if we can do better - if salmon were there and being harvested, would it change your mind?
 
Perhaps considering what looks like two maybe three in the whole of Barkley Sound it gives Wild Salmon a better chance to avoid the Sea Lice laden, disease riddled (including PRV) open net cage Fish Farms to make past them versus the Gauntlet dozens and dozens of these polluting Fish Farms in the Broughton where mostly all the smolts from the Southern SOG andPuget Sound need to pass on there journey. Might be why Barkley runs are stable and the SOG are not don't you think?
Ugg - this is why the FF people struggle with you folks. Not because you don't mean well, but one member states one thing then everyone decides it is a fact. People like me are reading the government site and simply point out that a fish farms do exist in the areas of concern. Look, my question to GLG was "were these farms offset enough from a run to not cause harm?" Now, every FF anti advocate is somehow trying to bend the evidence to fit that there must have been no salmon there. Maybe you are right. But if they were there and salmon existed, why suddenly say - "well it is a density thing, or..." . Alright, then if we follow that reasoning, there is probably a way for FF's to coexist with wild salmon. Lets finally agree on that. Cuttlefish - read up on the Jane Bay site - salmon were tested - then independently tested then proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be safe. Never did get contaminated. Were harvested and sold. And the Cermaq site was not a nursery.. Where do you get this?
 
Ugg - this is why the FF people struggle with you folks. Not because you don't mean well, but one member states one thing then everyone decides it is a fact. People like me are reading the government site and simply point out that a fish farms do exist in the areas of concern. Look, my question to GLG was "were these farms offset enough from a run to not cause harm?" Now, every FF anti advocate is somehow trying to bend the evidence to fit that there must have been no salmon there. Maybe you are right. But if they were there and salmon existed, why suddenly say - "well it is a density thing, or..." . Alright, then if we follow that reasoning, there is probably a way for FF's to coexist with wild salmon. Lets finally agree on that. Cuttlefish - read up on the Jane Bay site - salmon were tested - then independently tested then proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be safe. Never did get contaminated. Were harvested and sold. And the Cermaq site was not a nursery.. Where do you get this?
Go to the the righthandmost column of the database I linked to.
 
It will change my view if you agree this will change your view:

https://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/connect/cermaq-ca/cermaq-canada/our-company/locations/barkley


Cermaq Canada believes they are farming fish here - maybe they are wrong?

Government seems to think there are fish farms there as well

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/bc-cb/docs/maps-cartes/mar-eng.pdf

Looking forward to your new and improved explanation....


Yup past the one on south side of sound every time we fished Bamfield this summer..didnt see it last run out in Sept it was so foggy

Cant give any info on active or not
 
Last edited:
According to the DFO database (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/od-ds/...2011-2015-rpt-pac-dfo-mpo-aquaculture-eng.csv), Barkley was inactive between Feb., 2011 and Dec. 2014. So no fish means no additional sea lice and no disease shedding during both the inmigration of the 2012 parent inmigration or 2014 outmigration of the 2016 return cohort.
Or else, maybe not reporting and out of compliance? No evidence of that.
Irregardless, it was listed as "lens site" in Feb. 2011 so likeliy a nursery site for smolts fresh from the hatchery.
This actually lends support to the 'no fish farm, no harm to wild salmon' hypothesis.

I believe the other site at Jane Bay - site of the recent oil-spill-in-solid-form pollution event- was also inactive during that same time period. I'll double check.
Go to the the righthandmost column of the database I linked to.
You got me on this one - don';t really get what you are saying? So my point was this, if the salmon farm existed and were harvesting salmon during these periods, would you say, maybe, that FF's in the presence of migrating salmon can coexist without any detrimental effects?
 
Perhaps considering what looks like two maybe three in the whole of Barkley Sound it gives Wild Salmon a better chance to avoid the Sea Lice laden, disease riddled (including PRV) open net cage Fish Farms to make past them versus the Gauntlet dozens and dozens of these polluting Fish Farms in the Broughton where mostly all the smolts from the Southern SOG andPuget Sound need to pass on there journey. Might be why Barkley runs are stable and the SOG are not don't you think?
What is the REAL cause of salmon decline? Not denying that FF's have an effect, but since you Anti-FF'ers can't be honest, how do you rank them? Evry time I ask about the stressors, you all avoid a simple question. What is the number one problem facing our salmon population decline: FF's, or rising ocean temps, or habitat destruction or over fishing? Do you have any thoughts on this? Nobody, except poor old Fogged In was willing to take a positon. Will you do it Terrin?
 
What is the REAL cause of salmon decline? Not denying that FF's have an effect, but since you Anti-FF'ers can't be honest, how do you rank them? Evry time I ask about the stressors, you all avoid a simple question. What is the number one problem facing our salmon population decline: FF's, or rising ocean temps, or habitat destruction or over fishing? Do you have any thoughts on this? Nobody, except poor old Fogged In was willing to take a positon. Will you do it Terrin?

Glad to see you are admitting Fish Farms do have "an effect" in killing wild salmon.
Other then that, your post is disrespectful and erroneous!
The only time "poor old Fogged" as you put it has taken a position on where Fish Farms rank in their killing of Wild Salmon was in post #835 when I answered your question by saying.
"No I do not believe "that ocean temperatures are the number one cause for salmon declines"
And please....lighten up on the insults or perhaps ADMIN will suspend you and we wouldn't want that would we?

 
That sounds like a threat to spopadyn, fogged in. Do you have that kind of clout with the administrators?
I can see why you would want this though ... the big guys are getting schooled by him.
 
Well I guess they will need to also kick off the admins who posted the PSF article on the home page. Seals are eating 40 to60% of the salmon smolts in the Georgia Strait. Again, all the numbers are failing to add up. The next headline from the anti-FF advocates will be that the seals are actually FF's in disguise and that they are Norwegian! I can't believe Fogged in is upset that I feel for him. He was the only one to say what he thought. Surprisingly, even bloggers like AA will try to make claims as to the damage FF's are causing (completely speculative) but when asked to agree with the scientists he respects, he moves to silence. Have you noticed how none of them will make a clear statement on the order of the salmon stressors (except for fogged in, who is way off on the consensus science). Then, they accuse the other side of the debate of deflection. Sadly, Ff's are moving down the list and now seals which are protected and flourishing in numbers are shown to have a way larger effect than thought. Maybe this is where GLG's coho have been going...
 
You got me on this one - don';t really get what you are saying? So my point was this, if the salmon farm existed and were harvesting salmon during these periods, would you say, maybe, that FF's in the presence of migrating salmon can coexist without any detrimental effects?
I am saying that the sockeye returning to Alberni Inlet in 2016 (see you own post #899) did not appear to have passed by active salmon farms in Barkley Sound either during their outmigration to the ocean in 2014 or during their inmigration in 2016. I am also saying that it appears their parent cohort did not pass any active salmon farms in Barkley Sound during their inmigration in 2012.
You then ask me a hypothetical question. My answer is I think a salmon farm could hypothetically coexist in the presence of migration wild salmon without any detrimental effects if the salmon in the farm were not amplifiying anything (diseases, parasites, etc.) that might be detrimental to those same migrating wild salmon or, if the farmed salmon were amplifying anything that might be detrimental to the wild salmon, those detrimental effects were contained in such a way as to not be transmissible to the migrating wild salmon.

BTW, you told me to "read up on the Jane Bay site". Can you provide a link to where I might be able to do that reading?
Can you also provide any information showing the Cermaq Barkley site in Barkely Sound (not the head of Alberni Inlet) was other than a nursery site?
 
I am saying that the sockeye returning to Alberni Inlet in 2016 (see you own post #899) did not appear to have passed by active salmon farms in Barkley Sound either during their outmigration to the ocean in 2014 or during their inmigration in 2016. I am also saying that it appears their parent cohort did not pass any active salmon farms in Barkley Sound during their inmigration in 2012.
You then ask me a hypothetical question. My answer is I think a salmon farm could hypothetically coexist in the presence of migration wild salmon without any detrimental effects if the salmon in the farm were not amplifiying anything (diseases, parasites, etc.) that might be detrimental to those same migrating wild salmon or, if the farmed salmon were amplifying anything that might be detrimental to the wild salmon, those detrimental effects were contained in such a way as to not be transmissible to the migrating wild salmon.

BTW, you told me to "read up on the Jane Bay site". Can you provide a link to where I might be able to do that reading?
Can you also provide any information showing the Cermaq Barkley site in Barkely Sound (not the head of Alberni Inlet) was other than a nursery site?

Actually, just go straight to Cermaq's website - they actually talk about there fish farms (the Barkley Sound/San Mateo sites are called Atlantic salmon farm sites - still trying to find out the harvest numbers - saw it once on government website, but trying to re locate this one) and have news on the Jane Bay site - including the testing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top