What I was actually getting at is if these sites were proven to have been farming salmon actively, does it start to sway some of the NO FF's ever activists to a place where they start trying to proactively support the industry if it is proven to be sustainable and not harming our wild stocks?
Fish Farm trouble in BC.
- Thread starter Chuck
- Start date
- Status
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Standing by.
Ahhh, the week before Christmas....must be why I can feel all the goodwill in the air! The previous couple of pages contain any number of personal shots, calling out other members, pot stirring etc. with little to no new information of much substance. Originally, there was some consideration toward becoming the Grinch, just skip another warning to behave like respectful humans, and just go straight to some timeouts for those who can't seem to let it go and accept that, convincing the "opposition" to change their views is likely right up there with achieving World Peace. However, with the spirit of Christmas in mind, I'm not really in the mood to suspend or ban members or close the thread, but would rather offer up an opportunity for everyone to call a truce when it comes to keeping the personal side out of these posts. Even the most awful and tragic wars in man-kinds history called a truce during this time of the year, so surely we can find it in ourselves to set aside our differences and treat each other with the respect we all deserve.
We live in a country that, for all it's flaws, still offers all of us an opportunity to voice our opinions and vote our conscience, provided it is done without publicly disparaging others. At this special time of year and always, I believe it is important to never lose site of, and hold onto this opportunity and right, by never abusing it.
Cheers,
Brian
We live in a country that, for all it's flaws, still offers all of us an opportunity to voice our opinions and vote our conscience, provided it is done without publicly disparaging others. At this special time of year and always, I believe it is important to never lose site of, and hold onto this opportunity and right, by never abusing it.
Cheers,
Brian
tincan
Well-Known Member
If FF's are having an effect on the wild salmon populations then it doesn't really matter if we have an exact % or ranking on what that effect is. Ecosystems are incredibly complex and to think we can rank factors that influence wild salmon populations is unrealistic if not impossible and precisely WHY the FF supporters ask for this level of certainty... so that they can go about business as usual while the science continues to pump out findings that FF are harmful but not being able to quantify exactly what impact they are having to 2 decimal places 
If FF's had ZERO (or close to it) impact on the environment or even if they had a small impact and made up for their small impact with financial contributions to improve the environment/province I would be on board with them. The reason I can now be categorized as an 'anti-FF' is because they have a 'more than ZERO' negative impact on the environment (including wild salmon) coupled with the fact they are subsidy-receiving, foreign-owned, evidence-hiding corporations who are not looking out for BC's environment as a whole or wild salmon specifically.
I will grant you that wild salmon face impact from many other causes that open-net pen fish farms. Human impacts are top of the list, with habitat degradation probably at the top of 'my' list. Habitat in the nearshore environment, specifically, is a large problem as estuaries and inlets have been hardened/developed to the point where this important habitat is severely worsened. Increasing ocean SST and acidification (climate change issues) are also clearly have substantial negative impacts. Overfishing in certain areas/species is not helping with the overall sustainability of wild salmon populations either. So what can we do? Well, start with some short-term solutions to tackle those issues negatively impacting wild salmon.... namely fish farms. Stop new tenures ASAP, move them off migration routes ASAP, hold them accountable for disease/waste and work to move them on land in a timely manner. Land-based operations have their own issues but they will help eliminate many of the current impacts the open-net pens are having on wild salmon.
If FF's had ZERO (or close to it) impact on the environment or even if they had a small impact and made up for their small impact with financial contributions to improve the environment/province I would be on board with them. The reason I can now be categorized as an 'anti-FF' is because they have a 'more than ZERO' negative impact on the environment (including wild salmon) coupled with the fact they are subsidy-receiving, foreign-owned, evidence-hiding corporations who are not looking out for BC's environment as a whole or wild salmon specifically.
I will grant you that wild salmon face impact from many other causes that open-net pen fish farms. Human impacts are top of the list, with habitat degradation probably at the top of 'my' list. Habitat in the nearshore environment, specifically, is a large problem as estuaries and inlets have been hardened/developed to the point where this important habitat is severely worsened. Increasing ocean SST and acidification (climate change issues) are also clearly have substantial negative impacts. Overfishing in certain areas/species is not helping with the overall sustainability of wild salmon populations either. So what can we do? Well, start with some short-term solutions to tackle those issues negatively impacting wild salmon.... namely fish farms. Stop new tenures ASAP, move them off migration routes ASAP, hold them accountable for disease/waste and work to move them on land in a timely manner. Land-based operations have their own issues but they will help eliminate many of the current impacts the open-net pens are having on wild salmon.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Sports Fishermen are the number 1 harm to Chinook Salmon
Its important to quantify the harm so statements like the one i just made can be proven or disprove and that we are able to tackle the number 1 issues.
Its important to quantify the harm so statements like the one i just made can be proven or disprove and that we are able to tackle the number 1 issues.
Clint r
Well-Known Member
If FF's are having an effect on the wild salmon populations then it doesn't really matter if we have an exact % or ranking on what that effect is. Ecosystems are incredibly complex and to think we can rank factors that influence wild salmon populations is unrealistic if not impossible and precisely WHY the FF supporters ask for this level of certainty... so that they can go about business as usual while the science continues to pump out findings that FF are harmful but not being able to quantify exactly what impact they are having to 2 decimal places
If FF's had ZERO (or close to it) impact on the environment or even if they had a small impact and made up for their small impact with financial contributions to improve the environment/province I would be on board with them. The reason I can now be categorized as an 'anti-FF' is because they have a 'more than ZERO' negative impact on the environment (including wild salmon) coupled with the fact they are subsidy-receiving, foreign-owned, evidence-hiding corporations who are not looking out for BC's environment as a whole or wild salmon specifically.
I will grant you that wild salmon face impact from many other causes that open-net pen fish farms. Human impacts are top of the list, with habitat degradation probably at the top of 'my' list. Habitat in the nearshore environment, specifically, is a large problem as estuaries and inlets have been hardened/developed to the point where this important habitat is severely worsened. Increasing ocean SST and acidification (climate change issues) are also clearly have substantial negative impacts. Overfishing in certain areas/species is not helping with the overall sustainability of wild salmon populations either. So what can we do? Well, start with some short-term solutions to tackle those issues negatively impacting wild salmon.... namely fish farms. Stop new tenures ASAP, move them off migration routes ASAP, hold them accountable for disease/waste and work to move them on land in a timely manner. Land-based operations have their own issues but they will help eliminate many of the current impacts the open-net pens are having on wild salmon.
Well said:.. I’ve given up arguing about how much farmed fish are impacting wild salmon as it’s a pointless argument. We know it’s happening but your right we can’t say how much. (1 fish is too many in my opinion) Instead I’ve switched my efforts to try and make fish farms more accountable for the garbage they throw into the sea and shoddy maintenance that’s allowing escapes and other “non compliance” issues. After the last couple months it’s Pretty hard for the industry to deny there’s a serious problem with lack of maintenance and just as hard to deny they allow garbage to wash into the sea. Unless they’re bald faced liars. If we keep the pressure on the politicians, they will eventually force FF to man up and take some responsibility for their actions. On a side note: see what slipshod business practices resulted in down in Washington state? We can only hope to pressure our government to grow a set and follow suit.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
So I take it you don't sports fish?
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Yep I do. My sport fishing has zero to do with how many fish, fish farms kill. To try and say that it does is ridiculous. I don’t throw garbage in the ocean and I expect industry that does to take responsibility for it. Got a problem with that? Tough crap. Clean up the industry.
Last edited:
Well, glad to see my goodwill post took all of a couple of hours to go by the wayside! Still haven't turned me into the Grinch yet...but we're trying! I'll try once again to lay it out for everybody so we don't have to be nasty at this most festive time of year.
This post:
"(1 fish is too many in my opinion)
So I take it you don't sports fish?"
Lead to this response:
"Yep I do. My sport fishing has zero to do with how many fish, fish farms kill. I don’t throw garbage in the ocean and I expect industry that does to take responsibility for it. Got a problem with that? Tough crap."
So, as has been stated here before, ALL of you are more than welcome to state your opinion, post studies and facts and be part of the discussion provided it is done respectfully, doesn't lead to fights, stays on topic and doesn't contravene our posting guidelines.
From our posting guidelines/rules:
"Do not make posts that are personal in nature, stir the pot, or provoke another member in such a way that the post serves no purpose but to cause an argument and is irrelevant to the the thread topic."
Now, too be clear, this is nothing personal against either of the members that posted these examples above, I am merely pointing out why we do not want these exchanges to start, as it inevitably leads to problems. And, before I hear from any of you, either privately or in a post somewhere on the forum, about how we "choose sides" based on our personal feelings, I will remind you that members from both sides of this debate have been reprimanded and banned from further participation because they couldn't master the one thing required of them...to follow the expectations of proper behaviour and the posting guidelines of the forum. For those who are into keeping score at home, there are more people who have found themselves on the wrong side of discipline issues on the "anti side" of this debate than vice versa. The only personal issue I have with any of this is how annoying it becomes to have to waste my time dealing with it over and over again.
One last thing to consider, if you feel like you are not being treated fairly here, you have the right and freedom to not participate. If you choose to stick around and continue posting simply remember to follow the guidelines expected and we'll have no problems. This is the third time in the past five days we have had to intervene and remind everyone to avoid posting if it is going to require our intervention. This will be the last warning on the subject, so the next one to post something that is taunting, personal in nature or likely to cause a fight will be gone.
Rant over.
Merry Christmas!
This post:
"(1 fish is too many in my opinion)
So I take it you don't sports fish?"
Lead to this response:
"Yep I do. My sport fishing has zero to do with how many fish, fish farms kill. I don’t throw garbage in the ocean and I expect industry that does to take responsibility for it. Got a problem with that? Tough crap."
So, as has been stated here before, ALL of you are more than welcome to state your opinion, post studies and facts and be part of the discussion provided it is done respectfully, doesn't lead to fights, stays on topic and doesn't contravene our posting guidelines.
From our posting guidelines/rules:
"Do not make posts that are personal in nature, stir the pot, or provoke another member in such a way that the post serves no purpose but to cause an argument and is irrelevant to the the thread topic."
Now, too be clear, this is nothing personal against either of the members that posted these examples above, I am merely pointing out why we do not want these exchanges to start, as it inevitably leads to problems. And, before I hear from any of you, either privately or in a post somewhere on the forum, about how we "choose sides" based on our personal feelings, I will remind you that members from both sides of this debate have been reprimanded and banned from further participation because they couldn't master the one thing required of them...to follow the expectations of proper behaviour and the posting guidelines of the forum. For those who are into keeping score at home, there are more people who have found themselves on the wrong side of discipline issues on the "anti side" of this debate than vice versa. The only personal issue I have with any of this is how annoying it becomes to have to waste my time dealing with it over and over again.
One last thing to consider, if you feel like you are not being treated fairly here, you have the right and freedom to not participate. If you choose to stick around and continue posting simply remember to follow the guidelines expected and we'll have no problems. This is the third time in the past five days we have had to intervene and remind everyone to avoid posting if it is going to require our intervention. This will be the last warning on the subject, so the next one to post something that is taunting, personal in nature or likely to cause a fight will be gone.
Rant over.
Merry Christmas!
GLG
Well-Known Member
It's hard to find this information on DFO or Industry website but here is a clue that may help.
This database counts salmon mortality on FF's from 2013 onwards. The ones that are of interest are sites....
224 - San Mateo
169 - Barkley
270 - James Bay
It would seem that 169- Barkley was the only site that reported during this time period and only between 2014-Q4 and 2015-Q2. From that and other databases I have checked it seems they were transfer out to some other location outside of this area as post smolt.
http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/0a8c5505-ecb3-4d8b-8120-462bd7def6bb
If FF's are having an effect on the wild salmon populations then it doesn't really matter if we have an exact % or ranking on what that effect is. Ecosystems are incredibly complex and to think we can rank factors that influence wild salmon populations is unrealistic if not impossible and precisely WHY the FF supporters ask for this level of certainty... so that they can go about business as usual while the science continues to pump out findings that FF are harmful but not being able to quantify exactly what impact they are having to 2 decimal places
If FF's had ZERO (or close to it) impact on the environment or even if they had a small impact and made up for their small impact with financial contributions to improve the environment/province I would be on board with them. The reason I can now be categorized as an 'anti-FF' is because they have a 'more than ZERO' negative impact on the environment (including wild salmon) coupled with the fact they are subsidy-receiving, foreign-owned, evidence-hiding corporations who are not looking out for BC's environment as a whole or wild salmon specifically.
I will grant you that wild salmon face impact from many other causes that open-net pen fish farms. Human impacts are top of the list, with habitat degradation probably at the top of 'my' list. Habitat in the nearshore environment, specifically, is a large problem as estuaries and inlets have been hardened/developed to the point where this important habitat is severely worsened. Increasing ocean SST and acidification (climate change issues) are also clearly have substantial negative impacts. Overfishing in certain areas/species is not helping with the overall sustainability of wild salmon populations either. So what can we do? Well, start with some short-term solutions to tackle those issues negatively impacting wild salmon.... namely fish farms. Stop new tenures ASAP, move them off migration routes ASAP, hold them accountable for disease/waste and work to move them on land in a timely manner. Land-based operations have their own issues but they will help eliminate many of the current impacts the open-net pens are having on wild salmon.
Well, I think this is a reasonable position. The reason FF advocates (like me) worry about quantities and statistics, is that the evidence I have been seeing qualitatively and quantitatively is showing exactly what you are asking for in the second paragraph. It doesn't mean that FF's are perfect but it is generating $1.14B for the BC economy and is the largest agriculture export product in the province. It is the most economically important agricultural industry in BC. As well, 78% of farmed salmon is done in partnership with First Nations and over 25% of all employees in the salmon farming industry are natives. So, I think this might be one area of disagreement - I think they contribute substantially to the economy and are good business.
On the last paragraph, I think we are maybe starting to converge on our thought processes. We need to identify the biggest stressors and see where we can make a difference. On the homepage of sportfishing BC, you can see the results of the PSF's research. If the seal population is exploding and is now 8 times what is was 30 years ago in the Georgia Strait, and has been proven to eat around 50% of the salmon, how would closing up FF's that may have negligible effect improve our salmon stocks? As well, if you couple the exploding seal population with rising ocean temps (considered by most scientists to be the leading cause of salmon population decimation), habitat destruction and over fishing which are all larger contributors to the wild salmon decline, we are wasting time going after an industry that might actually be a net positive when examined in the greater context.
Again, not a denier that the salmon farming industry hasn't had issues that need addressing, but the more I read the more I am convinced this is a worthy industry that needs our support and has incredible potential to be a game changer for BC, and I am not even from BC. This could be an absolute winner for the province and if done well, could generate vast amounts of economic return for the First Nations that need a hand up (instead of a hand out).
As for your first paragraph about a couple of decimal places, if FF's effect 0.1% of the salmon vs 10%, that is a couple of decimal paces but leads to very different conclusions...
Last edited:
Well, if the only filter we are going to use is an economic one - what does this industry put at risk? What is the worth of the sports- and commercial fisheries?
Not sure what you are saying exactly, but if the FF industry has a negligible effect on wild salmon and a significant impact to improving the lives of our First Nations I would conclude that is a significant and positive outcome. Furthermore, by producing salmon that is cheaper and more affordable than wild salmon commercially caught, you will through economics reduce the pressure again on the wild salmon (making them less valuable will mean less are caught). You can argue that the commercial fishing industry should have a equal concern afforded to it as the salmon farms, but I thought everyone was trying find ways to restore the wild salmon stocks?
As well, all the anti-FF media blitzes ensure the unknowing public is kept misinformed and scared about the actual safety and health of the farmed salmon - which should help to sustain a commercial fishing industry by creating a premium for wild salmon. When I talk to my mother in law, she is convinced that farmed salmon contain poison and will kill her! Care to guess where this misinformation comes from? Even that crazy right wing publication National Geographic published a heretical article detailing the farmed salmon was safe, healthy and tastes great.
Even today on another thread you deflected the fact that a like minded poster to yourself was posting complete and total lies about PCB's, DDT's, dioxins and even mercury! I am certain that you know very well all of this is false, and, in fact the mercury found in wild salmon is higher than in farmed salmon! Again, no vested interest other than to try and keep everyone factual and working towards the same objectives. If the anti-FF'ers stated there objectives were to actually save the wild salmon (instead of shutting down the salmon FF's) and we all rolled up our sleeves to address as many issues as possible, we could start to get some things done.
GLG
Well-Known Member
First Nations have already spoken on this matter so your not on the same page as them. Unless you want to decide what is best for them.
https://www.bclocalnews.com/news/update-tensions-rise-in-fish-farm-dispute/
and again ... we have a Pacific Salmon Treaty and IFMP's that would not change if the FF's were forced to get off the wild salmon migration routes.
Last edited:
- Status
