N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Sometimes I think that the salmon feedlot industry hacks on here post what they do to distract us and get us to spend large amounts of time answering their endless and questionable justifications of an industry, like many in the past, that needs to evolve to be less harmful to wild fish and the environment. I agree bigbruce a lot of time, research and effort go in to these posts trying to convince people of opposing viewpoints to what useful end?
Obviously folks are free to and do as they please, but perhaps our time could be used more constructively supporting, working and volunteering with organizations and groups that are trying to change things to promote healthy and abundant wild salmon populations and protect the marine environment, instead of these long debates.
This is not meant to criticize, but rather to offer some food for thought on how to prioritize our time and efforts. My 2 bits.
Obviously folks are free to and do as they please, but perhaps our time could be used more constructively supporting, working and volunteering with organizations and groups that are trying to change things to promote healthy and abundant wild salmon populations and protect the marine environment, instead of these long debates.
This is not meant to criticize, but rather to offer some food for thought on how to prioritize our time and efforts. My 2 bits.
If anyone hasn't seen, read, and signed (if you agree) this petition please have a look.
https://www.change.org/petitions/re...campaign=23096&alert_id=LGPbViuHkm_dvJWQDywQq
https://www.change.org/petitions/re...campaign=23096&alert_id=LGPbViuHkm_dvJWQDywQq
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
As much as I love being called a "hack", "shill", "apologist", or any other name by folks on here - I am simply trying to either correct what I know to be blatant falsehoods, or attempt to draw out any tangeable evidence to support the view that salmon farms harm wild populations in BC.
So far I haven't seen much evidence and have been consitently berated, insulted and mocked for taking a position counter to the prevailing "sportfish" view that regardless of empirical evidence available to be scientifically scrutinized at this point (after 30 years of operations), people don't like the idea of farming salmon and will support any and all information out there that aligns with that view.
It will always be an endless debate when there are two camps of "science" are at work and one sides self-righteous indignance doesn't seem to allow them to get past their assumption that anyone benefitting from an industry must be automatically blind to the presumed ills they assign to that industry.
I know this description doesn't capture everyone one here, but being called a sociopath by someone who pisses and moans about having an open and honest discussion really makes me wonder...
As I may have mentioned earlier that I am an avid fisherman who's son is growing up learning to respect and appreciate the bounty to be found, with an understanding of the responsibilities and effort needed to maintain the quality experience available to us on the coast.
I regularly work with groups, "that are trying to change things to promote healthy and abundant wild salmon populations and protect the marine environment" and believe salmon farming companies fall into this category.
There are tens of thousands of dollars being spent on enhancement and habitat work made either directly available through companies, or through partnerships and protocols they have developed over the years - along with many, many individuals who do exactly what it is you are proposing and probably have done so long before they started farming fish.
This is not an "us and them" discussion, it is a difference of opinion based on different levels of understanding - where an ideological opposition to a certain practice leads to a reluctance to think critically and weigh both sides of an argument equally.
I've never claimed zero impacts from salmon farms on wild stocks, what I have stated is that after more than 30 years no one has been able to quantify them in any way which sets them apart from the vast number of other known impacts - this leads me, and many others to believe that if there are mortalities associated with sea lice, disease or any other interactions, they are at such a small level that they are insignificant to the populations as a whole.
I must also point out that along with the ideological blockage found in the debate, there is a distinct inability to recognize the practices already in place (which continue to evolve) which serve to reduce or eliminate the risks opponents of aquaculture identify as important and percieve to be high.
Every year that passes with variable runs returning up and down the coast, in areas with and without farms, serves to support the idea of wild and farmed salmon co-existing in a sustainable and healthy way - not just for the fish, but also for the people that depend on them.
There's my blurb for the day, I know I said I needed a week to sort out a load from a while back, but I don't think I need to - many others alreay have.
Tight lines guys, I've been lucky enough to tie into some nice Springs already and I hope everyone gets a chance to do the same this year.
rockdog
Well-Known Member
CK, I strongly disagree. I have read 27 pages of evidence on this thread, that show the harm Atlantic Salmon feedlots are doing to the wild stocks. You just choose to ignore the facts, and then just call it misinformation. It doesn't matter anyways. The Salmon feedlots, the way they operate today, won't be around forever. The public, and govt hopefully, are beginning to see through it all.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
You're welcome to disagree, just as I will on your point that there is "27 pages of evidence on this thread, that show the harm Atlantic Salmon feedlots are doing to the wild stocks"
My view is that your "facts" are based on hypotheses which do not result in any quantification of harm, or supported by empirical evidence, or even distinct and/or strong correllations between declines and areas of farmed production.
How can Pinks be doing fine in one area and Chum in another where farms are, but somehow Chinook, Coho and Sockeye aren't?
Are farm impacts selective? Or do they conveniently run along the same trends as fishing pressure?
There is much more going on out there than farms and the constant attacks on aquaculture seem to ignore many other measurable things like bycatch, or competition from ranched fish: ie.
http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AlaskaSalmonBackgrounder.pdf
I don't know what you mean by "see through it all" - if you are implying that the conspiracies and coverups proposed by the likes of Morton are actually what is happening out there I suggest you take a look at how much effort went into creating the "truth" they are putting out there.
http://salmonconfidential.com/misquoting-miller/
You're right that salmon farms, "the way they operate today, won't be around forever", but it won't be in the sense that you think - they will continue to evolve and make changes using available technology and scientific knowledge, but you're never going to see fish plucked out of their natural environment and raised in artificial, densely packed and costly (both economically and energy wise) facilities as a rule.
They may play a role, but you just can't beat the ocean.
Now THOSE would be feedlots.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
tincan
Well-Known Member
Another good read from today with some relevant implications for this thread.
http://thecanadian.org/item/2055-ho...and-bcndp-can-end-risk-to-wild-salmon-economy
Independent salmon biologist Alexandra Morton has worked tirelessly and endlessly to raise awareness about the threat open net pen salmon farms presents to our coast.
For decades now, this frequently published scientist has worked to understand the impacts of this industry on wild salmon. She has also clearly demonstrated that the entirety of the wild salmon economy far and away exceeds the importance of this one industry alone.
The Wild Salmon economy dwarfs, by any measure, the economic benefit of fish farming and it makes no sense to continue putting the health of our wild salmon at risk as a result. This was covered in Damien Gillis' recent article in The Common Sense Canadian - which notes the staggering disparity between the sport fishing and salmon-dependent tourism economy and the paltry jobs and economic value provided by salmon farms.
The video below is from a recent screening of Salmon Confidential, a stunning documentary which has taken BC by storm, generating 115,000 views online and packed halls around the province since its release last month.
This short clip which includes Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May, Alexandra Morton and a Provincial Candidate for the BCNDP, Gary Holman.
Highlighted in the video is the current position of the BCNDP.
For the past few months the NDP has claimed that the Provincial Government has no jurisdiction or capacity to move on the information Alexandra has provided on viruses affecting wild and farmed salmon and bring an end to the threat to the Wild Salmon economy and deeply entrenched coastal culture of this great province.
However, the NDP has committed to "adopting the Cohen Commission recommendations", which include a focus on applying the "Precautionary Principle" when dealing with the future of this industry and removing salmon farms from the Discovery Islands by 2020, unless DFO can prove they are having "less than minimal impact."
This is a very welcome development. It means the NDP has committed to exercising this important Precautionary Principle when establishing policy related to this industry.
With that knowledge, let's turn to the notion that BC has no jurisdiction as a result of a recent lawsuit which saw the Federal Government assume much of the oversight of the industry.
While this is essentially true, there is in fact a little known clause that exists in the agreements the Province holds with each and every fish farm.
It is an exit clause in their tenures which can be exercised within 60 days - with no compensation - that revokes the license for them to operate, if it is in the public interest. (See the full occupation license here)
Here is the exact text from Section 5, Subsection 8
8.1(g) (Termination) states that Marine Harvest agrees with the Province that "if we require the Land for our own use or, in our opinion, it is in the public interest to cancel this Agreement and we have given you 60 days' written notice of such requirement or opinion, this Agreement will, at our option and with or without entry, terminate your right to use and occupy the Land."
s. 8.3(a) goes further, and states, "You agree with us that (a) you will make no claim for compensation, in damages or otherwise, upon the lawful termination of this Agreement under section 8.1." (emphasis added)
Given the NDP has adopted the Cohen Commission recommendation of exercising the Precautionary Principle, and there is ample evidence that our wild salmon are at risk, it is time we encourage the NDP to focus on these licenses, and engage this industry in a proactive fashion in a bid to eliminate this unacceptable risk to the economy and long established culture that healthy wild salmon supports.
Let's all encourage those NDP candidates seeking your vote to honor their commitment to adopt the Precautionary Principle as recommended by the Cohen Commission.
And let's press each and every one of them to act on these license agreements, with a focus on resolving this clear and indisputable threat, by asking them to execute the termination clause for fish farms licensed to operate on wild salmon migration routes.
If the NDP wants to be seen as credible on their claim of adopting Cohen's recommendations and do whats right for the economy, then they must act now and follow though on their commitment while supporting the growth of the Wild Salmon economy - already more than ten times bigger than the salmon farming industry.
http://thecanadian.org/item/2055-ho...and-bcndp-can-end-risk-to-wild-salmon-economy
Independent salmon biologist Alexandra Morton has worked tirelessly and endlessly to raise awareness about the threat open net pen salmon farms presents to our coast.
For decades now, this frequently published scientist has worked to understand the impacts of this industry on wild salmon. She has also clearly demonstrated that the entirety of the wild salmon economy far and away exceeds the importance of this one industry alone.
The Wild Salmon economy dwarfs, by any measure, the economic benefit of fish farming and it makes no sense to continue putting the health of our wild salmon at risk as a result. This was covered in Damien Gillis' recent article in The Common Sense Canadian - which notes the staggering disparity between the sport fishing and salmon-dependent tourism economy and the paltry jobs and economic value provided by salmon farms.
The video below is from a recent screening of Salmon Confidential, a stunning documentary which has taken BC by storm, generating 115,000 views online and packed halls around the province since its release last month.
This short clip which includes Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May, Alexandra Morton and a Provincial Candidate for the BCNDP, Gary Holman.
Highlighted in the video is the current position of the BCNDP.
For the past few months the NDP has claimed that the Provincial Government has no jurisdiction or capacity to move on the information Alexandra has provided on viruses affecting wild and farmed salmon and bring an end to the threat to the Wild Salmon economy and deeply entrenched coastal culture of this great province.
However, the NDP has committed to "adopting the Cohen Commission recommendations", which include a focus on applying the "Precautionary Principle" when dealing with the future of this industry and removing salmon farms from the Discovery Islands by 2020, unless DFO can prove they are having "less than minimal impact."
This is a very welcome development. It means the NDP has committed to exercising this important Precautionary Principle when establishing policy related to this industry.
With that knowledge, let's turn to the notion that BC has no jurisdiction as a result of a recent lawsuit which saw the Federal Government assume much of the oversight of the industry.
While this is essentially true, there is in fact a little known clause that exists in the agreements the Province holds with each and every fish farm.
It is an exit clause in their tenures which can be exercised within 60 days - with no compensation - that revokes the license for them to operate, if it is in the public interest. (See the full occupation license here)
Here is the exact text from Section 5, Subsection 8
8.1(g) (Termination) states that Marine Harvest agrees with the Province that "if we require the Land for our own use or, in our opinion, it is in the public interest to cancel this Agreement and we have given you 60 days' written notice of such requirement or opinion, this Agreement will, at our option and with or without entry, terminate your right to use and occupy the Land."
s. 8.3(a) goes further, and states, "You agree with us that (a) you will make no claim for compensation, in damages or otherwise, upon the lawful termination of this Agreement under section 8.1." (emphasis added)
Given the NDP has adopted the Cohen Commission recommendation of exercising the Precautionary Principle, and there is ample evidence that our wild salmon are at risk, it is time we encourage the NDP to focus on these licenses, and engage this industry in a proactive fashion in a bid to eliminate this unacceptable risk to the economy and long established culture that healthy wild salmon supports.
Let's all encourage those NDP candidates seeking your vote to honor their commitment to adopt the Precautionary Principle as recommended by the Cohen Commission.
And let's press each and every one of them to act on these license agreements, with a focus on resolving this clear and indisputable threat, by asking them to execute the termination clause for fish farms licensed to operate on wild salmon migration routes.
If the NDP wants to be seen as credible on their claim of adopting Cohen's recommendations and do whats right for the economy, then they must act now and follow though on their commitment while supporting the growth of the Wild Salmon economy - already more than ten times bigger than the salmon farming industry.
tincan
Well-Known Member
Quick observation that has probably been covered but I think it's very much worth highlighting in summary form again. The open-net pen industry and it's proponents on this forum continually poo-poo closed containment as an option due to it's lack of "economic" viability. I think most will agree that the technology is there for closed containment - it's just from a financial side of things it's not comparable.
To those the open-net pen proponents I have the following questions:
1) How much do you think the subsidy is that you receive from our government in the form of being allowed access to our Pacific waters and being allowed to freely (cheaply) discard the waste and toxins that are the result of your operations?
2) How much do you think the subsidy is that you receive from our government in the form of aquaculture promotion and marketing?
I would love to get answers to these 2 rather simple questions... preferably in absolute dollar form and % of revenue form, as is typically displayed on any Income Statement (Statement of Operations).
What would happen to the economic viability of your open-net pen operations if these two subsidies were suddenly taken away from you? Looking forward to your candid responses.
To those the open-net pen proponents I have the following questions:
1) How much do you think the subsidy is that you receive from our government in the form of being allowed access to our Pacific waters and being allowed to freely (cheaply) discard the waste and toxins that are the result of your operations?
2) How much do you think the subsidy is that you receive from our government in the form of aquaculture promotion and marketing?
I would love to get answers to these 2 rather simple questions... preferably in absolute dollar form and % of revenue form, as is typically displayed on any Income Statement (Statement of Operations).
What would happen to the economic viability of your open-net pen operations if these two subsidies were suddenly taken away from you? Looking forward to your candid responses.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Disagree totally Bigbruce. I for one have learnt a tremendous amount more about the salmon feed lot industry and the "modus operandi" of the industry proponents. I believe Agent Aqua and Charlie have done a terrific job in countering the industry spin artists who post here and have clearly demonstrated they know more about what has happened/is happening with the feed lots and what Cohen actually said than the industry proponents. It is vital that the forces of darkness do not go unchallenged and so I say continue the counter attack!
Englishman
Well-Known Member
WITW I don't disagree positive work on behalf of wild salmon is beneficial. But I disagree that countering the feed lot industry spin and propaganda (and avoidance or deliberate misquoting of science and of Cohen) is not a priority. We must keep up the pressure and efforts to bring science, understanding and proper environmentally based principles to this industry, or all the work to enhance runs or restore habitat could be for nothing.
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
This debate is getting so old and I for one am pretty much through with debating these industry people. It seems that the anti side is a bunch of regular citizens who care about wild fish and the wild ecosystem and the pro side is for the most part PAID to post on here as part of their job.
I'm sorry but it is hard to listen to you ClayoquotKid as being just regular joe fish farmer....because that is not the case. Talk about follow the money hey?!
ClayoquotKid AKA Sustainability Officer for Mainstream Canada AKA A Division of EWOS Canada AKA Wholy owned by Cermaq AKA publicly traded on the Norwegian Stock Exchange. I am sure that you as a person are a nice guy but your marching orders do not have Canada's best interest in mind but rather shareholders interests in mind.
It may be completely by coincidence that the sustainability officer for Mainstream also uses this nickname....but it seems unlikely.
I'm sorry but it is hard to listen to you ClayoquotKid as being just regular joe fish farmer....because that is not the case. Talk about follow the money hey?!
ClayoquotKid AKA Sustainability Officer for Mainstream Canada AKA A Division of EWOS Canada AKA Wholy owned by Cermaq AKA publicly traded on the Norwegian Stock Exchange. I am sure that you as a person are a nice guy but your marching orders do not have Canada's best interest in mind but rather shareholders interests in mind.
It may be completely by coincidence that the sustainability officer for Mainstream also uses this nickname....but it seems unlikely.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
I'm not paid to be on here sparring with people who could care less about what I say - which is obvious in many of the responses I get and the general attitude that anyone who makes a living anywhere in the aquaculture industry has sold out their social and environmental morals for a paycheque.
That is a truly laughable, simpleminded and ignorant viewpoint IMHO and if you are willing to dismiss the information and thoughts I bring forward because of it - well, that is your loss and I hope you enjoy living in your bubble.
The rampant confirmation-bias and cognitive dissonance on this site is staggering and it's no wonder fishermen have been fighting with eachother since time immemorial.
I happen to have a job that I enjoy, where I get to work with great people who share the same drive I have to bring benefits to the social and environmental environment we operate in.
I work hard to educate people about aquaculture, but also to ensure that everything we do out on the water has the least possible impact on the area I call home.
You can disregard my opinions, or attempt to minimize my actions which serve to benefit wild salmon wherever I can - but I know for a fact that I've been actively supporting wild salmon from within and from outside of my company for as long as I've lived on the coast, so nothing said here can take that away.
You can cling to your bogus shareholder marching orders story for a long as you like, but eventually you will have to realise that I am not alone in my industry - there are plenty more like me and sooner or later the reality of the situation might just become clear enough that even you can see farmed and wild salmon can exist together on the coast.
Mind you I don't expect that will tone down the mindsets expressed here much, I'm sure there will be something else to hate on where you can sit around and bark away to your hearts content.
Bang on CK... "it can't be my fault, I only killed 10 last year, half my take compared to a few years ago, it must be the damn farms"
bigbruce
Crew Member
And that, CK, was sort of the point of my earlier comment. You and your opponents on this thread are in a debate that will never end. It's up to 30 pages now and could potentially go on forever with neither side being convinced that the others' point of view has any merit. And Englishman, I too have learned a few things on this thread - and I appreciate the passion that both sides have brought to their arguments. At some point, though, someone has to decide to lay down arms. But in the meantime, again, the whole thing makes for great reading when I'm having trouble going to sleep.
rockdog
Well-Known Member
I believe the answer is 'more misinformation'. I agree with Andrew, these guys come on here in shifts. You don't hear one for awhile(CK), its someone else, then all of a sudden CK is back.
You can't say you love wild salmon and care about the environment, then say you are passionate about bring a salmon feedlot worker. Just the fact that all the fish waste and chemicals that are released underneath a net pen is toxic to the surrounding life puts a hole in that statement.
Anyways, read the previous 30 pages, and 99 times out 100, people will realize the damage that's caused by Atlantic salmon feedlots.
You can't say you love wild salmon and care about the environment, then say you are passionate about bring a salmon feedlot worker. Just the fact that all the fish waste and chemicals that are released underneath a net pen is toxic to the surrounding life puts a hole in that statement.
Anyways, read the previous 30 pages, and 99 times out 100, people will realize the damage that's caused by Atlantic salmon feedlots.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
All salmon farms operate within Provincial tenures which have associated fees - they are not free.
Using DEPOMOD calculations each farm has a footprint which is compensated for through projects which create, or rehabilitate habitat in the area using a formula developed and implemented by DFO.
The idea that farms get a "free ride" simply because waste is not captured is false, and the minute amounts of any chemicals used (on average I think it is about 5g per 1000kg of feed) are closely monitored and adhere to Federal regulations.
Any money DFO spends on regulation of the industry should be welcomed as part of their commitment to ensuring aquaculture in BC meets the highest standards out there, although I do agree the comparatively small amount used in the "promotion" of the industry would be better coming from another entity, similar to that of the poultry, beef, egg, milk or any other existing body which is responsible for the marketing of Canadian products - this would remove the percieved conflict and ensure DFO was solely responsible for regulation.
The fact is that DFO currently does the same for aquaculture as it does for all other Canadian seafood.
"Over eight quarters of public reporting by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans on grants and contributions, members of the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association accounted for just 0.25 per cent of the funding given to fisheries in Canada. Of over $225-million reported, about $555,000 went to BCSFA-related projects."
"Based on Statistics Canada data, in 2009, the national aquaculture industry received less government support per dollar output (0.17%) than the average Canadian industry (0.67%)."
Funding totals show salmon farmers small impact: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/media-releases
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
I think the idea of companies, or even DFO, paying people to come on here and debate the issue with you guys is hilarious.
Occasionally I happen to have time at my desk (when I'm not out on the water) to spare and I (for some strange reason) seem to feel the need to join in the discussions here.
I CAN "say you love wild salmon and care about the environment, then say you are passionate about bring a salmon feedlot worker" - Your views don't seem to allow you to recognize that, but that doesn't make it false.
I will definitely be on the lookout for the job posting if it was to come out: "Industry Shill needed to battle Sportfishing Enthusiasts in Online Forum - Wage and benefits negotiable"
Here's a study done on the ecosystem found on, around and beneath salmon farms - you may find it enlightening: http://salmonfarmscience.files.word...hic_impact_beneficial_effects_mariculture.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
Well, I am glad that at least we now know who we are talking to! It obviously does make a difference. I think it's great to be able to ask questions directly to Mainstream's Sustainability Officer...who better to ask really?!
So, last summer, when the Millar Channel Farm was emptied and the fish were turned into pet food:
Did Mainstream receive compensation for being 'forced' to take them to market? Or is that just for when you are forced to compost your diseased product?
http://www.hashilthsa.com/news/2012-08-10/latest-ihn-outbreak-forces-cull-millar-channel-fish-farm
I find it so interesting that 400 tonnes of fish could be diseased to the point of them having to be destroyed and that that farm site would no negative effect on passing mature and juvenile salmon passing by it. That's amazing.
Quite a sick joke that those diseased fish were then fed to 'man's best friend'; us humans are so nice.
So, last summer, when the Millar Channel Farm was emptied and the fish were turned into pet food:
Did Mainstream receive compensation for being 'forced' to take them to market? Or is that just for when you are forced to compost your diseased product?
http://www.hashilthsa.com/news/2012-08-10/latest-ihn-outbreak-forces-cull-millar-channel-fish-farm
I find it so interesting that 400 tonnes of fish could be diseased to the point of them having to be destroyed and that that farm site would no negative effect on passing mature and juvenile salmon passing by it. That's amazing.
Quite a sick joke that those diseased fish were then fed to 'man's best friend'; us humans are so nice.
- Status
Similar threads
