Net Pen farms make no sense... Times Colonist: WSA

Well done Terry! We will win this fight. After the debate last night, I am more confident than ever that we will have a new leader that will end the environmental assault that is the legacy of open pen fish farms. Cheers, I.I.
 
Terry,

Was that a letter to the editor, or was it an actual news article?
 
Terry,

Just as I thought. just your opinion with no facts to back it up. It is unfortunate that this type of OpEd gets printed. Loose cannons with passion and little else trying to sway public opinion to what they believe to be right, although not necesarily what is actually factual.

Sorry Terry, while I admire your passion and commitment to a cause I think you are going about it the wrong way. That of course is only my opinion. Maybe I should do an Op Ed also.
 
terry, you are doing the Right thing, regardless of what some may think. This BS needs to end, and end soon!!
 
And what will you say sockeyefry when the runs are wiped out ..........OOPPSSSS Sorry ?
Fish farms are to be encouraged in enclosed sterile containment areas unrelated to the main flows and migration routes ........... period.

AL
 
If you ban fish farms because they impact the wild salmon, then you have to ban ALL activity which poses a threat. This includes Rec and Commercial fisheries which are the largest threat to the wild salmon population. It is quite hypocritical to ban one while seeking to expand the other. I don't see Terry calling for the ban on development on the Fraser River, or a ban on commercial salmon harvest, or the forest industry to stop cutting trees. All of which impact the salmon. He has a pet peeve regarding fish farms and his blinders on for everything else cause it doesn't fit with his agenda.

Farms can't be put on shore. This idea is ludicrous. The environmental impact of putting the farms on shore is immense. One has to consider the amount of land which will have to be cleared, and the amount of energy which will be required. When this is factored in, the sum total impact on the environment is huge. The real solution is to stop talking about silly ideas such as on shore, closed containment, and shutting the farms down (which by the way will cost the province dearly after the legal battles are over). Start using sdome common sense, and try to come up with an equitable solution. Have the WSA, Morton et al, instead of radical BS, use their energy to start talking to the companies and discuss how the production plans could be altered to allow the out migration with little or no impact. Has anyone tried that? No because that would mean that Alex is out of a job.
 
so sockeyefry you openly admit you are on the same level as overfishing, logging and development of watersheds?

Seems to me your only defense is, ya we are hurting the stocks but look the other guys are hurting them too, how come they get too!

ever heard the phrase 2 wrongs don't make a right?
 
Nice spin Poppa.

What I am saying is that the problems with wild salmon will not be eliminated by banning salmon farms. Salmon stocks will continue to have issues, and all you will accomplish is having several thousands of people lose their livlihood in North Van Isle.

Terry's solution helps no one, especially not the wild salmon.
 
blah blah blah sockeyfry, you do realize terry's voice is louder then yours and its only getting louder.

Good job on the piece terry, keep pounding away its working slowly but surely.
 
when i hear people defend the farms, i think they just sound stupid. It is ridiculous to think, in light of the science, that we actually need that crap. The fish are gross, people around here dont want to eat them, and most of it is shipped to the states where the average joe doesnt even know what he is buying. The only people who think it is a great idea are the people who receive a pay cheque from it. If it doesnt make sense to move onto land, then get them the hell outta here. It doesnt make sense in the water!
 
You haven't addressed my post. Just the typical "I don't understand it, so it must be bad" put downs.

Rico, the science is complete in favour of the farms. It is the people who want to oppose them who do not think it is complete.

Actually Terry is not having much success. Look at his WSA post for the proof.
 
so i guess if some fish are exposed and die, it is ok. Fish that escape are okay too? that's the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. At least there are some people willing to do something about it. Terry may be up against huge odds now, but slowly, things are changing. In the end, it will be on land, or it wont be here at all. Do you eat the fish? If so, i hope not more than once a month, cause it is loaded with chemicals. Sounds like the **** i want to feed my family! I bet, none of the people who work at those farms eat the fish, because they know whats in them.
 
Sockeye;

The barrel of your verbal-cannon is worn and bent, and I sense with each post an increased cadence of desperation in your voice.

A prediction: Soon you, too, will run from this forum in disgrace and join the likes of Barbender and others who've trolled here promoting this filth.

More to come before the Election...
 
Again LH I see how this fiorum works. Agree with the great unwashed and you are heralded a hero. Disagree and you are spreading filth.

What happens when you ban the fish farms and the salmon do not recover? Because this is what is going to happen. You had better be ready to answer those questions. DFO banned commercial salmon fishing on the east coast in 1985, saying that was the cause of the salmon populations dropping. Guess what, it wasn't and there are very few salmon left. They were so sure about this that they shut down their hatcheries, and cut funding to programs. Do you see what happens when you hang your hat on a single root cause in a population dynamic?

Fish farms may have a small impact on the environment they occupy, but wide spread population affecting impacts is ludicrous to suggest. They simply do not have the scope that such activities as overfishing, development, commercial fisheries have. Start using your common sense if you have any and take your blinders off. A lot of very learned people have said that salmon farming and wild salmon can co exist. The few but very media prolific people who disagree mostly are getting paid to disagree, and are sucking in good passionate people such as yourself with their "filth".

I would suggest you educate yourself, visit a farm or several. Go talk to the companies and find out what they are doing, and are willing or able to do if someone would simply come and open the discussion.

I urge all the people on this forum: Don't condemn what you don't understand, don't take someone's word for it, find out for yourself.
 
Haha, nice try sockeye. I have seen enough fish farms and so have quite a few who argued with you here in other threads. Science is not with you and you and most here know this.
quote:What happens when you ban the fish farms and the salmon do not recover?
Well, at least we then eliminated one relevant factor - one by one we will take them on... And we start with the most useless environment harming business. By the way, ludicrous is saying that land-based farming can't be done. You are just too cheap to invest some $ - at the expense of our salmon. That attitude will stop very soon. The technology is long there to move farms on land and if you can't sell your lousy product for a few cents more per pound maybe you are producing the wrong product. Failed business plan I would say. BTW, if you are really interested send me a plan and I design you a land-based facility that will not need much energy and will work fine and simple. If you were seriously looking into this you would see it's actually not that hard but of course if you deal with technical staff as "credible" as the lousy scientist you cite then all is hopeless...

Nice work Terry. Soon we will have them where they belong.
 
Chris,

You have not idea of what you are talking about. The technolgoy does not exist to make onshore farms viable from an evironmental aspect. They are WORSE than net pens. Net pens properly sited and managed are the most environmentally friendly culture method. I personally have operated 3 closed containment farms, I know how they operate and the tremendous power bills associated with them. I would like to see your plan, cause if it works you could become quite rich selling it to the farming companies.

Rico,

What mess are we in? According to DFO salmon runs in the broughtopn are at average levels for the last 40 years, and actually have been MORE ABUNDANT SINCE FARMING BEGAN. Salmon runs in Alaska and California and Oregon are very low trhis year. They don't have any farms Ever wonder why they are so low? Maybe just maybe the farms are not the problem.
What chemicals are they loaded with? I would like to see if you know what you are talking about.
 
CTV.ca News Staff

Flame-retardant chemicals that may harm human health are found in higher levels in farmed salmon than in wild salmon, says a new study.
Researchers studied samples from 700 farmed Atlantic salmon and wild Pacific salmon from around the world, examining levels of chemicals known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers). PBDEs are a group of flame-retardant chemicals used in electronics, upholstery, plastics and other products.

HEALTH RISKS - Farmed salmon have higher levels of dioxins
and PCBs than wild salmon do. These contaminants increase your
risk of cancer and should be avoided by children and pregnant
women.

CHEMICALS & COLOURANTS - Because they don’t
benefit from a natural diet, the flesh of farmed salmon is grey.
Colourants are added to their feed to turn them a “salmon” pink.

We are maximising human exposure to these chemicals by promoting an artificial food chain.

A 2004 study in Science showed that concentrations of contaminants are significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild, and that eating farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the positive effects of fish consumption.
 
Back
Top