New Fed. Report says should explore moving Fish Farms to Land

[Jesse B.]

reality and virtual reality

Salmon farming could soon be conducted using cultured algae to provide omega 3's ect. and all fishmeal could come from commercial discards and offal from processing wild fish.
Would it be OK then?
I see technology being utilised/created for the recovery and use of "waste" products from other fisheries, or new forms of feed production, happening long before the challenges of taking fish out the ocean are overcome.

The bulk of money made in salmon farm production is made by harvesting wild fish, only small amounts are made by selling farmed salmon. Highly unlikely the industry would continue to exist if the commercial harvest for feed ended. Fishmeal discards and algae are for now pipe dreams.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Here's just few links- ed-u-macate yerself CK:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060046
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2293942/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1591297/
http://www.esf.edu/efb/limburg/Fish...i_07_Wild_salmon_decline_from_aquaculture.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15277.full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1629/3141.full
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/Publications 2009/Krkosek-Morton-Volpe-Lewis-Sea-lice(1).pdf
http://medwayriversalmonassociation...n_Net_Pen_Salmon_Aquaculture_March_1_2012.pdf
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Science-Bibliography_Jan11.pdf
http://salmoncoast.org/publications
http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/sites/default/files/SeaLouseUpdate2009.pdf

I find it hard to believe you don't know how to access Google.

Seen those, my Google works just fine - If those are what you consider the absolute proof that salmon farms harm wild populations you might also want to consider that peer review weeds out flawed mathematical models such as Krkosek's, and even Morton's own findings showed Chinook numbers in the Broughton Archipelago increased in the decade after farms showed up:

(She was researching whales back then, looking at acoustical harassment devices on farms - which haven't been used in years now: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/71.full.pdf )
Seems she has a fairly selective memory.
That's not to mention the pinks that were supposed to go extinct, and that 2010 Fraser sockeye run.
The point is - A theory is fine and dandy, but if nature doesn't agree, it's wrong.

[/QUOTE]
Cohen is cautious - he is a judge. He did identify the need for more studies and the application of the precautionary principle. [/QUOTE]


I don't even know what to make of this.
If all your papers carried any weight and actually had anything to do with BC salmon Cohen would have been all over farmers - and the scientific community and fish professionals would have been in complete agreement from day one, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The fact is there is not even close to any scientific certainty that these theories hold up to the reality of the situation.
Just because they agree with your view you take them as gospel.
(Insert government/industry conspiracy response here)

[/QUOTE]
Ya - fine for the fish farmers. [/QUOTE]

Fine for everyone - in 30 years there hasn't been any trends attributed to salmon farms, people keep on fishing away and life in the oceans carries on.
All this risk and precaution talk about salmon farms today goes out the window when you combine:
Management, practices and regulations that currently govern the salmon farming industry which has evolved over 30 odd years
The fact that Atlantics were introduced the Pacific 100 years ago, Brown trout have established populations in BC, Washington State had about a decade head start on BC in farming Atlantics, AND all were done without the fish health knowledge we have today.

When is this catastrophe supposed to happen?

Only now that someone has now decided to use the scary and hard to disprove element of disease in their attack on the BC salmon farming industry?

The current situation is not new - it is only new to some, and all the elements have been in play for varying lengths of time.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

The bulk of money made in salmon farm production is made by harvesting wild fish, only small amounts are made by selling farmed salmon. Highly unlikely the industry would continue to exist if the commercial harvest for feed ended. Fishmeal discards and algae are for now pipe dreams.

Please explain how you see this working.

It seems to me that farmers pay for feed components, then make the feed for the salmon, which is then fed to the salmon until they are large enough to sell, whereby they recover the money spent on feed, infrastructure, labour and energy used to get the fish to market.

Most of the companies are vertically integrated - meaning they make the feed that is fed to the fish on the farms that they own and then send the fish to be processed in their own plants.

I have never seen the harvesting of wild fish inlcluded in any companies structure - it is a seperate entity managed by entirely different people, and farmers are customers.

Because that essential component of feed is a cost - and a considerable one - there is constant R+D being done to find alternative sources.

Some good links:

http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect/ewos-content-group/ewos-group/sustainability/sourcing/
http://www.ewos.com/wps/wcm/connect...os-group/sustainability/alternative-proteins/

 

[Dave]

Gawd, I admire your tenacity!! A few of us who posted such information or opinions earlier in these discussions were asked to leave, stop posting, eff off, and my favourite, go home to my mother... and mostly the slagging did it's job and we left.
Your skin is obviously thick and your brain fully functioning; hope you continue this stuff CK!

Bottom line is, as we and some responders to these posts know, is there is zero defensible data to show wild salmon mortalities, other than sea lice on pink salmon fry in the Broughton, that can be linked to salmon farms in BC. None.

I believe the newly formed PSF- DFO research initiative will show this and finally put this debate to bed but, that will take years. Until then we will continue to kill wild salmon in sports, aboriginal and commercial fisheries, and more habitat will be destroyed and most likely pipelines will be constructed. But blaming salmon farms will continue and fill Fish and Game club meetings and Morton gatherings.

Get your head around the fact WE are killing too many of these fish.

 

[Gunsmith]

Have you ever seen grass growing in a cattle feed lot?

Please explain the positive impacts that open net pen feed lots provide to our aquatic and surrounding environments.......holmes*

 

[Jesse B.]

WE are the 1000 cuts

Gawd, I admire your tenacity!! A few of us who posted such information or opinions earlier in these discussions were asked to leave, stop posting, eff off, and my favourite, go home to my mother... and mostly the slagging did it's job and we left.
Your skin is obviously thick and your brain fully functioning; hope you continue this stuff CK!

Bottom line is, as we and some responders to these posts know, is there is zero defensible data to show wild salmon mortalities, other than sea lice on pink salmon fry in the Broughton, that can be linked to salmon farms in BC. None.

I believe the newly formed PSF- DFO research initiative will show this and finally put this debate to bed but, that will take years. Until then we will continue to kill wild salmon in sports, aboriginal and commercial fisheries, and more habitat will be destroyed and most likely pipelines will be constructed. But blaming salmon farms will continue and fill Fish and Game club meetings and Morton gatherings.

Get your head around the fact WE are killing too many of these fish.

It would be unwise to keep promoting the expantion of seapen fish farms. Whenever animals are densly populated and stressed there is a greater risk of virul outbreaks. Some companies do their best to control outbreaks, others go about it with dumping even more fish in to mitigate their loss. All fish carry disease, all farmed animals can pose great risks of infections, virul outbreaks and parasitic outbreaks. Sadly the exceptable level of loss and risk our own goverment and beauocrats places on our wild stocks are and will continue to drop. We must break this cycle.

 

[Jesse B.]

Pasture not feed lot

Have you ever seen grass growing in a cattle feed lot?

Really? You eat beef from feed lots! That's gross! You do know it's being digested in your body, do you hate your body?

 

[agentaqua]

CK: WOW! You're really scrambling trying to find any nuggets you can to make yourself feel better about your industry's impacts. Guess I would be too if I were in your shoes. Maybe I am just too stubborn and proud to let greed cause my moral compass to veer. Maybe I should relent and get on the making money bandwagon like all good little investors, eh?

Well, stupid as it may sound to the ears of some selfish, short-sighted corporate boosters – I did mean what I posted earlier – even though you cynically called it “waxing poetic”. I guess it really does illustrate the vast gulf between those who are socially conscious and those who just want to make a quick buck.

I believe after reading up and educating myself on these issues – that open net-cage salmon farming technology HAS TO GO. The long-term impacts are way too severe for wild stocks.

I believe that for some years and for some stocks – that there is enough extra abundance and resilience in their numbers that they can take the extra impacts that are imposed upon them by the open net-cage industry, in addition to all the other impacts (real and imagined) that you list in an attempt to exonerate your industry.

BUT over a long time frame – those extra farm-based impacts have serious implications over the survival of localized stocks, and the access that humans and other creatures have to take advantage of the wild salmon resource.

The reason fish farms are targeted is that there is no real reason for the open net-cage technology to be used – there are other slightly more financially costly (to the shareholders of the corporations) technology. The costs to the public and the public resources would drop to near zero, or at least tolerable.

This is where my issue lies with fish farming. Would we be having this conversation if fish farming switched to closed containment no matter the financial cost?

NO – instead industry pundits lie, exaggerate, delay, distract, and STEAL the future from us. That's what your last posting was about – distraction.

Yes, we can argue the finer points of where, when and how open net-cage salmon farming impacts or doesn't impact wild stocks.

BUT at the base of that argument is a stark realization is that we don't have to have that argument. Fish farms should be forced to go closed containment. IF that were the only technology available – you would still make money and survive.

Instead, you and your industry are SO VESTED in running your operations the way you want IRRESPECTIVE of your impacts and the needs of society – that you are not listening or even care to.

That is why I have no faith that people like you are open enough to have a real debate. Maybe you personally are – or maybe not - if you are really vested in swallowing and spewing the BS from the salmon farmers assn.

Your industry however is NOT interested in having open dialogue or having anyone look to closely at your operations. The saying goes – if you have nothing to hide then why would you hide, then?

The truth is if there were a single place in the world that ever accommodated robust salmon stocks interacting with the open net-cage industry – I am totally convinced that those same industry pundits would be clamouring over themselves to preach the gospel of an example of good corporate fish farm behaviour.

Sadly, this has never happened because fish farms impact wild stocks world-wide. Ford, Krkosek and other authors have demonstrated and published this in numerous peer-reviewed articles that you obviously want NOT to believe.

Just mouthing the words from the farm PR firms: “junk science” does not make it so – although it may make you feel better.

Either you believe in science and the peer-review process or you don't. You can't “believe” in peer-review when you believe a particular article or author supports your position, and then suddenly “unbelieve” and try to trash the peer-review process to try to mitigate the damage caused by the implications of the research of another.

It's childish, unprofessional and is rife with ignorance. It also doesn't treat the legitimate concerns of the public with respect, openness and transparency. That is why there is so much resentment towards your industry – because of this persuasive ignorant, paternalistic attitude.

We can have a debate over some of the finer points you mentioned – but at this point – I feel that your inability to accept the science and the critiques (the other point of view) limits how fruitful that debate will be. I am unconvinced that my time and effort will be well spent if you still believe in a flat world.

 

[tincan]

x2. Very well said agentaqua. I'm sure the response you receive from CK will be another attempt to distract from all of the good points you made and try to turn the argument towards infighting, etc.

 

[Gunsmith]

So you would compare salmon raised in net pens the same as free range cattle? Me thinks something does not add up.

Really? You eat beef from feed lots! That's gross! You do know it's being digested in your body, do you hate your body?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

You kow what guys?
I'm fine being called a "selfish, short-sighted corporate booster" who "let greed cause my moral compass to veer" in order to join the "good little investors" - by folks who go out and kill wild salmon for money, or just for fun.
(Disclaimer - I too fish for sport and and food, but I can acknowledge the impact that this has on wild stocks)
Maybe you should look in the mirror and really take a hard look at who might actually be "those who are socially conscious and those who just want to make a quick buck."
I would suggest that you consider the following:
Your feelings or righteousness seem to make you think that your side of the argument is automatically right, and that all opposing evidence comes from a position of greed, where corporate interests trump sustainability and the future wellbeing of our coast.
By making this assumption you effectively disregard the hearts and minds of thousands of people in the industry who share the same passion for the wellbeing and productive future of the waters we share and hold dear.
Just because you feel otherwise it does not mean that you are entitled to dictate how others choose to provide for their families and create a sustainable future for BC where there are plenty of both wild and farmed salmon to provide for ALL interested parties.
I find your argument is "childish, unprofessional and is rife with ignorance" and will continue to challenge you to provide evidence to support your view that wild salmon runs have declined due to the presence of salmon farms.
I don't care if you don't like the idea of farming salmon - I think it is the only way we will have enough fish to feed everyone who wants to eat salmon. (Telling them they can't won't work)
I don't care if you think it should be done on land - I think it should be done in the ocean where "green" energy makes it incredibly efficient.
I don't care if you post papers with unproven theories and tenuous links to supposed impacts -If there is no matching evidence in the natural world they are all bunk.

The short of it is - The only way to tell if salmon farms are actually having an impact on wild runs would be to stop all other human impacts and then compare survival over a number of generations between areas with and without farms.

That means everyone stops fishing (for salmon and everything they eat), stops impacting spawning grounds and rearing habitat, and leaves everything to settle.

Until then you will have to deal with the fact that despite all your feelings of certainty,until nature cooperates with you and shows the world that what you propose is actually happening - you will simply be an opinionated fisherman bitching about something you don't like.

 

[Foxsea]

You know what guys?
....
I don't care...I don't care...I don't care...

We do care.

The short of it is - The only way to tell if salmon farms are actually having an impact on wild runs would be to ....

...get them out of the ocean!

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Alrighty then, here we go!

Until the sport and commercial INDUSTRY can show that they cooperatively work to replace every single salmon they remove from wild populations - they really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing another industry that provides an alternative product to their own. (I know, the SPORT element isn't there, but work with me here)

Especially when one side has a kill count, and the other does not.

There is obviously a lot of feelings on either side, but unless the anti-aquaculture crowd starts working with numbers (like the rest of the world does), and continues to work with feelings, the debate will continue to rage on.

 

[agentaqua]

CK I think you have just demonstrated to me (and the rest of the readership) how incapable you are of having a rational and respectful debate on the open net-cage topic - like many of your pro-farm contemporaries.

Society not only has the right - but the responsibility to dictate how our resources are used or (in this case): misused. So YES - we have that right to ban open net-cages CK.

In addition: humans have been harvesting fish for hundred of thousands of years and it is a far more sustainable practice than open net-pens. Your argument against sustainable harvesting (and we can debate what this looks like) is childish - only in your world does it appear to be a valid argument for continuing to impact wild stocks from open net-pens.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

HAHA, yer kidding right?..wtf are you talking about when you say until the fishing industry can replace every single salmon they remove from wild populations???..WE DONT HAVE TO, have you heard of these things called hatcheries?, have you heard of catch and release?, who exactly are you referrring to as "Anti-aquaculture"???...why do you continue to hammer the point that the world is so in need of farmed atlantic salmon?, THE WORLD IS NOT....its not about supplying an alternative product, they are about MAKING MONEY AT THE COST OF MORE THAN JUST SALMON POPULATIONS IN AN UNNECESSARY FASHION....GET IT???????....your justification holds ZERO WATER, spin it however you want, you are only adding more fuel to the anti open net-pen lice farm salmon feed-lot movement...holmes*


LICE FARMS NEGATIVELY IMPACT FAR MORE THAN WILD SALMON STOCKS!!!

Thanks Holmes - you've expressed your opinion that you feel salmon farming is unneccesary quite well.

Hatcheries are exactly what I am talking about when I say "replace" salmon - until the removal of fish is equalled by the introduction of fish, there is negative impact on wild runs.

Catch and release could negate the "Sport" element, thank you - but that would still leave all the kills.

As I said before, unless there are numbers to show that it actually harms wild salmon stocks - it is just your opinion.

 

[GDW]

There are numbers CL a whole bunch of links were posted a page or two ago regarding the impacts of salmon farms on wild runs you mostly ignored them though and continue to link the pro fish farm sites (developed by fish farmers).

How come no non profit groups are fighting for fish farms only against them? Paid lobbyists fight for fish farms volunteers fight against them. If fish farms were helping volunteers would be supporting them just like they do other projects that help wild salmon.

Go back a few pages and read the links there is evidence there you don't want to see or acknowledge.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

CK I think you have just demonstrated to me (and the rest of the readership) how incapable you are of having a rational and respectful debate on the open net-cage topic - like many of your pro-farm contemporaries.

Society not only has the right - but the responsibility to dictate how our resources are used or (in this case): misused. So YES - we have that right to ban open net-cages CK.

In addition: humans have been harvesting fish for hundred of thousands of years and it is a far more sustainable practice than open net-pens. Your argument against sustainable harvesting (and we can debate what this looks like) is childish - only in your world does it appear to be a valid argument for continuing to impact wild stocks from open net-pens.

I thought I was "having a rational and respectful debate" - I haven't been calling anyone names, or alluding to questionable morals driven by greed was I?

I simply pointed out the fact that wild fish are impacted by people killing and eating them - and to disregard that in favour of attacking another use of the ocean for something that you have no real evidence of occurring, might be something that would take further consideration.

Society does have "the responsibility to dictate how our resources are used" and that use is dictated by many factors - empirical evidence and scientific methodolgy is used to balance environmental and socioeconomic needs.

Just because you feel that aquaculture is a misuse of resources and space, it does not mean that the rest of us have to fall in line.

Your perception of risk has no bearing on the reality of the situation, and you may prefer to call it a conspiracy and blame greed and evil industry shareholders - but the reality is that not everyone sees the situation through your eyes, and the longer aquaculture and wild fisheries coexist (we've past 30 years now - just sayin') the harder it is going to be to argue that farms are bad for wild salmon.

 

[fortyfour]

CK the burden of proof is on you and your industry.

 

[GDW]

the longer aquaculture and wild fisheries coexist (we've past 30 years now - just sayin') the harder it is going to be to argue that farms are bad for wild salmon.

So what your saying is because fish farms don't decimate wild populations to the brink of extinction they are ok? Our wild fish have to die off before you'll accept fish farms don't belong on their migration routes? Thank god most people don't see it your way and are trying to do something BEFORE the wild fish are gone.

Stocks are hurting all over but because a few survive this is proof fish farms have no impact? Why do your farms use anti lice medicine? Because they sell better in market when more chemicals are used or is it because its been proven lice infestation on fish farms killed millions of smolts? If there is another reason do explain.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

There are numbers CL a whole bunch of links were posted a page or two ago regarding the impacts of salmon farms on wild runs you mostly ignored them though and continue to link the pro fish farm sites (developed by fish farmers).

How come no non profit groups are fighting for fish farms only against them? Paid lobbyists fight for fish farms volunteers fight against them. If fish farms were helping volunteers would be supporting them just like they do other projects that help wild salmon.

Go back a few pages and read the links there is evidence there you don't want to see or acknowledge.

I have seen, and do acknowledge, the work that has been undertaken under the assumption that aquaculture negatively impacts wild stocks.
What I do not acknowledge is that this shows "evidence" of harm, and more importantly, this was also looked at by Justice Cohen in his report, leading him to make the following statement:
"there is no evidence proving causation between any stressor related to salmon farming and the decline of Fraser River sockeye"

That being said, why is it that people demand transparency from aquaculture, and when it is provided through "pro fish farm sites (developed by fish farmers)" it is disregarded?

It was mentioned elsewhere that DFO is also working on providing the public with comprehensive data regarding fish health, sea lice and other aquaculture issues - is this to be summarily dismissed as "pro fish farm" as well?

At some point those who oppose aquaculture must realise that they have a serious case of confirmation bias when it comes to what they choose to believe, and accept the fact that it might be a little counter-productive to label anyone who puts forward something that chalenges your views as a liar, industry shill, or apologist (not that you have here - just to name a few)

Your idea that "Paid lobbyists fight for fish farms volunteers fight against them" is simply a false generalization.

There is plenty of money in the environmental activist industry which chooses to target aquaculture, and to summarily lump pro and anti like that does not work.

Salmon farm companies employ many people who actively volunteer their time with enhancement groups, and the companies themselves fund many beneficial activities.
For example:
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/people_donations.php
http://www.mainstreamcanada.com/new-hope-sarita-chinook-thanks-salmon-farmers-0