This should get some attention......

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by Summer Steel

Originally posted by handee



So, let me see if I understand your argument here. You say we should embrace fish farming to protect wild salmon populations, even though there IS at least SOME evidence that fish farms ARE causing harm to those same populations?? I would think faced with these circumstances, you would be advocating expanding fish farming to enclosed land based operations ONLY. After all, if you are truly concerned with wild salmon populations, then why would you advocate a method of farming ( open net pens ) that could even pose a possible threat to wild stocks?? Why even take a chance?? Why not err on the side of caution & give the wild fish every bit of help we could?? Why is it so hard to take all fish farming operations off the water & put them on land?? Please don't tell me it is just because of the cost. If making the farming industry 100% safe isn't cost effective, then maybe it just isn't worthwhile. At what point does profit finally not become more important than the risk involved?? Is it really worth it to roll the dice with open net pen farming in the hopes that it isn't effecting the wild stocks??

No you dont see my argument i said fish farming is not a possible threat I said sea lice could be a vector along with everything else including wood and it doesnt matter because the wild fish are already infected. There is no risk because they are the source of the infection. Infection does not equal disease. If farm fish get infected they are treated or culled before they get diseased. wild fish do not infect farm salmon. cattle do not infect wild ungulates. biology 101.

There is however a significant risk from intentionally killing wild salmon for fun, profit and ceremony. There is a 100% risk that all fish killed will wind up dead. Killing wild fish does effect wild fish you see. Because it kills them. no worries about vectors or transmitters or amplifiers or causal effect or correlations or precautionary principle or closed containment or peer review papers. all the peers have reviewed it and they all agree- making wild fish dead by killing them has an impact. You see? killing wild fish makes them dead. the type of impact is called 'death'.

putting fish farms on land would be stupid even if it was possible. even small scale projects have failed miserably. and even if they succeeded talk about a footprint. it would be like growing cattle on floating barges to deal with the manure problem. Conceptually the idea is stupid and its not even worth doing a pilot study on.

However stopping fishing would immediately spare the lives of about 20 million fishies per year in BC alone. No creation of new technology or test pilots or studies required. Namely because ceasing to kill the wild salmon would, and all experts agree, lead to more of them being alive.

If you are worried about the wild salmon why not stop killing them? why take a chance or a roll of the dice when you already know that killing them kills them? which is the opposite of saving them. I suppose you are going to say the cost is too high?

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by chris73

Let me address this like a fish farmer would:

"There is no proof until 27 years worth of data is collected and analyzed (BTW, I retire in 27 years). ."

Wow, Chris73, wow.

Im not suggesting we wait for 27 years for proof. Iam suggesting we wait for SOME evidence we have a problem related to fish farms. So far the highest paid activists cannot even show a correlation let alone a causation between salmon returns and fish farm. That means peer reviewed papers have found, including those done by the activists, that if the fish farm biomass stays steady from year to year the return rate of wild pinks fluctuates normally. Historical data that is on the public record shows that the best returns have occurred SINCE salmon farming started.

The only way the activists can make an argument that pink salmon return rates are linked to fish farms is if they ignore the biggest river inthe Broughton (under the auspice that it has a fish ladder,which is irrleevant) and if they ignore the return data from rivers up and down the West coast of North America which shows that Broughton populations are fluctuating like all other pink populations across space (from area to area) and time (from year to year).

Now the question is why do you fish? There is absolute proof that the more you fish the more wild fish you kill? We have 100 years of solid proof.

So to sum up: there is no evidence that fish farms are even corrleated with poor wild fish returns (au contraire) let alone causing them. On the other hand there is absolute proof that fishing kills wild salmon, ergo , more would be alive if we didnt fish.

 

[agentaqua]

handee, you wrote:

quote:

Morton used dipnets in her "seminal" study on Sea lice. She now states on her own website that this method was ridiculous- however she clings to the conclusions that she made based on her faulty results.

Handee, I'm not sure if you understand the different capture methodologies used in fisheries science, since you so readily spout the pro-industry lines filled with BS.

There are numerous fish capture methods, with dip nets being one of the most basic and has commonly utilized for smaller-sized fish for eons in the fisheries field. There are also gill nets, trap nets, fyke nets, purse seines, trawl nets, and hook-and-line capture gear.

Yes, ALL capture methods have some bias with respect to the size and types of fish they catch. Trap and fyke nets only work in lentic waters like lakes, and most effectively capture diel-migrating fish. Purse seines and trawl nets cover larger areas, and are more suitable to schooling fish that cover large areas and are away from the shores. Hook-and-line gear captures fish of a certain size - dependent upon location of gear and size of hooks and type of bait.

If you are looking for small, shore-based fish - like small, pink smolts - the dipnet is the capture methodology of choice. Once the fish get bigger and more more offshore, you switch to purse seine or trawl net.

If the critique is that Morton caught only the diseased fish - where are the studies that show that fish swim to the surface when affected by lice? When fish die, they most often sink - which is why the open net-cage industry employs mort divers.

Why aren't you instead questioning DFO's methodology when they used a large, offshore commercial trawler (the Frostie) to capture the few pink smolts that outgrew their lice loads and made it offshore in 2001, and subsequently declared lice no problem - conviently forgetting an effect called "survivor bias".

I can only surmize you don't know any better?

You then state:" Krkosek was dressed down by 20 experts and the Paciofic Salmon Forum for the ridiculous assumptions he plugged into his computer model "study" that was published in Science. His claims of extinction flew in the face of all evidence: excellent return rates of pink salmon in the Broughton and his own conclusion in his own (other)studies that 70% of smolts survive well after exposure to salmon farms".

Actually, I read the news release from the PSF science committee that Krkosek presented to - and they agreed with him.

You then state: "Morton and Krkosek arent trying to save the wild salmon- they are marketting wild Alaska salmon- thats who pays their bills and makes themn celebrities".

Checked their funding sources - No Alaskans. Even if there was - so what?

Then: "You want peer reviewed studies paid for by the tax payer by responsible scientists who have been studying BC fisheries for decades under many administrations?"

If you mean by those "responsible scientists" DFO - the same bunch that managed the cod collapse in NFLD - No thanks. Don't want them to do any science or management here on the West Coast.

You recommend Beamish's work - where he looks at ADULT salmon - not the smaller, juvenile smolts? Simon Jones work demonstrates that the sticklebacks aren't pregnant and no source of lice, but rather a sink. You're really grasping for straw fish aren't you?

You talk about "infection does not equal disease" when sea lice are mentioned.

Well, technically sea lice are a parasite, not a disease - and infection with sea lice means a drain on the hosts resources.

For small, pink smolts - more than 0.75-1.5 lice per gram of fish means death, and less than that infection means sub-lethal effects like morbidity and decreases in growth rates which means increases in predation and population-level effects.

It seems you're not getting these important facts.

You also state:"cattle do not infect wild ungulates. biology 101</u>"

I can't speak to what biology classes you enrolled in, misunderstood, or simply missed - but cattle do infect wild ungulates and vice-versa. It is a big concern to both cattle ranchers and wildlife departments, and people that depend upon these animals.

Bovine turbecullosis, brucelossis, anthrax, hoof-and-mouth disease, etc - are all diseases known to be of concern - so much so that provincial and territorial governments in Alberta and NWT have instituted zones as barriers between domesticated cattle and wild stocks in an effort to reduce the risk of transfer.

Finally, you try to personally attack Alex Morton's credentials - since she is a marine mammal expert verses a fisheries specialist.

Okay then - Dr. Kenneth Brooks - who has tried to discredit Marty Krkosek's work - received his PhD as a Doctor of "Philosophy", while his BSc (was in physics - not biology) from Naval Postgraduate School. Why is everyone so silent on this? Anyone care to comment?

 

[sockeyefry]

Handee,

See when they do not have a intelligent response, they name call and suggest you are the one who should get educated. Actually Chris73, you should get your head out of the sand before yoru denial really does the wild salmon some harm. Your last post is a continuing example of how you discuss and debate these issues.

 

[abbyfireguy]

I would not believe everything that comes out of Pacific Salmon Forum...Quite biased and one sided info...
Take it all with a grain of salt...
Just because they lable it Peer Reviewed does not in any way make it the God's Honest Truth..Stats can and are skewed by all sides. Please don't hold them up as the only credible group doing research,because they surely are not!!

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by abbyfireguy

I would not believe everything that comes out of Pacific Salmon Forum...Quite biased and one sided info...
Take it all with a grain of salt...
Just because they lable it Peer Reviewed does not in any way make it the God's Honest Truth..Stats can and are skewed by all sides. Please don't hold them up as the only credible group doing research,because they surely are not!!

The PSF has and occassionally does good work. However, it is more telling noting what they have NOT told you verses what they have. See the posting by Agentaqua about Dr. Brian Harvey's report commissioned by the PSF at:

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=7

It's also interesting to see the who's-who of the board. See agents posting at:

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8228&whichpage=19

I believe Tony Farrell has recently resigned since.

 

[Summer Steel]

quote:Originally posted by handee

Originally posted by Summer Steel

Originally posted by handee



So, let me see if I understand your argument here. You say we should embrace fish farming to protect wild salmon populations, even though there IS at least SOME evidence that fish farms ARE causing harm to those same populations?? I would think faced with these circumstances, you would be advocating expanding fish farming to enclosed land based operations ONLY. After all, if you are truly concerned with wild salmon populations, then why would you advocate a method of farming ( open net pens ) that could even pose a possible threat to wild stocks?? Why even take a chance?? Why not err on the side of caution & give the wild fish every bit of help we could?? Why is it so hard to take all fish farming operations off the water & put them on land?? Please don't tell me it is just because of the cost. If making the farming industry 100% safe isn't cost effective, then maybe it just isn't worthwhile. At what point does profit finally not become more important than the risk involved?? Is it really worth it to roll the dice with open net pen farming in the hopes that it isn't effecting the wild stocks??

"No you dont see my argument i said fish farming is not a possible threat I said sea lice could be a vector along with everything else including wood and it doesnt matter because the wild fish are already infected. There is no risk because they are the source of the infection. Infection does not equal disease. If farm fish get infected they are treated or culled before they get diseased. wild fish do not infect farm salmon. cattle do not infect wild ungulates. biology 101."







So, you are saying that fish farming is 100% safe?? All the problems there has been in places like Norway, Scotland, Chile, etc. were just aberrations?? Figments of peoples imaginations?? C'mon now, you don't really expect anybody to believe that do you?? The facts of the matter are simply that we don't know the long term effects that raising farmed salmon will have on wild populations in our ecosystem. To just plow ahead saying everything is alright, don't worry is simply foolish. Same approach they took with east coast cod; Don't worry, there are lots of them, they will never be fished out. Look at how that worked out.




"putting fish farms on land would be stupid even if it was possible. even small scale projects have failed miserably. and even if they succeeded talk about a footprint. it would be like growing cattle on floating barges to deal with the manure problem. Conceptually the idea is stupid and its not even worth doing a pilot study on."



In other words, it would affect the profit margin too much. Seems to be a theme somewhere here. Lets explore further.






"Thwever a significant risk from intentionally killing wild salmon for fun, profit and ceremony. There is a 100% risk that all fish killed will wind up dead. Killing wild fish does effect wild fish you see. Because it kills them. no worries about vectors or transmitters or amplifiers or causal effect or correlations or precautionary principle or closed containment or peer review papers. all the peers have reviewed it and they all agree- making wild fish dead by killing them has an impact. You see? killing wild fish makes them dead. the type of impact is called 'death'.

However stopping fishing would immediately spare the lives of about 20 million fishies per year in BC alone. No creation of new technology or test pilots or studies required. Namely because ceasing to kill the wild salmon would, and all experts agree, lead to more of them being alive.

If you are worried about the wild salmon why not stop killing them? why take a chance or a roll of the dice when you already know that killing them kills them? which is the opposite of saving them. I suppose you are going to say the cost is too high?"





So, we should stop ALL forms of fishing for wild salmon & just rely on farmed fish?? Hmmm, sounds like a thinly veiled way of creating a monopoly for fish farmers to charge whatever they want for their product by getting rid of the competition. There's that profit thing again. It just keeps coming up like a bad smell. Now, it would just be an outright shame if the fish farm lobby's arguments were just a smokescreen to justify a way to make a few bucks. Especially, in this time of plenty, to think anybody would risk any harm to our wild salmon,one of this country's great natural resources for a few bucks, is very sad indeed.


Sure, people catch wild salmon for all sorts of reasons, & of course it affects the fish. Difference is, there are controls in place to monitor these fisheries & when necessary to close them. I'm not saying the DFO beauracrats get it right all the time, far from it, but their field people & biologists are some of the best in the biz, & do their best to put the interests of the fish first, not profits for businesses. These same people who partake in the catching of wild salmon are also some of the hardest working people in the fields of salmon conservation, habitat restoration, & restoration of fish populations all up & down the coast. An exemplary example of this is the great job done at Nile Creek in Qualicum by the volunteers there. These people have worked tiresly to restore an essentially dead creek to a wonderful habitat for pink & coho salmon. They are also going to try & restore the kelp beds offshore to help improve habitat for all kinds of sea life, not just the fish. I can't help but wonder, if the fish farm lobby is so concerned about the wild salmon, what projects have they undertaken to help build the runs?? Let me guess, its probably not within their jurisdiction, ergo, not their mandate. Probably isn't cost effective either.

 

[handee]

dude, there isnt a fish farm company out there that hasnt helped build salmon runs so you can kill them before they get home to spawn. do i have to list a bunch of the projects- BO-ring?

if people are eating farm salmon then they arent killing wild salmon commercially get it? Then you as a sportsfisher can go out and kill more.

Morton wants you to eat "wild" salmon so alaska keeps funding her (90% of
'wild" salmon come from alaska). And you want to kill them and eat them for sportiness. The salmon farmers are the only ones that dont have any motive to kill off the wild salmon.

 

[Nimo]

quote:Originally posted by handee

dude, there isnt a fish farm company out there that hasnt helped build salmon runs so you can kill them before they get home to spawn. do i have to list a bunch of the projects- BO-ring?

if people are eating farm salmon then they arent killing wild salmon commercially get it? Then you as a sportsfisher can go out and kill more.

Morton wants you to eat "wild" salmon so alaska keeps funding her (90% of
'wild" salmon come from alaska). And you want to kill them and eat them for sportiness. The salmon farmers are the only ones that dont have any motive to kill off the wild salmon.

According to you Handeeee, the wild salmon eat ten times their worth in ocean feed and [therefore] represent competition to the farmers (who need the feed.) According to you, the fish farmers are in direct competition with the ocean survivors that make it to marketable size. Seems to me that the farmers have a huge motivation to kill off our wild salmon stocks and their direct competition.

You keep bringing up the fact that we kill wild salmon for sport and are therefore directly responsible for their demise. Are you looking for admission? Yep...I wholeheartedly concurr, I kill salmon for sport. Get to the point...When I kill a fish I can count it..1. I can choose to not kill a fish today...0. We are regulated.

The destruction currently being caused by fish farms and the risk posed by the very existence of the filthy industry is unimaginable.

I will continue to kill fish for sport. It costs me probably about $200 per pound and may generate $500 per pound in our economy.

I will still be here in 20 years and spending today's equivalent. Meanwhile the fishfarmers will be long gone, having wreaked their smelly havoc on our stocks and abused us with their foreign corporate BS. We are not interested in any fish farmer's BS.

Seems to me we'd all be alot better off if the FFFF's would make their imminent exit a little more timely - tomorrow works.

Maybe spread it elsewhere.

 

[sockeyefry]

OMG
I can't believe you people don't get it. Salmon farms do not have the cataclismic effect on wild salmon which you have been lead to believe. The people shovelling this BS are paid to do so by the Alaskan commercial fisherman who want to assassinate their competition. You are simply good hearted people who want to protect a resource, but are being used. I suggest work with the farmers, as Handee alluded to, they already have performed many acts of conservation with regard to wild salmon conservation, and have the ability and know how to be a valuable partner if you would just open your eyes to reality.

 

[rln]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

OMG
I can't believe you people don't get it. Salmon farms do not have the cataclismic effect on wild salmon which you have been lead to believe. The people shovelling this BS are paid to do so by the Alaskan commercial fisherman who want to assassinate their competition. You are simply good hearted people who want to protect a resource, but are being used. I suggest work with the farmers, as Handee alluded to, they already have performed many acts of conservation with regard to wild salmon conservation, and have the ability and know how to be a valuable partner if you would just open your eyes to reality.

I can't believe the fish farming industry won't put the farm in a diaper and filter all the water coming out of the pen. Solves most of the problems and ends all the fear over sea lice when they can't transfer from farms to wild salmon. Seems pretty simple on the outside

 

[handee]

actually its not simple, its virtually impossible- along the same lines as trying to grow all our wheat in greenhouses to prevent cross pollination with wild grasses.

and why solve problems we dont have? even in the lab, at 1000% higher doses than natural levels, we cant make sea lice kill juvenile pacific salmon. the salmon returns in the Broughton are fluctuating normally compared with other areas and compared with their historical averages.

 

[sockeyefry]

Concerned?

That's your reply is it? Name calling because they don't agree with you, but provide little else to the discussion.

 

[rln]

quote:Originally posted by handee

actually its not simple, its virtually impossible- along the same lines as trying to grow all our wheat in greenhouses to prevent cross pollination with wild grasses.

and why solve problems we dont have? even in the lab, at 1000% higher doses than natural levels, we cant make sea lice kill juvenile pacific salmon. the salmon returns in the Broughton are fluctuating normally compared with other areas and compared with their historical averages.

is there not a guy starting to use a floating fiberglass tub to prove it can be done somewhere around campbell river?
I would guess what you deem as being no problems others do, so it would appear to be a matter of differing opinions. 2 sides claiming that their info is the right info so it most likely falls somewhere in between. I do guess there is no reason to err on the side of caution, just doesn't make good business sense to do that. Help wipe out other industries that are worth many jobs and dollars to have fish farming take their place so some one can claim how we need all those jobs because the other ones are gone.

 

[handee]

quote:Originally posted by Concerned Angler

Yes-- Sockeye fry-- you are right. I should not call you guys jokes...


You fish farm shills are WORSE than jokes... you are enemies of our salmon stocks and I see no reason why I should be nice.

I dont need to debate-- I see you for what you guys are.

I see, no critical thinking required? You are either a believer or an infidel, no debate.


PUH-leese.

 

[Rum Buddies]

why are these clowns still allowed to post, its really getting desperate and not creating a very nice atmosphere around here.

 

[sockeyefry]

Poppa,

Last time I checked this was a free country.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:and why solve problems we dont have? even in the lab, at 1000% higher doses than natural levels, we cant make sea lice kill juvenile pacific salmon. the salmon returns in the Broughton are fluctuating normally compared with other areas and compared with their historical averages

Mind giving us the author and name of the study you mention, Handee?

 

[squrlferbait]

quote:Originally posted by handee

quote:Originally posted by Striper Sniper

I believe this was in one of the Vancouver rags.....

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=15f5e452-6d8f-4fed-ae54-a0b8917584f5

SS

This story was done by anti salmon farmer Stephen Hume. He even co -wrote an anti salmon farming book. He is one reason why we get such a biased slant in the Sun. The Globe and Mail publishes stories that cast doubt on the Alaska funded litany against salmon farming but not the Sun.

Here's the thing that journalists and the laymen public dont get: infection does not equal disease. If you are infected you are not necesaarily sick. 99% of wild fish are infected with over 300 species of sea lice. Reporters and the public do not get this distinction. One more time for the gipper: infection does not equal disease.

Wild salmon, ungulates and birds infect farm salmon, farm ungulates and farm birds. NOT, the other way around. Why? Because farmers manage their stocks and there are regulations that require farmers to kill stock if certain bugs are detected- the only animals threatened here are farm animals. During avian flu crisis if a small percentage of the population is infected 100% of the population will be destroyed. Not to protect the wild, but to protect future generations of farm animals. The wild dont need protecting because they are ALREADY INFECTED, THEY ARE THE SOURCE OF THE INFECTION. 90% of the avian flu chickens killed were sold into the market and they were 100% healthy.

If you don't understand the difference between disease and infection you will be perpetually duped by reporters and activist that are trying to push your buttons with idiot stories like these.

The theory that farms "amplify disease" makes no sense. The worse place for a bug or a sea lice to live is on a farm. why? Because the animals or fish, unlike the wild, are not under stress and they are managed. By managed I mean if they get sick they are treated, if the treatment does not work they are killed. Even Krkosek says that SLICE is highly effective treatment of sea lice.

Mad cow, hoof and mouth, avian flu are all disease that threaten FARM animals. Sea Lice is a different story because they are not an issue for farmed fish or wild fish. Its very difficult to kill a salmon with sea lice. Morton claims (in media) that she can, but the truth is in her published work where she is forced to confess- in the footnotes. Studies done by the Pacific Salmon Forum show that only at 10x natural levels (or 30x farm levels) can you even measure an effect.

When you see a salmon smolt covered in sea lice you must ask yourself: is the fish infected? yes. Is it sick? You don't know. If you do tests and discover it is sick then the next question is what came first the sickness or the lice infection. Morton doesnt stae this relationship, she just holds up the picture and lets the layman public jump to their own conclusions. Even in her own study, she found that the biggest healthiest juveniles carried the most sea lice. Thus the infection did not indicate disease, but it indicated "time spent in saltwater". A slightly less dramatic conclusion than "they are all going to die!".

As long as you think that infection equals disease and correlation equals cause and effect you are a nice gullible member of the public who will be duped by a whole range of things. You may even get duped into thinking that we have to eat wild salmon in order to save them.

Hume's a big environmental writer, seems to like to cover his bases that's for sure. Funny i should acturlly find his name in this posting