What can WE do to help save the salmon?

I'm not up to anything. As stated, I just came for the question, one even Charlie agreed was reasonable. Foxsea stepped in and got the troll schtick started, mob mentality took over and here we are. There's been enough strawmen built to use a section's worth of hay and I think the troll word has been worn out.

It's been enlightening to say the least, but I'm about done since the whole point now seems to be to pick fights about salmon farms and as I have stated repeatedly, I've no interest in the kind of pissing contests this place is notorious for. I'm a firm believer that everyone has a right to their own opinion whether I agree with it or not but that doesn't seem to be the culture here.

So you are done.

We really should be thanking you for providing the kind of motivation it takes to overcome the legendary apathy of sports fishermen who would rather just go fishing. It’s what we do when we want to get away from stress. It takes a lot to spur us to action but you have managed to focus our attention squarely on Fish Farms like no other. That may be good for wild salmon but I am not sure how your fish farm buddies are going to feel about it.

Over 300,000 salt water license are sold in BC. If you keep kicking a sleeping giant you have to be prepared for it to wake up. How about one last reference to us as adolescent baboons on your way out the door.
 
So you are done.

We really should be thanking you for providing the kind of motivation it takes to overcome the legendary apathy of sports fishermen who would rather just go fishing.
Over 300,000 salt water license are sold in BC. If you keep kicking a sleeping giant you have to be prepared for it to wake up. How about one last reference to us as adolescent baboons on your way out the door.

Yeah - thanks for the memories abs...and please don't let the door hit you too hard in the butt on your way through. As a parting favour can you put us on your "do not call" list?

Okay - back to the subject: "What can we do to help save the wild salmon?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I did, as your original question was valid and it was answered! However, YOU are the one that continued down this road - NOT me! So, now I ask...


absolon, no response to the question I asked? ... Really? ............ Really?

Do you agree or not agree... ATLANTIC FISH FARMS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE "WILD" SALMON MIGRATION ROUTES?

Really! You're the guy that came out with tail feathers in full display and took our conversation down this road.

BRING IT ON!.......................LOL!
 
No, it means, as I have stated innumerable times.........Really! You don't get an answer!
Wait... YOU "DEMAND" an answer from me... and then "YOU" tell me I don't get an answer?

I suggest you attend this! LOL

540177_10150779546506253_745511252_12088762_625626226_n.jpg

Oh btw... "YOU" just keep bringing it on! LOL
 
No, it means, as I have stated innumerable times.........Really! You don't get an answer!
Really? I don't need an answer:

Wednesday, Apr 18 2012
Salmon health alert
By SEAN POULTER, Daily Mail

Scientists Issued a devastating new warning last night about the safety of Scottish farmed salmon.

They said the fish is so contaminated with toxic chemicals it should be eaten no more than three times a year.

The chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and birth defects, come from the feed used in fish farms. The findings could have a shattering impact on the £700million-a-year Scottish salmon farming industry, which supports some 6,500 jobs.

Sales of salmon soared as farming brought prices down and the health benefits of oily fish emerged. It has overtaken cod as the best-selling fresh fish in Britain - and 98 per cent comes from Scottish farms.
Salmon farmers there branded the latest study "deliberately misleading" last night while the Food Standards Agency said the levels of pollutants were within safety limits used by Britain, the EU and the World Health Organisation.

Its chairman Sir John Krebs said the health benefits of eating oily fish outweighed any risk.
But Dr Jeffery Foran, an American toxicologist involved in the study, said neither he nor his family would eat farmed salmon again after what he discovered.

Poullutants
The project - based at the University of Albany in New York state - looked at pollutant levels in farmed and wild salmon bought in Britain, Europe and North America.

Previous small-scale studies had identified a contamination risk, but this is by far the biggest and most comprehensive study.

Researchers measured the levels of industrial pollutants - PCBs and dioxins - and agricultural pesticides such as toxaphene and dieldrin.

They examined 700 fish, some bought in London supermarkets and some direct from Scottish farms. The highest concentrations were found in fish from Scotland and the Faroe Islands.

Dr Foran said this may be because their feed contains oil recovered from the ground-up bodies of tiny sea life harvested in the North Atlantic - a dumping ground for decades for manmade toxins. Fish from Norway also performed badly.

The study, published in the respected U.S. journal Science, concluded: "The consumption advice is that no more than one meal every four months should be consumed in order to avoid an increased risk of cancer." Even smaller amounts, it suggested, could trigger harmful effects to brain function and the immune system.

Dr Foran said: "All the compounds we were looking for are classified as probable carcinogens. The evidence from comprehensive animal studies points to a range of cancers including liver, breast, lymphatic and thyroid.
"There are a variety of other health effects, particularly in relation to PCBs.

"They include reproductive and developmental effects. There are also neurological, brain function effects and immune system effects."

All the fish tested was in fillets, but the findings apply equally to smoked salmon. Almost all tinned salmon, however, is produced from wild fish which have only low levels of pollution.

"Benefits outweigh risks"
Despite the startling results of the survey, the FSA said it was sticking by its advice to consumers. Sir John Krebs said: "People should consume at least two portions of fish a week - one of which should be oily like salmon.
"There is good evidence that eating oily fish reduces the risk of death from heart attacks. We advise that the known benefits outweigh any possible risks."

Scottish Quality Salmon, which represents farmers, said the researchers had been wrong to use strict guidelines drawn up by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency rather than those used elsewhere in the world.
Technical consultant Dr John Webster said: "PCB and dioxin levels in Scottish salmon are significantly lower than the thresholds set by international watchdogs".

The organisation said its members apply "the most stringent independently inspected quality assurance standards in the world".

It said feed suppliers had taken steps to minimise PCB and dioxin levels, including sourcing fish meal and oils from seas which are less polluted and switching to plant oils.

But Don Staniford of the Salmon Farm Protest Group said: "This scientific study blows out of the water the myth that farmed salmon is safe, nutritious and healthy.

"It's official - salmon is now the most contaminated foodstuff on the supermarket shelf."

Dr Dan Barlow, head of research for Friends of the Earth, said: "We have long known that farmed salmon were more heavily contaminated with toxic pollutants than their wild relatives.

"We now know Scottish-raised salmon are among the most contaminated and that the levels of contaminants may be so high as to possibly detract from the health benefits of eating fish."

Pollutants are not the only problem facing salmon farmers. Recent studies have found contamination with radioactive waste from the Sellafield nuclear plant, while there are concerns about the use of malachite green to kill parasites and infections.

There are also health fears over feeding the fish chemicals which colour their flesh pink.

Scotland's estimated 300 salmon farms produce some 160,000 tonnes of salmon a year.

Almost three-quarters of the jobs in the industry are in remote rural areas with fragile economies.

These are boosted by an estimated £1million a week in wages alone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205547/Salmon-health-alert.html#

You want more... bring it on! :eek:
 
No, it means, as I have stated innumerable times.........Really! You don't get an answer!

Or... how about this:

17 April 2012
David Suzuki Was Wrong...But at Least He Gets it Now

It’s indeed an overworked accolade but Dr. David Suzuki is a great man. In the Environmental world he is in that pantheon of heroes that include the likes of Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, Thor Heyerdahl and Jacques Cousteau. Dr. Suzuki is a scientist but is better known as the man who brought the environment into the living rooms of the world, explaining things in ways we all could understand.

In years it was unfashionable to be an environmentalist in Canada he, with the likes of Colleen McCrory, Mark Angelo, Joe Foy, Betty Krawczyk and so many others slowly but surely got the public’s attention. Dr. Suzuki’s impact is incalculable.

But great people make mistakes and usually they are great mistakes, bringing unforeseen consequences that should have been foreseen. Perhaps that’s because people are reluctant to challenge those held in such high esteem.

Dr. Suzuki not only hasn’t suffered fools gladly, he doesn’t suffer those who disagree with him. This caused great harm for those who believe that the Campbell/Clark government has done irreparable harm to BC’s environment. I’m one of those people.
I felt so strongly on this subject that I campaigned long and hard for the NDP in the May ’09 election. In that election Dr. Suzuki and the crass opportunist, Tzeporah Berman, supported the private development of rivers.

Dr. Suzuki now admits that he was wrong to think that private enterprise and environmentalists could work together to obtain the best of both worlds. In my opinion, Dr. Suzuki failed to understand that corporations don’t give a rat’s butt about the environment and only act responsibly when they’re forced to. As a former Environment Minister I could have told him that. Indeed, a corporation’s mandate is to make money for shareholders and for management and the directors to **** away profits on environmental concerns is actually a breach of the trust placed in them.

Dr. Suzuki made his commitment to capital/environmental cooperation in good faith but that doesn’t alter the fact that he wreaked great harm on the environment he has laboured so long and hard to protect.

Those of us active in trying to save rivers were in shocked disbelief when we learned of his position. In fact I was so shocked that in a public meeting I referred to him as a “pseudo-environmentalist”, a remark instantly passed on to him - but much as I admire David, I wasn’t sorry for the outburst.

How can I say that his position helped the Liberals win a close election?

Because I was there. I campaigned all around the province for the NDP and saw first hand what people thought. If David Suzuki thought that damming of our rivers to produce power was OK, well then it must be - those who disagree must be just shrill tree huggers.

The impact wasn’t, perhaps, so great in the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island but it was substantial in rural BC where many races were very close. As I spoke in rural ridings, Suzuki’s words provided an invisible critic of what I was saying.

I applaud Dr. Suzuki leaving his Foundation so that their neutral status required for them, as a charitable society, to get public funds, isn’t compromised. (As an aside, I wonder if the Fraser Institute has such a status or is bias OK for the far right?)

David Suzuki must make amends. He must look at the serious issues of fish farms, destruction of farmland, ruination of rivers for electricity we don’t need produced for the bank vaults of larger corporations, pipelines and huge tankers taking Tar Sands gunk through our precious environment and down our coast and out of Vancouver Harbour.

He doesn’t owe a damned thing to me or any other who has disagreed with his 2009 stance.

He does, however, owe a hell of a lot to his province and to the next generation and those to come.
 
No, it means, as I have stated innumerable times.........Really! You don't get an answer!

Really? Let's not forget about this:
"Although the Canadian govt denies any disease in their farmed salmon, their own Dept of fisheries and oceans and independent testing show's they're finding farmed fish full of Infectious Salmon Anemia, Heart Skeletal Muscle Inflammation Disease and an article suggesting mad cow disease may be in farmed salmon as well, since they're feeding rendered beef to salmon....since the incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, it makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult....."

"BRING IT ON" !BTW... You still laughing? LOL!:)
 
aside from kicking sand at one another, anyone have a plan for moving forward????

It's all good! ...Ever watch Olympic hockey, reelfast? Abs came off the Norwegian bench. Then Abs wanders deep into our end with no legs and now he's getting his butt handed to him. Way to lay a hit on, Charlie! Owwch!!! Abs has been checked into the morgue. As he forecast earlier today, he's pretty much done here. We're just warming up - the momentum is building! Feel it? Since 1920 Canada has won more Gold medals than any other country. Has Norway ever won anything - Gold, Silver or Bronze??? Let me check... No... er No ... and No.

Yeah we got a plan - win, ...again.
 
Or... how about this:

17 April 2012
David Suzuki Was Wrong...But at Least He Gets it Now

It’s indeed an overworked accolade but Dr. David Suzuki is a great man. In the Environmental world he is in that pantheon of heroes that include the likes of Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, Thor Heyerdahl and Jacques Cousteau. Dr. Suzuki is a scientist but is better known as the man who brought the environment into the living rooms of the world, explaining things in ways we all could understand.

In years it was unfashionable to be an environmentalist in Canada he, with the likes of Colleen McCrory, Mark Angelo, Joe Foy, Betty Krawczyk and so many others slowly but surely got the public’s attention. Dr. Suzuki’s impact is incalculable.

But great people make mistakes and usually they are great mistakes, bringing unforeseen consequences that should have been foreseen. Perhaps that’s because people are reluctant to challenge those held in such high esteem.

Dr. Suzuki not only hasn’t suffered fools gladly, he doesn’t suffer those who disagree with him. This caused great harm for those who believe that the Campbell/Clark government has done irreparable harm to BC’s environment. I’m one of those people.
I felt so strongly on this subject that I campaigned long and hard for the NDP in the May ’09 election. In that election Dr. Suzuki and the crass opportunist, Tzeporah Berman, supported the private development of rivers.

Dr. Suzuki now admits that he was wrong to think that private enterprise and environmentalists could work together to obtain the best of both worlds. In my opinion, Dr. Suzuki failed to understand that corporations don’t give a rat’s butt about the environment and only act responsibly when they’re forced to. As a former Environment Minister I could have told him that. Indeed, a corporation’s mandate is to make money for shareholders and for management and the directors to **** away profits on environmental concerns is actually a breach of the trust placed in them.

Dr. Suzuki made his commitment to capital/environmental cooperation in good faith but that doesn’t alter the fact that he wreaked great harm on the environment he has laboured so long and hard to protect.

Those of us active in trying to save rivers were in shocked disbelief when we learned of his position. In fact I was so shocked that in a public meeting I referred to him as a “pseudo-environmentalist”, a remark instantly passed on to him - but much as I admire David, I wasn’t sorry for the outburst.

How can I say that his position helped the Liberals win a close election?

Because I was there. I campaigned all around the province for the NDP and saw first hand what people thought. If David Suzuki thought that damming of our rivers to produce power was OK, well then it must be - those who disagree must be just shrill tree huggers.

The impact wasn’t, perhaps, so great in the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island but it was substantial in rural BC where many races were very close. As I spoke in rural ridings, Suzuki’s words provided an invisible critic of what I was saying.

I applaud Dr. Suzuki leaving his Foundation so that their neutral status required for them, as a charitable society, to get public funds, isn’t compromised. (As an aside, I wonder if the Fraser Institute has such a status or is bias OK for the far right?)

David Suzuki must make amends. He must look at the serious issues of fish farms, destruction of farmland, ruination of rivers for electricity we don’t need produced for the bank vaults of larger corporations, pipelines and huge tankers taking Tar Sands gunk through our precious environment and down our coast and out of Vancouver Harbour.

He doesn’t owe a damned thing to me or any other who has disagreed with his 2009 stance.

He does, however, owe a hell of a lot to his province and to the next generation and those to come.

Charlie, what is the source of this article??
 
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/oceans/Unlocking+secrets+rivers/6468356/story.html

This article provides some incite as to what may need to be done to protect and restore the Fraser and enhance the production of Salmon.

Charlie – It is my impression that the Columbia River and it’s Salmon production has made a remarkable comeback with huge support from your Government.
I recall reading somewhere that around $100 million a year is spent for that purpose. As you are the acknowledged finder of facts, would you be willing to confirm what is spent on the Columbia in a year and how it breaks down. In my view the Fraser and the Columbia are somewhat similar rivers. It would very interesting to see a comparison on what the USA spends on the Columbia and what our Government is spending on the Fraser and Fraser salmon restoration and enhancement.

It would also be interesting to see how the spending correlates with results (positive outcomes for salmon populations and their availability for harvesting, especially as it relates to Chinook and Coho.

I know there are other factors at play. I recall hearing there are few fish farms down your way and none permitted in Alaska. Is there any move to get rid of your remaining west coast Atlantic salmon farms? Doing so would be a good example for our politicians.

I also see that the Fraser River study referred to in the hyperlinked article was mostly funded by the USA; why am I not surprised.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. It seems I was sidetracked! :)

I surely won’t dispute the Fraser is in trouble and things do need to be done there, along with most other rivers and oceans in the world. BUT, the environmental condition of the Fraser River is NOT the major problem with your salmon fishery! The major problem is what sidetracked me – those “fish farms”! FYI... the temperature of 20C (68F) degrees referred, is survivable, at 25C degrees Sockeye are - DEAD!

You want to see some rivers with some very large problems, just look at the Mississippi river, USA and Ganges river, India. Or, sorry to say in total pounds of direct toxic discharges to water in (1990-1994) the Pacific Ocean off Oregon, Hawaii, and California ranked #2 as the most polluted rivers in the U.S.
http://www.ewg.org/node/20399

Yes, the Columbia River ‘Basin’ has had a “comeback” and in some cases I would agree “remarkable” and in others I would have to add “in spite of”! It is actually larger than most understand. The Columbia River Basin is part of the ‘Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF)’ passed by Congress in 2000. Established to return the Pacific salmon back to a sustainable fishery and restore salmon habitat. That is now required by U.S. Federal and State laws. I would not suggest anyone trying to put a culvert in his or her driveway as if found blocking any salmon migration route or damaging habitat – you will not like the fines associated! Simply the government of Canada, sees no value in Pacific salmon and is building dams and pipelines in salmon habitat. The U.S. Congress sees value in Pacific salmon and has passed laws to protect the Pacific salmon. Yes, we are blowing dams up!

I would not begin to spend the time needed to research exactly what is being spent in the Columbia Basin per year – it is HUGE! IMHO without looking it up, I would think $100 million is WAY conservative. Based on the number of “Chinook” smolts released every year throughout the Columbia Basin that cost alone would be over $50 million – and that is just Chinook smolts. The PCSRF was about $80 million last year, then you have to add the matching funds. Throw in funds required through treaty requirements and then we also have (I believe) every public utility, with a dam, is required to participate in salmon enhancement programs. That is by court order (and notice “believe” as I have never read the court order).

Read this and you will start to see the scope referred:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Rpt-2011.pdf

Just a side note, everyone laughed when Alex Morton was going to transport salmon past those fish farms? Well, the U.S. actually “barges” salmon from the Snake River down past Bonneville Dam. Dams create lakes – lakes create no river current – no river current creates out migrating salmon smolts meandering in those calm waters, get lost, and never make it to the ocean!

To put “... how the spending correlates with results positive outcomes for salmon populations and their availability for harvesting, especially as it relates to Chinook and Coho” - in perspective. There is “ONE” federal hatchery on the Columbia River that produces and releases more Chinook smolts than “ALL” DFO hatcheries in BC, COMBINED!

Alaska actually does have and supports “aquaculture;” however, they do NOT have any Atlantic fish farms. Never will as long as Atlantic salmon is considered an invasive species. And yes, they do raise salmon in “open net pens” and feed them “pellets” - Those are “hatchery fish” released every year (just like Nootka hatchery Chinook). They do NOT “FARM” salmon. The returning adults never pass any “farmed” salmon and adult salmon and smolts never intermingle – two completely different things. And, none of those fish effect our salmon, what-so-ever! Two completely separate feeding areas.

Yes, we have fish farms. Guess what! NONE are Norwegian owned – the Norwegians (Marine Harvest) actually sold their last farming operation in 2005 in favor of moving their operations to Canada. They stated then it was due to “combining and saving costs”! In reality (IMHO) that cost saved was due to less controls and regulations. Case in point... after they moved all their farming operations from Washington to BC, what did they then do? They set up new processing plants in Miami and Los Angeles. Interesting point here is Marine Harvest sold their U.S. "open net pen" operations (2005) in favor of moving them to Canada, due to combining "costs"... Then "lay off" British Columbia workers, while continuing their processing facilities in Miami, Maine, and Los Angeles? Nothing like competing against yourself... and here is an example of what that great company is doing to increase British Columbia’s GDP (check those dates out):

“In order to secure stable deliveries to our US customers we have set up a new processing plant in Miami and will open an additional plant in Los Angeles in August. We expect to increase volumes from Norway to the US market significantly in the second half of 2009.”
http://www.marineharvest.com/en/investor1/Press-releases/2009/Good-results-in-a-strong-market/

Aquaculture company cuts jobs in Campbell River. Salmon farming company, Marine Harvest, is laying off approximately 60 employees in the Campbell River area, due to a decrease in farmed salmon prices. Marine Harvest currently employs over 500 people in B.C. who work at 30 to 35 active fish farms, hatcheries and processing plants. (Times Colonist, November 29)
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/labour_market_information/monitors/bc/bc-lmm-201111.shtml

End result... We have NO Norwegian owned Atlantic fish farms left in the U.S. and we do NOT want them! I’ll save some time on what "costs" Marine Harvest was really referring – it was the additional costs required to conform to all our U.S. federal and state laws and regulations, which btw... do NOT exist in Canada!

There is no major move to get rid of the remaining west coast Atlantic (or any) salmon farms. At this time, they “seem” to be very aboveboard. I actually searched looking for and couldn’t find any derogatory inspections or reports. They just recently got approval to expand their operations from NOAA; however, that was also put on hold by court order, until NOAA “updated their best available science” to prove it will not harm our Pacific salmon.

Don’t tell Harper the Fraser River study was mostly funded by the USA – he’ll pull the plug on it!
 
Yes, the Columbia River ‘Basin’ has had a “comeback” and in some cases I would agree “remarkable” and in others I would have to add “in spite of”! It is actually larger than most understand. The Columbia River Basin is part of the ‘Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF)’ passed by Congress in 2000. Established to return the Pacific salmon back to a sustainable fishery and restore salmon habitat. That is now required by U.S. Federal and State laws. I would not suggest anyone trying to put a culvert in his or her driveway as if found blocking any salmon migration route or damaging habitat – you will not like the fines associated! Simply the government of Canada, sees no value in Pacific salmon and is building dams and pipelines in salmon habitat. The U.S. Congress sees value in Pacific salmon and has passed laws to protect the Pacific salmon. Yes, we are blowing dams up!

How did you guys make this happen? How did you get your government to see the value in Pacidic salmon? I am sure its a long answer, but i am very curious.

Lorne
 
let me be quick to correct a misconception. the columbia r. has '...not come back...'. it's called 2,000,000 smolts annually stocked. there is exactly a single river in Oregon that has come back, that would be the willamette. by that i mean, all stocking stopped, fish self sustaining. the myth of hatcheries is legion all over the PNW but the science is clear, very clear, hatchery fish prohibit the return of wild stocks.

now someone please answer my question, WHAT THE HELL IS THE STRATEGY FOR MOVING FORWARD??????

your folks sound like a locker room full of HS jocks engaged in one circle jerk after another. no one cares about the science of net pen fishes, only those reading this forum. just how are you intending to move forward and stop this disasterous intrusion on your enviroment, slapping each other on the back in the locker room???? what i have read above will go exactly no where once you decide to step out on the ice.

so post it up, steps forward....................
 
let me be quick to correct a misconception. the columbia r. has '...not come back...'. it's called 2,000,000 smolts annually stocked. there is exactly a single river in Oregon that has come back, that would be the willamette. by that i mean, all stocking stopped, fish self sustaining. the myth of hatcheries is legion all over the PNW but the science is clear, very clear, hatchery fish prohibit the return of wild stocks.

now someone please answer my question, WHAT THE HELL IS THE STRATEGY FOR MOVING FORWARD??????

your folks sound like a locker room full of HS jocks engaged in one circle jerk after another. no one cares about the science of net pen fishes, only those reading this forum. just how are you intending to move forward and stop this disasterous intrusion on your enviroment, slapping each other on the back in the locker room???? what i have read above will go exactly no where once you decide to step out on the ice.

so post it up, steps forward....................

THats the thing, I dont think any of us really know how to move foward. WE need to be lead. and I think people need that leader and are ready for it.

Well the steps I am taking are to try and join forces with the Enviromentalists. Namely Alexandra Morton. Is she that person? Im not sure, but out ofh te options, she to me seems like the best option.
I have put quite a bit of thought into as there are lots of things to consider IMO when joining with activists. The Pro's far out weigh the Cons. She is educated and rentless.

To me she has the best chance of leading us to getting these POS out of the ocean. How she plans on doing that, im not totally clear on TBH.
 
ms morton is a dediticated scientist doing work that no one else wants to touch with a ten foot pole. she is not, as she has already admiintted, willing or able to go to litigation on any topic. you folks need big guns, that means environmental groups active in canada. couple a group or two with the unions in alberta that are already actively engaging big oil,and you have the begginngs of a team that CAN take the ice. i understand that some of you have 'bad feeling' about several environmental groups so you need to decide whether swallowing hard or continuing the status quo is your cup of tea.

(did watch the hawks last night, unfortunate loss)
 
Back
Top