Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B.C. VIEWS: Myths of our marine environment

MLA Lana Popham a long-time salmon farm protester



Premier John Horgan has tried to calm the storm in the B.C. legislature over salmon farming, personally piloting a lifeboat to rescue floundering Agriculture Minister Lana Popham.

TomFletcher-columnlogo-web.jpg


After Popham went overboard with reckless actions against salmon farms, Horgan created a cosmetic “review” of a disagreement between a federal fish scientist and her provincial counterpart over “conflict of interest” in their work. Popham surfaced briefly to explain that the review is to determine if there should be an investigation, because there’s no investigation now, despite her Inspector Clouseau-like effort to launch one herself.

Popham falsely claimed there was a federal complaintabout data from B.C.’s Animal Health Centre in Abbotsford. This cast doubt on the lab that has handled avian flu and other disease outbreaks of global concern. For this alone, Popham should be removed from the agriculture portfolio.

None of this political comedy-drama means anything to B.C.’s coastal marine environment. But looking deeper into the murky water reveals a few things you should know.

First, Popham has been supporting the U.S.-backed attack on B.C.’s salmon farms since at least 2011. This is the same tireless protest machine that demonizes Canadian pipelines, mines, dams and pretty well everything that resembles industrial development in B.C.

(See more evidence of Popham’s protest activities here and here.)

Demonstrations are often fronted by Stewart Phillip, Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who spends many days going from protest to protest. On salmon farm attacks, he is sometimes accompanied by activist-photographer Alexandra Morton, who has lately been promoted by actors Pamela Anderson, Martin Sheen and other misguided millionaires who should instead focus on salmon farms in Washington or ocean-flooding hatcheries in Oregon and Alaska.

Second, the media portrayal of a united front by B.C. Indigenous people against industrial development, and salmon farming in particular, is a carefully staged illusion.

One backer of salmon farming is Dallas Smith, a member of the Tlowitsis Nation, president of the Nanwakolas tribal council on B.C.’s Central Coast and one of the architects of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement. His community hosts three salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago, one of their few sources of year-round employment, particularly for women.

Smith isn’t impressed by a one-man occupation of a fish farm in his region that has gone on since August. He points out that this farm happens to be one of the few with cell service, so the occupier can provide a stream of social media claims to the Pam Andersons and Martin Sheens of the world.

He’s also unimpressed with one of Popham’s protest pals, George Quocksister Jr.

“He’s claiming to be a hereditary chief out of Campbell River, but in the meantime he’s bouncing around our farms in the Broughton Archipelago, which is nowhere near Campbell River, asserting his authority,” Smith told me.

There is a third thing you should know about all this. Morton is an admirer of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. Horgan’s chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, was editor of the union’s newspaper The Fisherman for 12 years up to the 1990s, as they lost the struggle to keep Richmond’s industrial salmon canning industry alive.

Today’s anti-salmon farm campaign grew out of the U.S.-backed anti-logging campaigns of the 1990s. They don’t talk about successful efforts by B.C. volunteers and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to restore spawning creeks and rivers damaged by industry and housing development.

And they don’t talk about the most obvious threat to wild salmon, particularly the prized sockeye of the North Pacific. It’s an industry long banned by Norway, Ireland, Scotland and Iceland.

That industry is commercial salmon fishing.



I've read alot of Fletchers columns and he reminds me of a Breitbart News Columnist. He would fit in well with Trump and his gang and their alternative facts. I have a really hard time taking anything he says as serious. That's just me though. You guys want to believe his drivel, fly at er...
 
What part of his column was in your mind "alternative facts"? If you believe that true,call him out on them, he has email. Personally I believe commercial overfishing is a huge problem don't you? Anyhow, challenge him.
 
You will NEVER EVER get all ff's out of the ocean on the coast of BC..doesnt matter what evidence you provide.

"IF" this native band is successful and gets them removed in "their broughton territory", just around the corner another native band is willing to have them in "their territory".
And you think any body of government will take that fight on?..NEVER!!
This is a battle that can not and will not be won.
But have at er

Aboriginal Peoples and Marine Harvest Canada Working together
Marine Harvest Canada's aquaculture operations are located within the traditional territories of First Nations people. The relationship with aboriginal culture is important to our business and is based on economic, social, environmental, cultural and legal considerations. Two examples of these relationships can be found in our interaction with the Kitasoo/Xai'xais First Nation and the Tlatlasikwala First Nation.

The Kitasoo/Xai'xais people live in Klemtu, about 500 kilometres northwest of Vancouver. Klemtu, with a population of 450, can only be reached by boat or by air. With an economy based on fisheries, fish farming, forestry and tourism, the community enjoys a high level of employment and active involvement in business and economic development initiatives. For the past fifteen years, Marine Harvest Canada has partnered with the Kitasoo/Xai'xais in development of a state-of-the-art salmon aquaculture program that processes 5,000 tonnes of salmon a year from local farms.

The Tlatlasikwala First Nation invites responsible business partners into the Territory to help create diverse and sustainable economic initiatives, so their people may once again return to their home village on Hope Island, British Columbia. These economic opportunities may include aquaculture, wind power, and tourism. In 2010, the Tlatlasikwala First Nation and Marine Harvest Canada began discussions about whether the Territory would be suitable for salmon aquaculture. After completion of a thorough environmental review and public consultation process, the Nation and company began raising salmon at Bull Harbour in 2015.

About one-fifth of Marine Harvest Canada's workforce is of aboriginal descent.

Marine Harvest Canada currently operates within the Traditional Territories of 24 Canadian First Nations. The company has formal agreements and positive relationships with 15 of these Nations and six First Nation owned businesses.
 
Members of two British Columbia First Nations have occupied another fish farm on the province’s coast making it the second farm occupation within a week.

The occupiers want the farms shut down.

But not everyone thinks fish farms are unsafe.

“I think it’s very healthy. These fish farm owners and operators, their fish is cared for a lot more than our wild salmon are looked after,” said James Walkus of Kwakiutl First Nation on Vancouver Island.

Walkus said that in any population there are going to be some abnormalities like seen in a video, released online, a week ago that sparked the occupations.

“We do catch wild salmon that are deformed and all that, too, ” he said. “We caught a chum salmon and physically it looked awful and we cut it open and inside it was a big white round ball, it was sick.”

The head of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association said the video from the Sea Sheppard, which have gone viral, do not tell the whole story.

“In any population there are some abnormal fish, animals or people. Each one of the pens on a farm could have 50 -70,000 fish,” said Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the association. “In these videos you are looking at one or two fish.

“This video was captured by going to upwards of 15 farms and compiled together to tell a story. Those fish on those farms are routinely removed.”

The Musgamagw Dzawada’enuxw have been against fish farms in their traditional territory for 30 years. They believe salmon farms affect wild stocks and now occupy Wicklow Point Salmon Farm, approximately 50 km east of Port Hardy.

Their protest comes just days after members of the Namgis First Nation occupied a salmon farm on nearby Swanson Island.

Both camps are vowing to stay until he government revokes the farms’ licenses.
 
Not sure why it seems to me that BN and bones can't acknowledge that FF can and often do have negative, population-level effects on wild stocks. A Google search through the peer-reviewed evidence can easily confirm this.

On the sea lice question - FF avoided looking at background levels of sea lice before they came in - as well as avoiding actual environmental assessments. However, the work comparing areas with farms and non-farms and sea lice has been done:
SC1%20KarinBodtkerSealiceSalmon.jpg
weird this shows almost zero lice counts on out going
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    123.8 KB · Views: 5
I assure you the 'scientific community' has not moved on from fish farm / wild salmon interaction. The SSHI (PSF, DFO, Genome) is still not complete and the researchers will be coming out with statements / recommendations once this work is done (2018 most likely).

Also, please show me where this publically available peer reviewed report is that shows 87% of chinook smolts are dying between 1st and 2nd narrows bridges. I have read almost all of the studies from the SSMSP and no where did I read anything about this. Also, where does this 7.8million chinook smolts eaten by seals number come from? source please.

Are salmon dying in estuaries in large numbers? hell ya! Are seals eating a lot of them? yes. Are fish farms to blame for smolts being eaten in estuaries? No! Are fish farms therefore free from having impacts on wild salmon? No!

Here's PSF's latest post re: fish farms:

“The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) wishes to clarify the recent recommendation by the U.S.-based Seafood Watch and the BC Salmon Farmers that B.C. open-net-pen farmed salmon are now a good alternative seafood choice for consumers.

We believe that recommendation is premature and inappropriate because it incorrectly characterizes and relies upon the research results to date of PSF’s Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI). Started in 2013, the SSHI is a partnership between the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Genome BC and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The purpose of the initiative is to clarify the presence and/or absence of microbes in Pacific salmon.

The SSHI is not yet complete, so there are no final conclusions yet regarding farmed Atlantic salmon or anything else. While progress to date includes no detections of reportable diseases as listed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there remain many valid questions relative to wild salmon health, and that is what the SSHI continues to study.

The SSHI research will continue and we have committed to communicate to the public any critical new information related to the health of wild Pacific salmon if and when it is found.”


sorry tincan but the fish farm industry isnt mentioned at any longer, DFO stance is " no evidence has come forward linking dwindling salmon stocks to fish farms" the only "ear open" is the move to land based operations. if the public wants them moved then......

the source for 7.8 million smolts is from the PSF, it is to be made public. in the mean time

http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...ocks+strait+georgia+study/11673383/story.html

http://marinesurvivalproject.com/research_activity/list/predation/
Thus, the short-term objectives of the current 2016-2017 project are to

1) address major uncertainties in their estimates of predation in terms of where scats were collected and the methods they used to reconstruct diets, and to

2) complete their analysis of the foraging behaviours of seals that eat smolts and those that do not to identify ways in which predation risk might be reduced.

These studies will ensure robust estimates of predation and will provide a fuller understanding of the predatory behaviour of seals ― information needed to design mitigation strategies.

The 2016-2017 work plan includes the following:
• Collect harbour seal scats every two weeks for 8 months from 5 sites (April – November 2016)
• Undertake DNA analysis and measure size of salmon otoliths recovered from 2016 harbour seal scats
• Compare 2016 diet findings with samples collected in previous years from estuaries to determine if diets vary significantly by region in the Strait of Georgia
• Recalculate estimates of mortality on salmon smolts caused by harbour seals in the Strait of Georgia
• Compare biomass reconstruction estimates of diet for 210 samples collected in 2016 with estimates obtained using two other methods―frequency of occurrence and DNA metabarcoding
• Assess the biases of the three diet reconstruction methods (from simulations and data), and recalculate (if necessary) estimates of mortality on salmon smolts caused by harbour seals in the Strait of Georgia
• Process the acceleration data collected by the 20 tagged seals using specialized animal behaviour software to determine and compare time-activity budgets between seals that ate smolts and those that did not
• Calculate the foraging efficiencies of the two groups of seals to assess whether targeting smolts is energetically beneficial or inconsequential
• Assess whether seals that feed on smolts employ specialized foraging strategies or are behaviourally not different from the seals that do not consume smolts―and identify mitigation strategies that could be employed to reduce predation risk on salmon smolts.

when the numbers are public knowledge i could post up for you

there is more information if you dig. i will post the peer review paper for smolts lost on the seymour when it is emailed to me. its a good paper and the basis for deep water releases on smolts.

FYI the latest seal population shows them just past the 100,000 mark. clearly larger than the 1970 est population
 
Come on Bones. Walkus is a commercial fisherman who also owns boats that transport farmed fish. You can follow his fleet of Joye boats around on Marine traffic.
He does not speak for anyone but himself.
 
Come on Bones. Walkus is a commercial fisherman who also owns boats that transport farmed fish. You can follow his fleet of Joye boats around on Marine traffic.
He does not speak for anyone but himself.
come on Tubber Morton is a commercially fund by US Big business, you still believe her circus train?
 
TINCAN
didnt need to wait it right there on the internet, took me half a coffee. watch the survival numbers change when open ocean releasing is done vs river. where do these smolt go? there are no fish farms in burrard inlet. predators..... yes.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014779


2006 Study
Table 2 provides an overview of the combined number of detections following the release of summer run (13 tagged fish/group) and winter run (12 tagged fish/group) steelhead released during the day or night of May 10, 2006. There were no differences in survival at any time between the summer run and winter run steelhead, nor any difference between the day and night releases (p>0.05). The migration route of these fish was through the Johnstone and Queen Charlotte Straits, with poor survival throughout the migration: 10% survival to NSOG and only 2% of the total number of tagged and released fish reached the QCS line (1/50 fish surviving).
2007 Study
Table 2, also show similar patterns of migration (via Johnston and Queen Charlotte Strait) and overall survival (2% or 1/60 survival rates) to those observed in 2007. The comparison of the three different experimental groups reveal no statistical difference (p>0.05) between the different release dates. In both 2006 and 2007, the FW survival of the river-released fish was significantly higher than in any of the SW segments (refer to Table 3).
The additional receivers used in 2007 demonstrated that some fish did not immediately swim out of Burrard Inlet into Georgia Strait, but migrated in the opposite direction to Indian Arm. These two fish (and eight others) were however later detected on the English Bay line (and later on the NSOG line). The English Bay detection data has not been presented because the array was disrupted (receiver lines were cut and receivers lost), and therefore detection efficiencies were degraded. However, the data suggests that mortality was higher immediately after ocean entry inside Burrard Inlet rather than later in the migration.
2008 Study
After analyzing the survival data from 2006 and 2007, it was apparent that early marine survival was likely being compromised either by an unknown biotic (predators, disease) or abiotic (contaminants) factor(s) within the estuary and/or Burrard Inlet. The focus of the 2008 study was therefore directed towards examining the survival of a group of fish released at the conventional site in the river (Swinburne), with a second group released in the marine environment at a location on the outskirts of Burrard Inlet (Point Atkinson). The study was therefore designed to tag and release half the fish into the ocean as described in the methods section and the other half were released into the river using conventional procedures. An overview of the detections and survival of these fish is provided in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
As previously found in 2006 and 2007, there was no significant difference in apparent survival between the summer run and winter run steelhead (p>0.05). There was however, a substantial increase in the overall apparent survival to QCS of the SW released marine-barged group (10%) when compared to the FW river released group (3%).
In 2008, there was a single fish (the only one in the four year study) that migrated south to cross the Juan de Fuca (JDF) array. This fish was later detected at the Northern end of Vancouver Island on the Lippy Point array.
2009 Study
The increased survival of the seawater released group of fish in 2008 suggested that the survival of hatchery steelhead could be significantly improved by releasing fish beyond Burrard Inlet. Therefore, in 2009 additional SW release groups were included in the study to further test the hypothesis that releasing hatchery fish into the marine environment at a distance from the river mouth (and in the direction of their natural seaward migration route), would improve survival. In the 2009 study we also vaccinated half the steelhead smolts to examine the effect of both factors (vaccination and release location - FW and SW) on early marine survival.
The detection results for the eight experimental groups compared in 2009 are presented in Table 2. A total of 12 fish passed the NSOG line undetected (a problem which was unique to the 2009 study only). The detection and survival data presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively, are the corrected number of fish that were assumed to have passed the NSOG array, based on their subsequent detection on the QCS array. The lowest overall survival in 2009 was in the FW: Mouth group of released fish that appeared to have experienced 100% mortality following their release, because no fish were detected on the NSOG array. The FW: River group had higher survival to the QCS array than the FW: Mouth group (3% vs 0%, respectively). The survival of the two different SW release groups were not significantly different from each other, despite the SW: Barged group having experienced a gradual transition to SW from FW, while the SW: Marine group was released directly into SW following their FW transport.
The effect of vaccination on the early marine survival of the steelhead was not as clear as the effect of release location. Tables 4 and 5 present the apparent survival data for the vaccinated and unvaccinated fish within each of the four experimental release groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated fish, however there was a clear trend for vaccinated fish to experience improved survival. A significant difference in survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated fish (p<0.05) was detected in the first and very brief phase of early FW migration (FW release site to the estuary). In this particular phase of their migration, survival was significantly improved in the vaccinated group of fish. Also of interest, each of the replicate release groups within Table 5 experienced remarkably similar survival levels, suggesting that relatively small release groups could be used to measure survival because survival probability was stable over time.
Discussion
In an effort to understand and mitigate increasingly poor adult returns of steelhead, we conducted a four year study using the Seymour River stock to compare the early marine survival and migration of hatchery-reared fish released using various experimental strategies. The pilot-scale POST array and temporary acoustic receivers were used to monitor and track tagged fish that were released at different times and locations. Results indicate that release timing (varying time of day or dates by several days) did not have a significant impact on early marine survival.

In contrast, marine survival to the QCS telemetry sub-array increased from just 2% in 2006 to 32% in 2009 when vaccinated fish were transported for release into the ocean (compared with conventional releases of unvaccinated fish direct into the river; which remained consistently low across all years of the study). This increase in survival was repeated in both 2008 and 2009, and occurred regardless of whether the fish were gradually acclimated to seawater (2009 SW: Barged and 2008 SW: Barged) or directly placed into seawater from the freshwater transport tank (2009 SW: Marine). It is unlikely that, given the long intervening period of ocean life (and the variable number of years juveniles spend at sea) that such a clear result would be obtained if all of the subsequent ocean variation affecting adult returns was also included in the analysis. As a practical point, it would also require an additional 4 years after the end of the 2009 smolt migration before an analysis could be completed. The use of the POST telemetry array thus both shortened the research cycle and allowed sharper focus on the early marine phase..........................................
 
W
You will NEVER EVER get all ff's out of the ocean on the coast of BC..doesnt matter what evidence you provide.

"IF" this native band is successful and gets them removed in "their broughton territory", just around the corner another native band is willing to have them in "their territory".
And you think any body of government will take that fight on?..NEVER!!
This is a battle that can not and will not be won.
But have at er

History has proved over and over again, that when concerned people organize and work hard together they can bring about all sorts of changes despite whatever form of political power there is, or what kind of party is in power. The only way positive change does not take place is when good people believe the myth that some things can NEVER change.
 
Last edited:
come on Tubber Morton is a commercially fund by US Big business, you still believe her circus train?


What about the many published, peer reviewed, scientific research papers that come from scientist around the world? They are not all funded by big corporate interests. If you need a list of them search the many articles found in previous posts on this forum.

Curious as to what big business are funding Morton's research? Can you list them here for us to see?

The canned tuna industry? The chicken, pork, beef or tofu industry? (i.e. trying to increase their market share in the protein sector?).

What big corporations benefit by moving net pen farms onto the land ? Be interesting to see this!
 
Please show a direct link through science that shows fish farm kill wild salmon.

Fraser river salmon stocks out going through jaun de fucca are at risk. How do fish farms influence this?
 
For example: One scientist can show smolt bones and DNA in seal poop. This is a direct link showing salmon are influenced by seals. Now a seal weights this much, and requires this much daily weight in food, there's 100,000 seals on the coast, etc etc etc. Why is it that there are so many chum salmon on the spawning grounds? Are going to tell me fish farms are selective in killing salmon?
 
Please show a direct link through science that shows fish farm kill wild salmon.

Fraser river salmon stocks out going through jaun de fucca are at risk. How do fish farms influence this?

The wild Norwegian salmon are members of an ancient species that, early in its life cycle, heads down river, swimming through Norway’s famous fjords, and out to saltwater feeding grounds, before returning to their native rivers to spawn.

In recent years, however, the wild salmon population has more than halved, partly because of the spread of sea lice, parasites that feast on the mucus and skin of the fish before moving on to the muscle and fat, making the fish vulnerable to infections and sometimes killing them.Sea lice, like the salmon, have existed in the ocean for eons but have emerged as a huge problem for the fish farms, where they multiply in such numbers that they kill farmed fish and pose a risk to young wild salmon as they pass the holding pens on their way to the open sea.
 
Please show a direct link through science that shows fish farm kill wild salmon. Fraser river salmon stocks out going through jaun de fucca are at risk. How do fish farms influence this?
Unfortunately you appear to have your understanding of "burden of proof" reversed, bones.

It's ALWAYS the burden of the industry to prove that their operations are not damaging the resources - or if they are - those effects are mitigated and once the pros and cons are weighed through a bone fide environmental review - only then approval is given.

Unfortunately since politics and corruption have successfully prevented FFs from going through that review - most FF pundits are blissfully unaware of the responsibilities of their industry. Thanks for demonstrating that.

Another issue that I find FF pundits similarly ignore is the Precautionary Approach.

2ndly - it seems to me that you have consistently ignored any science that many posters have already provided you on impacts to fish farms. Not sure what use it does to post more for you - but here's a couple more to absorb - if you wanted to:

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082202&representation=PDF

Phylogenetic Evidence of Long Distance Dispersal and Transmission of Piscine Reovirus (PRV) between Farmed and Wild Atlantic Salmon
A˚se Helen Garseth1,2*, Torbjørn Ekrem2, Eirik Biering1
1Department of Health Surveillance, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Trondheim, Norway, 2Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum, Trondheim, Norway

Abstract
The extent and effect of disease interaction and pathogen exchange between wild and farmed fish populations is an ongoing debate and an area of research that is difficult to explore. The objective of this study was to investigate pathogen transmission between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) populations in Norway by means of molecular epidemiology. Piscine reovirus (PRV) was selected as the model organism as it is widely distributed in both farmed and wild Atlantic salmon in Norway, and because infection not necessarily will lead to mortality through development of disease. A matrix comprised of PRV protein coding sequences S1, S2 and S4 from wild, hatchery-reared and farmed Atlantic salmon in addition to one sea-trout (Salmo trutta L.) was examined. Phylogenetic analyses based on maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference indicate long distance transport of PRV and exchange of virus between populations. The results are discussed in the context of Atlantic salmon ecology and the structure of the Norwegian salmon industry. We conclude that the lack of a geographical pattern in the phylogenetic trees is caused by extensive exchange of PRV. In addition, the detailed topography of the trees indicates long distance transportation of PRV. Through its size, structure and infection status, the Atlantic salmon farming industry has the capacity to play a central role in both long distance transportation and transmission of pathogens. Despite extensive migration, wild salmon probably play a minor role as they are fewer in numbers, appear at lower densities and are less likely to be infected. An open question is the relationship between the PRV sequences found in marine fish and those originating from salmon.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/mpo-dfo/Fs70-5-2015-005-eng.pdf
The ability of hydrodynamic models to inform decisions on the siting and management of aquaculture facilities in British Columbia
M.G.G Foreman, P.C. Chandler, D.J. Stucchi, K.A. Garver, M. Guo, J. Morrison, D. Tuele

Fig 14, p. 26; Fig. 18, p.32; Fig. 19, p. 35
 
The above is about farmed Atlantic vs wild atlantics how does this have anything to do with Chinook and Coho and chum?
Phylogenetic Evidence of Long Distance Dispersal and Transmission of Piscine Reovirus (PRV) between Farmed and Wild Atlantic Salmon
A˚se Helen Garseth1,2*, Torbjørn Ekrem2, Eirik Biering1
1Department of Health Surveillance, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Trondheim, Norway, 2Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology University Museum, Trondheim, Norway

Please show me a direct study that says " wild salmon are dieing because of farmed fish".
 
Ho
The wild Norwegian salmon are members of an ancient species that, early in its life cycle, heads down river, swimming through Norway’s famous fjords, and out to saltwater feeding grounds, before returning to their native rivers to spawn.

In recent years, however, the wild salmon population has more than halved, partly because of the spread of sea lice, parasites that feast on the mucus and skin of the fish before moving on to the muscle and fat, making the fish vulnerable to infections and sometimes killing them.Sea lice, like the salmon, have existed in the ocean for eons but have emerged as a huge problem for the fish farms, where they multiply in such numbers that they kill farmed fish and pose a risk to young wild salmon as they pass the holding pens on their way to the open sea.
W does this have anything to do with the pacific ocean and the water here? Its different water and species of fish.........
 
terrin, a little further down in that Norwegian article you just cut and pasted says the greatest problem farmed Norwegian salmon have caused is escapes from net pens, leading to interbreeding with wild fish.

As part of my 1000th post I'm happy to say that's the beauty of farming Atlantic's here.;)
 
Please show me a direct study that says " wild salmon are dieing because of farmed fish".

Please re-read the first line of AA's post just before yours.:rolleyes:

Then please show me a direct study that says "wild salmon are not dying because of farmed fish"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top