Well, well, well, can't hide the truth forever

you don't want to share your opinion? I know your opinion means jack squat. you don't mind giving your opinion that fish farms aren't doing any harm to our wild salmon and the environment. Just curious if there is any amount of industry that would go over the limits of what you are comfortable with. what amount of fish farms would you think might be pushing it? can they just keep on growing in number and expanding in size? seems that's what they are doing since inception and that's what the plan seems to be into the future.
 
Last edited:
well Dave, I grew up in PG. started working in the bush up north (PG, fort nelson, fort st john, mackenzie, tumbler ridge, chetwynd area's) when I was young. (18 to early 20's) I've worked construction since, self employed most of my life (working hands on foreman). probably worked for over a dozen companies at least in regards to that. I've worked in a few places in the world, some of the highlights were
Japan(Saitama Prefecture), Ireland(Galway), New Zealand(Napier), all across Canada. I don't think there's a province in Canada I haven't worked in. maybe Newfoundland. Maine, Virginia, South Carolina, prob a few other places in the US. I think that's probably why I'm a bit protective of what we've got as I've seen some other countries that have exploited and ruined what they had. and they have nowhere near the natural beauty that we have but are losing every day. We have an extremely small population in our country with a huge amount of resources here and we should be one of the richest countries in the world per capita as well as having a population of people that share in that wealth. but instead we live in a country that privatizes profits and socializes the costs to these corporations thxs to our government. and we have people going without that shouldn't be. maybe they weren't lucky enough to get a government job. maybe didn't know the right people... We have something special here in BC that isn't found in alot of the world... I met my wife when I was working in Nova Scotia in a small town called called Parrsboro. pop about 1500.... she works in healthcare. I don't pretend the companies that I've worked for don't have an effect on the environment as I've worked mostly in construction in relation to the forest industry. and they've made mistakes and are still making mistakes. I can be honest about that. I don't agree with the clearcuts that have gone on, or cutting in the river valleys. or cutting the old growth. and i'm not afraid to say that. I wish it was done better. I don't agree with shutting down mills and then ramping up the shipments of raw logs out of country. I think things could have been done better and thats what I try to push for. I believe we need industry but I also believe it needs to be done responsibly and there has to be accountability when it isn't. I try to hold governments accountable as they seem to be the ones that wield the power and we pay their paychecks... lately I don't see them doing a very good job. actually pretty **** poor..
Oh, and I like fishing and hunting.
I don't trust the government.
And I don't like open net pen fish farms.
know enough about me now Dave?
 
Last edited:
and you probably have bigger balls (physically) than me but I really couldn't care less about that...
how about taking a stab at post#81. ? just trying to figure out how much is too much in your mind
 
I'm a salmon farmer. I have done so for 20 years. I've never kept it a secret here.


Its weird how all the people here that speak a bit or a lot for salmon farms will share their backgrounds but the most vehement anti salmon farm speakers here identities are a closely guarded secret. Why is that?
Birdsnest
I am not sure what your answer has to do with the question post earlier and has yet to have had a response if you care to review the posts.
In case you missed it, the question is copied below and was directed at Dave. You appeared to decline an opinion earlier.
"You are well qualified Dave. Thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps you can answer the post earlier from a member asking to what degree Fish Farm Sea Lice impact wild salmon."
 
Thanks for your response bigdogeh, much appreciated. I'm 66 and still not sure how much is too much for me. I am pro development but like most people, nimby. As stated I will back fish farms here on the Pacific coast until I see concrete evidence of them harming wild salmon, and like most, I would prefer them to be on land but my fish culture background tells me that is not economically feasible, yet. I favor the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, responsible mining and logging, even urban development. I have a pessimistic view of the future of wild salmon because there are just too many factors facing them, including what I back, so I am part of the problem.
In short I believe there are just too many people with needs that don't include salmon.
You seem to be a person I would enjoy having a beer with but I fear I have pissed you off too much for that to happen.
 
Thanks for your response bigdogeh, much appreciated. I'm 66 and still not sure how much is too much for me. I am pro development but like most people, nimby. As stated I will back fish farms here on the Pacific coast until I see concrete evidence of them harming wild salmon, and like most, I would prefer them to be on land but my fish culture background tells me that is not economically feasible, yet. I favor the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, responsible mining and logging, even urban development. I have a pessimistic view of the future of wild salmon because there are just too many factors facing them, including what I back, so I am part of the problem.
In short I believe there are just too many people with needs that don't include salmon.
You seem to be a person I would enjoy having a beer with but I fear I have pissed you off too much for that to happen.

So what you are basically saying Dave is that wild Salmon, and the protection of their habitat does not concern you in the least. Pipelines (&oil tankers) , mining, and forestry, along with damming of our rivers are the biggest threats to Salmon. Yet you support these industries, along with fish farming. I hope the next generation is more far sighted than you, or our planet is doomed.
 
I'm not saying that at all, I am concerned but simply believe it's too late, for most watersheds, especially those nearest human habitation. I am actively involved in habitat restoration projects on the Chilliwack River, am a director of a river cleanup society and advocate for wild fish when ever I can.
But after seeing the difference in fish stocks from 55 years ago, when I started fishing, to now, I am not that naïve to think they will bounce back or even hold there own.
Sorry for the gloomy outlook and I too hope the next generation will prove to be better stewards of the environment than us.
Fwiw, I believe climate change is the greatest obstacle to wild salmon, not development.
 
I have no ties to salmon farms other than the fact I'm a concerned citizen. Something obviously
Has to be done and the " everything's fine" attitude MUST change. The above post by Dave is very accurate (climate change is PART of it but not all of it) but we cannot give up. We
Need to do everything we can to help. If that means stream/habitat restoration so be it. If it means slot
Limits and no catch regs we
have to do that too. If there's the slightest possibility that FF are part of the problem wether from disease, fleas or pollution that needs to be addressed too. The "my industry has nothing to do with it" attitude is pure BS. There's enough proof (even circumstantially) to show FF are having a negative effect. I don't wish for anybody to lose there source of livelihood but a clean healthy environment trumps any dirty industry.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your response bigdogeh, much appreciated. I'm 66 and still not sure how much is too much for me. I am pro development but like most people, nimby. As stated I will back fish farms here on the Pacific coast until I see concrete evidence of them harming wild salmon, and like most, I would prefer them to be on land but my fish culture background tells me that is not economically feasible, yet. I favor the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, responsible mining and logging, even urban development. I have a pessimistic view of the future of wild salmon because there are just too many factors facing them, including what I back, so I am part of the problem.
In short I believe there are just too many people with needs that don't include salmon.
You seem to be a person I would enjoy having a beer with but I fear I have pissed you off too much for that to happen.

thxs for your honesty Dave, everyone has an opinion and your entitled to yours. thxs for sharing it.
As to TheBigGuys comment I also have to hope the next generation is also more far sighted and optimistic. I can see where it could be easy to be a pessimist with some of what we see around us every day. but there is also alot of nature and natural beauty out there that is worth protecting. I thank you for your service (habitat restoration, etc). you must believe that that has had a positive effect? when you see people working together to make things better it gives you faith that change for the better can be possible. the environment can be strong to a point but it has to be given a chance to repair itself when it's been damaged.
I vaguely remember a quote from awhile ago that went something along the lines that not to worry, nature will eventually cleanse itself (look after itself) and eventually rid itself of the parasites invading it. I hope that isn't true, but in some ways maybe that will be what happens in the long run whether we like it or not. seems to be the direction were headed at the moment. and if people think that way maybe that's why there is this push at the last minute of our timeline to make as much profit as possible. maybe these corporations don't see a long term forecast for our people anyway. I don't know their thinking but I don't think it's the way most people with a conscience to protect the environment or for doing what's right think.
myself, I don't want to give up on our salmon. to give up on them is to give up on the whole ecosystem they belong to. I think you know that also.
sure, i'd have a beer with you. and yes, you've pissed me off...lol, and i'm sure i've pissed you off..haha. and i don't think i could ever change your mind in how you think and wouldn't expect that I could. and I don't think you could change mine. I am thankful you answered my question as it gives me (and others) some insight as to how others see where we've gotten ourselves and where were heading or would like to head.

I know I like to ramble on sometimes but here are a couple of cut and pastes I saved awhile back that give me some hope for the future. I continue to hope people become more educated and demand more accountability from our governments.








"What makes the BC Liberals "successful" is there's nothing they won't sell if the price is right...and that includes our collective inheritance of the natural resources and health of BC and our very future when you consider how destructive activities like natural gas fracking or even large scale conventional drilling are.

These are people who've reduced the world to an insane level where just continuing to "develop"(which usually means destroying ecological integrity) the world is seen as the only imperative.

There needs to be some beneficial point to activities which are in the end done in our name and supposedly in our interests...the BC government is supposed to be representing our interests and working for a better future for all BC residents. But the chances of that happening are almost non-existent when energy giants in undemocratic countries on the other side of the globe are basically dictating that we almost give away our natural resources while at the same time severely degrading the ecological health here that is essentially priceless.

We're giving away something incredible for a few baubles because that's the only thing that the corporate mindset which is behind parties like the BC Liberals thinks has any value."




==============================================================




"On May 8'th, the total energy produced from renewables in Germany (wind, solar, biomass) was so great that it drove the wholesale price of 100 MW of power deeply negative (-220 Euros) for a period of twelve hours. During that time period, renewables were supplying 85% of base load. Overall, on average, Germany now produces 50% of it's base load from renewables and is on track to produce 100% by 2050. That is the future. It is also telling that every single Middle Eastern oil producing country is installing billions of dollars of solar, the most recent project, in Dubai, will produce Gigawatts of power for 2.5 cents per KwH, and the company will make a profit. You can't argue with those kinds of results.

The supporters of this project say it is great, but the governments' own statistics indicate a 95% probability of a significant spill from the pipeline, on the coast, within 50 years. When that happens, the 1.2 Billion the government is said to collect from the revenues on this project will be minuscule compared to the cost of cleaning it up, and most of it will never be cleaned up, it will sink to the bottom and produce toxins over a wide area for generations to come. The Exxon Valdez was the accident that 'could never happen', but it did. The blow out in the Gulf of Mexico ruined the Gulf fisheries, and thousands of livelihoods for generations to come.

The people who support this archaic endeavour are the same ones who greedily took billions out of Alberta, leaving it an economic cripple for the next 30 years. It is only the very short sighted, totally self absorbed and careless individuals who want this built, most of the rest of the country (over 78%) are deeply concerned about any future oil projects, and rightfully so.

The future for Alberta is NOT producing more low quality, difficult to transport and costly to refine bitumen for export. The consumption of fossil fuels has peaked and is declining rapidly. Even Saudi Arabia is getting out of the business and the anticipated global oil demand, per day, will decrease to 30MM barrels, from the current 90MM barrels over the next 25 years. The future is the same that is has been since the solution was first proposed to them in the 70's. Install domestic pipelines; invest in refining capacity; purchase retail outlets and create a truly national grid for delivering fuels for as long as the market holds for it, and that won't be that long. The first hybrid electric/CNG transport trucks with 20,000KW engines are already on the roads. Tesla is recreating the personal automobile at affordable prices and the demand is overwhelming. Don't waste your time and money on this, it isn't going anywhere."



if you've read to here, can I ask one more question Dave? do you have children or grandchildren?
may as well push for one more. have you ever fished the skeena or fished up at prince rupert, terrace, etc?
 
Last edited:
I think as valid as comments are about impacts and NIMBYs - I think there are some additional points to add to that discussion:

As fish habitat becomes more fractured and impacted - the MORE important the remaining habitat becomes - not LESS. That's the same old, tired argument that industry spokespersons frequently use to justify their planned and actual impacts on things like port development. That's the kind of irresponsible, detached perspective one would expect from people either unaffected from those activities, and/or thinking the money they get paid to frequently lie is the only justification they need.

That leads to the next point: NIMBYs.

Yes - nobody wants to see the areas they care about get decimated. That - in itself - does not invalidate their concerns. Yet again - the PR teams for various industrial development trot-out this response to mitigate concerns - valid or not.

This is not the kind of perspective I would expect from responsible, accountable regulators that are supposed to uphold the Fisheries Act, the Precautionary Approach and wild salmon as their priorities and focus.

Yet again - I am constantly disappointed and frustrated by the narrative developed and maintained with particularly the Aquaculture Branch of DFO - where many of the staff (often ex-industry workers) support hatchery operations and interact with those hatchery staff - perpetuating and disseminating many unsupported myths often strait from the PR firms supporting the open net-pen industry.

The lead to the last point(s) I want to make: Interannual variation and ocean survival.

Yes - it is true that there are many potential and realized impacts to wild fish stocks. It is true that the numerous impacts generated using the open net-cage technology may or may not have a significant impact on adjacent fish stocks - and that every year - the combinations of competing and synergistic impacts change. I believe that in some years with robust ocean survival - those same fish stocks can withstand some additional impacts like impacts from sea lice and disease - while other years - no - not so much.

Over time - those repeated, cumulative impacts are having some impact on wild stocks.

If the baseline work was done beforehand - one could better assess and apportion those impacts more accurately.

But - due to the denial machine generated by many industries - including the open net-pen industry - this was not done. That is not a responsible - nor a defensible position to always reverse the burden of proof onto those who commonly do not have the ability nor access to prove the impacts. That is - as always - industries burden to prove they are not having an impact and/or mitigate and compensate for those impacts.

BUT... the open net-pen industry has been exempt from environmental assessments - so they have never been held to task on disproving impact claims. So, workers and support personnel in this industry think this is normal - despite other industries having to undergo environmental assessments.

I believe that this situation was developed by a combination of a long-term legal strategy against other industries (commercial, recreation and FN fishing) either generating or receiving (Privacy Act) the data to prove these impacts and sue the aquaculture industry - and strait-up corruption in our federal and provincial governments.
 
Last edited:
Wow. This is the most civil this thread has been for some time. Seems like we're making progress guys. If not in changing each other's opinion at least in the way we are treating each other. Which is a nice change.
 
BUT... the open net-pen industry has been exempt from environmental assessments - so they have never been held to task on disproving impact claims. So, workers and support personnel in this industry think this is normal - despite other industries having to undergo environmental assessments.

I think when you state this agent you mean "in your opinion". Or "this is how you see it" much like how you see escapement reporting as only mandatory where in fact that is completely incorrect.
You state there is no process of environmental consideration as if fish farms just go and do what ever they want and this suggestion sir is a fabrication of what the process is. Yet you never come forward with the actual process and then critisize it point for point to make your point.
 
I believe you just proved my point, BN.

Escapement is stock assessment - not environmental assessment. There are a number of different ways to formalize environmental assessment. Normally, with other industries - it is through the application of CEAA - which Harper gutted in 2012. Scoping is the single biggest missing component for fish farm impacts - along with disease risk assessment and mitigation.
 
I believe you just proved my point, BN.

Escapement is stock assessment - not environmental assessment. There are a number of different ways to formalize environmental assessment. Normally, with other industries - it is through the application of CEAA - which Harper gutted in 2012. Scoping is the single biggest missing component for fish farm impacts - along with disease risk assessment and mitigation.
I meant escapement as in escapes of farm salmon from farms sites.
 
Well - to go a ways back - there was a moratorium - where nobody had to worry about anything. Then - the Province at that time - lifted the moratorium in 2003 - which left Transport Canada and the NWPA at odds with the status quo which was changed - and TC's take on it was that fish farms had to go though CEAA. Industry got jittery about that and went whining to Yves Bastion - the appointed (no competition) Commissionaire of Aquaculture development. Yves has sat on various boards of directors, including the Aquaculture Association of Canada (AAC), the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA), and the World Aquaculture Society (WAS). He arbitrarily and unilaterally (and w/o any authority) declared the effects from fish farms were "predictable and mitigateable" - so that any new FF applications could go through the lowest intensity of CEAA - screenings - where scoping (determining geographic boundaries of impacts) and mandatory public input were avoided. Then since 2012 - FFs have been off the hook totally with the new, revised CEAA. Yes.
 
Last edited:
bigdogeh, I have 2 daughters and two teenage boys for grandkids. Both grandchildren are keen fisherman. One is a grade A student and has his mind set to be Conservation Officer - I would bet good money he will achieve that goal. I have never fished the Skeena but have worked on the Nass (eulachon survey back in the 70's) and fished a few of it's tribs.
I caught my first Vedder steelhead when I was 10 years old but don't fish any more as I can't get around the rocks like I used to, up to 10 years ago. I prefer to remember the good times, and besides I caught more than my share back then. I still stay in the game by doing fish habitat restoration work and building custom fishing rods for people as far away as Austria.

Clint r is right, this discussion is far better than what I have been guilty of in the past. I hope to keep it up.
 
Thxs Dave,
I have 2 girls also and one grandson.
the Nass is a beautiful area also. we used to fish the Tseaux and the Nass. and a couple unknown to most tributaries that held alot of pristine steelhead in that area. I'd hate to see that disappear. I can only hope industry doesn't destroy that area. there aren't to many areas like that left in the world. I have some hope for it now that it's in the hands of the Nisga'a.
I remember one time driving down to Greenville since I'd never been there and on the way there seeing a large wolverine walking down the middle of the road like he owned the place. I actually had to drive around him as he wasn't going to give up the gravel road. I stopped and took some video (from a distance) and then carried on. I was suprised to see him a few hrs later on my way back still walking down the middle of the road. and he still didn't move from the centerline. I had to drive around him again. you don't see things like that too often.
I also remember running into a large grizzly on a tributary of the Nass when I was fishing with my girlfriend a few miles upriver from where the Tseaux meets the Nass. aaah, good times... lol. pretty exciting to say the least. only day I didn't have a rifle with me as you see black bears every day but they usually leave you alone. you feel pretty helpless and the body goes numb when it's just you, your girlfriend and a packsack of salmon. when your only a couple hundred feet away from one and they're staring you down. the rifle would have added alot more of sense of security. especially when you have quite a few miles to hike back to your camp and most of it is on overgrown bear trails. did good fishing that day though.
alot of special areas in our province and that area is surely one of them...
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for all you sharing about why we care about wild salmon. It's been obvious to me for many years now - that the only ones that should be in charge of managing wild salmon - are the ones that care about that resource. That's why DFO's top-down 1982 model is doomed to fail - with all those consequences. That's why I welcome and encourage a consensus-based governance model - like what FN have developed over millennia. It's a progression of human civilization over time. You see the start of those local governance processes on the East Coast - where they have had an extra few hundred years of learning from their mistakes. The only way to govern is locally - not through the multinational corporate/consumer lie.
 
Back
Top