Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by bones, Jan 1, 2018.
Bones, the "article" you are referring to is nothing more than an expanded letter to the editor expressing an opinion.
This "article" as you choose to call it is the opinion of Jeremy Dunn the executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.
You can hardly call him a unbiased observer.
There is conflicting science on this subject and the Fish Farms themselves have recognized they do kill wild salmon, there is however no proof of exactly how many.
You refer to "distortion of facts and spread of untruths".
Fish Farms have a long history of doing just that.
One last thing...you may very well challenge my post with demands such as show me the dead fish as you have in the past.
Don't be disappointed if I don't get into a debate with you, as mine, yours and that of Jeremy Dunn are only opinions.
Lol, its a newspaper article. No were do I say ots a science paper. Thanks for clearing that up.
And further more, please if you feel the need to comment on this and you have. Dont say you don't want to debate over this. You felt the need to comment. Which now opens you up for the debate. If you don't want to debate then ....... Just don't say anything......
Fair enough, I guess one biased editorial is expected to be followed up by another from the other side. Lets be clear, the science does not PROVE the fish farms are safe. Current absence of definitive evidence of harm is not the same as being proven safe. There is lots of conflicting evidence as outlined/argued over on several other threads, two of which had to be closed down. Lets remember this is coming from the Industries (Norwegian Company) paid spin doctor. He trots out the myth that BC fish farms somehow take the pressure off of wild stocks. His assertions that BC leads the industry are of course made up spin exaggerations. BC is a small branch operation of the fish farm conglomerates main operations in North Western Europe, and it is there that the "innovations" , (often forced by more strict government oversight than the industry has here) mainly come from. His assessment that the industry cares about the environment because the employees live in the BC areas potentially effected by the farms is ridiculous. The employees have no power in such matters. If they open their mouths or have a problem with the operation they lose their job, there are plenty of people to replace them. The Norwegian corporations have no vested interest in the BC environment or BC wild fish stocks, and will do what makes the most money for their executives and shareholders, that's why the corporate entity exists. And I'm not picking on Norwegian FF companies, BC based companies or any company will do the same thing (Mount Polly?). Government oversight and regulation are the only thing that will force action by the industry that is not in the interest in profit. Sometimes the profit motive aligns with the interests of the environment which is good, but we should not confuse this with any kind of environmental stewardship or interest, as the next action may not. Perhaps the FFs have no, or negligible effect on wild salmon, I'm more open to that possibility due to reading the debates on this issue on these forums, but I'm not sure that question will ever be definitively answered. Certainly much more research is still needed before declaring the farms "safe" and Jeremy Dunn is the last person any one should listen to without a good sized grain of salt, given what his job is and by whom he is paid to do it.
Here's what the PSF President and CEO had to say about that MBA recommendation in September; https://www.psf.ca/blog/public-statement; "premature and innappropriate".
I wonder why the BCSFA ED didn't address this in his November letter.
So, in your opinion, who should we be listening to? After all, salmon farms have been on the west coast for about 40 years and there is no evidence farms are harming wild and hatchery Pacific's.
The last 40 years have seen serious declines in most salmon runs in the Salish Sea so the Open net cage fish farms can certainly take the credit for a lot of that. The Precautionary Principle would prevent this unless these Farm Feedlots can show no harm which they have not done.
Well terrin, I would say no measurable mortalities to wild from farmed in 40 years is a pretty good example of a non issue. We cannot say the same about the effects of overfishing, habitat loss, warming water or predation.
The reason we are instead stuck with having a debate using op-eds and opinion pieces in the media - is because that is the only vehicle we have available to us - because FFs have avoided an environmental assessment using threats of legal action and political interference lobbying upper-level bureaucrats in order to to keep it that way.
It is a false choice presented to us - having to pick a savior and a team. it's set-up that way - play one off against another so that someone can benefit from the status-quo.
Instead there should be an open and transparent refereed process with vetted data/science to make choices on a site-by-site basis. After all - if Dunn is correct in his assertions that: "Science continues to show B.C. salmon farms are safe" - then he should be in agreement with putting that assertion to the test. In fact he should be the 1st one advocating for an environmental review - but he is not. I wonder why?
The only so-called "team" that benefits from this lack of data and process is the pro-FF "team" - not the people looking for transparency and data to base decisions on.
We need an environmental assessment process - and should demand one.
You make a very good and valid point here AA. We need honest, 3rd party, unbiased, environmental assessments. The key is to get them to be unbiased, no pro fish farm, no pro anti-fish farm, just the facts. The big questions is will the fish farm industry do this?
So far they have not and many doubt that they will unless they can be assured of a favourable result for their industry.
We could ask our Govt.'s to do it as they as supposed to be unbiased, acting in the best interest of all of us citizens, but we have history to show that they are biased in support of this and many other industries. So what are we left with?
Where left with what has almost always brought about positive change in the world - concerned citizens and scientists trying to gather data and find some answers.
However, when they bring forth evidence that supports one side, the other side tries to discredit them - this is the sad situation we are in.
That is why the precautionary principle works well in the presence of indications of harm, and not a lot of conclusive proof of direct harm. However, the foreign owned, multi-national corporations that run the net pen fish farms and the Govt.'s that benefits from their financial support cannot make large profits for shareholders following the precautionary principle. So we are left with the same, usual situation that history shows us time and again - concerned citizens working hard to force Govt.'s to managed our environment in a less harmful and more sustainable manner. Pick an industry, forestry, mining, oil/gas, agriculture, food, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, nuclear energy, waste disposal, the list goes on.... It is the same sad story of denying the negative impacts of the industry in question until the scientific research becomes conclusive that is harmful.
So what do we do? We never give up working hard to protect ourselves and the environment that we all need to survive because the alternative is simply not sustainable.
Would rather spend the millions of dollars finding the real problem to the question vs impact study on an industry that still cannot measure what impact they have. Your money for the impact study is better spent elsewhere, like the real reason for declining salmon stocks
It's always about the money for the FFs - isn't it bones?
When you have a budget to follow then.... Yes. Are you starting a go fund me page and guardian this cause with 3rd party money? Then no its not about the money.
Read the title of your post. Show us the Science
Lol, never meant to post a science paper. I meant to post a news paper article and I did. I haven't said anything about it. The only people commenting on it is the pros.
Is there any definitive, peer reviewed academic research to prove beyond any doubt that net pen salmon farms are NOT negatively impacting wild salmon populations and the surrounding marine environment?
If not, then it only shows a pro-farm bias to state that funding such research to investigate possible negative impact of net pen fish farms is a waste of money. Who knows if net pen fish farms are a real problem or not until more thorough research is done?
Mmmm.......Exactly so why is it they have to pack up and move?
Also, there has been a ton of money thrown at studies on fish farms and nothing....... You cant even show how much damage there is..... You really want to keep burning money on studies for.... Nothing?
I don't know whether or not you realize it bones - but you just made a rather large, glaring contradiction:
1/ Either you agree with Dunn's claim that the "science is in" - and which case it should be both easy and cheap to present those data in an actual environmental assessment process, or
2/ It is not - and it's going to cost the FFs MILLIONS of $ to generate those data - and presumably couldn't operate when spending those monies in an environmental assessment.
So which is it? Numbers to back-up your claims would add to your credibility.
Because there exits enough academic research (posted numerous times on this forum in many different posts) that indicate negative environmental impacts from net pen fish farms to warrant such things as:
suspending operation of, or at least greatly reduce the number of fish farms operating in areas along salmon migration routes.
conduct unbiased environmental assessments to move existing fish farms away from salmon migration routes
fund more research into contained fish farms (in water or on land) where the negative environmental impacts (e.g. pollution, waste, disease, parasites, etc.) can be better contained and managed.
That's what managing resources using the precautionary principle could result in. - all for the benefit wild salmon. However, the foreign owned, multi-national fish farm corporations and our Prov. and Fed, Govt's that they financially support will not do this until the problems get worse and more damage is done.
IMHO it all boils down to short term corporate profits vs. long term sustainability of our natural marine ecosystems. Pretty dam sad!
Lmao again..... I haven't said anything regarding my own original post. Lol too funny.
I posted a comment from a scientist person. I think I basically says I'm tired of being told I'm not doing my job......
Lol.... So AA, you have attacked the fish farms openly many times. Do you have any numbers or can you point us in the direction to where the numbers are? Look at it this way. Scientific people have been studying this for 30 years and millions of dollars been spent and still nothing. If 80% of smolts are dying to seals. How much is left for the farms to kill? How is it wild salmon runs not exposed to fish farms are dwindling (shhhhh, there's no farms in nootka sound, lol)? Can you really sit there and argue that we should keep spending millions of dollars on something that after 30 years of studying has produced nothing?
Lol, you starting to realize the lost cause and grasping at anything. Environmental studies, sewage, bottom loading, fuel spills, escaped fish, etc.....
Your comment above, impact studies has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. If you want to talk about environmental issues then start your own thread and please stop hijacking or changing the subject......
Separate names with a comma.