Only one answer there that "I" am looking for here... and that is what diseases are "YOUR" "fish farms" exposing "MY" wild salmon to? With almost 40 years of experience... "YOU" should be able to tell me???
Last edited by Charlie; 06-04-2012 at 06:04 PM.
Last edited by Sculpin; 06-04-2012 at 07:50 PM.
Originally Posted by Fishtofino
"If you're trying to go for tuna on the cheap you are just asking for trouble. The ocean is a mean bitch that wants to kill you. My 2 cents worth."
This entire issue with the farms is really quite simple. Many of us are dumb ass creatures that put a piece of paper with numbers on it over everything else., including destroying the place that allows us exist. Dave...people like yourself and governments at one time said, heroin was the next wonder drug, coke was at one time in Coca Cola, troops were placed close to above ground atomic blasts because they were deemed safe, military personal who got sick after exposure to agent orange were told it wasn't the cause, not enough proof, pregnant women given safe drugs that caused major birth defects. This sh!t just keeps repeating over and over again. As others have mentioned here..we have more concern for our iconic wild salmon than we do for a foreign company looking to amass more numbered paper.
You did forget the decades the Tobacco industry spent millions buying politicians and telling us all that there was no proof that cigarettes were anything but good for you. Then there is those wells in Hinkley that contained nothing but pure clean healthy drinking water until they ran into Erin Brockovich. Go Alex.
Last edited by Rockfish; 06-04-2012 at 08:32 PM.
Fish farms and our governments are cesspools.
If you want nothing done,John Duncan is the man for the job.
The question was:
Now, the question I had was:
I must have hit a nerve, as it seems Dave might be getting a little testy and has to try insults as a last resort already?
I will be glad to answer the "proof" concerning fish farms killing off the wild salmon, as most already know that answer to that anyway. It is well known the “fish farming” industry and DFO has concealed, suppressed, twisted, and even FLAT-OUT LIED in all their studies and reports anyway. To verify that all you have to do is read the Cohen testimonies. Shall we look at what Dave's buddy David Welch really has to say and what he thinks about “open net-pen fish farms”? Might even answer Dave's question?
Submitter: Kintama Research Services Ltd
Date Submitted: December 15, 2011
Dr. David Welch submits this research proposal to report an important addition to his understanding of where sockeye smolt mortality occurs. In prior testimony at the commission, he reported that most mortality occurred after passing the northern end of Vancouver Island, but he has since re-analyzed his previously collected data to directly compare survival rates of acoustically tagged sockeye smolts migrating in the Strait of Georgia and then in Discovery Passage/Queen Charlotte Strait and found a level of higher mortality that may explain the 10-fold decline in Fraser sockeye survival seen since 1990. To address these issues, Dr. Welch and his colleagues designed a new study building off the results from the POST prototype array.
Salmon smolts migrate quickly after entering the ocean, typically at about 1 body-length per second. For 10 cm wild sockeye smolts, this means that they move about 9 km per day, resulting in the smolts being far removed from a location where disease transfer might occur within only a very few days. This complicates the interpretation and analysis of data from smolts collected for disease studies in the vicinity of fish farms, because the prior exposure history of a collected smolt is unknown. In addition, smolts debilitated from disease simply may disappear before capture because predators target weakened individuals prior to pathological symptoms (such as lesions) being expressed.
To address these issues, my colleagues (Drs. Scott Hinch, Kristi Miller, Brian Riddell, Tony Farrell, Carl Schwartz) and I designed a new study building off the results from the POST prototype array. The draft proposal is submitted for the Commission’s (& public’s) information as part of this commentary. However, the primary reason for this submission is to report an important addition to our understanding of where sockeye smolt mortality occurs. In prior testimony at the Commission I reported that most mortality occurred after passing the northern end of Vancouver Island. This statement remains correct. However, we have since re-analyzed our previously collected data to directly compare survival rates of acoustically tagged sockeye smolts migrating in the Strait of Georgia and then in Discovery Passage/Queen Charlotte Strait.
The results are summarized in Figure 4 on page 8 of the attached submission. In 5 of 6 years of study, survival rates per week of migration were substantially lower in the Discovery Passage region than in the Strait of Georgia. (2011 data are preliminary, as data from some receivers will not be collected until early January 2012).
This is a very important finding that clarifies and extends my earlier testimony:
1) The results continue to contradict the theory that 2007 sockeye smolts died in the Strait of Georgia, before reaching the area with fish farms; in 2007 smolt survival was substantially lower in the northern area.
2) The lower survival rate the northern area (currently estimated at roughly 2/3rds of the Strait of Georgia survival rate when averaged across all years) would have profound effects on marine survival if prolonged; after 5 weeks smolts would be reduced to only ~1/10th the number that would survive in the Strait of Georgia.
3) This level of higher mortality would be sufficient to fully explain the 10-fold decline in Fraser sockeye survival seen since 1990.
4) We caution that this new result remains a correlation, not proof that the fish farms present in the northern area caused the reduced survival, because the two regions probably differ in other ways (more abundant predators are likely present in the northern region, for example).
5) As the technical calculations in the full proposal demonstrate, the survival difference observed between freely migrating smolts in the northern and southern areas would be easily measurable with an appropriately re-designed array.
6) As discussed during my earlier testimony at the Cohen Commission, the “gold standard” for scientific research is a blinded experimental test comparing the survival of smolts exposed to fish farms to that of smolts not exposed (the later act as the control group, and are treated identically except for exposure to fish farms).
7) We estimate that fully implementing all aspects of the attached experimental design, including additional genomic & physiological analyses to assess response to fish farm exposure, would cost $3M~$3.5M per year. We believe that the study would need to be annually repeated for 3-5 years to provide a definitive answer as to whether fish farms elevate mortality sufficiently to justify regulatory action by government.
8) The scientific community (and thus the Cohen Commission) has had substantial difficulty in making reasonable conclusions owing to the lack of relevant data. The approach outlined in the proposal should both (i) resolve the key regulatory question for government of whether fish farm effects are large enough to warrant regulation and (ii) provide critically needed baseline information on when and where marine survival is determined.
9) The final appendix provides a list of letters of support for the approach, from members of the scientific community not having a direct interest in the research program.
David Welch, Ph.D.
Kintama Research Services, Ltd.
Dave... I highly suggest you stop now, before you lose any and all credibility you might have had, and really end up looking like a – FOOL!! Or, since I have already done the research... would you like and want to discuss and enter in to a debate with me on what diseases YOUR “open net-pens” are really spreading and which ones are killing our wild salmon? If you do... might want to start another thread? The last time someone tried that went well over 200 pages! LOL
Dave your industry has often remarked that the smolts have been dying in the SOG (Straight of Georgia). DFO has backed that with studies from it's netting of these fish on there way to the ocean. For years we have been told "we don't know why they don't survive the in the SOG". I sat one day at a meeting with Dr Beamish and he went over the data showing how the survival of coho smolts has gone from 7 - 5% to .5 to .1%. He was puzzled and he could only suggest that we try to change our way's of doing things. He had no recommendations but he felt strongly that we need to experiment. When asked if the fish farms had an effect he answered that his studies proved they did not. The smolts were gone (dead) before they passed the fish farms.
Fast forward a few years .... we have changed. We invested thousands of dollars on our little hatchery. We changed our old tanks to round fiberglass tanks. We increased our water flow from our springs and introduced the best practice from the industry. We built a special room for incubation in heath trays. We built a new upweller box to allow our fry to button up. In short we pumped major dough and volunteer time to improve our numbers. We went from smolt size at release of 10 to 12 grams to 20 - 22 grams. We have gone to quality and not quantity to experiment with getting our smolts to survive. The results have been so far disappointing. We clip our smolts so I have a good feel for how we are doing and I can tell you we are near the .1% survival rate.
Now the smolt studies that Welsh and his POST project have proved that smolts survive in the SOG. In fact they have been recorded as leaving the SOG and swimming past your buddies at the fish farms. The smolts make it all the way out past the fish farms then die. Why is that Dave? Mysterious Black Box by chance? How about this for a reason. They swim past your pals in the fish farms and pickup lice, virus or bacterium from the wall of death you people have put in the migration route. All for the love of money.
Wake up and smell the coffee as we are near the point of no return.
"There are in fact two things , science and opinion,The former begets knowledge , the latter ignorance " Hippocrates
The Harper™ Government©: Winging it since 2006
In Canada the Atlantic fish farm industry, our politicians and the corporate media work together to protect the Atlantic Salmon feed lots and other industries that put Pacific salmon at risk. Unfortunately we are in some ways a less democratic nation than the US and it is very difficult to fight the blending of corporate and government power.
In Canada it seems there are powerful big money interests which view Pacific salmon as nothing more than a threat to profits or potential profits. Sure they see Pacific salmon as having some value for commercial exploitation in the short term but in their big picture it would be best if Pacific Salmon are gone. The loss of our Pacific salmon, way of life, tourist industry and the economy of our coastal communities are acceptable losses to them as long as the profits of their industries are protected and allowed to grow. The fish farm industry even managed to co-opt some of our major environmental organizations but have lost ground there recently so it has not been a good month for them.
They are masters at controlling information and manipulating public opinion to provide them the social license necessary to exploit resources such as our inlets for fish farms and nothing else matters but maximizing the next quarter’s profit. Almost nothing is spent in Canada on restoring Pacific Salmon as that would be counterproductive to their objectives.
Luckily the US government seems to view Pacific Salmon somewhat differently and has spent billions on their restoration. For example while you are tearing out dams that interfere with Pacific salmon we are on a mission to turn every last coastal Coho and Steelhead stream into a power generating station. It is all good in the public’s mind, however, because it has been labeled “green power”.
When was the last time we saw a negative editorial in a major BC newspaper on fish farms? You see then in Seattle papers but a major BC Paper, never. We may be waiting a long time to see some journalistic integrity and guts from the editorial boards of our major papers on this issue.
It is almost humorous to watch our corporate media spin up the pro oil pipeline hype now that the pipeline industry (having learned from the fish farm industry) has decided to throw million their way with a new advertising campaign to push a pipeline through to the coast. It almost seems to me that the corporate media was scaring the pipeline industry a little until they got what they wanted, more advertising dollars.
The Atlantic fish pen corporations do of course hate forums like this where the democratic virtues of free speech and rational discussion threaten the work they do so well with the mainstream media to control public opinion. They do not like spending millions to install the “correct” point of view in the public only to see it undone here and in other social media. Therefore we can expect we will be graced with the likes of Dave, Absolon and Barbender from time to time.
Dave up until now has tried the soft approach, probably because Absolon failed so miserably with the usual social media attack and disruption tactics. Absolons approach works better on more general discussion forums with less well informed participants.
Dave is being very careful trying to build a little credibility and not to give much but you will notice some similarities with the tactics and arguments of the departed Absolon beginning to show. That is interesting isn’t it.
Finally Charlie; I think it is extremely difficult for those opposed to Atlantic net pens in our jointly shared ocean to make much progress against all the money, political and media power that protects them in Canada. Perhaps you and the USA can do better as they threaten not only our Pacific salmon but yours.
Alaska does not allow Atlantic salmon net pens, you only have a few Atlantic salmon farms in the lower 48 and your government actually values and defends Pacific salmon. Can you not get rid of your last few Atlantic salmon net pens down there in Washington State? That would be a good example for Canada to follow.
Why does your government allow the imports of BC farmed Atlantic salmon? Perhaps that will change now that your government is showing signs of concern and beginning to show interest in exploring and testing for disease links between Pacific and farmed Atlantic salmon?
Last edited by Rockfish; 06-05-2012 at 10:58 AM.
Rockfish you nailed it! Couldn't agree more. The push is on for public opinion on a project that a few years ago would never have been considered. I'm hoping we'll recognize Canada when Harper is done but it's looking like quite the fight. Donate to Alex donate to the Dogwood Initiative fund, sign petitions, do what you can because once they're done, we're done!
Last edited by fishnwhenIcan; 06-05-2012 at 06:46 PM. Reason: spelling