Little Hawk
Active Member
Infantile ramblings?
Fish Farm Legislation ???
- Thread starter Rockfish
- Start date
eaglemaniac
Well-Known Member
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?6746-fish-farm-siting-criteria-politics
C'mon do we have to go through this again. It's just more smoke and mirrors, probably from the same sockeyefry or his replacement. It's been beaten to death. Let's not encourage him. My 02. eman
C'mon do we have to go through this again. It's just more smoke and mirrors, probably from the same sockeyefry or his replacement. It's been beaten to death. Let's not encourage him. My 02. eman
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
sockeyefry2
Member
Holmes,
Me too, just the other day a little bird told me it had something to do with a smolt delivery to a farm. Like a pipe came apart so they went into the ocean instead of the pen?
Me too, just the other day a little bird told me it had something to do with a smolt delivery to a farm. Like a pipe came apart so they went into the ocean instead of the pen?
sockeyefry2
Member
Finally got to read the article. According to the article they lost fish whiletransferring fish from a tanker truck to a boat. That's pretty irresponsible. I say this because it is entirely preventable. It's not like a net got ripped in a storm.
Fish go from a tanker typically using a flex hose which is camlocked to the tank. A valve or plunger is pulled and away the fish go by gravity down to the boat. Normally a very quick and efficient way of doing the transfer with virtually no risk of an escape provided they do it right.
By regulation they must have a catch net spread out to prevent a fish from making it to the saltwater. They also are required to have a fish recxovery plan and the required equipment on site. Obviously in the case this was not done or the fish would have ended up in the net and not the water.
DFO should be laying charges against Grieg for the escape. Doesn't matter the number, an escape is an escape, and in this case should not have happened.
Fish go from a tanker typically using a flex hose which is camlocked to the tank. A valve or plunger is pulled and away the fish go by gravity down to the boat. Normally a very quick and efficient way of doing the transfer with virtually no risk of an escape provided they do it right.
By regulation they must have a catch net spread out to prevent a fish from making it to the saltwater. They also are required to have a fish recxovery plan and the required equipment on site. Obviously in the case this was not done or the fish would have ended up in the net and not the water.
DFO should be laying charges against Grieg for the escape. Doesn't matter the number, an escape is an escape, and in this case should not have happened.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Thanks Holmes,
Now at least I know my source wasn't pulling an April Fool's prank on me. We shall see what DFO does...if anything.
Now at least I know my source wasn't pulling an April Fool's prank on me. We shall see what DFO does...if anything.
sockeyefry2
Member
Holmes,
I ain't gonna support them when they do things like that. You are right to insist on charges, and about the mechanism on how it eventually got exposed. GR has quite the rumour mill.
Interested to see what really happened and how many were actually released.
I am just trying to provide information and another opinion in this discussion. Add another point for consideration, nothing more. Maybe through this discussion we can come to some possible solution. I would like to think that both sides are not so entrenched that a compromise can't be reached, so that there can be an industry and a wild salmon population.
I ain't gonna support them when they do things like that. You are right to insist on charges, and about the mechanism on how it eventually got exposed. GR has quite the rumour mill.
Interested to see what really happened and how many were actually released.
I am just trying to provide information and another opinion in this discussion. Add another point for consideration, nothing more. Maybe through this discussion we can come to some possible solution. I would like to think that both sides are not so entrenched that a compromise can't be reached, so that there can be an industry and a wild salmon population.
sockeyefry2
Member
Holmes,
They can. Just extremely hard to make any money doing it. Mainly due to added costs for energy and debt service.
They can. Just extremely hard to make any money doing it. Mainly due to added costs for energy and debt service.
I'm no expert but the volume of water required for land based salmon operations would be massive and the infrastructure required would be brutually expensive not to mention the operating costs for pumps and tempertaure control, transportation etc. There's no way they could complete. Other species are better for land based operations (ie can be farmed at higher density in smaller tanks etc) but salmon are much trickier. I'm sure there are others on the forum with a better explanation...
sockeyefry2
Member
Yammy, That pretty much sums it up. The question is not Can you grow them on land, but can you grow and make money on land. Salmon don't like being crammed into a tank. They respond by growing slower, so you don't gain. A lot of studies are based on running fish at densities in excess of 45 kgs of fish per cubic meter of tank volume. Problem is at this level, they grow slower and require more water flow. Looks good on paper, not so good in practise. I have alsways found that paper fish are easier to grow, especially if you have Excel.
Hey Holmes, what did you mean by inexperienced people at the hatchery in GR?
Hey Holmes, what did you mean by inexperienced people at the hatchery in GR?
sockeyefry2
Member
Hey holmes.
There are cameras all over the old mill site. That is pretty bad. All escapes must be reported. Cover ups do the industry no favours.
Basically with the economics of salmon farming, if the BC government put the farms on land, then the industry would be forced to shut down as they would not be able to compete with Chile or Norway. This would accomplish your goal, but would cause a lot of people to be out of work.
I think that a compromise can be reached. I would look at all sites and the areas they are in and determine how they may impact wild salmon and try to lessen this impact. Remove the site if it can't be lessened.
Another way to use the on land farms is to do an intermediate step. Raise the fish in a hatchery till they smolt, then transfer them to an onland facility where they would be raised for another year to about a kg in size. Then transfer them to the net pens but only for the final growout from Sept. to June. The net pen sites would only have fish for 6-8 months and would be fallowed for the 4-6 months that there are not fish. This would break your lice cycle, and still allow the farmers to use the cheaper rearing sites for the final most expensive phase.
Anyways just a thought.
There are cameras all over the old mill site. That is pretty bad. All escapes must be reported. Cover ups do the industry no favours.
Basically with the economics of salmon farming, if the BC government put the farms on land, then the industry would be forced to shut down as they would not be able to compete with Chile or Norway. This would accomplish your goal, but would cause a lot of people to be out of work.
I think that a compromise can be reached. I would look at all sites and the areas they are in and determine how they may impact wild salmon and try to lessen this impact. Remove the site if it can't be lessened.
Another way to use the on land farms is to do an intermediate step. Raise the fish in a hatchery till they smolt, then transfer them to an onland facility where they would be raised for another year to about a kg in size. Then transfer them to the net pens but only for the final growout from Sept. to June. The net pen sites would only have fish for 6-8 months and would be fallowed for the 4-6 months that there are not fish. This would break your lice cycle, and still allow the farmers to use the cheaper rearing sites for the final most expensive phase.
Anyways just a thought.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Sounds to me, it might be time for those Norway companies, BC, and Canada get together and build some "waste-to-energy plants"?
"The plants run so cleanly that many times more dioxin is now released from home fireplaces and backyard barbecues than from incineration. " "waste that is burned this way for energy as a renewable fuel, in many cases eligible for subsidies."
Just think for many on shore "fish farms" can be supplied electrical power just from all that trash from Victoria and Vancouver. Two birds with one stone. They get power, Victoria and Vancouver gets rid of their very large trash problems!
Who do I need to contact to get my finders fee!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html
"The plants run so cleanly that many times more dioxin is now released from home fireplaces and backyard barbecues than from incineration. " "waste that is burned this way for energy as a renewable fuel, in many cases eligible for subsidies."
Just think for many on shore "fish farms" can be supplied electrical power just from all that trash from Victoria and Vancouver. Two birds with one stone. They get power, Victoria and Vancouver gets rid of their very large trash problems!
Who do I need to contact to get my finders fee!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html
sockeyefry2
Member
Hey Charlie
Might want to check put the WTE project proposed for the old Gold River Pulp Mill site, before you put in for that fee. It is called "Green Island Energy" You could google it and get the scoop. They have been trying to get the garbage, but Vancouver won't give it to them. Prefer to bury it in Cache Creek or set up their own WTE in the metro area. Not sure where it stands now, maybe Holmes might know more.
You of course have brought up another problem that needs to be solved iof the entire industry is moved on shore and that is where is all the power coming from.
Might want to check put the WTE project proposed for the old Gold River Pulp Mill site, before you put in for that fee. It is called "Green Island Energy" You could google it and get the scoop. They have been trying to get the garbage, but Vancouver won't give it to them. Prefer to bury it in Cache Creek or set up their own WTE in the metro area. Not sure where it stands now, maybe Holmes might know more.
You of course have brought up another problem that needs to be solved iof the entire industry is moved on shore and that is where is all the power coming from.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Yep, I know... that is why I started with, "Sounds to me, it might be time for those Norway companies, BC, and Canada get together and build some "waste-to-energy plants"? If done right, that would not only solve the power problem, it could actually generate an additional income for any company that can get it done!
sockeyefry2
Member
Ah c'mon think of the 200 er 20 jobs it would create. Whats a little garbage,
But seriously I think that the focus on the development of land farms should be in providing an intermediate step between freshwater and net pens. It would reduce the need to have fish in net pens to 8 months or less, and the fish would not be there year round, so the area would get a fallow period which would promote site flushing and break any cycle of disease or lice.
They would take a smolt of 100g and in 12 months produce a yearling of 1 - 1.5 kgs which would be put into netpens for the final growout phase to 5 kg which should take about 8 months.
Just think Holmes, a large on land farm right beside the WTE on the GR pulp mill site.
But seriously I think that the focus on the development of land farms should be in providing an intermediate step between freshwater and net pens. It would reduce the need to have fish in net pens to 8 months or less, and the fish would not be there year round, so the area would get a fallow period which would promote site flushing and break any cycle of disease or lice.
They would take a smolt of 100g and in 12 months produce a yearling of 1 - 1.5 kgs which would be put into netpens for the final growout phase to 5 kg which should take about 8 months.
Just think Holmes, a large on land farm right beside the WTE on the GR pulp mill site.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Don’t know if anyone on this site ever listens to the science programme Ideas on CBC. Anyway, Alexandra Morton was featured on this radio programme very recently and this presentation really communicates what the issues are and why fish feed lots are so environmentally destructive. (And why the politicians will never deal with it.)
Listen to the recording right here:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/04/06/saving-salmon-1/
Sockeyefry2 , the mistake you are making is trying to find a solution to make something “economic” which breaks all the environmental and ecosystem “rules” developed through millions of years of evolution. The only reason open net pen fish feed lots appear to be economic is that so many environmental costs and knock on impacts are “off the books”. As soon as those true costs are brought out into the open by those that care and understand, the cry goes up, “ we can’t do that (be it closed containment or some other solution) or we will lose jobs”.
Let’s get one thing straight, we humans cannot go on regarding things as “economic” if their short or long term impacts remain outside any models and are simply passed on to other industries, people, or generations for them to suffer the real costs.
Listen to the recording right here:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/04/06/saving-salmon-1/
Sockeyefry2 , the mistake you are making is trying to find a solution to make something “economic” which breaks all the environmental and ecosystem “rules” developed through millions of years of evolution. The only reason open net pen fish feed lots appear to be economic is that so many environmental costs and knock on impacts are “off the books”. As soon as those true costs are brought out into the open by those that care and understand, the cry goes up, “ we can’t do that (be it closed containment or some other solution) or we will lose jobs”.
Let’s get one thing straight, we humans cannot go on regarding things as “economic” if their short or long term impacts remain outside any models and are simply passed on to other industries, people, or generations for them to suffer the real costs.
whitedragon
New Member
Read Salmon- Now or Never further down the posts.
Like I said, has anybody noticed that the only articles and opinions in favour of aquaculture are written by those employed in the industry or employed in promoting the industry? The thousands and thousands of others in opposition are written by those who live here and care about BC.
Like I said, has anybody noticed that the only articles and opinions in favour of aquaculture are written by those employed in the industry or employed in promoting the industry? The thousands and thousands of others in opposition are written by those who live here and care about BC.
Little Hawk
Active Member
Their day is coming Holmsey.
That big Norwegian doggy ain't shittin' in our front yard no more!
That big Norwegian doggy ain't shittin' in our front yard no more!
sockeyefry2
Member
Hey WD,
Ever notoice that the anti`s who write articles and have op Eds published are paid by large foundations such as Pew and Suzuki
English, you are right. lowering cost of production at the expense of the environment is wrong. Problem is I doubt that you can name any human activity which doesn`t do some form of effect on the environment. The decision has to be made what effects are acceptable to obtain the result. In addition, I am not trying to justify the continued use of net pens, simply suggesting that there are problems and environmental issues with land based farming that must be addressed before they can be successfully operated at a profit. And yes, profit is not a bad word.
Ever notoice that the anti`s who write articles and have op Eds published are paid by large foundations such as Pew and Suzuki
English, you are right. lowering cost of production at the expense of the environment is wrong. Problem is I doubt that you can name any human activity which doesn`t do some form of effect on the environment. The decision has to be made what effects are acceptable to obtain the result. In addition, I am not trying to justify the continued use of net pens, simply suggesting that there are problems and environmental issues with land based farming that must be addressed before they can be successfully operated at a profit. And yes, profit is not a bad word.
Similar threads
