Mainstream defamation case dismissed ...

You don't think what she says and fights for is true or backed up?

You’re kidding, right? Alexandra Morton has been discredited and proven wrong about as often as Don Staniford has made a fool of himself. So I wonder why people still listen to them? Is it because while they continue to embarrass themselves with false claims aimed at BC’s fish farming industry, the real cause of declining wild salmon - the ramifications of climate change (like this recent drought or ocean acidification or changing coastal salinities or..), increasing habitat loss and rampant overharvesting by all user groups- is forgotten or conveniently pushed aside because we greedy bastards need an easy scapegoat.? When confronted with the problem, we say and some probably believe, it’s not us causing this problem… it’s those other guys/farms/DFO, etc.
Well wake up people, it’s all of us because we continue killing them by various means and methods and from what I see that won’t change anytime soon; or ever.

Nice post Birdsnest. I admire your courage to address this forum’s group of passionate anglers and I agree free speech is absolutely necessary, but where is the line drawn between voicing your opinion and outright deceit, as has been shown by Staniford and Morton?

Dave, waiting for the crucifiction to begin ...
 
I do not think government scientists are muzzled as much as some groups prefer to suggest but hey, these groups have no standard or code of conduct so why not put that out there to give the appearance that they are fighting the good fight. Gotta keep the donations flowing right.

Government scientists not muzzled eh? What nonsense!! Birdsnest, you are apparently always good for stating something quite laughable.
The muzzling of Canadian government scientists is a worldwide report reported phenomenon. Just a few of the many links you can find on this are below; and the muzzling does not stop at Kristi Miller and the ISA virus. It extends to global warming and atmospheric research among other things.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/25/kristi-miller-fisheries-scientist_n_937247.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lls-global-research-community/article4092468/
http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...er+West+Coast+salmon+study/5162745/story.html
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/he...et-again-ottawa-silences-fisheries-scientist/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/23/f-federal-scientists.html
http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/
Harper is “fundamentalist” conservative with crackpot religious views and he has nothing but contempt for science. Science is “inconvenient” and gets in the way of rampant development which is the “ordained” way of things. As far as he is concerned, the lord will not “allow” the world to be destroyed by mankind. Hence the retreat from Kyoto and the BIll C-38 and the gutting of the fisheries act.
This madness will not stop and federal science will continue to be muzzled and/or funding pulled until the conservatives are removed.
 
You’re kidding, right? Alexandra Morton has been discredited and proven wrong about as often as Don Staniford has made a fool of himself. So I wonder why people still listen to them? Is it because while they continue to embarrass themselves with false claims aimed at BC’s fish farming industry, the real cause of declining wild salmon - the ramifications of climate change (like this recent drought or ocean acidification or changing coastal salinities or..), increasing habitat loss and rampant overharvesting by all user groups- is forgotten or conveniently pushed aside because we greedy bastards need an easy scapegoat.? When confronted with the problem, we say and some probably believe, it’s not us causing this problem… it’s those other guys/farms/DFO, etc.
Well wake up people, it’s all of us because we continue killing them by various means and methods and from what I see that won’t change anytime soon; or ever.

Nice post Birdsnest. I admire your courage to address this forum’s group of passionate anglers and I agree free speech is absolutely necessary, but where is the line drawn between voicing your opinion and outright deceit, as has been shown by Staniford and Morton?

Dave, waiting for the crucifiction to begin ...

Before i crucify you,

What value do her or stainford have from doing the work they Do? What do they get out of it? Why would they be so passionate about something of no problem exists? Are they trying to get rich on a cpl hundred dollars worth of donations a week? Are they living an amazing life constantly in court, dealing with all kinds of threats from people in the industry. What is there motive? Why fish farms, why devote all of your time and energy, ( and im sure you know they devote every waking moment towards the erridaction of this disgusting industry) of thier is nothing really to gain, besides alot of work and stress. I know the answer, but id love to read yours.
 
You’re kidding, right? Alexandra Morton has been discredited and proven wrong about as often as Don Staniford has made a fool of himself. So I wonder why people still listen to them? Is it because while they continue to embarrass themselves with false claims aimed at BC’s fish farming industry, the real cause of declining wild salmon - the ramifications of climate change (like this recent drought or ocean acidification or changing coastal salinities or..), increasing habitat loss and rampant overharvesting by all user groups- is forgotten or conveniently pushed aside because we greedy bastards need an easy scapegoat.? When confronted with the problem, we say and some probably believe, it’s not us causing this problem… it’s those other guys/farms/DFO, etc.
Well wake up people, it’s all of us because we continue killing them by various means and methods and from what I see that won’t change anytime soon; or ever.

Nice post Birdsnest. I admire your courage to address this forum’s group of passionate anglers and I agree free speech is absolutely necessary, but where is the line drawn between voicing your opinion and outright deceit, as has been shown by Staniford and Morton?

Dave, waiting for the crucifiction to begin ...


NO Dave, you're kidding right!?

Unfortunately you are not kidding because you refuse to recognise the environmental devastation caused by fish feed lots world wide. You are so ecologically ignorant you just cannot see how fish feed lots violate so many of the natural checks and balances built up over the eons by evolution. Dr. Morton and others keep bring these facts up so you try and discredit her.
Here is an article by Rafe Mair which demonstrate clearly how our various levels governments have failed us on this issue.
http://thecanadian.org/item/1607-jac...irus-rafe-mair

I posted it earlier in this thread but I am sure you don't read anything supporting Morton. You just persist in posting unsupported generalisations and accusations...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He is just a schill, I do not acknowledge anything that spews from him.
 
I agree gunsmith! These 2 (Dave,birdsnest), are obviously brought on by the farmers to spew their crap here, to try and gain some support, and/or discredit their foes. The truth is, if you know anything about the industry, then no rational human being would side with it. Unless of course, you benefit somehow from it!
 
hey guys, I am a salmon farmer but none of my employers ever asked me to go on a fishing forum. They certainly would not pay me to do so. I do it because as a salmon farmer for 20 some years I have come to see the massive misinformation campaign funded heavily from out side sources here in BC. Over the years I have seen many transitions in this industry. The industry as it is now in bc is far improved from where it was some time ago.(still 30 million sock came back one year) Yet the misinformation movement remains in business. It is easy street for those here who simply repeat what they have heard. It is also more socially acceptable to cast doubt on issues where vigorous debate and controversy are present especially, ESPECIALLY when the environment is involved. It is also just plain easier for you will not have to face some explosive personality with an anger reaction at at a friends dinner party or similar social meeting. So I think I understand where some here are coming from. I also have family and peers from both walks of the issue. I have friends who are pretty much activists themselves and we certainly do not call one another names or talk down or excuse their views for reasons of association. Thats just weak. There is a conversation to be had here even though most segments of it have been beat to death.

Dave, I do not think it takes a hero to be here saying what I do. I understand the passion, emotion and concerns of posters here. I also realize that this is a public forum where the general public participates so the name calling and burning in the hottest corners of hell comments are water off a ducks back to me. I think thats one of the bonuses of fishing is you do not have to be immersed in the general public's various personality's. Never the less I know what I know from my employment as a salmon farmer all these years and my current opinion and experiences can not be changed.

It is also possible to appose salmon farming without riding the coat tails of personalities like Morton and Staniford. Geash. People think they are the only hope but if you ask me as long as those types are involved in the process there isnt a hope of change for your cause. Dr Morton? hehehe. I don't think so. If you want to come off as informed on the issue get in touch with some real biologists and scientists. After all we do have some of the best fishery scientists in the world:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/statement-declarations/2012/20120927-eng.htm
 
Birdnest don't waste our time we were not born yesterday. You have turned a blind eye to the damage already done we will not. As for trying to run down Dr Morton you are really showing your true side.
Have a nice day.
 
@Birdsnest..... I've spent my fair share of time in the Discovery Islands, where there is a salmon farm around every corner. I find it extremely hard to believe that you honestly don't think salmon farms pose a threat to wild salmon. If they dont then how would you explain the obscene amount of wild salmon fry that the farmed salmon eat, lured in by lights at night and simply because there's a constant food source luring them in. How about the complete dead zones underneath farm sites where there is literally a thick layer of sludge and not a trace of life. The list goes on... and I haven't even mentioned disease and sea lice concerns.

The real tipping point for me was this past spring when I was made aware of fish packers unloading some rotten smelling fish over a week long period in Campbell River. This was taking place right in the thick of the disease outbreaks that occurred at several farm sites elsewhere on the coast. Why would a fish farm unload rotten smelling fish 1-3am if they had nothing to hide??

I don't see how you can honestly believe there isn't some validity in peoples anger towards the industry. I appreciate your post and I don't judge you for earning a living from this industry but I have a very hard time agreeing with what you say. I view them as silent killers because they are out of the public eye and a constant year round threat. My opinion is based almost 100 percent on my own experiences, I'm not repeating what I've heard on the street. Anyways.... I think they need to be moved on land... or just get them out of here completely.... way to much to lose, way to risky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my current opinion and experiences can not be changed.

What a sadly unfortunate position for any rational person to live by be it about work, or anything else.

Are you able to see yourself in the description below of a mental affliction called cognitive dissonance, Birdsnest? The stress of living this way can lead to heart disease among other things.

"Festinger first developed this theory(cognitive dissonance) in the 1950s to explain how members of a cult who were persuaded by their leader, a certain Mrs Keech, that the earth was going to be destroyed on 21st December and that they alone were going to be rescued by aliens, actually increased their commitment to the cult when this did not happen (Festinger himself had infiltrated the cult, and would have been very surprised to meet little green men). The dissonance of the thought of being so stupid was so great that instead they revised their beliefs to meet with obvious facts: that the aliens had, through their concern for the cult, saved the world instead."

In other words, it is unhealthy to know one truth but try to live by the opposite one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know its a shocker for some of you fellas that I have this opinion but I honestly do and it comes from hands on experience. Not from living in some city listening to what the word is on the street and adopting a fail safe view of the issue. I did not get this opinion from a smell in the air late one night either.

This thread is about a victory for free speech and yet I am being told essentially to go away by those who only posts ago held free speech so high. Bizarre. There is a conversation to be had here but until someone puts up something new then there really will not be much chatting or sharing of ideas. I just want to put it out there that there are those who are passionate about wild salmon, steel head and trout and more, that firmly disagree with those who appose salmon farming in bc.

I don't see how you can honestly believe there isn't some validity in peoples anger towards the industry. I appreciate your post and I don't judge you for earning a living from this industry but I have a very hard time agreeing with what you say. I view them as silent killers because they are out of the public eye and a constant year round threat. My opinion is based almost 100 percent on my own experiences, I'm not repeating what I've heard on the street. Anyways.... I think they need to be moved on land... or just get them out of here completely.... way to much to lose, way to risky.

I do understand peoples anger towards the industry. I did quit a job years back over a situation I strongly apposed. But I also feel that there is a general hate for large corporations which gets applied or held against farming companies. I too share this hate for the corporations. The politics that lead to how the industry is now, foreign ownership and all is not really cool. But I also understand that it is a business that is not suited for a small company. To much boom and bust. Having said that, things fish health wise will stable out(due to improvements to fish husbandry practices) but now it its the market that companies have to deal with. That has nothing to do with the environment with the exception that corporations are thought to be nasty abusers to any ecology they occupy. But that is not always the case. BC has probably the most heavily regulated salmon farms in the world which is a real good thing.

I really appreciate above quote. Thanks for that hambone. Nice to see one person here is willing to have a conversation while strongly voicing an opinion of opposition.

@Birdsnest..... I've spent my fair share of time in the Discovery Islands, where there is a salmon farm around every corner. I find it extremely hard to believe that you honestly don't think salmon farms pose a threat to wild salmon. If they dont then how would you explain the obscene amount of wild salmon fry that the farmed salmon eat, lured in by lights at night and simply because there's a constant food source luring them in. How about the complete dead zones underneath farm sites where there is literally a thick layer of sludge and not a trace of life. The list goes on... and I haven't even mentioned disease and sea lice concerns.

I do not agree with any of this quote. I have been through the debate and full on discussion on these topics and I am well aware of the apposing studys. Please do not post any. I will say this. The lights thing. There are of course apposing studies on this but I honestly believe, that the lights are not attracting the amount of species that has been suggested. The bottom line is light does not travel very far underwater and in the case of the lights on the farm they are not used all the time and the lights to not get far past the area of the pens. Water and air are two different mediums. Sound underwater travels a very long distance. You mention a constant food source but what is that.? They cant eat the fish feed it is usually to big.
The bottom thing. There has been much improvements in farm locations that greatly improve the impacts on the bottom but and if it is done right it can benefit the area. That I know someone is choking on right now but it is true. But what does that small area of bottom have to do with wild salmon? I am not justifying effect from salmon farms I am only stating that in the case of wild salmon there really is no connection. Of course you could make a connection the zero risk crowd is eager to connect dots but unless you understand the chemistry of that situation you really can only use buzz words like "pile of poop". There has been situation in the past where there were problems but that was before regulation. Things are different and still changing now.
Disease and sea lice. Well for starters. ISA has not been confirmed in bc but if you are a big conspiracy theorist and hate the CFIA then I suspect you would be getting great deal on the the tainted beef that is going around.lol This ISA thing is a morton, routlage and SFU thing that is just a scam if you ask me. What a stunt that has been. ISA as just an example of how Morton and her crusade are handling science. Free speech though, as long as she truly believes..... holding back lab results well thats just looks like a muzzle job to me.

In other words, it is unhealthy to know one truth but try to live by the opposite one.

If this were the case at lease I would be in the know which is important to me. For me its about truth.
 
That late one night “smell in the air” happens to be a good indication that something is wrong!

What one fails to realize that all lot of people are actually “pro” aquaculture. I am actually “pro” aquaculture and even “pro” fish farming; however I am DEAD OPPOSED to “open net pens” of any type of salmon - ANYWHERE! And, until you get those salmon eating corn and soybeans – any type salmon farming is NOT sustainable.

It really has nothing to do with them being large corporations it has more to do with how they do business. They really don’t care about your environment. How is it a fish farm in Washington can be inspected and find no environmental damage (so it is said?) and then a fish farm in BC be found polluted with heavy metals, mercury, chemical, completely dead, and killing everything around it?

Please – explain to all our “small companies” operating in here in the U.S. that their business is not suited for them. You will find, once BC experiences their ISA outbreak, which is only a matter of time – those corporations will leave you “high and dry” and unemployed!

You might be reading some propaganda, as BC does NOT have the “most heavily regulated salmon farms in the world”! That is the reason those Norwegians moved their operations from the U.S. in favor of Canada - more favorable regulations. In fact, it might surprise fish farms are more regulated in both Norway and Chile.

Might want to read up there? Just because we can’t see that light doesn’t mean anything to a fish! Any aquatic animal would have visual pigments sensitive to the background “space” color and one or more visual pigments offset from the blue-green region. This imparts a clear survival advantage to these animals because they can detect not only changes in light intensity but also contrasts in color. Many fish have two color receptors, one in the blue region of the spectra (425-490 nm) and the other in the near UV (320-380 nm). Some aquatic animals have up to ten different classes of visual pigment in their eyes.

“It has been known for a long time that a light attracts fish, shrimp and insects at night. But what is the best color for a light attractor? Based on the biology of visual receptors discussed above, the light should be blue or green — the space colors of fish and members of their food chain. However, while blue or green light is desirable it is not essential. Even if the eyes of fish or members of its food chain have color receptors most sensitive to the blue or green, these same receptors have a broad but decreased sensitivity to other colors. So, if a fishing light source is intense enough, other light colors will also attract. For example, a sodium vapor light with its characteristic yellow color will attract fish — if intense enough. A fishing light attractor can also be white light because a portion of its total energy is in the blue to green region.”

“The perfect fishing light would have the following properties: 1) high intensity, 2) emit its light in a color similar to the fishes space (blue or green), 3) be powered by a portable electrical supply and 4) be submersible. The last attribute is desirable because significant amounts of light energy from land- or boat-mounted lights are lost by reflection off the surface of the water. No commercial light satisfies all four of these criteria. For example, many high intensity lights such as tungsten-halogen (incandescent), medium pressure mercury or metal-halide discharge lights are so power hungry that they can only be operated for very short periods of time on a battery, thus compromising convenient portability. While LEDs and fluorescent lights draw much less electrical energy, most are not very bright. Further, many of the above lights cannot be submerged in water without risk of electrical shock or damage to the light system.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_light_attractor
 
Bottom line on the “bottom thing” whatever fish farms put in the water (good or bad) is going to affect the bottom. I know of NO BC fish farm putting anything in the water that is going to benefit the area.

Well there really is a connection between farmed and wild salmon. First you have a wild fish and/or salmon who gets a disease. In a natural enviroment that fish will usually just die. Now, with an “open net pen” that wild fish will swim by and it actually does pass the disease to the farmed salmon (how else would farm salmon get disease). Then being in those nicely congested unnatural open net pens, the disease is amplified and then passed back to every passing wild fish. That my friend is known problem and very much a connection.

Concerning “that small area of bottom” and wild salmon have you ever heard of things called: “dead zones;” “algae blooms;” “toxic algae blooms;” “mercury;” “toxic chemicals”?

Would you mind explaining how SLICE is not harming all those dead shellfish around those “open net pens”?

There is actually little in common with the “beef” industry (tainted or not) and “open net pen” fish farming – other than both are “feedlots.” At least “agriculture” industry does keep their pollution and diseases confined.

Have to ask… is that a play on words as in: “No Confirmed Cases of Infectious Salmon Anaemia in British Columbia” News Release: No Confirmed Cases of Infectious Salmon Anaemia in British Columbia Or, are you talking ISA the disease, or ISAv which causes the ISA disease? Or, are you just trying to make anyone believe ISA and ISAv aren’t in BC? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but British Columbia - has both and has for years! Don’t believe that I highly suggest ready those Cohen testimonies closer.

ISA disease is running throughout BC and given enough time, money, and support about the only one who is going to prove that is - Dr Alexandra Morton. To the government of Canada, I suggest rather than letting all those dead “Atlantic” salmon be disposed of at 2:00 am, why doesn’t someone actually test those dead Atlantic salmon for ISAv?

There NEVER will be a confirmed case of ISA in British Columbia until BC experiences a full-fledged ISA breakout and has so many dead fish they can’t deny. Until then they will keep playing on words and deny – deny - deny!

“To date, no attempts to isolate the suspect ISA virus in cell culture have been successful by any laboratory; nor has any sequencing data been produced. Thus, there have been no confirmed findings of ISA in the samples.”
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2011/20111108-eng.htm

Hmmm… no attempts to isolate have been successful by any laboratory? Thus, no confirmed findings of ISA? Dr. Fred Kibenge, one of the world’s leading authorities on infectious salmon anaemia (ISA), might just disagree with those misleading statements.
http://avc.upei.ca/dr-fred-kibenge-invited-testify-bc-salmon-inquiry

Let’s see what the CFIA had to say during the Cohen inquiry on no ISAv in BC:

Reporting to CFIA:
Sample Set #1
October 9, 2011 – Preliminary notification to the sample submitter in BC that some samples tested positive for ISAV.

October 15, 2011 – Results reported to Dr. Brian Evans, OIE delegate and CFIA Chief Veterinary Office. The report stated that two samples from Sockeye salmon tested positive for the European genotype of ISAV by real-time RT-PCR.

November 30, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory sent report on preliminary cell culture test work. Work is ongoing; therefore final results are not available.

Sample Set #2
October 17, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory notified CFIA of additional samples received and being tested for ISAV.

October 20, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory notified CFIA of one positive test result.

October 27, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory submitted the final laboratory analysis of these samples which include three positive test results and the explanatory notes described above.

November 30, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory sent report on preliminary cell culture test work. Work is ongoing; therefore final results are not available.

Sample Set #3
November 3, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory notified CFIA of negative test results.

Sample Set #4
November 25, 2011 – ISA OIE Reference Laboratory notified CFIA of negative test results.
[PDF] (ISA) Laboratory Assessment - Cohen Commission

Oh… it get better as Canada’s response to these OIE positive test results on ISAv from:

“Peter Wright, PhD, manager of the National Aquatic Animal Health Laboratory System for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, said in the call that, although the Atlantic Veterinary College has reported two positive test results, the college has not provided evidence of successful virus isolation or sequencing data that could be used to confirm the presumptive positive findings.”

Well, just go back and re-read DFO’s own website concerning ISAv, which again is “To date, no attempts to isolate the suspect ISA virus in cell culture have been successful by any laboratory; nor has any sequencing data been produced. Thus, there have been no confirmed findings of ISA in the samples.” Then read that above news release, “No Confirmed Cases of Infectious Salmon Anaemia in British Columbia” as it actually reads:

“DFO has tested all 48 samples received as part of the original reports and the results are all negative for the virus. These results are consistent with the findings of an independent laboratory in Norway, which also tested samples associated with this investigation and provided a report to the CFIA.”

That is at the very best misleading! And, IMHO, is an outright LIE! What DFO seems to have left out of that news release, on DFO’s on website:

“Because RNA degrades rapidly, an extra test, called the “reference gene assay”, is conducted on the original extract. The result of this assay indicates the level of degradation by comparing it to a well preserved sample of the same species. As mentioned, if the RNA has substantially degraded, neither a PCR nor any other approved testing method can determine the presence or absence of the virus with any degree of confidence.”

Then DFO’s own Dr Wight makes this statement:

“Dr. Wright further explained in a message that government investigators were not able to test cardiac samples from the 48 original smolts because no material was left after the college's tests. The investigators obtained negative test results with kidney RNA extracts, which had partly degraded. He noted that a lab in Norway produced a single weak positive result through molecular assays on gills from the 48 smolts, but he said the samples were of poor quality and the results couldn't be repeated. “

Out of the mouths of “babes”:
https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/120101k.aspx

Believe what you wish; however, those Atlantic salmon dying with those lesions, swelling and/or reddening of the kidney, pale gills, darkening of posterior intestine, splenomegaly, and very possibly those “yellow” dead fish are NOT dying from BKD, they are dying from ISA and it is due from the ISA Virus - PERIOD! I would suggest and advise the governments of BC and Canada get their Dr Marty to start defining “secondary” and “primary” causes of those morts, as many of those diseases being disclosed are actually secondary diseases of ISA. And, THEY ALL KNOW! Goes back to, if you don’t TEST ISA, no one can’t confirm it, which really means Canada can still export those diseased Atlantic salmon to China.

DENY - DENY - DENY!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW… The reason I mention Bacterial Kidney Disease (BCD), is that ISA is also known by another name Haemorrhagic Kidney Syndrome (HKS) and you might want to read up on that?

Emergence of Haemorrhagic Kidney Syndrome (HKS)
The first pen of Atlantic salmon to experience increased mortality rates (greater than 1% per week) that remained unexplained by routine diagnostic tests was first affected in July or August, 1996. The group of fish had been transferred to seawater in May 1995, and were approaching market weight (i.e. 3.5 kilograms) when the problem occurred. The diagnostic investigation has been reported previously and can be summarized with the following
description. Gross lesions associated with HKS included one or several of the following: swelling and/or reddening of the kidney, pale gills, exophthalmos, serosanguinous ascites, darkening of posterior intestine, and splenomegaly. The primary histologic lesion was renal interstitial haemorrhage and acute tubular necrosis and tubular casting, hence the reason for calling the problem Haemorrhagic Kidney Syndrome [1]. The attending veterinarian performed numerous diagnostic tests which all gave negative results, including histopathology, bacterial isolation, viral isolation, and selected toxicological analyses. Immuno-diagnostic tests, such as fluorescent antibody tests, were performed against Infectious Salmon Anemia virus (ISAV), a prime suspect in the case, but these too were negative.

Early Surveillance for HKS
In the fall of 1996, there did not exist a definitive diagnostic test for HKS beyond the presence of histological lesions. However, only 20% to 50% of moribund fish showed the typical histologic lesion of HKS. For this reason, the only method of diagnosing HKS was through examination of a sample of moribund fish and diagnosing the pen as HKS positive based on the presence of any fish with the appropriate lesion. At the request of the salmon growers’ association, the veterinarians organized a confidential survey in November, 1996, to determine the number of farms with HKS lesions in any moribund fish, regardless of mortality rates. The results indicated that there were four sites with one fish or more which had the HKS lesion, three sites had elevated mortality rates. A second survey in February, 1997, discovered the presence of five sites with HKS lesions, three of which were newly detected as positive and two were part of the first four sites detected in the previous November. A final survey in April, 1997, revealed eight sites with HKS lesions. All of the positive sites were located within two adjoining bays containing 18 sites in total (one site was in a distant area unrelated to these two bays). Many of the farmers immediately slaughtered the entire group of fish which tested HKS positive since they were all at or approaching market weight. This likely slowed the spread of the disease in the early stages.
http://socrates.acadiau.ca/isme/Symposium08/hammell.PDF

I personally won’t be taking CFIA or Canada’s word on that one! I’ll be waiting for good ole U.S.A. and NOAA has to say. “U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State, as well as Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mark Begich, D-Alaska, are calling on the National Oceanic
 
Referring to the ‘The State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012‘ defending a positive position on Atlantic “open net pen” fish farming?

Is that just hoping one reads the “headlines” and doesn’t take the time to ready the rest of the text? I actually do read the rest of the text and there is NO mention of any Atlantic “open net pen” fish farming. However, did find references to “aquaculture” and “fisheries,” as follows:

The other two areas identified as strengths in the 2006 report — natural resources and environmental S&T — have not experienced the same improvement as Canadian S&T in general. In the current classification system, these broad areas are now represented mainly by the fields of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry; and Earth and Environmental Sciences. The Panel mapped the current classification system for these fields to the 2006 system and is confident that the overall decline in these fields is real, and not an artefact of different classifications. Scientific output and impact in these fields were either static or declined in 2005–2010 compared to 1994–2004. It should be noted, however, that even though these fields are declining relative to S&T in general, both maintain considerable strength, with Canadian research in Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry ranked second in the world in the survey of international researchers, and Earth and Environmental Sciences ranked fourth.

As shown in Table 4.2, over the past 10 years Canada’s level of specialization has decreased substantially in Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry (although it remains above the world average), and increased significantly in Public Health and Health Services and in Visual and Performing Arts.

I was once told Atlantic fish farming in open net pens was NOT considered to be aquaculture by those in aquaculture business; however, it really is and ‘Chapter 6 Collaboration, Clusters, and Emerging Technologies’ pretty much shows Canada’s current position on aquaculture, including those “open net pens’ and how it has changed between 2006 and 2011.

You can read the full report here:
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads...eases/sandt_ii/stateofst2012_fullreporten.pdf
 
This is why I am not being paid by anyone to stand up for salmon farms. I simply do not have the will to wade through massive reports like the one Charlie post above just to make a few small quotes that at the end of the day to support his stand point directly or not. Its fine and dandy to do that but in all honesty I am not impressed. As I have stated previously there are plenty of links on the internet that no mater what the issue one can pull bits and pieces from to suggest the sky is falling. Thats hand picked data there charlie and there seems to be a tradition of that going round over there. I get it though, when you are grasping at straws you have to throw what ever it is you can out there. I did read some of the report to get the feel for it and it is interesting to a degree.

I never heard a salmon farmer say that Aquaculture is not aquaculture. Thats ridiculous.

So now that we know I am not being paid to be here its my turn. Charlie, how do you benefit from posting here. You seem exceptionally talented on the issue. Your far beyond your followers here obviously shown by the large gap in mentalities. I mean you seem to post you thoughts without calling others names etc. Whats the benefit for you?

Salmon farms have been on the coast for 30 some years. If it was as harmful as some here believe why are there still salmon any where in our province. If 30 million socks can return on year isn't that suggest that if done correctly wild and farm fish can co-exist. Sure there have been massive fluctuations in returns and some areas are failing but historically that is the nature of salmon stocks. Getting rid of salmon farms in bc is NOT the cure and if it was so clearly the cure we would currently have NO salmon anywhere. The dooms day predictions from morton herself fully support this. Its undeniable.
I can assure you this. If we get on the antisalmon farming bandwagon and move forward with the removal of salmon farms what will happen next in the spirit of drastic measure, is the sport fishing industry will be closed. Why would it not. Its not natural for us to be pulling salmon out of the ocean with hooks and nets. Really though, that is not going to happen because salmon farms are not going anywhere soon.

This is just my opinion.
 
This is why I am not being paid by anyone to stand up for salmon farms. I simply do not have the will to wade through massive reports like the one Charlie post above just to make a few small quotes that at the end of the day to support his stand point directly or not. Its fine and dandy to do that but in all honesty I am not impressed. As I have stated previously there are plenty of links on the internet that no mater what the issue one can pull bits and pieces from to suggest the sky is falling. Thats hand picked data there charlie and there seems to be a tradition of that going round over there. I get it though, when you are grasping at straws you have to throw what ever it is you can out there. I did read some of the report to get the feel for it and it is interesting to a degree.

I never heard a salmon farmer say that Aquaculture is not aquaculture. Thats ridiculous.

So now that we know I am not being paid to be here its my turn. Charlie, how do you benefit from posting here. You seem exceptionally talented on the issue. Your far beyond your followers here obviously shown by the large gap in mentalities. I mean you seem to post you thoughts without calling others names etc. Whats the benefit for you?

Salmon farms have been on the coast for 30 some years. If it was as harmful as some here believe why are there still salmon any where in our province. If 30 million socks can return on year isn't that suggest that if done correctly wild and farm fish can co-exist. Sure there have been massive fluctuations in returns and some areas are failing but historically that is the nature of salmon stocks. Getting rid of salmon farms in bc is NOT the cure and if it was so clearly the cure we would currently have NO salmon anywhere. The dooms day predictions from morton herself fully support this. Its undeniable.
I can assure you this. If we get on the antisalmon farming bandwagon and move forward with the removal of salmon farms what will happen next in the spirit of drastic measure, is the sport fishing industry will be closed. Why would it not. Its not natural for us to be pulling salmon out of the ocean with hooks and nets. Really though, that is not going to happen because salmon farms are not going anywhere soon.

This is just my opinion.

I wont speak for charlie, But im pretty sure the benefit for him, like all of us, is get the farms out of the ocean. I to am very much pro salmon farming. I beleive with our current government and DFO, that if it was up to them they would kill every wild fish left in the name of profit. There are millions of cases of over fishing commerically, dams being built, logging right along rivers, etc all which contribute to poor salmon returns. The worlds hunger for salmon is growing, and without farming we would kill every fish to try and feed them. The are a nessecary evil. But... they belong on land. There are currently onland profitable fish farms, There are plenty of stdies showing it is very much a viable option, hat are much better for he enviroment. So why dont they do it on land? $$$$$. Thats it. Theres more money on the bottom line when you dont have to treat your water and treat your waste. And hey, if the government is on your side, or in your pocket. and not making you do it, why would you? the ony I dont need to quote any studies. Birdy, this is very much common sense. If you put an INVASIVE species, in a confined area, in HUGE NUMBERS, along the migration routes of the resident species. Bad things will happen. I cannot think of any example, expecially in fisheries where an invasive species helped the current eco system. If we remove fish farms, will salmon bounce back like the good ole days? No, they wont, there is more to it then just fish farms like i mentioned earlier. However, it will be a HUGE step in the right direction.

Lastly the reason I am behind Morton is because she is organized and has focused. She is really our only chance. SHe has the time and energy. We as a group (sportfisherman) are notorious for our inability to get organized. We can *****, and complain with the best of them. But making things happen, not so much. DO i agree with everything she says? no. IS she a bit over the top at times? yep. Is her heart in the right place, and do we have alignemnt with her end goal. 100%.
Lorne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i dont live in a big city; not easily infunced by what i read; but i am by what i see; the quatse river in port hardy only a few years ago has had runs of pink salmon of 40 and fifty thousand; a few year ago noriegans built a processing plant in port hardy bay; last few years runs of salmon have declined drasticly; to it seems to me to be around 5 or 6 thousand pinks; cohos a very few can be observed anymore; this with a hatchery on river; this plant is the main employer in town so little is said; it seems we have traded our fish for jobs; there has been no commercial fishing on these pinks; so thats not a reason for decline
 
Sure there are examples of some closed containment salmon but really it just isn't realistic. It just isn't. I know some see it as a solution but it just is not. It has been discussed many times over on these threads and I am always disappointing to see it again. Thanks for warming up to me with your words of encouragement about salmon farming but If you want to see salmon tanks everywhere along our coast or close to a water supply that are full of very crowed fish that are actually medicated often due to the poor water quality and fish density then I guess thats what you want. It would not come without a cost or risk. The idea is far more suitable and proven for other species such as talapia.
Common sense? An invasive species is one the threatens an environment it occupies. Atlantics have been introduced to bc and they never took. Millions(sadly) of all shapes stages and sizes have escaped over the(earlyer) years and never succeeded in maintaining a population anywhere in BC or on the west coast for that matter. Luckily those escape numbers are way way down from 10 years ago due to technology and regulation. When it comes to disease they are the canary in a coal mine being highly susceptible to pacific pathogens. So in my opinion they are not invasive as an asian carp as some her care to present.
I wont speak for charlie, But im pretty sure the benefit for him, like all of us, is get the farms out of the ocean.
And what will the benifit be from that? How are we all going to benifit from this?

It always sucks to see a lack of salmon returning to a river. I think that a situation as posted by wstcoast should be looked at. Keep in mind though that pinks are one of the highly fluctuating species that face fierce competition in the norther pacific due to the heavy introduction of hatchery smolt releases done by the Americans.

By the way, I know there is always talk of moving the farms away from migration routs. Where are these routs exactly? I just do not think they exist. It just seems like another slogan to me like the closed containment slogan providing a solution, calling it common sense but knowing it isnt a reality. A guy could have a heart attack living like that. lol

Gave a good thanks giving.
 
Sure there are examples of some closed containment salmon but really it just isn't realistic. It just isn't. I know some see it as a solution but it just is not. It has been discussed many times over on these threads and I am always disappointing to see it again. Thanks for warming up to me with your words of encouragement about salmon farming but If you want to see salmon tanks everywhere along our coast or close to a water supply that are full of very crowed fish that are actually medicated often due to the poor water quality and fish density then I guess thats what you want. It would not come without a cost or risk. The idea is far more suitable and proven for other species such as talapia.
Common sense? An invasive species is one the threatens an environment it occupies. Atlantics have been introduced to bc and they never took. Millions(sadly) of all shapes stages and sizes have escaped over the(earlyer) years and never succeeded in maintaining a population anywhere in BC or on the west coast for that matter. Luckily those escape numbers are way way down from 10 years ago due to technology and regulation. When it comes to disease they are the canary in a coal mine being highly susceptible to pacific pathogens. So in my opinion they are not invasive as an asian carp as some her care to present.
And what will the benifit be from that? How are we all going to benifit from this?

It always sucks to see a lack of salmon returning to a river. I think that a situation as posted by wstcoast should be looked at. Keep in mind though that pinks are one of the highly fluctuating species that face fierce competition in the norther pacific due to the heavy introduction of hatchery smolt releases done by the Americans.

By the way, I know there is always talk of moving the farms away from migration routs. Where are these routs exactly? I just do not think they exist. It just seems like another slogan to me like the closed containment slogan providing a solution, calling it common sense but knowing it isnt a reality. A guy could have a heart attack living like that. lol

Gave a good thanks giving.

BC-Salmon-Farms-Map.mediumthumb.jpg


As you can see the north Johnstone straight and the southern Queen Charlotte straight is dotted in Fish farms. It is a guantlet. Much like the movie 300. Every fish coming down the east side of island will run the risk of coming in contact with these sess pools.

How good has the east coast fishing been in recent years over all. Knight inlet is a fraction of what it used to be. Who goes to Port mcNiel to salmon fish these days? How about the salmon capital of Canada Campbell River.? is there days when fishing is good in these areas. Sure.. is it normal? Hell no. why?

As far as closed containment. I dont really care how heavily medicated they are. I will never eat one. Its funny you mention it wont happen without a cost. We all know that. ITs more expensive then to use the ocean as your dumping ground. To me that is not an acceptable reason and its the whole reason they are still in the ocean. Because its cheaper. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON.

heres a link for you.

http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/sustainability_closed_containment.php

The success of its RAS hatcheries has led Marine Harvest to consider the possibility of growing fish to market using land-based RAS. If this technological innovation proves viable technically and economically its use may address environmental and fish husbandry challenges that are of concern to the company and to society - but it may introduce additional challenges. At present it's not at all clear that RAS closed containment is a viable option, but the company wants to find out.

Really? its not clear?

http://www.asf.ca/landbased-aquaculture.html

Heres a company doing it in Canadian waters!!

http://agrimarine.com/

http://agrimarine.com/homepage-features/sustainable-products

Heres another cfompany growing coho in freshwater based closed containment

http://sweetspringsalmon.com/same-coho-different-home/

Heres an article on Swift aquaculture, a BC based on land coho farming company

http://www.vancouversun.com/Farmed+salmon+from+Agassiz+lands+sustainable+markets/3519654/story.html

Theres lots more.

Lorne
 
Back
Top