More salmon-farms in the Clayoquot?

[lorneparker1]

Well said Roland!

Over ten years ago when I first began to research and write about this industry, it was (if memory serves) the Dutch based giant Nutreco that owned and controlled the biggest piece of the pie in our planets net-pen industry. It was then that I made the alarming discovery that the same outfit - Nutreco - also owned/controlled the majority of the worlds fishing fleets and processors that supplied the pellets to feed their own fish-farms.

What a tidy arrangement. You get licensed to rape the worlds oceans and make even more money selling the product to your own fish-farms which bash-the-**** out of the ecology of each and every environment they operate in.

Lorne, with all due respect - we need more fishfarms like we need more holes in our boats.

British Columbia's fish-makin' machinery - our rivers & streams - did and could once again out-produce all the fishfarms together if given half a chance...

I believe!

Obviously my message wasnt conveyed properly. LOL I dont think i said i want fishfarms, or want more fish farms or anything of that nature, but if i did, that is certainly not the point I was trying to make. I think they are brutal in so many ways, from diseases to pollution, to raping and pillaging the ocean for feed and NEED to ge hte hell out of the ocean.

 

[Little Hawk]

Agreed lorne - totally!

 

[seadawg]

There is a map that goes with this showing 26 farm locations in the area but I'm not sure how to load it.

No choice but to go forward to the Supreme Court of Canada to protect wild salmon - Government attack on environment increases the urgency of First Nations' access to Class Action Proceedings


(VANCOUVER, BC, August 8, 2012) The Supreme Court of Canada is where the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation (KAFN) of the Broughton Archipelago expect to continue their quest to protect the wild salmon in their Territory. The KAFN announced this morning that they applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for Leave to Appeal the May 3, 2012 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) regarding the environmental impacts of open net-pen salmon farms on the wild salmon that the KAFN have depended upon for thousands of years.

The recent BCCA decision overturned an earlier legal victory, where the KAFN made history by successfully advancing the first class-action lawsuit in Canada that focused on Aboriginal fishing rights. The case was successfully certified by the Honourable Justice Slade on December 1st, 2010.

Justice Slade's decision was appealed jointly by the BC and Canadian governments on several grounds, but most notably that, unlike other Canadians, "aboriginal collectives" should not be allowed to join together in a class action. This argument was accepted by the Court of Appeal.

Bob Chamberlin, KAFN Chief and representative plaintiff in the case, observed, "The appeal of our certification win by both the Canadian and BC governments, and supported by the aquaculture industry, hinged on technicalities and missed the importance of government's obligation to regulate the open net salmon farming industry in a way that protects wild salmon. This decision cannot remain unchallenged."

"The urgency and importance of this case has only increased since it was filed in February 2009. The Harper government's recent gutting of the Fisheries Act, hollowing out of the environmental assessment process, silencing of science, and attempting to paralyze ENGOs highlights the importance of the rights of First Nations. Their access to the justice system can serve as the last stand to prevent the environmental carnage that will result from the pursuit of economic development at all costs. With this assault on the environment in favour of the rapid exploitation of natural resources, what is left to hold industry accountable? We must remove this barrier to First Nations being able to protect natural resources such as the wild salmon of the Broughton that all Canadians hold dear."

Legal Counsel, Reidar Mogerman of the Vancouver-based law firm Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, confirmed that the Leave to Appeal application had been filed earlier in Ottawa.

A successful application for Leave to Appeal would mean the Supreme Court of Canada would consider whether aboriginal collectives should be able to join together and use the powerful class-action laws to protect their rights. The details are contained in the Applicant's Memorandum of Argument. This 21-page document was circulated to media conference attendees.

Chief Chamberlin, flanked by his legal counsel Reidar Mogerman and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), made the announcement to a crowded room in the offices of the UBCIC. In attendance were regional First Nations leaders, scientists, and wild salmon advocates.

Chief Chamberlin went on to say, "Our experience is inconsistent with Canada's international obligations as a supporter of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that promises shared decision making at both the Federal and Provincial levels that is clearly not happening."

He observed, "Wild salmon are integral to the social, cultural, and ecological well-being of the KAFN and they have sustained us for over 5,000 years. Despite this, our firsthand knowledge of the impacts of open net-pen salmon farms in KAFN Territories has not been respected. We are dealing with governments who, rather than respecting First Nations and working together towards solutions and sustainable economic development opportunities, prefer to invest in litigation costs."

"We were forced into the courts. It is not our preferred approach. We would much rather cooperate and use the resources expended on litigation to remediate the environmental damage that has been done and improve the regulatory system for aquaculture. However, from the actions of the BC and Harper governments to date, I can only conclude that we cannot trust them to protect Canada's environment and our fish without being ordered to do so by the courts," stated Chief Chamberlin.


-30-


To schedule interviews with Chief Chamberlin and Legal Counsel or to secure the Applicant's Memorandum of Argument, contact:
Don Huff, Penasi Communications/Environmental Communication Options,
at 416-972-7404, on-site in Vancouver (Cell) 416-805-7720 or huffd@ecostrategy.ca

The Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish First Nation is a First Nations band government, in the Queen Charlotte Strait region of British Columbia. The territory of the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish First Nation spans the southern Broughton Archipelago and the Gilford Island area just north of the mouth of Knight Inlet.



Salmon farm locations
Source: Broughton Archipelago Monitoring Plan (BAMP)

Background

In February 2009, utilizing the Class Proceedings Act of British Columbia, the KAFN sought remedies from the court requiring the defendant, the B.C. Government (represented by the B.C. Minister of Agriculture and Lands) to address the decline in wild salmon in their traditional territory.

To view the original KAFN Statement of Claim go to:
http://huffstrategy.com/MediaManage...+Pleading+Statement+of+Claim+Chamberlin_2.pdf

This was the first class-action lawsuit advanced by a First Nation in Canada to protect Aboriginal fishing rights.

The Broughton Archipelago is the area of bays, islands and mainland coast adjacent to the northeast side of Vancouver Island. The KAFN claims a constitutionally protected Aboriginal right to fish for wild salmon for food, social and ceremonial purposes within the Broughton Archipelago.

When the class-action was launched, 29 salmon aquaculture sites were authorized by the B.C. Government to operate in the Broughton Archipelago. It is the KAFN's position that these operations have contributed to a drastic decline in salmon stocks within the region.

The class-action was certified in December 2010 by Justice Slade of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

To view the December 1, 2010 Decision by the Honourable Mr. Justice Slade, go to:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/16/2010BCSC1699cor1.htm

An Appeal advanced by the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada (who was later joined as a Defendant) overturned Justice Slade's decision in May 2012.

To View the May 3, 2012 Decision by Madame Justice Garson of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, go to: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/01/2012BCCA0193.htm



For more environmental releases, visit http://www.ecostrategy.ca/MediaManager/
Follow us on twitter - @ecostrategy
For more information about this release or to unsubscribe, contact Emma Minsky, eminsky@ecostrategy.ca or call 1-416-972-7401
Get the latest environmental media releases through RSS - http://feeds.feedburner.com/Huffstrategy

 

[Little Hawk]

Sorry Seadawg!

Wasn't meaning to derail your above post with my 'Indians vs fish farms' thread. Didn't see this until after I posted.

Regardless, thanks for helping to draw attention to this ENVIRONMENTAL TRAVISTY IN MOTION called salmon-farming.

 

[fogged in]

the latest news in todays Times Colonist re Fish Farms.
close to 900,000 diseased fish culled in BC this year alone!

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Virus+confirmed+salmon+farms+cull+fish/7063631/story.html

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/t...+farms+could+Supreme+Court/7063679/story.html

I hope you can open the links ok.

 

[cuttlefish]

Thanks FI. Links work. Looks like the number of culls is over a million now. 3 farms culled. One with over 1/2 million alone.

 

[seadawg]

No sweat Hawk, the more attention the better I figure.

 

[SalmonFarmScience]

Well, there's sure a lot of strong feelings here, and that's good. I love fishing and want to make sure there are wild salmon in the ocean for my kids and grandkids to fish, too. However, calling me a hypocrite, a scab and comparing me to a mass murdering psycho is just ridiculous. So is calling farming "evil." Try a little harder next time. This isn't religion, it's farming and fishing we're talking about. And I'll keep taking my kids fishing, and teaching them about salmon farming too

Most of the posters here are pretty knowledgeable and have done a lot of research, but are using information that's wrong, outdated or out of context.

I'll tackle some of the key points.

1) Farm sites in good locations have more than adequate tidal forces to flush and disperse fish waste. But thanks to 20 years of fighting over fish farming, the government has not had the guts to allow fish farmers to move old sites in poor locations to better locations. So we are stuck with some sites in poor locations approved 20-30 years ago, before people knew too much about what was needed, because there are no alternatives. Those sites have to meet government regulations for sulphide levels etc. But because they are not great sites, farmers have to wait longer between cycles to stock them.

2) Do farms act as giant incubators for viruses? No. Our blog talked about this in a recent blog post: http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/08/03/viruses-from-salmon-farms-are-low-risk-to-wild-fish/ They talked about the "mutation" risk in this post. Also one thing they did not mention, and which activists citing the "billions of viral particles" meme fail to mention, is that IHN virus particles die rapidly in sunlight and do not survive for very long without a host. A farm may shed billions of particles during an outbreak, especially if those fish aren't removed right away, but most of them will die before they ever find a new host.

3) Yes, IHN virus is designated as "HIGH RISK" because it has the potential to do huge damage to juvenile fish in aquaculture facilities, INCLUDING ENHANCEMENT HATCHERIES. This is where the virus was first observed, in a Washington State hatchery. In B.C. it killed a lot of fish at the Weaver Creek spawning channel one year. But research shows that under the natural conditions in river systems, where the density of eggs and alevins is far lower than in enhancement hatcheries, the virus is low risk.

4) Yes, there are three distinct strains of IHN, U (for Upper) M (for Middle) and L (for Lower) named for the geographical regions of the coast where they evolved different traits. The virus which showed up at fish farms is in the "U" clade.

5) IHN and other viruses is a risk farmers have to prepare for. The virus seems to only show up every 10 years, probably linked to ocean conditions like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. But the vaccine that is available isn't field-tested, and is very expensive. Farmers weigh the risks and benefits and in many farms decide not to vaccinate against this virus because the odds of it showing up are low. This year, they gambled and lost. All farmers do this. You can't possibly vaccinate your animals against every single virus and disease which could harm them. You have to weigh the risks, and then do your best to keep the animals healthy at all times.

6) Yes, the decline in Area 24 is dramatic. Do you think it's coincidence that it started shortly after the road was pushed through and the population sharply increased, along with logging, fishing and tourism in the region?

7) Comparing B.C. to Chile and Norway is flawed. Chile has no natural wild salmon runs. Norway and Europe overfished their wild Atlantic stocks for centuries before they started farming. B.C. has relatively strong and healthy populations of Pacific salmon.

8) The USA has not banned salmon farming. There are salmon farms in Washington State and Maine. Alaska likes to crow about how they banned salmon farming, but they rely heavily on "ranching" projects which use -- gasp -- aquaculture technology and ocean net pens to rear fish, feeding them the same feed pellets farmed fish get, before they release them into the ocean. The fish, having imprinted on that region, come back in a year or two (depending on the species) and the fishermen just have to set nets and wait. Almost half of all salmon caught in Alaska comes from these facilities.

9) It does not take 2-5 kg of wild fish to grow 1 kg of salmon. Maybe 10 years ago but things have changed. Today it's about 1.2 kg of wild fish (which come from a fishery which hasn't increased its catch levels in 50 years) to grow 1 kg of farmed salmon.

10) The carbon footprint of salmon farming is not much different from fishing. The energy use is similar, but salmon farming uses far less land and has far less impact on the ocean floor. http://library.enaca.org/environment/comparative-assessment08.pdf

That's enough for now, thanks for the discussion and I look forward to more.

 

[Dave]

Excellent information SalmonFarmScience! Please keep it coming.

 

[Cuba Libre]

It would be greatly appreciated if you and "Dave" go back over to Fishing with Rod, and keep your slanted misinformation there. Its not just about viruses, its about getting this toxic industry and all its attributes and risks out of the marine environment where it cant affect our wild fish.

Signed-- one the the knuckledraggers..........

 

[Enniberg]

I am skeptical about salmon farming but I like your tone and appreciate your contribution to this debate SFS. Very interesting stuff!

 

[lorneparker1]

I'll tackle some of the key points.

1) Farm sites in good locations have more than adequate tidal forces to flush and disperse fish waste. But thanks to 20 years of fighting over fish farming, the government has not had the guts to allow fish farmers to move old sites in poor locations to better locations. So we are stuck with some sites in poor locations approved 20-30 years ago, before people knew too much about what was needed, because there are no alternatives. Those sites have to meet government regulations for sulphide levels etc. But because they are not great sites, farmers have to wait longer between cycles to stock them.

Holy frick! This is what you lead with? I am sure you guys are just lobbying the crap out of the government to have to move your sites. I know, you are trying to look out for wild salmon and the government just wont let you!! hahahahahahahahahahaha

2) Do farms act as giant incubators for viruses? No. Our blog talked about this in a recent blog post: http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/08...-to-wild-fish/ They talked about the "mutation" risk in this post. Also one thing they did not mention, and which activists citing the "billions of viral particles" meme fail to mention, is that IHN virus particles die rapidly in sunlight and do not survive for very long without a host. A farm may shed billions of particles during an outbreak, especially if those fish aren't removed right away, but most of them will die before they ever find a new host.

This is another great post. You folks are known, for inability to react to virus outbreaks. The reason for that is to cull all of the fish costs lots! The virus is usually found, then the CFIA is brought in, then there is decision made to cull or not. That takes way too much time IMO, And MOST of particles dieing, isnt good enough for me


5) IHN and other viruses is a risk farmers have to prepare for. The virus seems to only show up every 10 years, probably linked to ocean conditions like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. But the vaccine that is available isn't field-tested, and is very expensive. Farmers weigh the risks and benefits and in many farms decide not to vaccinate against this virus because the odds of it showing up are low. This year, they gambled and lost. All farmers do this. You can't possibly vaccinate your animals against every single virus and disease which could harm them. You have to weigh the risks, and then do your best to keep the animals healthy at all times.

Again, it all comes down to money, and as long as OUR government keeps re-imbursing you for your losses, none of these precautions will ever happen because why would they?

6) Yes, the decline in Area 24 is dramatic. Do you think it's coincidence that it started shortly after the road was pushed through and the population sharply increased, along with logging, fishing and tourism in the region?

I would love to know your definition of "population sharpley increased". As id have a tough time figuring out where all these 100's of people in Clayquot are. I can buy the logging part for a bit(only cause im not every educated on that topic) but do you think the odds of it ever bouncing back with your sess pools killing juvies are very high?

7) Comparing B.C. to Chile and Norway is flawed. Chile has no natural wild salmon runs. Norway and Europe overfished their wild Atlantic stocks for centuries before they started farming. B.C. has relatively strong and healthy populations of Pacific salmon.

Again, you guys arent helping anything. It is virtually impossible for runs to bounce back when you are in major migration routes spewing virus and killing smolts.


9) It does not take 2-5 kg of wild fish to grow 1 kg of salmon. Maybe 10 years ago but things have changed. Today it's about 1.2 kg of wild fish (which come from a fishery which hasn't increased its catch levels in 50 years) to grow 1 kg of farmed salmon.

Well that makes ok then! Give your head a shake!

In closing i pray in a few months when the cohen repot comes out, you guys are toast.


I only have one question and i hope to get answer. Other then a handful of jobs, Please tell me what benefits your disgusting industry brings to BC, and how does it benefit to our eco systems.

Lorne

 

[Dave]

Lorne, the reality is people want to eat salmon. There are not enough wild salmon to meet this increasing demand. And, the biggie, wild salmon numbers will continue to decrease until we stop harvesting them and degrading their habitats.

 

[Aces]

Yup. Stop eating salmon and start eating grass and bark. That's the answer

 

[lorneparker1]

Lorne, the reality is people want to eat salmon. There are not enough wild salmon to meet this increasing demand.

Dave, If you took 2 seconds and actually read some of the things i have wrote over the years, you would see we hav ea bit of alignment with the above statement.

However, what i dont agree with is them being in the ocean. THey do not beling there, and everytime a wild fish gives them IHN, they are telling them to get the F@$#$@!( out of the ocean.

They hurt our wild stocks, they pollute our oceans, we take all the risk and reap zero of the profits.

Lorne

 

[SalmonFarmScience]

If you don't want to read it, CL, you can just skip my posts or put me on your "ignore" list.

I'm trying to have a rational discussion here, if you don't want to participate that's fine. However, I was under the impression that this forum is open to people who love sport fishing and who want to talk about it, and the issues affecting it.



Thank you Enniberg, I was skeptical too about salmon farming and still am to the extent that I am always watching what goes on. I work in aquaculture, and if I ever see something that is environmentally unsound, I will leave this industry and let the world know why. But I just haven't seen it, no matter how hard I look.



Lorne, I know you said you only care about one answer but I have to address your points.

- Yes, we would love to move some of our farm sites because, frankly, some of them are in terrible locations. They were great 30 years ago when all Ma and Pa Farmer had to do to grow a few thousand fish was string a few logs together with an old fishing net with no environmental considerations, but today, we want to grow a lot more fish and do it in an environmentally respectable way. We do what we can with the sites we have, but the government has dragged its heels for a decade on little things like letting us change the angle of the cage system to better take advantage of tidal currents (reducing the environmental impact). There's been almost no new sites approved since the 1990s so we're stuck with the status quo. We'd love to change it.

- It seems to me that compared to the IHN outbreak in 2002-2003, salmon farmers are doing a lot better this time around dealing with the virus. The Mainstream site in May was culled three days after the virus was detected. And it takes a long time to cull 560,000 fish. They can't just haul up nets and drop it on a barge. They have to do it like a harvest, carefully and humanely, one pen at a time. If they stress the fish out too much, it will accellerate the disease, and they'll start dying rapidly. It's a real concern that the fish could suddenly die en masse and their weight could pull the floats down. They got that site done in four days, I believe, which is PDQ.

- Also, you do realize that wild fish carry IHN naturally. They have a resistance to it. Have I mentioned that recently

- Growing fish, letting them die and then expecting a handout from the government is a pretty stupid business plan. Compensation - which gets paid out to all kinds of farmers, from chicken farmers to potato farmers when they experience disasters - is not guaranteed. No doubt the government is looking for any excuse NOT to pay out. Also who would invest in such a lousy company. Salmon farmers who want to make money, and keep their shareholders happy, have to grow healthy fish, avoid disease outbreaks as much as possible and do a good job. Compensation merely reduces the sting of a major loss, it is no incentive to be lousy farmers.

- Despite decades of research, there is no evidence showing salmon farms are affecting productivity of any wild salmon runs. There is speculation, there are mathematical models predicting impacts (but which spectacularly failed when they predicted the extinction of Broughton pinks which then came back in record numbers). But as the aquaculture projects at the Cohen Commission showed, there is no correlation between salmon farm disease incidents and wild run productivity, and there is no correlation between salmon farm sea lice numbers and wild run productivity. The data just does not support the hypothesis.

And to answer the one question you say you care about: benefits. Somewhere around 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. A skilled workforce. $800 million in economic benefits, money paid to workers and suppliers and contractors who live and work in communities in B.C. which have little else to prop up their economies.

Yes, sport fishing employs more people and generates more money. But that's not a reason to say that we shouldn't farm salmon too. If there are conflicts between salmon farming and sport fishing, it's wiser to work them out so you can have both, not just put a bullet in whichever one makes less money.

 

[Rockfish]

Looks like we have a new fish farm propagandist visiting. I am very familiar with the talking points, distortions, half truths and misinformation that comes out of those who are paid to make sure this damaging industry continues to operate in our ocean and expand. It is very well written propaganda but anyone tasked with defending this industry had better be good at it. It’s not like you have a lot positive to work with. Like all dirty industries, yours is only concerned about profit and continued unlimited expansion.

We want your damaging, polluting, risky alien Atlantic salmon pens off our coast (yes our coast, not Norway’s) and away from our fish.

As for Alaska’s ocean ranching of Pacific Salmon which is not without it’s problems, I believe it is far less damaging and risking than raising alien Atlantic salmon with their Atlantic evolved diseases in our Pacific ocean.

http://www.currentresults.com/Oceans/Marine-Fish/rockfish.php

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0520161


Now it looks like your toxic waste disease pens are not just putting at risk our pacific salmon and greater economy, but also other species such as Rockfish. How are you going to spin this one? I am sure you will have an angle, PR Hacks always do.

Perhaps Mr. Harper does not consider Rockfish a species of economic value and therefore it is just fine if he lets your toxic waste disease pens poison them as per the new Conservative watered down fish protection legislation.

I also think it will not be long until we have evidence that Atlantics are spreading disease to our fresh water steelhead, searun cutthroat and coastal trout. Of course we all know that this self serving industry will never accept the validity of any evidence that would damage profits or expansion.

This indrustries communication officers, PR Hacks and lobbyists want us to believe that alien Atlantic salmon pens are benign. It’s not working, your loosing the public opinion battle despite having millions for PR campaigns, politicians, purchased science and a cowed press.

Don’t worry, after these pens are out of our ocean you can always get a new job convincing us that pipelines and tankers will never fail and oil soaked streams and beaches will be good for our fish and BC’s tourist industry.

 

[fogged in]

salmonfarmscience
Your fish farms have lost 900,000 fish to disease from 3 farms this season alone on our coast plus another huge loss in Washington State.
This particular disease came to your Atlantic salmon from our Pacific Salmon, who have developed somewhat of a immunity to the virus.
Is there a solution to these HUGE losses other than ensuring Atlantic salmon do not come into contact with Pacific Wild Salmon, or are these losses going to simply continue until all our wild salmon are gone!
I do believe the Science as you like to call it says Sockeye Smoltz coming into a concentration or contaminated area of this particular virus are subject to death.
Another concern is your Fish Farms run lights all night to speed growth while Smoltz of all wild species pass by. Your people say your Atlantic salmon eat pellets and would not eat these Smoltz if they were attracted to the lights...right? What Science do you have to prove this, particularly when Atlantics have escaped and have been caught we have found bait fish in their bellies?
The evidence goes on and on why fish farms and wild salmon do not mix.
Just look at the track record all over the world.
This is just a short off the cuff reaction to your posts.
If you want to feed the world with salmon, do it on dry land ensuring your effluence is clean when it goes into the environment....which is another HUGE problem you have yet to reslove both from your farms AND from the plants where you import your eggs and raise them thru the smolt stage!
You will have a tough time convincing many people on this form that Fish Farms belong in our Pacific Coast waters and have NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on our wild stock or our environment...why.....because any claims like to this effect are simply a lie!!

 

[cuttlefish]

I'm trying to have a rational discussion here,

Thank you Enniberg, I was skeptical too about salmon farming and still am to the extent that I am always watching what goes on. I work in aquaculture, and if I ever see something that is environmentally unsound, I will leave this industry and let the world know why. But I just haven't seen it, no matter how hard I look.

- Yes, we would love to move some of our farm sites because, frankly, some of them are in terrible locations. They were great 30 years ago when all Ma and Pa Farmer had to do to grow a few thousand fish was string a few logs together with an old fishing net with no environmental considerations, but today, we want to grow a lot more fish and do it in an environmentally respectable way. We do what we can with the sites we have, but the government has dragged its heels for a decade on little things like letting us change the angle of the cage system to better take advantage of tidal currents (reducing the environmental impact). There's been almost no new sites approved since the 1990s so we're stuck with the status quo. We'd love to change it.

Well, based on your claims in the quote above, you might wanna change that avatar photo then, SFS. It's a photo of a Marine Harvest Canada farm at Doyle Island and is featured on Wikipedia courtesy of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association who ask that any user credits them when using it which you did not do; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salmon_farming.jpg. BTW, the small cages at the top of the photo behind the feed shed were actually off the company lease and tresspassing on public waters at the time the photo was taken.
The Doyle Island farm is no longer in the configuration that the photo shows but has indeed changed and been approved for an increase in allowable production of over 30% it's original licence since 2010. Oh, and another thing, the escape of over 15,000 alien Atlantic salmon from the Doyle Island farm in December of 2010 was not reported on the new DFO website (which claims to be "transparent to the public") but only appears on page 7 of the Marine Harvest 2010 Q4 Report; http://hugin.info/209/R/1486814/422126.pdf.

And let me also mention that, actually, a number of new farms have been approved in B.C. since the 1990's. Bennett Point, Clio Channel (Grieg Seafood 2006), Concepcion Point, Nootka Sound (Grieg Seafood 2007), Sheep Passage, Lime Point, near Klemtu (Marine Harvest Canada, 2007) have all been approved to name a few. Those four farms alone account for an increase of more than 3% increase in tenured farms in the last six years. That is not to mention the more than 30 percent production increases approved for the Doyle Island and Duncan Island farms (MHC, 2010). So, go ahead and cry me a river about govt. dragging their feet on not approving new production at a rate you would wish. Your cries fall on deaf ears with me.

What else falls on deaf ears with me is - and I say this with all due respect - any attempt at discussion and debate that is not backed up with references. To do otherwise is to expect me to just take your word for whatever you say. I'm not claimimg you are not speaking truthfully but just saying, why should I believe you. You are, as you claim to be, "SalmonFarmScience" and you of all posters should know that science requires statements to be backed up with references, research or facts.

 

[Birdsnest]

Thought I’d chime in here. I too am one of those FWR pro farm posters. Also worked on saImon farms on and off for almost 20 years. I came to these threads for the tuna chitchat and for the salt water part of the forums.
I do not really like to post on the topic here because the nature of the posts from those who obviously appose salmon farming. There is not much of a discussion here to be had I feel due to the constant one sided mud slinging that is performed by a handful of posters. The emotional reactions are just a bit over the top, for me that is. I am entertained by it all strangely but at the end of the day threads like this one here on this site plainly remind me that there will always be those who regardless of an effort to just “discuss” will post in an aggressive, unpleasant, drawn out rant that lacks content and the basic courtesy we should all enjoy as regular posters. Again, that’s just me. It is only my opinion and I’ll leave it at that. Of course this is a salty fishing site so a certain level of “salty dawg” I guess is appropriate just not what I see here. Telling people to go away simply because they do not share their opinion is a bit much. Suggesting that a poster does not belong here because they post on one topic only seems wrong. Surely there are many similar situations on the site. When a mechanic replies to a thread about a motor preference nobody tells him to beat it because he does not fish or post on other topics etc. He/she is welcomed for their contributions and whether it is Merc or Honda, it is only an opinion. Obviously there will be some emotion and passion and that is great but calling random members of the public scabs on a public forum is just not cool. Again IMHO.
Rock fish: I notice you speak for what seems like a large number of people or some organization. I was just wondering who or what those people or group(s) may be?
I really feel that it is important to get the facts strait on the salmon farming issue. There is mostly misinformation out there. If the salmon farms are suddenly gone I feel there could be great problems encountered by the sport fishing sector of which I am a part of. I can see the salmon “quota” going the way of the halibut in terms of how it is being distributed. That has already been a large battle that basically was lost by us. If the demand for salmon increases there will certainly be issues to arise from the lack of salmon farms. I do believe that wild/hatcher salmon can co-exist and is the way to go for the future.
Again, This is just one persons opinion so please spare me the emotional drawn out name calling mud slinging rant that so often follows this. I am just one person it is only my opinion.

The forum admin obviously encourages a “discussion” on the salmon farm topic for under the section: Conservation, Fisheres and Management, it says “Use this forum for discussing Fish Farming, or any Saltwater and Freshwater Fisheries Management Topics. Fishing Related Politics Only.”