I agree....I can't see it being an effective tool in understanding the underwater interactions, but Morton and the Sea Shepherd Society see it differently I guess. If you look at the footage provided in the Voyage for Salmon website some of that footage was from drones. You describe this pseudoscience very well.Wow Shuswap! I consider that your post is enlightening - in that it explains a lot about why you support open net-pens in the marine environment. If you confuse your experience wrt freshwater hatcheries and subsequently transpose that limited experience as appropriate in understanding the marine environment and how fish farms interact with that environment - well frankly - that explains the reason for that confusion to me.
Although I find it odd that I would need to explain this - thank you for that opportunity. Where to begin?...hmmm...
ok - 1st off I can't see that an aerial drone would be terribly effective as a tool in understanding the underwater interactions inherent with the open net-cage technology - or would provide much more information that one could see using ones own built-in eyes wrt on-site above-water operations.
2ndly - you already partially covered the answer of your question on your own - w/o any critical thinking over the differnces between fw hatcheries and marine net-cage sites. Let me explain:
3 things to consider - 1/ life history stages and behaviour, 2/ water clarity/turbidity/visibility and light transmission, and 3/ containers and physical restrictions...
If you consider that - as you correctly pointed-out - a drone would be expected to be no more/less threatening as a bird flying overhead - then that fish would need to see that "bird" in order to have a temporary startle response. Can you see where I am going with this yet?
So, in FW hatcheries you are dealing with juvies who usually like to be within a meter or 2 of the surface, the water is generally quite clear, and the depth of those containers are generally only a meter or 2 and that's as deep as a fish can go.
In stark contrast to that reality - in the marine environment - you are often dealing with larger fish that often like to be in the 60-80 foot depths when they are not getting fed and jostling for pellets, the water clarity is often 2-3m to less than 0.8 m due to plankton and other water quality properties, and the containers let them go often upwards of 120 ft deep and have a predator net over the top (that further reduces visibility).
And yes - birds fly overhead all the time there.
You're welcome...and your response is in line of what I expected. Thanks.It is obvious to all where your bias lies now. Your response here again is in line for a net pen, salmon feedlot supporter. Thanks for the further confirmation and clearing up any uncertainty on this issue.
I and others on this forum will continue to work to get net pen fish farms out of the water where they pollute and spread disease and on to the land where their negative impacts can be better managed.
You are free to say whatever you want and we can all enjoy the benefits of freedom of speech that democracy brings
The only "science" i see in their approach is the since employed to keep drones in the air - capture reflected electromagnetic radiation and save it digitally - and edit those sessions and redistribute the results on FaceBook. The aerial drone is an effective PR tool, only.I agree....I can't see it being an effective tool in understanding the underwater interactions, but Morton and the Sea Shepherd Society see it differently I guess. If you look at the footage provided in the Voyage for Salmon website some of that footage was from drones. You describe this pseudoscience very well.
Well firstly - these described depths are quite shallow as far as wild salmon go - certainly not "great depths". Great depths to someone only familiar with a river perhaps - but IMHO demonstrates a lack of experience on the ocean.During periods of warm weather and low levels of oxygen, these fish can be closer to the surface - not great depths you outlined which apply to
Maybe, maybe not. Since many farms employ pneumatic feeders - sounds in the similar frequency range of the compressor could potentially signal a feeding event to farmed fish. But maybe not. Maybe it is the sound of the pellets hitting the surface. Be nice to see some literature supporting/rejecting this hypothesis.Having other vessels in the immediate area of these pens during low dissolved oxygen events can lead to further stress on these fish. This activity can draw fish closer to the surface because they believe they are going to be fed. Feeding, during these events, is stopped until dissolved oxygen levels are more favourable.
Again - transposing the very different physical/wq differences of a river onto the ocean demonstrates to me that a person is struggling to understand the ocean and it's effects and very different realities - and are inexperienced in how the ocean works. The same points I covered above still apply - many birds still fly overhead at fish farms - the water clarity/visibility is still reduced - fish are still at depth - predator netting reduces visibility. It's very much NOT a pool on the river.... but flying very low scatters fish even those in pools that are not that deep. While working at counting fences it was common to see fish scatter as the shadow of bird passes over them. At hatcheries (which can also hold brood stock fish) those fish in those those "containers" can be scattered by birds overhead, not just me feeding them.
Absolutely. I never said always. In the winter (Jan-Feb) the visibility often clears up to 3-10m or so - assuming the farm is not placed where it interacts with the plume of a larger river which has both turbidity and plankton effects. Keep in mind how deep the fish normally are and the other things I listed....but I believe this is a case where typical situations as you describe don't always apply.
Well.. the farmers are - and yes - they have substantial support from the province. In addition - it's really a cast of the same characters on the regulation front. DFO just rolled-in the ex-provincial regulators into itself from the province when they took over back again after the Morton decision in 2009/10. many - if not most of the x-prov employees were also X-FFmers before - so they have an entrenched perspective....The province is driving the expansion not DFO.
Found that too especially on the environmental approval front.Well.. the farmers are - and yes - they have substantial support from the province. In addition - it's really a cast of the same characters on the regulation front. DFO just rolled-in the ex-provincial regulators into itself from the province when they took over back again after the Morton decision in 2009/10. many - if not most of the x-prov employees were also X-FFmers before - so they have an entrenched perspective.
The only thing I learned from dealing with Province is that once they have a revenue source and tax dollars they will do whatever it takes to protect it. The problem is the voters continue to reelect Christy Clark and her party into power. Because of the NDP issues years ago and there is no alternative party we are stuck with farm expansion under this government. Be prepared for another liberal government. This provincial government also has shown it doesn't want to work with first nations on a number of issues when it gets in the way of industry. The liberals are bought by industry and unfortunately its the voters and the consumers poor choices in government that a driving these farms. If those didn't exist we wouldn't have this issue. With no demand for natural gas ( what the liberals were counting on) this government will fight to keep these farms, so I think that nation may expect to face a fairly lengthy legal battle.
I support land based farming like north island has. If we move to land based farming we will create more engineering/science jobs on the island, and across BC. I don't understand why the province/feds wont invest in it more. We could have a very clean industry that put a lot more technical jobs in our province and more opportunities for the workers that are in these farms currently. The technology is there. The local nanaimo engineering company designed and built the north island system. They just have to drop the costs, and refine. Anyhow that is my take on it.
The province is driving the expansion not DFO.
Shuswap...can you tell me what kind of fish carcass is this being handled by this Fish Farm employee and how it came to be in this state?
View attachment 29283
Well firstly - these described depths are quite shallow as far as wild salmon go - certainly not "great depths". Great depths to someone only familiar with a river perhaps - but IMHO demonstrates a lack of experience on the ocean.
Maybe, maybe not. Since many farms employ pneumatic feeders - sounds in the similar frequency range of the compressor could potentially signal a feeding event to farmed fish. But maybe not. Maybe it is the sound of the pellets hitting the surface. Be nice to see some literature supporting/rejecting this hypothesis.
Again - transposing the very different physical/wq differences of a river onto the ocean demonstrates to me that a person is struggling to understand the ocean and it's effects and very different realities - and are inexperienced in how the ocean works. The same points I covered above still apply - many birds still fly overhead at fish farms - the water clarity/visibility is still reduced - fish are still at depth - predator netting reduces visibility. It's very much NOT a pool on the river.
Based on the individual handling and the people taking the photo at the time I would assume it is an Atlantic Salmon. I can't say how it died based on a photo. How it came to that state? Well, following death I presume the carcass would begin to decompose and be foraged on by marine scavengers such as amphipods.Shuswap...can you tell me what kind of fish carcass is this being handled by this Fish Farm employee and how it came to be in this state?
View attachment 29283
There are not "ideal" conditions Shuswap - they are "normal" - and it's based on experience. You could just admit you did not understand or know this. If you need to call someone else up to confirm this because you don't believe me since what you would like to believe is untrue - fill your boots.You were attempting to say that these fish would be much below the surface and not have visible contact with things above in the air. You are looking at ideal conditions based on how fish should behave under them. As I pointed out these particular fish in these pens were near the surface due to the reduced dissolved oxygen. In my opinion, your response demonstrates a lack of experience with fish culture and husbandry. If you would have inquired like I did from the folks that know you would have been more informed. Would you like contacts?
Shuswap - just because you are getting answers you did not expect because you lack experience in these matters does not mean the person providing the information similarly lacks that experience.Actually yes. Again you need to talk to those who do this for a living instead of assuming you know the answer. As I already said feeding is suspended during these events because the act of feeding can actually make the situation worse. Not sure why you brought up pneumatic feeders.
The rotor wash?.. right Shuswap. You are really struggling now. You could just admit you were wrong. Guess that might lead to being wrong about other aspects of defending the open net cage technology and who knows where that might lead, eh?You are struggling to understand where these fish reside during these events. They are near the surface (i.e. finning). You can criticize me all you want about my knowledge of the ocean, but it's readily apparent you are not understanding the situation. If you look at the footage provided by the Voyage for Salmon website you will see that those fish are clearly visible from the drone. If you fly aerial surveys sometime you will see why it's not very advantageous to be too close to the fish - not to mention the rotor wash. Of course one is a helicopter over a river and the other is a drone over a net pen, but it's the depth these fish are at is what I was trying to relay to you. Will their actions be the tipping point for those fish? Well that could debatable of course, but I personally do not think it helps the situation which was what I was trying to say in my original post. I will add that drones are being used now for salmon counts but not for fish pathology examinations to the best of my knowledge......
haha i almost spit coffee out my nose after reading this....Oh folks, that white, the white lines, those are the Omega 3 fats that are SO SO GOOD FOR YOU. !