The other side of the fence.

[agentaqua]

Oh yea - on the ISA front:

Cultus Lake - 64/64 sockeye smolts tested positive for ISA. Simon Jones (PBS Nanaimo) buried the results from the Cohen Comission and blocked Molly Kibenge from publishing on this. Cultus Lake sockeye got on the COSEWIC listing, but the Fisheries Minister blocked it from SARA due to economic impacts. No retesting nor no notification to the local FN. NO FOLLOW_UP! SFU also found ISA in local resident trout. Population remains depressed.

Oweekeno Lake - similar stock crash as Cultus. 6 Sockeye fry found with ISA. Samples were degraded and frozen which kills virus - but still got ISA positives. High prob of false negatives. Media scrum by DFO/CFIA. "We are winning the PR war" from CFIA emails in Cohen exhibits. Refusal of acceptance of ISA results by CFIA to protect the disease staus of the open net-cage industry. Again - no retesting or follow-up by DFO/CFIA. Instead they pay $2M to the OIE and get the only independent ISA lab in Charlottetown (that reported the presumptive positives) de-certified.

Southern NFLD and Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stocks - all on SARA endangered list (IBoF) or listed to go on it (S. NFLD). All these stocks have been exposed to ISA from the net cage industry.

Starting to see a pattern here?

 

[agentaqua]

oh yea - but all is well from the "other side of the fence"! Whistle a happy tune - la la la!

 

[Englishman]

Hi Englishman. I was expecting a longer post than that from you but all the same please show me the obvious devastation from salmon farms besides peer reviews that indicate "maybe". All farming has impacts on the environment,we all agree on this. But where is the supposed devastation you Speek of where the contents of your peer reviewed science has clearly had an effect on salmon pops? Of course you will reply that industry should prove it doesn't have an effect. That's where the issue resides if you ask me.
At a time where there are very positive forecasts for salmon returns I find it difficult to believe the issue is dire. Not even close.

Here we go again. No amount of evidence is sufficient for you. We have been here before. So once again I will repeat below the rebuttals of your tired old arguments that "there is no evidence" of any devastation and it is all "maybe". After all if you take just one person who smoked who got cancer then "maybe" tobacco is to blame. Just how many "maybes' do you need! Answer - for the your industry there will never be enough evidence......


Here are just SOME of the multiple measured impacts on salmon runs in the scientific journals. For you to continue to ignore this body of scientific study data and pretend it does not exist is a blatant example of the spin doctrine your industry continues to put out.

Impacts on wild fish populations

• General

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/7/1162.short
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f91-055#.UaTaVJwalzM
http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aquaculture_in_the_United_States_Enviro.htm

• Thru’ Sea lice infestation

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1672/3385.short
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1564/689.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10641260500433531#.UZ-mUMoambs
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-016
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...mN9VDE#v=onepage&q=fish farm sea lice&f=false
http://vhost1.ucs.sfu.ca:9870/science/resources/1320967624.pdf
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/131.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2001.00627.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860500030X
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M04-149.1#.UaQgapwalzM
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f10-105#.UaQmD5walzM
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1772.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M07-042.1#.UaTWlpwalzM

• Thru’ Disease Transmission and Interaction

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004484869190392K
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8667(1998)010<0107:ROTHPA>2.0.CO;2#.UaTaA5walzM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004484869190370M
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/15/699.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020751907000100
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0044848686901675

• Thru’ Harvesting wild fish for Feed

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6790/abs/4051017a0.html
http://www.theecologist.org/trial_in...s_in_peru.html

And just as a follow up...

Here are just SOME of the groups and information sites out there which document the huge problems with open net pen salmon feed lots. These represent thousands of concerned scientists and ordinary people, from ALL OVER THE WORLD. But to someone like you who can filter out all inconvenient evidence these thousands of folks are all wrong and you are right. What blind and wilful ignorance!

http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/184
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/
http://www.watershed-watch.org/issues/salmon-farming/salmon-farming-impacts/
http://www.gaaia.org/
http://www.salmonfarmsireland.com/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publicat...rmed-salmon/?gclid=CJWPiLukubcCFcqDQgodGzYA_g
http://wcwcvictoria.org/154/salmon-farming-background/
http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/blog/scottish-salmons-lethal-seal-disapproval
http://www.puresalmon.org/problem.html
http://wildfishconservancy.org/resources/infectious-salmon-anemia-virus-isav
http://www.inshore-ireland.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=688&Itemid=170
http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/problems.shtml
http://www.saveoursalmon.ca/issues/
http://salmonaresacred.org/breaking-news
http://focs.ca/campaigns/wildsalmon/
http://www.raincoastresearch.org/pdf/Salmon_farming.pdf
http://www.wildsalmoncircle.com/salmon-farming/
http://www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/...d-economic-success-or-ecological-failure.html
http://salmoncoast.org/publications

 

[agentaqua]

Here we go again. No amount of evidence is sufficient for you. We have been here before. So once again I will repeat below the rebuttals of your tired old arguments that "there is no evidence" of any devastation and it is all "maybe". After all if you take just one person who smoked who got cancer then "maybe" tobacco is to blame. Just how many "maybes' do you need! Answer - for the your industry there will never be enough evidence......

That's it exactly,English - it's the equivalent of a kid breaking a cookie jar and then pointing the finger at another kid and saying: "You can't prove it", and then sticking his fingers in his ears and going "na-na-na". It is the responsibility of the industry to prove they are not having any impacts - but they always say it is the responsibility of me and you to do this. It's called shifting the burden of proof.

Then when that actually happens - someone proves there is impacts - they don't argue the science - but rather shoot the messenger. BN is adept at quoting the talking notes from the BCFSA on this.

 

[Birdsnest]

Like I said at the beginning of the thread there are those who will dismiss my links as bias. I see very little disproving that the contents are false but with the name calling and mud slinging Its clear that you don't like it. I'm not here to rub your feet.
so let's look at the Atlantic thing like smart adults for a moment. You seem to agree that there were many many Atlantic introductions in the past on the west coast. These introductions were done with "wild hatchery fry "I suspect. . These wild Atlantic fry were put in lakes rivers and the salt with no success. I think we will agree that they were not tested for viruses to the the lack of technology and it probably wasn't thought of back then. Given this fact don't you think it's misleading of you or your camp to go on about viruses that likely have been here for a hundred years. Your blaming salmon farming right. Is that honest? Especially where there is no evidence of disease. I get your fear, I do not want HIV but if I and billions of others had hiv for 100 years without illness I think I would not be to worried.
Volpe's paper is another scientific hypothesis that can not be applied to any real world scenario event in bc. If this hypothesis was rampant, as you suggest every salmon farming issue is, surely there would be a documented event with video and photo,s etc. but there isn't. Speaking of steal head I wish bait was illegal especially roe to protect steel head and fry and smolts. I hope your on that one too but I won't be surprised if your not,wrong camp I would guess.

We can go back and forth like this every day and it will always come down to you exaggerating every issue in salmon culture.

Until you can show a real life effect greater than minimal from salmon farming to pacific salmon you will change nothing. You can create multiple crowds of angry mislead people shouting kudoa this and Isa but that lacks the real life scenario that is required. You can be suspicious of government being crooked (We should be) but unless you can show that fish are dropping like flys it does not matter. You can continue fuelling your war with fear but that always catches up to you. It always does. The double standard in your arguments are many and fairly obvious. You never look at the whole picture.

Done on an ipad so it's a bit messy. Of course you can discredit me here for being uneducated. Again.

Btu i am sher yuo cna maik diss centinse owt sew it choodent ee a ishue.

Clearly i do not get paid to do this. I just don't qualify. But I can't help but to notice the urgency in your response. Lol. You would think I would be easily ignored here due to my obvious so called ignorance and lack of education. If this was the case you think you would not keep dodging this question:

Please show me one real life incident where harm greater than minimal has occurred.

And howabout out you stop insinuating that I say everything is "all good" with salmon stocks and salmon farming. I have never stated this. A critical thinker would have never made such a statement about any of my posts.

 

[Sangstercraft]

Englishman, you're golden. Ever think about writing a column in Island Angler, or the newspaper? I think they'd like to publish a thorough article from you.

 

[chris73]

Please show me one real life incident where harm greater than minimal has occurred.

Read my previous post and there you have it.

 

[GLG]

Clearly i do not get paid to do this.

You not working for the last 2 days?
Are you at work right now?
If so then clearly you are getting paid to do this.
Just asking....

 

[Englishman]

Englishman, you're golden. Ever think about writing a column in Island Angler, or the newspaper? I think they'd like to publish a thorough article from you.

Thx Sangster. My research into the facts of open net pen salmon feed lots has been of the online kind, whereby I read the research data, findings and conclusions of the many scientists and biologists who work on different aspects of this problem. I have a science background and understand how the peer reviewed science paper publication process works, unlike the Birdsnest's of this world!
However, the person who is closest to all this and best informed and who has first hand knowledge of the way the industry works (or doesn't!) and the way it is poorly or indeed incompetently managed by DFO and the politicians that pull the strings is Agent Aqua. He has an in-depth knowledge of many specifics such as the manifestly unscientific siting criteria used for the fish feed lots.
I believe Seadna is also very well informed too and has a strong active science background.
They are both better qualified to write for these publications than I and indeed may already have done so, under a different moniker?

 

[rockdog]

How/why the birdie continues to argue this is unbelievable. Just take your ball and go home, we are done playing. The evidence is there, whether you like it or not.

 

[agentaqua]

this is not about you pretending to be some victim for all the internet world to sympathize with your poor misunderstood mind, BN. These are real issues - real science. Volpe's work cannot be dismissed by you alleging it is only a "theory". Obviously you don't understand what a theory is - in science. Obviously you do not understand what peer-reviewed science means. That is unfortunate - as you are claiming you want an argument based on science. When that science is presented to you - you dismiss it as only a theory - but only because you really aren't open to a science-based argument. This post of your reminds me of the holocaust deniers, climate deniers and evolution deniers ineffective response to something they believe in regardless of the evidence presented to them. It is faith-based propaganda - nothing more.

Thanks for the kind words, Englishman. You are too modest. I agree with rockdog. You put some serious time and effort in here on this forum - educating us all. Thank you for that effort. I get very tired of the same old regurgitated propaganda from the closed minds of the pro-open net-cage side of the fence. I think most of us do here - on this forum.

 

[Birdsnest]

Read my previous post and there you have it.

In BC? Which run? When? How? Greater than minimal effect? I'm all ears. Every one must be wondering what the answer to this questions. We are in a room full of damn near experts. Some one please.

It is clear that there will be an eagerness to apply happenings in other oceans to to what could happen here, common sense I think but theres been 30 years to do so and I am wondering what has gone wrong. Nobody hear has an answer to it?

Kadoa is a parasite right. IT turns salmon flesh soft and ruins it. We agree on this. Its natural(but not cool). We would also agree that kadoa does not kill salmon. So if salmon farms have kadoa at any levels and it was as rampant and volatile as you suggest then clearly it would be showing up in wild fish. I have not heard of any such situation. Just the "ewe yukky grose" after you have swallowed your parasite infested halibut without issue. I have not caught a soft flesh salmon here ever. And this soft flesh is not slight to my understanding. You cant miss it. Grose is right!

Again even if I was paid to post here what difference does it make to the ideas and facts that I post. The only difference I see here is that people dismiss the content without actually looking at it because they think it is bias. Fine by me. You think that mortons not bias? Better start accepting these facts in the debate and actually looking at the contents of the comments and articles.

Believing I am paid to post here clearly demonstrate that you have the ability to believe things that just aren't proven. Fill your boots with that thinking. Fill your boots.

 

[Dave]

Yes BN - most of those were juvies introduced into watersheds with abundant steelhead numbers at that time. Today there has been many adult escapees and we have found 2 year old Atlantic salmon fry/parr in many rivers in BC. That means they survived past their first year. The systems that have this - also have depressed numbers of steelhead. Volpe's peer-reviewed work demonstrated that steelhead and Atlantic salmon are the most likely interspecies competition of the Atlantic salmon invasion of native Pacific watersheds. This is because the steelhead fry and the Atlantic salmon occupy the same habitat. Atlantic salmon have large pectoral fins that they jam into the substrate to stay on station in fast flow areas - the same areas that steelhead fry use. If there are large numbers of resident wild steelhead fry already there - the Atlantic fry have a hard time gaining a fin-hold. If not - there is an opening. That is what has happened in many streams on Northern Vancouver Island adjacent to the farm areas.

You raise a good point about the possibility of Atlantic’s occupying the unique ecological niche available in nearly all rivers now with the depressed numbers of steelhead. Of course for that two happen, two very domesticated and naïve Atlantic escapees must forage ,avoid predators, and find each other in some suitable stream, spawn successfully and any offspring survive a year or so in the natal stream. Possible for sure, but highly unlikely, imo. But let’s say it did happen sometime in the future, and Atlantic’s did colonize streams with spawning populations …. how many anglers would complain about that?

 

[Prairie Locked]

Birdsnest,

IMHO, I hate to say it but you are doing an awful job promoting a pro-farming position. At the beginning of this thread, you cited a couple of references to argue the 'other side,' all of which are biased in their position which is obviously in favor of your stance on the subject.

Since you started the thread and made 'truth' claims, it is incumbent upon you to bear the burden of proof, it's not up to anyone else to provide evidence contrary to this. Liken it to a court case where the prosecution has to prove the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In a weak case, the defense doesn't need to provide any evidence or argument to the contrary.

In order to be listened to, you need to be able to provide credible evidence. If I want to provide evidence for UFO's, I can't provide a link to ufoevidence.com citing an article posted to the website (blog) as evidence (Alaska Salmon Ranching and Salmon Farm Science).

I say this from an outside perspective as I have not done much reading or researching on the issue and have no formal position. I am biased towards thinking I am opposed to open pen farming, it would appear that the harm seems to far outweigh the good, though I could be swayed to change my default position. In the mean time, I refuse to support that industry and will not subscribe to purchasing farmed salmon.

Now, try to convince me otherwise if you would like.

 

[Birdsnest]

if you cant get by the bias thats your choice. This bias argument suggest that industry should not be allowed to defend itself. If you have followed the debate since the birth of "salmon farms are bad I feel it" then it would be clear that salmon farming is defending itself in which case it would be on the accuser to prove its issues beyond a reasonable doubt and that hasn't happend. You can write peer reviewed documents until your blue in the face but if you can not apply one of the peer reviewed hypotheses to an incident or even prove an incident here in bc then you have nothing but old scientific peer reviewed papers that are hypotheses that haven't happened in 30 years.

 

[Prairie Locked]

Birdsnest, forgive my ignorance, but do you understand the concept of research? Things like conducting the research (credibly), publishing an article, having said article peer reviewed and then cited by other articles? If you do, you are having a poor time of getting that across.

For starters, you can't just write a peer reviewed article or paper. Anyone can write a paper, having it published or peer reviewed is another story, let alone it being credible. Likewise, anyone can have a hypothesis, what is important is, is there statistical significance behind it and to support the hypothesis.

Again, I say that the onus and the burden lies on the industry, not the other way around. Your reasoning is flawed and your argument is a straw man and/or an informal fallacy and it holds no merit.

 

[Birdsnest]

Thanks for your reply PL. How is hatchery production any different? How can alaska dump billions of fry into the ocean without proving it to is not environmentally degenerating? Have any of these user groups proved beyond any doubt that they cause no harm? Sport fishing, commercial fishing? Where have they proven less than minimal harm? Do all these groups have to prove this before they continue?
What peer review does is serve to verify that the writer has followed acceptable scientific procedure in the development of a hypothesis. They do not have to be right in the end. It is an on going process. This process is to allow for other scientists to challenge the proposed idea and try to disprove it using the same methodology. If others fail to dismantle it it lives on as a theory until it is disproven. And this is where the majority of the papers posted by englishman sit. Acceptable ideas that fail to be backed up by real life observations here in BC. This is why I keep asking for a real life confirmed documented harm done to wild/hatchery salmon due to the presence of salmon farms in BC. Given the vast vast amount of doom and gloom presented here you would think there would be a clear and obvious event. Activists claim it is blatant and extremely obvious yet there is not a single event that can be attached to one of Englishman's papers.

 

[GLG]

In BC? Which run? When? How? Greater than minimal effect? I'm all ears. Every one must be wondering what the answer to this questions. We are in a room full of damn near experts. Some one please.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/index-eng.htm

Get a copy of the 2014 Salmon IFMP at the beginning of May
or ask your dfo contact for a copy
Many of us have read this cover to cover for many years.
That will tell you what you want to know.

I'll just add this part so you can read the draft 2014 salmon outlook
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species-especes/salmon-saumon/outlook-perspective/salmon_outlook-perspective_saumon-2014-eng.html


May as well add this from the link above.

This version of the 2014 outlook should be regarded as an early scan of salmon production, as very preliminary information, and as subject to change as more information becomes available. This preliminary version of the document will be replaced by a final version, planned for release in April 2014. However, individual outlooks may be periodically updated as statistical forecasts and assessments are completed and reviewed. Summary of Pacific Salmon Outlook Units for 2014

A total of 91 Outlook Units were considered and outlooks categorized for 84. Six units were data deficient (ND), and one pink unit was not applicable (NA). Thirty-three (33) Outlook Units are likely to be at or above target abundance (categories 3, 4, 3/4), while 28 are expected to be of some conservation concern (categories 1, 2, 1/2). The remaining 23 Outlook Units have mixed outlook levels (categories 1/3, 1/4, 2/3, 2/4). The Fraser chinook Outlook Units were re-aligned from nine units down to five units in order to match the stock groupings used for fisheries management purposes. Overall, the outlook for 2014 has increased relative to the previous outlook (2013 for most species but 2012 for pink). Twenty-one (21) Outlook Units improved in category (Early Stuart, Early Summer North Thompson, Summer Nechako, Fall Portage, Fall South Thompson, Somass, Areas 11 to 13, Babine Lake and Skeena sockeye; Fraser Summer 41, WCVI Hatchery, Areas 9 & 10, and Skeena chinook; Mid / Upper Fraser, Thompson, Area 13, Georgia Strait and Alsek coho; Areas 11 to 13 and Areas 3 to 6 pink; Yukon chum). Nine units declined in category (Early Summer Lower Fraser, Summer Raft and Henderson sockeye; Fraser Spring 42, Fraser Summer 52 and Stikine chinook; Georgia Strait West pink; Georgia Strait and Porcupine chum). Please note that assessments for southern BC chum and coho salmon are incomplete, forecasts are not available at this time and these data will be revised later.

 

[rockdog]

Wow, you are unreal. What a piece of work you are. Discrediting people with credentials you could only dream of....

 

[agentaqua]

You raise a good point about the possibility of Atlantic’s occupying the unique ecological niche available in nearly all rivers now with the depressed numbers of steelhead. Of course for that two happen, two very domesticated and naïve Atlantic escapees must forage ,avoid predators, and find each other in some suitable stream, spawn successfully and any offspring survive a year or so in the natal stream. Possible for sure, but highly unlikely, imo. But let’s say it did happen sometime in the future, and Atlantic’s did colonize streams with spawning populations …. how many anglers would complain about that?

You are of course either joking - or just plain sh*t disturbing - right Dave? You used to work for DFO - right?