What can WE do to help save the salmon?

the farms are never, ever going to come out of the water.

What tiniest inclination I had to read any of your posts has now evaporated with this mindless assertion. Are you Norwegian by chance?

Environmental-carnage, lies, and bribery are the foundation of the existence of this industry; which, as you well know, creates 1000 or less medial-paying jobs in a business that's 95% owned by Norway and ships about 90% of its product south to feed the Yanks. (No offense, Charlie)

Fact is, one can easily determine just how tenuous this industries' purchase on our coast truly is, by examining it's fan-base:

- The industry:
as it nervously spends millions on advertising (perhaps Grant-money from the DFO?) post Cohen Commission while attempting to convince naive British Columbians' that they contribute '800-million annually' to the Provincial economy.
I reiterate: this, from a Norwegian owned industry that creates a paltry 800 to 1000 or so full-time equivalent medial-paying jobs in BC. British Columbian's don't need a calculator to validate this one.

- The seedy politicians they have in their pockets
: perhaps the biggest-cog in the fish-farming machine is its finely tuned capacity to buy political sway. Be it campaign contributions, 'party-favors' or otherwise, they are masters at getting key political support to 'turn-a-blind-eye' to even the most irrefutable peer-reviewed scientific evidence against them.

-Industry apologists: like Barbie, Sockeyfry and now apparently, you, whose appearance here is not surprising, only old and hackneyed.
Purveyors of the good-old 'Fish-farmers 3-D's': Diffuse-Deny-Deflect!

Clearly, these are not the building-blocks of a solid-foundation or long-term tenancy but those of a foreign owned conglomerate with a glaring 'hit & run' environmental track-record ruinously scattered across an increasingly environmentally aware planet.

This industry will sink to the sea-floor along with it's mega-tonnage of pollution AND the reputations of those who supported it!
 
only a couple of things will kill off the salmon net pens: cost of operation exceeds the profit; disease kills off total stock; less expensive, more easily raised fish flood the market and take over sales. just as the farming of cod failed in scotland because of the costs of operation, so to may the net pen salmon industry fail as they are more than likely not protein neutral. the 'every man' fish, cod, crashed and has never recovered and so we now see talipa being raised around the world and being marketted quite successfully, a new 'every man' fish.

this is all about money and profit margins and i know that those of you further N have a huge emotional investment in this disaster but this industry is not going away anytime soon unless the above points come together. the politicians have been paid off, your conservative government will continue to protect this industry, only product demand or disease will cut this to the core.

i have already raised the SLICE issue in WA state with our attorney general, any product treated with SLICE is not approved for human consumption in the US, the attorney general '...not our problem...'. perhaps it should become YOUR problem to broadcast to the world. i don't know how thin or broad the profit margins may be, but if you decrease the demand, you are on the road to causing this industry to fail.

no matter how well intentioned scientific investigations may be or how well they are carried out or how many samples all of you carefully collect, JQ public does not give a rip. what raises eyebrows are safety and cost.

putting your emotions aside regarding a variety of large and powerful environmental groups is also key to your success. putting the muscle of the rec angling community behind some of these groups could provide the empitus for them to move more aggressively, they have in the past and have stopped several prime example of environmental disasters from progressing.

all out war on this government means deploying everything you can think of in your arsenal, they are strong, have big buck industries behind them and have momentum.
 
Charlie, success at rearing salmon in closed containment is measured by the fish produced in production rearing, not the paper produced in support of the concept or the hyperbole that changes a system failure into "the first production harvest". Do you know how big those fish are that Agrimarine harvested? That detail is strangely missing from their press release. So is the better than $30 million in grants and shareholder investment the company has absorbed and disappeared in producing that small crop of 2-3 lb. fish. I'm surprised you didn't also refer to Silverspring down in the US who are the furthest along in the technology after genetically selecting for fast growth from a broodline that is 30 years old. In spite of that, they are only producing small crops of those infamous 2-3 pounders and doing so with annual grants from the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation.

The problem with 2-3 lb. fish is that the market wants at a minimum 6 lb. and bigger than that is better. The small fish are absorbed in small, low price niche markets, usually supermarkets that sell them on a similar basis to the "eco-salmon" inexpensively sold by the Thrifty Foods chain on the Island. Those fish came from Agrimarine's initial testing phase carried out in the old Hagensborg facility in Cedar. Online accounting of that trial showed that the sale of the fish couldn't even cover the operating costs for rearing them and didn't begin to touch the capital costs for the system they were reared in. The trial of FutureSea's soft side technology carried out in conjunction with Marine Harvest on Saltspring ended up removing the "closed" part of the closed containment and even then, didn't prove viable and disappeared from the market. Hagensborg's technology also resulted in the disappearance of tens of millions of dollars in grant and investor money with never a whiff of profitability. The last crop through the facility reared by the feed company which took possesion of the facility in settlement of money's due after the bankruptcy of Hagensborg, worth many millions of dollars, was a complete loss when the night operator fell asleep on the job, a pump quit and the backup system didn't turn on.

The latest version is that native facility being installed up-island based on that report commissioned by the province and produced by that investment banker that claims that a modular system will make success possible. That is currently under construction and is slated to start operating relatively soon. From my reading of that report, the system success is dependent on unrealistic growth expectations in extremely high rearing density and is 100% technology dependent. That is a hugely risky combination with very small probability of meeting expectations when it is transferred from paper to reality.

I submit to you that I am not living under a rock and I am aware of what is going on. I'll also suggest that I am not trolling in spite of the attempts of yourself and others to present that as the case. That list of my posts you presented in order to demonstrate that I am a troll is really typical of the process with which so many judge salmon farms. What you did was take all of my statements out of the context they were made in and package them in a way that would demonstrate your point. What you didn't do was present the other side of the story that shows that some of the posts were made in response to reasonable questions about my views but the majority were made in response to personal, derogatory comments arising from the fact that I view this differently than those who made the comments. The real story is only understood when you look at both sides of it; presenting the data in a way that favours your point is skewing the truth.
 
What you did was take all of my statements out of the context they were made in and package them in a way that would demonstrate your point.

Masterful! Your effort to build affinity here by your assertion "I'm a tradesman, too!!!" is another example of your increasingly obvious duplicity. You are the master at twisting and distorting information and statements to serve your agenda "...and package them in a way that would demonstrate your point."

I regret my first impression of you was correct - you are an industry hack feigning interest in conservation. Just a suggestion: get a distemper shot before you "bite" again. There is a recognized and effective treatment for those diseased dogs.

The rationale for open pen farms to continue is simply economic - they can remain the low cost producers. For the uninitiated, the classic tactic that absolom employs here on the behalf of Marine Harvest, I suspect - seeding doubt - is briefly described in this book outline and following reviews; Enlightening and recommended reading, btw:

Book Description
Publication Date: May 25, 2010
The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly—some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it.

Finalist for Los Angeles Times Book Prize
Named a Best Book of 2010 by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have written an important and timely book. Merchants of Doubt should finally put to rest the question of whether the science of climate change (or the science around the unfolding train-wreck of open net pen fish farms) is settled. It is, and we ignore this message at our peril.”—Elizabeth Kolbert, author of Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change

“There can be no science without doubt: brute dogma leaves no room for inquiry. But over the last half century, a tiny minority of scientists have wielded doubt as a political weapon to halt what they did not want said: that tobacco kills or that the climate is warming because of what we humans are doing. ‘Doubt is our product’ read a tobacco memo--and indeed, millions of dollars have gone into creating the impression of scientific controversy where there has not been one. This book about the politics of doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway explores the long, connected, and intentional obfuscation of science by manufactured controversy. It is clear, scientifically responsible, and historically compelling—it is an essential and passionate book about our times.”—Peter Galison, Joseph Pellegrino University Professor, Harvard University, author of Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps

“With the carefulness of historians and the skills of master storytellers, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway lay out the sordid history of tobacco industry protectionists, who framed the debate as scientifically ‘unproven,’ gaining decades of market share for those merchants of death—who knew all along the risks of their products. Merchants of Doubt shows that some of the very same individuals were part of the plans to frame the climate change debate as unproven, using the same tried and true tactics of misrepresentation of facts, non-representative scientists, and industry-friendly legislators. Again, tried and true public re-framing of reality worked. But now all this chicanery is exposed for the deception it has been in Oreskes and Conway’s powerful and timely work.”—Stephen H Schneider, Professor, Stanford University, author of Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate

“A well-documented, pulls-no-punches account of how science works and how political motives can hijack the process by which scientific information is disseminated to the public.”—Kirkus Reviews

“Brilliantly reported and written with brutal clarity… The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn't get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists…Oreskes and Conway do a great public service.”—Huffington Post

“In their fascinating and important study, Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway offer convincing evidence for a surprising and disturbing thesis. Opposition to scientifically well-supported claims about the dangers of cigarette smoking, the difficulties of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, the problems caused by secondhand smoke, and—ultimately—the existence of anthropogenic climate change was used in "the service of political goals and commercial interests" to obstruct the transmission to the American public of important information…Because it is so thorough in disclosing how major policy decisions have been delayed or distorted, Merchants of Doubt deserves a wide readership. It is tempting to require that all those engaged in the business of conveying scientific information to the general public should read it.”—Science

“Merchants of Doubt, by the science historian Naomi Oreskes and the writer Erik Conway, investigates a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: ecoterrorists and socialists are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax. Several previous works have ably illuminated similar themes, but this one hits bone…[Merchants of Doubt] provide both the historical perspective and the current political insights needed to get a grip on what is happening now.”—OnEarth

“Ever wonder how the terms liberty and freedom got all tangled up in fake science, how industry friendly think-tanks got their start, or what motivates scientists to sell out beyond the obvious? Merchants of Doubt expertly follows the historical twists and turns to answer all those questions and more in exquisite detail translated into entertaining narratives easily digested by readers from all backgrounds… This book should be a staple for any scientist and progressive, especially those whose work intersects public policy. Merchants of Doubt will not only leave you better equipped to combat the propaganda now packaged and fed to an unsuspecting public as legitimate science on a daily basis, it is a meticulously researched and wonderfully written.”—Daily Kos

“The disturbing tale of how some scientists sell their souls to advance political and economic agendas.”—Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Absolon this is the real issue. I believe that net pen fish farms will eventually be moved to land, or cease to exist as they will be deemed to harmful to the marine environment, wild fish population and human health. This will be no different from dozens of other environmentally dangerous and unsustainable economic activites that are thankfully no longer practiced. Please quit trying to support a polluting, disease spreading, unsustainable industry such as this and do something more productive with your life. Most of all don't bother spreading your spin doctored, PR consultant, half truths here! You sound just like the corrupt peolple that supported the tobacco industry for decades. Spread your propoganda elsewhere!
 
Spread your propaganda elsewhere!

Oh he does-- go over and look at Rods Board-- same smelly crap
 
And I suspect that other boards are "blessed" with his presence too... Hard to say how many reincarnations a troll or a shill can have...
 
Absolon why is it you have no answer to my question.

To repeat my question.... Why has there been viruses detected in "fresh from the farm" Atlantic salmon in grocery stores in Vancouver. Why is it that the genetic profile of these viruses are the same as the ones from Norway?


Science has provided me with facts that you and your friends in the salmon feedlot industry seem to ignore. Where are your answers?

You seem to be at the leading edge of salmon farming technology so I'm sure you can answer these question.

Why has the 200 million ISA vaccines sold in Canada not been able to control this virus?

Why have the east coast salmon feedlot companies asked the government to allow them to sell there ISA infected fish to the general public. Clearly these are sick fish and should not be sold but rather they should be destroyed. Do they see what is happening on our coast and want some of that too?

Why are you here on a recreational fishing forum?
Is it from some noble gesture to protect the salmon feedlot industry.
Or is it that you are paid by the post to spread your half truths and to deny harm to our wild salmon.

If you can't answer these questions then perhaps you could just go away as you are not welcome here. You see it takes more then a login id to become a member of this community.

To answer your question of me about my background.
I am but a simple carpenter, that has my own cabinet shop, that I have run for the last 20 years.
I guess that makes us equals.:eek:
GLG
 
Or is it that you are paid by the post to spread your half truths and to deny harm to our wild salmon.
YES!!!If you can't answer these questions then perhaps you could just go away as you are not welcome here.
You see it takes more then a login id to become a member of this community. Yes - basic stuff like HONESTY!
To answer your question of me about my background.
I am but a simple carpenter, that has my own cabinet shop, that I have run for the last 20 years.
I guess that makes us equals.:eek: GLG

No WAY it does! I'm a carpenter, too (IP in 1978) but I guarantee you, GLG, he is not our equal. To be a tradesman with a 20 year career, you need integrity and a work ethic in order to have repeat customers (or steady employers) to show for it. You and I also have built large hands and forearms from the years of hard, physical work, along with thick, arthritic fingers, and a life-history written on them in scars and callouses. absolon will have none of that. He belongs in the company of M.H. board room sycophants, pliant politicians and lawyer-leeches sucking the blood from all life to feed their insatiable addiction to filthy lucre.

absolon, too clever by half, likes classic literature - let him read of Demas, the deceiver, in Pilgrim's Progress. The conclusion to the Miller's Tale is that Absolon goes off frustrated, his sexual urges unsated. absolon claims to be a woodworker - if true, the wood he has worked is behind a zipper and beneath a desk! ...please carry on with your amusement. We're done with indulging you here!
 
results of fish farms to local wild stocks

No WAY it does! I'm a carpenter, too (IP in 1978) but I guarantee you, GLG, he is not our equal. To be a tradesman with a 20 year career, you need integrity and a work ethic in order to have repeat customers (or steady employers) to show for it. You and I also have built large hands and forearms from the years of hard, physical work, along with thick, arthritic fingers, and a life-history written on them in scars and callouses. absolon will have none of that. He belongs in the company of M.H. board room sycophants, pliant politicians and lawyer-leeches sucking the blood from all life to feed their insatiable addiction to filthy lucre.

absolon, too clever by half, likes classic literature - let him read of Demas, the deceiver, in Pilgrim's Progress. The conclusion to the Miller's Tale is that Absolon goes off frustrated, his sexual urges unsated. absolon claims to be a woodworker - if true, the wood he has worked is behind a zipper and beneath a desk! ...please carry on with your amusement. We're done with indulging you here!
ock

my observer qualifications are 40 yrs living in port hardy founding father and chairman for a few years of quatse hatchery plus first volenter and managed marble river chinnook hatchery for about 10 yrs plus quatsino sound is now lined bysalmon farms for last 2 yrs marble hatchery has been unable to catch any chinnook for brood stock . upper quatsino sound was once alive with jumping fish cohoes and chums last fall none were seen also cohos in stephens creek at coal hbr where 3 or more thousands once spawned were absent i can see only one reason for this salmon farms have poisoned the inlet almost the same thing in hardy bay no jumpers last fall river was barren of salmon but for a few pinks no carcasses or scent of dead fish i am beside myself for knowing what to do other than supporting alexandra morton
 
It's tragic to see that happening in one lifetime.

ock

my observer qualifications are 40 yrs living in port hardy founding father and chairman for a few years of quatse hatchery plus first volenter and managed marble river chinnook hatchery for about 10 yrs plus quatsino sound is now lined bysalmon farms for last 2 yrs marble hatchery has been unable to catch any chinnook for brood stock . upper quatsino sound was once alive with jumping fish cohoes and chums last fall none were seen also cohos in stephens creek at coal hbr where 3 or more thousands once spawned were absent i can see only one reason for this salmon farms have poisoned the inlet almost the same thing in hardy bay no jumpers last fall river was barren of salmon but for a few pinks no carcasses or scent of dead fish i am beside myself for knowing what to do other than supporting alexandra morton

Many of us have spent a lifetime on the water - me: 55 years on Georgia, Haro & Juan de Fuca Straits and the W.C.V.I. We have seen these sickening changes first hand. Those that you have witnessed are only a preview of our future unless we stop these ruthless and greedy b*s-turds. Things are changing - the arrogant and self-absorbed presence of absolon here, desperately lobbying for Marine Harvest, along with his duplicity, manipulation and deliberate misinterpretation of fact, has only redoubled our strong committment to conservation. Getting the open pens out of our waters, in order to give our wild salmon a fighting chance to recover, is a high priority for us. We are enthusiastic supporters of Dr. Morton. We welcome your voice and contributions!
 
ock

my observer qualifications are 40 yrs living in port hardy founding father and chairman for a few years of quatse hatchery plus first volenter and managed marble river chinnook hatchery for about 10 yrs plus quatsino sound is now lined bysalmon farms for last 2 yrs marble hatchery has been unable to catch any chinnook for brood stock . upper quatsino sound was once alive with jumping fish cohoes and chums last fall none were seen also cohos in stephens creek at coal hbr where 3 or more thousands once spawned were absent i can see only one reason for this salmon farms have poisoned the inlet almost the same thing in hardy bay no jumpers last fall river was barren of salmon but for a few pinks no carcasses or scent of dead fish i am beside myself for knowing what to do other than supporting alexandra morton

I'm so sorry to hear the results of the salmon feedlots moving into your area.
Thank you for sharing your observation and adding your voice.
The wild salmon can't speak for themselves but they show us they are in trouble.
It is up to us to look and speak for them.
absolon and his friends will be attacked, only with words, for their wrongs.
GLG
 
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/oceans/Unlocking+secrets+rivers/6468356/story.html

This article provides some incite as to what may need to be done to protect and restore the Fraser and enhance the production of Salmon.

Charlie – It is my impression that the Columbia River and it’s Salmon production has made a remarkable comeback with huge support from your Government.
I recall reading somewhere that around $100 million a year is spent for that purpose. As you are the acknowledged finder of facts, would you be willing to confirm what is spent on the Columbia in a year and how it breaks down. In my view the Fraser and the Columbia are somewhat similar rivers. It would very interesting to see a comparison on what the USA spends on the Columbia and what our Government is spending on the Fraser and Fraser salmon restoration and enhancement.

It would also be interesting to see how the spending correlates with results (positive outcomes for salmon populations and their availability for harvesting, especially as it relates to Chinook and Coho.

I know there are other factors at play. I recall hearing there are few fish farms down your way and none permitted in Alaska. Is there any move to get rid of your remaining west coast Atlantic salmon farms? Doing so would be a good example for our politicians.

I also see that the Fraser River study referred to in the hyperlinked article was mostly funded by the USA; why am I not surprised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Englishman, I have read Morton's contributions to the debate and much of her suggested reading list. I've gone considerably beyond it as well and also into considerable detail on the background to the claims of the antis. I'm not dependent on a single source for my information nor do I look at the situation from only one side. My own beliefs aren't unconsidered, arrived at through ignorance nor through the interpretations of someone else and they don't ignore scientific principles or the health of the environment. From that perspective, I would suggest that what I have put forward is not nonsense at all. Nor do I agree with your characterization of the anti lobby, their approach and their credibility. I would suggest that your view from inside that bubble distorts your perception of it.

Absolom, if you have indeed read the scientific papers and literature, then you will know the evidence for the ill-effects and harmful consequences of fish feed lots is large and growing. On the contrary, my perception of the issue is not coloured by your obvious focus which is founded on the premise that economics “trumps” the environment and that all possible risks can be managed out of existence. Again I emphasise, this is not an esoteric debate of “beliefs”, even considered ones, like monetary policy or foreign policy. This is about science and the preponderance of evidence, which is growing weightier every day.

For all your grand generalizations and noble principles, the issue comes down to the practical realities and what they tell us. Practical reality number one is that right or wrong,the farms are never, ever going to come out of the water. Closed containment is not a viable option and if you believe it is, I've got some Agrimarine and some Hagensborg shares to sell you. The industry is just too well established and contributes too much to the province and the compensation legally due if the government shut them down based on the kind of evidence you suggest is sufficient is prohibitive.

Practical reality number one is that right or wrong,the farms are never, ever going to come out of the water.” This is a totally appalling statement and paints you as a rabid economist. You are saying , however bad the biological, cultural and economic (ironically) impacts are proven to be, the feed lots are not coming out!! So whatever the consequences “it contributes too much to the province”! So you, from your high economic pedestal have deemed the wild salmon and all the wild life and economic activity it supports as of “insufficient worth”. So for you everything is up for sale, an attitude anti-earth, anti-life, and ultimately unsustainable at it threatens all life on earth.

And BTW I don’t care if closed containment is economic or not. For you to hold to ransom the wild salmon and the environment until the economics of closed containment are “suitable” , or until compensation is forthcoming, are the tactics of an extortionist and a bully. In fact the Norwegian companies should be paying the people of BC compensation and performing restitution for the damage they have done, not vice-versa!!


Practical realty number two is that for all those scientific papers you mention, there isn't a smoking gun with the industries fingerprints on it. Many of you claim there is proof because you have been told there is proof, but there very simply isn't. You throw around probabilities of 95 and 99% but that is extremely misleading. There is no evidence out there that approaches anywhere near that kind of certainty; for the kind of conclusions you are trying to draw and the evidence available to base them on you could halve that and be much more accurate if not still a little high. There are also innumerable papers that arrive at different and contradictory conclusions. Your's aren't right simply because you say they are; that is where the quasi-religious component comes in. There is evidence the industry does have negative effects and that it needs to be tightly and proactively managed and controlled but there isn't anything beyond opinion that links the farms to the long term ongoing demise of the salmon that started in the 60s.

On the contrary the smoking gun is there for all to see (except an economist who externalises all costs elsewhere and downloads to others down stream). Just one example, among dozens, is the fact that the sockeye run that goes south through JDF strait is doing O.K.. Those that run the fish feed lot gauntlets through Johnstone Strait are collapsing. In fact, those two migration routes are the nearest we can get in an environmental context to an experiment with feed lots on the one hand and a control experiment with none on the other. To me that is a huge smoking gun demonstrating causal effects. But to you it is still “unproven”, despite dozens of pieces of evidence like it.
And BTW no one is saying the demise of the salmon going back to the 60’s is caused by salmon feed lots. They did not exist then so please don’t confuse and obfuscate. We are referring to the significant declines and collapses that have happened since the feed lots went in especially to the runs going through the Johnstone strait.


Practical reality number three is that there are many other destructive influences on the stocks, ourselves and our predations on them with hooks included. Shutting down the farms won't make a whit of difference if all of those other sources of harm to the fish aren't dealt with. Using the industry as a whipping boy and ignoring the other problems ensures the killing off of the last fish. In spite of their pledge to "save the salmon" the antis never go after the commercial or sport fishing industries for the damage they do to the stocks because the commies and the sporties are allies in the battle against the farms. The PR battle the anti lobby wages makes great filler for the media even if it doesn't always make logical sense and even if it doesn't always stop at the boundaries of the truth; that has the effect of diverting time and energy and public interest away from all the other issues that are proven killers of the salmon and they urgently need to be addressed.

You are sowing doubt and confusion again. No one doubts there are other impacts on salmon habitats. Clear cut logging is just one. But that is not the point. Contrary to your assertion, eliminating the salmon feed lots will make a huge difference to the current salmon numbers. The salmon feed lots violate a biological safeguard built up over the millennia, whereby adult salmon and smolts/fry NEVER mixed naturally. The feed lots are an incubator of parasites and diseases because salmon do NOT live in such concentrated numbers naturally. The smolts must then swim through this evil stew. If you cannot see the basic foolishness and riskiness of this contrived system then you clearly have zero understanding of biology and ecology.

Even if you believe the allies against the feed lots are “odd” they are all at least committed to the continuation of the wild salmon runs. The feed lot companies are not, and that is the BIG difference. In fact the Norwegian companies would prefer it if the wild salmon were all dead (and if all the pesky marine mammals were dead as well) as then they could do what they liked to the marine environment without any restrictions and additional costs, and get more for their fish! Talk about a perverted industry!!

Practical reality number four is that as long as the antis ignore the first three practical realities and march off to battle, never to compromise on their idealism or their unrealistic goals, they will never make any headway in their uncompromising effort to eliminate the farms. That is an unattainable goal and investing all of their efforts pursuing it simply alienates them from the realists who, like it or not, are the ones who make the final decisions. That alienation eliminates any positive influence they might have on the ongoing management of farms. It may well be talk and log, but talk and log is a damn sight more productive than just log. Some result is better than no result and when you can't get everything you want, you're far better settling for what you can get than standing on your noble principles and getting nothing.

Having demolished your first three “practical realities” as unprincipled falsehoods biased by short sighted economic arguments I don’t need to elaborate further on your first point. On the contrary, if something is wrong, dangerous and destructive, is must be uncompromisingly confronted. Even the so called “realists’ have to get real sometime in the face of the mounting evidence.

And I have to challenge you on your trite observation that “talk and log’ is more productive than “just log”, any more than standing outside a burning house arguing about which hose to use is more productive than just letting it burn! By the time the solution has been arrived at the point is moot. But you know that and that is why you are such a proponent of “collaboration” under the guise of reasonableness when it is anything but that!

But of course, if standing uncompromisingly on your idealistic principles is what you must do, fill your boots.

Idealistic principles are the only thing worth having. You have sold yours because in your world everything is for sale and removal , even the wild salmon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/04/14/bc-salmon-virus-morton.html

A wild salmon advocate says farmed salmon bought at several Vancouver area grocery stores tested positive for a newly identified Norwegian virus.

Alexandra Morton says HSMI, or Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation, appeared in 44 out of 45 fish bought at Superstore and T&T markets in February.

Because the fish were purchased from supermarkets, Morton says it's not clear where they came from.

"If these fish are not from B.C., we have a breach in food security protocol as this virus is going down drains into the ocean as people prepare them for cooking," she said.

"There is something very wrong when four women with shopping carts find this, but none of the regulatory agencies seem aware of it ... Weakening the heart of a fish that has to travel hundreds of kilometres against the Fraser River seems a bad idea."

'Quite unscientific'

Morton says the virus can spread easily from salmon farms to wild fish nearby. She says farmed salmon can recover from the virus but it can be lethal to wild salmon.

Morton is calling on the province to find out where the fish came from.

“We need to know, so we can go there and have a look at how the wild salmon are doing with this disease," she said. "Someone has to be testing the wild salmon for this."

B.C.'s salmon farmers, however, don't believe the fish tested positive for the virus.

"We are not seeing any indication of a virus with the impacts that she has described in the release," said Mary Ellen Wallin with the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.

"I think that it is probably quite unscientific to test samples from a supermarket. There is no research design, the fish have no internal organs to sample and there is a lot of opportunity for cross-contamination."

The HSMI virus was first detected in Norway and has spread to the United Kingdom and Chile.

UNREAL. Quite unscientic. LOL. Good on you Alex!
 
Amazing conversation here. My experience has lead me the observation that salmon farms are destroying most south coast wild salmon stocks. But it really doesn't matter what I think, it is the evidence that matters. The Fraser sockeye productivity (number of adults per spawner of the parent generation) began to decline one generation after salmon farms infected with Salmon Leukemia were put off Campbell River. DFO is the one who named the disease and their research reports in the literature that salmon leukemia infected 100% of the sockeye and chinook exposed to it and killed all the sockeye and most of the chinook. Fifteen years later so many sockeye are mysteriously dying before spawning in the Fraser, that DFO tasked their own scientist, Dr. Miller, to figure out why and her research takes her straight to salmon leukemia, based on all the cancer, leukemia, signals in their cells. At Cohen the original scientists testify they no longer believe Salmon Leukemia exists, but they are going to have to do better than that. You can't write a paper and publish it in a scientific journal and then change your mind with no supporting evidence. IN any case the Privy Council of Canada prevented Miller from talking about her findings about what is killing the sockeye. Why WAS that? The Privy Council does not usually jump into the lives DFO scientists in Nanaimo.

In 2008 the industry quietly removed all the farms with a history of Salmon Leukemia and shazaam the Fraser sockeye smolts that went to sea in 2008 came back in 2010 and Miller could not find the Salmon Leukemia signal in their cells.

A pattern this strong is rare in the world of biology and yet DOF ignores it. I am stunned no one has acted on this information. And so I keep repeating it over and over, but nothing changes.

Now tonight this article is hilarious:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/fish...dvocacy+group+virus+report/6468826/story.html

I tested farm salmon from supermarkets and found a heart disease virus (PRV) in all but one. If they weren't all so busy covering their tracks the government and industry people quoted in this article would see that the provincial vet Gary Marty says he found the same thing as I did .... back in 2010. In this article they argue the virus is present, but it is not causing disease..... They say it is not in wild salmon, but DFO testified at Cohen that it was found in sockeye.

This article quotes the people in charge. And I don't believe any of them. There are papers showing PRV causes the HSMI disease, but some DFO spokesperson feels he can brush that aside. The province says the virus is common but not a problem because farm salmon are being harvested..... the logic there is tricky to follow. Mary Ellen Walling says they have not seen the disease, but when the farmed Atlantic salmon I bought from Superstore showed the classic stunted growth.

I really don't know how we are going to get out of this hole, I feel I am at the mad hatters tea party.
 
why not beat the salmon farms at their own game?

and no im not a troll! But flame me anyway, i dont have the post count for anyone to listen to me.

absolon, did make some very good points. This chest pounding, bully tactics has not worked for us... only makes us look bad!

Alex, keep up the good work you are doing!
 
Amazing conversation here. My experience has lead me the observation that salmon farms are destroying most south coast wild salmon stocks. But it really doesn't matter what I think, it is the evidence that matters. The Fraser sockeye productivity (number of adults per spawner of the parent generation) began to decline one generation after salmon farms infected with Salmon Leukemia were put off Campbell River. DFO is the one who named the disease and their research reports in the literature that salmon leukemia infected 100% of the sockeye and chinook exposed to it and killed all the sockeye and most of the chinook. Fifteen years later so many sockeye are mysteriously dying before spawning in the Fraser, that DFO tasked their own scientist, Dr. Miller, to figure out why and her research takes her straight to salmon leukemia, based on all the cancer, leukemia, signals in their cells. At Cohen the original scientists testify they no longer believe Salmon Leukemia exists, but they are going to have to do better than that. You can't write a paper and publish it in a scientific journal and then change your mind with no supporting evidence. IN any case the Privy Council of Canada prevented Miller from talking about her findings about what is killing the sockeye. Why WAS that? The Privy Council does not usually jump into the lives DFO scientists in Nanaimo.

In 2008 the industry quietly removed all the farms with a history of Salmon Leukemia and shazaam the Fraser sockeye smolts that went to sea in 2008 came back in 2010 and Miller could not find the Salmon Leukemia signal in their cells.

A pattern this strong is rare in the world of biology and yet DOF ignores it. I am stunned no one has acted on this information. And so I keep repeating it over and over, but nothing changes.

Now tonight this article is hilarious:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/fish...dvocacy+group+virus+report/6468826/story.html

I tested farm salmon from supermarkets and found a heart disease virus (PRV) in all but one. If they weren't all so busy covering their tracks the government and industry people quoted in this article would see that the provincial vet Gary Marty says he found the same thing as I did .... back in 2010. In this article they argue the virus is present, but it is not causing disease..... They say it is not in wild salmon, but DFO testified at Cohen that it was found in sockeye.

This article quotes the people in charge. And I don't believe any of them. There are papers showing PRV causes the HSMI disease, but some DFO spokesperson feels he can brush that aside. The province says the virus is common but not a problem because farm salmon are being harvested..... the logic there is tricky to follow. Mary Ellen Walling says they have not seen the disease, but when the farmed Atlantic salmon I bought from Superstore showed the classic stunted growth.

I really don't know how we are going to get out of this hole, I feel I am at the mad hatters tea party.

Alex,

I feel truly sorry for the lonely road you are treading. The only thing I can offer is you do have support from many quarters.....
 
Back
Top