.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 8461
  • Start date
Pharmacy is controlled by veterinary college not the farm, sigh lack of knowledge. If you believe the farms are pumping out pharmaceuticals then your problem is with the veterinary care of animals not the fish farm. You cannot buy drugs without a doctors note
Fish Farms are like drug addicts they buy and use drugs whenever they feel like it.
For the second time in five years, a Canadian salmon aquaculture firm has admitted in a New Brunswick courtroom to illegally using a pesticide known to kill lobsters for treating salmon off an island that abuts the Maine border.

According to a CBC report, Northern Harvest Sea Farms admitted Tuesday to knowingly using the pesticide Salmosan 50 WP, without getting prior approval from the province, in an attempt to combat a sea lice outbreak at a salmon farm off Head Harbour on Campobello Island. Campobello Island is connected to the Maine town of Lubec via the Roosevelt International Bridge.

Sea lice are small, parasitic crustaceans that attach themselves to fish, weakening them and exposing them to infection and disease. Farmed fish, which are kept penned in high densities, are particularly vulnerable to sea lice outbreaks.
 
Fish Farms are like drug addicts they buy and use drugs whenever they feel like it.

You got that right!!!
"New research that finds a possible link between fish farms and the spread of antibiotic resistance doesn’t surprise marine biologist Inka Milewski..
Antibiotics are put into the feed. And so it should come as no surprise to anyone that they have found antibiotic resistance associated with fish farms.”
"Millions of tonnes of fishmeal are used in fish farms every year, much of it sinking uneaten to the ocean floor, a news release on the study said."
 
... also Norway doesn't apply here, our water is different, our aquaculture is different and the big one is they dont have wild Chinook salmon swimming through a place called the pacific ocean. So......whatever
Norway TOTALLY applies (wrt broad-scale impacts such as benthic impacts, sea lice, disease transfer, impacts to wild stocks, etc.) - but yes - you are correct - the water at every SITE in every country is different. Which is why we need an environmental assessment for each SITE - which the FF industry has successfully avoided like the plague.
 
It was A study that was conducted in Norway, I'm sure you have seen it. Are you going to give us your answer? Or are we gonna play this game?
You are right rockdog - for most FF pundits - it's merely a game to distract and deflect accountability - to the detriment of the wild stocks.
 
I have been to all the streams in Clayquot sound some many times. The alkalinity in those streams has been averaging less than 10ppm for many years. The water quality criteria for both US and Canadian standards deemed safe for freshwater ecology is 20ppm. 80-120ppm is optimal. Those streams lack invertebrate populations from calcium/magnesium deficiencies and poor buffering ability of the continuously changing rain chemistry. I've been there lots, it's real. There is a perfect scientific explanation for the lack of fish there and everywhere else but it is ignored.
and yet but again your are ignoring the life history of the species like sockeye, pinks and chums that do no have an extended river rearing for their early life history stages. We have had this discussion numerous times fishmyster - on other threads - including where the greatest mortality is - in the marine environment - with lots of supporting data.
 
Norway TOTALLY applies (wrt broad-scale impacts such as benthic impacts, sea lice, disease transfer, impacts to wild stocks, etc.) - but yes - you are correct - the water at every SITE in every country is different. Which is why we need an environmental assessment for each SITE - which the FF industry has successfully avoided like the plague.
Sorry but your wrong. What happens in Norway is Norway's problems. And if you require an environmental impact study then maybe we should require it for all producers of protein. I wonder how the cattle farms would like it? It takes 8 pounds to grow one pound of food. Not very environmentally friendly is it?
 
The answer your looking for is "nope" I've said it three times........

Geez, I took that as a clear 'NO' to the question I asked you. You apparently were so clear that I missed it 3 times. But then this.....

I have not once said that fish farms DO NOT KILL SMOLTS. I'm simply asking how many? You do not know......but make claims like " move farms to land because they are killing salmon in the pacific ocean"

So the flip flop continues I suppose....simple yes/no is all that is required.
 
Your not getting it yet. if its .05% then the answer is no, But if your answer is 50% then the answer is yes........ im still waiting for you to provide numbers
you come here on a public forum ask a question to which i give answer to. then you ask me several time answer it with yes/no. i answer it. the problem here is you are not answering any of my questions, EVER. you ***** i'm not answering, but the reality is i am..... please help us out. is the negative impact on wild salmon stocks so small they cant be measured?

how many smolts die in the broughton every year?
what species are effected?

where is the bottom loading happening on this coast line?
was the farm removed or still operating?

what diseases are being spread to wild stock salmon?
what species are effected?

what drugs are they pumping out?
were they acting alone or is this industry practice?
 
I have been to all the streams in Clayquot sound some many times. The alkalinity in those streams has been averaging less than 10ppm for many years. The water quality criteria for both US and Canadian standards deemed safe for freshwater ecology is 20ppm. 80-120ppm is optimal. Those streams lack invertebrate populations from calcium/magnesium deficiencies and poor buffering ability of the continuously changing rain chemistry. I've been there lots, it's real. There is a perfect scientific explanation for the lack of fish there and everywhere else but it is ignored.
Read this starting page 29 where it eventually goes on to say 40% of diet was invertebrates so they must be around and your just not finding them. https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/6386/Rine_uaf_0006N_10437.pdf?sequence=1
 
Your not getting it yet. if its .05% then the answer is no, But if your answer is 50% then the answer is yes........ im still waiting for you to provide numbers
you come here on a public forum ask a question to which i give answer to. then you ask me several time answer it with yes/no. i answer it. the problem here is you are not answering any of my questions, EVER. you ***** i'm not answering, but the reality is i am....

Fabes Dude, you say you answered the question, but you didn't. You danced around with different scenarios and all that. It's just a simple question that is based on your current knowledge, and it's just an opinion. We know you are good at opinions.

How many die in the Broughton? I'm not really the guy to ask that to. I'm not out there in my scuba gear counting the smolts as they pass a farm, nobody is. You simply ask that because I know you know there is impact, and asking how many individuals die is an impossible question to answer. So you figure you've got some break through. The science shows there is negative impact, and fish are dying.
There are lots of different factors affecting salmon and their survival rates, farms are a part of it.

You won't answer a simple question with a yes or no. You say you did answer it with a 'nope', but then you say that wasn't your answer, so the flip flop continues.
 
science shows there is negative impact

It also shows that their is a negative impact from chinook fishing on SRKW.

Are we suppose to stop all negative impacts or should we try to quantify them first? Then make management decisions based on thoes impacts.

It’s clear that seals have a an negative impact, that pollution, climate change ect...

Should we not address all thoes issues if we are
Going to shut down fish farms.

That is why bones is asking that
 
and yet but again your are ignoring the life history of the species like sockeye, pinks and chums that do no have an extended river rearing for their early life history stages. We have had this discussion numerous times fishmyster - on other threads - including where the greatest mortality is - in the marine environment - with lots of supporting data.
I absolutely have not ignored those other salmon species. They have all been effected in some way or another too. All the computer data you can find might imply there is most mortality in the marine environment but you are still missing the real field experience that shows otherwise. You and many others don't seem to understand that fresh water contamination flows to the sea where it kills there too! I'm just frusterated that everyone is ignoring the science of chemistry!!
Oh well you win again for now. Congradulations on your internet studying abilities and expertise. If you or any of you other ff haters ever do get a chance or care to learn from the field what has been happening give me a shout. Ken Myers 250-720-5118 I would be happy to share my knowledge. I would like to show you the status of present field ecology with a short tour to a few waterways. There is also plenty of valuable science on the net if acknowledged will also explain the reason for the present depressed state.
 
Its sad....you guys are wasting so much time and effort on this.....yet all returning Fraser stock are getting wiped out with the netting...
 
Its sad....you guys are wasting so much time and effort on this.....yet all returning Fraser stock are getting wiped out with the netting...

Yeah the 35% reduction from sport from Campbell river down to
Vancouver is now going to end up in
Sockeye nets.

Another example of a cut back due to
Conservation only to hand it over to another sector.
 

From the Study: "The increased salmon production has elevated the density of naturally occurring salmon lice in the water column, primarily due to the large growth in the number of hosts. The high density further increases the chances of salmon lice being transmitted between hydrodynamically connected farms. Additionally, experience shows that sporadic uncontrolled treatment of salmon lice in an area yields a resistant salmon lice population over time (Murray 2011, Aaen et al. 2015)."

Its pretty clear the opportunities for transmission to wild hosts would also increase with the increases in density of the lice. Over time the lice in the farms get harder and harder to control as they become resistant to the chemicals or drugs used to control them and densities again increase. This whole "how many have died" from the fish farmers on the site is a deflection as there is no way to know how many die, and the onus should be on them to prove in the light of evidence that there is increased numbers of lice in the water column and increased transmission , that there is no or minimal effect on the environment.
 
I am not in any way jumping on board with fish farming. We need to get our head out of clouds. The baby dieing isn't only food. There is more going on with these whales and I am getting frustrated of the jump to conclusions thing going on for last few years. Why are the northern whale population growing in size? Why have the northern whales tripled in size yet the government lists them in SARA? How can a population be endangered yet it grows 2.9 percent per year and have a number 3 times the historical number in 40 years? These environmentalist groups our lost with this pipeline issue. It's sad.
 
Last edited:
and yet but again your are ignoring the life history of the species like sockeye, pinks and chums that do no have an extended river rearing for their early life history stages. We have had this discussion numerous times fishmyster - on other threads - including where the greatest mortality is - in the marine environment - with lots of supporting data.
I absolutely have not ignored other species! Everything up to the whales has been effected from the changes. We discussed this before and the author of the report you presented concluded marine losses were greater than freshwater even though the info in the report show the opposite. You were hung up on the authors conclusion and were not able to assess the information for yourself.

On paper and from a desk freshwater may appear to be fine but in the real world it is not.
 
Read this starting page 29 where it eventually goes on to say 40% of diet was invertebrates so they must be around and your just not finding them. https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/6386/Rine_uaf_0006N_10437.pdf?sequence=1
I’m just not finding them!! Hahaha!! That’s the same kind of reply moe biologists give. What does this Alaskan report have to do with invertebrate in Clayquot sound streams? Did the report have any long term invertebrate samples to compare salmon abundance trends?
You know guys I’ve been trying to reach out to find people who might care to know some of this stuff. I’m looking for people with integrity and intelligence tha could help me get this exposed. DFO and MOE don’t seem to care. PSF and Almo don’t respond. Everyone here just pulls and post another report and blows me off. Why does nobody care to learn what I have to share. Why does everyone turn their back on freshwater? Because the internet says it’s fine?? Is there anyone out there with integrity and drive to understand what is happening in freshwater?
Anyways, i think you guys are all computer smart and that’s it. The NGOs have duped you into believing in this just like they have people believing closing fishing will help whales. It’s all so lame
 
Back
Top