Atlantic salmon blood through an effluent pipe - directly into Brown’s Bay
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
what
have i said regarding the tread title? nothing no fgacts no arguing...... please explain
lol... see funny **** but no answer. people say i deflect.......wow
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
I dont even want to bother, this thread is as bad as the fuel spill thread. Shut them down!!!You do appreciate that I am laughing at Bones, the Shill, not the issue Gil
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Bones- while sport fishing bc the forum blog and website gives the appearance of being a public space it is entirely private and thus the moderators will moderate however they please. If you are wondering why the moderation is the way it is that is why. This is a privately owned forum and it in no way shape or form has to meet any standard that I am aware of. This is why fish farm threads do not get locked up or banned and in some cases they even get edited. Your going to be abused here as you can see above however I suspect you can handle by your mature nature in your posts never once taking a jab at someones character or intelligence who apposes your views or ideas. Which in fact is respectable and honest in nature.
ILHG
Crew Member
They are not unlike the defenders of oil, mining, fast food, tobacco, sugar, pharmaceuticals, industrial agriculture, etc. We should support their exercise of free speech, but we should support much more those that are working hard to reduce the negative impacts of humans and the environment we all need to survive from the powerful, "profits before people" corporations.[/QUOTE]
Says the man who enjoys and utilizes the benefits from all of the terrible things listed above. (Even the electronics you used to make the post involved oil & mining). "The evil pharma" Next time you or your loved ones are sick with an infection you just stick with your Eco Snake oil potion. Next time you go fishing you better have oars and be in a carved wooden canoe. The biggest Defenders of all are those who utilize and keep the demand up.
Give your head a shake man.
Says the man who enjoys and utilizes the benefits from all of the terrible things listed above. (Even the electronics you used to make the post involved oil & mining). "The evil pharma" Next time you or your loved ones are sick with an infection you just stick with your Eco Snake oil potion. Next time you go fishing you better have oars and be in a carved wooden canoe. The biggest Defenders of all are those who utilize and keep the demand up.
Give your head a shake man.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
ILHG I suspect this is the quote you are talking about.
And here we are...yet another shining example of how supposedly intelligent and educated people find a way to lower themselves to the grade school level of school yard tactics by hurling insults, name calling and meandering off topic just so they can stay in the fight. I was going to clean this thread up but I decided to leave all the posts there for people to review and then take a look in the mirror and ask themselves, "Would I be proud to show a young child my work here?"
As to the outcries of how unjust we can be in our attempt to keep things civil through moderation, I will say that more members have been warned, suspended or banned on the "anti" side of this debate than the "pro" side because of their behaviour. Again, the real question is, isn't it sad that we should even have to get to a point where we have to step in because grown, mature adults can't stop themselves from hitting the enter key on their device?
Alas, because we have been down this road before and have arrived here yet again, here is the blanket warning for those who choose to continue behaving badly. If you can't post in a respectful manner you will be suspended or banned.
As to the outcries of how unjust we can be in our attempt to keep things civil through moderation, I will say that more members have been warned, suspended or banned on the "anti" side of this debate than the "pro" side because of their behaviour. Again, the real question is, isn't it sad that we should even have to get to a point where we have to step in because grown, mature adults can't stop themselves from hitting the enter key on their device?
Alas, because we have been down this road before and have arrived here yet again, here is the blanket warning for those who choose to continue behaving badly. If you can't post in a respectful manner you will be suspended or banned.
RODNREEL
Active Member
I'm no scientist or biologist but I think I can answer this. What I am is a middle aged guy that has a passion for the great outdoors and everything it has to offer.I am also a Canadian that is concerned about our declining wild salmon and like alot of the members on this form I take it personally when any group put our fish in jeopardy.
Twenty plus years from now I hope to see my grandchildren catch their first wild salmon. At this point I'm not feeling very confident this will happen.
So to answer your question IMO to many.
After all this is our traditional territory and WE need to protect it.
Cheers RNR
The problem with pseudo science is that it leads to wrong conclusions. I have read how fish farms were killing wild salmon then the Fraser river experiences its largest sockeye run in a century? Why? Did the fish farms aid in the record sockeye run? No, but then when a run is decreased, the source of blame falls to the fish farms. Pseudo science is all about feelings and little about facts.
Diet Coke (aspartame) has long been accused of causing brain cancer. You can read thousands of pseudo science conclusions to this hypothesis. However, since aspartame has been introduced into our society as a food additive, the actual rate of brain cancer has decreased. Anecdotal evidence isn't scientific. My friend dying of brain cancer and drinking Diet Coke is not proof of a causal relationship.
I am a simple sport fisherman who is just waiting for real science to show what's happening. I think salmon runs go up and salmon runs go down. Outside of overfishing, I haven't seen any real evidence that fish farms are having any affect on the system.
Also, you may disagree with the Washington Post, but here are the blind taste tests on farmed vs wild salmon.
http://ag.alltech.com/en/blog/farmed-vs-wild-busting-fishy-salmon-myths
Lots of other info on the environmental issues/questions but up to you to read for yourself.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-salmon-farming-sustainable-aquaculture/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...almon-run-in-nearly-100-years/article1215084/
http://ag.alltech.com/en/blog/farmed-vs-wild-busting-fishy-salmon-myths
Lots of other info on the environmental issues/questions but up to you to read for yourself.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-salmon-farming-sustainable-aquaculture/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...almon-run-in-nearly-100-years/article1215084/
Last edited:
GLG
Well-Known Member
From another thread....
note and correct me if I'm wrong, that the "Miller Virus" is PRV
This may be helpful to answer your question.
It's from 2011 and a lot more information has been learned since......
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Open net pen aquaculture, as currently practiced in British Columbia, has the potential to
create problems for wild salmon populations because the pens are open to the
environment, allowing wastes, chemicals and pathogens to move freely back and forth.
Indeed, wild salmon populations have tended to decline wherever this form of
aquaculture is practiced, although the reason for this is not always apparent. In one of the
best studied cases, wild Pacific salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, BC appear to have
been negatively impacted by sea lice from fish farms.
Declines in Fraser River sockeye salmon returns, and in particular the spectacular crash
of 2009, have led many to wonder whether fish farms could be implicated, given that
most of the migrating sockeye have to pass through the narrow channels among the
Discovery Islands, dotted with numerous Atlantic salmon and Chinook salmon farms, on
their way north out of the Strait of Georgia.
The hypothesis that there is an effect of farms on sockeye survival was tested by
examining the support for its predictions that there would be negative relationships
between fish farm production levels - and such farm metrics as lice levels, disease levels
and farm mortality rates - and Fraser sockeye survival. These various relationships were
statistically analyzed and reported separately to the Commission by Dr. Brendan Connors
(Connors B. 2011. Examination of relationships between salmon aquaculture and sockeye
salmon population dynamics. Cohen Commission Tech. Rept. 5B).
Unfortunately, it turned out that the data provided by Provincial government (BCMAL)
and the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) were insufficient in both quantity and
quality to allow a rigorous analyses capable of answering these questions with certainty.
The biggest problem was the very short length of the time series available for analysis,
basically only 4-5 year classes.
However a longer-term analysis, using production data since 1982, did reveal a
relationship between farm production and salmon survival, i.e., the greater the farm
production the lower the survival of the sockeye. This analysis also revealed a very
interesting interaction with pink salmon abundance in the North Pacific Ocean: the
negative effect of the farms appeared stronger when pink salmon were more abundant,
suggesting that any farm effect may be mediated through changes in the growth and/or
competitive ability of the sockeye.
Despite the a priori predictions, these results cannot be considered conclusive, as they are
only correlations in the data. However, the fact that the 2006 brood year interacted with
half as many pink salmon as the 2005 brood year, and that the corresponding 2010
returns were much greater than those in 2009, suggests that the Connors statistical model
may be capturing some underlying causal relationships, and thus motivates the search for
what these might be.
Several potential drivers of any farm effect were considered. If such an effect exists, it is
most likely to be due to either disease or sea lice, or both. Impacts on sockeye from other
factors, such as escapes or waste and chemical inputs and their effects on the benthic and
pelagic zooplankton communities, are likely to be quite local and unlikely to be
sufficient, alone or in concert, to cause either the long-term population declines or the
especially low returns in 2009. However, the cumulative impacts of several farms in close
proximity have not been adequately addressed.
The viral and/or bacterial pathogens considered the most risky to wild sockeye are
Renibacterium salmoninarum (causing bacterial kidney disease, BKD), the IHN virus
(causing infectious hematopoietic necrosis, IHN) and Aeromonas salmonicida (causing
furunculosis). There are a variety of ways these may be transferred from farmed fish to
wild sockeye, including horizontal transfer of shed pathogens, via farmed salmon
escapees, via movement of infected sea lice (vectoring), and through discharge of
untreated "blood water" from processing facilities. Horizontal transfer and vectoring by
sea lice are likely to be the most important routes of transmission, but the role of
processing facilities needs to be examined further.
ISA (infectious salmon anemia) has not been confirmed on BC fish farms, but several of
the veterinary records refer to symptoms that are highly suggestive. A close watch should
be kept for indications of this disease, and biosecurity rigidly enforced, since ISA could
be devastating to BC wild salmon populations. Recently there have been reports of a
possible retrovirus (the so-called "Miller virus"); its role in Fraser sockeye declines is
currently uncertain. It is suspected to be a contributory factor to the recently elevated
levels of pre-spawning mortality (PSM) in adult Fraser sockeye, but PSM is not the cause
of reduced survival as examined in this report, since the definition of “recruits” includes
any mortalities due to PSM. Thus we are looking for the cause of declining survival over
and above whatever effects this virus has on returning adults. Of course this does not
exonerate the involvement of this presumed virus in mortality of sockeye at earlier life
stages.
It is naïve to believe that the present report, and the Cohen Commission in general, will
identify the cause of the sockeye salmon decline, and in particular the return failure of
2009. Nature is complex and factors do not act in isolation on the population dynamics of
any species. Pathogens from fish farms are just one factor among many that may
influence the mortality rate of sockeye. There are several ways in which these various
factors may interact, and a number of these are discussed. Although some are
hypothetical at this stage of our knowledge, they highlight the complexities in the real
world system in which farms and wild sockeye are embedded, and caution against any
simplistic single-factor explanation.
There are a number of knowledge gaps surrounding the farm-wild fish interaction, in
particular those related to the dynamics of disease transfer. These are listed in a separate
section of the report. Several management options are also briefly considered, with closed
containment being the preferred option if it can be shown to be economically feasible, a
hypothesis currently under test by several such facilities in BC, both land-based and in
the ocean.
It must be understood that the short time series of data available for this investigation
precluded identifying salmon farms as an important driver of the decline of Fraser
sockeye. But it must be equally understood that at this stage of our knowledge is it not
possible to say they are not implicated. It is recommended that a well-organized farm
database be maintained in an ongoing fashion by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and that
annual analyses of the sort performed by Dr. Connors be conducted to firm up
conclusions as more data become available.
Pretty telling and pretty self-serving that FF advocates reverse the burden of proof on here - demanding proof from wild salmon advocates - but then subsequently ignore that info - and attempt to delegitimize and invalidate that inconvenient and contradictory input by using a tired but well-used PR stunt - claiming that the input is "gish gallop" (nothing to see here folks...).
Just another reason why we need an actual environmental assessment for each site - a process where people can't utilize that irresponsible and unprofessional stunt. In an actual EA - there are tracking tables, rules of conduct, and the burden of proof is on the proponent - all legislated by law - except of course for the only one industry actually in the water - the open net-cage industry.
Thanks for demonstrating that stunt - and need for a EA, BN.
Just another reason why we need an actual environmental assessment for each site - a process where people can't utilize that irresponsible and unprofessional stunt. In an actual EA - there are tracking tables, rules of conduct, and the burden of proof is on the proponent - all legislated by law - except of course for the only one industry actually in the water - the open net-cage industry.
Thanks for demonstrating that stunt - and need for a EA, BN.
Last edited:
so then AA,. how or what are the impacts against wild salmon stocks? has your science department figured this out? do they impact at 10%50% 80%?
is this what your prepared to take to the government? "we the people demand Fish farms be removed from the coastal waters of BC because they kill wild salmon"
the government is going to ask how much and what runs, do you have this information?wouldn't mind a read this morning.
for example some scientists claim seals eat 80% of out going smolt production. how many smolts or wild salmon are dieing to fish farms?
this is important information to have when pointing a finger and claiming damages. your not listing how much damage. the science just says it happens.... doesn't say how much. if it does then please list the impacts.
The problem is none of it exists. It is all about hyperbole and conjecture with the intent of shutting down salmon farms. This is why everyone should read the Fraser Institute paper on getting rid of coal plants (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/its-official-ontarios-coal-phase-out-was-all-for-nothing). The environmentalists all made arguments about the pollution causing billions in health care costs etc. None of it was real. It isn't to say that coal plants dont emit pollution - they do. It also would be naive to argue that salmon farms don't have an impact - they do. The question of cost benefit is they real issue here. In Ontario, they did it wrong. I sure hope in BC it is done right.
Last edited:
Similar threads
