Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts...

Papers that model a 50% reduction per generation (or any reduction for that matter) of wild salmon populations, and then propose to link that to the presence of salmon farms fail in a number of ways:

1. Returns of wild fish to rivers in areas with and without farms show no such trend

2. Trends which are presumed to exist by those papers are based on the interpretation of the writers, and do not hold true when tested

3. Positive trends and all other data which falsifies the hypothesis are omitted from the data, averaged out, or otherwise ignored.

There is no evidence which is repeatable and supported by nature which definitively shows reductions in wild stocks being linked to the presence of farms.

If the presence of a farm caused any stock to decline in any way outside the normal experienced variations it would be really quite straightforward to show.

No models needed, just a few generations of monitoring returns would give you an answer - and that answer is not there.

It is that simple.
 
Papers that model a 50% reduction per generation (or any reduction for that matter) of wild salmon populations, and then propose to link that to the presence of salmon farms fail in a number of ways:

1. Returns of wild fish to rivers in areas with and without farms show no such trend

2. Trends which are presumed to exist by those papers are based on the interpretation of the writers, and do not hold true when tested

3. Positive trends and all other data which falsifies the hypothesis are omitted from the data, averaged out, or otherwise ignored.

There is no evidence which is repeatable and supported by nature which definitively shows reductions in wild stocks being linked to the presence of farms.

If the presence of a farm caused any stock to decline in any way outside the normal experienced variations it would be really quite straightforward to show.

No models needed, just a few generations of monitoring returns would give you an answer - and that answer is not there.

It is that simple.


CK you haven't replied to our challenge with any scientific reports, peer reviewed research with any facts and data! You just provided your observations and personal opinion yet again! How is this an adequate defense of your industry?

You condemn the reams of peer reviewed, scientific research from numerous researchers from around the world, without adequately analyzing any of it and providing rational and well reasoned arguments as to what is wrong with it. Instead you just make generalized complaints about what it says, or baseless attacks on the researchers themselves when you say, and I quote you "if any of the speculative, fill in the blanks pseudoscience created by the likes of Morton and Krkosek (and his wonderfully predictive models) actually mirrored what was happening in reality - it would certainly be a different story."

Yet have the audacity to call the large amount of peer reviewed, scientific research showing damages done by salmon feedlots as, and I quote you "shoddy, unsupported, thoroughly flawed and based on biased assumptions." You can't even provide 2 or 3 peer reviewed, scientific reports that back up what you say! Yet you state that those that are against net pen feedlots are, and I quote you again "constantly ignoring, or suppressing evidence which runs counter to the hypothesis of farms doing harm, opponents of aquaculture fail in not only scientific methodology - but logic as well". Without any scientific research to back you up you sound very hypocritical by your own standards.

Without providing any scientific data to support your industry's practices and meeting the challenge to do so on this forum, you present yourself to be an uninformed and heavily biased mouthpiece for whatever your industry does. How are we to take what your say here seriously? Why should anyone bother to listen to anything you say here, when you don't back up what you say with any data, proof or facts of any kind? You just keep on making baseless complaints and attacks of what you personally don't like to hear about the industry your part of.

If you don't provide any scientific, peer reviewed (i.e. the way the world of credible, academic, scientific research works, despite your lack of appreciation and/or understanding of it), then you are acting like a poorly informed, industry hack. Show us some research that support your industry, or stop wasting our time and embarrassing yourself and your industry. To maintain some credibility show us the research, because without it you lose all credibility to criticize the many and growing number of people who have legitimate and serious concerns about the net pen salmon feedlot industry. My 2 bits.
 
Warts and all

Published on November 27, 2013

·

It’s a good thing Cooke Aquaculture is farming salmon, instead of elephants or llamas or warthogs. Because the most that the aquaculture firm can expect the taxpayer to pay for every diseased salmon that has to be destroyed is $30 a fish, including the costs of trucking the fish, destroying it, and cleaning contaminated vehicles and equipment.



That’s the figure included in Canada’s Compensation for Destroyed Animals regulations, regulations that insulate animal farmers from the costs incurred when animals — numbering from one into the thousands — are ordered destroyed.

The picture would be much worse if the aquaculture company was destroying thousands of warthogs: taxpayers pay up to $8,000 apiece to destroy every single good old Phacochoerus aethiopicus. Llamas and elephants are similarly expensive.

Salmon, though, are expensive enough: the Atlantic Salmon Federation has argued in the past that their research has shown that destroying diseased aquaculture salmon has cost Canadian taxpayers more than $100 million between 1996 and 2012.

Salmon producers are paid based on a combination that includes the market value of the fish, along with its age and weight, and the $30 number is the maximum. Still, it adds up in a hurry.

The biggest problem for salmon producers? Infectious salmon anemia, or ISA. It’s the disease that, most recently, has resulted in a six-month closure of Cooke Aquaculture’s Harbour Breton processing plant. Right now, the company has been ordered to dispose of several hundred thousand salmon, and has said it feels that it doesn’t want to start restocking pens until this province adopts a bay management strategy that would require full fish health protocols for all growers.

Interestingly, the provincial government started a consultation process to “inform the Provincial Aquaculture Strategy” on Monday. Here’s what the news release said: “Interested parties can submit feedback to the provincial government via the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture website: www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca. The site now includes a consultation web page that provides information about the consultation process, features a background document about the industry, and explains how to provide input electronically or via regular mail.”

The goal? To establish “what must be done to continue fostering the success of aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador.” The plan does include consideration of bay management plans, but that’s about as close as the government ever gets to talking about now-regular and expensive ISA problems.

We’ll save you the trouble of going to the site: except for one single mention of the words “disease management,” fish health problems aren’t mentioned. There is not one mention of ISA or any other disease.

Nor is there any mention of the taxpayer support that goes into the industry through payment for diseased and destroyed fish.

Yet, the documents state; “This document is designed to stimulate public feedback by highlighting industry accomplishments and identifying strategic issues relevant to the continued sustainable development of aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Here’s a simple fact: the amount of compensation being paid to the industry should be front and centre when the merits of the business are being weighed and input is being requested. Leaving it out will only create an artificial impression.

http://www.thetelegram.com/?control...ing&bizClass=article&bizId=3501416&rateValue=
 
interesting, but certainly NOT unexpected perspective CK.

Just claiming "it's not that simple!" and stamping your internet feet doesn't add credence to your assertions. In the past couple of pages there has been literally dozens of studies by dozens of researchers with academic credentials posted quantifying many different types of impacts from open net-pen salmon aquaculture. If you honestly believe that since you don't personally like the authors because they disagree with your predetermined conclusions - that somehow that factor disqualifies their science and input - and if you believe that we should ignore their science because you dislike them - you are sadly mistaken.

If you disagree with their science - why don't you publish your rebuttal in the science journals like other scientists do? That's how the peer-reviewed science system works. That same system that has provided science and technology that has ultimately allowed us to send spacecraft out of our solar system and allows us all to read our comments online.

Let's not be confused here - our science has allowed us to develop as a species - NOT the stock market. Natural science reflects patterns present in the systems that support life on this planet. NOT the stock market. However, the greed rife within the system that protects the stock market corrupts many governance systems (including democracy) and promotes lying in order to protect trade and share values. This is the same for open net-pen industry, big oil, tobacco - or many other industries.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Mirrors break when rocks are thrown at them. SO - PR people deflect the rocks. Thanks again for demonstrating this process to everyone on here...
 
ASF BACKGROUNDER Atlantic Salmon Federation
P. O. Box 5200, St. Andrews, NB E5B 3S8
P. O. Box 807, Calais, ME USA 04619–0807
Tel: (506) 529–4581 www.asf.ca
Nov. 18, 2013
INFECTIOUS SALMON ANEMIA (ISA) – THE FACTS
General
• Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) is a virus that is highly contagious in the marine environment, spread through the water between Atlantic salmon within a grow-out site, and carried by the water from one site to another
• ISA is highly lethal to Atlantic salmon, but does not harm humans, according to all sources.
• ISA is complicated to diagnose, as there are both virulent and non-virulent forms of the virus. The virulent form occurs through mutation, possibly as the result of stress factors in the salmon. When a lab says
“suspected” of having ISA, in part they are determining if the virulent form of ISA is present.
• ISA was only discovered in wild Atlantic salmon in 1999, but has been known in farmed Atlantic salmon from a much earlier date
• ISA was unknown to science prior to epidemics in the Norwegian salmon farming industry in 1984
• Disease symptoms include the salmon becoming lethargic or moribund, lifting of scales, protuberance of the eyes, skin lesions, pale gills, and internal hemorrhages.
Geographical Distribution
• ISA is found on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and at times has caused massive losses for salmon farmers in Norway, Scotland, and the Faroes.
• Norwegian salmon farms were the first to be affected, and, by 1990, 101 salmon farms were infected
• In Scotland, an outbreak in 1998 spread so that, by the following year, 11 sites were infected, and a further 24 sites were suspected of being infected, a total of 10% of Scotland's salmon farms. Since then there have been outbreaks from time to time.
• In the Faroe Islands the aquaculture industry was nearly wiped out by ISA outbreaks from 2001 to 2003, resulting in losses to the industry of DKK 250 Million Canada and Maine
Recent History
• In 2013 ISA epidemics hit aquaculture operations in Jan. at Liverpool Bay, resulting in CFIA giving permission for Cooke Aquaculture to take the 240,000 potentially diseased salmon and process them at a plant in New Brunswick, the first time this has been allowed, and causing a national outcry. In June, 850,000 at Goblin Cove, farmed by Gray Aquaculture, were ordered to slaughter. This south coast Newfoundland site is within two miles of the migration route of smolt and returning salmon bound for the Conne River.
• In July 2013 ISA accelerated in the same area of Newfoundland, with the 21 cage Pass My Can site of 650,000 farmed salmon ordered destroyed, and 2 cages of a Cooke site at Manuel’s Arm (approx. 100,000 farmed salmon) ordered destroyed. Then 2 more cages at Mamuel’s Arm were ordered destroyed in November 2013. (See Appendix A)
• In 2012 ISA epidemics hit aquaculture operations in first Nova Scotia and then Newfoundland, totalling at least 1,090,000 farmed salmon.
• Nova Scotia - In Feb. and in April, epidemic ISA resulted in the forced slaughter of 12 cages of salmon, approximately 250,000 salmon in Shelburne. A separate incident in July resulted in the slaughter at the Coffin Island site in Liverpool Bay of 4 cages, with at least 40,000 salmon
• Newfoundland - On the south coast, the Butter Cove site was forced to slaughter 450,000 farmed salmon due to ISA in July 2012. In December 2012 Cooke Aquaculture was ordered to destroy 350,000 salmon at their Pot Harbour site. All of these sites bracket the wild Atlantic salmon corridor to and from the Conne River.
History of ISA Epidemics
ATLANTIC CANADA (1996 - 2013)
Slaughter of ISA Farmed Salmon
• Between 1996 and 1999, ~ 4.5 million fish were slaughtered at 65 sites in New Brunswick.
• In 2000, 9 farm sites were infected and 1.5 million fish slaughtered.
• In 2002, 16 sites were infected and 2.4 million fish were slaughtered.
• In 2003, the sites infected began to drop to 10 and 405,000 fish were slaughtered.
• In 2007 at least 528,000 fish were destroyed
• In 2012 four sites (2 NS & 2 NL) had ISA - 1.2 million fish destroyed -
• In 2013 (to Nov. 18) six sites (1 NS & 5 NL) had ISA - 2.8 millon fish slaughtered
• TOTAL FISH DESTROYED - MORE THAN 13.5 MILLION
Compensation
• 1996-1997: a combined federal and provincial total of $40.5 million was paid to the aquaculture industry following the first kill of salmon as a result of ISA detection.
• 1999: Federal government and provincial governments contributed a total of $25 million dollars under the terms of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements.
• 2006: Following two years of ‘negotiations’ with the province, DFO finally contributed another $10 million to cover losses as a result of ISA.
• Thus by 2006 the total was $75.5 Million in compensation to growers
• 2007 - Compensation unknown - perhaps $7 Million (low estimate)
• 2012 & 2013 - Compensation in Newfoundland - $33,115,810 (see Appendix A), plus additional compensation for slaughter order of November, 2013 of about $10 Million. Compensation in Nova Scotia - approximately $10 Million
• TOTAL COMPENSATION - MORE THAN $130 MILLION, and likely reaching $135 Million
MAINE, USA (2001-2005)
• 2001 - 2.5 million fish destroyed
• 2002 & 2003 - 150,000 fish destroyed
• $5.8M compensation directly, and another $2.5M was paid out directly by USDA to clean up the sites.
• No outbreaks since 2005
Pacific Ocean
• Chile's aquaculture industry was partly destroyed by widespread outbreaks of ISA in the past several years, resulting in the deaths of 10's of millions of fish, and the loss of thousands of jobs in the industry.
Chile is now trying to rebuild on a healthier model, but outbreaks continue to occur.
• In British Columbia, there were reports of ISA showing up in wild and aquaculture salmon, but the tests have proven inconclusive at this point. There is great fear as to impact on wild salmon species in BC
ISA Transmission and the Environment
• ISA likely infects fish via the gills and possibly by ingestion
• ISA is shed in urine, feces, epidermal mucus, gonadal fluids, blood and through tissue wastes when farmed salmon are slaughtered and processed.
• ISA thrives in cold water temperatures (5-15 celcuis). It does not survive at temperatures exceeding mid 20s.
• ISA can be transmitted either through the water or by close contact between fish.
• Sealice might act as mechanical vectors. They may also increase the susceptibility of fish to infection by stressing the salmon
• Wild fish may act as carriers. Salmonids might be the natural reservoir of the ISA Virus
• It remains uncertain whether adult Atlantic salmon can transfer the virus to eggs within the adult, but some scientists believe the non-virulent form of the virus can be transmitted this way
• ISA normally occurs in the salmon’s marine life stage, and only rarely has been reported among young fish
• There appear to be two yearly peaks of the disease – early summer and winter
• ISA is highly contagious, and besides Atlantic salmon can affect economically important species that include cod, herring and mackeral.
Controlling ISA
• ISA being highly contagious, it is necessary to slaughter immediately all the fish in any site suspected of having the disease
• It requires two positives within a cage of salmon for the cage depopulation to be ordered.
• Bay-wide management with single year classes has been implemented to attempt to control the outbreak of ISA. Overall it is successful, but there are still outbreaks, and those will result in widespread death of farmed salmon
 
interesting, but certainly NOT unexpected perspective CK.

Just claiming "it's not that simple!" and stamping your internet feet doesn't add credence to your assertions. In the past couple of pages there has been literally dozens of studies by dozens of researchers with academic credentials posted quantifying many different types of impacts from open net-pen salmon aquaculture. If you honestly believe that since you don't personally like the authors because they disagree with your predetermined conclusions - that somehow that factor disqualifies their science and input - and if you believe that we should ignore their science because you dislike them - you are sadly mistaken.

If you disagree with their science - why don't you publish your rebuttal in the science journals like other scientists do? That's how the peer-reviewed science system works. That same system that has provided science and technology that has ultimately allowed us to send spacecraft out of our solar system and allows us all to read our comments online.

Let's not be confused here - our science has allowed us to develop as a species - NOT the stock market. Natural science reflects patterns present in the systems that support life on this planet. NOT the stock market. However, the greed rife within the system that protects the stock market corrupts many governance systems (including democracy) and promotes lying in order to protect trade and share values. This is the same for open net-pen industry, big oil, tobacco - or many other industries.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Mirrors break when rocks are thrown at them. SO - PR people deflect the rocks. Thanks again for demonstrating this process to everyone on here...

You may have a point about the rebuttal, but it would most likely end up being solely funded by proponents of aquaculture (or anyone who did fund it would be seen as such), and the ultimate response from your position would result in the situation not changing at all.

Maybe something like this is needed: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/1...racted/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
You may have a point about the rebuttal, but it would most likely end up being solely funded by proponents of aquaculture (or anyone who did fund it would be seen as such), and the ultimate response from your position would result in the situation not changing at all.

Maybe something like this is needed: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/1...racted/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This thread is about bail outs not corn :rolleyes:. Left foot in front of the other..........we can walk you through it if you would like.

Sorry, I am pretty interested in this thread and I'm deflection proof:).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CK you haven't replied to our challenge with any scientific reports, peer reviewed research with any facts and data! You just provided your observations and personal opinion yet again! How is this an adequate defense of your industry?

You condemn the reams of peer reviewed, scientific research from numerous researchers from around the world, without adequately analyzing any of it and providing rational and well reasoned arguments as to what is wrong with it. Instead you just make generalized complaints about what it says, or baseless attacks on the researchers themselves when you say, and I quote you "if any of the speculative, fill in the blanks pseudoscience created by the likes of Morton and Krkosek (and his wonderfully predictive models) actually mirrored what was happening in reality - it would certainly be a different story."

Yet have the audacity to call the large amount of peer reviewed, scientific research showing damages done by salmon feedlots as, and I quote you "shoddy, unsupported, thoroughly flawed and based on biased assumptions." You can't even provide 2 or 3 peer reviewed, scientific reports that back up what you say! Yet you state that those that are against net pen feedlots are, and I quote you again "constantly ignoring, or suppressing evidence which runs counter to the hypothesis of farms doing harm, opponents of aquaculture fail in not only scientific methodology - but logic as well". Without any scientific research to back you up you sound very hypocritical by your own standards.

Without providing any scientific data to support your industry's practices and meeting the challenge to do so on this forum, you present yourself to be an uninformed and heavily biased mouthpiece for whatever your industry does. How are we to take what your say here seriously? Why should anyone bother to listen to anything you say here, when you don't back up what you say with any data, proof or facts of any kind? You just keep on making baseless complaints and attacks of what you personally don't like to hear about the industry your part of.

If you don't provide any scientific, peer reviewed (i.e. the way the world of credible, academic, scientific research works, despite your lack of appreciation and/or understanding of it), then you are acting like a poorly informed, industry hack. Show us some research that support your industry, or stop wasting our time and embarrassing yourself and your industry. To maintain some credibility show us the research, because without it you lose all credibility to criticize the many and growing number of people who have legitimate and serious concerns about the net pen salmon feedlot industry. My 2 bits.

HELLO CK, where is your response the questions and challenges in the numerous posts here??? Will you or will you not stand behind the salmon feedlot industry you promote with facts and not just opinion and personal observations??? Now is the time to prove all the 'illogical, biased, hypocritical, and ignorant' salmon feedlot critics wrong....

Will you rise to the challenge??? Surely a 'reputable, sustainable, environmentally conscientious' industry such as your's must have volumes of peer reviewed studies that prove that net pen salmon feedlots have minimum if any negative impact of wild fish and the environment - please lets see some... were waiting.... !!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Papers that model a 50% reduction per generation (or any reduction for that matter) of wild salmon populations, and then propose to link that to the presence of salmon farms fail in a number of ways:

1. Returns of wild fish to rivers in areas with and without farms show no such trend.
CK you make this false statement and do not provide any science to back it up. Where are your numbers to back that up? Across the board. In fact your statement is shown to be a lie by this paper (among many others) placed on here before.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/....1371/journal.pbio.0060033&representation=PDF

2. Trends which are presumed to exist by those papers are based on the interpretation of the writers, and do not hold true when tested
.
Tested by whom and how? Where is your science and studies to back this silly statement up.
You keep trying to twist the science and statistics as though it were a product of “interpretation”. The science and statistics is based on the data and it says what is says it does with a level of confidence calculated from the statistics.
You are so ignorant of the way science works it is mind boggling.

3. Positive trends and all other data which falsifies the hypothesis are omitted from the data, averaged out, or otherwise ignored.
Again this is a sly attack on the integrity of the scientists and researchers. You are accusing them of deliberately omitting data and ignoring information.

This one statement reveals again the type of person you are CK. Attack the integrity and professionalism of the people working in these areas – it is deliberately misleading and a disgusting trick typical of your industry.

There is no evidence which is repeatable and supported by nature which definitively shows reductions in wild stocks being linked to the presence of farms.

If the presence of a farm caused any stock to decline in any way outside the normal experienced variations it would be really quite straightforward to show.
You keep saying these is “no evidence”. We keep putting up links to dozens of published papers and science journal articles that give the lie to your repeated denials.

It is you who ignore evidence and you who makes false statements, not the scientific community.

No models needed, just a few generations of monitoring returns would give you an answer - and that answer is not there.

It is that simple.

In all your posts you continue with your delusion that your opinion carries the same weight and level of understanding as the science. You opinions are irrelevant and have no value. It is only the science that matters.

It is that simple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that really the best rebuttal you could come-up with CK?
 
Is that really the best rebuttal you could come-up with CK?

That might be the best an anonymous online poster gets.

There might be another time when I feel more inclined to gather evidence beyond the obvious, but...

I've got other things to do today.

BTW - A "bail out" is different than compensation for a CFIA ordered cull.
 
Please explain the difference.

Can CK explain anything about the salmon feedlot industry with facts and data - not so far! He just provides his personal comments, observations and opinion which makes his criticism of what we say against salmon feedlots backed up by peer reviewed scientific research from around the world, null and void and a big waste of time!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please explain the difference.

CFIA ordered the cull under Canadian law, which includes compensation for the destroyed stock: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-233/page-1.html

This is a normal part of food production, or livestock rearing, in Canada, where infectious diseases are contained through the destruction of animals which would potentially spread an outbreak.

It happens with Fish, Chickens, Cows, Sheep, Pigs, Llamas - you name it.

In our case, presence of the IHN virus (which is endemic to the Pacific, but which Atlantic salmon have no immunity to) was confirmed in our facility (even though only a few of them died from it, the majority showed no signs of infection) and they were all culled by order of the CFIA.

You don't get paid for fish that die on you, you get compensated for animals that you are told to cull - big difference.

A "Bail-out" would be like what happened with the banking or automotive industry - where funds were required from the Government in order to remain in operation.
 
This is the first time you have said something that I am aware of, unfortunately a fact.
 
I cant help but think of Steven Harper denying he knew of any wrong doing in the senate scandal when I read CK's posts.
I wonder what these guys see when they look at themselves in the mirror.
 
Back
Top