DFO has a conflicting mandate. Can't say this is happening but I wouldn't be surprised if DFO allocated some herring for aquaculture but labelled it all under roe fishery since the roe is being sold.
DFO goes out of their way to ensure your success it's too bad they don't do the same for wild fish.
CK, I didn't say salmon farm industry for the krill....I said 'feed industry', which would include the other things you mention.
You seem to be missing my whole point of the unsustainability of the herring roe industry....is that because deep down maybe you agree with me??!!
I know that the herring by-product is a drop in the bucket in the global grande scheme.....but it matters a great deal locally. I do agree that local is the way of the future....and you can see my ideological(and perhaps over the top) view of this in the thread that I started about how I view a sustainable world of aquaculture in the Pacific Salmon Initiative thread.
Don't forget...I consider myself a fish farmer, but perhaps not in the same way that you are. I am actively involved in the enhancement of both herring(helped found the Salish Sea Herring Enhancement Society) and salmon(most notably the Coho bearing stream at the end of my street along with other projects) with the end goal(maybe selfishly to some) of being able to harvest salmon(and halibut, crab and prawns, which all deppend heavily on herring) to feed my family.
It is in all of our interests that we bust your guys balls on here, without public pressure, no positive change would happen.
Wow, is that ever a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black CK!I might get to the PSI sometime when I am in the mood for it.
There's only so much hypocrisy and singleminded contextual ignorance I can take.
You guys are so focused on churning out your hate for salmon farms with each and every new or repeated idea you come up with - it's like you are throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for something to stick.
Every once and a while someone might come close to having a rational thought about where exactly the (yet to be measured because they don't stand out against background variations or known) impacts of salmon farms fit in to the grand scheme of things...
But then the hypothetical, supposed and purely speculative risks are mated with the unfounded assumptions and we're back to the blah blah blah blah.
If the only response to me pointing out that there has not been any measured impacts to wild stocks (at a population level - not talking about bycatch, which could be compared to other sectors and *gasp* put into context) anywhere on the coast - is, "Well that's just what the tobacco lobby said."
...I might as well be arguing religion - You believe and that is enough for you.
Wow, is that ever a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black CK!
Salmon feed lots have been demonstrated to have a detrimental impact CK. It is all there in the published science. It is not “us guys” as you put it. It is there in black and white and documented all over the world. Here, once again are just a few of the scientifically documented impacts that you dismiss as “spaghetti”. So don’t spout all that crap about “hate on” Basically you have no understanding of science CK and no respect for scientists who challenge your religion. More on that one later since you brought it up!
Impacts on wild fish populations
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
- General
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/7/1162.short
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f91-055#.UaTaVJwalzM
http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aquaculture_in_the_United_States_Enviro.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1672/3385.short
- Thru’ Sea lice infestation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212085841.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1564/689.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10641260500433531#.UZ-mUMoambs
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-016
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...mN9VDE#v=onepage&q=fish farm sea lice&f=false
http://vhost1.ucs.sfu.ca:9870/science/resources/1320967624.pdf
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/131.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2001.00627.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484860500030X
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M04-149.1#.UaQgapwalzM
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f10-105#.UaQmD5walzM
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1772.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M07-042.1#.UaTWlpwalzM
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
- Thru’ Disease Transmission and Interaction
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004484869190392K
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8667(1998)010<0107:ROTHPA>2.0.CO;2#.UaTaA5walzM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004484869190370M
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/15/699.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020751907000100
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0044848686901675
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6790/abs/4051017a0.html
- Thru’ Harvesting wild fish for Feed
http://www.theecologist.org/trial_in...s_in_peru.html
Very condescending of you CK. Again, science has already shed more light about the impacts of fish feed lots than you can even get your mind around. Because of your fish feed lot “religion” (and your industry arrogance that you know best and are exempt from ecology 101 interactions that govern the way nature works) you conveniently ignore ALL of this evidence.
What you completely ignore CK, is the fact that the size of the risk is one thing, but the consequences of the realisation of that risk are another. You can continue to ignore all the science and dismiss all the risks as known or “small” (whatever that means) but the consequences of any one of these risk factors kicking is a threat to all the wild salmon stocks and the ecology of the entire coast. No one gave your industry permission to put all that risk CK. Your industry originally just took these risks on in complete ignorance. And the consequences are unfolding now in the scientific literature.
You keep focusing on just fish populations impacts, whereas the impacts documented in the above science papers are not just population impacts, but cover a far broader set of impacts than that.
I had a good laugh at this one. It is you who are the fundamentalist ignoring all the evidence! It is your “industry church” that provides you with all your dogma that enables you to ignore with such breathtaking ignorance all of the evidence from independent researchers out there.!!
And ultimately your “faith” will never be broken, no matter what the scientific evidence because it provides you with a living. The ultimate article of “faith” is to decry and condemn all of the “unbelievers”, if it threatens your “holy industry church”.
Ahhh, yes - the nebulous "misinformation" defense...Public pressure based on misinformation and flexing the truth will go nowhere. Just look at how this thread was started. Just another prime example. We all want the same thing with the wilds.
Ahhh, yes - the nebulous "misinformation" defense...
The defination of which lies in the eyes of the same PR hacks who coined the phrase originally for the tobacco lobby, but then got hired to work for the fish farms. Often pulled out and used when the pro-lobby wishes to try miminize and isolate real critiques and issues that they don't really wish to discuss - but rather wish to misdirect the conversation. Thanks for demonstarting that tactic here, birdsnest.
Public pressure is having an effect - that's why you prowl, Birdsnest.
Oh - CK: if you go back and re-read the posts - I never called you a sociopath (at least not directly). I even once or twice was clear about not including you in my rants. I called the PR firms and employees, and certain politicians in the government - sociopaths. if you saw traits reflected in your mirror and thought that labelled you - that would be your decision - not mine.
It's interesting how many industry boosters silently prowl this forum, only surfacing when they see one of their own taking it on the chin. They appear afraid of having their defensive paradigm shift through open dialogue and debate.
I'm very grateful for all the concerned and informed posters on here who don't back-down in their search for the truth. Thanks to all - another enlightening thread.
PS - was that you and birdsnest in that last photo?