Sockeyefry; I was getting tired reading all your nonsense but by glancing once and a while over it again you still seem to be confused by the actually clear facts. Maybe instead of desperately trying to find some clown's opinion (yes, you have nothing else provided than opinions by questionable so called scientists - had to say this because you always whine that anti-fish farm activists only produce opinions) and feverishly trying to interpret something in that fits your dead-end argumentation, maybe you should use your somewhat challenged common sense a bit. Step away a bit and look at the salmon situation and ask yourself who should have the burden of proof? I have first hand knowledge that the original review process, before large scale fish farming was allowed in BC, was rigged and flawful and many people involved at the time regret the decisions that were made back then in face of the facts today. But big money, political embarrasment, and the utilization of little astrayed and influenced souls like you to downplay the facts are the reasons why the truth is trickling through only slowly now. But I tell you, every dam break starts small... One day you will be ashamed of your short sightedness and implausible argumentation. Here are higher and nobler things at stake than "this scientist says ho and this one says he...". Put it in perspective man, and you should see that no money in the world is worth this risk...
ATTENTION: JOIN THE WAR ON FISHFARMING!
- Thread starter Little Hawk
- Start date
G
gimp
Guest
Orr, C. 2007. Estimated sea louse egg production from Marine Harvest Canada farmed
Atlantic salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003-2004. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 187-197.
Geographic area: Broughton Archipelago
Sea lice topic: source of sea lice in Broughton
Kind of research: desk study
Kind of document: peer reviewed journal article
Funder(s): Vancouver Foundation; David and Lucille Packard Foundation; Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation; David Suzuki Foundation
Rating: Must Read (critical to debate)
Question: How many infective sea lice are produced by salmon farms in the Broughton?
Main message: Based on raw data provided by Marine Harvest Ltd. for numbers of farmed fish
and gravid sea lice per fish for 12 salmon farms (2003) and 10 farms (January-September 2004),
a mathematical model was built to incorporate assumptions about numbers of escaped fish, sea
louse fecundity and sea louse survival to the infective stage. The model showed sea lice egg
production reached 1.5 billion eggs from around 6 million gravid females before treatment with
Slice (emamectin benzoate) dramatically reduced louse counts. Additional data on stocking dates
suggest that farmed salmon hosted few lice until about 200 days after they were introduced to
seawater. Findings support the view that farmed Atlantic salmon are the main source of sea lice
infection of wild juvenile Pacific salmon.
Importance to Broughton: Shows that high numbers of sea lice eggs can be released into
Broughton waters from farmed Atlantic salmon, and that these numbers can be dramatically
reduced by chemical treatment.
See also: Differs from Beamish et al. (2007) in assuming that, during spring, the wild salmon
that may also be a source of sea lice infection are relatively scarce.
Sivertsgård,
Atlantic salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003-2004. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 187-197.
Geographic area: Broughton Archipelago
Sea lice topic: source of sea lice in Broughton
Kind of research: desk study
Kind of document: peer reviewed journal article
Funder(s): Vancouver Foundation; David and Lucille Packard Foundation; Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation; David Suzuki Foundation
Rating: Must Read (critical to debate)
Question: How many infective sea lice are produced by salmon farms in the Broughton?
Main message: Based on raw data provided by Marine Harvest Ltd. for numbers of farmed fish
and gravid sea lice per fish for 12 salmon farms (2003) and 10 farms (January-September 2004),
a mathematical model was built to incorporate assumptions about numbers of escaped fish, sea
louse fecundity and sea louse survival to the infective stage. The model showed sea lice egg
production reached 1.5 billion eggs from around 6 million gravid females before treatment with
Slice (emamectin benzoate) dramatically reduced louse counts. Additional data on stocking dates
suggest that farmed salmon hosted few lice until about 200 days after they were introduced to
seawater. Findings support the view that farmed Atlantic salmon are the main source of sea lice
infection of wild juvenile Pacific salmon.
Importance to Broughton: Shows that high numbers of sea lice eggs can be released into
Broughton waters from farmed Atlantic salmon, and that these numbers can be dramatically
reduced by chemical treatment.
See also: Differs from Beamish et al. (2007) in assuming that, during spring, the wild salmon
that may also be a source of sea lice infection are relatively scarce.
Sivertsgård,
G
gimp
Guest
Sockeye fry, you state:
I guess that would also be the same motivation that DFO and industry scientists have, then? How much $$$$$ does PBS Nanaimo get from the industry? Why do all the available DFO-related funding sources have "industry partnerships" as a prerequisite before you get funding for stewardship of a public resource? What about your funding sources, sockeye fry? Are you with (in part or whole) DFO or industry? Come-on be honest.
There is also another direction for interest that you do not mention when you attempt to blanket-slag the anti-open net-cage researchers - maybe they care, sockeye fry. Maybe they care about the future and the fish. Think about that one for a minute, and don't immediately write it off. It is the biggest reason why people oppose the government's direction. You actually get paid better and more frequently as an industry pundit, sockeye fry.
You then state
I call ********. I also have to ask - do YOU know the East Coast? Since Peter Amero's work in the 1980's - we know that the Atlantic salmon smolts from the upper Bay of Fundy (the rivers where the salmon are now declared endangered - the ones you mention) hang-out (and are subsequently impacted) in the bottom of the Bay of Fundy around the open net-cage salmon industry such as the Passamadoquoddy Bay area. The remainder of the Atlantic salmon go to Newfoundland and Greenland. Did you state that you were a fisheries biologist?
Why don't you know this stuff?
Then you talk about the Pacific Salmon Forum. Well, here's some facts for you about the PSF:
The Pacific Salmon Forum tried to minimize Krosek's work (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS204650+18-Dec-2007+MW20071218). But they recently had a large turn-over of scientists, who couldn't stand the pro-farm politics, and the ones left and the new ones are all farm supporters. Why isn't this reported?
Last summer, Dr.’s Larry Dill, Don McQueen and Michael Berry, resigned. From the PSF’s Science Advisory Committee (see: http://www.wildbcsalmon.ca/Sealice/Story.html).
The committee is now composed of Dr. Brian Riddell, Dr. Al Lewis, Dr. Tony Farrell, Dr. Bill Pennell, Dr. Rich Taylor, Don Farnell and Dr. John Reynolds
Brian Riddell is Division Head of Salmon and Freshwater Ecosystems in the Science Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada based at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo . The Pacific Biological Station receives hundreds of thousands of research $ each year to perform work for the aquaculture industry. They are, in effect, an aquaculture consulting company.
During the past 2 years Riddel’s comments in the media have changed from comments based on science that support Marty Krkosek’s work (e.g. see: Fish farms `probable' source of lice in salmon: scientist; [Final Edition] Nanaimo Daily News. Nanaimo , B.C.: Mar 28, 2005. pg. A.1.Fro (Copyright The Daily News ( Nanaimo ) 2005 AND Federal scientist blames B.C. fish farms for sea lice; [Final Edition] Nanaimo Daily News. Nanaimo , B.C.: Mar 26, 2005. pg. A.7 (Copyright The Daily News ( Nanaimo ) 2005) to those in support of the industry, as pressure builds from within the upper echelons of DFO to defend the floundering industry.
Dr. Al. Lewis gets research funds from the Pacific Salmon Forum.
Dr. Tony Farrell, is the Chair in Sustainable Aquaculture, at the UBC/DFO Centre for Aquaculture & Environmental - which received $ from the provincial government to promote the industry. Tony has previously defended the industry (http://ubyssey.bc.ca/2006/10/31/parasitic-sea-lice-killing-bc’s-wild-salmon/), and is part of Aquanet.
Dr. Bill Pennell is a faculty advisor and instructor in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Malaspina University-College (MUC) in Nanaimo , and is part of Aquanet.
That’s some of the biases and potential conflicts from within the PSF’s Science Advisory Committee.
However, also consider that the appointees to the board of the Pacific Salmon Forum (http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/the_forum/index.php?op=governance) include:
A/ TERESA RYAN –Teresa Ryan was hired by the Kitkatla Band Council (who want fish farms) http://www.leg.bc.ca/CMT/38thparl/session-2/aquaculture/hansard/W60619a.htm as science advisor for Gitxaala. Gitxaala is working with the BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (CAHS) and DR Systems Inc. to develop a prototype, environmental modeling tool for resource management (i.e. farm siting) decisions. The organization will model use environmental management models that will incorporate traditional ecological knowledge (i.e. Teresa’s involvement) and help prioritize future research needs..
Linda Sams (of Marine Harvest) is CEO of the Center For Aquatic Health Sciences and is also involved, while BC CAHS has established offices and laboratory spaces in the Maritime Heritage Centre in Campbell River , BC .
BC CAHS now has a core group of staff handling administration, diagnostic laboratory operations and veterinary services. Through contracts and collaborative funding, BC CAHS is working with First Nations, industry, government and academia.
Teresa is involved with the “Women of Resource Communities”, which is organized by First Dollar Alliance (www.FirstDollar.ca) and Positive Aquaculture Awareness (www.farmfreshsalmon.org).
Teresa is also part of Ocean Industries BC.
B/ JAMES LORNIE James (Jim) Lornie is a former three-term mayor of Campbell River, the capital of salmon farming in BC. He is also the Co-Chair for the Central Region Board for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. For 17 years Jim was a business partner in Walcan Seafood Products processing, marketing, and exporting salmon, herring, herring roe, and farmed salmon. He has served on the Pacific Regional Council to the Federal Minister of Fisheries & Oceans, the board of SAGIT for Fish and Fish Products, the Board of Governors at Simon Fraser University .
C/ JEREMY MAYNARD Jeremy Maynard has worked since 1974 as a self-employed fishing guide in Campbell River , BC . In 1996 he began to work seasonally for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at Quinsam Hatchery where his duties included Chinook and Coho broodstock capture, selection and egg-taking, some in-river stock assessment and incubation room duties. As well, he has worked seasonally and part-time for Heritage Aquaculture where his duties included incubation and early rearing at the Little Bear Bay Hatchery and periodic stints on vaccination projects at various farm sites. Jeremy has chaired the Sports Fishing Advisory Board since 1997 and was the Board representative to the provincial Salmon Aquaculture Implementation Advisory Committee for the committee’s duration.
Only just recently have the Forum’s potential conflicts of interest been relayed to the public (Salmon forum loses credibility as it mires itself in wrangling, Stephen Hume, Special to the Sun, Published: Monday, January 07, 2008: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=3f5311e5-a0e5-4264-9ab2-7687bf4d2ceb).
Why didn't you mention any of these biases or conflicts of interest?
I guess that would also be the same motivation that DFO and industry scientists have, then? How much $$$$$ does PBS Nanaimo get from the industry? Why do all the available DFO-related funding sources have "industry partnerships" as a prerequisite before you get funding for stewardship of a public resource? What about your funding sources, sockeye fry? Are you with (in part or whole) DFO or industry? Come-on be honest.
There is also another direction for interest that you do not mention when you attempt to blanket-slag the anti-open net-cage researchers - maybe they care, sockeye fry. Maybe they care about the future and the fish. Think about that one for a minute, and don't immediately write it off. It is the biggest reason why people oppose the government's direction. You actually get paid better and more frequently as an industry pundit, sockeye fry.
You then state
I call ********. I also have to ask - do YOU know the East Coast? Since Peter Amero's work in the 1980's - we know that the Atlantic salmon smolts from the upper Bay of Fundy (the rivers where the salmon are now declared endangered - the ones you mention) hang-out (and are subsequently impacted) in the bottom of the Bay of Fundy around the open net-cage salmon industry such as the Passamadoquoddy Bay area. The remainder of the Atlantic salmon go to Newfoundland and Greenland. Did you state that you were a fisheries biologist?
Why don't you know this stuff?
Then you talk about the Pacific Salmon Forum. Well, here's some facts for you about the PSF:
The Pacific Salmon Forum tried to minimize Krosek's work (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS204650+18-Dec-2007+MW20071218). But they recently had a large turn-over of scientists, who couldn't stand the pro-farm politics, and the ones left and the new ones are all farm supporters. Why isn't this reported?
Last summer, Dr.’s Larry Dill, Don McQueen and Michael Berry, resigned. From the PSF’s Science Advisory Committee (see: http://www.wildbcsalmon.ca/Sealice/Story.html).
The committee is now composed of Dr. Brian Riddell, Dr. Al Lewis, Dr. Tony Farrell, Dr. Bill Pennell, Dr. Rich Taylor, Don Farnell and Dr. John Reynolds
Brian Riddell is Division Head of Salmon and Freshwater Ecosystems in the Science Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada based at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo . The Pacific Biological Station receives hundreds of thousands of research $ each year to perform work for the aquaculture industry. They are, in effect, an aquaculture consulting company.
During the past 2 years Riddel’s comments in the media have changed from comments based on science that support Marty Krkosek’s work (e.g. see: Fish farms `probable' source of lice in salmon: scientist; [Final Edition] Nanaimo Daily News. Nanaimo , B.C.: Mar 28, 2005. pg. A.1.Fro (Copyright The Daily News ( Nanaimo ) 2005 AND Federal scientist blames B.C. fish farms for sea lice; [Final Edition] Nanaimo Daily News. Nanaimo , B.C.: Mar 26, 2005. pg. A.7 (Copyright The Daily News ( Nanaimo ) 2005) to those in support of the industry, as pressure builds from within the upper echelons of DFO to defend the floundering industry.
Dr. Al. Lewis gets research funds from the Pacific Salmon Forum.
Dr. Tony Farrell, is the Chair in Sustainable Aquaculture, at the UBC/DFO Centre for Aquaculture & Environmental - which received $ from the provincial government to promote the industry. Tony has previously defended the industry (http://ubyssey.bc.ca/2006/10/31/parasitic-sea-lice-killing-bc’s-wild-salmon/), and is part of Aquanet.
Dr. Bill Pennell is a faculty advisor and instructor in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Malaspina University-College (MUC) in Nanaimo , and is part of Aquanet.
That’s some of the biases and potential conflicts from within the PSF’s Science Advisory Committee.
However, also consider that the appointees to the board of the Pacific Salmon Forum (http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/the_forum/index.php?op=governance) include:
A/ TERESA RYAN –Teresa Ryan was hired by the Kitkatla Band Council (who want fish farms) http://www.leg.bc.ca/CMT/38thparl/session-2/aquaculture/hansard/W60619a.htm as science advisor for Gitxaala. Gitxaala is working with the BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (CAHS) and DR Systems Inc. to develop a prototype, environmental modeling tool for resource management (i.e. farm siting) decisions. The organization will model use environmental management models that will incorporate traditional ecological knowledge (i.e. Teresa’s involvement) and help prioritize future research needs..
Linda Sams (of Marine Harvest) is CEO of the Center For Aquatic Health Sciences and is also involved, while BC CAHS has established offices and laboratory spaces in the Maritime Heritage Centre in Campbell River , BC .
BC CAHS now has a core group of staff handling administration, diagnostic laboratory operations and veterinary services. Through contracts and collaborative funding, BC CAHS is working with First Nations, industry, government and academia.
Teresa is involved with the “Women of Resource Communities”, which is organized by First Dollar Alliance (www.FirstDollar.ca) and Positive Aquaculture Awareness (www.farmfreshsalmon.org).
Teresa is also part of Ocean Industries BC.
B/ JAMES LORNIE James (Jim) Lornie is a former three-term mayor of Campbell River, the capital of salmon farming in BC. He is also the Co-Chair for the Central Region Board for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. For 17 years Jim was a business partner in Walcan Seafood Products processing, marketing, and exporting salmon, herring, herring roe, and farmed salmon. He has served on the Pacific Regional Council to the Federal Minister of Fisheries & Oceans, the board of SAGIT for Fish and Fish Products, the Board of Governors at Simon Fraser University .
C/ JEREMY MAYNARD Jeremy Maynard has worked since 1974 as a self-employed fishing guide in Campbell River , BC . In 1996 he began to work seasonally for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at Quinsam Hatchery where his duties included Chinook and Coho broodstock capture, selection and egg-taking, some in-river stock assessment and incubation room duties. As well, he has worked seasonally and part-time for Heritage Aquaculture where his duties included incubation and early rearing at the Little Bear Bay Hatchery and periodic stints on vaccination projects at various farm sites. Jeremy has chaired the Sports Fishing Advisory Board since 1997 and was the Board representative to the provincial Salmon Aquaculture Implementation Advisory Committee for the committee’s duration.
Only just recently have the Forum’s potential conflicts of interest been relayed to the public (Salmon forum loses credibility as it mires itself in wrangling, Stephen Hume, Special to the Sun, Published: Monday, January 07, 2008: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=3f5311e5-a0e5-4264-9ab2-7687bf4d2ceb).
Why didn't you mention any of these biases or conflicts of interest?
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Gimp,
That was a good link. I hope you can read it with an open mind. As stated in the article, a lot of the sea lice debate is fueled by emotion and opinion and not clear fact. Often the take home message via the media is the hypothesis (what the scientist opinion of the outcome of the research) and not the actual findings which could be radically different. I am curious though out of 100 acticles or so, you chose that one to place on the forum? Also did you note the "See Also", and did you?
Aqua agent.
Seeing how I lived there for 38 years and fished these rivers, I think I might know a bit. Since the 80's Atlantic salmon populations have been in serious decline all over the region. Many issues such as acid rain, deforestation, ocean conditions, over fishing contributed to this decline. Back in 85, Sport fisherman figured that it was the commercial guys who were the problem, so DFO banned the commercial fishery, and instituted the "grilse" law which meant you could not keep a salmon over 63cm. Guess what? It had no effect and the salmon continued to decline. This of course illustrates the danger in assuming there is one root cause. To look at a rivers in SW NB as impacted and compare those to rivers in NE NB and then to state that they are the same in all aspects except that the SW rivers have salmon farms close by is ludicrous. They couldn't have picked rivers which were farther apart in geography or geology. They did the same thing in NFLD, and Ireland. The only place where they were atleast adjacent was in BC. Here is the summary for the paper.
Also are you suggesting that the PSF is now no good because it does not contain your kind of scientist?
That was a good link. I hope you can read it with an open mind. As stated in the article, a lot of the sea lice debate is fueled by emotion and opinion and not clear fact. Often the take home message via the media is the hypothesis (what the scientist opinion of the outcome of the research) and not the actual findings which could be radically different. I am curious though out of 100 acticles or so, you chose that one to place on the forum? Also did you note the "See Also", and did you?
Aqua agent.
Seeing how I lived there for 38 years and fished these rivers, I think I might know a bit. Since the 80's Atlantic salmon populations have been in serious decline all over the region. Many issues such as acid rain, deforestation, ocean conditions, over fishing contributed to this decline. Back in 85, Sport fisherman figured that it was the commercial guys who were the problem, so DFO banned the commercial fishery, and instituted the "grilse" law which meant you could not keep a salmon over 63cm. Guess what? It had no effect and the salmon continued to decline. This of course illustrates the danger in assuming there is one root cause. To look at a rivers in SW NB as impacted and compare those to rivers in NE NB and then to state that they are the same in all aspects except that the SW rivers have salmon farms close by is ludicrous. They couldn't have picked rivers which were farther apart in geography or geology. They did the same thing in NFLD, and Ireland. The only place where they were atleast adjacent was in BC. Here is the summary for the paper.
Also are you suggesting that the PSF is now no good because it does not contain your kind of scientist?
G
gimp
Guest
Yes it was a good artical I really liked the part that states the burden of proof lies with the fish farms. However I am afraid if we left it to the fish farms to figure it out we would never get a strait answer. I posted that just for you. I did read it. The truth of the mater is after all the testing and science is done the Farms will still lose you cant fight truth forever. My perdiction will be working in closed containment facilites moved far away from migratory routes maybe on land or far far off shore. I am done with you as your mind is made up and so is mine. That is what the report clearly states. I have faith in science. Soon the reports will show that even against the tides and currents with the help of some wind the clouds of sealice coming from fish farms are being blown closer and closer to the rivers and then your end will be near.
good luck in your future endevors
GIMP
W.S.A
good luck in your future endevors
GIMP
W.S.A
whitedragon
New Member
I have been waging a campaign against the fish farms (including shellfish aquaculture)for the last several years because of the navigational dangers and hazards that the farms have created. The occupation of harbours, safe havens and watersheds that belong to all mariners have been systematically removed to the private ownership of these waters, with a free license to pollute and accummulate junk and debris at will.
I have been taking photographs during the last two summer's travels and for those who have not seen what a mess there is getting to be in our waters, the photos are published online at:
2007 photos:http://www.flickr.com/gp/7909305@N08/y2408Y
2006 photos: http://www.flickr.com/gp/7909305@N08/31uD8y
I have joined the war.
Barbara Watson
I have been taking photographs during the last two summer's travels and for those who have not seen what a mess there is getting to be in our waters, the photos are published online at:
2007 photos:http://www.flickr.com/gp/7909305@N08/y2408Y
2006 photos: http://www.flickr.com/gp/7909305@N08/31uD8y
I have joined the war.
Barbara Watson
I noted that you carefully did not answer my direct questions, sockeyefry. You did not acknowledge that the upper Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon smolts hang-out around the open net-cage fish farm areas of the lower Bay of Fundy - yet you offer
I call ******** on you twice now, sockeyefry.
Since you are familiar with these rivers, then why aren't you stating that over 90% of the returning salmon to the Magaguadavic River which empties out in Saint George, NB are not of wild origin, but from the adjacent fish farms with the subsequent loss of genetic diversity and fitness? Gee, didn't know that - or just conveniently forgot?
You also obviously wanted to ignore my points about DFO funding and conflicts of interest, as well as ignore my question as to your background. The only point you deigned to address was:
I don't don't know - what is my "kind" of scientist? Honest? I guess you think that by not addressing political interference and conflicts of interest - it'll all go away, and we can become good corporate citizens like DFO? Grow-up. It's obvious you're safer in you box of DFO-fed lies.
as some sort of assumption of your credability as to not believing the science of smolt migration and early marine life history habitat usage and timing. I guess since your mind is already made-up, so we should discount all the science, eh smallfry?
I call ******** on you twice now, sockeyefry.
Since you are familiar with these rivers, then why aren't you stating that over 90% of the returning salmon to the Magaguadavic River which empties out in Saint George, NB are not of wild origin, but from the adjacent fish farms with the subsequent loss of genetic diversity and fitness? Gee, didn't know that - or just conveniently forgot?
You also obviously wanted to ignore my points about DFO funding and conflicts of interest, as well as ignore my question as to your background. The only point you deigned to address was:
I don't don't know - what is my "kind" of scientist? Honest? I guess you think that by not addressing political interference and conflicts of interest - it'll all go away, and we can become good corporate citizens like DFO? Grow-up. It's obvious you're safer in you box of DFO-fed lies.
Whitedragon, welcome onboard! You brought up a good point - safety issues and the general messy appearance of most farms. It is a shame to see how they treat a once pristine shoreline. I am not saying that they are the only once that litter but it tells stories about the environmental consciousness of those farm operators and managers. They really don't give a rats a$$ about their impact as long as money can be made with the farm. And if not at some point, they wrap up their little investment and move on and don't look back for a second and we are left with the sad results. That's why we shouldn't and can't give this kind of industry any breaks. They need to relocate onto land under strict water and waste management regulations.
BTW, your photos, whitedragon, are tough to view - they must be huge in size and resolution. Maybe my PC is a bit outdated but usually it handles everything still fine. But your photos take an eternity to load onto the screen...Maybe downsize next time... Thanks.
BTW, your photos, whitedragon, are tough to view - they must be huge in size and resolution. Maybe my PC is a bit outdated but usually it handles everything still fine. But your photos take an eternity to load onto the screen...Maybe downsize next time... Thanks.
I wanted to add, that although there are very many carefully-crafted DFO-fed lies; to save space and time, I'll just use 2 as examples.
1/ there has been no noticeable effect of sea lice on the health outmigrating salmon smolts, and
2/ sticklebacks are the potential overwintering host for sea lice that then infect outmigrating salmon smolts the next spring.
Okay - as per your request - you ready for some actual examples and science, smallfry?
1/ No noticeable health effects...I guess if ones does not look, ones does not find...
DFO has been using an index called the "fish condition factor", a measure of length verses weight. It is commonly used to assess feeding changes or major shape change within populations of fish.
This index is only good in telling shape verses size - not stress or sub-lethal effects. This is what they found "unchanged" with lice. This is what the pro-industry PR heahunters were proudly calling evidence that DFO doesn't see any impacts from lice, although the DFO report that this was based on very clearly states that this was not their intent from this index.
Okay, sockeyefry - answer me this, since you purport yourself to be a man of science - Why didn't they examine osmoregulatory, metabolic, or stress markers like plasma chloride, lactate levels, liver glycogen or cortisol levels like every other fish physiologist or researcher in the world? That is what scientists do, sockeyefry. Maybe they did not want any answers in this circumstance, however. That is called political interference caused through conflicts of interest.
Want more science?
2/ The stickleback red-herring.
DFO has suggested (but not in peer-reviewed science, only in the public press) that sticklebacks MAY be the overwintering hosts for sea lice that infect outmigrating salmon smolts the next spring.
However, it has been proven both in the lab and in the wild that sticklebacks do not have any gravid (i.e. egg-bearing) lice; in fact they have also zero adult lice on them. Do you notice something odd developing in your "scientific" mind, sockeyefry?
That's like walking into a kindergarten class and exclaiming that these individuals are responsible for a population explosion - while purposely ignoring the fact that none of them were pregnant nor even sexually reproductive.
I'm waiting for your highly-scientific defense of this lie, sockeyefry.
1/ there has been no noticeable effect of sea lice on the health outmigrating salmon smolts, and
2/ sticklebacks are the potential overwintering host for sea lice that then infect outmigrating salmon smolts the next spring.
Okay - as per your request - you ready for some actual examples and science, smallfry?
1/ No noticeable health effects...I guess if ones does not look, ones does not find...
DFO has been using an index called the "fish condition factor", a measure of length verses weight. It is commonly used to assess feeding changes or major shape change within populations of fish.
This index is only good in telling shape verses size - not stress or sub-lethal effects. This is what they found "unchanged" with lice. This is what the pro-industry PR heahunters were proudly calling evidence that DFO doesn't see any impacts from lice, although the DFO report that this was based on very clearly states that this was not their intent from this index.
Okay, sockeyefry - answer me this, since you purport yourself to be a man of science - Why didn't they examine osmoregulatory, metabolic, or stress markers like plasma chloride, lactate levels, liver glycogen or cortisol levels like every other fish physiologist or researcher in the world? That is what scientists do, sockeyefry. Maybe they did not want any answers in this circumstance, however. That is called political interference caused through conflicts of interest.
Want more science?
2/ The stickleback red-herring.
DFO has suggested (but not in peer-reviewed science, only in the public press) that sticklebacks MAY be the overwintering hosts for sea lice that infect outmigrating salmon smolts the next spring.
However, it has been proven both in the lab and in the wild that sticklebacks do not have any gravid (i.e. egg-bearing) lice; in fact they have also zero adult lice on them. Do you notice something odd developing in your "scientific" mind, sockeyefry?
That's like walking into a kindergarten class and exclaiming that these individuals are responsible for a population explosion - while purposely ignoring the fact that none of them were pregnant nor even sexually reproductive.
I'm waiting for your highly-scientific defense of this lie, sockeyefry.
Little Hawk
Active Member
Howdy,
Welcome aboard Whitedragon!
Feel free to dive in here and share what you know; what you have seen first-hand.
Also, feel free to admonish Sockeyefry; I don't have the energy or inclination. He's the latest infiltrator from the industry to dive in here and attempt to wreak havock and confusion amongst us.
Alliance members: I met with Barbara and her partner today and I wholeheartedly urge you all to embrace her. She is on side and has worked tirelessly to keep this filthy business in the public eye.
Many good-things in the offing.
Will keep you all posted.
Today the Alliance stands at: 111
Terry
Wild Salmon Alliance
Welcome aboard Whitedragon!
Feel free to dive in here and share what you know; what you have seen first-hand.
Also, feel free to admonish Sockeyefry; I don't have the energy or inclination. He's the latest infiltrator from the industry to dive in here and attempt to wreak havock and confusion amongst us.
Alliance members: I met with Barbara and her partner today and I wholeheartedly urge you all to embrace her. She is on side and has worked tirelessly to keep this filthy business in the public eye.
Many good-things in the offing.
Will keep you all posted.
Today the Alliance stands at: 111
Terry
Wild Salmon Alliance
agentaqua, that is really interesting info that you are providing. Man, where do you work? Or how much spare time have you got to follow up on all those details (envy!) 
Makes all good sense and just completes the picture that we all have and suspected for a while already of this nasty industry. You should definitely come to our next meeting! Please stay in touch with Terry!
Good work, Terry!
Makes all good sense and just completes the picture that we all have and suspected for a while already of this nasty industry. You should definitely come to our next meeting! Please stay in touch with Terry!Good work, Terry!
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Boy agent, where do I start.
First I'll ignore your slander and name calling as this has nothing to do with intelligent debate.
WRT to measuring cortisol levels and other stress indicators, any person would realise that the simple act of picking up the fish and taking the blood sample would create the stress level which would cloud any results. C'mon agent, you didn't figure that out?
Conditon factor is found by dividing the weight in grams by the length in cm cubed. It is an indication of the health of a fish. Stressed fish are typically not well fed and therefore skinny.
If you read my post you will have your answer, but I will repeat it. It is not the upper bay of Fundy smolt which linger around the farm area, but the amolt from the St John River.
The maguadavic river has been dead for years due to habitat destruction. There only is a few salmon in the river, so your 90% although sounding pretty ominous is in reality not.
Could you please tell me where the sea lice come from?
How can you claim a DFO scientist is in a conflict of interest, or as you are intimating "On the Take"?
I have tried to present some information which may be of interest, and to put forward the idea that the real reasons for the wild salmon decline are not the farms, but bigger issues. However I have found that basically you have bought into the antifarmoing lobbiest BS and anything that is contrary to that view must be ridiculed. Therefore I must conceed that you all will never possess anything resembling an open mind regarding this topic and any further attempts to bring sanity to this discussion will be futile. I just hope that you will all recognise the real threats and start to focus your energy towards resolving these issues.
First I'll ignore your slander and name calling as this has nothing to do with intelligent debate.
WRT to measuring cortisol levels and other stress indicators, any person would realise that the simple act of picking up the fish and taking the blood sample would create the stress level which would cloud any results. C'mon agent, you didn't figure that out?
Conditon factor is found by dividing the weight in grams by the length in cm cubed. It is an indication of the health of a fish. Stressed fish are typically not well fed and therefore skinny.
If you read my post you will have your answer, but I will repeat it. It is not the upper bay of Fundy smolt which linger around the farm area, but the amolt from the St John River.
The maguadavic river has been dead for years due to habitat destruction. There only is a few salmon in the river, so your 90% although sounding pretty ominous is in reality not.
Could you please tell me where the sea lice come from?
How can you claim a DFO scientist is in a conflict of interest, or as you are intimating "On the Take"?
I have tried to present some information which may be of interest, and to put forward the idea that the real reasons for the wild salmon decline are not the farms, but bigger issues. However I have found that basically you have bought into the antifarmoing lobbiest BS and anything that is contrary to that view must be ridiculed. Therefore I must conceed that you all will never possess anything resembling an open mind regarding this topic and any further attempts to bring sanity to this discussion will be futile. I just hope that you will all recognise the real threats and start to focus your energy towards resolving these issues.
Little Hawk
Active Member
Howdy Sockeyefry;
Quote: "Therefore I must conceed that you all will never possess anything resembling an open mind regarding this topic and any further attempts to bring sanity to this discussion will be futile."
Good on you! You've finally seen the light.
Cheers,
Terry
Quote: "Therefore I must conceed that you all will never possess anything resembling an open mind regarding this topic and any further attempts to bring sanity to this discussion will be futile."
Good on you! You've finally seen the light.
Cheers,
Terry
By pressing the "Agree" button, you agree that you, the user, are 13 years of age or over. You are fully responsible for any information or file supplied by this user. You also agree that you will not post any copyrighted material that is not owned by yourself or the owners of these forums. In your use of these forums, you agree that you will not post any information which is vulgar, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy, sexually oriented, or violates any laws.
sockeye fry you say:
How about by acknowledging the science and the valid points made, rather than by ignoring them and hoping they will go away.
you then say:
Have I said some controversial things - yes, and I hope it wakes you up - because frankly, I am tired of the ******** and slander from the pro-fishfarming industry and DFO.
I almost can't believe you said:
The only reason I'm not credulous about your very mistaken and misleading comments, is because I'm beginning to understand you really don't know any better, and your faith in the DFO/industry keeps you from looking anywheres else.
To answer your very misinformed science background, let me ask you this question, then: If stress levels from the simple act of picking up the fish and taking the blood sample clouds any results - then why are there whole labs constructed and currently functioning (including those who do work for the fish farming industry) that do just as you suggest is wrong? Why do we even study fish physiology? Why are there whole texbooks on the subject? Are all those PhDs and research wrong because you assume they are? Shall we now throw-out all those years of accumulated data and science because you say so?
The answer is that you (again) do not know what you are talking about, and you are foolish enough to let you fingers on the keyboards let us all read about your lack of background. It's okay to say you don't know, when you don't, sockeye fry.
As to the measured physiological parameters, such as osmoregulatory, metabolic, or stress markers like plasma chloride, lactate levels, liver glycogen or cortisol levels - it takes hours, or sometimes even days to change those levels. That's why they those indicators are used, sockeye fry. The simple act of picking-up the fish - is exactly that - SIMPLE. Continued handling and crowding (which happens in fish farms) do increase stress markers. Read-up on this stuff if you really wish to have an intelligent science-based conversation on this. This is now the third time I am calling ******** on you.
you then say:
This is really getting tiring calling ******** on you (the 4th time, now). It is malnourished fish, not necessarily stressed ones that are skinny.
With respect to sea lice, up until the time they become "motile", they are very small, microscopic animals that weigh almost zero. Most exothermic animals eat something like 3-5% of their body weight a day. 5% times almost zero is still almost zero. So the nutritional drain on a fish with the early stages of lice is near zero.
When lice become motile then then switch from a diet of mostly mucus to one where they eat skin and blood (the females need it for egg development). This causes osmoregulatory stress in the host fish since a fish is about half they salinity of seawater.
So the correct indicator to measure is osmoregulatory stress markers once the lice reach their motile stages - not fish condition factor (as has been demonstrated). Again, every fish physiologist in the world knows this stuff, but apparently not the industry or DFO.
While I'm on this topic (again), did you know that the industry rag "Northern Aquaculture" was reporting the results from Simon Jones study (on fish condition factor results) well in advance of its official release from so-called DFO "peer review". This is in very poor form scientifically, and demonstrates the close collusion between the industry and DFO.
And further to that Northern Aquaculture was stating that sea-lice infected fish "GREW FASTER" than non-infected smolts since they were larger. In other words, sea lice made fish grow faster.
Boy, you wanna talk about ******** science, sockeyefry? There is a well-known effect called "survivor bias". It can be found in any ecolgy or sampling manual. The smaller fish were killed by lice long before the big trawlers hired by DFO could get to them The more offshore fish took longer to get there, and ate along the way, and grew. Yet Northern Aquaculture and the industry claim that sea lice make smolts grow.
you then state:
******** for the what - 5th time now?
Have you read: Amiro, P.G. 1998. An assessment of the possible impact of salmon aquaculture on Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stocks. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 98/163.
I recommend everyone does. Those smolts were all from the upper Bay of Fundy. You're slinging ********, sockeyefry.
As tiring as all this ******** is getting, you then state:
First off - it's spelled "Magaguadavic River", but pronounced "mac-a-davic". Most people unfamiliar with the area haven't a clue how to spell it.
Secondly, although I am glad you are already convinced that the genetic pollution from adjacent fish farmed Atlantic salmon into the natural fitness of the wild Atlantic Magaguadavic River gene pool is:
It would make me sleep better at night if I thought your opinion was based on science. However, as demonstrated numerous times - your opinion is often not, but rather based on press releases from the fish farming industry.
I would recommend you read "Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population Ian A. Fleming1*, Kjetil Hindar1, Ingrid B. MjÖlnerÖd1{, Bror Jonsson2, Torveig Balstad1 and Anders Lamberg1 1Norwegian Institute for Nature Research,Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway 2Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Dronningensgate 13, POBox 736, Sentrum, N- 0105 Oslo, Norway
These Norwegian researchers found that "evidence of resource competition and competitive displacement existed as the productivity of the native population was depressed by more than 30%. Ultimately, the lifetime reproductive success (adult to adult) of the farm fishes was 16% that of the native salmon. Our results indicate that such annual invasions have the potential for impacting on population productivity, disrupting local adaptations and reducing the genetic diversity of wild salmon populations.".
Another good peer-reviewed article is: "Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon " by Philip McGinnity1, Paulo Prodo¨ hl2, Andy Ferguson2*, Rosaleen Hynes2, Niall O´ Maoile´idigh1, Natalie Baker2, Deirdre Cotter1, Brendan O’Hea1, Declan Cooke1, Ger Rogan1, John Taggart3 and Tom Cross4 1Aquaculture and Catchment Management Services, Marine Institute, Newport, Co Mayo, Ireland 2School of Biology and Biochemistry, Queen’s University, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland 3Department of Biological and Molecular Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK 4Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
these researchers found: "Where suitable habitat for these emigrant parr is absent, this competition would result in reduced wild smolt production. In the experimental conditions, where emigrants survived downstream, the relative estimated lifetime success ranged from 2% (farm) to 89% (BC1 wild) of that of wild salmon, indicating additive genetic variation for survival.We thus demonstrate that interaction of farm with wild salmon results in lowered fitness, with repeated escapes causing cumulative fitness depression and potentially an extinction vortex in vulnerable populations."
What number of bullshits are we up to now - 6? And you feel that I am doing:
re-read your statement here.
You then ask:
Ya - with respect to infecting outmigrating salmon smolts - from the large numbers of infected farmed salmon held in open net-pens. I again, turn you to science, sockeye fry. read: Estimated Sea Louse Egg Production from Marine Harvest Canada Farmed Atlantic Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003–2004 by CRAIG ORR. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:187–197, 2007
As far as sea lice initially infecting recently-stocked farmed fish hatchery smolts - it's from either adjacent multi year-classes of farmed fish, or from resident wild stocks. In either case it proves that the open net-cage technology is an ineffective barrier to the transfer of sea lice and other diseases and parasites, because it is OPEN. The technology is fatally flawed, and should be prohibited from being used, due to population-level effects on adjacent wild salmon stocks.
So far the one thing I agree with you on is that you:
Yes, you have tried, and for that - I thank you for elevating the discussion so that other readers may get informed.
However, you also state:
I agree that I am attempting to point-out the obvious hypocrisies in your arguments in a manner that demonstrates my frustration at the pro-farming industry (and their lies that have no interest in checking-out with science) in a manner that they can understand. I am not targetting my fustration at you, specifically.
I too hope that you start to focus your energy towards resolving these issues.
[/quote]
How about by acknowledging the science and the valid points made, rather than by ignoring them and hoping they will go away.
you then say:
Have I said some controversial things - yes, and I hope it wakes you up - because frankly, I am tired of the ******** and slander from the pro-fishfarming industry and DFO.
I almost can't believe you said:
The only reason I'm not credulous about your very mistaken and misleading comments, is because I'm beginning to understand you really don't know any better, and your faith in the DFO/industry keeps you from looking anywheres else.
To answer your very misinformed science background, let me ask you this question, then: If stress levels from the simple act of picking up the fish and taking the blood sample clouds any results - then why are there whole labs constructed and currently functioning (including those who do work for the fish farming industry) that do just as you suggest is wrong? Why do we even study fish physiology? Why are there whole texbooks on the subject? Are all those PhDs and research wrong because you assume they are? Shall we now throw-out all those years of accumulated data and science because you say so?
The answer is that you (again) do not know what you are talking about, and you are foolish enough to let you fingers on the keyboards let us all read about your lack of background. It's okay to say you don't know, when you don't, sockeye fry.
As to the measured physiological parameters, such as osmoregulatory, metabolic, or stress markers like plasma chloride, lactate levels, liver glycogen or cortisol levels - it takes hours, or sometimes even days to change those levels. That's why they those indicators are used, sockeye fry. The simple act of picking-up the fish - is exactly that - SIMPLE. Continued handling and crowding (which happens in fish farms) do increase stress markers. Read-up on this stuff if you really wish to have an intelligent science-based conversation on this. This is now the third time I am calling ******** on you.
you then say:
This is really getting tiring calling ******** on you (the 4th time, now). It is malnourished fish, not necessarily stressed ones that are skinny.
With respect to sea lice, up until the time they become "motile", they are very small, microscopic animals that weigh almost zero. Most exothermic animals eat something like 3-5% of their body weight a day. 5% times almost zero is still almost zero. So the nutritional drain on a fish with the early stages of lice is near zero.
When lice become motile then then switch from a diet of mostly mucus to one where they eat skin and blood (the females need it for egg development). This causes osmoregulatory stress in the host fish since a fish is about half they salinity of seawater.
So the correct indicator to measure is osmoregulatory stress markers once the lice reach their motile stages - not fish condition factor (as has been demonstrated). Again, every fish physiologist in the world knows this stuff, but apparently not the industry or DFO.
While I'm on this topic (again), did you know that the industry rag "Northern Aquaculture" was reporting the results from Simon Jones study (on fish condition factor results) well in advance of its official release from so-called DFO "peer review". This is in very poor form scientifically, and demonstrates the close collusion between the industry and DFO.
And further to that Northern Aquaculture was stating that sea-lice infected fish "GREW FASTER" than non-infected smolts since they were larger. In other words, sea lice made fish grow faster.
Boy, you wanna talk about ******** science, sockeyefry? There is a well-known effect called "survivor bias". It can be found in any ecolgy or sampling manual. The smaller fish were killed by lice long before the big trawlers hired by DFO could get to them The more offshore fish took longer to get there, and ate along the way, and grew. Yet Northern Aquaculture and the industry claim that sea lice make smolts grow.
you then state:
******** for the what - 5th time now?
Have you read: Amiro, P.G. 1998. An assessment of the possible impact of salmon aquaculture on Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stocks. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 98/163.
I recommend everyone does. Those smolts were all from the upper Bay of Fundy. You're slinging ********, sockeyefry.
As tiring as all this ******** is getting, you then state:
First off - it's spelled "Magaguadavic River", but pronounced "mac-a-davic". Most people unfamiliar with the area haven't a clue how to spell it.
Secondly, although I am glad you are already convinced that the genetic pollution from adjacent fish farmed Atlantic salmon into the natural fitness of the wild Atlantic Magaguadavic River gene pool is:
It would make me sleep better at night if I thought your opinion was based on science. However, as demonstrated numerous times - your opinion is often not, but rather based on press releases from the fish farming industry.
I would recommend you read "Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population Ian A. Fleming1*, Kjetil Hindar1, Ingrid B. MjÖlnerÖd1{, Bror Jonsson2, Torveig Balstad1 and Anders Lamberg1 1Norwegian Institute for Nature Research,Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway 2Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Dronningensgate 13, POBox 736, Sentrum, N- 0105 Oslo, Norway
These Norwegian researchers found that "evidence of resource competition and competitive displacement existed as the productivity of the native population was depressed by more than 30%. Ultimately, the lifetime reproductive success (adult to adult) of the farm fishes was 16% that of the native salmon. Our results indicate that such annual invasions have the potential for impacting on population productivity, disrupting local adaptations and reducing the genetic diversity of wild salmon populations.".
Another good peer-reviewed article is: "Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon " by Philip McGinnity1, Paulo Prodo¨ hl2, Andy Ferguson2*, Rosaleen Hynes2, Niall O´ Maoile´idigh1, Natalie Baker2, Deirdre Cotter1, Brendan O’Hea1, Declan Cooke1, Ger Rogan1, John Taggart3 and Tom Cross4 1Aquaculture and Catchment Management Services, Marine Institute, Newport, Co Mayo, Ireland 2School of Biology and Biochemistry, Queen’s University, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland 3Department of Biological and Molecular Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK 4Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
these researchers found: "Where suitable habitat for these emigrant parr is absent, this competition would result in reduced wild smolt production. In the experimental conditions, where emigrants survived downstream, the relative estimated lifetime success ranged from 2% (farm) to 89% (BC1 wild) of that of wild salmon, indicating additive genetic variation for survival.We thus demonstrate that interaction of farm with wild salmon results in lowered fitness, with repeated escapes causing cumulative fitness depression and potentially an extinction vortex in vulnerable populations."
What number of bullshits are we up to now - 6? And you feel that I am doing:
re-read your statement here.
You then ask:
Ya - with respect to infecting outmigrating salmon smolts - from the large numbers of infected farmed salmon held in open net-pens. I again, turn you to science, sockeye fry. read: Estimated Sea Louse Egg Production from Marine Harvest Canada Farmed Atlantic Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003–2004 by CRAIG ORR. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:187–197, 2007
As far as sea lice initially infecting recently-stocked farmed fish hatchery smolts - it's from either adjacent multi year-classes of farmed fish, or from resident wild stocks. In either case it proves that the open net-cage technology is an ineffective barrier to the transfer of sea lice and other diseases and parasites, because it is OPEN. The technology is fatally flawed, and should be prohibited from being used, due to population-level effects on adjacent wild salmon stocks.
So far the one thing I agree with you on is that you:
Yes, you have tried, and for that - I thank you for elevating the discussion so that other readers may get informed.
However, you also state:
I agree that I am attempting to point-out the obvious hypocrisies in your arguments in a manner that demonstrates my frustration at the pro-farming industry (and their lies that have no interest in checking-out with science) in a manner that they can understand. I am not targetting my fustration at you, specifically.
I too hope that you start to focus your energy towards resolving these issues.
[/quote]
Striper Sniper
Well-Known Member
Hey Agentaqua, BRAVO! SS
SS
O
old steely man
Guest
I think thr rule's were broken on this forum by a certain someone and this matter should be adressed the people who run this forum.
Lets put an end to this topic its getting to personal for my likeing.
Lets put an end to this topic its getting to personal for my likeing.
old steely man you write:
Thank you for this. Thank you for reining in the antagonism. If I have offended anyone (incl. sockeyefry) by my obvious frustration expressed as antagonism - I do apologize.
My explanation is: I believe that sockeyefry is a prominent member of the profishfarming lobby; and if you've tried to be nice to this industry for years, and have been ignored, marginalized, and lied to at every turn - ya, one gets frustrated to the point of lashing back. It seems to be the only way that you don't get ignored. To those unfamiliar with the industry and it's tactics - the communication seems unnecessarily harsh.
Once you hear the lies long enough, you get angry – especially once you see the impacts this industry has on your community’s lifeblood. I don’t apologize for the points I raised, or the discussion that ensues. I believe they need to be answered, and I am hoping that others on this discussion list will appreciate the insights. I know some have already expressed that sediment (thanks Little Hawk and Striper Sniper). I’d like to hear from others.
Thank you for this. Thank you for reining in the antagonism. If I have offended anyone (incl. sockeyefry) by my obvious frustration expressed as antagonism - I do apologize.
My explanation is: I believe that sockeyefry is a prominent member of the profishfarming lobby; and if you've tried to be nice to this industry for years, and have been ignored, marginalized, and lied to at every turn - ya, one gets frustrated to the point of lashing back. It seems to be the only way that you don't get ignored. To those unfamiliar with the industry and it's tactics - the communication seems unnecessarily harsh.
Once you hear the lies long enough, you get angry – especially once you see the impacts this industry has on your community’s lifeblood. I don’t apologize for the points I raised, or the discussion that ensues. I believe they need to be answered, and I am hoping that others on this discussion list will appreciate the insights. I know some have already expressed that sediment (thanks Little Hawk and Striper Sniper). I’d like to hear from others.
Similar threads
