B.C. Salmon Farmers will spend $1.5 millin on study.

As I have said numerous times, over numerous years, and numerous threads:

What we need are scientifically-defensible siting criteria; an open, transparent and public environmental assessment process; and open, public fish health reporting.

That way we can perform risk-adverse strategies, gauge cost/benefit scenarios, and mitigate potential and realized impacts. We are not so stuck with he said - she said that way. We have some actual tools at our disposal.

I really don't think anyone - in either so-called pro- nor anti- camps can realistically argue against these requirements.

While we are having this discussion and refining these consultation processes - we need to protect the most vulnerable stages (e.g. juvies) of adjacent wild salmon stocks.

Areas that have high numbers of open net-pens AND high numbers of outmigrating smolts (e.g. Discovery Islands and Broughtons) - are the worst locations for placement of open net-caghe technology wrt disease and parasite transfer to the juvies.

Risk is an assessment of likelihood TIMES consequence.

More interactions MEANS higher likelihood.

More likelihood MEANS higher risk.

Get them off of major smolt migrations like the Fraser - and we can argue about the rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent, Are you alexandra morton? you sound just like her.
 
Agent, Are you alexandra morton? you sound just like her.
Cheeze - ya right - ya caught me BN. Your investigative powers are underwhelming.

If you industry is hearing the same thing from numerous people - you just what - ignore it more?

That's responsible.
 
So who are you?Really? Are you a paid activist? No Really, Who are you? Whats your occupation? You primary attendance here on this forum is clearly activism and thats fine but why the strong hold on your secret identity? Could it be that if you were found to be a occupational activist your message would be altered from how it is perceived now. I'm just wondering because while one moment you talk about being open and transparent you fail to post info that goes against what you usually post. Like the study I just posted on prv. Why didn't you post that right away since you are so on top of the issue posing as lead informant on these pages. Disappointing.

Anyways carry on with your version of open and transparent informing lol. Nice deflection after my post on the prv study. Clearly it is you that is ignoring information.

Agent Anonymous...... too funny.
 
So - if I post an article - I must be an activist.

Yet if I don't - I'm not "open".

So matter what I do or don't - I must be wrong.

You're starting to sound like my wife BN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank Bill Bennett for preparation of the sections for histopathology and Cecile Van Woensel, Julia Bradshaw, Amelia Mahony and Bill Batts for technical assistance. Funding was provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The use of trade, firm or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Interior or Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfd.12329/full

I don’t see where it states that this was a scientific study from Cermaq.

Bill Bennett is great guy. Top notch at what he does.
 
Must move the fish farms to land based closed containment systems and all the risk is removed.
Everywhere fish are farmed in the world's oceans disease is prevelent and the wild ecosystems are harmed.
Doesn't take rocket science just common sense to understand.
The imported diseases and diminished wild fish populations are real.
Consumers must speak with their wallets and avoid buying Salmon farmed in ocean net pens.
 
Couldn't agree more with Agent's post below and the fact that Birdsnest's next reply is an off the cuff slight is another great example of how the open-net salmon farming industry is hesitant/afraid to even have a serious conversation about what would seem like no-brainer requirements for the industry to even exist.

Tell me again how "scientifically-defensible siting criteria; an open, transparent and public environmental assessment process; and open, public fish health reporting." is a bad thing? The fact that this is not already common practice is the sickening part. Industries with nothing to hide are proud to talk about their work. Industries that employ the "Merchants of Doubt" tactics on the other hand most likely do have much to hide.

I am fortunate enough to have access to top level people in fisheries, industry (fish farming, commercial, rec), and ngo's and I can say with 100% confidence that the open-net salmon farming industry has been extremely restrictive, uncooperative, and obfuscated the very data that would help us all properly evaluate the harm (or lack thereof) of this industry on wild salmon and our ecosystem.

It has got to the point where a large group industry titans, ex-ministers, and concerned philanthropists have formed a lobby group recently to try to get through to a industry-bought federal gov't to implement some of the logical requirements agentaqua has mentioned in his posts. It's good to see such a diverse group come together on this but it's sad to see that is has come to this. Hopefully, given the clout of this group and other hard working ngo's we still soon see some serious change... I'm not going to hold my breathe on this one, however.

As I have said numerous times, over numerous years, and numerous threads:

What we need are scientifically-defensible siting criteria; an open, transparent and public environmental assessment process; and open, public fish health reporting.

That way we can perform risk-adverse strategies, gauge cost/benefit scenarios, and mitigate potential and realized impacts. We are not so stuck with he said - she said that way. We have some actual tools at our disposal.

I really don't think anyone - in either so-called pro- nor anti- camps can realistically argue against these requirements.

While we are having this discussion and refining these consultation processes - we need to protect the most vulnerable stages (e.g. juvies) of adjacent wild salmon stocks.

Areas that have high numbers of open net-pens AND high numbers of outmigrating smolts (e.g. Discovery Islands and Broughtons) - are the worst locations for placement of open net-caghe technology wrt disease and parasite transfer to the juvies.

Risk is an assessment of likelihood TIMES consequence.

More interactions MEANS higher likelihood.

More likelihood MEANS higher risk.

Get them off of major smolt migrations like the Fraser - and we can argue about the rest.
 
... we need to protect the most vulnerable stages (e.g. juvies) of adjacent wild salmon stocks....Areas that have high numbers of open net-pens AND high numbers of outmigrating smolts (e.g. Discovery Islands and Broughtons) - are the worst locations for placement of open net-caghe technology wrt disease and parasite transfer to the juvies. Get them off of major smolt migrations like the Fraser - and we can argue about the rest.
Speaking of which: check out this link: http://marinesurvivalproject.com/research_activity/list/project-title/

Quote: "It has been suggested though that up to 90% of juvenile Pacific salmon may die within their first eight weeks at sea, and yet no surveys have been conducted during this time in recent years.".

Damn "activists", eh BN?
 
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...lRS75NL4fCLBXBHFQVu_EGQ&bvm=bv.85970519,d.cWc

Potential disease interaction reinforced: double-virus-infected escaped farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., recaptured in a nearby river
A S Madhun1, E Karl sbakk1, C H Isachsen1, L M Omdal1, A G Eide Sørvik1, Ø Skaala1,B T Barlaup2 and K A Glover1
1 Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway
2 Uni Environment, Uni Research, Bergen, Norway

Abstract
The role of escaped farmed salmon in spreading infectious agents from aquaculture to wild salmonid populations is largely unknown. This is a case study of potential disease interaction between escaped farmed and wild fish populations. In summer 2012, significant numbers of farmed Atlantic salmon were captured in the Hardangerfjord and in a local river. Genetic analyses of 59 of the escaped salmon and samples collected from six local salmon farms pointed out the most likely source farm, but two other farms had an overlapping genetic profile. The escapees were also analysed for three viruses that are prevalent in fish farming in Norway. Almost all the escaped salmon were infected with salmon alphavirus (SAV) and piscine reovirus (PRV). To use the infection profile to assist genetic methods in identifying the likely farm of origin, samples from the farms were also tested for these viruses. However, in the current case, all the three farms had an infection profile that was similar to that of the escapees. We have shown that doublevirus-infected escaped salmon ascend a river close to the likely source farms, reinforcing the potential for spread of viruses to wild salmonids.

More "activists", eh BN?
 
Hey look! A whole room-full of those "evil" activists:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oVoaVTN7Uu0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
So who are you?Really? Are you a paid activist? No Really, Who are you? Whats your occupation? You primary attendance here on this forum is clearly activism and thats fine but why the strong hold on your secret identity? Could it be that if you were found to be a occupational activist your message would be altered from how it is perceived now. I'm just wondering because while one moment you talk about being open and transparent you fail to post info that goes against what you usually post. Like the study I just posted on prv. Why didn't you post that right away since you are so on top of the issue posing as lead informant on these pages. Disappointing.



Anyways carry on with your version of open and transparent informing lol. Nice deflection after my post on the prv study. Clearly it is you that is ignoring information.

Agent Anonymous...... too funny.

HEEEEELLLLLLLLOOOOOOO Birdnest! What kind of forum is this? It is an anonymous forum. It is designed this way and functions this way. No one has to ever reveal who they are. Bottom line: If you don't like it, then don't participate in it!

IMHO you are just PO'ed that people on the forum figured out who you are and who you work for. I say get over it and quit winning about anonymous posters on here - it is a lame, tired, irrelevant complaint on this forum and just makes you look silly and petty. Time to move on and better answer the never ending questions and challenges about your industry's practices. My 2 bits.
 
HEEEEELLLLLLLLOOOOOOO Birdnest! What kind of forum is this? It is an anonymous forum. It is designed this way and functions this way. No one has to ever reveal who they are. Bottom line: If you don't like it, then don't participate in it!

IMHO you are just PO'ed that people on the forum figured out who you are and who you work for. I say get over it and quit winning about anonymous posters on here - it is a lame, tired, irrelevant complaint on this forum and just makes you look silly and petty. Time to move on and better answer the never ending questions and challenges about your industry's practices. My 2 bits.
You guys are hilarious ... Birdsnest has never hidden what he does; he has always been upfront with his beliefs and his thoughts. I respect that.
 
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/proposed-new-bc-salmon-farms-net-strong-public-opposition/

Proposed new BC salmon farms net strong public opposition
Posted February 12, 2015 by Alexandra Morton in Oceans

Proposed new BC salmon farms net strong public opposition
Public meeting in Port McNeill, BC re: Greig’s proposed salmon farms (Twyla Roscovich)

On February 10, 2015, Grieg Seafood held an open house in Port McNeill on two new salmon farm applications it is proposing – a requirement of the application process to the Province of BC.

It was a small room in a Port McNeill hotel. Huge pictures of salmon farms formed a center column blocking a clear view across the room. It was designed so people would shuffle around the edges of the room in small groups to be met by industry reps with name tags that provided only first names. One representative from DFO and one from the Province of BC were present.

The event had been scheduled during a “dangerous cargo” ferry run, making it inconvenient for working people from the nearby island community of Sointula to attend. So they pooled resources and paid fuel for the 48-passenger vessel Naiad to pick them up. One hundred and twenty people showed up to this open house, about 15% of the entire community of Sointula, as well as people from Alert Bay, Port Hardy and Port McNeill. Local people concerned about impact on their livelihoods.

Bait and switch
If approved, these two salmon farm applications in Clio Channel in the Broughton Archipelago will threaten the BC coast with several dangerous precedents. First, the sites are less than the 3 km apart, the minimum distance set by the Province of BC. Second, these locations are currently approved for shellfish aquaculture. If shellfish sites can be easily upgraded into fin fish aquaculture and farms placed closer together – the floodgates open.

This is how the salmon farming industry runs into the same brick wall over and over again. Increasing the number of farmed salmon in a region breeds catastrophic viral and sea louse epidemics that eat into corporate profits, driving the industry to expand again and causing the same problems all over. No learning curve here! The stakes are high.

Public gets fired up
As the room became unbearably hot, people became angry at the lack of any opportunity to raise their concerns. Then local resident and filmmaker Twyla Roscovich picked up a cowbell, got people’s attention, and asked how many people did not want more salmon farms. While a Grieg employee tried to dissuade Ms. Roscovich, the room broke out into an uproar as a sea of hands shot up and a loud chorus cried out, “No more fish farms!”

Shrimp fishermen who where going to lose their most productive shrimping grounds, local fishing lodges, whale watching companies, local First Nations and also a First Nations woman, Tamara Campbell from Boston Bar up the Fraser River – all who need wild salmon – stepped up together, many standing on chairs to be heard above the chatter. They wanted to know why they should accept this threat to their livelihoods and wild salmon for nothing in return. Campbell made the point that while coastal nations might decide to partner with the industry, Fraser Nations are ignored. Their salmon are running through the effluent of the over 100 salmon farms on the BC coast. They need wild salmon for their health and need to be consulted.

Local decisions have big ripple effect
The Tlowitsis Nation of Campbell River, represented by hereditary chief John Smith, has agreed to allow these two new farms. But the impact of salmon farms is cumulative and far-reaching, beyond local areas. A salmon farm produces the same amount of fecal matter as a city of 200,000 people* and during a peak disease event can produce 65 billion infectious viral particles per hour.^ A particle can travel 10km in 6 hours on the turbulent coast of BC. This means wild salmon migrating between Vancouver Island and the BC mainland are swimming through a soup of industrial fecal and infectious farm waste.

Cohen’s recommendations ignored
The atmosphere was highly charged, voices trembled with emotion and inexperience with public speaking. Some industry reps insisted on speaking loudly, drowning out the local people trying to be heard. It was childish and rude and surprised many who thought this meeting was provided to hear their concerns. When asked, the rep from DFO could not name what criteria he uses to determine if an area is too sensitive to allow a salmon farm. It was surprising, this was a concern that was thoroughly investigated by Justice Cohen three years ago.

Norwegian corporations control BC waters
Map of BC salmon farms and migratory routes
Map of BC salmon farms and wild salmon migratory routes
There are already 27 salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago near Sointula and Port McNeill. They are all run by companies with head offices in Norway. Most are in the territory of First Nations that have asked them to vacate, but the farmers refuse. Not one person outside the industry stuck up for the industry at this meeting. There was no sense that salmon farms had done the local communities any good. While the head offices are in Norway and Campbell River, it is Port McNeill, Alert Bay and Sointula that end up with the poop end of the deal!

The Province of BC is the landlord of the salmon farming industry. The Ministry of Forestry, Lands and Natural Resources grants the licences of occupation for each salmon farm. These licences can be rescinded, with no compensation owed to the companies, if they are not in the public interest.

A federal licence is also required for each farm, but while these licences costs $800,000 back home in Norway, the Harper government is handing them out to the industry for free! There has to be some interesting background there. Why would government override its citizens to allow a high-risk foreign industry to operate for free?

Far more jobs, economic benefit from tourism
As people rode the ferry home to Sointula they wondered out loud how the premier could think it was good for them to lose yet another high-production fishing ground to this industry. Why couldn’t BC see the value of their $1.6 billion eco-tourism industry – several times as big as fish farming – fishing revenue and thriving communities?

To have enormous foreign-owned feedlots that siphon off profits to shareholders and offer only a few low-paying local jobs – while they threaten much higher paying revenue from fishing and tourism – is simply not very bright.

In this era of terrifying global fisheries collapse, threatening the death of our oceans, why would the BC government fling its arms open to embrace an industry with a trail of disease epidemics and the collapse of wild salmon worldwide? Why don’t our tax-supported governments work to protect the resilience and value of local economies where profits flow back into the community?

Changing our laws to suit fish farmers
Expansion is not the only item on this industry’s wish list. They lobbying to change the laws of Canada:

A stand alone Aquaculture Act, is under review by the Canadian Senate to allow these companies ownership of salmon in the ocean
Removal of Section 36 of the Fisheries Act is going ahead to permit unfettered use of chemicals that kill fish in their losing drug war with sea lice

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is seeking authority to kill wild fish to protect farmed salmon from pathogens (Proposed Aquaculture Regulations).

Here’s a better idea – with zero losers:

Government could support innovative aquaculture development that grows its own food and reuses its waste. This would provide jobs and actually contribute to feeding the world. At the same time, government could use the cutting edge genomic profiling science, which is under development in BC, that reads the immune system of salmon, giving managers the information they need to remove the most critical impacts on wild salmon and release populations to achieve greater production.

We could have both aquaculture and wild salmon. So you must ask, why would our governments be so hellbent on a dirty, despised and out-dated industry like Atlantic salmon farming?
 

Attachments

  • salmon-farm-map.jpg
    salmon-farm-map.jpg
    20.9 KB · Views: 39
Why, I wonder, doesn't Morton attempt to get Washington State Atlantic salmon farmers involved in 'innovative aquaculture developments' ??
Why does she ignore American salmon farms but continually talk about perceived problems in BC, Norway, Ireland, Scotland, Chile, Nova Scotia, (but never Maine) etc, etc ?

I have my ideas on that but would like to read your thoughts.
 
Back
Top