LAKE DIEFENBAKER!

I guess it's apparently due to the fact that an Aquaculture operation Cangrow lost 400,000 triploids in another net pen accident.

The fish lost were steelheadXrainbow crossbred triploid females. Mutant growth rates and hence the massive size of the "hog" rainbows. Aside from one of the photos where the guy was fishing from a tin boat all of the other fish look pen raised. You can tell from a mile away. A healthy naturally occurring rainbow should be slablike yes but not with a besketball belly stubby fins and a blunt snout. Other than Eunuchs there would be no reason for these fish to grow like this in the wild.

Oh well, and to think I was about to jump on a plane.
 
quote:Originally posted by highlights

What the #$%^. And how come I have never heard of this place?

Check out the link.

These guys have caught more than 200 Rainbows over the past two seasons that were well over 20lbs.


http://www.fishinggeeks.net/pics.html

I have spent a few days fishing this lake. Around 5 years ago the ice cut through the fish farm nets and over a million 5+ lb bows escaped. You never saw so many people lining the bank of the lake by the farms hauling in fish after fish all day long. Apparently the nets have broken more than once and these brothers found the lucky spot. Farm fish are not too bright and tend to gorge themselves thus the size.

The lake was formed when the Diefenbaker dam was built. I know of a few divers who were hired to go down and clean the inlets and they swore they would never dive in that lake again due to the size of the Pikeand other fish that were lurking in the depths.
 
quote:Originally posted by Poe

quote:Originally posted by highlights

What the #$%^. And how come I have never heard of this place?

Check out the link.

These guys have caught more than 200 Rainbows over the past two seasons that were well over 20lbs.


http://www.fishinggeeks.net/pics.html

I have spent a few days fishing this lake. Around 5 years ago the ice cut through the fish farm nets and over a million 5+ lb bows escaped. You never saw so many people lining the bank of the lake by the farms hauling in fish after fish all day long. Apparently the nets have broken more than once and these brothers found the lucky spot. Farm fish are not too bright and tend to gorge themselves thus the size.

The lake was formed when the Diefenbaker dam was built. I know of a few divers who were hired to go down and clean the inlets and they swore they would never dive in that lake again due to the size of the Pikeand other fish that were lurking in the depths.
Anyone ever catch any Atlantic salmon there, Poe?
 
Actually, now that you mention it, it rings a bell but I cannot be 100% positive. I jsut know that this lake has always been a good producer.
 
found an interesting item, Poe at: http://www.cipywnyk.net/mtblog/archives/000520.html

fellow named Paul Cipywnyk has a blog there and he states:

"I was skimming an issue of Outdoor Canada and was blown away to read that Atlantic Salmon have been farmed in Lake Diefenbaker in Saskatchewan and anglers have caught escapees in the Saskatchewan River. I don't understand why people continue to introduce non-native species all over the place. It just seems such a no-brainer that this sort of tampering with nature will have negative consequences."
 
Area debates impact of fish farms on ecosystem
http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?contentid=12097

Adrian Alleyne

Lake Diefenbaker is one of the most popular and cleanest lakes in southwestern Saskatchewan, but future plans for three additional fish farm pens along the lake are causing some concern about the environmental impact to the man-made lake.

Wild West Steelhead is an Edmonton based aquaculture company that plans to expand its production on the lake.

But some residents fear there may be an accident, such as a number of fish pens breaking and allowing thousands of mature fish to enter the lake, which can hurt the lake's ecosystem and cause other environmental damage.

According to Gary Dunn, president of the Elbow and District Wildlife Federation, approximately 600,000 to 700,000 fish have escaped from the fish farm since it started business in 1992. And "it essentially changed the fish dynamics of this lake significantly," Dunn said.

Some other concerned residents believe that more testing needs to be done, in order to determine if the fish pens are hazardous to the environment. One of the major concerns is the effect the fish farm will have on water quality.

But the proposed expansion has its supporters as well.

"We also live downstream from a city with a million people or more in Calgary and Medicine Hat. How much do they contribute (to pollution)?" said David Cross, a resident of Elbow. "I think there's many factors and I'm not prepared to blame the fish farm."

According to Cross, there are other causes that need to be considered when discussing the possibility of algae appearing in the lake. One is agricultural chemicals. Since a lot of the land around the lake is sloped, a lot of these chemicals can end up in the lake, he said.

"If water samples indicate that the fish farm is having a negative effect on the lake, then I'm definitely against expansion. If the science indicates that it isn't having a negative effect on the lake then I have no opposition to it," said Bryan Cafferata, owner of Lakeside Marina Services in Elbow.

"I think that the expansions can be done and co-exist with the existing users without causing any huge problems," added Cafferata.

However, there are other residents who believe the fish farm is the major concern, and it has no place on their beautiful lake.

The Elbow and District Wildlife Federation is opposed to the pens, unless tests prove that the farm has not and will not have a negative effect on the lake. And federation members recently started a petition requesting more testing.

The federation gathered 350 signatures from petitions sent to three towns and another 60 petitions were sent out in the last two weeks.

Dunn has a number of other concerns related to the fish farm expansion.

"There's a number of inputs for phosphorus, but the fish farm is definitely one and we know exactly how much they're putting in there," said Dunn. "Roughly 20 tonnes of phosphorus (goes) into this lake each year, and the phosphorus feeds the algae in the lake."

Dunn, a retired aquatic quality analyst for Environment Canada, has been expressing concerns since the fish farm was first put in place.

"(We) expressed extreme concern that the phosphorus loading to the lake from the fish farms could cause significant changes in the algae and weed growth in the lake," said Dunn, referring to Environment Canada's initial assessment of the fish farm development.

"I've done some brief calculations on it, some engineering discharge calculations, and it's approximately equivalent to a town of 30,000 people dumping its entire raw sewage into this lake," said Dunn.

But he does admit that there could be other factors at work, such as cattle on the shoreline and runoff from agricultural land. But according to Dunn, any treatment on these problems would cost a fortune, while "(saying) no to an expansion is a simple solution to preventing any more phosphorus from entering the lake."

As for further studies on the lake, there is currently a one year study being conducted by the University of Saskatchewan. The purpose is to collect phosphorus and nitrogen samples at different locations along the lake. Then the U of S researchers will try to determine where the phosphorus is coming from and how massive the algae growth will be on the lake.

So is there any possibility of making those opposed to the expansion happy?

"If they could move the fish offshore and put them in ponds offshore and then the phosphorus from the fish food and from the feces can be held back and then treated before it's released into the lake," said Dunn. "That's the only way that I can see that this operation would not cause significant problems with algae growth in the lake."

As for Wild West Steelhead, the company had no comment on the expansion, but the proposal the company submitted to Saskatchewan Environment in July 2006 outlines its intentions.

"In order to continue to build on our successes, we must continue to expand our production. Recently we have had to turn down potential sales programs with large distributors and retailers due to insufficient production," the company said in its proposal.

"We are getting into a situation where we are too large to be a small producer, but too small to be supplying major retail chains. In order to remain competitive we need to take the next step and increase our production."

Wild West was hoping to increase its production from 1,450 tonnes to 1,900 tonnes for 2008 and 2009, then increase it once more to 2,200 tonnes in 2009 and 2010.

As for the setup at the new locations, it would consist of "10-12 floating cages, each approximately 50 feet long by 50 feet wide and supporting a net which would be approximately 40 feet deep."

"Each site would offer approximately 30,000 cubic metres of holding space within the nets, yielding approximately 300,000 kilograms of Steelhead production annually at peak capacity."

The proposal also notes that "the lake as a whole is one of a select few in Saskatchewan which would be suitable for large, cage culture operations as inflow continues through the winter months. There is very little risk of 'winterkill,' which can be problematic in smaller, colder lakes with no constant inflow."

The proposal also addresses the possibility of the expansion having a negative impact on the water quality.

"The fundamental requirement of any successful aquaculture operation is a healthy aquatic environment in which to produce a healthy product. The success of our business depends on this.

"Wild West Steelhead has now been in operation on Lake Diefenbaker for more than 10 years, first as AgPro Fish Farm, after that as CanGro Processors and finally as Wild West Steelhead. Our water sampling program over this time period has shown that we have had no negative impact on water quality in the lake," the proposal stated.

"Furthermore, with the exception of minor incidents of cold water disease in winter, which is endemic to the lake, we have had no significant disease concerns in this 10 year period and ... we believe we have demonstrated our commitment to environmental sustainability and will continue to do so in the future."

Wild West Steelhead also answered the question of phosphorus intake going to the lake. A report done by Canadian Aquaculture Systems in 1999 stated "there is evidence that Lake Diefenbaker is a phosphorus-limited system."

That led Wild West to propose that "some level of phosphorus inputs from cage culture operations would be beneficial to the aquatic environment."

Whether or not Wild West Steelhead is allowed to go forward with its complete expansion plan remains to be seen. The company recently experienced a set back in the summer, when a fire damaged one of their buildings. The cause of the fire is still under investigation.

What is clear, however, is that there is a long way to go to ensure that all parties involved in this situation will be happy with the final outcome.
 
Agent,

To my knowledge, they have not grown any atlantics. They cannot be grown to commercial size in freshwater. They are anadromous and need the Saltwater to attain market size.

Phosphorus is indeed the limiting ingredient in most freshwater systems for primary production. Too little and too much are both bad, although too much can have far worse consequences. I would suspect that the phosphorus input from naturally occuring sources which make its way to the lake via run off, and those from man made sources such as cottages and other dwellings and agricultural fertilzers will be far in excess to the relatively small input from the fish farm. Diefenbaker is a very large lake, and I believe a man made resevoir.

I spent many years doing assessments for development on lakes and the resulting phosphorus loadings. Although they seem to bear the brunt of the accusations, the fish farms are very rarely the cause of the eutrophication. In my experience it has been cottage development that has done the largest damage through poorly designed septic systems, and the application of fertilzers for the nice green lawns.

The monitoring is quite easy, phosphorus levels can be measured, but the definitive testing is done on Chlorophyll A production in the spring. Proving that it is the farm and the farm alone which causes a problem will be difficult because you cannot eliminate all the natural inputs. There are models for the estimation of phosphorus inputs on lakes. They are quite complex, and take into account the rate of turn over of the lake water, watershed size & type, etc... The main citeria that I have seen applied is any development cannot effect a change to the trophic status of the lake. The models will also indicate how much P can be inputted before a change occurs, which would limit the number of cottages or in this case the number of fish produced.

Since the farm has been there for a number of years I am sure that information exists to track any changes that the farm may have had on the lake, simply by measuring the CHL A year to year.

The rainbows that were displayed could not have come directly from the pens. The harvest size for steelhead is 4 - 6 lbs max. Those fish would have had to live free in the lake for some time to attain their size. Has anyone checked to see if the Province has stocked rainbow in this lake in the past?
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry
To my knowledge, they have not grown any atlantics. They cannot be grown to commercial size in freshwater. They are anadromous and need the Saltwater to attain market size.
Then your knowledge is unfortunately incomplete. Yes, Atlantics can be grown in fresh water to market size; though not as well as in saltwater. Lots of deformities.

They started farming Atlantics originally at this farm, but later - slowly switched to rainbows because rainbows are better at growing in freshwater than Atlantics (as you suggest).

Also, rainbows are far less aggressive than Atlantics.
quote:TThe rainbows that were displayed could not have come directly from the pens. The harvest size for steelhead is 4 - 6 lbs max. Those fish would have had to live free in the lake for some time to attain their size. Has anyone checked to see if the Province has stocked rainbow in this lake in the past?
COMPLETE BS, sockeyefry. Anyone familiar with aquacultured fish can recognize difference in body forms, and nose deformities (due to rubbing along the pen mesh) - as compared to wild fish. I thought you had that background.

highlights talks about this in some length on the posting above.

Others have indexed this noticeable change scientifically:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5m24q82140w3738/

Anyone familiar with steelhead fishing (like many on this forum) are familiar with the body form of the wild steelhead/rainbow. Some places where one can reference the general shape of a steelhead/rainbow include:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/strawberry/pdf/strawberry_brochure.pdf

Others have investigated this observation more rigorously in the peer-reviewed venue:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=c8265d0143f228820f6fd1fa8eae4c34

Look at the body form and noses of the largest rainbows. They are definitely aquacultured. Possibly a larger number of the smaller ones are "naturally" produced.

Let's compare the larger rainbows caught in the same lake as the fish farm:
guiding2008_038-4.jpg
guiding2008_007-1.jpg


with this picture of an aquacultured steelhead:
aquaseed-Steelhead.jpg


And then to that of a wild steelhead:
911steelhead.jpg


I think it's fairly obvious. Maybe other steelhead fishermen on this forum wish to remark on this and add their experiences?</u>

AND yes you are right - the escapees from the farm would have had to survive after being accidentally released in order to grow to the larger sizes.

Are you suggesting this is impossible? OR is it just that you don't like this suggestion? (just look at the pictures, again).

highlights (above) mentions that he knows of one incident where they lost 400,000 triploids. Poe (above, also) mentions of another incident where they lost over a million 5+ lb bows in another pen accident. None of these numbers includes any other unknown or unreported incidents, as well as the more continual and low-level leakage of escapees through more mundane operations like harvesting and net damage.

Given enough time and releases (which is what happens using the open net-cage technology) - a new population of invasive species or major gene pool disruption - eventually happens. This has been happening world-wide - ever since humans started introducing species - by purpose or by accident.

What references do you have to prove that aquacultured releases can't survive? Most of the available peer-reviewed literature suggests that aquacultured fish do escape and live. They are - after all - fish.

To utilize your own industry's agriculture/aquaculture comparisons - we have had numerous examples of other viable wild animals populations started through the accidental (or sometimes deliberate) release of domesticated stock.

Examples include rabbits in Australia, horses in North America, pigs in the southern states, goats on many islands - the list goes on. Somehow, fish are immune from this risk because they are cold-blooded?

Okay, cane toads in Australia are cold-blooded. Wait a minute - Carp were introduced in rivers in the southern US. AND brown trout were successfully introduced in many areas of North America. AND ya, Pacific salmon were introduced into the Great Lakes.

Gee, it's only somehow impossible if the fish are hiding behind a net cage - that they can't survive in the wild. That's the spin from the salmon farming industry. Deny, deny, deny.

It's a big pile of do-do. Some South American rivers now have Atlantic salmon in them, populated from escapees from Chile's farming industry. See:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=11

BUT in North America - it's an impossibility somehow. Then out come the quotes from unsuccessful attempts at introductions; and then the personal attacks begin on John Volpe and his work.

I hope you aren't going to try and bring-out those old, tired industry lies, as we have already been through this and discussed it on:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9489&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=Volpe

AND
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8228&whichpage=20

Also don't forget that "stocking" with rainbows is also a form of "aquaculture".

Yet, this stocking works - but the release of larger fish from open net-pens somehow doesn't work because the pen fish get trained on pellets?

Yet - they feed stocked fry for some time before release, too. If you are suggesting that fish do not relearn to eat live feed after a diet of pellets - then again, your logic is fatally flawed.

The real-world and large-scale examples that totally contradict your assumption that fish cannot learn to eat wild prey and survive flys in the face of all the stocking programs in the world which release fish back into the wild.

The success rate of stocked fish is admittedly not as high as wild fish due to a number of factors, including feeding regimes and genetics.

However, the point is that stocked fish do in fact survive. Anyone who has caught a chinook without an adipose fin, or a stocked fish in freshwater is living proof of that reality.

Your logic is fatally flawed, and is coloured by your desperate need to defend the industry by claiming that the open net-cage technology has no effects, including accidental colonization by invasive species.

Thought you were a scientist.
 
Someone must have been really bored to try to stir up crap like this. LOL. You can clearly tell that these photos where "enhanced" Via photoshop or some other software art program. If you zoom (400X) into the first photo posted you can see on the back of the fish there is a chunk of it missing and you can tell that someone tried to match the color of the sweater the guy was wearing, but couldn't quite get a match. The color is off a bit. And shouldn't there be a fin there? The second Photo is a little bit better but the edge of the fish on the top gives it away. These fish appear flat to me and as such where probly just posted over top of the original fish the guys were holding. That's why they look "weird" to your eye. I showed the photos to several people and they all agree.



Take only what you need.
 
quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

Someone must have been really bored to try to stir up crap like this. LOL. You can clearly tell that these photos where "enhanced" Via photoshop or some other software art program. If you zoom (400X) into the first photo posted you can see on the back of the fish there is a chunk of it missing and you can tell that someone tried to match the color of the sweater the guy was wearing, but couldn't quite get a match. The color is off a bit. And shouldn't there be a fin there? The second Photo is a little bit better but the edge of the fish on the top gives it away. These fish appear flat to me and as such where probly just posted over top of the original fish the guys were holding. That's why they look "weird" to your eye. I showed the photos to several people and they all agree.
Believe it or not - I had nothing to do with either catching these fish, nor can I vouch for authenticity. These photos are directly linked to web pages, such as the fishinggeeks page listed at the top of this page.

I think we can all agree that they are definitely not wild steelhead body form. Although the body forms in the odd fish seems extreme and ever hard to believe; the general patter follows aquacultured fish forms (big bellies since triploid are sterile and don't put energy into gonads, and stunted jaws and face)- but more specifically - aquacultured triploid trout.

Here's some actual pics of other triploid trout:

from http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/News/protecting_wild_trout.html
Triploid_051107.jpg


AND

large_94761BA1-3048-7B4D-A95434F80C4F6CFB.jpg


AND

uglytrout.jpg


do a web search on Google images for triploid trout and these (among others) will pop-out
 
Agent,

I can do without the name calling, and insinuations regarding my intelligence level.

Steelhead is a marketing term for large farm raised rainbow trout, it has nothing to do with the wild natural steelhead. Course I figured you would have known this.

Fin wear is also like scar tissue, they sometime, especially in older fish (close to market), and never grows back. That is why they still have the marks of being in a pen.

Atlantic salmon are not grown to market size in Freshwater. Never have never will. Please tell me where you got the info that they ever were in this lake site.
 
quote:I can do without the name calling, and insinuations regarding my intelligence level.
Sorry, sockeyefry – for projecting my frustration with the defensive posturing, denials, propaganda, and deflection within the open net-cage PR campaigns – onto you (even if you were utilizing some of their spin doctors flawed logic). My apologies.

I’ll try to keep it less personal and more general. Good call.

Okay – so to onto what this explanation as to where this frustration comes from.

In science, we have what is commonly called the “scientific method”; integral to all the sciences, and used to advance our scientific knowledge. There are generally-accepted techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. People who publish these findings are usually called “scientists”

A “scientific” method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

It’s how the pro-industry rhetoric subverts this process both in the public, and within so-called scientific debates that gives me this frustration. The pro-industry rhetoric and propaganda seems to be utilized by scientists and biologists who seem publicly oblivious of how their scientific reasoning has been affected, and how unscientific their approach is.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning):

Abduction , or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning in which one chooses the hypothesis that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. Abductive reasoning starts from a set of accepted facts and infers their most likely, or best, explanations.

It’s that somehow within that pro-industry spin – the most logical or “most likely” explanation is discounted and ridiculed (along with the authors who wrote the report, or suggested the logical hypothesis) – while other so-called “alternative” hypotheses are developed that put the open net-cage industry in better light.

Many of these “alternative” hypotheses are eventually proved to be false, but only after some time and effort. But that’s what it is all about – stalling. Stalling another year to get another years profits back to the shareholders.

A very few examples of so-called “alternative” hypotheses developed by the open net-pen PR people include:

1. Escapees don’t happen. In the case of the obviously aquacultured body forms of rainbows caught in Lake Diefenbaker – it must be only stocked rainbows, even if there has been cases of millions of released fish from the fish farm. (This is the one I found so frustrating from your last posting, sockeyefry).
2. Escapees happen, but so what? They are harmless.
3. Sea lice comes from few sticklebacks that have no adults including egg-bearing females), but not the millions of caged Atlantics nearby.

All “alternative” hypotheses listed above have no basis in relevant evidence or logic; otherwise known as fallacies. In fact, these tricks are well known and even have fancy-smancy names like:

Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person) - Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance) - Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false.
Argumentum ad nauseam - This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it.
Shifting the burden of proof - The burden of proof is always on the industry to ensure that they are having no adverse effects. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who questions the “alternative” hypotheses.

• And lets not forget the good old and tried Red herring - This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

Okay, I can understand why the multinational corporations and governments wish to lie and keep the open net-cage industry going. It's profits, kickbacks, the stock market - money.

But how can pro-industry scientists not see their failings in logic and critical thinking? Blinded by ego and industry-funded employment?

Can they not see how badly their logic is fatally flawed?

Okay, lets skip the “why”s and go straight to the “how” is it flawed.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking):

Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It includes possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible or intangible item in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense."

Assuming that the fish farm was not the most plausible source of the huge (triploid?) rainbows doesn’t show to me “a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense”. It’s unscientific.

So are the rest of the “alternative” hypotheses above.

quote:IAtlantic salmon are not grown to market size in Freshwater. Never have never will. Please tell me where you got the info that they ever were in this lake site.

ready to eat some crow, sockeyefry?

http://www.cipywnyk.net/mtblog/archives/000520.html
February 03, 2007- Atlantic Salmon in Saskatchewan?! I was skimming an issue of Outdoor Canada and was blown away to read that Atlantic Salmon have been farmed in Lake Diefenbaker in Saskatchewan and anglers have caught escapees in the Saskatchewan River. I don't understand why people continue to introduce non-native species all over the place. It just seems such a no-brainer that this sort of tampering with nature will have negative consequences.”

http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/fish/hot_spots07c.shtml
A reader of my local weekly fishing column once called me to help identify a strange fish he’d caught at the weir; it turned out to be an Atlantic salmon that had escaped from a fish farm on Lake Diefenbaker.

http://www.library.dal.ca/law/aquanet/bibliomain.htm
R. v. Agpro Grain Inc., (1996) 142 Sask.R. 37
Fishing Offences- Elements of Offence
Appeal from a conviction and sentence for unlawfully fishing with a net without a licence contrary to section 26(a) of the Saskatchewan Fisheries Regulations. Agpro Grain Inc. operated a licensed fish farm on Lake Diefenbaker and was authorized to stock, raise and harvest Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon in cages in a specified area.
 
quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

quote:I can do without the name calling, and insinuations regarding my intelligence level.
Sorry, sockeyefry – for projecting my frustration with the defensive posturing, denials, propaganda, and deflection within the open net-cage PR campaigns – onto you (even if you were utilizing some of their spin doctors flawed logic). My apologies.

I’ll try to keep it less personal and more general. Good call.

Okay – so to onto what this explanation as to where this frustration comes fro

In science, we have what is commonly called the “scientific method”; integral to all the sciences, and used to advance our scientific knowledge. There are generally-accepted techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. People who publish these findings are usually called “scientists”

A “scientific” method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

It’s how the pro-industry rhetoric subverts this process both in the public, and within so-called scientific debates that gives me this frustration. The pro-industry rhetoric and propaganda seems to be utilized by scientists and biologists who seem publicly oblivious of how their scientific reasoning has been affected, and how unscientific their approach is.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning):

Abduction , or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning in which one chooses the hypothesis that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. Abductive reasoning starts from a set of accepted facts and infers their most likely, or best, explanations.

It’s that somehow within that pro-industry spin – the most logical or “most likely” explanation is discounted and ridiculed (along with the authors who wrote the report, or suggested the logical hypothesis) – while other so-called “alternative” hypotheses are developed that put the open net-cage industry in better light.

Many of these “alternative” hypotheses are eventually proved to be false, but only after some time and effort. But that’s what it is all about – stalling. Stalling another year to get another years profits back to the shareholders.

A very few examples of so-called “alternative” hypotheses developed by the open net-pen PR people include:

1. Escapees don’t happen. In the case of the obviously aquacultured body forms of rainbows caught in Lake Diefenbaker – it must be only stocked rainbows, even if there has been cases of millions of released fish from the fish farm. (This is the one I found so frustrating from your last posting, sockeyefry).
2. Escapees happen, but so what? They are harmless.
3. Sea lice comes from few sticklebacks that have no adults including egg-bearing females), but not the millions of caged Atlantics nearby.

All “alternative” hypotheses listed above have no basis in relevant evidence or logic; otherwise known as fallacies. In fact, these tricks are well known and even have fancy-smancy names like:

Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person) - Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance) - Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false.
Argumentum ad nauseam - This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it.
Shifting the burden of proof - The burden of proof is always on the industry to ensure that they are having no adverse effects. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who questions the “alternative” hypotheses.

• And lets not forget the good old and tried Red herring - This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

Okay, I can understand why the multinational corporations and governments wish to lie and keep the open net-cage industry going. It's profits, kickbacks, the stock market - money.

But how can pro-industry scientists not see their failings in logic and critical thinking? Blinded by ego and industry-funded employment?

Can they not see how badly their logic is flawed?

Okay, lets skip the “why”s and go straight to the “how” is it flawed.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking):

Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It includes possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible or intangible item in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense."

Assuming that the fish farm was not the most plausible source of the huge (triploid?) rainbows doesn’t show to me “a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense”. It’s unscientific.

So are the rest of the “alternative” hypotheses above.

quote:IAtlantic salmon are not grown to market size in Freshwater. Never have never will. Please tell me where you got the info that they ever were in this lake site.

ready to eat some crow, sockeyefry?

http://www.cipywnyk.net/mtblog/archives/000520.html
February 03, 2007- Atlantic Salmon in Saskatchewan?! I was skimming an issue of Outdoor Canada and was blown away to read that Atlantic Salmon have been farmed in Lake Diefenbaker in Saskatchewan and anglers have caught escapees in the Saskatchewan River. I don't understand why people continue to introduce non-native species all over the place. It just seems such a no-brainer that this sort of tampering with nature will have negative consequences.”

http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/fish/hot_spots07c.shtml
A reader of my local weekly fishing column once called me to help identify a strange fish he’d caught at the weir; it turned out to be an Atlantic salmon that had escaped from a fish farm on Lake Diefenbaker.
http://www.library.dal.ca/law/aquanet/bibliomain.htm

R. v. Agpro Grain Inc., (1996) 142 Sask.R. 37
Fishing Offences- Elements of Offence
Appeal from a conviction and sentence for unlawfully fishing with a net without a licence contrary to section 26(a) of the Saskatchewan Fisheries Regulations. Agpro Grain Inc. operated a licensed fish farm on Lake Diefenbaker and was authorized to stock, raise and harvest Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon in cages in a specified area.

That was 5 minutes of my life I can never get back:D:D:D

www.coastwidesportsfishing.com
 
Back
Top