"Maybe try treehugger.com while you are at it. Fish farming gets a bad wrap because a few "environmentalists" go out and dip net a couple of sick fish out of their kayak, sounds like a pretty random sample to me?"
Notwithstanding the grammatical error contained above, (fish don't have or use kayaks) the rest is another example of classic bull crap masquerading as comment. It's basically a reference to Alexandra Morton and the method she used to collect sample fry in various areas around the affected area. By attempting to denigrate the methodology used by Alex and other researchers they hope the results will be viewed as unreliable. Unfortunately, there are two words that put the lie to this claim. Those words are "proportional representation," and they mean that as long as the method remains constant in all places it gives a true reading of whatever is happening.
And far from being a random sampling, samples have been taken at many places along the migration route of juvenile salmon, mostly pink and chum in this case. This method of sampling paints an all-too-clear picture of what happens when there are sea-lice in net pens that are reproducing at the same time that fry are migrating by.
When first sampled, near the rivers they come out of, fry have no lice load, which is natural. As they approach the farm sites they start to pick up lice loads. This is not natural.
As they leave the vicinity of the farm the loaded fry start to weaken and most will die before ever reaching open ocean. Then, the lice leave the fry to seek another host. This means the farms are actually spreading sea-lice into other areas as well.
Comparing the loads picked up after a certain number of days at sea in areas that have no farms and then comparing that to the loads showing in areas that have farms pretty well tells you where the lice come from. There is no other source, despite attempts to blame stickleback and the wild adult returning salmon themselves. And the loading is a huge multiple of what it would be if no farms existed in the area. Devastatingly huge.
Farms cannot be allowed on or near known migration routes.
Simple as that.
I don't waste my time worrying about all the other things some people warn about relative to the industry because I believe that the sea-lice transfer problem is the one we should be most concerned with. Allowing our wild stocks to perish so a few large corporations can make millions of dollars just isn't on.
It can't be.
"Anybody can get onto the news, into the newspaper etc. and speak their mind, it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. The fish farm industry is out-numbered by these David Suziki/Sierra Club organizations, who as you all know, like to get into the news and cause a fuss whenever they can."
When I read this kind of crap the first thing that comes to mind is: "This must be a troll. Nobody could be so stupid."
But then I remember how many times I've read variations of this tripe before. It's another tactic.
For some reason all industries who face environmental questions cry the same old story. It's always how these huge international corporate sized environmental groups are causing so much trouble and have so much power and so much money and how can we, a poor little job-providing saviour of the coastal communities, if not practically a Mom and Pop group, possibly combat their anti-aquaculture lies and deceptions etc. etc. ad nauseum....after all they're so rich.
But then we're told how valuable the industry is to the economy of BC, second largest export or whatever it is and then you note that there are only about four big players in the industry and they are all large corporations with resources that vastly outnumber those of the environmental side and you say to yourself: "Hey. Who's BS-ing who here?".
And after all that, it appears all they are good for really is "to get in the news and cause a fuss whenever they can."
Gee, if that's all they do why is the industry so diligently fending them off?
Heck, a little "fuss" shouldn't be much of a problem.
Or is it because certain facts are damaging to the industry, even despite all the help DFO is handing them.......at taxpayers expense too, leave us not forget.
"A properly located and managed farm does not pose a threat to wild stocks, and like stated earlier in the post, is a form of enhancement as it helps take some pressure off of wild stocks. Just imagine how fished out the wild stocks would be without farming."
Salmon farms as a form of "enhancement" now is it?
It's enough to make a man cry.
And if you think it takes pressure off wild adult stocks, other than killing them as fry, you've not been paying attention.
By keeping the market flush with farm fish you drive the price down. When you drive the price down a commercial fisherman has to catch more fish to make the same money.
Catching more fish does not take the pressure off them.
It kills more of them.
Pretty fundamental.
I'm guessing you are young and naive or simply don't know any better.
Either that, or you're a pro-farming advocate who'll spout off any kind of crap trying to make a point.
Either way your post is garbage and I like to throw the garbage out where it belongs.
Nothing personal.
Take care