The other side of the fence.

[Englishman]

When you link us to a blog that's as biased in its writing as that one AND then expect us to believe the "conclusion" that closed containment keeps failing, you shouldn't be surprised that there a negative reaction. If instead you provided links to primary scientific peer-review literature generated that made the same point, you might catch our attention.

Seadna, you know as well as I do that Birdsnest NEVER reads or gives any credence to peer reviewed scientific articles. You, Agent Aqua and myself have provided endless links to hundreds of papers in previous threads on here that collectively prove the devastating totality of effects on the environment of open net pen fish feed lots. He ignores them all! He thinks he know more than all those scientists and researchers put together simply because he works on the fish feed lots. You know, just like the guys who feed hay to the cattle on feed lots know more about mammal biology and the natural ecosystems interactions than any number of animal biologists!!

And Birdnest, the reason closed containment systems are derided as "uneconomic" is because the true costs of your industry abusing the commons is "off-the-books". You do not pay for dumping all your antibiotics, dyes, viruses, lice and wastes into the ocean, nor for the downstream effects of all this. It is called "externalisation" of costs and is the huge flaw of any discussion you try to raise on how much more "economic" your industry is. You are passing costs onto others and future generations, so your arguments are facile. When the true costs of your industry are really counted it is the open net pen fish feed lots that are uneconomic!!

 

[GDW]

Birdsnest R&D is the cost of doing business. The R stands for research.

Nobody should ever expect a closed containment pen to generate a profit from its first batch of fish especially with the technology being so new. Pointing out that some have failed and shut down does not prove more research is not a good idea nor does it prove it could never work.

What is the point of this thread? Fish farmers are slamming their own brothers in the closed containment industry now?

In other news big oil says electric cars will never work and BC hydro says solar power is an inefficient money waster.

 

[stones93]

If there were no open water (cheaper) pens to compete with, contained on shore operations would generate far more profits. It is only because of the competition pressure from the environmentally dangerous fish farms that make it difficult for on shore farming. Your economic argument is invalid Birdsnest!

 

[Birdsnest]

Hi Englishman. I was expecting a longer post than that from you but all the same please show me the obvious devastation from salmon farms besides peer reviews that indicate "maybe". All farming has impacts on the environment,we all agree on this. But where is the supposed devastation you Speek of where the contents of your peer reviewed science has clearly had an effect on salmon pops? Of course you will reply that industry should prove it doesn't have an effect. That's where the issue resides if you ask me.
At a time where there are very positive forecasts for salmon returns I find it difficult to believe the issue is dire. Not even close.

 

[agentaqua]

At a time where there are very positive forecasts for salmon returns I find it difficult to believe the issue is dire. Not even close.

very positive forecasts for salmon returns? God turdsnest - please keep it to a topic you know something about.

 

[Birdsnest]

I imagine if we had 400 closed containment facility's in bc there would be a lot of opposition for many reasons.

The point of this thread is to present articles from the salmon farmers perspective which is what this section of SFBC is about. It's firsts topic listed as examples of topics for discussion is salmon farms. So here it is :the other side of the fence.

 

[Birdsnest]

very positive forecasts for salmon returns? God turdsnest - please keep it to a topic you know something about.

This is what I have been reading. I have not seen you down playing any of these topics in any of the others threads. Why now? I'm disappointed your not on the other threads on the same topic name calling on those who dare post such info.

 

[Birdsnest]

If there were no open water (cheaper) pens to compete with, contained on shore operations would generate far more profits. It is only because of the competition pressure from the environmentally dangerous fish farms that make it difficult for on shore farming. Your economic argument is invalid Birdsnest!

http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/the-blame-game-depressed-salmon-prices/

 

[rockdog]

Birdie, if you read all the links that Englishman, Seadna, Agent and others posted on the last go around, you wouldn't be asking for more links to proof. I honestly did not know there were so many papers and studies done on the open net pen topic. The little I knew before you and the kid started the last battle, quickly grew. If you read those articles and links and are still looking for proof, then it's totally pointless debating you. You just don't get it.....

 

[Birdsnest]

Birdie, if you read all the links that Englishman, Seadna, Agent and others posted on the last go around, you wouldn't be asking for more links to proof. I honestly did not know there were so many papers and studies done on the open net pen topic. The little I knew before you and the kid started the last battle, quickly grew. If you read those articles and links and are still looking for proof, then it's totally pointless debating you. You just don't get it.....

You are welcome to believe that what ever you wish about me. What nobody has done is proven any facts in my last links are wrong. And nobody has provided one real life case scenario where the peer reviewed papers claims apply. Not once. If the perceived devastation was eminent than you think we would have seen at least on single example over the last 30 years. Nobody seem to be able to do this. Of course there is an impact but it has to be shown to be greater than minimal and this has yet to be done.

 

[GDW]

http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/the-blame-game-depressed-salmon-prices/

This article says salmon farming or in this case salmon ranching has lead to low salmon prices due to over abundance. Exactly the point that was trying to be made.

Your just saying its not the open pens as much as the ranching which may be true but fact is salmon farming and ranching drops the price for everyone. your article agrees with this statement. Thanks for that.

 

[Birdsnest]

This article says salmon farming or in this case salmon ranching has lead to low salmon prices due to over abundance. Exactly the point that was trying to be made.

Your just saying its not the open pens as much as the ranching which may be true but fact is salmon farming and ranching drops the price for everyone. your article agrees with this statement. Thanks for that.

You slipped up and forgot to dismiss the source as biased. Lol

I think the article suggest that prices would not Chang much with the absence of salmon farms tho they do have an effect I do not believe it is the reason closed containment is failing.

 

[GDW]

It certainly has an effect but your missing the point the other guys are making.

Open pen farming is more profitable because you don't need to buy land, don't pay for water, don't pay to dump waste, don't pay property tax for the space the farm occupies etc. etc.

Basically your costs are paid for by the province or Feds giving you access to acres of ocean while closed containment has to cover all of the above costs plus the ones I missed out of their revenues. Have an answer to that? Your industry is subsidized and that is not fair for a closed containment facility to have to compete with an industry that is subsidized.

The government should give closed containment free land, free water, next to free power, free waste disposal etc. etc. to even out the benefits an open pen farm has.

 

[Birdsnest]

Basically your costs are paid for by the province or Feds giving you access to acres of ocean while close containment has to cover all of the above costs plus the ones I missed out of their revenues. Have an answer to that? Your industry is subsidized and that is not fair for a closed containment facility to have to compete with an industry that is subsidized.

Your point in valid. It's much like commercial fishing and ocean ranching. They don't pay squat. Way less ei in salmon farming. Probably a lot of cow farmers getting the same or similar. Not much EI in salmon farming. Good potential for a tax grab indeed. I suspect shellfish under the same scrutiny and they are using more space than salmon farms. Go tell them the same and see how that goes.

 

[rockdog]

"My experience in business is that you first acquire the funds to produce a product to sell and then with the money retained from those sales the process is repeated. If you can do this over and over continually your golden. If you run out of loans, grant, trust fund money you fail. This failure keeps reoccurring to closed containment salmon culture."

This also keeps reoccurring with OpenNet pens. Should we talk about the millions of dollars the taxpayers give you guys?

 

[Birdsnest]

QUOTE=rockdog;344243]"My experience in business is that you first acquire the funds to produce a product to sell and then with the money retained from those sales the process is repeated. If you can do this over and over continually your golden. If you run out of loans, grant, trust fund money you fail. This failure keeps reoccurring to closed containment salmon culture."

This also keeps reoccurring with OpenNet pens. Should we talk about the millions of dollars the taxpayers give you guys?[/QUOTE]


I guess it would be a valid discussion if fish farm companies were folding right left and center like closed containment companies keep doing. The funds given by government are subject to question but those funds did not start salmon farming. They did not expand salmon farming. And salmon farming does not rely on on such funding to survive. The same can't be said for closed containment.

 

[stones93]

With you logic Birdsnest, as soon as it snows you say it disproves global warming! Your philosophy that "it hasn't happened yet, so don't worry about it" is alarming, self serving and very dangerous. The east coast fisheries and sustainability were argued until it was too late. MY VIEW IS, do the science FIRST and then proceed, yours appears to be "proceed until SCIENCE HAS PROVEN ME WRONG" I think that is a disgraceful way to treat mother earth! (I have heard your opinion, this is mine)

You are welcome to believe that what ever you wish about me. What nobody has done is proven any facts in my last links are wrong. And nobody has provided one real life case scenario where the peer reviewed papers claims apply. Not once. If the perceived devastation was eminent than you think we would have seen at least on single example over the last 30 years. Nobody seem to be able to do this. Of course there is an impact but it has to be shown to be greater than minimal and this has yet to be done.

 

[Birdsnest]

With you logic Birdsnest, as soon as it snows you say it disproves global warming! Your philosophy that "it hasn't happened yet, so don't worry about it" is alarming, self serving and very dangerous. The east coast fisheries and sustainability were argued until it was too late. MY VIEW IS, do the science FIRST and then proceed, yours appears to be "proceed until SCIENCE HAS PROVEN ME WRONG" I think that is a disgraceful way to treat mother earth! (I have heard your opinion, this is mine)

It was not mine nor anyone's idea to start salmon farming without research. It has happened and while it may not be the correct process almost 40 years has gone by where the is not a single incident of devastation, as suggested by Englishman, that can be accociated to a single peer reviewed paper that suggest the possibility. I understand that it is difficult to isolate such an event but the only enviromental devastation to date comes from pear reviewed papers that have never been related to a real world scenario. They are hypothesis derived through science. They are not facts.

 

[Sangstercraft]

It was not mine nor anyone's idea to start salmon farming without research. It has happened and while it may not be the correct process almost 40 years has gone by where the is not a single incident of devastation, as suggested by Englishman, that can be accociated to a single peer reviewed paper that suggest the possibility. I understand that it is difficult to isolate such an event but the only enviromental devastation to date comes from pear reviewed papers that have never been related to a real world scenario. They are hypothesis derived through science. They are not facts.

Birdsnest - read DC Reid's article below, and the rest of you - share it on your social media pages, and tell nancy.raine@sen.parl.gc.ca that you're not happy with her decisions.


http://commonsensecanadian.ca/first...lternative-open-net-fish-farms/#comment-70676

 

[fogged in]

Birdsnest,
If you were half as smart as you seem to think you are, you would give up on this site.
You are not likely to find any supporters here, other than those who have something personal to gain from fish farms.
Are you the boss? If not, the boss should tell you to tend to your stink holes and stop encouraging the opposition to fight even harder against your disease riddled industry.
Oh by the way, an upper end restaurant, whose owner I know, told me just recently that they occasionally receive in their order an Atlantic Salmon that has flesh so soft they have to through it away!
Can you explain that problem to me?