Englishman
Well-Known Member
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!!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.
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!!