What can WE do to help save the salmon?

[fogged in]

My experience with GLG is anything he personally disagrees with, he attacks and it is not unusual for him to ignore common courtesy.
According to this site, he posts on average 4 or 5 posts per week, 52 weeks a year, so he must be very qualified BUT we all have our opinions and are entitled to share them and I think you make some good points.
I will look forward to GLG's responses to your request.
Good on you "absolon"

 

[Cuba Libre]

Well--- if you have been on this board for a while, you will know MY background. And guess what? I fully support what GLG has said, even more so when the trolls come out to feed.

 

[fogged in]

You guys miss the point...it’s not about how qualified you are or how long you have been a member of this site.... it’s about tolerating other people’s opinions, even if you disagree with them....something some members on this site seem to lose touch with....get my point??

 

[Charlie]

Now that I've laid out some of my background, how about you lay out yours and show me why you are qualified to post on the subject.

Be carefull what you wish! I am very "qualified" to post on "the" or "this" subject!.... Let's GO!

 

[Mighty Sylvan]

As far as what sports fishermen can do to assist the salmon, I would suggest that there are a multitude of areas that would contribute including spawning habitat restoration, prevention of further habitat and environmental degradation, improvement of watershed management, reduction of both commercial and sport harvest, eliminating hatchery constriction of the genetic library by returning to a model based on natural selection and reproduction and reducing the pollution in rivers and oceans. There are a multitude of factors that we know with certainty affect the survival and every one of them needs to be addressed. Inevitably, the driving force behind every one of the destructive factors is money and someone's attempt to get more of it. Fishermen should be active in combating every attempt to push development or increase harvest that will impact on the environment and conditions that are necessary for the survival of the fish. Fishermen also need to push for remediation of all of those things that have been damaged so that conditions for success are improved and for more research into the open ocean "black box" that appears to be swallowing our fish.

This is very constructive. Who or what organization could lead a group like sport fisherman to start making a positive environmental impact.

 

[Foxsea]

This is very constructive. Who or what organization could lead a group like sport fisherman to start making a positive environmental impact.

Agreed - very constructive stuff. Absolon - I may have misjudged your motive here and if that is the case I apologise. Your initial comment was unduly critical of a person most here hold in very high regard. ... and admittedly there was some unpleasant digression, dare I say, on both sides. Onward.

The point needs to be made that the burden of proof rests with the fish farms and with Marine Harvest as a responsible corporate citizen, to prove they do no harm to salmon or the marine environment. The tactic they have embraced has been to expect that we must prove their practises actually do cause harm. The clear probability for the informed is that they do: releasing effluent, drug residue, viral contaminents and propogating sea lice, to name a few. As you mention, the salmon face many other challenges as well so I would think it prudent to err on the side of caution.

Many of the remedies you propose have long been practised by sport fishermen: restoration of spawning habitat, for example. The volunteer efforts directed to management of watersheds has been has been frustrated by DFO policy: a case in point is the recent destruction of a flow control valve on the Bill James Dam in Sooke (ref. Tom Davis; Boat Journal; April 2012) The open ocean is another gauntlet the salmon have traditionally been able to survive, but with oceanic acidification, warmer ocean temperatures and now the strong evidence they may also bn challenged with viral attack, the situation for them is certainly dire.

All the more reason for us to act in unity and decisively on the many fronts presented us and salmon. We have, more or less, reached a consensus here, that we will be supporting the continuing work of Dr. Morton, along with other organizations with missions directed toward salmon and habitat conservation. Many members on this forum have expressed their willingness to make substantial, personal concessions toward the same end. I and some others here are no longer interested in endless debate or waiting until we have conclusive, scientific evidence of harm, if there indeed is such an elusive and uncontestable thing.

Many feel there is a window of opportunity for positive action that must be fully embraced - now. In terms of risk/reward, the risk for salmon is extinction. The potential reward for our positive action is a sustainable and hopefully abundant fishery resource and all the benefits that accrue because of it. The risk for the fish farm industry is that they forego some short-term profit, in exchange for extending their access to a community resource - our coastal ocean; if they can agree to move toward closed containment, doing no further harm.

After attending the Rally in Victoria (pics posted on another thread) there appears to be a developing groundswell that includes a broad constituency. Canadian citizens appear ready to resist the irresponsible actions of both the elected but unaccountable politicians and the corporations that have been provided the priviledge of operating within our borders.

 

[absolon]

Be carefull what you wish! I am very "qualified" to post on "the" or "this" subject!.... Let's GO!

OK Charlie, I'll bite. What are your qualifications? Maybe that will encourage my other new friend to post his.

 

[lorneparker1]

http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...s+foundation+helped+create/6460384/story.html

I am defintely not a Suzuki fan. However its interesting to see him leave his own foundation to speak out against the government.

 

[absolon]

Agreed - very constructive stuff. Absolon - I may have misjudged your motive here and if that is the case I apologise. Your initial comment was unduly critical of a person most here hold in very high regard. ... and admittedly there was some unpleasant digression, dare I say, on both sides. Onward.

The point needs to be made that the burden of proof rests with the fish farms and with Marine Harvest as a responsible corporate citizen, to prove they do no harm to salmon or the marine environment. The tactic they have embraced has been to expect that we must prove their practises actually do cause harm. The clear probability for the informed is that they do: releasing effluent, drug residue, viral contaminents and propogating sea lice, to name a few. As you mention, the salmon face many other challenges as well so I would think it prudent to err on the side of caution.

Many of the remedies you propose have long been practised by sport fishermen: restoration of spawning habitat, for example. The volunteer efforts directed to management of watersheds has been has been frustrated by DFO policy: a case in point is the recent destruction of a flow control valve on the Bill James Dam in Sooke (ref. Tom Davis; Boat Journal; April 2012) The open ocean is another gauntlet the salmon have traditionally been able to survive, but with oceanic acidification, warmer ocean temperatures and now the strong evidence they may also bn challenged with viral attack, the situation for them is certainly dire.

All the more reason for us to act in unity and decisively on the many fronts presented us and salmon. We have, more or less, reached a consensus here, that we will be supporting the continuing work of Dr. Morton, along with other organizations with missions directed toward salmon and habitat conservation. Many members on this forum have expressed their willingness to make substantial, personal concessions toward the same end. I and some others here are no longer interested in endless debate or waiting until we have conclusive, scientific evidence of harm, if there indeed is such an elusive and uncontestable thing.

Many feel there is a window of opportunity for positive action that must be fully embraced - now. In terms of risk/reward, the risk for salmon is extinction. The potential reward for our positive action is a sustainable and hopefully abundant fishery resource and all the benefits that accrue because of it. The risk for the fish farm industry is that they forego some short-term profit, in exchange for extending their access to a community resource - our coastal ocean; if they can agree to move toward closed containment, doing no further harm.

After attending the Rally in Victoria (pics posted on another thread) there appears to be a developing groundswell that includes a broad constituency. Canadian citizens appear ready to resist the irresponsible actions of both the elected but unaccountable politicians and the corporations that have been provided the priviledge of operating within our borders.

I appreciate the gesture and certainly hold no hard feelings but I've got a couple of comments. If you go back to post #60 where I entered the discussion, it will be very plain that I made no insult to Ms. Morton in the very relevant question that I posed. Post #61 contains your response.....

Absolon: you are apparently new here and perhaps are not yet aware that we do not suffer trolls gladly.
We are working hard in our attempt to preserve and enhance wild salmon stocks, as is Dr. Morton. You are not at all helpful in this endeavour being in retrograde, as you seem to be. You a Norwegian salmon farmer, by chance?
Get on board and stay, go away or Holmes will get you with the Troll Spray. Have a good day!

....which clearly set the tone of the discussion. You may find this approach to dealing with dissenting views appropriate and you may find that it successfully intimidates some people into silence but you're also going to find that it locks you in to working with only the information already in your possession and more often than not, that isn't enough, and that will lock you into bad choices and bad decisions.

Further, I don't give a rat's butt what the group decision about supporting Ms. Morton has been. I think for myself and support what I believe to be correct. I'll happily listen to what you have to say, but the decision about what I support is and always will be mine. Equally, you are free to approach it in what ever manner you choose without interference from me. You don't need to listen to or consider anything I offer, but bite me about my approach and I'm going to bite you back. That being said, perhaps we can leave this behind in the dust. Perhaps Absalam can also go back on the shelf too.

 

[absolon]

This is very constructive. Who or what organization could lead a group like sport fisherman to start making a positive environmental impact.

Sylvan, I personally think that the initiative rests with the individual rather than a group who has a preset agenda. There are lots of avenues to get involved: the enhancement societies, advocacy groups, complaints to your elected representatives, stream and river work parties, monitoring and reporting effects of developments, using your votes to elect someone who will look after the environment and the fish instead of spending it on someone who promises you won't have to register your rifle any more, and most important of all, educating yourself about the biology of fish and the intricacies of ecosystems so you can acquire or improve your real understanding of what is going on in them and what are real problems. The last will make you far less dependent on having someone else interpret reality for you and set goals for you and will make you much more aware of the real issues. Being involved will get you in contact with others who are involved and will provide as many opportunities to contribute as you could possibly want. It starts with the individual and the choices you make.

 

[Englishman]

It's not what I need to see. I don't have the authority to permit or prohibit the farms.

Conclusive science that doesn't require interpretation, that clearly demonstrates a causal link and for which it can be established that good scientific procedure in obtaining that science was followed would go a long way towards convincing the appropriate authorities that the farms are causing harm. Inflammatory rhetoric, unsubstantiated accusations, ad hoc PR campaigns, nuisance legal challenges, and the almost religious certainty that everyone else has it completely wrong and the antis have it completely right even in the absence of those three critical factors I mentioned aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Calling everyone and anyone who disagree with them liars and corrupt and in the pay of the farms isn't a successful technique to get people to take you seriously.

Oh for Pete’s sake Absolom, you are speaking nonsense. As though the whole argument of the anti’s is based on nothing but rhetoric, and some sort of religious fervour. I will tell you what is misplaced religious fervour in a moment, and who perpetrates it. Meanwhile have you read ANY of this http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/
There is a huge amount of scientific information and links and references to many, many other scientific papers and sources right there! Have you read ANY of them? The weight of evidences will never be 100% because you cannot set up a control experiment and change one variable at a time, as you can with the physical sciences and a lab experiment. We have no duplicate environment; no duplicate earth! So how much certainty do you want? 95%, 99%, 99.99%?
But more to the point, it should not be this way round. We only have one home, one earth, and so the fish feed lot owners should be proving that they do NOT do any harm before they are allowed anywhere near the ocean. This is the precautionary principle. To conduct this far reaching “experiment” on the only ocean habitat and environment we have is actually a crazy gamble motivated only by greed.
And on the contrary to your statement the religious fervour comes from the other side. The side that believes economics “trumps” the environment; the fundamentalist world view that man should “rule the earth and have dominion over all the creatures”. There is also a fundamentalist arrogance that everything can be “controlled”. Too many lice? We’ll just zap them with chemicals; ignoring the simple biology that blanket use of pesticides creates resistance. Too many viruses? We’ll just use anti-biotics and all will be well; totally ignoring evolution 101 that means these viruses will mutate. On and on it goes because the wild salmon advocates use biological, scientific, and ecological arguments and fish feed lot pros simply use economics and business related arguments which should have no relevance in the discussion and because they convince themselves they can control all ill-effects. Such gigantic hubris!!

The anti farm movement has reached a point where it has a very large credibility gap. There have been so many instances of frantic declarations that the sky is falling because of the farms that haven't actually resulted in the sky falling, so many attacks on the integrity, professionalism and intelligence of the scientists and regulators who are actually doing the work on this and the farmers who are trying their best to keep their stocks and the environment they live in healthy and such an unwillingness to even consider other factors that clearly have a negative effect on the wild stocks that I think many, including the regulators, just tune it out. The approach has really had a negative effect on the debate by attempting to substitute emotional argument for rational discussion and it has created a poisoned atmosphere where constructive collaboration isn't possible anymore.

Disagree. The continued unearthing of scientific evidence, and the testimony heard in the Cohen Commission is closing the credibility gap. Which is probably why you and other in the pro camp are worried. On the contrary there are few attacks on the scientists working for the regulators. Professionals such as DFO scientist Dr. Kristi Miller are held in high regard and her work has revealed much. It would have revealed a lot more if she was fully supported by the administrators and regulatory decision makers. Our ire is aimed at those who would muzzle their own scientists; at those who would abrogate their responsibility to protect the wild fish because they are promoting fish feed lots as part of some religious belief in “aquaculture”. Our ire is aimed at those who, contrary to any sense of caution and risk management, authorised the importation of salmon eggs from non-approved sources, simply because they were worried about a challenge from the WTA. Yes, our politicians and regulatory agencies are captured by, and subservient to economic forces and blocs, and are unable to do their job safeguarding wild salmon or the environment. No wonder we are so frustrated!!
Finally your transparent urge for collaboration is the same tactic as the forest companies carry out when some of the old growth battles occur. It is called “talk and log” because that is what it is all about. No NO! We must get the fish feed lots out of the ocean now. Only then can we sit down and do some “collaboration”.

How do we get beyond that?...... I don't know but I suggest that the antis need to sit down, think through what they are trying to accomplish and work out a pragmatic strategy to do that. What they are doing now isn't working.

Again, the approach underway IS working and will work. The scientific consensus will eventually be overwhelming, just as it is for global warming. Or do you believe that we are not 100% sure on that issue yet and so everything is OK??

 

[Mighty Sylvan]

Sylvan, I personally think that the initiative rests with the individual rather than a group who has a preset agenda. There are lots of avenues to get involved: the enhancement societies, advocacy groups, complaints to your elected representatives, stream and river work parties, monitoring and reporting effects of developments, using your votes to elect someone who will look after the environment and the fish instead of spending it on someone who promises you won't have to register your rifle any more, and most important of all, educating yourself about the biology of fish and the intricacies of ecosystems so you can acquire or improve your real understanding of what is going on in them and what are real problems. The last will make you far less dependent on having someone else interpret reality for you and set goals for you and will make you much more aware of the real issues. Being involved will get you in contact with others who are involved and will provide as many opportunities to contribute as you could possibly want. It starts with the individual and the choices you make.

I agree that each of us can do more. But, Dr. Morton and the others are not suggesting that fish farming should not exist but just simply being moved to land based farms. This seems like a very reasonable request. It is a goal that I'm willing to support and I think I represent the general public. As suggested previously, it would be a good start.

 

[Charlie]

Can I recap here? Well, I going to anyway and it even has to be in three parts!

I've wondered about this ever since you worked so hard to take salmon farms away from provincial control and insisted DFO must be responsible. I have never been able to find an explanation for why you did so. Perhaps you could explain now, particularly in light of the quoted statement?

Number 1... IMHO first post was a valid question!

Lippy, small font aside, why would I pretend to be someone else?

No need to circle the wagons; it was a polite and honest question on a subject that has puzzled me for some time.

Number 2... I can agree with that as that is still the first post question!

I suspect I'm not the only one who would like to hear the reply.

Number 3... Yep, I have already agreed, now are you pushing for an answer - why?

Nothing like a good conversation among adults.................

Number 4

It's a minor point but it's actually "you're a troll". Remember, god is in the details......

Number 5... why bring “God” into this, and BTW... you should capitalize his name if you are going to relate to him?

Couple of points.

First, my question doesn't arise from idle curiosity. It is a result of quite active and thoughtful curiosity.

Second, my question to Ms. Morton is in this thread because the comment I'm questioning was made by Ms. Morton in this thread. It seems quite reasonable to me that this is the appropriate place to present it. There don't [should be doesn’t] seem to be any complaints about the sidetrack to "sockeyefry" and what he looks like. My question is certainly much closer to the subject than that.

Third, my question was addressed to Ms. Morton and not any of my new-found friends because it is her answer that I would like to hear, not speculation on what her motivation might have been by folks who in spite of their certainty to the contrary, really don't have a clue what she was thinking.

What would really be constructive and informative outcome is a response from Ms. Morton elucidating her reasons for her actions. What isn't a constructive and informative outcome is a bunch of you deciding to sidetrack the discussion and turn this into a personal attack. I've followed some of the discussions here and have a pretty good idea of what to expect from you. Consequently, I'm not offended. I am, however, hoping Ms. Morton is tired of pursuing the low hanging fruit and will respond to someone who has given the matter a little more informed consideration.

Number 6... Now, I see starting your attack on Dr Morton? Very subtle as it might be, it is still attacking her credibility... and Dr. Alexandra Morton’s still gave a respectful response:

I would LOVE to do this!

Is there some reason why you can't answer my question here?

Number 7... and SHE answered your question!

Thanks for your response.

What you appear to be saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the pressure to transfer responsibility from the province to DFO was a roadblock tactic; an attempt to derail a process that was underway at the time rather than an action for which you had thought through the likely consequences?

Number 8... and “you” are continuing the attack, aren’t you?

Congratulations on picking off the "Miller's Tale" reference though I suspect that Google had the largest role in that given your reliance on someone else's analysis from Cole's Notes. Somehow, that doesn't come as much of a surprise, and of course, there is much more going on in the tale of Absolon and Allison than Cole's presents and apparently yourself understands.

I use that username on all the forums I participate in and have for many years as a constant reminder to myself that nothing is ever quite what it seems. The "determined" aspect Cole's refers to is quite applicable but that is coincidental and not my motivation. I'm wondering if you appreciate the concept that insults don't make good arguments for or against anything and that the consistent reliance on them reflects your own shortcomings much more than those of anyone else.

Number 9... “Miller’s Tale”? That would be no “Tale” as Miller’s work is well documented on and off “Google”!

I'll not get into the accuracy of your characterization of the situation; such discussions on this forum invariably lose their track and turn into slanging matches that serve no other constructive purpose than allowing tribalistic shallow thinkers to vent their very venomous spleens. I will suggest that it seems to me to be a very incongruous action to first force the issue in the courts and transfer responsibility for salmon farms to the DFO and then complain bitterly about how the DFO is managing the farms and suggest that only the provincial government can save the salmon.

When farming was provincially controlled, the regulatory authority was local and much more susceptible to local political pressure from voters. Now that it is federal, it is nearly immune from that pressure because it is distant and influenced to a considerably larger degree by voters who are not at all connected to the issue and who have no stake in it than it is by those who are residents in the province and have a substantial stake in the outcome. The battle to eliminate sea farms will never be won based on science simply because the science is not conclusive in spite of the claims to the contrary. While the populist campaign may attract a few supporters, they have no effect on the validity of the science and I suspect serve to irritate the situation more than resolve it. The only way to win it is through political pressure and the Harper government's recent actions are a clear illustration how effective at the federal level that is.

In my view, it was a strategic error of the first magnitude to force the issue if the antis wanted to have a chance at succeeding. I've been very curious why the decision was taken. Ms. Morton was kind enough to explain and satisfy my curiosity (assuming I understand correctly what she has responded with). While I view it as such, I have no intention of arguing about it or heaping criticism on her for doing so; it was her choice to make as are the consequences of that choice.

Number 10... well let’s just say “Ms Morton” doesn’t have to explain ANYTHING to “YOU”! Let me reiterate.... her supporters YES - YOU “NO”!

Actually, I'm a tradesman too. I've had a small contract woodworking business for getting close to 20 yrs now so I see a lot of jobsites in the course of my work too. My experience has been that there are intelligent, thoughtful folks to be found on those sites as well as the typical quota of those who are not so much. No shortage of the macho dudes in the "band of brothers" who try to turn every discussion into a dominance contest too.

I'm not sure why my views are relevant to the question I asked. It's pretty obvious that there are some substantial prejudices around here and if I were to announce membership in the pro-farm group, those prejudices would immediately get what I have to say ignored. If I were to claim I was an anti, they would still be ignored because I take a different approach to the subject than that group. As it is, I'd wager there is already a substantial group that do that just because I'm not an obsequious applicant for membership to the particular group here that considers their personal opinions on this subject to be the final truth. Not claiming allegiance means people have to at least think about my posts even if its only to decide which side of the issue I'm on.

I will tell you that I am well-informed on the subject; there are a few here who recognize me that will confirm that even if they don't share my perspective on it.

Number 11... I would suggest you start reading ALL the studies and not just those that are bias to your way of thinking?

Fair enough; we are all entitled to an opinion. On this subject, the crux of the matter boils down to what the science tells us and there seem to be conflicting views. My point was that, pragmatically speaking, nothing will change until there is conclusive scientific evidence, and by that, I don't mean something that someone interprets to be conclusive. That isn't going to be forthcoming anytime soon and the ongoing continued existence of the farms under those circumstances cements their perpetual existence. Agree with the presence of politics or not, at this point it will be the deciding factor be it the attempts at populist politics practiced by the antis or the wait and see politics practiced by the pros. If the antis intend to play on the gamefield of populist politics, and it is clear that is and always has been the strategy, they will need to leverage voters to be able to apply maximum pressure for change. Forcing the regulatory responsibility to the federal level has severely diminished the ability to gain that leverage to influence policy and greatly reduces the potential for attaining more influence to accomplish the anti's desired ends. It's effectively cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Number 12... I would suggest taking all the “conflicting” (bias) studies out and start looking at the “FACTS”! How about this? We leave the “voters” out and just ask the “courts” to decide?

 

[Charlie]

It's not what I need to see. I don't have the authority to permit or prohibit the farms.

Conclusive science that doesn't require interpretation, that clearly demonstrates a causal link and for which it can be established that good scientific procedure in obtaining that science was followed would go a long way towards convincing the appropriate authorities that the farms are causing harm. Inflammatory rhetoric, unsubstantiated accusations, ad hoc PR campaigns, nuisance legal challenges, and the almost religious certainty that everyone else has it completely wrong and the antis have it completely right even in the absence of those three critical factors I mentioned aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Calling everyone and anyone who disagree with them liars and corrupt and in the pay of the farms isn't a successful technique to get people to take you seriously.

The anti farm movement has reached a point where it has a very large credibility gap. There have been so many instances of frantic declarations that the sky is falling because of the farms that haven't actually resulted in the sky falling, so many attacks on the integrity, professionalism and intelligence of the scientists and regulators who are actually doing the work on this and the farmers who are trying their best to keep their stocks and the environment they live in healthy and such an unwillingness to even consider other factors that clearly have a negative effect on the wild stocks that I think many, including the regulators, just tune it out. The approach has really had a negative effect on the debate by attempting to substitute emotional argument for rational discussion and it has created a poisoned atmosphere where constructive collaboration isn't possible anymore.

How do we get beyond that?...... I don't know but I suggest that the antis need to sit down, think through what they are trying to accomplish and work out a pragmatic strategy to do that. What they are doing now isn't working.

Number 13... Well when it comes “credibility” I’d say the government of Canada and the “fish farms” would be the ones lacking there. “How do we get beyond that?” Easy, just get those “fish farms” out of the water on to land – where they belong!

That is funny on several levels.

Number 14

Look left, look way left.

Number 15

You guys are doing a great job of proving my point about the current irrelevance of the antis.

Lots of loud grunting, chest beating, mock charges and displaying of teeth. Juvenile baboons go through the same sort of rituals when they are establishing the dominance hierarchy in the troop.

By the way foxsea, how does a guy with less than two months at the forum under his belt get the job of bouncer. Your dad own the place?

Number 16... how does someone with 23 posts think they can come on here and spread their BS?

Sylvan, I haven't sidetracked the discussion. I merely took advantage of a rare opportunity to pose a simple question to Ms. Morton directly, one she has answered. The rest of my participation has been either responses to those who took affront to my doing so, most of whom chose to do so with personal comments, or explanations of the reasons for doing so to those who have taken an adult approach and asked questions instead of throwing insults. I'm not forcing the discussion to remain on this particular topic.

As far as what sports fishermen can do to assist the salmon, I would suggest that there are a multitude of areas that would contribute including spawning habitat restoration, prevention of further habitat and environmental degradation, improvement of watershed management, reduction of both commercial and sport harvest, eliminating hatchery constriction of the genetic library by returning to a model based on natural selection and reproduction and reducing the pollution in rivers and oceans. There are a multitude of factors that we know with certainty affect the survival and every one of them needs to be addressed. Inevitably, the driving force behind every one of the destructive factors is money and someone's attempt to get more of it. Fishermen should be active in combating every attempt to push development or increase harvest that will impact on the environment and conditions that are necessary for the survival of the fish. Fishermen also need to push for remediation of all of those things that have been damaged so that conditions for success are improved and for more research into the open ocean "black box" that appears to be swallowing our fish.

The concentration of the focus on salmon farms does a great disservice to all those other things that urgently need attention and is by far the largest negative impact of the anti-farm lobby.

Number 17... Why? Why? Why? Why do anything at ALL? Let’s just leave all the “fish farms” in the migration routes and set back and wait. It is quite clear if we do that in a few years there won’t be any more wild salmon!

Let me get this straight one last time. It is not my industry: I build cabinets, doors and furniture and have been doing that for nearly 20 years.

Let me also remind you that I have specifically stated that I am not going to get involved in any discussions of specific evidence because of the inevitable resulting degeneration of the discussion into pissing contests that will really divert the subject of this thread, something that I have already been accused of numerous times. What I will say in response is that Dr. Miller, in her testimony at the Cohen hearings, suggested that it was very likely that ISAv has been present in our waters since before the first importation of Atlantic Salmon eggs. Beyond that, I'm not going to argue the case.

Number 18... YOU need to go back and do some more research! First, are you talking ISA or ISAv? Secondly, are you talking about the European or the North American “strain” of ISA or ISAv?

The first step to addressing those issues is to address them instead of focusing exclusively on farms as the problem. Greenpeace was quite successful with getting a change in logging practices by developing a realistic strategy and implementing it. The focus has since shifted away from forestry practices and the issues are again starting to appear because the focus has been shifted away. Farms may be part of the problem, but until the anti-farm lobby has earned a seat at the table by acting responsibly and collaboratively with the farm industry and the regulators, by listening as well as lecturing, they aren't going to have influence or input. I'll repeat it again. The lobby needs to rethink their strategy; the current one has little benefit and large costs to the fish.

Number 19... So, what YOU are suggesting is since the “anti-farm lobby” hasn’t earned a “seat at the table” “I’ll repeat it again” “little benefit and large costs to the fish”! In other words, since no one is listening to the “anti-farm lobby” ALL the wild fish are going to DIE!

Now that I've laid out some of my background, how about you lay out yours and show me why you are qualified to post on the subject.

Number 20... So, you are a woodworker, working for the “fish farms”!

OK Charlie, I'll bite. What are your qualifications? Maybe that will encourage my other new friend to post his.

Number 21... I’ll get back to this one!

I appreciate the gesture and certainly hold no hard feelings but I've got a couple of comments. If you go back to post #60 where I entered the discussion, it will be very plain that I made no insult to Ms. Morton in the very relevant question that I posed. Post #61 contains your response.....

....which clearly set the tone of the discussion. You may find this approach to dealing with dissenting views appropriate and you may find that it successfully intimidates some people into silence but you're also going to find that it locks you in to working with only the information already in your possession and more often than not, that isn't enough, and that will lock you into bad choices and bad decisions.

Further, I don't give a rat's butt what the group decision about supporting Ms. Morton has been. I think for myself and support what I believe to be correct. I'll happily listen to what you have to say, but the decision about what I support is and always will be mine. Equally, you are free to approach it in what ever manner you choose without interference from me. You don't need to listen to or consider anything I offer, but bite me about my approach and I'm going to bite you back. That being said, perhaps we can leave this behind in the dust. Perhaps Absalam can also go back on the shelf too.

Number 22

 

[Charlie]

Sylvan, I personally think that the initiative rests with the individual rather than a group who has a preset agenda. There are lots of avenues to get involved: the enhancement societies, advocacy groups, complaints to your elected representatives, stream and river work parties, monitoring and reporting effects of developments, using your votes to elect someone who will look after the environment and the fish instead of spending it on someone who promises you won't have to register your rifle any more, and most important of all, educating yourself about the biology of fish and the intricacies of ecosystems so you can acquire or improve your real understanding of what is going on in them and what are real problems. The last will make you far less dependent on having someone else interpret reality for you and set goals for you and will make you much more aware of the real issues. Being involved will get you in contact with others who are involved and will provide as many opportunities to contribute as you could possibly want. It starts with the individual and the choices you make.

Number 23... Well, after 23 posts you finally said something I will agree in part with? I suggest you also take your own advice?

let’s go back to Number 21

"... Maybe that will encourage my other new friend to post his.

Okay, I'll bite also! Who might your "my other new friend to post his" be? I sure hope your "other new friend" happens to be one by the name "IAN ROBERTS"... as I will "GLADLY" post all correspondence I have had with him in the past. “Personally” I would love to tear anything and everything he has to say to pieces on a “PUBLIC” forum and provide ALL my “INDEPENDENT” references, documents, and studies – BRING IT ON! I love a good debate!!!

 

[absolon]

Englishman, I have read Morton's contributions to the debate and much of her suggested reading list. I've gone considerably beyond it as well and also into considerable detail on the background to the claims of the antis. I'm not dependent on a single source for my information nor do I look at the situation from only one side. My own beliefs aren't unconsidered, arrived at through ignorance nor through the interpretations of someone else and they don't ignore scientific principles or the health of the environment. From that perspective, I would suggest that what I have put forward is not nonsense at all. Nor do I agree with your characterization of the anti lobby, their approach and their credibility. I would suggest that your view from inside that bubble distorts your perception of it.

For all your grand generalizations and noble principles, the issue comes down to the practical realities and what they tell us. Practical reality number one is that right or wrong,the farms are never, ever going to come out of the water. Closed containment is not a viable option and if you believe it is, I've got some Agrimarine and some Hagensborg shares to sell you. The industry is just too well established and contributes too much to the province and the compensation legally due if the government shut them down based on the kind of evidence you suggest is sufficient is prohibitive.

Practical realty number two is that for all those scientific papers you mention, there isn't a smoking gun with the industries fingerprints on it. Many of you claim there is proof because you have been told there is proof, but there very simply isn't. You throw around probabilities of 95 and 99% but that is extremely misleading. There is no evidence out there that approaches anywhere near that kind of certainty; for the kind of conclusions you are trying to draw and the evidence available to base them on you could halve that and be much more accurate if not still a little high. There are also innumerable papers that arrive at different and contradictory conclusions. Your's aren't right simply because you say they are; that is where the quasi-religious component comes in. There is evidence the industry does have negative effects and that it needs to be tightly and proactively managed and controlled but there isn't anything beyond opinion that links the farms to the long term ongoing demise of the salmon that started in the 60s.

Practical reality number three is that there are many other destructive influences on the stocks, ourselves and our predations on them with hooks included. Shutting down the farms won't make a whit of difference if all of those other sources of harm to the fish aren't dealt with. Using the industry as a whipping boy and ignoring the other problems ensures the killing off of the last fish. In spite of their pledge to "save the salmon" the antis never go after the commercial or sport fishing industries for the damage they do to the stocks because the commies and the sporties are allies in the battle against the farms. The PR battle the anti lobby wages makes great filler for the media even if it doesn't always make logical sense and even if it doesn't always stop at the boundaries of the truth; that has the effect of diverting time and energy and public interest away from all the other issues that are proven killers of the salmon and they urgently need to be addressed.

Practical reality number four is that as long as the antis ignore the first three practical realities and march off to battle, never to compromise on their idealism or their unrealistic goals, they will never make any headway in their uncompromising effort to eliminate the farms. That is an unattainable goal and investing all of their efforts pursuing it simply alienates them from the realists who, like it or not, are the ones who make the final decisions. That alienation eliminates any positive influence they might have on the ongoing management of farms. It may well be talk and log, but talk and log is a damn sight more productive than just log. Some result is better than no result and when you can't get everything you want, you're far better settling for what you can get than standing on your noble principles and getting nothing.

But of course, if standing uncompromisingly on your idealistic principles is what you must do, fill your boots.

 

[-steelhead-]

"I personally think that the initiative rests with the individual rather than a group who has a preset agenda"

Since when has there ever been any major change for good without a group with a 'preset agenda'? especially against government policy? Absolon, you are briliant, but take us for fools. It seems as though you would like to break up a group with a 'preset agenda' to achieve perhaps your agenda?

Alexadra Morton probably isn't as smart, educated or naturally silver tongued as Absolon, hell 99% of us aren't, but I trust her. I don't trust Absolon, he claims not to be pro or anti fish farms. Any advice given by somebody speaking on this thread, that won't even take a stand one way of the other, can't be trusted.

~ Ian

 

[absolon]

LOL! Charlie, that's quite a piece of work and from the sounds of it, so are you.

My new friend would be glg or whatever his name was who suggested I should stick to my area of expertise. You might remember that I asked him to lay out his background for me. That's when you chimed in, hackles bristling. Obviously the kettle boiled. LOL! Who is Ian Roberts?

I thought you offered to explain your background when you chimed in? It was nice of you to recap my posts and give me your opinion on them but I'm not sure what your point is or why I should care if you agree with me.

PS. you remind me a lot of a guy that used to post on FishBC who went by the handle "Dangler". Anyone remember him or know where he disappeared to.

 

[absolon]

I agree that each of us can do more. But, Dr. Morton and the others are not suggesting that fish farming should not exist but just simply being moved to land based farms. This seems like a very reasonable request. It is a goal that I'm willing to support and I think I represent the general public. As suggested previously, it would be a good start.

Unfortunately in land based farms, the laws of physics and the laws of biology collide. The technology of land based farming for fish of greater than a couple of pounds is too expensive to ever be viable and even the operations raising fish of that size in any sort of quantity are subsidized. The energy costs are very high and capital costs are extreme, particularly considering the redundancy required to manage the considerable risk that arises from dependency on mechanical systems run by electricity and requiring supplementary oxygen. Requiring the farms to move onto land is the functional equivalent of shutting them down.

 

[Charlie]

Well sir, I am actually okay with those "fish farms" having to shutdown! I am starting to see some very common “picking and choosing” of facts and posting of “half truths” starting to come out. Which is very typically done by both the government of Canada and the fish farming industry! I don’t know what one’s intent is; however, it might be wise to go spread those half truths and the misleading information elsewhere? Actually, it might be wiser to dump stock in Marine Harvest, Mainstream, and Greg; and buy some of that Agimarine one was wanting to sell.

Of course, we all know “closed containment” doesn’t and won’t work! Maybe one should writing the following companies and inform them they are wasting their time and money? Oh wait, it seems they are proving otherwise!

"Posted by: Administrator on Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:14 PM
Vancouver, BC-headquartered AgriMarine Holdings Inc., a “leader in floating solid-wall containment technology and production for sustainable aquaculture”, announced on Tuesday (February 7th) that it has exported 1.5 million Pacific salmon ova to its 100% owned hatchery in Benxi, China. The ova came from genetic stocks that have been selected for their high growth performance and are (Canada) federally-certified and pathogen-free. It is estimated that the potential value of these fish in China will be over $20 million when they reach market size in 2013 and 2014. In order to accommodate the Company's largest shipment to date of Canadian salmon ova, AgriMarine recently completed Phase 2 of its plan to modernize its hatchery. With the installation of new Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) technology, the Toronto, US OTCQX and Frankfurt-listed firm will be able to expand its smolt production capacity to 5 million annually through greater efficiency in the use of its already impressive ground water resources. This modernization lays the groundwork for future increased salmon harvests and puts the Benxi hatchery on par with the latest hatchery technology anywhere in the world. “AgriMarine's strategic position in China makes it the leader in local salmon production [indeed: it is the only salmon farmer there].” The next salmon harvest is scheduled for Q3, 2012.

Hmmm… let’s see – Canada is certifying “what” to “who” there? "Pathogen-free" to who? Plus, know let's throw in the fact there is some very high U.S. officials actually running around right now calling for and wanting a “BAN” on all Canada “Atlantic salmon” for what reason? I’ll let you guess, does it have anything to do with "ISAv" and other "pathogens"?


February 23, 2012
Freshwater Closed Containment Trial Produces Excellent Farmed Salmon
The Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute (TCFFI) and the Atlantic Salmon Federation (ASF) are very pleased with the health, growth , and quality of farmed Atlantic salmon that TCFFI is now harvesting from land-based, closed-containment facilities in Shepherdstown, West Virginia.

“These fish are doing very well and the trial is proving that we don’t need the ocean to produce farmed Atlantic salmon for market. Our fish are getting good reviews on their taste and attracting attention”

The Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute (TCFFI) and the Atlantic Salmon Federation (ASF) are very pleased with the health, growth , and quality of farmed Atlantic salmon that TCFFI is now harvesting from land-based, closed-containment facilities in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Since May, 2011, ASF and TCFFI have grown salmon of Saint John, NB river strain and have achieved exceptional quality and survival of the fish. The farmed salmon have grown without incident of sea lice or disease and this has been accomplished without the use of harsh chemicals, antibiotics or vaccines. In addition, 99.8% of water flowing through the system is continuously cleaned and returned to tanks and 99% of fish waste solids is controlled and captured.

ASF President Bill Taylor said, “These fish are doing very well and the trial is proving that we don’t need the ocean to produce farmed Atlantic salmon for market. Our fish are getting good reviews on their taste and attracting attention from government, industry, and conservation-oriented consumers.”

“We plan”, continued Mr. Taylor, “to hold a workshop at our headquarters in St. Andrews, NB in October 2012 to provide mentoring resources and emerging information on farming salmon in closed containment facilities. The workshop is intended to assist the salmon aquaculture industry, government regulators, funders and conservation advocates in making future decisions on the use of closed-containment systems for farming salmon in New England, the mid-Atlantic, and Atlantic Canada.”

“Last November, ASF appeared before the Fisheries and Oceans Standing Committee on Closed Containment Aquaculture in Ottawa and delivered a presentation on the importance of transitioning from open sea cages to closed containment aquaculture facilities to protect wild salmon, their environment and their economic value.”

“A recent report by Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd. of Halifax, NS valued wild Atlantic salmon at $255 million in 2010”, continued Mr. Taylor. “ It’s important to protect these valuable wild salmon from loss due to negative interactions with farmed salmon in the form of disease, parasites, and genetic mixing that weakens the wild gene pool. ASF is pleased that the Standing Committee on Closed Containment Aquaculture is interested in our project.”
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9219690.htm

March 27, 2012
AgriMarine Holdings Inc. (the “Company” or “AgriMarine”), the leader in floating closed containment technology and production for sustainable aquaculture, is pleased to report the first commercial harvest at its Canadian demonstration site at Middle Bay in Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
http://agrimarine.com/news/agrimari...lmon-harvest-from-canadian-demonstration-site

March 31, 2012
GOULDSBORO, Maine — A Connecticut startup company is looking to establish a local presence while getting into the high-end seafood market.

Palom Aquaculture LLC is applying to town, state and federal officials for permits to build and operate a land-based salmon farm on former Navy property in the village of Corea.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/...farm-considered-at-former-navy-site-in-corea/

UMass Amherst Team Offers New Integrated Building Model to Improve Success of Fish Farming Operations
Feb. 8, 2012
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/print.php?articleID=146317&categoryName=News Releases

It appears, the hand writing is on the wall even with Marine Harvest:
“The success of its RAS hatcheries has led Marine Harvest to consider the possibility of growing fish to market using land-based RAS. If this technological innovation proves viable technically and economically its use may address environmental and fish husbandry challenges that are of concern to the company and to society - but it may introduce additional challenges. At present it's not at all clear that RAS closed containment is a viable option, but the company wants to find out.
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/sustainability_closed_containment.php

Suzuki is even promoting “Closed containment”… what is that brain of yours thinking?
Closed containment farmed salmon
After all the negative press farmed salmon has received over the years, it's great to see the emergence of more sustainable closed containment technologies. Shifting salmon farming from open net cages to closed systems is an important way to eliminate or reduce many of the problems caused by open net cage salmon farming — particularly the threats posed to wild salmon.
Ask for: Farmed salmon raised with closed containment technology.
Avoid: Farmed salmon raised in open net pens.

Salmon is high in Omega 3 fatty acids and protein, making it a healthy choice for all. Although only currently available at some Overwaitea Food Group stores in B.C and Alberta, growing demand for sustainable seafood means closed containment farmed salmon could soon be available across the country.

By using an innovative land-based closed containment design with freshwater recirculation, this salmon farm receives a thumbs-up from the scientists at SeaChoice and Seafood Watch. Don't confuse it with open net pen farmed salmon, which is raised in ways that can spread disease and pollution and threatens wild salmon.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/food-and-our-planet/closed-containment-farmed-salmon/

Get out from under that rock you're hiding under and take a look what is going on in the world around you! There only seems to be two or three companies in the WORLD that keep stating closed containment won't work! It is ALL about the company's “bottom line profit” and they (Norway) could care less about YOUR or ANY country’s environment! If fact, they would be happy to continue killing off all YOUR wild salmon, as that will only result in THEIR increased market share. Don’t believe me – just read their financial statements as they are telling their investors and are quite clear on the future intentions!!!! "Closed containment is a proven, viable technology, and is currently used to raise species such as tilapia, trout and salmon in Canada, the US and China. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of salmon is currently farmed in closed containment due to industry’s overall resistance to change and the profitability of externalizing costs. Externalized costs are currently borne by society or the environment and not by salmon producers, such as ‘free’ waste disposal from open net-cage farms into the marine environment."

Now can we stop all the "BS" and "trolling" and get back to the topic of this thread?