[Squamishpoacher]

Please request that your senators after taking this bold step, put pressure on the BC government to do the same. Escaped diseased Atlantics do not recognize the border between us. The last thing our elected politicians want to do is listen to the public so our voice isn't being heard. Maybe a Trump style tariff on the goods BC sends to Washington would help.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/washington-state-fish-farms-salmon-farming-1.4560888

 

[the_chemist]

Like it or not, aquaculture is the future. Commercial fishermen need to go the same route as market hunters did a century ago. I just hope our shared resource (salmon) doesn't get to the same decimated levels it took to outlaw market hunting. Aquaculture suffers from an image problem in the same way non-organics do. Unabashed defamation from their competition. This bill is nothing but lip service to a vocal group whose livelihood relies on convincing people a $60 troll caught Chinook is better for you than a $10 farmed Atlantic.

 

[doublecluck]

Like it or not, aquaculture is the future. Commercial fishermen need to go the same route as market hunters did a century ago. I just hope our shared resource (salmon) doesn't get to the same decimated levels it took to outlaw market hunting. Aquaculture suffers from an image problem in the same way non-organics do. Unabashed defamation from their competition. This bill is nothing but lip service to a vocal group whose livelihood relies on convincing people a $60 troll caught Chinook is better for you than a $10 farmed Atlantic.

I call bullshit on the "lip service to a vocal group" comment. The negative impacts (both from introduced viruses, infestations of sea lice, and effluent from the farms) damaging the fragile inshore ecosystems where they are located cannot be ignored.

I'm not against aquaculture per se, just the irresponsible and detrimental use of our shared public resources to achieve it.

I've seen writeups on hydroponics-based farms that exist on land. Plants (that are also grown for harvest) clean the water, which is recycled continually thru the system. The fish that are raised are healthier too, with less antibiotics and chemicals used because the water quality is in a controlled environment.

I'm sure the cheap and exploitative way fish farms have been operated around here (using public waterways with little concern for their negative impacts) has much to do with their 'image problem'.

If Cooke Aquaculture and others had been willing to spend the money to find a sustainable way to produce a quality product, we might not be having this discussion (and legislation) now.

My .02,

Brian

 

[Bob Triggs]

I call bullshit on the "lip service to a vocal group" comment. The negative impacts (both from introduced viruses, infestations of sea lice, and effluent from the farms) damaging the fragile inshore ecosystems where they are located cannot be ignored.

I'm not against aquaculture per se, just the irresponsible and detrimental use of our shared public resources to achieve it.

I've seen writeups on hydroponics-based farms that exist on land. Plants (that are also grown for harvest) clean the water, which is recycled continually thru the system. The fish that are raised are healthier too, with less antibiotics and chemicals used because the water quality is in a controlled environment.

I'm sure the cheap and exploitative way fish farms have been operated around here (using public waterways with little concern for their negative impacts) has much to do with their 'image problem'.

If Cooke Aquaculture and others had been willing to spend the money to find a sustainable way to produce a quality product, we might not be having this discussion (and legislation) now.

My .02,

Brian

Hear! Hear!!

 

[the_chemist]

Aquaculture like any practice isn't impact free. Ideally we'd be using land based aquaculture, but a vocal group has stalled the approval for the first breed of salmon(Aquadvantage) that makes land based aquaculture commercially viable. The approval has been stalled for 20 years.... I'd still say offshore aquaculture is much more sustainable and salmon friendly than the rodeo that goes on in BC and Alaska. I'd also say that tougher enforcement and higher fines would be the solution for Cooke. What the legislature did was throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'd be interested in hard data that looks pollutants from wastewater. With Victoria dumping raw sewage into the straight (and Seattle every time we get a decent rain), all the storm water that picks up gasoline/heavy metals/plastics from our roads, and impacts from commercial farming, it seems laughable that salmon farms (which to operate have to keep salmon healthy) are polluting at any level that would effect wild stocks.

Diseases are another problem which would be a nonissue if land bases aquaculture was available. To mitigate risks to wild stocks and to produce a healthy product, vaccines have been developed to protect farmed salmon (although I'm not sure how comfortable people are eating autistic fish). That's why critics are forced to cite dubious studies about sea lice instead of diseases like Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis (IHN). IHN used to be a major concern for both farmed Atlantic and wild sockeye until a vaccine was developed.

I'll freely admit that aquaculture needs improvement and tougher regulation but its infinitely better way to feed the world than the pillaging that is going on by the commercial fleets.

I think the biggest reason for the campaign against aquaculture is the fact that aquaculture has severely cut into the bottom line of commercials. Between 1990 and 2005 the value of wild fish dropped 50-85% (Table XIII-3). That's why treaty and non-treaty commercials are vocal about the detrimental attributes of aquaculture and we see bumper stickers like "friends don't let friends eat farmed fish"/"Farmed Fish dyed for you".

I'll quit rambling now.

 

[Klickrolf]

Lots of excellent points @the_chemist , thanks!

Suspect you're dead on with the commercials. It costs them a lot more because they have costs associated with bycatch.

 

[Guest]

Lots of excellent points @the_chemist , thanks!

Suspect you're dead on with the commercials. It costs them a lot more because they have costs associated with bycatch.

Having been a commercial fisherman your dead on with the get rid of the cheap farm raised fish therory

 

[Wormonhook]

Folks never seem to address the issue, but rather focus on the symptom.

Uncontrollable human population growth is the leading cause of loss of habitat, degradation of water quality, alteration of genetics to increase animal and vegetable. Development of “third world”countries increases these pressures. All of this is true and no one is seeking solutions except Stephen Hawking who advises us that we will need the moon and other planets to manage the expansion of human numbers.

Of course, there could be that asteroid on its way to settle all of it.

 

[the_chemist]

Folks never seem to address the issue, but rather focus on the symptom.

Uncontrollable human population growth is the leading cause of loss of habitat, degradation of water quality, alteration of genetics to increase animal and vegetable. Development of "third world"countries increases these pressures. All of this is true and no one is seeking solutions except Stephen Hawking who advises us that we will need the moon and other planets to manage the expansion of human numbers.

Of course, there could be that asteroid on its way to settle all of it.

It looks like I now get to call bullshit...

What does "alteration of genetics to increase animal and vegetable" even mean? Increase total mass, increase number? Development of the third world is the only way we are going to stabilize the human population. Look at fertility in 1st vs 2nd vs 3rd world countries. If you want the human population to stop growing, you better hope the rest of the world gets to 1st world living standards ASAP. The quicker they have access to a decent education and birth control the better. And who the hell thinks NO ONE is seeking solutions for this except Stephen Hawking!? Every crop breeder since the 1950's has had this as a motivation.

To get back on point. Aquaculture is the best solution available to preserve wild salmon runs and to feed an increasingly seafood hungry population that is approaching 8 billion.

 

[Wormonhook]

Simple, artificial hybridization to increase growth rate, resist disease, etc. My earliest memory in fisheries of it was the Donaldson trout. And there was the genetic grooming to produce shorter wheat stalks which resisted weather damage and were easier to harvest. Just two little examples.

Spent a couple of years assisting doctoral students in aquaculture working on increasing yields. It also included polyculture and hydroponics in closed systems all aimed at increasing protein for human consumption. Sadly, this was also the source for introduction of silver carp into the Mississippi drainage area.

Humans are the most invasive and destructive species on planet earth. We’ve destroyed or altered billions of acres of habitat, eliminated huge numbers of animal species and significantly altered the earth’s atmosphere. Our increase in numbers and destructive behavior continues unchecked. You know, all of that scientific bullshit.

 

[Wormonhook]

Upon further reflection, I thought I’d add some more bullshit.

As whites moved into the PNW, they began logging, farming, fishing and mining. As our population grew we displaced the indigenous peoples. The advent of electrical power brought the economics of hydropower. And there were huge native runs of coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon in the Columbia River. The construction of the hydro dams pretty much destroyed those runs. The “mitigation” of those losses by building hatcheries filled with various genetic stocks of salmon began to alter migration patterns. These native runs will likely never ever recover.

On the coast, there were incredible runs of salmon in every river. Some of these rivers produced huge fish with thier run specific genetics and the incredible nutrition available to parr in the close waters of the Pacific. These runs attracted commercial fishing that literally could not miss.

And at the same time, logging was beginning to destroy spawning habitat through siltation and elevated stream temps due to increased sun exposure of stream beds.

More people meant more cars and the natal salmon creeks were further damaged with channelizing and passage barriers.

And then came the invention of monofilament gillnets...

I was able to witness the last vestige of the Quilleyute River king salmon in 1967. I creel checked sportsman with 50 and 60 lb kings (certified weight scales). The Elway kings were caught in excess of 80lbs, or so I was told. Mitigation brought in hatcheries to “f” it up.

Yep, we humans have done ourselves proud, all right.

Just more scientific bullshit from an aging, world experienced former fisheries biologist bullshitter.

You salmonid biologists, please correct my errors in fact. I’m not very happy with own species these days.

 

[Klickrolf]

Upon further reflection, I thought I'd add some more bullshit.

As whites moved into the PNW, they began logging, farming, fishing and mining. As our population grew we displaced the indigenous peoples. The advent of electrical power brought the economics of hydropower. And there were huge native runs of coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon in the Columbia River. The construction of the hydro dams pretty much destroyed those runs. The "mitigation" of those losses by building hatcheries filled with various genetic stocks of salmon began to alter migration patterns. These native runs will likely never ever recover.

On the coast, there were incredible runs of salmon in every river. Some of these rivers produced huge fish with thier run specific genetics and the incredible nutrition available to parr in the close waters of the Pacific. These runs attracted commercial fishing that literally could not miss.

And at the same time, logging was beginning to destroy spawning habitat through siltation and elevated stream temps due to increased sun exposure of stream beds.

More people meant more cars and the natal salmon creeks were further damaged with channelizing and passage barriers.

And then came the invention of monofilament gillnets...

I was able to witness the last vestige of the Quilleyute River king salmon in 1967. I creel checked sportsman with 50 and 60 lb kings (certified weight scales). The Elway kings were caught in excess of 80lbs, or so I was told. Mitigation brought in hatcheries to "f" it up.

Yep, we humans have done ourselves proud, all right.

Just more scientific bullshit from an aging, world experienced former fisheries biologist bullshitter.

You salmonid biologists, please correct my errors in fact. I'm not very happy with own species these days.

Just thought this post should be posted again.

 

[Jim Wallace]

Yeah, and you know, the state of Wa continues to support gill netting, mainly because it provides income to some commercial fishers that continue to fish that way. For the state, its more of an economic consideration, than one of protecting wild fish runs. In my area, the "economy" sucks for 6 months of the year. Commercial harvest, including charter recreational fishing of salmon is a big contribution to the economy here where I live. So the state probably wants to keep gill netting viable for economic, as opposed to conservation reasons. A neighbor of mine, who is a Dungeness crab fisher and a gill netter, was born and raised here, and was an outstanding local high school sports "hero." He might smirk at me when i wave and drive past while he is in his front yard mending his nets, knowing that i am a recreational sport fisher. I wasn't born nor raised 'round hea'h, so I won'd argue wid da locals.

 

[mbowers]

Chile has an exploding problem of invasive king salmon showing up in barren rivers. The invading kings are growing up to 90lbs with fish farm densities that are 15 times higher than BC. Clearly fish farms are not a day to day issue although they could cause a disease catastrophe. Also obvious is that the genetics for huge kings are still in the WA gene pool because the Chile kings came from WA hatcheries..

Something else is causing the problems and my money is on Alaska hatchery pinks as the biggest thing that humans can do something about.

https://www.currentresults.com/Invasive-Species/Invasive-Water/chinook-709271.php

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk

 

[the_chemist]

My bet would be on Alaskan hatchery pink harvest...