We don't want international companies polluting our waters with foreign species of fish, not even one. Move on Stolt.

Fish escaping - I've read many different accounts on how this is reported, and that was in the mainstream press not here on The Tyee.

I also agree with what many others have said on this site, farm salmon is crap. I'll take "The Pepsi Challenge" on that any day Mr. Backman. I would tend to think that your industry is reflective of most other industries with too few watchdogs, left to report all on your lonesome. I don't doubt that your company has a keen interest in the health of a wild fishery but at the same time I suspect that profit will ultimately decide how far you are willing to go to protect the wild salmon fishery

Like the salmon farms, here in Alberta there were the same assurences about the elk farming; "there will be no escapes because there are too many safe guards". Like farmed salmon, the elk did escape. The industries who betray their assurances should be willing to shut themselves down...without getting any government money as compensation(they always ask even though they are to blame). These false promises happen way too often.

I don't beleive Stolt or the Gordon Campbell Conservitives give a damn about wild salmon.They are systomaticly trying to destory the wild fish. The wild fish are just a pain in the ass to Stolt and Gordo.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Today I had a long talk with a DFO worker and a fisheries biologist. Both reinforced my view that "farms" belong on land where pollution problems can be controlled and escape is out of the question. Certainly, there is no denying that farmed salmon and other fish fulfill a growing need for protein by humans. But such farms don't belong in the water where "unfortunate" escapes will always occur. Let's all agree that fish farms have their place (no matter how the end product tastes). Then let's get behind giving the industry some incentives to build their systems on land where all farms belong.

Have anyone else noticed that every time one of these industry or government types talk about Alexandra Morton, they always use the word, "zealot"? It almost seems as though they're following a coordinated communications strategy, kind of the same way various arms of the Republican Party conspired to brand Kerry as a "Flip-Flopper" and "Massachusetts Liberal".

Imagine a group of pale-faced salmon farmers crammed into a smoky conference room with a pack of oily Campbell Liberals:

"Well... What the hell are we gonna do about this Alexandra Morton? I tell ya what: we gotta nail her to the goddamn cross, m'boys! From now on, her new name is ZEALOT! Got it? She's a fuckin’ fish zealot, the Osama of salmon. From this day forward, I don't want any of you to say more than three sentences about that Alexandra Morton without using the word, 'ZEALOT' at least five times. Got it? 'Zealotry', 'Zeal', 'Zealous' and 'Zealousness' are good too... And for a bit of variety, you might want to throw 'fanatic' into the mix every once in a while... But try to stick to 'ZEALOT?' She's a ZEALOT, godammit. A screeching, weird-ass zealot obsessed with examining fish guts... And every honest British Columbian ought to be deeply offended that this crazy ZEALOT is trying to steal our jobs!... ummm…Does that work for you?"

Wow guys, you all said it better than I could, so I'll just add my vote to the idea that they're either on land, or they're gone. And while we're at it, Stolt, better budget for the bill you're going to be handed for the damage you've done.

Wow guys, you all said it better than I could, so I'll just add my vote to the idea that they're either on land, or they're gone. And while we're at it, Stolt, better budget for the bill you're going to be handed for the damage you've done.

Both the Liberals and the NDP support this industry. The NDP "moratorium" allowed massive expansion of existing farms. Meanwhile, both parties have allowed our wild salmon stocks to wither. Farmed fish are nothing more than aqueous cattle, brought in while the buffalo were being slaughtered to quasi extinction. Dont buy farmed fish. Boycott it.

Clare states "Our Company spent more than $85,000 between September and December, 2000, for a team of specialists to examine 14 Mainland Inlet rivers..." Just who exactly were these "specialists?" Your own employees maybe? Another fish farm?

JB, any truth to a rumour that Adrianne Carr will soon present a compromise proposal that would see these farms remain if they use organic fish food?

Wow, what the author of this letter (read: propoganda) is saying is akin to the industrialist who says, "it's just one smoke stack, what's the big deal". Also, Jane Doe touched on this already, but what about the sea lice issue????

"they found nine Atlantic salmon in freshwater in that survey—a very far cry from the 4,620 fish said to be “potentially on their way to colonizing the West Coast.”" Considering all the places where these salmon could be, finding nine of them in the survey indicates to me that there are probably a lot more out there. How comprehensive was your survey? Can you really claim to have found most of them, or even a significant percentage of them? I'm pretty skeptical of your "science" if you can make statements like this.

Good job trying Clare, but as you can see from the comments the vast majority of the readers here make no effort to educate themselves about salmon farming aside from the propaganda spread by the anti's, who are mostly ex-NDP'ers with nothing better to do since they all got voted out. Allan you should address your comments to Mr.Backman and take a good look at the pay scales. These jobs pay a very good wage and are year round not like tourism jobs or fishing jobs where you work a few weeks then suck back EI the rest of the time. If anyone can point to the rivers where atlantic salmon have established please list them, but I know there will be none. As for debunking science anything the anti's have come up with and called science has always been very easy to debunk. I have always wondered how people who say they want to protect the wild salmon are always urging more people to eat wild salmon. Seems very strange that you would encourage decimating wild stocks in order to save them, very strange indeed.

Actually Hilarious I can give you the names of three rivers where Atlantics have established themselves: 1. Amor de Cosmos Creek 2. Adam and Eve River 3. Tsitika River You were confident no on could come up with any, well you were wrong. Your last assertion that those opposed to farmed salmon encourage others to eat more wild salmon. Actually what we are saying is instead of eating farmed, eat wild. Not, eat more, keep eating, decimate the stocks. Also, do you care to come up with some stats on pay scales for farm employees?

Payscale: starting wage, no experience 125.00/day going up to 140.00/day by third year. Assistant managers starting at 145.00/day going up to 170.00/day Managers starting at 46000.00/year going up to 56000.00/year Full medical and dental benefits, overtime after 8 hours, double time after 10 hours Bonus of up to 20% of salary per year. Number of people per site: 3 per shift, 2 shifts per farm, seasonal work can double those numbers on a site for 2 to 3 months in the spring and fall Your turn KWL, where is the proof that there are runs established in those rivers? There are certainly folk tales of such but no survey I have ever seen has found any atlantic salmon in those rivers since a few escapees were found in the 90's. The first nations stream survey conducted a few years ago found 1 atlantic salmon in each of the Adam and Salmon rivers, hardly established runs and none in any of the hundreds of streams surveyed. As people come to realize the huge benefits of eating salmon where is all the extra salmon going to come from? From our already overfished wild stocks? Total global consumption of salmon is already double the tonnage from wild salmon harvests. I am amazed that in the face of the health benefits of eating salmon you are telling people not to eat more salmon. And you agree that wild stocks cannot possibly meet the demand for healthy salmon whereas farmed salmon proved many times over to be an environmentally safe and nutritious product can readily fill the growing demand.

First off, Hilarious, read John Volpe's Super Un-Natural: Atlantic Salmon in BC waters. Here's a direct quote: "To date, conclusive evidence shows that three Pacific salmon-bearing system (Amor de Cosmos Creek, Adam & Eve River, and Tsitika River) currently support presumably wild-spawned juvenile Atlantic salmon." Hardly folk tales.He goes on further to state "(Atlantic)salmon have been observed ascending every major drainage on Vancouver Island." Keep in mind this report was written in 2001. You are amazed that in the face of the health benefits of eating salmon I am not telling people to eat more salmon? Well, you can get the same benefits from flax seed oil, therefore one does not have to eat farmed salmon, and can eat wild on a more sporadic basis. Has Atlantic proved itself to be environmentally safe? I don't think so.

Good points KWL especially on flax seed oil, a true option for people who don't eat meat or can't afford wild salmon.

Hey hilarious how about my previous comments about farmed salmon tasting like crap. You could cut my tongue off and I would still be able to taste the difference between a fatty mushy farmed atlantic and a wild sockeye.

So really though why isn't there enough salmon? It wouldn't have anything to do with all of the damage that has been done to the great salmon rivers like the Fraser, would it?

Well, I guess it's pretty conslusive. Tyee readers, or at least commenters, are pretty much of the same mind on this one. But farms DO fill a need (both in terms of protein and employment). So we have to come up with some way of doing it right. It's no good telling Stolt, et al, to get out of BC. Thanks like telling Weyerhaueser, Cominco or the Liberals (or NDP) to get outta here. How are we going to live with fish farms? I can't see any other way but land-based operations near the sea.

Sorry, I meant "That's like telling Weyerhaueser...."

Yes, Great comments people but Burgess sums it up best.

As a regular listener to Rafe Mair’s daily talk show, I can say I have a good idea of what these F@#king fish farms are all about.

Basically, multinational corporations reaping all of the financial rewards while we (British Columbians) take all of the environmental risks/damage. Sea lice killing off wild salmon smolts that pass net cages infested with sea lice, fish feed that consumes three pounds of South American coarse fish for every pound of farmed salmon, dyes to color the flesh of the Atlantics any shade your restaurant requires and a chemical dumped into the areas around the fish cages called “Slice” to control the hoards of sea lice.

Yes, Burgess, unfortunately the Joseph Goebbles school of propaganda is alive and well today more than ever. Why in the hell is the right always so disingenuous, inclined to a high use of unscrupulous PR firms such as Hill And Knowlton and so very quick to commit to bald face lies??????? MAKE ME PUKE!!!!!! YA GORDO BOOT LICKIN CORPORATE MAGGOTTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm certainly no expert on this subject but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that farmed salmon are fed meal made out of basically every other kind of common fish that swims in the ocean.Are we depleting the oceans fish stocks to feed farmed salmon?

You know it seems to me that the fish farm industry poo poos building these farms on land due to the added expense when in fact they don't really want their polluting ways visible to the public. I would hazard a guess that the expenses of setting up on land could be directly offset by the huge amounts of money they say they are currently spending to ensure that they have minimal escapement and the amount they say they spend combatting the sea lice issue. I think they should put up or shut up. Fish farms are unnatural and pose a dire threat to wild stocks. Put them on land where they can be monitored regardless of the costs....

I want to know who Hilarious works for, and in what capacity. And no, there is NO "need" for salmon farms, in fact, there's no "need" to eat meat at all. If you really care about the environment, be a vegetarian.

Man I am just about rolling on the floor after reading all the teeth knashing, spittle spewing vitriol being posted, absolutely hilarious. One of the best posts comes from kaybertoss who's information about salmon farming comes from one source, who is very blatantly anti-slamon farming. Tell me kayber you ever done any research on the subject yourself or do you just follow along with whatever somebody else says on the subject because it is to difficult to form your own opinion. As for repeating a lie continually until it becomes truth this is something the suzukis and various other anti groups have perfected, as indicated by the various postings that try to propogate the misinformation being spread by these groups. Taste tests vary depending on the people, the product, how it is presented etc. A recent summary of taste tests found that 20% of people preferred farmed salmon, 20% preferred wild, and 60% had no preference. Personally I prefer farmed to wild salmon as I have always found the quality of wild salmon to be very poor. To KWL. Ah yes good old Volpe having read his stuff I wondered if there had been any follow up to these studies. As you rightly pointed out the paper was published in 2001 with the research having been done in the late 90's. Since that time stream surveys have found none of the established runs he predicted or really any atlantics in coastal streams at all. So can you provide recent data showing any colonization? No you cannot. And now I am really amazed; you are saying that we should just eat flax oil and leave the overfished wild salmon stocks to those rich enough to afford it? Kind of a very elitest attitude, but then maybe you are rich enough to afford it and that is why you are so against farmed salmon. Salmon aquaculture uses about 6% of the worlds production of fishmeal. The biggest users; poultry and pork. Aquaculture is not the driving force behind fishmeal production, any amount of fish meal not used in aquaculture would be quickly utilized by the growing poultry and pork industries. Salmon farms are percieved as unnatural because they are new and people do not like new, do not like change. The fact is wild resources cannot supply the growing global population. Harvesting of wild fish will become a very niche industry, looked down upon as a quaint anachronism, and not very desirable because of the adverse impact commercial harvesting can have on wild salmon stocks. Salmon farming has proved itself many times over to be very environmentally safe and economically feasible as it is now practiced and the industry is always improving which will lead to higher quality, lower cost, nutritious salmon being available to consumers year round, with no impact to the environment.

Hilarious, poultry and pork production, I would guess is many hundreds of time larger than the farmed fish industry and no doubt uses more fish meal. But I would also guess that there isn't a chicken ranch or pig farm that uses the sea as its prime waste removal system like fish farms do. A pig farmer would be run out of town if he allowed his animals' shit to simply drop into the public waterways. This may sound contradictory, but you guys are the big pigs. NOw, as for your taste test, I'd love to learn just who these tasters were, how many they were, how was the tasting carried out and were there any independant witnesses to varify your "facts". Certainly, as a professional public relations spokesperson Hilarious, you should understand the need for credibility, which you certainly lost with your claim to prefer the taste of that soft, grey looking matter you try to pawn off as salmon. I'd encourage the public to do their own taste tests. Buy a piece of farmed fish and a piece of wild fish, prepared them identically and then blindfold yourself so you don't always reach for the bright red coloured flesh, and it should soon be apparent, you don't need an awful lot of senses to figure out which one is which.

It's obvious Hilarious has ties to the farming industry. It's true as Allan rightly points out he or she loses all credibility when he or she points out they like the taste of farmed over wild. Any sane person will tell you exactly the opposite. Farmed Atlantic is bland. How many high end restaurants do you know that serve it Hilarious? None because it's so bad. You are very confident that no Atalantics are in our river systems so I won't waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise. If though as Volpe points out we had Atlantics in major drainages on VI and on the coast in the late 90's where the hell did they all go then? Did they magically disappear? Did they all get together and conspire to vanish "gee guys we better disappear because this looks really bad on the farming industry."

So if I lose credibility because I state a preference, then likewise you people must also lose credibility when you try so desperately to disparage farmed salmon. Atalntic salmon have proven to be very poor colonizers. All attempts in many parts of the world to establish them have failed. Even in their native areas in eastern Canada it is proving difficult to re-establish runs, some of which is due to introduced pacific salmon that out compete the atlantics. http://www.eatingwell.com/articles_recipes/current _issue/spr04_salmon_tasting.html http://www.humboldt.edu/~fish/tastetest1.htm http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595070562,00.htm I hope the URL's show properly.

Remember Hilarious, only a tiny fraction of rivers in BC have been surveyed. No one can be 100% confident that no Atlantics have established themselves.

Hilarious, if you are trying to show us farmed salmon ranks high with wild you have failed to convince. The humboldt link shows us wild salmon beat farmed salmon in a taste test. The deseretnews link, well, I would hardly use 12 people from Utah as good judges on the taste of salmon. How many times have these people have ever had fresh, wild salmon? Using a taste test from Utah is hardly convincing.

Hilarious, people can eat whatever they choose to eat. And you have the same right to farm fish if you choose to. I don't think very many of the people writing here would oppose that if you could do it safely on land. When your industry begins to face the same rules and enforcement as pig or poultry farmers when it comes to waste, then perhaps I won't object to your industry so much. But if you continue to drop shit and other pollutants in our water, you can be sure I and others will continue verbally crapping all over your industry every opportunity we get. Quit expecting the rest of BC to subsidize your farms through environmental degradation. Pulp mill effluent is healthier than the stuff that falls through your nets.

Man you two are great. KWL - "Using a taste test from Utah is hardly convincing." Why because they preferred farmed salmon? If they had preferred wild you probably would be crowing about it. Allan - "Pulp mill effluent is healthier than the stuff that falls through you nets." You really need to do a bit of research into the issue instead of mindlessly repeating someone elses gibberish. Salmon aquaculture in BC is the most highly regulated industry in the world. Regulations are in place that dictate when fish can be restocked based on bottom sampling. Likewise there are strict guidelines regarding the number of fish that can be grown at a site. And unlike the beef, poultry and pork industries that indiscriminately use antibiotics as growth enhancers, the use of antibiotics in salmon aquaculture is tightly controlled.

Oops sorry about the bold, was trying to make a paragraph break and used b instead of br.

Actually no Hilarious, if a taste test from Utah preferred wild I still wouldn't use it in an argument. Salmon farming is the most highly regulated industry in the world? Yeah right. Provide us with some evidence. Here is a quote from John Cummins MP "The industry is powerful,” says Cummins. “It’s wealthy. It does not tolerate criticism… Even a call for regulations is an attack on it.” When the Fisheries ministry claims expansion of fish farms is a priority, how can we take your claims of strict controls seriously? Maybe in your mind the industry is tightly regulated, reality though says otherwise. Why are we still getting escapes then? Are you the PR person for Stolt because I am getting the impression you are?

Better, yeah...

Guess not....

The FFPirates (FishFarm) are using up the oceans small animals at an unsustainable rate to feed their inferior product. The 3/1 ratio for raising farmed fish is the world standard and the law of diminishing return says that rate can't be sustained. It is not fear mongering there is good scientific evidence that destroying the bottom of the food chain is a disaster for the top. The Strait of Georgia Herring fishery proved that. The overfishing of the Herring for animal food and oil was the main problem along with the Japanese market for its roe. At least we woke up before the Herring were gone. All you folks out there that want a really good look at what is going on in the fishery off our coast take a trip out to Tofino and tour out to the draggers from Russia and Poland (with help from BC contractors) and see the misuse of the fishery. Follow behind the huge ocean liner sized factory ships and watch the tons and tons of by-catch that comes back down the aft ramps. (This is the same technique used to devastate the Cod on the East Coast. The Feds fiddled the licences and by-catch rules.) The tens of thousands of sea birds pecking the dead and live fish that are dumped. The first fifth of the catch in the draggers nets are little better than hamburger and of no use to anyone. (The American draggers have a fish grinder that exits out of sight on their ships.) There were (and maybe still are) five Russian draggers working the BCCoast along with the Poles. Check out the Poles under the Iron Worker's Memorial bridge where they refit. Answers to my letters from the Feds and Victoria? BC jobs depended on exploiting our resources so I guess that trumps environment everytime. So we sell our precious resources for the benefit of a very few. It is about greed plain and simple (and campaign donations). At the rate we are killing off the ocean's resources it won't be more than a generation or two and we will be eating the little shore crabs and snails for sea food like in some countries now because that is all that will be left. "He who has the gold rules." annon

"Dave in Vernon", your smoky back room scenario for the plotting of the "Zealotry" campaign was "Hillarous" :-)!!... Do these people actually expect us to believe that British Columbians benefit by having our spectacular natural fish populations and marine ecosystems jeopardised so that multinationals can make money selling us farmed fish laced with antibiotics, growth hormones, dye and pesticides? Surely we can find better ways to provide employment? (Or to produce food for that matter? Gag!!) Land-based farms sound like the most reasonable solution if we have to have them at all. If Stolt & co are truly committed to our wild systems, why aren't they pushing for that?

The FFPirates (FishFarm) are using up the oceans small animals at an unsustainable rate to feed their inferior product. The 3/1 ratio for raising farmed fish is the world standard and the law of diminishing return says that rate can't be sustained. It is not fear mongering there is good scientific evidence that destroying the bottom of the food chain is a disaster for the top. The Strait of Georgia Herring fishery proved that. The overfishing of the Herring for animal food and oil was the main problem along with the Japanese market for its roe. At least we woke up before the Herring were gone. All you folks out there that want a really good look at what is going on in the fishery off our coast take a trip out to Tofino and tour out to the draggers from Russia and Poland (with help from BC contractors) and see the misuse of the fishery. Follow behind the huge ocean liner sized factory ships and watch the tons and tons of by-catch that comes back down the aft ramps. (This is the same technique used to devastate the Cod on the East Coast. The Feds fiddled the licences and by-catch rules.) The tens of thousands of sea birds pecking the dead and live fish that are dumped. The first fifth of the catch in the draggers nets are little better than hamburger and of no use to anyone. (The American draggers have a fish grinder that exits out of sight on their ships.) There were (and maybe still are) five Russian draggers working the BCCoast along with the Poles. Check out the Poles under the Iron Worker's Memorial bridge where they refit. Answers to my letters from the Feds and Victoria? BC jobs depended on exploiting our resources so I guess that trumps environment everytime. So we sell our precious resources for the benefit of a very few. It is about greed plain and simple (and campaign donations). At the rate we are killing off the ocean's resources it won't be more than a generation or two and we will be eating the little shore crabs and snails for sea food like in some countries now because that is all that will be left. "He who has the gold rules." annon

Speaking of credibility, Hilarious, why won't you answer my question? Who do you work for, and in what capacity?

Yawn…….. Hilarious I’ve heard all of that rhetorical crap spewed by you, the BC Liars and PR firms so many times before, so tell me something I’ve not heard from the likes of you and your ilk before, say like the truth. You and your fish farming buddies are simply un-sustainable period!

I’ve heard both sides of this lengthy argument on Rafe’s show while keeping an objective mind. However all I hear is the obvious overwhelming evidence against the parasitic fish farming industry, propped up by industry flacks like you and this current BC Liar government. I guess it really all just boils down to personal values, which you and the BC Liars are void of.

Hell, even when the Fish Farms are fined for red handed blatant infractions the BC Liars gave back over a million dollars to your buddies.

I have to say though I’ve enjoyed poking you in the eye, seeing you getting all worked up about the plain factual truths I’ve stated. It would be a pleasure to keep on doing it as well.

Ah yeah, now your getting that knot in your stomach, but cheeks clenching and your eyes are bulging while your blood pressure is raising through the roof. Have a nice day killing off our wild Salmon!

Hilarious you're a friggin joke! I won't bash you for many of the things you've said but you lost a lot of credibility with me when you told of a survey in which people who prefer farmed salmon are equal to those who don't. There is no way in hell that this is anywhere near to the truth. I won't attack any of your other claims because I'm not a scientist and I believe that many of science/ecology issues have not been looked at in enough detail. On that note though I do believe it is time that an independant review of salmon farming is undertaken, one which is very in depth with rock solid science. No one could argue that this has been done yet.

Farmed salmon however is obviously an inferior product, to claim otherwise is purely assanine.

Clare Backman is paid by Stolt to refute my work. His job is to try and convince people there is no problem with salmon farms. Wild salmon are a competitor for salmon farming corporations worldwide and it is a rare corporation which seeks to benefit the competition. If the people of British Columbia want wild salmon, they will have to protect their fish themselves. I can tell you after 14 years of dealing the salmon farmers in my neighbourhood wild salmon can not possibly survive without us. Alexandra Morton Echo Bay

But who is Hilarious? Is Hilarious Clare Backman? Does Hilarious work for Stolt?

I think Alexandra Morton has summed up this argument nicely. Wild salmon compete with farmed salmon and farms do not want wild salmon cutting in on their profits. Enough said I'd say.

Hilarious is................. hilarious.

Perhaps Clare or Hilarious might want to comment on this one. Its an article from the Seattle Times of Dec. 2003, in which farmed salmon was described as tasting more like your pet goldfish than a real wild salmon. That's right folks, "GOLDFISH". The story quotes well known Portland Oregon chef Greg Higgons of Higgons Restaurant, who said blind taste tests done by the Chef's Collaborative, a dining industry assocation found that farmed fish just doesn't cut it on taste or firmness. Here's what he said:"They (wild salmon) eat a varied diet based on nutrient cycles - krill, herring - which adds texture, color and flavor,'' said chef Higgons. "If you have a monoculture diet like farmed-raised salmon - to me the smell and taste is pretty much reminiscent of the smell of goldfish out of an aquarium, because they eat pretty much the same thing, he added.*** Hilarious you should look in the mirror and ask Clare about this story, because he/you didn't refute Higgon's assessment of the taste at the time. Asked by the Seattle Times to respond to Higgons comments, Clare Backman is quoted saying: "There is another consumer who doesn't like the fishy taste, who prefers the farmed fish because it's milder." So, some people would prefer to dine on industrial salmon that taste more like carp. Interesting!

Farmed Atlantic salmon is definitely an inferior product; both in taste and nutritional value. When the day comes that there are no wild Pacific salmon then that is the day I stop eating salmon period.

When it comes to believing either a concerned researcher or a whore for the industry, it's not a tricky decision. Can you say "Special Interest Group"?

Yes and Alexandra Morton is paid by the suzukis and whatever other anti group she can sponge money off of. And in terms of special interest groups all you have to do is look at the people who hold the fishing licences on this coast that are worth millions. They are the ones afraid of farmed salmon taking away their market share.

Atlantic salmon should stay in Atlantic Ocean.

OMG, Hilarious, you have gone off the deep end. Now fishermen are special interest groups? Who the hell was there first? It wasn't farms. Fishing is a way of life, a means of income. Farming is just pure industrial greed. It is the farms who are afraid of a resurgence of wild fish stocks.

We anglers should be viewed as a special interest group. A group specially interested in improvements in the environment. Like Camalot, Atlantic salmon should stay in the atlantic. As for taste, someone tell Clare Backman that the difference between wild and farmed salmon is that wild salmon is great and the farmed salmon tastes like a carpet that has dogshit rubbed on it for the last 10 years. Thanks

Alexandra Morton, keep it up. When I finish building my boat, I'm taking a trip to Echo Bay to see this stupidity in fish farming myself. Thank you.

Under scrutiny, Alexandra Morton’s work is beyond reproach. The same can not be said of Mr. Blackman’s. Alex and her family have worked very hard to build a life in a very difficult, although beautiful, area of our coast. Mr. Blackman and his multi-national cronies have not worked or struggled to access what they call their tenure on our coast. They have undertaken a program of (do not tell the public unless they ask……….and then, when they do………. do not, tell them anyway). It is through the work of Alexandra Morton and not Clair Backman that we now have a more realistic view of this industry.

Hilarious, you still have not told us who you are, what part of the farming industry do you work in?

This past spring I bought a beautiful 7 pound fresh sockeye out in Steveston. It had flesh that was so sweet you would swear it was marinated in some sort of sugar or honey. I fed it to my landlocked relatives who have many great fish of their own, walleye, muskeye, northern pike, lake trout, etc... I also gave half of it to an inland commercial fisherman I know. We baked our part of the fish in the oven with a little garlic, black pepper, sea salt and butter. We ate it without any sauce or condoment and it was seasoned at an absolute bare minimum. The person I bought the fish from told me that it came from the west side of Vancouver Island and was only 1 day old. Everyone who ate this fish couldn't believe how good it actually was, you could have eaten it raw or cooked without any seasoning at all.

I have never had or even heard of anyone having a similar experience with farmed salmon. The last farmed salmon we cooked in my family was terribly oily and mushy, we love fish and yet no one was interested in finishing the farmed salmon. Leftovers went in the garbage! The wild sockeye on the other hand was so good and so fresh that we ate all of the meat and the skin.

Formatting comment If you use the BOLD HTML tag, <b&gt, remember to close it with the END BOLD tag, </b&gt.

In economic terms, you would allow all the fish farms you could. The wild fishery is peanuts compared to what the fish farms bring to the economy. If you care about the environment, however, no open net fish farms would be allowed. The fish farms and provincial government should just own up to the fact that it is all about the money. Just like the forestry companies who cut down gigantic clear cuts in the 70s and 80s, we will look back to the farmed fish industry and wonder what they were thinking. Undoubtedly, they'll plead ignorance because they didn't know any better. Ya, right! They know enough how to make a quick buck it seems.

Chris H. Take your last comment and go shove it up your arse. Allowing all the fish farms we could. You should go swimming in on of those fish farm pens, then come talk to me about cleanliness and pollution. You are the ignorant one making a post like the one you did. Economic terms? Learn some economics then factor that into your opinion. Had you learned some economics, you would understand the power of sustainability and viability and the ability to maintain the market over a longer period of time. GO back to school. Thank you.

I see several comments about the "regulated" pork beef and poultry farming. On top of numerous other ecological and environmental issues, I believe that a whole bunch of livestock shit ends up in our water from land based farming. A water bioligist friend tells me about this very serious problem in the Fraser valley. Sure this type of farming and how the waste is handled (ie spread it out on the field next to the river) is regulated. Every decade or three the rules get a little tougher as the magnitude of the problems become overwhelmingly apparent or an incident like Walkerton happens for example. This bioligist tells me about the incredible lack of action taken against polluting farmers and far too little testing being done. So much for regulation and 35% less monitoring and enforcement thanks to Liberal cutbacks. I don't doubt that shit is also part of the fish farming problem. Escapes, sea lice, other disease issues (what is slice?) and concentrations of fish shit (does fish shit contain antibiotics as livestock manure does?). So please stop eating meat so much. Our huge consumption of meat is a big part of the problem. Buy much less (or no) better quality organic or wild but not endangered meat. Tastier and healthier for you. And keep fighting against big agribusiness. They are full of shit - don't buy it

A bit of clarification is in order I think. When I mentioned fishing licenses I was not talking about sport fishing licenses but commmercial fishing licenses that large companies tend to end up controlling. Sport fishing is the most economic use of wild salmon there is, so much so that commercial fishing makes no sense except in small directed fisheries. And I would definitely encourage anyone who wants to go swimming around a salmon farm to do so, drop a line in the water beside the pen and catch a few fish, lingcod, halibut, rockfish can all be found at most sites at various times of the year. When you are finished building your boat Angler visit a salmon farm, ask questions, see what actually happens on a farm. You may be pleasantly surprised. One thing I would like to remind everyone is that serval first nations bands have embraced salmon farming as a means of providing for their people. These bands entered into agreements with established salmon farming companies to bring salmon farms onto their territory with the agreement written in the contract that the farms would be shut down with a months notice if any environmental damage was noticed. None have ever been shut down. As for who I am and who I work for that is none of your bloody business. I work in an industry that I am proud of and I will continue to fight the flood of misinformation and outright lies that the anti's continually put out. More than 4000 people on BC's coast are employed in direct and indirect jobs in the salmon aquaculture industry. All these people have families, babies, kids in school, mortgages, bills etc. All these people know that salmon farming is an environmentally safe and economically sound business that provides much needed jobs in small coastal towns. All these people work hard every day to provide for their families and when people like suzuki and morton continue their senseless attacks on our industry they get very upset and only strengthen their resolve to stay and fight.

"More than 4000 people on BC's coast are employed in direct and indirect jobs in the salmon aquaculture industry." I'm glad that you and the other 3999 (that number is suspect) know whats right for our coast.

This will be the sleeper issue of the next prov. election. Will the NDP take a stand against the pollution industry of fish farms that relies on drugs to survive? It should be a no-brainer. I am an NDP member and until the party stands up for what is just, i will be voting GREEN.

It boggles my mind that the introduction of a foreign species into our environment doesn't make the headlines more often. This is basic science, hell even a Simpsons episode has parodied this.

Having lived in the vicinity of a number of Stolt farms, and been friends with a great number of fish farmers, the assertion of only a couple thousand fish escaping in recent years is absolute nonsense. It was the local worst kept secret that most of the fish farm workers knew of hundreds and thousands of fish escaping each year, but were expected to keep quiet about it by their employer. Employment being scarce, most do, except at parties, or while talking to each other about their work. Corporate PR should be taken as just that - not worth the paper it's written on. In this case, not worth the electricity and time it took to read it.

Hey Angler, maybe it is you who should go back to school and get some reading comprehension lessons. Did I not say that if you considered the environment you would NOT allow open net fish farming? In purely economic terms, the fish farming industry brings in way more money and has the potential to bring in way more than the wild fishery ever will. Opponents of fish farming, like Rafe Mair, have pointed this fact out many times. I for one don't think that fish farming should be allowed off BC's shores for environmental reasons. But, the wild fishery could end tomorrow and BC's economy would still motor on. That is why the BC Liberals could care less ... it's all about the money! Way to go and insult me though, Angler. Just when I get some hope that the general public can actually understand what they read, you come along. Oh well, here's hoping that you're the exception.

Just curious Chris H, what do you propose to put in place of open net farms?

If you are thinking land-based, close-containment, think again: the environmental destruction will continue. Its impact is simply dispersed over a wider environmental and economic area and the costs become even more socialized than they are now. Few folks equate the energy production and distribution and land alienation, necessary to operate land based systems, with environmental destruction.

Salmon farms are desperate measures by desperate folks. They are also another admission of failure. The first failure was the introduction of hatcheries; they are prime examples of political and public acceptance of environmental destruction. Wild, healthy rivers be damned. The second was keeping biologists on at DFO once hatcheries became the main supply of salmon; they know nothing about the economics of wild salmon. The third was the pretense of allowing fish farms because ‘we need to feed a starving planet’; at 6 plus billion, the planet is well past its carrying capacity.

Ok, Chris H; I confess, I am pretty ignorant. I just began taking my first university courses so technically, I don't fill that intelligence gap yet. But I do know this. I have been fishing since I could walk and up until 3 years ago, I remember that fish wars were something synonymous with the east coast. There are only few migratory routes and I have fished on all of them. By my understanding, pens on Echo Bay are right close to the migratory routes of salmon coming down from Northern British Columbia through the Strait Of Georgia to end up in our Fraser, Vedder, Harrison and other rivers to name a few. As for a point, we are not starving. But what I do resent is us being the feeding source for other populations. Which means that what is good for others should be good for British Columbians which total garbage. I am not a commerical fisherman but my time on the water is appreciated and never taken for granted. I take my limit and eat. Salmon farms are desperate measures. However, we do need some sort of hatcheries due to the ignorance of some past generations, to which it is fine if and only if, we are doing this separately on land based system. I fish quite a bit off of the Chehalis river and I'm always parking in the hatchery parking lot. So I do see what's going on and I'm sort of satisfied to know that this attempt is sort of working. I would rather nature take its course but this is a small nudge. But what does irritate me is when we are told that fish farming is a big industry which brings in a lot of dollars. It may bring in a lot of dollars, but, how many workers are really employed because logically, how many workers are needed. Fish only need to be fed and tended to so I don't believe it is a labour intensive operation. However, I know that Asian countries are paying big bucks for these fish. Which does not justify the presence of these farms because in the long run, we are killing our restaurant industries who serve legendary BC wild salmon which are impacted by these fish farms. I love my salmon, I love being able to go out and getting one for the day. But, I have this feeling that my own son will never know what a real fight with a sockeye and just the natural goodness which can come from a fresh salmon. Thank you.

The only place for 'farmed' salmon is on land but I guess that is too labour and cost prohibitive for the corporate bottom line!! Get on board fish farmers and stop the pollution.

I have a lot of simpathy for you, Angler. If it was up to me, we would have no fish farming and the number one priority of the fishery would be the sport fishery. I hope my daughters catch a big spring one day, but who knows ... they might not be here much longer. As to land-based fish farms, I am no expert. But, that is the alternative a lot of environmental groups have pushed. The fact remains, however, that the big push for fish farming is because it employs a fair number of people and is a way more stable revenue generating industry than the wild fishery. That doesn't mean we should have fish farms, but that is the motivation behind the push. If you want to fight against fish farms, it is a good idea to know why the government supports them.

Just quit obfuscating and get holding tanks on land. End of problem. No games or biological dangers continue.

I'm surprised the focus has been more on the difference in palatability between farmed and wild salmon and not the heinous levels of toxins (PCBs) found in the farmed in compared to wild stock [http://www.ewg.org/reports/farmedPCBs/es.php]

- I guess raccoons are more discerning by nature against toxic food - but we eat such crap all the time. Confounding the poisoning that farmed fish contribute to human and animal health by consumption, the contaminated fish meal and their own toxic sewage is contaminating the wildlife. Compound this with the "escapees" from these farms from hell that are on the list of invasive species - I can't see how the practice can be supported or compared to raising avian flu laden chickens on a farm. The Bush administration actually tried to hide a huge collection of studies that showed that the Pacific Salmon (especially the Coho) should be put on the "endangered species". I'm a member of the Union of Concerned scientists (UCS) - and last year the UCS (based in the U.S.) had stated in an Invasive species report that: "Atlantic salmon—Escaping from fish farms in British Columbia, Atlantic salmon have been found as far north as Ketchikan at Ward Creek. If they become established, they could compete with native species including steelhead, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char, and coho salmon for food and habitat." There is a need to reform the way we run our food and agricultural industries - there seems to be absolutely no foresight or reflection on the sustainability in any of our actions.

The reason the focus has been on palatability is because all the other arguements against farmed salmon have been so thoroughly discreditted that all the anti's have left are food scares, such as the PCB thing. Every major health group in the world, WHO, Health Canada, FDA, American Cancer Society to name a few, have come out and publicly stated that the levels of PCB found in any salmon, farmed or wild, are so low that they do not merit reducing salmon intake and recommended at the same time increasing salmon consumption for the health benefits. If you would like more facts about the PCB issue the folowing URL has some good information that includes the levels of PCB's people ingets from other food sources. As for escapes as has been already mentioned Atlantic salmon are such poor colonizers they have never been able to establish themselves anywhere in the world either through deliberate attempts or escapes. Posting such worries about escapes is just more fear mongering.

http://www.salmonoftheamericas.com/topic_ewg_pcb.htm l

We do not know whether Atlantics have colonized or not because not every river in BC has been surveyed Hilarious.

Further to your statement that fish licences tend to get into the hands of large corporation, well who is controlling the fish farms in BC? Bingo, big corporations! I'd rather have Jimmy Pattison owning five trawling licences than have big corporations polluting our waters with farms.

Shirin....those of us (includes most posters here) have the lowdown knowledge of toxins, etc. in farmed fish and you are right..that has been world/nationally reported...and that is why most here in all probability do not buy or eat 'farmed' salmon. we just need to keep plugging along, writing letters, posting etc and that is what I do and encourage all to do the same......it is sort of like those protesters in Ukraine..they are not giving up!

And with sales exceeding 2 billion dollars annually the Jim Pattison group of companies does not qualify as a big corporation?

You can keep posting your lies Bev and we will always be right there to make sure the public recieves the correct information in order to help them make informed, healthy choices when it comes to farmed salmon and salmon in general. Farmed salmon is a healthy, environmentally friendly product endorsed by every health agency in the world.

"Lies" Now that is hilarious! From the mouth of the industry that gave us, "We do not have a see lice problem."

Hilarious, instead of accusing BEV of lies, any thoughts as to why you feel that salmon "farming" should not be done on land (aka in huge pens or man made ponds filled with sea water?)

Sorry, of course I meant sea lice. :)

Bev, I realized that the majority of those here are knowledgeable about the issues mentioned in my above post, but without wanting to point out who amongst the posters are at least articulating (if that be the correct term) their embarrassing ignorance - I thought I'd provide some information that would help rectify their obliviousness. However, some are so funny that they can't see straight it appears - as Hamlet said, "There's something rotten in the State of Denmark..." - and its farmed fish!

I would rather have the lesser of two evils which is a local corporation fishing for wild fish than have an international company that has no ties to BC other than to pollute our waters with farmed fish.

Hilarious you still have not stated that you are 100% positive there are no Atlantics in any river in BC. You can't state this because you know there is no way we can be 100% certain there are no Atlantics because we have not surveyed all rivers.

There was a letter to the editor today in the Globe which was from a lady who said she used to believe Suzuki until her husband became a fish farmer. Now she doesn't believe anything he says. Good god, these farms have done a good job at brainwashing their employees. Farmed fish good, there's no such thing as lice, we don't pollute, none of our fish escape, now repeat 1000 times after me. Sounds like fish farms are like a cult.

Hilarious, farmed salmon is crap. Period. I'm with KWL. I'd rather have some local fish processor catching the wild fish then processing it for BC's own consumption (The rest of the world can have what we don't want) As for sea lice, catch a salmon right above Nanaimo and you'll see what we're talking about. Hilarious, if you are trying to stir the pot, use good, solid arguments from your bum buddies in the Fish Farming industry, don't just talk out of your ass, you're making you're buddies look bad. As for palatibility, I think that all one has to do is try and compare sashimi. Taste the farmed salmon and then taste the wild, trust me, there is a difference, I can see and taste it. But what would you know? Thank you.

So what's the option to farmed salmon or intensely farmed anything else? The world needs protein. For sure, the meat munchers aren't going to immediately go wild over tofu nut burgers. So how do we grow all that protein? Cattle feed lots? Chicken farms? Fish farms? That's the question that hasn't been addressed here. Sure, Stolt may be on par with Cardiff and Monsanto, et al. But what's the alternative for the mass of people who aren't right-on Tyee readers?

Well MJK perhaps the solution is for people to eat less meat, after all it requires less energy to grow that protein (tofu) than it does to raise livestock. Some people may not like it but some people are going to have to stop driving SUV's at the same time. Furthermore I think that many farming practises at large chicken/pig/cattle farms are inhumane. People would go crazy if you ever treated dogs or cats the way pigs are treated, I only used pigs as an example and many studies have shown pigs to be more intelligent than dogs. So yeah Jane and John public are going to have to eat less meat, they'll probably be healthier for it.

That cult reference is scary, as is the fact that industry hires pr people to counter new science and new evidence questioning the safety of aquaculture with the same old arguments. On page 65 of the book from which Alexandra's excerpt came, Stephen Hume lists the industry's responses to their critics, "the antis". They sound pretty familiar is saying above: Antibiotic use in farmed salmon is miniscule compared to its use in other livestock like cattle, swine and poultry. Sewage from fish farms is miniscule compared to the billions of litres of human sewage dischared into the ocean... Opposition from aboriginal leaders doesn't take into account the positive benefits of steady employment in those First Nations communities that have embraced fish farms. Escapes of Atlantic salmon have been reduced to a marginal level and those that do escape are likely to small to compete with wild salmon and survive. Diseases like IHN, to which Atlantic salmon are susceptible, remain a problem but efforts to find a vaccine continue, and in the meantime a huge fish health database will track and report every mortality. The rest of the book questions each of those party lines, debunks them, brings new criticisms to light. Aquaculture as it is practised today is unsustainable... there won't even be enough wild fish left to make the feed for the carnivorous salmon. (I recommend every activist pick up a copy ... this debate should be the defining issue of the upcoming election. I sincerely hope it will be, because the Liberals are vulnerable here.

http://www.fishbase.org/search.cfm

"Straight.com: Coastlines" ("Human Impact Threatens Sakinaw Sockeye") at http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=6701

What about those ENGO's? Yes, the companies that grow fish are in it for the money. Their shareholders (perhaps your pension fund)expect no less. Make no mistake about it, environmental organizations are also in it for the money, out of necessity. Some ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organizations) freely admit that they require money to operate, no surprise there. ENGO's operate like businesses because they are businesses. No bucks, no T. Buck Suzuki Foundation. ENGOs receive funding from memberships and donations but their most significant source of revenue is from large US based foundations like the Pew Charitable Trust and the Packard foundation. As they reveal on their websites, ENGOs that apply for funding have to choose a "cause" which the foundations are willing to fund. Next, they must submit a proposal, do a presentation and close the deal. You can call that sales, I do. If successful with their proposal they are now required to issue progress reports that compare progress to agreed upon milestones, you can call that project management. As part of their reporting requirements, ENGO's must report all expenditures on a regular basis and provide proof of those expenditures to the trust, and report on variances, call that financial management. ENGOs that are decrying this process point to the unwillingness of these foundations to fund what they refer to as "infrastructure" which refers to rent, telephones, and support staff. In business terms, it's known as overhead. ENGOs are businesses and are run accordingly, or they fail and cease to exist. What kind of a business is it you ask?-AD AGENCIES. Without a doubt there are some sincere idealists that work for ENGOs, but they aren't the ones running the business.

I am surprised by the lack of knowledge and common sense being used when discussing farmed salmon. It is just not realistic to blame all of the wild salmon's problems on fish farms. Pacific salmon have been declining in the Northwest for over 140 years. The reason is not a mystery, Dams, Deforestation, Agriculure, Climate change and Over fishing are all proven factors. There is a misconception that land based fish farms are needed and industry is not willing to bear the financial burden. This is not true; land based fish farming requires large amounts of land use and is dependant on pumps (as a source of water circulation) which consume large amounts of electricity and fossil fuels. How can an increase in land use, deforestation, dams and green house gas emmissions be a solution to anything? We have a very unique situation in BC one that hasn't been an option throughout history. We have the opportunity to make a transition from a hunting gathering lifestyle to one of farming before species extinction. We CAN have two successful industries here in BC, Nobody is actually forcing anyone to choose one or the other. People need to keep one thing in the very front of their mind, Fish farms are dependant on being environmentally sustainable because their product or source of revenue requires it. Without a healthy environment salmon will not grow or survive and farms will simply be out of business.

RE SCK's comments on the lack of knowledge and common sense being used in these discussions. Amen

Well SCK, I thought you were going to enlighten us with a bit of common sense and then you go and toss out that same corporate drivel our colleague Clare has been trying to feed us. I see you too are tossing out that old rhubarb about the problems with land based farming becasue it would use too much energy. What do you call three pounds of wild fish protein to produce one pound of caged fish. If it's too costly environmentally, then sell off some of the damned SUVs that no one needs. This is simply a pack of lies created by your industry to justify the cheapest means posible to operate. From my persepctive it would appear your industry's greatest expense is paying off the politicians who have forgiven most of your deserved fines. You can pass this on to your parrot Phil for digestion as well. Farmed salmon tastes like carp and is environmentally harmful to our coastal waterways.

Dear Allan, Land based systems are not economically viable because they raise production costs to a level that is unprofitable for producers. Salmon is a commodity product sold into a global market and that means producers have little or no ability to charge a higher price, despite having higher costs. Higher costs and the same selling prices as net pen raised fish, means companies would lose money. If "forced" to grow fish on land in BC, producers would simply pack up and leave rather than lose money. (Which may explain its popularity in some circles.) Then say good bye to 3,000 jobs in BC, many of them in coastal communities. Land based production has been tried in BC numerous times and failed for the reasons SCK cites above. The most recent trials were conducted by Agrimarine at the Hagensborg facility in Cedar. The trials and results were audited by the provincial government. Land based systems work for hatcheries producing much smalller fish, but they are simply too expensive in terms of capital and operating costs for grow out. There is nothing personal or vindictive in this, it is simply a matter of economics. You say farmed salmon tastes like carp, which I hear is pretty popular in China, does that mean you have eaten both and compared them? By the way, wild salmon expend energy in pursuit of food and it is estimated that they require up to 5 kg of feed to produce 1 kg. of fish.

For all you land based advocates, here is an excerpt from a letter David Suzuki had published in the Vancouver Sun March 6, 2003 - "concerning the position of the David Suzuki Foundation on land-based, closed containment farms. Precisely because of energy concerns, my foundation has not called for land-based salmon farming operations."

For all you land based advocates, here is an excerpt from a letter David Suzuki had published in the Vancouver Sun March 6, 2003 - "concerning the position of the David Suzuki Foundation on land-based, closed containment farms. Precisely because of energy concerns, my foundation has not called for land-based salmon farming operations."

It may be hard to swallow, but we will have to accept that we cannot expect to have access to unlimited amount of animal meat for consumption - for our appetitites will never be satisfied. Salmon should be regarded, perhaps, as a rare treat for those who consume meat - because the fact is - like old oaks, we cannot just take everything that strikes our consumptive fancy - because at the end of the day, only ourselves will be left with barren lands and seas as a result of our greed. Out of all the headbanging we've gone through in our commentary: - should we eat wild to extinction? farmed to environmental destruction? land or sea aqua agriculture? - we seem to not want to acknowledge the most obvious answer - we have to exercise portion control - accept a limit on the amount of wild salmon we could sustainably consume, and appreciate the fact that variety is the spice of life - and there are plenty of fish in the sea - so to speak (assuming no oil spill had occurred within the spawning season).

Interesting discussion but leaving the issues of palatability aside for the moment, what right do we have to imprison a species for our own benefit? Isn't that the tolling bell behind mad cow disease and our latest chicken crisis? There are reasons salmon swim long distances. As shirin says we cannot just take everything that strikes our consumptive fancy. We are playing with a delicate balance, of which we, too, are a part.

Idealism says this is what people "should" do. Pragmatism says this is what people "actually" do. Attempts at social engineering to force people into "good" behaviour have unintended consequences and rarely achieve their objective. Despite the logic and benefit to society of a vegetarian diet, only 2% of North Americans are vegetarians. So where does that leave us? We live in a free society where we can make choices (thank God) whether its' between vegan and meat, chicken or fish, or wild versus farmed salmon, for our own reasons. We are also fortunate to have free speech in this country so that we can express our opinions.

I agree, Phil, the choices we make are crucial and as you say, thank God , we have them. Still, how we farm has enormous consequences. Farming of all kinds is now on the scale of Wal-mart creating a cruel, filthy, and degrading life for animals, making them into just another commodity to market. Just as long as we acknowledge that man is not immune from eventually being the recipient of a proportionate retaliatory sting back from the animal world.

One more thing, Phil, when you say,"by the way, wild salmon expend energy in pursuit of food and it is estimated that they require 5 kg. of feed to produce 1 kg. of fish." Moving past the cold calculations, this is a fish that needs healthy "pursuit", is biologically wired for it, for the long distance. Farmed fish are a perversion of that, against nature...and nature never forgets.

Lynn, I agree with you completely that these highly domesticated creatures (farm Atlantics)cannot compete with wild salmon. This is why they have failed to colonize outside their native range. The point is that farmed fish do, in fact, utilize feed species more efficiently than wild fish.

Salmon farming exists because the market exists and it is extremely profitable for the salmon aquaculture industry; there are no other reasons.

If, as they claim, the industry were serious about the future of healthy wild salmon it would abandon netcage farming and return to open range methods. Since salmon return to their natal streams - without our help or interference – harvesting could be done with strategically placed weirs and fish wheels. This would have the added benefit of doing away with the extremely energy dependent and energy wasteful net fishery.

The industry with its 3000 plus employees, plus the remnants of the commercial net fishery, could selectively harvest during migration months (May through November) and tend to stream enhancement the rest of the year.

Of course the aquaculture industry would actually have to develop an environmental ethic. They would actually have to be concerned about growing and harvesting a healthy product; work at reducing pollution and building a healthier planet; be concerned about the interest of others utilizing the resource, and swallow the fact that they have to deal with a seasonal product and less profit.

In today’s laissez faire, capitalist environment the aquaculture industry is just one of many scurrying along in the corporate race to the bottom of the resource pile. This planet doesn’t need more environmental destruction; it needs less.

KWD, very astute piece, imaginative simplicity, especially in relation to an open range method. Why must we work against a species, against it's quality of life? We are part of that delicate balance, not above it.

Thanks Lynn. I think it’s the everyday belief in an (unnatural) order of things that justifies the attitude that we live in a free society and can do what we please: Profits first, people second, everything else be damned :-(

KWD interesting comment, urging a return to pre-Columbian times has an undeniable nostalgic appeal, but how practical is it? Restoring the runs through improving salmon spawning habit is a higher priority than squabbling about harvest methods, wouldn't you say. Expending time and energy on a concern (salmon farming) that has far less impact on salmon numbers than either loss of spawning habitat or destructive fishing means that time and energy that could be put to good use is wasted. The catch (pardon the pun)with in river harvesting is that the fish start to darken when they enter the river (I'm generalizing here)so they have far less commerical value. The Katzie band operate a fish wheel on the Fraser, but so far the idea hasn't caught on with others who seem to prefer nets. Aquaculture companies have shown no interest in commercial fishing which is a losing proposition pretty much the world over, so why would they want to get involved? Ocean ranching, which is practiced here in BC (Robertson Creek), is not without its drawbacks. One of the drawbacks identifed in WA state is that successful operations receive intense fishing effort in a confined area which impacts local wild stocks negatively. Alaska receives heavy criticism for pumping vast numbers of hatchery fish (literally billions) into the ocean that compete with other species for food. Excess fish (pink salmon)that cannot be processed due to limited demand and plant capacity are dumped into Alaska's harbour smothering the bottom and resident marine life. The problems are complex and so are the solutions. We need to take actions based on solid science not spin (from any source).

Phil, salmon that have swam up to Hope and beyond on the Fraser River system may begin to darken, but they still offer much superior taste, good oil and protein than do your farmed salmon regardless of how much dye and other chemicals are mixed in with the farmed-fish food to make them look like real salmon. I do however totally agree that the industry's ability to produce in BC should be "based on solid science" rather than than on profit margins or even trickle-down tax benefits for the province. But when blatent disregard for environmental rules are ignored or intentionally abused, leading to fines being imposed, those fines certainly should not be forgiven simply because colleagues and or relatives of various MLAs and cabinet minister have a financial stake in those farms. If they can't afford to pay fines for polluting I'd suggest sending them packing back to Europe if the EU will even have them back.

Allan, sorry, I didn't fully explain the point I was trying to make. Dark salmon of any species sell for a discounted price, that's just the way fish buyers work. The owners of the common property resource (that's us taxpayers) get the maximum value for bright ocean caught fish and less for fish that have started to turn. I fish for salmon 20+ days a year and have caught salmon in saltwater that have darkened before entering fresh water. I have also caught silver bright cohos 100 miles from saltwater on the Skeena. It varies, like most things in nature. On the subject of subsidies for fish farming, I'm not aware of any that exist, are you? I agree with you that companies or individuals that break the law should be charged and penalized. The rule of law is fundamental to a civilized society don't you think?

The reason the Fraser River Salmon are 'disappeared' is the native fishery. Travelling through Great Falls Montana when the first big 'disappear' happened there was a pickup truck with three freezers on the back. The sign on the back was 'Fraser River Sockeye for sale.' To this day I'm sorry I didn't get a picture of that truck and the sellers.

Stolt-Neilson's latest annual revenue number is $2.2 billion, and over the past two years, its stock value has run up from just over $5 to over $25 per share, with stock price up over 220% in the past 12 months alone. So, while salmon farming is just one part of their empire, I dont think they are going broke. Hurrah that they spent $85,000 to hire folks to check the impact of their operations, but frankly a loss of over 2,500 fish at has got to be about a $85,000 hole in the inventory FOB ($3.50 per pound). If Stolt was really interested in the long-term sustainability of the BC ocean ecosystem -- that is if they were really interested in being here for the long run -- they ought to show a little more interest in ZERO escapes. I'm certainly glad these guys are NOT in charge of the prison system. Or zoos. Or daycares. Or infectious disease laboratories (hmmm).

The guy who runs the whole multi Stolt Sea Farm operation is an ex-salmon troller by the name of Dale Blackburn. He had a reputation for being being both really REALLY smart - and outstandingly ethical - back in his commercial fishing days. Not sure what happened. Of course, it's never too late to pull back from Mammon.

Hey, I knew Dale back then, and he was a good man and I am sure he still is. In fact, I've heard that - at least a couple years ago - Alexandra Morton thought so too. It's the big machine he'd wedded to that's the problem. How many of you can say that the corporation or government agency you work is squeaky clean. I personally dont like farmed fish, but until the government tightens up regulation and enforcement I'd certainly rather have a Stolt run by a guy like him than anyone else.

Fine, but everyone has to make choices. It all adds up. My choice is to eat wild fish and boycott the barfy florescent orange things from the factory. Yech.

Thanks. We appreciate your efforts to ensure that the life blood of the BC economy for the vast majority of its history and pre-history bleeds to death slowly. Sincerely, Braden Mack

Posted else where as well.

http://canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=719

I know, let's label farmed salmon as "farmed" and wild salmon as "wild."

In fact, even the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association says they wouldn't be opposed to labelling- http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filenam e=vbc_salmon20040712

Let the consumer decide.

The article is here -

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=vbc_s almon20040712

There might be a space between the "m" and the "e" in "filename."

Phil, the science has been there for decades. It’s a long accepted fact that species and genetic diversity are key to healthy ecosystems (and our) survival; unfortunately industry and the bulk of the citizenry doesn’t really care. Most folks believe economics must justify the science when, in fact, it should be the other way around. As a result we have the moronic stance of today’s techno-idiot (which is all too common) that believes raising fish and chicken in containers is based on ‘hard science’ and will benefit everyone. It benefits the corporate balance book and a hand full of employees; wild salmon, the environment and the rest of us loose.

If you are waiting the feds to come up with some brilliance (hard science) and turn things around, forget it. A recent official pronouncement claims there is no evidence fish farms are doing harm to wild salmon. An absolutely absurd statement. Well, if we turn that around we might ask whether there is any evidence DFO and the minister(s) responsible have done anything that has benefited wild salmon.

The ‘catch’ with in-river harvesting isn’t dark fish it’s lost profit. The crux of your spin is simply commercial viability and has little to do with wild salmon, their future or a healthy environment.

The problems aren’t complex; they are ignored in favour of a fast buck. So long as the focus is on economic growth and profitability, solutions will remain out of reach. Our casino economy will guarantee it.

As far as nostalgic appeal is concerned, the planet is fast reaching a point of negative energy growth.When the time comes and the full effects of the burst energy bubble are realized, many will wish they had been a little more nostalgic. Hopefully we will still have a few wild fish left.

Wow! the level of vitriol in this string is boggling. I have to applaud Hilarious for standing and delivering an even-handed and considered response in such a climate. The farmed-vs-wild debate is a non-starter - both are fine products - if you ate a mushy farmed fish then it wasn't raised very well. There has to be room for both. Land-based ain't the answer. This coast is crying for jobs and I don't see anybody else doing much about it. I think we should get back to farming the Pacific species though.

KWD, I agree with your first para. You are also correct that I am making an economic point on the value of fish harvested in the river versus fish harvested in the ocean. Is there are rule on this website that you can't make a point on the basis of economics? As you point out there is a struggle between economic forces (profit motives) and conservationists. I'm all for a balanced and sustainable approach. That entails listening to and considering other points of view. Polarization of the debate leads to an impasse, which is where we will be headed without reasoned and respectful discussion.

Gee, I hate to stir things up so late in this forum, but with the news presented Sunday by Canadian Press that Health Canada gave fish farmers in BC permission to use a harmful chemical to treat lice infestation, I am curious. I'd certainly like to know if Slice, the brand of chemical used is as bad as environmentalists claim it is, but more important, why the public wasn't made aware of these unpleaseant chemicals. For readers not familiar with this latest fish story, check The Tyees Reported Elsewhere section for the scoop (Controversial drug used in farmed salmon). It seems this has been going on for the past five years after our federal health watchdog, in reaction to urgent pleas from this favoured industry, increased the amount of Slice allowed in farmed fish from ZERO to 50 parts per billion. Perthaps Health Canada can elaborate on this substantial change in use of the toxic chemical as well, given that it is supposed to put the public's safety ahead of the industry's profitability. I guess I am also a bit puzzled because I was under the impression sea lice really wasn't a big deal as for as the industry was concerned. Are consummers given any warning what they may be ingesting if they eat fish from these farms?

Hire a PR FIrm to fix it... Slice in the sea, sea lice implicated with crashed pink salmon populations in the Broughton, PCBs and Dioxins in the farmed fish, escapes, and crashing sales… So what does the industry do? It hires a very big PR Firm: Hill & Knowlton. These are the same good people who handled Three Mile Island, the Kuwaiti Gov’t in the first Gulf War (remember the bogus story about Iraqis murdering babies in incubators?), and the good ol’ Tobacco Institute… Way to go guys. I know these fellows weren’t cheap. Too bad the money didn’t go into some decent R & D. The industry & the environment sure could use it. Anyhow, when it seems like there is a smear campaign against Alexandra Morton, yep, there is… (Even though she published her work in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, they still call her a “zealot,” and treat her as though she is not a scientist.) When it seems like there are so many weird contradictory “facts” floating around, that you just don’t know what to think, yep there are… Thanks to the BC Salmon Farmers Association and Hill & Knowlton, you can rest assured that the truth will remain a casualty. Finally, unlike “Sportfisher” above, I am glad environmental groups are getting some funding. (Though nothing like the gov’t handouts going to salmon farmers!) What sort of place would it be if no one was at least questioning this industry? You must be living in la-la-land if you think it would all be fine and dandy. Wake up folks! Environmental groups aren’t there to “trick” us or to spread “lies..” Who would say such a thing? Sure, no one has the monopoly on truth, but I see a lot more good thinking and research coming from enviro groups than I see coming from anywhere else. Keep it up! Maybe one fine day someone in power will listen… or not…

When a beleaguered industry is the focus of a group such as the Suzukis, who are composed entirely of media savvy spin doctors, you do look for some help in the public relations department. Salmon farmers are not PR specialists and nor should they try to be when faced with the pros the antis can bring to the table. Why would an industry need a PR firm? PR firms have connections in the media who can help get your side of the story out, without such help all the public would ever hear are the lies and scare stories the antis spread. With regards to Slice anyone remember the great aspartame scare? Some scientist found that when he fed enormous amounts of aspartame to lab rats some developed cancer resulting in canada banning aspartame and becoming the laughing stock of the world. Did you also know that drinking huge quantities of water can kill you? Anyone can make a drug sound scary just by saying it is toxic with out giving any scale of reference. Studies have found Slice to be a very safe, benign drug that is very carefully controlled by Health Canada. It is only when the professional spin doctors get hold of the topic that it suddenly becomes an issue eagerly spread by those who wish to continue to harm salmon aquaculture in BC. Those in power have finally listened, listened to proper science, not spin and come to the proper conclusion that salmon aquaculture is an environmentally sound, economically practical use of resourses despite the frantic efforts of a few shrill antis who need to keep spreading scare stories in order to keep the money flowing in from billion dollar US foundations.

"The love of money is truly the rooy of all evil"

Doh - I meant: "Root"

Hillarious, you're not even funny anymore. Please explain why your industry has been dumping Slice into the fish pens for five years, yet disclosure comes only when others speak out. You guys certainly aren't PR pros, but the foriegn-owned multinationals that really control this BC industry certainly have the funds to hire people who can explain fairly simple concepts. Certainly, you could find PR flacks who could maybe even lull your customers into beleiving there is nothing wrong with Slice. So the question still stands, why is it that the public only learns about this type of procedure when others take the time and energy to follow the slow, tedious freedom of information route? Disclosure man good man, full and timely disclosure, please.

In a news release issued last week, the Rainforest organization claimed that the drug Slice, which is used is salmon farming operations, was a banned substance. Slice, is not banned, but it is registered in several countries in Europe and is in the process of registration in Canada and the United States. The release also states the US food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not test Canadian salmon for Slice, implying that this substance can be shipped at will into the USA in farmed Canadian salmon. What they neglected to mention was that the Canadian Food Inspection Service (CFIA) tests for Slice routinely and that over the past two years have found no residues above the Maximum Residue Level (MRL), which in Canada has been set at one half of the European level (a 2x safety factor on the EU levels). The release also says that setting a tolerance by Health Canada for Slice in 2000 was a change in policy and was in some way a subterfuge to fool the public and prevent a recall. In fact, setting a tolerance is an indication of the recognition of a product’s safety at those levels and one of the steps in the registration process and is done for hundreds of products. The concern expressed about the trace residues found in a small percentage of the samples tested by CFIA by “scientists” as quoted in the release is the concern of a single individual whose work is financed by anti-salmon farming interests, His statements are criticized by independent scientists around the world with no ties to the salmon farming industry and can hardly be judged as credible. The facts about public health as stated in the release are at odds with the results of extensive studies done by regulatory and food safety organizations around the world. Once again, this organization demonstrates they are not dedicated to public health, but to the demise of the farmed salmon industry. To this end, they have put consumers at risk with false information that frightens them away from a safe food that can enhance their health and improve their quality of life. Even a cursory analysis of the facts compared to their claims shows how the credibility of this organization and those affiliated with it must be questioned at every turn and with every piece of information they manufacture.

Hilarious and other supporters seem to feel that they have been “beleaguered” victims of the evil "Suzukis" and other plotting environmentalists. As though environmentalists are desperately searching for things that cause harm to the environment… and when they can’t find any (because we live in such a perfect world), pick a fight with the unsuspecting salmon farmers… just their bad luck, I guess… And, it must be a global plot, because it’s happening everywhere, in other countries where Suzukis don’t even live, these false accusations about seal lice, crashing wild salmon, and weird chemicals finding their way into our seas and our food… You know, have you ever been sucked into a victim’s story, only to find out that they weren’t such a victim after all? What was your first hint that something wasn’t right? Maybe the way that everyone was wrong except for the “victim?” That no matter what you suggest, the “victim” finds a reason not to try to address the situation? The “victim” tells you over and over how other people are unreasonable and won’t listen, but you can’t help noticing that those other people have repeatedly said things that sound at least possibly sensible? Well, I would suggest that salmon farmers might not actually be victims or underdogs. They could in fact be large vertically integrated, well organized, and very efficient transnationals who have a lot more savvy than we care to give them, out here in Hicksville, BC. Many things about the salmon farming industry are really impressive, like the way they get fish to store shelf in just a few days… Gosh, the wild salmon fisheries could learn a few things there… But other things, like the denial that permeates everything they do, is more than a little obnoxious. It is plain wrong. Every time the BC gov’t forgives fines, or back taxes, or whatever, it is a blatant reminder that the playing field is indeed not level, but unlike what the “victim’s” PR firm would have you believe, it is not tilted in favour of those evil plotting environmentalists… Or you or me… Or the wild salmon… (You have one guess left…)

Many is the comment posted on this forum pontificating on the evils perpetrated by huge multinational corporations that supposedly run all salmon farming operations on this coast and how the goverment turns a blind eye to these operations that just run amuck destroying everything in site. The use of this argument merely points out that the poster has run through all other arguments and is now trying to discredit aquaculture by bringing in the specter of the evil multinational. Pretty pathetic really.

Speaking of level playing fields, it would sure be nice to be a company that had income of over 20 million a year, paid no taxes because they are supposedly a non-profit organization, and could really say anything about any subject and not have to back up their statements with any reliable data.

If you actually looked at salmon aquaculture over the years you will find that companies have spent millions of dollars to address concerns raised by various levels of government. There is no denial only a desire to address real concerns, not ones made up to provide good media optics to keep the money flowing.

"There is no denial, only a desire to address real concerns, not ones made up to provide good media optics to keep the money flowing," insists Hilarious. Did you write that sentence before or after premier Gordon Campbell announced the formation of the Pacific Salmon Forum yesterday? I ask because we are five months away from a provincial election and if the appointment of former federal fisheries minister John Fraser to head the forum isn't an effort by Campbell to "provide good media optics", I'll eat one of your farmed fish. If you will notice the forum will not look at the possibility the industry should be banned in BC waters as many are calling for. The Globe&Mail in today's edition quotes Fraser as saying consideration of closing the industry is not on. Why not? Does Fraser already know there are no problems(then why bother), or has his mandate been hobbled by Campbell before he even begins? It really does beg a question. Why limit the forum's scope? Have any of the six people named to the forum ever taken the position there might be environmental problems in the farmed fish industry? How many of them actually benefit from that industry as it exists now? More and more issues are being shelved until after the May 17 general election by this troubled government. Now it turns out this forum won't report anything for at least a year. Why?

Environmentalists now offer the case of Walden Edwards as further proof that farmed salmon is dangerous to your health.

Mr. Edwards was walking home from the store carrying a wrapped up farmed salmon under his arm when he was struck by a bus and killed.

Taken from a cartoon in the Globe and Mail.

John Fraser is on record as not being very favorable to salmon farming, Jeremy Maynard is on record as not being at all favorable to salmon farming, the Tsimshian nation is looking at salmon aquaculture as a viable addition to diversify their economy. I do not know who the other three members are, but right from the outset the anti's seem intent on trying to discredit the forum, probably sour grapes for not being invited to the party. As for my timing that was merely good luck.

Sorry Hilarious. My last posting wasn't meant to blindly bash multinationals. I was referring to a certain behaviour that I have seen in BC. I found the report your referred to above from Raincoast Conservation, and in it they claim that most of the fish farms in BC are indeed controlled by the "big five" multinationals. So, there appears to be some truth to that. But, no, I don't think multinationals are bad, end of statement. Please re-read what I had to say. It was written with sarcasm, sure, but to make a point. I simply find it hard to believe that the recurrence of sea lice problems (or whatever) around the world wherever salmon farms are found is the result of idle environmentalists trying to keep themselves in paying jobs. I mean, do you really believe that? Or, is it simply your job to defend the industry? ...just like you say it is the environmentalists job to trash it? Is there any difference? People in glass houses...

On the BC coast there is no evidence that sealice from salmon farms causes any impact to wild salmon, or that there is an increase in sealice associated with salmon farms. The anti's love to point to the pink salmon as proof to the contrary but that is really no proof at all. There is no background historical data on sealice to indicate any deviance from the norm. If you go to

http://www.greenspirit.com/pinksalmon/index.cfm

and look at the graph of pink salmon returns in the Broughtons you will see an explosive growth in returns corresponding to the start up of salmon farming in that area, peaking with a humugous return in 2000. The returns from that year class in 2002 were back to historical levels ending the ever increasing returns and the salmon farms were immediately blamed with no one even trying to look at other reasons for the low returns. When you have someone running around with a tiny dip net and trying to call the results scientific and then scoffing at the large scale studies undertaken by DFO then yes I really think it is idle eco's trying to keep themselves in the money and in the spot light. Whats missing from the graph is the returns from 2003, about 350,000 I believe, and just over 1 million for 2004. After looking at the graph can anyone really say with a straight face that the pink salmon flucutations are anything but natural occurrences?

Studies conducted in Scotland have shown sealice levels on wild sea trout to be independent of the presence or absence of a farm in the area.

STOLT. Does that stand for Sealice Taint Our Lovely Tyhees.

Hmmm, an angler that is surprised to see sea lice on salmon. Interesting.

“Opponents Of Proposed Sablefish Farms Charge That Disease And Parasites Will Devastate Wild Stocks. Sound Familiar?” at http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=7070

“The Truth About The Science Of Fish Lice” at http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=7071

Real science being done with regards to sealice not just rhetoric and theories put forth in the absence of scientific data.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/health/sealice_MS_ 2004.htm#Review

http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/mehsd/sea_lice/2004/ 2004_intro_e.htm

All the sablefish fight is about is a few very wealthy licence holders trying to keep their monopoly on the blackcod market.

The second link does not seem to want to work for some reason. Copy and paste the URL below into the address field.

http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/mehsd/sea_lice/2004/200 4_intro_e.htm

Globe&Mail reported this morning on a new federal initiative to protect wild salmon stocks. The Globe stated one of the big concerns are infestations of sealice brought on by fish farms. Must be another one of those "enviro type newspapers, eh. Dang radicals.

Top Media Scares of 2004

http://canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=723

Sea lice did not kill 3.6 million pink salmon in the Broughton; these fish returned to spawn and died as they always do after completing that stage of life. 7 of the largest returns in history were recorded after fish farming began in the Broughton including the unprecidented 2000 run which doubled the previous record. A crash following overpopulation is not uncommon and is documented in other rivers throughout BC. Over competition for spawning grounds, gravel disturbance, low oxygen levels, lack of food etc. result in poor juvenile health and survival. A report found on the Suzuki website confirms these factors and states - there is no evidence to indicate whether sea lice are the primary invader (root cause of mortality) or a secondary invader (an opportunistic parasite taking advantage of an already weakened immune system). To suggest that sea lice are the definite problem because they are found on both farmed and wild salmon is an over simpified correlation. For example There are 43000+ auto accidents in BC every year. Contributing factors include; drunk driving, speeding, wreckless driving etc. But there is one thing they all have in common. 100% involved automobiles with black tires. Should we just ignore the other factors and ban black tires? - should we stop road checks and breathalizers? Get rid of posted speed limits? How can you argue with 100%? People may think this is silly and of course black tires are not the problem but that is only because they understand how an automobile works; can the majority of people say the same for aquaculture?

Allan, you asked earlier "I'd certainly like to know if Slice, the brand of chemical used is as bad as environmentalists claim it is" Well decide for yourself; First Slice is not dumped anywhere it is premixed into feed. 1,000,000 grams of feed used to treat for sea lice contains about 5000 grams of Slice which contains 0.2% or 10 grams of the active ingredient emamectin. The other 99.8 % of Slice ingredients are inert. Hardly a conspiracy theory. Secondly if you think that 50 parts per billion (ppb) is a high number try thinking of it this way. 50 ppb is actually 1 part per 20 million. A new Lamborghini Gallardo costs about 200,000 dollars or 20 million cents. Would a penny be considered a good down payment on a new Lamborghini? And even if you believed it was would you tell that to all your friends?

A Stain Upon The Science On Nov. 21st The Tyee published an excerpt by Alexandra Morton of an essay she had published in A Stain Upon The Sea: West Coast Salmon Farming, a book published by Harbour Publishing. In this essay, Ms. Morton claims to have proven that escaped farmed Atlantic salmon can survive in BC waters. But her conclusions are a little fishy. source:http://canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=719

January 21, 2005 Homalco Win Historic Injunction Forcing Company to Remove Farmed Salmon (Vancouver, BC) Several high level provincial and federal First Nations leaders will participate in a news conference on January 24th to discuss the recent BC Supreme Court decision ordering Marine Harvest Canada to remove Atlantic Salmon from their fish farm on Homalco territory. In addition, the participants will speak about the Court's decision to grant a judicial review of the process that led to the approval of the fish farm in the first place. The 5-day judicial review process commences, with a broad base of Aboriginal support, in BC Supreme Court on January 24, 2005.

who gives an ass if you people like or hate fish because they are gay