Salmon farming is a threat to healthy wild stocks Study links sea lice from fish farms to deaths in migratory population
By Rob Edwards
Environment Editor SCOTLAND'S WILD fish are increasingly being killed by lice leaking from salmon farms, new government research has revealed. But keeping them a safe distance apart has been deemed too costly and "logistically difficult" a solution.
Reports from the Scottish government's FisheriesResearchServices(FRS)in AberdeenandPitlochryhavefound strong evidence that sea lice from caged salmon contaminate wild fish - and the problem seems to be getting worse.
The lice eat fish flesh, causing badly infested salmon and sea trout to die. The problem is estimated to cost the Scottish fish-farming industry up to £30 million a year, but the impact on wild fish has been hotly disputed.
FRS scientists will present the results of an eight-year research project into the impact of salmon farming on wild fish at a conference in Chile this week. Summaries of their studies, released under freedom of information laws, show links between lice from salmon farms and wild fish.
One study, by James Raffell from the FRS field station at Sheildaig in Wester Ross, found levels of lice on wild sea trout varied in line with infestations at nearby fish farms. A study of Loch
TorridonandLochSheildaig concluded that a "widespread abundance" of lice in early 2007 was "probably linked" to elevated levels at local fish farms.
AnotherFRSreportsaidresearch from Norway and Ireland suggested sea lice from fish farms could have "serious effects" on the wild salmon population.
"The proposed solution was to introduce a mandatory separation distance between farm locations and important wild fishery rivers," it said. "In Scotland, such a solution would be hugely expensive and difficult logistically due to a shortage of new viable sites for farms."
The FRS reports were obtained by the Pure Salmon Campaign, which described them as "deeply disturbing". "The government appears to have given up without a fight to protect wild Scottish salmon - a national icon - because it might be too difficult or too expensive," alleged the campaign's Don Staniford.
The FRS research reinforces a global study published last month in Canada which said wild salmon passing by fish farms suffered 50% higher mortality rates than salmon which didn't go
near them.
"This should be a wake-up call to the global salmon-farming industry," said Staniford. "The weight of scientific evidence now demands salmon farmers in Scotland, Ireland, Canada and Norway clean up their act before wild salmonids edge closer toward extinction."
The spread of sea lice from fish farms has long worried angling groups. Roger Brook, chairman of the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland, said he would support the removal of some farms on a trial basis to see if it would reverse the decline in fish stocks.
The Scottish government insisted it was "false" to suggest it had given up on protecting wild salmon. A spokeswoman said "considerable resources" had been devoted to research into sea lice, and working groups had been set up to consider fish farm relocations and agreements on lice treatments.
"We are also always considering new measures and are, for example, sharing good practice with the Norwegian producers," she added.
|
|
Posted by: Norm Calder on 5:15am Sun 30 Mar 08
Lazy journalism yet again. Take a press release and turn it into a story. Do some research and you will find that Don Staniford is an anti- salmon farming fanatic who has been convicted of defamation in a Canadian court and yet you publish his views like he was some independent expert. The trial judge in Canada said 'Mr. Staniford’s concern when he published the press releases, and during subsequent interviews, was not whether the allegations (he made)were true or whether the public interest was served; rather, he intentionally used inflammatory words and withheld facts in order to achieve his goals of increasing opposition to salmon farming.'In my view, Mr. Staniford was motivated by actual malice in that he was trying to build up opposition to Creative Salmon as a company that was attempting to obtain organic certification for its fish.” Is this the sort of guy the Herald, this bastion of Scottish journalism, wants to be aligning with as an objective source?
Lazy journalism yet again. Take a press release and turn it into a story. Do some research and you will find that Don Staniford is an anti- salmon farming fanatic who has been convicted of defamation in a Canadian court and yet you publish his views like he was some independent expert. The trial judge in Canada said 'Mr. Staniford’s concern when he published the press releases, and during subsequent interviews, was not whether the allegations (he made)were true or whether the public interest was served; rather, he intentionally used inflammatory words and withheld facts in order to achieve his goals of increasing opposition to salmon farming.'In my view, Mr. Staniford was motivated by actual malice in that he was trying to build up opposition to Creative Salmon as a company that was attempting to obtain organic certification for its fish.” Is this the sort of guy the Herald, this bastion of Scottish journalism, wants to be aligning with as an objective source?
Posted by: Slioch, Scottish Highlands on 9:09am Sun 30 Mar 08
Lazy comment, Norm Calder.
If you had not been so eager to rubbish the article you would have noticed that it derived not from a press release but from a freedom of information request that forced the release of a summary of reports from the Scottish government's Fisheries Research Services.
The report had nothing to do with Don Staniford, whose comments about it, whilst challenging, were no more hyberbolic than a normal political exchange.
Lazy comment, Norm Calder.
If you had not been so eager to rubbish the article you would have noticed that it derived not from a press release but from a freedom of information request that forced the release of a summary of reports from the Scottish government's Fisheries Research Services.
The report had nothing to do with Don Staniford, whose comments about it, whilst challenging, were no more hyberbolic than a normal political exchange.
Posted by: Sammy, Atlantis on 10:43am Sun 30 Mar 08
The output from the FRS research is most unsurprising. The affect on wild stocks has been obvious for decades and has been reported on for decades but the "Scottish" version of the scientific proof has been slow to come. Back issues of Private Eye "Down on the Fish Farm" and various press articles of the late 90's would be revealing if re-read.
As far as the costs go, in the beginning many of Scotland's West Coast were land based with zero sea lice issue. If this benefit had been marketed properly as a differentiated product from the Norwegian salmon then we might not have ended up a) in a price war with the Scandanavian salmon producers and b) with our farms being owned by Scandanavian companies.
Ironically, one of the main reasons that Scottish Farms moved from the land to the sea was SEPA's (the environmental protection people) flawed charging scheme and its failure to apply the precautionary principle. The charging scheme was hugely biased in favour of cage farms whilst the knowledge was not there on the fate of chemical treatments, lice infestations, and other cage farm releases to our sea lochs. Our sea lochs may be fiord like but they do not have fiord like proportions.
A tad simplistic in such a short space, perhaps, but there is much truth in it.
The output from the FRS research is most unsurprising. The affect on wild stocks has been obvious for decades and has been reported on for decades but the "Scottish" version of the scientific proof has been slow to come. Back issues of Private Eye "Down on the Fish Farm" and various press articles of the late 90's would be revealing if re-read.
As far as the costs go, in the beginning many of Scotland's West Coast were land based with zero sea lice issue. If this benefit had been marketed properly as a differentiated product from the Norwegian salmon then we might not have ended up a) in a price war with the Scandanavian salmon producers and b) with our farms being owned by Scandanavian companies.
Ironically, one of the main reasons that Scottish Farms moved from the land to the sea was SEPA's (the environmental protection people) flawed charging scheme and its failure to apply the precautionary principle. The charging scheme was hugely biased in favour of cage farms whilst the knowledge was not there on the fate of chemical treatments, lice infestations, and other cage farm releases to our sea lochs. Our sea lochs may be fiord like but they do not have fiord like proportions.
A tad simplistic in such a short space, perhaps, but there is much truth in it.
Posted by: Cally, Homeland on 12:19pm Sun 30 Mar 08
....and I thought that it was the wild salmon that brought the sea lice to farms!
....and I thought that it was the wild salmon that brought the sea lice to farms!
Posted by: Bill B, Edinburgh on 1:09pm Sun 30 Mar 08
I don't understand why some people are still trying to defend this bankrupt (in more ways than you can say, “Public Money”) industry. It has destroyed the once pristine waters off Scotland's west coast, and to what purpose, ‘Buy One Get One Free'?
The biggest joke though, is the idea of 'Organic Salmon', does the Soil Association think they've enhanced their credibility with this certification idea?
I don't understand why some people are still trying to defend this bankrupt (in more ways than you can say, “Public Money”) industry. It has destroyed the once pristine waters off Scotland's west coast, and to what purpose, ‘Buy One Get One Free'?
The biggest joke though, is the idea of 'Organic Salmon', does the Soil Association think they've enhanced their credibility with this certification idea?
Posted by: Wildfisher, Aberdeen on 2:29pm Sun 30 Mar 08
So, just when IS Alex Salmond and Richard Lochhead going to stop kowtowing to the fish farming multinationals, get the finger out and act to save our wild west coast fish?
So, just when IS Alex Salmond and Richard Lochhead going to stop kowtowing to the fish farming multinationals, get the finger out and act to save our wild west coast fish?
Posted by: Peter Mantle, ireland on 2:48pm Sun 30 Mar 08
Whatever Norm Calder's view of Don Staniford or your quoting of him, nothing can take away from the [bold]fact[/bold] (and I use the word advisedly)that sea lice from salmon farms have devastated wild stocks of salmon and sea trout right in virtually all countries and locations where open pens are used to farm salmon intensively. On our river in Ireland the effects on wild fish have been catastrophic - and can be accurately measured by releasing groups of smolts released from the hatchery, some treated with an anti-louse agent and others not. There is no longer any serious debate about the problem - just about the solution.
Whatever Norm Calder's view of Don Staniford or your quoting of him, nothing can take away from the
fact (and I use the word advisedly)that sea lice from salmon farms have devastated wild stocks of salmon and sea trout right in virtually all countries and locations where open pens are used to farm salmon intensively. On our river in Ireland the effects on wild fish have been catastrophic - and can be accurately measured by releasing groups of smolts released from the hatchery, some treated with an anti-louse agent and others not. There is no longer any serious debate about the problem - just about the solution.
Posted by: Bill Vernon, Powell River on 2:54pm Sun 30 Mar 08
Lazy comment Slioch,
Mr. Calder's point was that the Anti salmon farming group Pure Salmon and their employee Mr. Staniford provided comment to the reporter about a finding of FRS. Due to Staniford's conviction in Canada considerable doubt should be exercised when using any information or comment he makes in regard to salmon farming. If this was an 8 year study it will likely have more in it than what was reported. Mr. Raffels conclusions said that the increase in sea lice was PROBABLY linked to nearby farms. This is not conclusive and is specualtion. The work done in Canada is inconclusive and the so called science that suggested salmon will be extinct in 4 generations has been refuted by 18 world class scientists. This is not vindication for salmon farmers but it surely points to some shoddy science. Science paid for by large US based foundations and done by their employees. These same foundations support Alaskan salmon marketing efforts while de-marketing farmed salmon. Believe what you want but I want my information from objective scientists and not third hand comments.
Lazy comment Slioch,
Mr. Calder's point was that the Anti salmon farming group Pure Salmon and their employee Mr. Staniford provided comment to the reporter about a finding of FRS. Due to Staniford's conviction in Canada considerable doubt should be exercised when using any information or comment he makes in regard to salmon farming. If this was an 8 year study it will likely have more in it than what was reported. Mr. Raffels conclusions said that the increase in sea lice was PROBABLY linked to nearby farms. This is not conclusive and is specualtion. The work done in Canada is inconclusive and the so called science that suggested salmon will be extinct in 4 generations has been refuted by 18 world class scientists. This is not vindication for salmon farmers but it surely points to some shoddy science. Science paid for by large US based foundations and done by their employees. These same foundations support Alaskan salmon marketing efforts while de-marketing farmed salmon. Believe what you want but I want my information from objective scientists and not third hand comments.
Posted by: bert, the west coast.....yes really! on 12:13pm Mon 31 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Peter Mantle[/bold] wrote:
Whatever Norm Calder's view of Don Staniford or your quoting of him, nothing can take away from the [bold]fact[/bold] (and I use the word advisedly)that sea lice from salmon farms have devastated wild stocks of salmon and sea trout right in virtually all countries and locations where open pens are used to farm salmon intensively. On our river in Ireland the effects on wild fish have been catastrophic - and can be accurately measured by releasing groups of smolts released from the hatchery, some treated with an anti-louse agent and others not. There is no longer any serious debate about the problem - just about the solution.[/quote] There is NO definitive evidence anywhere to suggest sea lice have devastated wild stocks, and the anti-fishfarming/env
iromentalist hyperventilators will continually throw this one in to the ring. As far as declining stocks are concerned the following should be consdered: drift netting, undeclared angling catches, poaching (for decades), environmental change, acid rain and associated changes to pH which affect natural river spawning, predation from protected predators such as herons, cormorants and other diving birds, as well as otters and seals? All lovely cuddly green animals with a natural penchant for wild (or farmed!) salmon. The sea lice saga is one which will pop-up from time to time but as a long time served salmon farmer I am aware that our salmon go to sea louse free (as do ALL farmed salmon) and it is wild runs and farms situated in the vicinity of rivers which succumb more readily to sea lice issues. All farmers know the risks and it is in the interest of the farmer and the success of his business to ensure he identifies sea lice (if they appear) early within his stocks by carrying out weekly parasite checks and treating them accordingly. The FRS report lacks detail in my opinion, and fails to establish without question that the copepodites captured within the trawls areound Torridon were indeed from farmed fish. I would also point out that trawling for zooplankton within estuarine waters is in any case highly likely to show elevated levels of sea lice offspring due to the fact that any wild fish running upstream will eventually shed lice that will inevitably end up in the estuary. It has been demonstrated that a dying gravid female louse will release her offspring - if indeed they are ready to be released. These facts should be given careful consideration before the farmers start having the finger pointed at them yet again.
Peter Mantle wrote:
Whatever Norm Calder's view of Don Staniford or your quoting of him, nothing can take away from the fact (and I use the word advisedly)that sea lice from salmon farms have devastated wild stocks of salmon and sea trout right in virtually all countries and locations where open pens are used to farm salmon intensively. On our river in Ireland the effects on wild fish have been catastrophic - and can be accurately measured by releasing groups of smolts released from the hatchery, some treated with an anti-louse agent and others not. There is no longer any serious debate about the problem - just about the solution.
There is NO definitive evidence anywhere to suggest sea lice have devastated wild stocks, and the anti-fishfarming/env
iromentalist hyperventilators will continually throw this one in to the ring. As far as declining stocks are concerned the following should be consdered: drift netting, undeclared angling catches, poaching (for decades), environmental change, acid rain and associated changes to pH which affect natural river spawning, predation from protected predators such as herons, cormorants and other diving birds, as well as otters and seals? All lovely cuddly green animals with a natural penchant for wild (or farmed!) salmon. The sea lice saga is one which will pop-up from time to time but as a long time served salmon farmer I am aware that our salmon go to sea louse free (as do ALL farmed salmon) and it is wild runs and farms situated in the vicinity of rivers which succumb more readily to sea lice issues. All farmers know the risks and it is in the interest of the farmer and the success of his business to ensure he identifies sea lice (if they appear) early within his stocks by carrying out weekly parasite checks and treating them accordingly. The FRS report lacks detail in my opinion, and fails to establish without question that the copepodites captured within the trawls areound Torridon were indeed from farmed fish. I would also point out that trawling for zooplankton within estuarine waters is in any case highly likely to show elevated levels of sea lice offspring due to the fact that any wild fish running upstream will eventually shed lice that will inevitably end up in the estuary. It has been demonstrated that a dying gravid female louse will release her offspring - if indeed they are ready to be released. These facts should be given careful consideration before the farmers start having the finger pointed at them yet again.
Posted by: Al Hughes, London on 4:45pm Mon 31 Mar 08
I have Googled this subject and - guess what? Good old "Bill Vernon" and "Norm Calder" have regularly contributed to message boards attacking articles that portray fish farming in a negative light. Are they by any chance involved in the industry?
I used to think fish farming was a God-send for the Highlands. Now I realise it is as ugly and corrupt as any other industry. The attempts by those on this message board to discredit the article are hilarious. Until someone can invent a way of tagging a louse and then follow it from a farmed salmon to a wild one the aquaculture industry will always be able to shriek about lack of proof.
Well Norm Calder, how do you explain the 500,000+ farmed salmon escaped from sea cages in the Highlands since 2004? Are you happy to have them swimming around interbreeding with wild fish? Are you going to blame the seals for this? Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats the natural world around it with contempt.
I have been to fish farms, I have spoken to managers, owners and customers. There are some managers out there who give a ****, but the massive majority of these farms are an environmental disaster and have been for 20 years. The only place where this is no longer accepted as truth is on message boards like this that allows the odd 'flat-earth' mind a chance to air his comical views!
I have Googled this subject and - guess what? Good old "Bill Vernon" and "Norm Calder" have regularly contributed to message boards attacking articles that portray fish farming in a negative light. Are they by any chance involved in the industry?
I used to think fish farming was a God-send for the Highlands. Now I realise it is as ugly and corrupt as any other industry. The attempts by those on this message board to discredit the article are hilarious. Until someone can invent a way of tagging a louse and then follow it from a farmed salmon to a wild one the aquaculture industry will always be able to shriek about lack of proof.
Well Norm Calder, how do you explain the 500,000+ farmed salmon escaped from sea cages in the Highlands since 2004? Are you happy to have them swimming around interbreeding with wild fish? Are you going to blame the seals for this? Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats the natural world around it with contempt.
I have been to fish farms, I have spoken to managers, owners and customers. There are some managers out there who give a ****, but the massive majority of these farms are an environmental disaster and have been for 20 years. The only place where this is no longer accepted as truth is on message boards like this that allows the odd 'flat-earth' mind a chance to air his comical views!
Posted by: A. MacP, Western Isles on 2:17pm Thu 3 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Al Hughes[/bold] wrote:
I have Googled this subject and - guess what? Good old \"Bill Vernon\" and \"Norm Calder\" have regularly contributed to message boards attacking articles that portray fish farming in a negative light. Are they by any chance involved in the industry? I used to think fish farming was a God-send for the Highlands. Now I realise it is as ugly and corrupt as any other industry. The attempts by those on this message board to discredit the article are hilarious. Until someone can invent a way of tagging a louse and then follow it from a farmed salmon to a wild one the aquaculture industry will always be able to shriek about lack of proof. Well Norm Calder, how do you explain the 500,000+ farmed salmon escaped from sea cages in the Highlands since 2004? Are you happy to have them swimming around interbreeding with wild fish? Are you going to blame the seals for this? Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats the natural world around it with contempt. I have been to fish farms, I have spoken to managers, owners and customers. There are some managers out there who give a ****, but the massive majority of these farms are an environmental disaster and have been for 20 years. The only place where this is no longer accepted as truth is on message boards like this that allows the odd \'flat-earth\' mind a chance to air his comical views![/quote] Could Mr. Hughes (clearly not a regular salmon farming message board contributer:O) perhaps explain how 500,000+ escapee farmed salmon manage to survive....relativel
y easily....in....yes.
..THE WILD,(and manage to interbreed with WILD fish!) when (allegedly) the wild stocks are disappearing due to louse infestations. What then, makes the farmed fish more robust and able to survive more readily in the wild? And could he perhaps let the industry, and wild fish interests know the secret, that they may be able to use this phenomenon to their advantage, and live/work together in perfect harmony!
Thank goodness for Google eh, "Mr. Hughes"? Norm Calder and Bill Vernon clearly have no qualms about disguising their identity, and I guess anyone of average intelligence would be able to determine that, Mr. Hughes (from his own comments) has an axe to grind with industy in general?? Must be tough for you sir, especially living in LONDON.
Al Hughes wrote:
I have Googled this subject and - guess what? Good old \"Bill Vernon\" and \"Norm Calder\" have regularly contributed to message boards attacking articles that portray fish farming in a negative light. Are they by any chance involved in the industry? I used to think fish farming was a God-send for the Highlands. Now I realise it is as ugly and corrupt as any other industry. The attempts by those on this message board to discredit the article are hilarious. Until someone can invent a way of tagging a louse and then follow it from a farmed salmon to a wild one the aquaculture industry will always be able to shriek about lack of proof. Well Norm Calder, how do you explain the 500,000+ farmed salmon escaped from sea cages in the Highlands since 2004? Are you happy to have them swimming around interbreeding with wild fish? Are you going to blame the seals for this? Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats the natural world around it with contempt. I have been to fish farms, I have spoken to managers, owners and customers. There are some managers out there who give a ****, but the massive majority of these farms are an environmental disaster and have been for 20 years. The only place where this is no longer accepted as truth is on message boards like this that allows the odd \'flat-earth\' mind a chance to air his comical views!
Could Mr. Hughes (clearly not a regular salmon farming message board contributer:O) perhaps explain how 500,000+ escapee farmed salmon manage to survive....relativel
y easily....in....yes.
..THE WILD,(and manage to interbreed with WILD fish!) when (allegedly) the wild stocks are disappearing due to louse infestations. What then, makes the farmed fish more robust and able to survive more readily in the wild? And could he perhaps let the industry, and wild fish interests know the secret, that they may be able to use this phenomenon to their advantage, and live/work together in perfect harmony!
Thank goodness for Google eh, "Mr. Hughes"? Norm Calder and Bill Vernon clearly have no qualms about disguising their identity, and I guess anyone of average intelligence would be able to determine that, Mr. Hughes (from his own comments) has an axe to grind with industy in general?? Must be tough for you sir, especially living in LONDON.
Posted by: Al Hughes, London on 6:03pm Mon 7 Apr 08
I did not once suggest that farmed fish are "more robust and able to survive more readily in the wild" - so please do not put words into my mouth. However, since you do not dispute the figures I quoted (from the Scottish Executive), let us suppose that of those 500,000 escapee fish 80% die or are taken by predators before breeding - a very optimistic assumption. That still leaves about 30,000 fish a year since 2004 potentially running the West Highland rivers where populations of wild fish are severely depleted. (To put that in perspective, that is double the entire annual rod catch of the best salmon river in Britain, the Tweed). The presence of just half a dozen mature farmed salmon in a small West Coast river is a serious genetic threat.
I repeat: Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats that natural world with contempt. They are also a sad and unavoidable fact that no bluster from the aquaculture industry can hide.
I have not once been on a message board about this subject - I would cheerfully admit it if I had. But I will be sure to visit more soon if I can have the laugh I enjoyed reading your final sentence, "A. MacP". It is almost touching that there are still people out there who can write that!
Come and visit us in London (or as you hilariously put it "LONDON") soon. It is sure to broaden your mind.
I did not once suggest that farmed fish are "more robust and able to survive more readily in the wild" - so please do not put words into my mouth. However, since you do not dispute the figures I quoted (from the Scottish Executive), let us suppose that of those 500,000 escapee fish 80% die or are taken by predators before breeding - a very optimistic assumption. That still leaves about 30,000 fish a year since 2004 potentially running the West Highland rivers where populations of wild fish are severely depleted. (To put that in perspective, that is double the entire annual rod catch of the best salmon river in Britain, the Tweed). The presence of just half a dozen mature farmed salmon in a small West Coast river is a serious genetic threat.
I repeat: Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats that natural world with contempt. They are also a sad and unavoidable fact that no bluster from the aquaculture industry can hide.
I have not once been on a message board about this subject - I would cheerfully admit it if I had. But I will be sure to visit more soon if I can have the laugh I enjoyed reading your final sentence, "A. MacP". It is almost touching that there are still people out there who can write that!
Come and visit us in London (or as you hilariously put it "LONDON") soon. It is sure to broaden your mind.
Posted by: A MacP, Western Isles on 3:42pm Tue 8 Apr 08
You should analyse the content of your posts a little more carefully before you post them ''Mr. Hughes'' as the way it reads is how you write it Sir. And fear not, I wouldn't care to put ''words into the mouth'' of such a vulgar little man. Clearly you have little knowledge of the values of the salmon farming industry to the more fragile communities north of the border and since I do, and work within those communities, I would hope that anyone reading these post that happens to be in the West Highlands comes to see for themselves, and makes their own mind up. Many farmers will gladly take members of the public out to see how the fish are cared for and how they are sympathetic to the environment that they live and work. Your projections for the survivability of escaped fish are pure conjecture and lack any form of detail whatsoever i.e. what stage in the lifecycle are the escaped fish? Are they fry? Are they parr? Are they smolt? Are they 1kg, 2kg, 3kg - are they 10kg!! Are they immature, are they mature (bearing in mind farmed fish are generally bred with lowmat characteristics). The Scottish Exec figures that you are so keen on trumpeting are based on reported (by the industry) escapes - not escapee captures! Your ignorance of the subject you are posting on Sir appears quite staggering.
And for your information, London is somewhere I have visited, and not somewhere I would care to spend a great deal of time I hasten to add. Whether it has the capability of “broadening ones mind” I would say is questionable, especially if your ignorance is the finest example you have of this.
You should analyse the content of your posts a little more carefully before you post them ''Mr. Hughes'' as the way it reads is how you write it Sir. And fear not, I wouldn't care to put ''words into the mouth'' of such a vulgar little man. Clearly you have little knowledge of the values of the salmon farming industry to the more fragile communities north of the border and since I do, and work within those communities, I would hope that anyone reading these post that happens to be in the West Highlands comes to see for themselves, and makes their own mind up. Many farmers will gladly take members of the public out to see how the fish are cared for and how they are sympathetic to the environment that they live and work. Your projections for the survivability of escaped fish are pure conjecture and lack any form of detail whatsoever i.e. what stage in the lifecycle are the escaped fish? Are they fry? Are they parr? Are they smolt? Are they 1kg, 2kg, 3kg - are they 10kg!! Are they immature, are they mature (bearing in mind farmed fish are generally bred with lowmat characteristics). The Scottish Exec figures that you are so keen on trumpeting are based on reported (by the industry) escapes - not escapee captures! Your ignorance of the subject you are posting on Sir appears quite staggering.
And for your information, London is somewhere I have visited, and not somewhere I would care to spend a great deal of time I hasten to add. Whether it has the capability of “broadening ones mind” I would say is questionable, especially if your ignorance is the finest example you have of this.
Posted by: Al Hughes, London on 12:58am Sun 13 Apr 08
Once again, A MacP, you are using the classic tactics of the aquaculture industry to try to hide the ugly truth. You try to discredit my conjecture - and yes, of COURSE it is conjecture - by fussing over details. What on earth does is matter whether the fish is 2kg or 100kg? Look at what I wrote. Here it is for the third time: "Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats the natural world with contempt". In other words it does not matter, in principal, where or how or what size these fish are. The unavoidable fact is this: over half a million genetically impure farmed salmon have been accidentally released into the wild by the aquaculture industry in little more than 3 years. This is a scandal that cannot be hidden or hushed up. People are finally seeing the industry for what it is.
Here is some more conjecture for you: let us say - for the sake of argument - that you work on a salmon farm. Let us say that this farm is responsibly run. It has never had a mass escape. It is not owned by a multi-national. It employs local people, not migrant workers. It keeps its lice levels at zero and enjoys good relations with the community. It uses fish feed from a sustainable source. The final product even tastes good. If all this were true I would expect you to be blind with fury at what has been going on in the aquaculture industry. I would expect you to be raging against the irresponsible farms that give your industry such a bad name. I would expect you to be livid because they are harming your business, all the while dragging your good name and good product through the mud....
But you're not blind with fury at those irresponsible fish farmers are you? You're blind with fury at me. It's odd, because to suggest all salmon farmers are alike is of course absurd. But I have not yet heard someone within the industry railing against the appalling mistakes that have been made in its name. It's as if they have all taken an oath not ever to criticise fellow fish farmers. It's creepy. All of the previous paragraph is, I repeat in case you weren't listening, conjecture. But it makes a useful point.
If you really believe that salmon farming is as valuable as you suggest to Highland communities then why aren't you attacking the irresponsible fish farmers? Instead, you are wasting your breath on someone you consider a "vulgar little man" (thank you for my third big laugh by the way). Your anger with me, hundreds of miles away in that horrendous den of vice, London, smells an awful lot like the anger of guilt!
I don't need insults to argue my case. All I need are facts provided by the Scottish Executive!
Once again, A MacP, you are using the classic tactics of the aquaculture industry to try to hide the ugly truth. You try to discredit my conjecture - and yes, of COURSE it is conjecture - by fussing over details. What on earth does is matter whether the fish is 2kg or 100kg? Look at what I wrote. Here it is for the third time: "Escapee fish are fitting symbols of an industry that treats the natural world with contempt". In other words it does not matter, in principal, where or how or what size these fish are. The unavoidable fact is this: over half a million genetically impure farmed salmon have been accidentally released into the wild by the aquaculture industry in little more than 3 years. This is a scandal that cannot be hidden or hushed up. People are finally seeing the industry for what it is.
Here is some more conjecture for you: let us say - for the sake of argument - that you work on a salmon farm. Let us say that this farm is responsibly run. It has never had a mass escape. It is not owned by a multi-national. It employs local people, not migrant workers. It keeps its lice levels at zero and enjoys good relations with the community. It uses fish feed from a sustainable source. The final product even tastes good. If all this were true I would expect you to be blind with fury at what has been going on in the aquaculture industry. I would expect you to be raging against the irresponsible farms that give your industry such a bad name. I would expect you to be livid because they are harming your business, all the while dragging your good name and good product through the mud....
But you're not blind with fury at those irresponsible fish farmers are you? You're blind with fury at me. It's odd, because to suggest all salmon farmers are alike is of course absurd. But I have not yet heard someone within the industry railing against the appalling mistakes that have been made in its name. It's as if they have all taken an oath not ever to criticise fellow fish farmers. It's creepy. All of the previous paragraph is, I repeat in case you weren't listening, conjecture. But it makes a useful point.
If you really believe that salmon farming is as valuable as you suggest to Highland communities then why aren't you attacking the irresponsible fish farmers? Instead, you are wasting your breath on someone you consider a "vulgar little man" (thank you for my third big laugh by the way). Your anger with me, hundreds of miles away in that horrendous den of vice, London, smells an awful lot like the anger of guilt!
I don't need insults to argue my case. All I need are facts provided by the Scottish Executive!
Posted by: A MacP, Western Isles on 10:54pm Wed 16 Apr 08
Your previous post Sir did include insults to 'argue your case'. And for those reading this thread you found it ''touching that some of us 'out here' could still write that''. Suggesting perhaps highlanders are somehow... dare I say it...backward! Good heavens - never heard that one before! We'll put it down to London snobbery methinks.
You refer to irresposibly run farms, migrant workers etc. If you are aware of some form of wrong doings going on on certain farming quarters then please flag it up to the relevant authorities, that they may prosecute these filthy polluters. I can assure you that I as a responsible aquaculture operative I would indeed do the same. I am well aware that farming of any type of stock (aqua or terrestrial) cannot be a profitable, sustainable business without operating in a responsible manner. It is common sense, it is the nature of business. No farmer can operate sustainably if he loses his stock or if he wastes feed (which is THE single most expensive part of his business). Acts of nature or God cannot always be prevented although all best efforts are made to prevent escapes. I will agree with you on one of your key points Al Hughes, and that is ''people are finally seeing the industry for what it is'' - the fastest growing food producing sector on the planet, which produces a good, healthy alternative source of protein, with greater health benefits to that of chicken, pork, beef or lamb.
Your previous post Sir did include insults to 'argue your case'. And for those reading this thread you found it ''touching that some of us 'out here' could still write that''. Suggesting perhaps highlanders are somehow... dare I say it...backward! Good heavens - never heard that one before! We'll put it down to London snobbery methinks.
You refer to irresposibly run farms, migrant workers etc. If you are aware of some form of wrong doings going on on certain farming quarters then please flag it up to the relevant authorities, that they may prosecute these filthy polluters. I can assure you that I as a responsible aquaculture operative I would indeed do the same. I am well aware that farming of any type of stock (aqua or terrestrial) cannot be a profitable, sustainable business without operating in a responsible manner. It is common sense, it is the nature of business. No farmer can operate sustainably if he loses his stock or if he wastes feed (which is THE single most expensive part of his business). Acts of nature or God cannot always be prevented although all best efforts are made to prevent escapes. I will agree with you on one of your key points Al Hughes, and that is ''people are finally seeing the industry for what it is'' - the fastest growing food producing sector on the planet, which produces a good, healthy alternative source of protein, with greater health benefits to that of chicken, pork, beef or lamb.
Comment | Read Comments (15)
Print this story
Email to a friend
