Monday, 10 September 2018

UBCM Stacks Deck Against Salmon Farming[?], Well No - Times Colonist Sept 9, 2018

Let's see, if the Union of British Columbia Municipalities doesn't like fish farms, is that stacking the deck? I don't see it. Victoria and Van Isle municipalities have only said they want fish farms put on land. Not ended, just out of the water.

According to John Paul Fraser, 'That would effectively shut this important industry down, throwing 6,600 British Columbians out of work."

I say:

1. Putting fish farms on land is going on all around the world, and has done so for more than a decade. See this post on the 246 on-land fish farms I have found: This is happening all around the world, so, NO, putting BC fish farms on land will not shut the industry down. And it has been happening in China since 3,700 BC.

2. The best stats are in the BC Stats Report. It says there are 1,700 multiplier jobs in all of aquaculture not just fish farms. John's figure is fake news, and 388% higher than the real stat, and because fish farms are only 90% of aquaculture, that means John's figure is really 431% higher than the real stat. See the BC Stats table:

According to Paul: "Technology doesn't exist today to grow large number of fish on land."

I say: Hmm.

1. There are those 246 on-land fish farm systems that I have found. Paul you should take a look.
2. Take a look at number 176. Atlantic Sapphire coming on stream in Florida is aiming at 150,000mt. That's almost twice the size of BC's industry. That is a large number of fish.
3. The other farms coming on stream in the USA (there are many others already producing fish, so yes, the technology exists, Paul) include the rather large Aquabanq, Aquafarms and Whole Oceans. Among the four, it is 218,000mt. And because they are on land, they will likely wipe out the BC industry because consumers will want their cheaper, more environmentally friendly fish. I'd say, the BC industry will be wiped out if it doesn't come out of the water, as 85% of its fish currently go to the USA. Not for long.
4. Paul, you do know that Marine Harvest is putting $100M into closed containment in Norway don't you? You don't? You might want to Google the biggest company in BC to find out.

The Gospel According to Paul: But raising fish on land 'will likely be part of the solution to feeding our hungry world in the future.'


1. This has been part of the Norwegian fish farm spin since the 1970s, the halcyon blue revolution days. But Paul, it has never been true. That is because farmed salmon cost more than hungry mouths can afford.
2. As fish farm fish can only be afforded in the First World, not the Third World, you will never be feeding a 'hungry' world.

The Gospel: 'There isn't much more land to grow food on, but there is lots of ocean'


1. Well, maybe in Norway, but Norway is a small country, and would fit in BC 2.5 times, and BC is only 13% of Canada's land. And, while Norway is 47% mountains, land is abundant and cheap in Canada, and many other countries.
2. The sewage load in BC's ocean from fish farms is conservatively estimated at $10.4 Billion. See: The other end of conservative is triple this figure. We don't want this.
3. But Norwegian style fish farms want to build massive farms by today's standards in the open ocean and quadruple the sewage with quadruple the fish. The rest of us don't want this for our oceans. We have enough problems with climate change in our atmosphere.

Paul's Sermon on the Mound: To move on land we'd have to 'pave... 159 square kilometres of farmland... [use] four billion litres of water... use huge amounts of electricity...'


1. Using the sewage as a revenue stream, or making power from it, and using recirculating aquaculture systems [RAS] to reuse 99% of the water, has lead to the 246 on-land fish farm systems that I have found.
2. Look back at 1. And, when lice and disease costs are eliminated, that alone leads to affordability on land.

JP Goes on: the Campbell River motion, 'calling for an approach based on science and evidence' delegates will never get to it.

1. Only fish farms think there is no science. Here is one: Kristi Miller's work on PRV has shown it causes HSMI and a related disease in chinook salmon. But, wild salmon are under threat from four major causes:  lack of freshwater habitat restoration, DFO, in-ocean fish farms and climate change.
2. Everyone else thinks there is enough science and the precautionary principle is worth using. Remember, the UBCM is only talking about putting fish farms on land.
3. And remember the DFO/CFIA fraudulent science approach to finding 'no disease' in BC. We don't want anymore of that 'science': And this post: I have asked the Attorney General to investigate this fraudulent approach.
4. And DFO wants to let fish farms put PRV infected fish in the ocean, against the Fisheries Act: No science here, and wild salmon on the chopping block.
5. And people around the world who have to live with fish farms come to overwhelmingly reject them:
6. And here is science on fish farms killing wild salmonids:

JP: the UBCM approach 'speaks to the amount of misinformation and... bias... allowed to fester in this province'

1. Since the 1970s, when someone disagrees with in-ocean fish farms, the fish farms say the person is spreading misinformation and needs education. Sorry, JP, but that is fish farm spin. 50 years after the spin was invented, you are still using the same, tired, old words. Go to the GSI site (Global Salmon Initiative) and cruise around for a 2018 version of these shibboleths:
2. Everywhere in the world that people have to live with fish farms, they come to overwhelmingly reject them. Even Tasmania half way around the world is against fish farms:

JP: 'science says we need salmon farming... as wild salmon face pressure from over fishing and climate change.'

1. Show me where the science says we need salmon farming. The FAO has the estimate of food needs for the next several decades, but does not back Norwegian-style in-ocean fish farms: It has backed ponds in the third world, and teaching the women to make gill nets, but that is subsistence fishing, not Norwegian-style in-ocean fish farms.
2. The Sea Around Us fish stat document shows conclusively that 'reduction' fisheries for fish meal and oil for fish feed has made many of the top ocean stocks collapse. In fact, Norway is singled out for having destroyed the Jack Mackerel off Chile. This post has the link:
3. The facts are that a fish farm industry the size of BC's kills 5.76 Billion forage fish to feed one crop to harvest. And BC is only 5% of Norwegian output. See the last link for the calculation:

JP: 'The science also tells us wild and farm-raised salmon can happily coexist.'

1. The only people who believe this are fish farmers. And they have mud-raking sites aimed at making scurrilous attacks on well-respected scientists like Kristi Miller and Brian Riddell. The Sea West News: This is beneath the dignity of a multi-billion-dollar, multi-national corporation.
2. Refer to the links of science above.

JP: The 'UBCM delegates owe it to their voters to get educated before voting to shut down such an important industry.'

1. All UBCM will do is support moving the industry to land. The only person saying they want to shut down the industry is you, JP Fraser.
2. As mentioned at the top, this line of 'getting educated' is fish farm communications spin that is 50 years old, as in: "If you don't agree with us, you are spreading misinformation and need educating." Sorry, JP the UBCM doesn't agree with you. You need to stop spreading misinformation and get educated on the rest of us putting fish farms on land.

And, Old Testament Paul, look at this post for references about the bad side of fish farms, and the need for wild salmon. You are behind the times: I have put in a lot of references to the science and facts. Take a good look.

Also look at this Alex Morton post for Sept 9, 2018 on the court case that has DFO, yes, DFO arguing with Marine Harvest, on appeal, to over turn the decision that forbid the use of PRV-infected farm fish in our ocean with our wild salmon. Is this not science? Is this not what we and the UBCM want? Take a look:

1 comment: