you can't even spell biologist so your opinion is worthless. FYI, the precautionary principle is the OPPOSITE of 'innocent until proven guilty'... to wait & see with some things as important as the environment we all require to sustain our lives... given the pace of new patents & shifts in business practices would be suicidal. and that is proveable. but 9/11? wtf? where are you coming from really, "mr. i just joined youtube 2 days ago & im only commenting on this video"?
You know what I think Overfishing has done the most damage, but since you can't yell or point fingers at boats you can't see or at the enviroment you point the fingers at what you can only see which is salmon companies. I just bought salmon yesterday wild that is. I think this is overblown sorry. Having said this if they prove that salmon companies are the sole cause then by all means do something about it put them on land or whatever. But until that happens innocent until proven guilty. OK
Your wild salmon likely came from Alaska or Russia, where they don't have farms, but do have wild salmon in relative plenitude. And you can't tell everything you need to know about the state of the environment from what you buy at Superstore...And I don't disagree that poor fisheries management has been a major historical cause of the decline of our wild salmon populations. Good point.
You took a comment down? Let me get this straight the pinks were huge returns in the year 2000, with the farms being there for years prior all is good then they crash in 2003 and its salmon companies fault. I don't get your reasoning to me that seems like a blatant contridiction. I looked at metric tonnes #'s farmed back then and now ,and the difference from 2000 to 2008 was roughly the same. Sorry i agree to do something about it, but with solid PROOF, many holes in these accuisations.
See my comment below on this. The farms were much smaller prior to 2000; as they got bigger, the lice problem exploded, until you had near total collapse in the 2003-2004 timeframe. Remember pinks are a two year fish, so there's a bit of a delay factor from the time of the infestation to the time a returning run collapses. This timeline coincides with the massive expansion of the farms (as I noted earlier below, I mean the number of fish in each farm). There is no such thing as PROOF in science.
AJK847 asked about high pink returns in 2000. Broughton did have an exceptional return of pinks in 2000. Fishermen took about 3 million and the same amount went into the rivers. It's just part of the natural variability of pinks before farms - which started with about 125,000 fish/farm. In 1995 the NDP put a moratorium on farms (the number of famrs, not the amount if fish in them) So there were increasingly more fish/farm. This appears to have triggered the lice to explode in subsequent yrs.
I can't believe all that though popular science also said that 911 was a conspiracy myth but i think everyone knows better than that. Either way i hope this gets resolved, sad to see so much fighting amonst people.
Well that's good to know, but she shouldn't call herself a bioligist then, without a degree just my opinion, so really she is a studier of her area and knows it well, if she has schooling she should post it somewhere to help her image i think. These groups recognise her though that's good
I heard that Alice Morton doesn't have the credintials she claims she does. You can;t call yourself a bioligist without a PHD is this true? I heard she does independant studies, is this what your talking about , does she run web site and if so does she show her credentials on that site. I am wondering because i hear different stories.
There are many great biologists without phD's. Alex has been working in the field for decades and her methods are recognized around the world - including by the most rigorous scientific journals, incl. Science. Her research has been jointly conducted with many top fisheries phD's including Drs. John Volpe, Larry Dill, and Martin Krkosek. Her findings are confirmed by countless global papers - from Norway to Ireland to Chile. By independent I mean not working for the government or industry.
Sorry to intrude but, i after reading the post between you two, have came up with the conclusion that neither one of you knows what's going on. i do find that the argument about the pinks is a viable one, ajk is right how can you have a awesome return in the year 2000 and these farms have been there for years prior to that, and then have a bad return in 2003 and then blame the salmon company. I think the word here is cycle.
I'll get back to you on the 2000 question...But honestly you're both missing the point. There is a significant weight of independent peer-reviewed science in the top journal publications like Science and Nature connecting salmon farms to specific wild salmon population declines. There is compelling evidence (See Ford and Myers 2008(7?) that around the world salmon farms ARE one of the single biggest causes of wild salmon population declines. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
Yes the top scientists concluded that warm waters were the main reason for bad returns this past year, that article is in the CBC archives as well a google search, sure more testing needs to be done. I realise the save the wild salmon was a demonstration, but you guys need to talk about the other variables out there, but guess what you DON"T so this vid to me is a bit of a joke, it's not indicitive of all the facts, and therefor i reject it. You want to save the salmon be honest with all info
So to talk about salmon you have to at all times talk about all things? Just because dams, logging, climate change, over-fishing, urban development, mining, are all serious historical impacts on wild salmon doesn't mean that salmon farms aren't too. This is youtube. It's a 10 min max. for videos. Which is why I've done 80 videos over the last several years covering all the other issues you allude to. This one's about salmon farms...
..And the scientific panel you refer to actually came to TWO major conclusions: climate change AND salmon farms. Sometimes you have to look beyond the vancouver sun for your information and actually talk to the scientists themselves.
Ok tell me then why the best ever pink return was in 2000. So what your saying is that every fishery in the world has collapsed because of salmon farms. I already told you the reason for the collapse of sockeye in the Fraser. Listen im not standing up for farming, but lets be reasonable here there are other factors and they don't get discussed in the vid, to me this is very biased. The humboldt squid has been dying to off Van Isl but that has nothing to do with farms.
I'm NOT saying anything of the sort. I fully recognize the myriad impacts on wild salmon populations and other industries. My body of work, covering fisheries management, hydro dams, urban development, logging, climate change, etc. speaks for itself. But in the Broughton specifically, there is no doubt salmon farms have been devastating...And of course it's biased! It was a rally to save wild salmon from salmon farms. What the heck do you expect? "Balance?" Give me a break.
You have no idea what caused the Fraser River sockeye collapse - nor does anyone. That's why we're about to start a 2-year full judicial inquiry into the subject - which will examine salmon farms as one of the possible factors. Many out- migrating Fraser smolts do pass by some 60 farms on their way out to see - and they are being infested with sea lice. That's a fact. To what degree that impact is responsible for the sockeye collapse, well, that's what we're hopefully about to find out.
Now tell me why was the pink run really good this past run? If what these people are saying is true then the pinks would NOT be as plentifull as they have been. Sorry hard for me to agree with this when i see the opposite of what is being claimed. I agree on protecting our wild salmon, but i can't blame farms when i still catch wild salmon, sea lice have been around longer than us, i remember my granfather telling me of sea lice covered fish back in the 50's, guess what no farms back then.
That's easy. Up until 2 years ago the Broughton farms weren't treating with Slice at the right time. Many of the out-migrating pink smolts start passing by the farms in March, and they weren't treating until late March, which means the smolts were being infested by too many sea lice. Since they corrected this, the returns have improved. But now we see Slice failing in Norway and Eastern Canada and by all indications here too, so we may soon be back to the old collapse days in the Broughton.
Well that's my point alltogether, the pinks were really good this past year, so why does the salmon farms have to prove that there is or isn't a problem when there are still fish in the ocean? So how does the Industry prove this then? I laugh at the fact the oceans are being polluted period from many industries and wild salmon have toxins in them as well. Im taking the evidence i see with my own eyes and come up with the conclusion that there are still wild fish, bears whales eagles dolphins ect
You have to compare your observations today with those of people years ago to understand the dire situation today. Talk to indigenous elders who describe being able to practically walk across the Fraser (a slight exaggeration of course) teeming with fish. Today is a sadly different story. The Fraser sockeye was as high as 100 million returns at one time. This year barely a million. Virtually every fishery in world today is in a state of collapse. If you think it's all ok, you're gravely mistaken
I also notice that the words may , could, might in a lot of the arguments. I also know that the past pink run was very plentiful this year, but yet this isn't mentioned. So the salmon are still running. The sockeye run sucked this past year but that was linked to enviro conditions low water in river and tempature. So to me it seems to be a contridiction, everything is dying but yet there is still salmon, i caught a few myself. Four years ago it was the pinks have collapsed. lol really?
You clearly just don't understand the Precautionary Principle, which Canada is committed to. It's not up to anyone to prove there's a problem with salmon farms - it's up to the industry to prove there isn't. There is easily a substantial enough weight of evidence to warrant a precautionary approach to salmon farms on our coast. That means that in these precarious times for our wild salmon, we need to remove open-net salmon farms from migratory pathways. It's a as simple as that.
No there isn't proof, that is the problem, salmon farms have been in bc for 30 years, sorry but I've heard this same story for years now ,12 years ago it was the whales are dying, funny i just passed a pod last month. Then the bears are dying, and so on and so forth. I accept your passion for the enviroment, but your argument is very biased and you don't take into consideration other major factors to why CERTAIN salmon stocks have depleted,funny how that isn't in the vid.
AJK847: congrats on living in one of the last places on earth that hasn't completely exterminated these animals - none of whom care what you 'believe', btw. the facts are that Oregon & California's Salmon runs have been destroyed by the construction of one large dam after another over the better part of a century & we're in danger of losing ours practically overnight.
... yes, there are other factors involved, but there is more proof that salmon farms, sea lice & ISA hurt Salmon than not, please google: "Nootka Lice Problems by Twyla Roscovich" and tell me you'd rather eat farmed. until all data is in we absolutely must employ the Precautionary Principle (look it up)
Hey i live in bc, and there is still bears and eagles and whales and dolphins, i still catch wild salmon, what is the problem? I believe this is hyped, way to much. Oregon and California have had way less salmon then they once did, but yet no farms in that part of the world ??? Even the Norweigan AG said that overfishing and acid rain have played factors in the lower salmon stocks. Sorry until there is PROOF i can't agree with this vid. Big world, people have to eat
hi, is the wild salmon of North Pacific Ocean affected from the radiation of the nuclear plants
pkrishnametal 10 months ago
@ MrJimjj:
NOT OK.
you can't even spell biologist so your opinion is worthless. FYI, the precautionary principle is the OPPOSITE of 'innocent until proven guilty'... to wait & see with some things as important as the environment we all require to sustain our lives... given the pace of new patents & shifts in business practices would be suicidal. and that is proveable. but 9/11? wtf? where are you coming from really, "mr. i just joined youtube 2 days ago & im only commenting on this video"?
mooneez 2 years ago
You know what I think Overfishing has done the most damage, but since you can't yell or point fingers at boats you can't see or at the enviroment you point the fingers at what you can only see which is salmon companies. I just bought salmon yesterday wild that is. I think this is overblown sorry. Having said this if they prove that salmon companies are the sole cause then by all means do something about it put them on land or whatever. But until that happens innocent until proven guilty. OK
MrJimjj 2 years ago
Your wild salmon likely came from Alaska or Russia, where they don't have farms, but do have wild salmon in relative plenitude. And you can't tell everything you need to know about the state of the environment from what you buy at Superstore...And I don't disagree that poor fisheries management has been a major historical cause of the decline of our wild salmon populations. Good point.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
You took a comment down? Let me get this straight the pinks were huge returns in the year 2000, with the farms being there for years prior all is good then they crash in 2003 and its salmon companies fault. I don't get your reasoning to me that seems like a blatant contridiction. I looked at metric tonnes #'s farmed back then and now ,and the difference from 2000 to 2008 was roughly the same. Sorry i agree to do something about it, but with solid PROOF, many holes in these accuisations.
MrJimjj 2 years ago
See my comment below on this. The farms were much smaller prior to 2000; as they got bigger, the lice problem exploded, until you had near total collapse in the 2003-2004 timeframe. Remember pinks are a two year fish, so there's a bit of a delay factor from the time of the infestation to the time a returning run collapses. This timeline coincides with the massive expansion of the farms (as I noted earlier below, I mean the number of fish in each farm). There is no such thing as PROOF in science.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
AJK847 asked about high pink returns in 2000. Broughton did have an exceptional return of pinks in 2000. Fishermen took about 3 million and the same amount went into the rivers. It's just part of the natural variability of pinks before farms - which started with about 125,000 fish/farm. In 1995 the NDP put a moratorium on farms (the number of famrs, not the amount if fish in them) So there were increasingly more fish/farm. This appears to have triggered the lice to explode in subsequent yrs.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
I can't believe all that though popular science also said that 911 was a conspiracy myth but i think everyone knows better than that. Either way i hope this gets resolved, sad to see so much fighting amonst people.
MrJimjj 2 years ago
Well that's good to know, but she shouldn't call herself a bioligist then, without a degree just my opinion, so really she is a studier of her area and knows it well, if she has schooling she should post it somewhere to help her image i think. These groups recognise her though that's good
MrJimjj 2 years ago
I heard that Alice Morton doesn't have the credintials she claims she does. You can;t call yourself a bioligist without a PHD is this true? I heard she does independant studies, is this what your talking about , does she run web site and if so does she show her credentials on that site. I am wondering because i hear different stories.
MrJimjj 2 years ago
There are many great biologists without phD's. Alex has been working in the field for decades and her methods are recognized around the world - including by the most rigorous scientific journals, incl. Science. Her research has been jointly conducted with many top fisheries phD's including Drs. John Volpe, Larry Dill, and Martin Krkosek. Her findings are confirmed by countless global papers - from Norway to Ireland to Chile. By independent I mean not working for the government or industry.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
Sorry to intrude but, i after reading the post between you two, have came up with the conclusion that neither one of you knows what's going on. i do find that the argument about the pinks is a viable one, ajk is right how can you have a awesome return in the year 2000 and these farms have been there for years prior to that, and then have a bad return in 2003 and then blame the salmon company. I think the word here is cycle.
MrJimjj 2 years ago
I'll get back to you on the 2000 question...But honestly you're both missing the point. There is a significant weight of independent peer-reviewed science in the top journal publications like Science and Nature connecting salmon farms to specific wild salmon population declines. There is compelling evidence (See Ford and Myers 2008(7?) that around the world salmon farms ARE one of the single biggest causes of wild salmon population declines. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
Why was the best ever pink return in the year 2000?
AJK847 2 years ago
Why was the lowest year 2003? Fish Farms.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
Not true.
MrArchiebarker 2 years ago
Yes the top scientists concluded that warm waters were the main reason for bad returns this past year, that article is in the CBC archives as well a google search, sure more testing needs to be done. I realise the save the wild salmon was a demonstration, but you guys need to talk about the other variables out there, but guess what you DON"T so this vid to me is a bit of a joke, it's not indicitive of all the facts, and therefor i reject it. You want to save the salmon be honest with all info
AJK847 2 years ago
So to talk about salmon you have to at all times talk about all things? Just because dams, logging, climate change, over-fishing, urban development, mining, are all serious historical impacts on wild salmon doesn't mean that salmon farms aren't too. This is youtube. It's a 10 min max. for videos. Which is why I've done 80 videos over the last several years covering all the other issues you allude to. This one's about salmon farms...
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
..And the scientific panel you refer to actually came to TWO major conclusions: climate change AND salmon farms. Sometimes you have to look beyond the vancouver sun for your information and actually talk to the scientists themselves.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
Ok tell me then why the best ever pink return was in 2000. So what your saying is that every fishery in the world has collapsed because of salmon farms. I already told you the reason for the collapse of sockeye in the Fraser. Listen im not standing up for farming, but lets be reasonable here there are other factors and they don't get discussed in the vid, to me this is very biased. The humboldt squid has been dying to off Van Isl but that has nothing to do with farms.
AJK847 2 years ago
I'm NOT saying anything of the sort. I fully recognize the myriad impacts on wild salmon populations and other industries. My body of work, covering fisheries management, hydro dams, urban development, logging, climate change, etc. speaks for itself. But in the Broughton specifically, there is no doubt salmon farms have been devastating...And of course it's biased! It was a rally to save wild salmon from salmon farms. What the heck do you expect? "Balance?" Give me a break.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
You have no idea what caused the Fraser River sockeye collapse - nor does anyone. That's why we're about to start a 2-year full judicial inquiry into the subject - which will examine salmon farms as one of the possible factors. Many out- migrating Fraser smolts do pass by some 60 farms on their way out to see - and they are being infested with sea lice. That's a fact. To what degree that impact is responsible for the sockeye collapse, well, that's what we're hopefully about to find out.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
Now tell me why was the pink run really good this past run? If what these people are saying is true then the pinks would NOT be as plentifull as they have been. Sorry hard for me to agree with this when i see the opposite of what is being claimed. I agree on protecting our wild salmon, but i can't blame farms when i still catch wild salmon, sea lice have been around longer than us, i remember my granfather telling me of sea lice covered fish back in the 50's, guess what no farms back then.
AJK847 2 years ago
That's easy. Up until 2 years ago the Broughton farms weren't treating with Slice at the right time. Many of the out-migrating pink smolts start passing by the farms in March, and they weren't treating until late March, which means the smolts were being infested by too many sea lice. Since they corrected this, the returns have improved. But now we see Slice failing in Norway and Eastern Canada and by all indications here too, so we may soon be back to the old collapse days in the Broughton.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
Well that's my point alltogether, the pinks were really good this past year, so why does the salmon farms have to prove that there is or isn't a problem when there are still fish in the ocean? So how does the Industry prove this then? I laugh at the fact the oceans are being polluted period from many industries and wild salmon have toxins in them as well. Im taking the evidence i see with my own eyes and come up with the conclusion that there are still wild fish, bears whales eagles dolphins ect
AJK847 2 years ago
You have to compare your observations today with those of people years ago to understand the dire situation today. Talk to indigenous elders who describe being able to practically walk across the Fraser (a slight exaggeration of course) teeming with fish. Today is a sadly different story. The Fraser sockeye was as high as 100 million returns at one time. This year barely a million. Virtually every fishery in world today is in a state of collapse. If you think it's all ok, you're gravely mistaken
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
I also notice that the words may , could, might in a lot of the arguments. I also know that the past pink run was very plentiful this year, but yet this isn't mentioned. So the salmon are still running. The sockeye run sucked this past year but that was linked to enviro conditions low water in river and tempature. So to me it seems to be a contridiction, everything is dying but yet there is still salmon, i caught a few myself. Four years ago it was the pinks have collapsed. lol really?
AJK847 2 years ago
You clearly just don't understand the Precautionary Principle, which Canada is committed to. It's not up to anyone to prove there's a problem with salmon farms - it's up to the industry to prove there isn't. There is easily a substantial enough weight of evidence to warrant a precautionary approach to salmon farms on our coast. That means that in these precarious times for our wild salmon, we need to remove open-net salmon farms from migratory pathways. It's a as simple as that.
CommonSenseCanadian 2 years ago
No there isn't proof, that is the problem, salmon farms have been in bc for 30 years, sorry but I've heard this same story for years now ,12 years ago it was the whales are dying, funny i just passed a pod last month. Then the bears are dying, and so on and so forth. I accept your passion for the enviroment, but your argument is very biased and you don't take into consideration other major factors to why CERTAIN salmon stocks have depleted,funny how that isn't in the vid.
AJK847 2 years ago
Comment removed
mooneez 2 years ago
AJK847: congrats on living in one of the last places on earth that hasn't completely exterminated these animals - none of whom care what you 'believe', btw. the facts are that Oregon & California's Salmon runs have been destroyed by the construction of one large dam after another over the better part of a century & we're in danger of losing ours practically overnight.
mooneez 2 years ago
... yes, there are other factors involved, but there is more proof that salmon farms, sea lice & ISA hurt Salmon than not, please google: "Nootka Lice Problems by Twyla Roscovich" and tell me you'd rather eat farmed. until all data is in we absolutely must employ the Precautionary Principle (look it up)
mooneez 2 years ago
Hey i live in bc, and there is still bears and eagles and whales and dolphins, i still catch wild salmon, what is the problem? I believe this is hyped, way to much. Oregon and California have had way less salmon then they once did, but yet no farms in that part of the world ??? Even the Norweigan AG said that overfishing and acid rain have played factors in the lower salmon stocks. Sorry until there is PROOF i can't agree with this vid. Big world, people have to eat
AJK847 2 years ago