Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,754 
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
August 2nd, 2005, 05:03 PM
Quote:
Sea Lice and Lousy Excuses
A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that our governments are plotting to dust off the old plans and build a dam on the Fraser River, making us power and water rich in the bargain and that this explains why the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are deliberately neglectful of our salmon resource. No salmon – no environmental concerns about a dam.
A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that our governments are plotting to dust off the old plans and build a dam on the Fraser River, making us power and water rich in the bargain and that this explains why the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are deliberately neglectful of our salmon resource. No salmon – no environmental concerns about a dam.
Newbie
Posts: 2
February 6th, 2007, 10:21 AM
I've heard that accusation for over a decade and have mixed feelings regarding its accuracy.
For a while I thought the placement of sea farms was an experiment designed to ascertain the impact of their presence on wild stock populations.
This is based on their arrangement at every entrance to the Broughton Archipelago.
I thought that, this group of Islands, channels and Inlets being somewhat isolated, they were trying to expose every fish coming in to the area to farmed fish, and compare it to open populations.
In fact, the area is just ideal for placing farms, with good tide flow, shelter from rough weather and good access.
The same is true of every other site where they put a farm, so it can't be anything but coincidence.
The fact is they have placed many, many restrictions on fish farms, making it less profitable in an attempt to make it less damaging to wild stocks.
In regards to the wild stocks losing money, that wasn't always the case. Previously fishing technologies were not developed to the point where they could seriously affect populations in a geographically substantial area.
Now we actually have the ability to fish them to extinction, so the focus must be on limiting catch to a sustainable level.
The DFO has tried to do this, but there is a major factor that doesn't make this hard or difficult, but impossible.
Politics.
When they tried to reduce catches in 1997 the Americans, who intercept fish native to our streams before they reach Canadain waters, refused to comply.
The canadains tried to limit catch to X number of fish, somewhere around 20 million, but I can't remember, and said to the yanks, we'll take 1/2 of X, you have the other, and then we'll have enough get to the river.
The Americans said no, we'll take em all and set up a barricade to catch every fish coming down the coast.
What, exactly, should the DFO do in that case?
Just what they did, shut down our own fishery so the fish get through, lose all of the money they had invested in that stock and stick it to the fisherman, for the sake of the long-term goal of maintaining the stocks, not being greedy and neglecting future generations.
Now that's just one case, but the same thing has happened over, and over and over.
It's just ridiculous that everyone is screaming at DFO "stop killing the fish" on one hand, and "let me kill fish" on the other.
The problem is noone wants to take the hit, they want everyone else to make the sacrifices, so they can keep on going the same way they are, whether it's Trollers Vs Seiners, Gillnetters Vs Trollers, area G troll vs area H troll, whatever. everyone is looking out for themselves, except DFO, who is trying to moderate it all and make decisions in the best interest of the stocks, balanced against the political pressures to maintain the economy and diplomatic relations.
It is not an easy line to walk, because no matter what you do, someone is going to complain, and loudly.
I've heard that accusation for over a decade and have mixed feelings regarding its accuracy.
For a while I thought the placement of sea farms was an experiment designed to ascertain the impact of their presence on wild stock populations.
This is based on their arrangement at every entrance to the Broughton Archipelago.
I thought that, this group of Islands, channels and Inlets being somewhat isolated, they were trying to expose every fish coming in to the area to farmed fish, and compare it to open populations.
In fact, the area is just ideal for placing farms, with good tide flow, shelter from rough weather and good access.
The same is true of every other site where they put a farm, so it can't be anything but coincidence.
The fact is they have placed many, many restrictions on fish farms, making it less profitable in an attempt to make it less damaging to wild stocks.
In regards to the wild stocks losing money, that wasn't always the case. Previously fishing technologies were not developed to the point where they could seriously affect populations in a geographically substantial area.
Now we actually have the ability to fish them to extinction, so the focus must be on limiting catch to a sustainable level.
The DFO has tried to do this, but there is a major factor that doesn't make this hard or difficult, but impossible.
Politics.
When they tried to reduce catches in 1997 the Americans, who intercept fish native to our streams before they reach Canadain waters, refused to comply.
The canadains tried to limit catch to X number of fish, somewhere around 20 million, but I can't remember, and said to the yanks, we'll take 1/2 of X, you have the other, and then we'll have enough get to the river.
The Americans said no, we'll take em all and set up a barricade to catch every fish coming down the coast.
What, exactly, should the DFO do in that case?
Just what they did, shut down our own fishery so the fish get through, lose all of the money they had invested in that stock and stick it to the fisherman, for the sake of the long-term goal of maintaining the stocks, not being greedy and neglecting future generations.
Now that's just one case, but the same thing has happened over, and over and over.
It's just ridiculous that everyone is screaming at DFO "stop killing the fish" on one hand, and "let me kill fish" on the other.
The problem is noone wants to take the hit, they want everyone else to make the sacrifices, so they can keep on going the same way they are, whether it's Trollers Vs Seiners, Gillnetters Vs Trollers, area G troll vs area H troll, whatever. everyone is looking out for themselves, except DFO, who is trying to moderate it all and make decisions in the best interest of the stocks, balanced against the political pressures to maintain the economy and diplomatic relations.
It is not an easy line to walk, because no matter what you do, someone is going to complain, and loudly.
