When activists play dumb, are they really playing?

An anti-aquaculture activist recently posted this question on a Facebook page: “Really? the wild salmon harvest is the highest ever recorded in the history of the world????”

Now, we have two choices here; either the activist is purposely misleading an audience by pleading ignorance, or is completely dumb to the facts.

Either choice is not new in the activist arsenal. They often purposely mislead, omit vital information that may disagree with their own thesis, or simply not look into facts that may challenge their own beliefs.

A quick search of “wild salmon harvests” reveals up a pretty straight forward answer to the activist’s question. That is, yes, in recent years (especially ’07 and ’09) our oceans have supplied us with the largest wild salmon catches in history.

It is interesting to note that while there are eight species that make up the global catch of salmon, it is just two species that make up over 50% of the total. Pink and chum salmon.

Any guesses as to why it is that pink and chum salmon are so dominant on the graph? Two words: salmon ranching.

So thank you ‘aquaculture’ – for helping supply an increasing demand for healthy salmon.

Sara Pozonsky is correct: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Last year we introduced our readers to Sara Pozonsky. She sells salmon at ‘Wild Alaskan Salmon Company’. We hope her business is thriving. Really, we do.

She is also a wannabe movie producer. The soon-to-be-released movie called “A Fishy Tale” follows a pretty familiar plot: wild fish good and farmed fish bad. We hope it wins a “Razzie Award”. Really, we do.

She’s also a blogger (busy girl!). In her latest blog titled “Political & Economic Realities of Alaska Seafood and Fish Farms”, she rants about how wild fish are “sustainable” and farmed fish “are not”.

Apparently, and according to Sara, even her kids are getting tired of her tunnel vision.

She accuses the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) of whimping out on the opportunity to attack farmed fish. She says they don’t because of politics and money. “Big buyers of Alaskan seafood are also big promoters and investors of fish farms,” she says.

While this may be true – member companies of ASMI do sell wild and farmed fish and some member companies do catch and culture fish – there is probably a much simpler, less conspiracy laden reason why ASMI is not too interested in attacking farm-raised fish nowadays.

First, ASMI, unlike Sara, understand that aquaculture is a big part of providing seafood for billions of people and will help ensure we still have wild fish in the future.

Secondly, farmed fish are a result of aquaculture (culturing fish for the purpose of human consumption and (hopefully) financial gain), and aquaculture is one of the reasons why Alaska still has a healthy salmon fishery.

So, as Sara obviously didn’t get the point of our previous blog, we’ll remind her again. That is, salmon aquaculture (if you can’t bring yourself to call it f.f.f.f….arming, that’s ok) is a big part of the Alaska fishery and provides at least 1 in every 3 salmon caught.

We do, however, agree with Sara when she states “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.  Alaska salmon aquaculture does, quite literally, feed you Sara.

We’ve reposted this fun little graph that highlights how past generations of families just like the Pozonsky’s have helped ensure aquaculture is a part of Alaska’s fishing story.

 

Aquaculture has saved Alaska’s salmon fishery

By the numbers: Aquaculture produced 1 in 3 Alaska salmon in 2012

“When state management of Alaska’s salmon fisheries began in 1960, salmon abundance was historically low. In time, it was realized that effective fisheries management alone was not increasing abundance. In response to the historically low commercial salmon fishery harvests and the resulting ecomonic loss from reduced commercial harvest, the State of Alaska initiated a salmon fisheries enhancement program…The intent of the program was to meet the public need in fisheries by conserving wild stock salmon while contributing to the harvest by increasing salmon abundance through enhancement efforts” – 2012 ADF&G Annual Report, page 1

Alaska Department of Fish and Game has now released its annual report of the 2012 ”Fisheries and Enhancement Program”.

The 2012 highlights include;

• 1.8 billion eggs collected
• 1.7 billion juveniles salmon released
• 47 million hatchery-propogated salmon returned (24 million of those were pink salmon from hatcheries in Prince William Sound)
• Commercial harvest was 127 million salmon
• Hatchery-propogated ( aka “ranched”) salmon accounted for 34% of the 2012 salmon harvest in Alaska
• By species. Alaska hatcheries contributed 67% chum, 36% pink, 19% coho, 17% Chinook and 6% sockeye salmon.

In 2013, it is expected that over 65 million hatchery-produced salmon will return.

Why the anonymity, you ask? Here’s a frightening example.

We at TTAAS occasionally receive questions about our anonymity. ”How about we discuss the facts”, we respond.

We thought the following blog post at “Salmon Farm Science” detailed a frightening example of why, in today’s “internet tough” world, remaining anonymous may be necessary.  

Anonymity. Necessary or deceitful?

From Salmon Farm Science, March 21, 2013:

Regularly, people like to come here and trash talk us for maintaining an anonymous blog. They ignore all the facts we present here — which are complete with links to back up everything we say — and fixate on anonymity. We can’t believe you, they say, unless we get a name.

Right. Because people who speak freely and publicly never lie or make things up.

Anyway, there is a very good reason why we maintain this blog anonymously.

Simply put, it’s because the biggest loudmouths hysterically attacking salmon farms in B.C. are wack jobs.

We don’t need these creeps stalking us and our families, and putting us and our children in danger. Consider the words of Leanne Hodges, one of the wackiest wack jobs of them all in the anti-salmon farming camp.

Yes Leanne, blowing up a farm and killing all aboard with a rocket launcher would really show us the “Power of Love!”

This shows us these people are not interested in any constructive discussion to make things better. They are fueled by hate and irrational fear.

We’re not interested in giving these wack jobs any information which could jeopardize our safety, or the safety of our children.

No need for demarketing to sell Alaska salmon

Every now and then, and blogger or foodie is eager to promote the consumption of Alaska salmon. Whether they are doing this on their own free will, or paid to do so is always questionable.

Alaska salmon is a great, healthy food that we should enjoy eating. In fact, it hardly needs promoting.

That makes it even more disappointing that some, like this latest from “Healthiest Breakfast”, (Wild salmon or Farm raised salmon?) feel the need to attack other salmon suppliers to promote Alaska salmon - in this case farm-raised salmon. Are they feeling market pressure, are they threatened by the competition, are they trying to demarket competition to promote sales? Perhaps they just enjoy penning a negative article full of errors - easy to do when you’re an anonymous writer attacking the product of people you will probably never meet face to face.  

Whatever the reason, it is getting tiring, especially given the fact that the Alaska salmon fishery does rely heavily on ‘aquaculture’ – growing salmon (1.7 billion yearly) with similar methods that salmon farmers use. 

This type of product promotion isn’t needed and actually does more harm than good. Salmon suppliers (wild fishers and fish farmers) should be working together to promote consumption of all salmon – with the assistance of aquaculture, there is still room to grow the market.

Unwarranted and incorrect information about salmon will only scare people away from a healthy food and toward other meats that are not as healthy and may have a higher carbon footprint.

 

Salmon Aquaculture is a Precautionary Principle

In the sometimes heated discussion about salmon aquaculture – ocean ranching and salmon farming – quite often the “precautionary principle” is a term thrown about by those who question its sustainability. In other words, in the absence of absolute scientific certainty, they suggest the activity should cease.

The precautionary approach to fisheries management has been described as “being cautious when scientific knowledge is uncertain, and not using the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason to postpone action or failure to take action to avoid serious harm to fish stocks or their ecosystem.”

By the middle of the 20^th century, the commercial and sport fishery, and the management of it, was taking its toll on salmon populations in the North Pacific. Governments responded with a conservative approach such as limiting stock exploitation and rehabilitating and protecting vital salmon habitat. While scientific uncertainty remained, exploitation of salmon for sport and commercial purposes continued.

As further response to stock depletion, governments began the artificial propagation of several salmon species: aquaculture. Significant hatchery and ocean ranching programs began in North America in the late 1960s. Salmon farming (essentially a continuation of hatchery and ocean ranching programs – but holding the fish in containment until harvest) began to take root in the 1970s.

Salmon aquaculture began in Alaska in the 1970s

Aquaculture, whether it be hatchery propagation, ocean ranching or salmon farming, was developed as a response to over-exploitation and habitat degradation.

Aquaculture is a precautionary approach to fisheries management.   

While salmon aquaculture has an impact – all human activities do – there are also obvious benefits to those who choose not to ignore them.  If there are unanswered questions regarding the impacts of salmon aquaculture, we must attempt to answer them and in the meantime apply appropriate conservation and management measures.

It is these science-based responses to valid sustainability questions that have helped build today’s robust salmon aquaculture regulations in the United States and Canada, and these regulations continue to be modified as our scientific understanding grows.  

Thank goodness the human race hasn’t pack up shop every time someone uttered the ‘ol “precautionary principle” catchphrase when faced with scientific uncertainty. If we did, we’d still be living in C.A.V.E.S.

A month of mea culpas: a fake one from Lance Armstrong and a real one from Mark Lynas

“I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.” – Mark Lynas, January 3, 2013.

If you’ve never heard of Mark Lynas, maybe you remember the pie-in-the-face sucker punch he landed on Bjorn Lomborg, a critic of eco-apocalyptic agendas and author of the “Skeptical Environmentalist“.

Seems that Mark Lynas has had a change of heart.

Speaking to a crowd of academics at Oxford University earlier this month, the British environmentalist, who helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, was bluntly apologetic for his anti-GMO stance.

“As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.”

Now, given the hysteria in North America about GM foods, and specifically hooplah

The Frankenfish. Is this based on science?

surrounding one company’s proposal to grow genetically modified salmon, Lynas’s mea culpa could be a serious blow to a fairly successful anti-GM campaign orchestrated by so many well-funded activist groups.

Now, fish farmers have been unified in their disinterest in growing GM fish for human consumption – at least until “proven safe and the market demands it”. Fair enough, but if and when science concludes it’s safe, then the market should demand it and we (the market) should yell a hell of a lot louder than a few ‘anti-everything’ activists. It is about feeding a growing global population with efficient, healthy, safe foods – and genetically modified foods will play a very important part.

“So I guess you’ll be wondering: What happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.”

Science made Lynas a better environmentalist. Smashing.

“simplistic solutions don’t really work… There are processes of gradually opening one’s mind and beginning to take seriously alternative viewpoints, and then looking more closely at the weight of the evidence.”

Opening one’s mind and look at alternative viewpoints. Brilliant.

Let’s hope we can have a decent, mature conversation about GM foods in North America.  

We’ll give the final thought to Lynas, “The  GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe. … You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food.”