Industry propaganda on Salmon Farming.

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
Classic example of divide and rule by a filthy industry.

It reads like a joint communique from the Aquaculture industry and the Salmon Conservation Sector:


"As we mentioned last week, the Norwegian Institute of Nature Research’s estimate of wild fish deaths due to salmon farming is about 7,500 fish whereas the last reported angling kill was 9,096 fish. Maybe, someone should be asking why if wild salmon stocks are in such a perilous state, then they are still being killed for sport. The Scottish Government have already stopped commercial netting so is it not time for a ban on the killing of wild salmon for sport too?"


Remember, as anglers "we're all killing too many fish"

Disgraceful.

No wonder these lot put netting out of business, then turned on anglers, who turned on themselves. :mad:
 

goosander

Well-known member
Messages
4,422
Reaction score
1,003
Location
Paisley strathclyde.
Quote No wonder these lot put netting out of business, then turned on anglers, who turned on themselves. Seeking.
Hit the nail on the head.
Bob.
 

Gustav

Active member
Messages
108
Reaction score
54
Location
Morningside
I've seen Dr Jaffa present a couple of times and spoke with him briefly once at an international conference.

Like many well read fellow anglers I started with a pre-determined view that he was simply an apologist and indeed an anarchist for aquaculture but I soon realised that he is someone who thinks science is important and that science and theories are always there to be challenged.

I don't agree with some of what he says and indeed on one of the occasions took him to task over the ongoing manipulation of smolt return rates by the Irish Aquaculture bunch.
(This was principally about their nonsensical logic where they claim the different return rates between non-farm area rivers and rivers close to farm areas is just 1% because they deviously conflate comparative statics with dynamics. The impact rate is at least 20% using their figures correctly and this is something that studies from places like Delphi and in Norway would suggest is maybe even low.

I also know Dr Jaffa is sitting on some really interesting analyses of our salmon and sea trout rivers over a long period of time where his unadulterated figures from public records suggest that salmon and sea trout have been in decline long before aquaculture.
We should see what the figures are saying and come to our own conclusions.

I think one of the biggest errors we all make as a community is not demanding high quality scientific research and what is happening to our iconic species.
We need real and robust science to ensure that our views in the current fact finding exercise at the Scottish Government are listened to and acted on.
That would include ongoing fact finding on sea temperatures, salinity levels, feeding, sea fishing levels, bird predation levels etc. etc.
None of this was historically done by our fishery scientists and without it we can theorise but never be sure.

Without real science we will never be able to hold our politicians to task and I sadly think the various angling associations and charities who claim to represent our views do so without enough science.

Dr Jaffa, and his blogs, and his constant challenges may seem a pain in the proverbial but he will interrogate and continue to interrogate any of our "scientific" conventional wisdoms.

That to me is good and robust science.

I might get annoyed by Dr Jaffa but I don't see him as a fool in any way.

And I welcome his questioning.
 

HOWKEMOOT

Active member
Messages
572
Reaction score
180
Location
Loch Broom, N W Highlands
Those that pay the piper............

Dear Gustav,

I think you are near the mark on Jaffa, he is clever at interpreting data and has shown he will turn it towards supporting aquaculture, afterall that's what pays his bills. You can call me cynical or well educated from a life time of salmon fishing experience.
Lies, damn lies and statistics come to mind.
Indeed we probably need more research, but the playing field keeps changing, for example we now have more febs than before, global warming (if it is to be believed) could play a part, salmon farms have an affect, seal numbers have increased hugely, high seas netting. We know all these things. I myself live in an area surrounded by salmon farms. Over the years I KNOW and SEE the damage, many members here too have extensive historic knowledge.
We can call for more research, but I doubt if it will provide any solution.

Reading the manner and style of the Review of the up coming 'once in a lifetime' Inquiry, it strikes me that the ScotGov will be presented with another 'whitewash' which is based on research and investigation by those in its pay.
I am beginning to think that any effort to save wild salmon is 'flogging a dead horse', despite allusion or promise of research from wherever.

M
 
Last edited:

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
11,625
Reaction score
2,733
Here's a question for Dr Jaffa how does the performance of the Laxford system compare with that of the neighbouring Dionard over the last 20 years?
 
Top