Salmon farming

Zzippy

_Puma_ wrote: »

According to Save Bantry Bay there has been a massive escape in a salmon cage in Bantry bay on the 1st of February. If the worse case scenario is realised it will be more than twice the worldwide escapes in 2012. Simon Coveney is supposed to be answering a parliamentary question about it on Wednesday.

The worrying thing about this is BIM and the department of the Marine are being totally silent on it. The escape is supposed to have been reported by now. The only press release is from BIM saying there has been damage to a cage but no confirmed escapes. I suppose we are expected to believe the salmon will stay put and that nothing is amiss.

Why aren't these guys out supporting the operator in assessing the damage and putting in preventive measure asap, as this has the potential to be an ecological disaster.The more and more you hear from BIM the more you realise they are totally inept at their remit. Seems to me that these guys are a glorified marketing/pr company trying to justify themselves as a government quango rather than a professional fisheries board.

The minister has admitted in an answer to a question in the Dail that there probably have been escapes, but they cannot assess how many fish have escaped until the weather improves. Nearly 2 weeks after the storm and there could be 80,000 farmed salmon swimming around in Bantry Bay and heading for nearby rivers. BIM have been very quiet, they just put out a short press release saying there was no evidence of any escapes - that was because no one had been out to the cages! Now that is one quango they should have got rid of...

danbrosnan

BIM are a disgrace, they seem to be locked in agreement all the time with the fish farms, would i be wrong in saying the fish farms now take up a lot of the work done by BIM?

Zzippy

Marine Harvest CEO meets Taoiseach

Puff piece in the Irish Times about the CEO of Marine Harvest visiting Ireland and get this, having a private meeting with the Taoiseach and Coveney to urge them to speed up the licensing process. The licensing process is supposedly independent and there is a backlog because of European requirements on habitat protection. Is it really appropriate for our "leaders" to be holding private meetings with vested interests and expressing their frustration at delays to licensing, a process they should not be interfering in?


Coveney admits frustrations over aquaculture

By the by, in the IT article, it says our own government estimates 1 job for every 70 tonnes produced. But BIM claim that a 15,000 tonne salmon farm in Galway Bay would produce 500 jobs, which is one job for every 30 tonnes. Someone's telling porkies... :rolleyes:

_Puma_

Pretty obvious what the Ministers intentions are. It has been brought up in the Dail on Numerous occasions about the inconsistencies in BIM's EIS, the flawed research by the Marine Institute with regards sea lice and the fact that Coveney himself is compromised as the Licence seeker(through BIM) and regulator. On nearly every occasion he passes off the questions and refers to the appeals board, who incidentally are nominated by himself, so if he does have the neck to grant the license to the Galway bay project, nothing bar an appeal to Europe will stop it.

Have been following the Oireacteas News on twitter and rather curiously this was released today by the joint committee on Environment culture and the Gaeltacht about recommendations to the foreshore Bill(2013) and the Aquaculture License ommittance that has Coveneys hands all over it, as it would cause aquaculture licences to be given a free pass under Coveney. On page 36 there is this recommendation

RECONSIDER THE LACK OF CHANGE TO THE CURRENT CONSENT PROCESS FOR AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES IN LINE WITH THE BILL’S STATED AIM TO MODERNISE THE EXISTING CONSENT SYSTEMS, PROVIDING FOR A MORE STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT CONSENT PROCESS.

They have raised the issue that "The omittance of aquaculture and fisheries is
discouraging. This is a regressive and counterproductive move". I wonder will it be brushed under the carpet.

danbrosnan

Fair play to ye lads for reading up on reports and doing the research… Its not easy reading those long articulated reports, I sometimes think they make them so difficult to read, so nobody does…

Its obvious the government are looking at other countries like Norway who have a thriving economy and also a thriving salmon farming sector… They want more fish farms here because its an export business.. It means jobs and this government will do absolutely everything to get more fish farms built, i firmly believe that..

The last thing on there minds is the anglers, they don't see the significance in our angling sector and this can be seen everyday with the state of the investment into angling… Its actually comical…

hurler014

danbrosnan wrote: »

Fair play to ye lads for reading up on reports and doing the research… Its not easy reading those long articulated reports, I sometimes think they make them so difficult to read, so nobody does…

Its obvious the government are looking at other countries like Norway who have a thriving economy and also a thriving salmon farming sector… They want more fish farms here because its an export business.. It means jobs and this government will do absolutely everything to get more fish farms built, i firmly believe that..

The last thing on there minds is the anglers, they don't see the significance in our angling sector and this can be seen everyday with the state of the investment into angling… Its actually comical…

The politicians, ie this government aswell as the one before dont give a flying duck about angling as far as I can see when it does effectively contribute to the economy. What they really care about is the bragging rights to 'creating' so many new jobs in deprived coastal communities. You just have to take a look at the recent article in one of the friday paper's about the meeting of Coveney and that other joker to see this Govt's intentions. No such meetings have been held with angling groups as far as I'm aware from either Coveney or Enda Kenny yet they meet up with a fella high up in Marine Harvest to do their best to push through salmon farming licences.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

hurler014 wrote: »

The politicians, ie this government aswell as the one before dont give a flying duck about angling as far as I can see when it does effectively contribute to the economy. What they really care about is the bragging rights to 'creating' so many new jobs in deprived coastal communities. You just have to take a look at the recent article in one of the friday paper's about the meeting of Coveney and that other joker to see this Govt's intentions. No such meetings have been held with angling groups as far as I'm aware from either Coveney or Enda Kenny yet they meet up with a fella high up in Marine Harvest to do their best to push through salmon farming licences.

You sound very angry and I neither want to argue with you nor defend fish farming but I have to say that this talk about angling's contribution to the economy at present is a weak argument. Yes, it attracts touristswho pay for permits, B&Bs, etc but in the overall scheme of things it is a tiny part of our GDP or revenues. As I say, to use the economic benefits of angling in opposing fish farming weakens the case. Fish farming would create more jobs than angling. The product from fish farming would mostly be for export. These arguments cannot be disputed but the risks from fish farming are not all economic - far from it! Unfortunately, I fear it will be judged only on economic grounds but we can only hope not.

hurler014

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

You sound very angry and I neither want to argue with you nor defend fish farming but I have to say that this talk about angling's contribution to the economy at present is a weak argument. Yes, it attracts touristswho pay for permits, B&Bs, etc but in the overall scheme of things it is a tiny part of our GDP or revenues. As I say, to use the economic benefits of angling in opposing fish farming weakens the case. Fish farming would create more jobs than angling. The product from fish farming would mostly be for export. These arguments cannot be disputed but the risks from fish farming are not all economic - far from it! Unfortunately, I fear it will be judged only on economic grounds but we can only hope not.

Lol, whatever fella, people are not as gullible as you would like them to be:
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Press-releases/new-study-angling-worth-075-billion-to-irish-economy-and-supporting-10000-jobs-in-rural-ireland.html. If you are gonna attack another person perhaps you should have a more detailed argument with facts and figures instead of the usual fish farming peddled mantra.

Zzippy

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

You sound very angry and I neither want to argue with you nor defend fish farming but I have to say that this talk about angling's contribution to the economy at present is a weak argument. Yes, it attracts touristswho pay for permits, B&Bs, etc but in the overall scheme of things it is a tiny part of our GDP or revenues. As I say, to use the economic benefits of angling in opposing fish farming weakens the case. Fish farming would create more jobs than angling. The product from fish farming would mostly be for export. These arguments cannot be disputed but the risks from fish farming are not all economic - far from it! Unfortunately, I fear it will be judged only on economic grounds but we can only hope not.

Right, so three quarters of a billion euro, and 10,000 jobs is a weak argument? For comparision, Marine Harvest employ 270 people in the whole country at present and they are 80% of the salmon farming industry. Maybe in your world that's more jobs than angling, but not in most people's... :rolleyes:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

hurler014 wrote: »

Lol, whatever fella, people are not as gullible as you would like them to be:
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Press-releases/new-study-angling-worth-075-billion-to-irish-economy-and-supporting-10000-jobs-in-rural-ireland.html. If you are gonna attack another person perhaps you should have a more detailed argument with facts and figures instead of the usual fish farming peddled mantra.

I am not attacking anybody, believe me, and I am certainly not pro fish farming - as I have already stated. My point is that economic arguments alone are not going to cut the mustard. 750million is, believe it or not, not big money in the overall scheme of things. Then take in to account how much of that relates to salmon fishingfishing alone. Big market in this park of the country in angling tourism, particularly from Germany but it is fishing for pike and coarse fishing. Sea angling has to also be part of the 555 million direct spend refered to. All I'm saying is we need to argue against fish farms on more than the tourism/revenues side. Always keep in mind that the majority of the jobs rerred to are also associated with sea fishing. Not all the revenue or jobs refer to salmon fishing.
I never asked that anybody be gullible and please don't read things into what I said that were not intended.

hurler014

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

I am not attacking anybody, believe me, and I am certainly not pro fish farming - as I have already stated. My point is that economic arguments alone are not going to cut the mustard. 750million is, believe it or not, not big money in the overall scheme of things. Then take in to account how much of that relates to salmon fishingfishing alone. Big market in this park of the country in angling tourism, particularly from Germany but it is fishing for pike and coarse fishing. Sea angling has to also be part of the 555 million direct spend refered to. All I'm saying is we need to argue against fish farms on more than the tourism/revenues side.
I never asked that anybody be gullible and please don't read things into what I said that were not intended.

Another personal attack from you towards my post. If you would rather not engage with me as you stated unambiguously when you quoted my original post perhaps you will not quote a post from myself in this topic in the future? I know I shouldn't but I'll leave you with this sentiment: would fish farming do less damage to the marine environment if it was land based? In doing so would less pesticides and antibiotics be used? I'm sure it comes down to greed and profit at the end of the day. I suppose I would rather not be naive.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

hurler014 wrote: »

Another personal attack from you towards my post. If you would rather not engage with me as you stated unambiguously when you quoted my original post perhaps you will not quote a post from myself in this topic in the future? I know I shouldn't but I'll leave you with this sentiment: would fish farming do less damage to the marine environment if it was land based? In doing so would less pesticides and antibiotics be used? I'm sure it comes down to greed and profit at the end of the day. I suppose I would rather not be naive.

My honest apologies but we guote the piece to show which points we are discussing. It is not personal by any means (it is always a matter of attacking the post not the poster). I have to say again, I am opposed to fish farming. As someone who spent over 40 years working in a role to protect our environment and wildlife I have serious reservations about salmon farming. However, I stand by the point that the economic benefits of salmon angling are not the be all and end all that we should be basing our opposition on. We also need to ensure that when we use monetary or employment benefits in an argument that they refer to the salmon fishing only and I'm not aware of any figures specific to that as yet.
The question of land based fish farming is interesting and indeed something I had to look at some years back but it seemed uneconomic to do on any scale in self contained tanks at the time. Anyway that is for another thread perhaps.
Again, nothing personal Just debating the topic as presented. And believe it or not we are on the one side here.:)

wexandproud

been following this thread with interest and it is laughable how people accuse bim of being one sided and pro salmon farms, of course they are, its their job to promote and develop aquaculture . the same people who complain about bim being one sided then post a link to a report by inland fisheries who of course are anti salmon farm and also one sided
also it says inland fisheries HELPS SUPPORT 10000 jobs and fair enough maby it does but the way they calculate these figures helps inflate the figures. for example if a guy goes into a shop and buy the food for his day out fishing that is seen as supporting a job, and rightly so. but by the same calculation if people who work on the proposed development spend all of their income in the area all year round that would also have a huge impact on local economy. the way that inland fisheries arrives at that figure is calculated by a formula [leaving cert economics, but i cant think of it now it was 30 odd years ago ], but its basically if the guest house owner does well her disposable income goes up so the clothes shop, etc, makes a quid then the clothes shop owner has more disposable and so on. If people are going to quote figures they should calculate using the same method on both sides.
and just out of interest i would love to know the amount of angling permits sold to foreigners

hurler014

wexandproud wrote: »

been following this thread with interest and it is laughable how people accuse bim of being one sided and pro salmon farms, of course they are, its their job to promote and develop aquaculture . the same people who complain about bim being one sided then post a link to a report by inland fisheries who of course are anti salmon farm and also one sided
also it says inland fisheries HELPS SUPPORT 10000 jobs and fair enough maby it does but the way they calculate these figures helps inflate the figures. for example if a guy goes into a shop and buy the food for his day out fishing that is seen as supporting a job, and rightly so. but by the same calculation if people who work on the proposed development spend all of their income in the area all year round that would also have a huge impact on local economy. the way that inland fisheries arrives at that figure is calculated by a formula [leaving cert economics, but i cant think of it now it was 30 odd years ago ], but its basically if the guest house owner does well her disposable income goes up so the clothes shop, etc, makes a quid then the clothes shop owner has more disposable and so on. If people are going to quote figures they should calculate using the same method on both sides.
and just out of interest i would love to know the amount of angling permits sold to foreigners

You are quite correct here. I dont believe there's an actual breakdown of what particular angling sector contributes in figures unless you where to attempt a breakdown of the number of respondents and what they fish for. There's many forms of angling in Ireland and each form or type of angling has an important contribution to the local economy. A discussion on that though is probably for another thread so I'll leave it there.

Zzippy

wexandproud wrote: »

been following this thread with interest and it is laughable how people accuse bim of being one sided and pro salmon farms, of course they are, its their job to promote and develop aquaculture . the same people who complain about bim being one sided then post a link to a report by inland fisheries who of course are anti salmon farm and also one sided
also it says inland fisheries HELPS SUPPORT 10000 jobs and fair enough maby it does but the way they calculate these figures helps inflate the figures. for example if a guy goes into a shop and buy the food for his day out fishing that is seen as supporting a job, and rightly so. but by the same calculation if people who work on the proposed development spend all of their income in the area all year round that would also have a huge impact on local economy. the way that inland fisheries arrives at that figure is calculated by a formula [leaving cert economics, but i cant think of it now it was 30 odd years ago ], but its basically if the guest house owner does well her disposable income goes up so the clothes shop, etc, makes a quid then the clothes shop owner has more disposable and so on. If people are going to quote figures they should calculate using the same method on both sides.
and just out of interest i would love to know the amount of angling permits sold to foreigners

Of course it's BIM's role to promote aquaculture, and of course that is one sided. People are not accusing them of being one-sided, of course they are. What they are being accused of is using misleading and incorrect scientific data to justify their projects. BIM is a public agency, and as public servants their responsibility is to the public - there is a standard of conduct they should follow. This should include telling the truth, not trying to mislead the public, not deliberately misinterpreting scientific data in a way that suits their agenda. Instead of serving the public they serve vested interests in industry, and instead of having regard to the environment they go to extraordinary lengths to mislead the public on environmental impacts. All you have to do is read the environmental impact statement for their proposed Galway Bay farm to find numerous instances of the above.

For one example, the government's own figures on jobs created by salmon aquaculture is 1 job for every 70 tonnes produced. This includes the indirect jobs that you refer to above. Yet BIM have consistently claimed that the Galway Bay farm would create 500 jobs, which is one job for every 30 tonnes. They have never been able to explain this figure when challenged in numerous public debates and radio interviews, they just state "We stand over those figures".

wexandproud

surely everyone can be mislead with scientific information. People on one side of the discussion will produce their research and claim it is correct then the other side will produce information to discredit it and then it goes back and forth until someone shouts "Brussels"
regarding the job creation i would imagine that like the monetary value of either industry , the amount of direct or indirect jobs would vary depending on the calculation used and when they stop the knock effect. As regards bim standing over their figures , its no different than you or i would do

hurler014

wexandproud wrote: »

surely everyone can be mislead with scientific information. People on one side of the discussion will produce their research and claim it is correct then the other side will produce information to discredit it and then it goes back and forth until someone shouts "Brussels"
regarding the job creation i would imagine that like the monetary value of either industry , the amount of direct or indirect jobs would vary depending on the calculation used and when they stop the knock effect. As regards bim standing over their figures , its no different than you or i would do

It isnt really with regards to what you said about BIM, should they not take all available scientific evidence on board before they come to a decision? Also with regards to your comment about scientific research, findings can be influenced according to the research methodology, as Zzippy commented earlier research studies are analysed by fellow scientists in the field and a lot of the research put forward by BIM in their EIS may be deemed as being inferior.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I'm afraid if you put all the research material on this from both sides into a pile it would never reach a conclusion!

Zzippy

wexandproud wrote: »

surely everyone can be mislead with scientific information. People on one side of the discussion will produce their research and claim it is correct then the other side will produce information to discredit it and then it goes back and forth until someone shouts "Brussels"
regarding the job creation i would imagine that like the monetary value of either industry , the amount of direct or indirect jobs would vary depending on the calculation used and when they stop the knock effect. As regards bim standing over their figures , its no different than you or i would do

Well you or I could stand over what we say, but BIM are a government agency trying to put a 15,000 tonne salmon farm in Galway Bay. They are supposed to be able to defend their statements, and explain them when challenged. They are the ones looking for the licence. They refused to engage in proper public consultation - i.e. engaging with the public, clarifying issues that need clarifying, defending the statements they've made that have been challenged. It's not good enough to say "We stand over that" in such a process. Imagine the finance minister being challenged that his budget figures are incorrect, and just saying "I stand over it" and refusing to defend the figures used. There would be uproar.

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

I'm afraid if you put all the research material on this from both sides into a pile it would never reach a conclusion!

The same could be said for any scientific field. As you well know, it is up to scientists to interpret the field of literature, taking papers from both sides of a debate, and weigh up the balance of evidence to decide which hypothesis is more likely to be true. Just because there are papers saying different things is no reason for not reaching a conclusion. If that was the case the theory of evolution would still be just a hypothesis. Same for gravity, and pretty much any other scientific principle you care to name. In the case of salmon farming, the vast majority of the evidence comes down on the side of salmon farms being responsible for parasite infestation and mortality in wild fish. To use your phrase, the pile of research material on that side is a hell of a lot bigger than the pile saying salmon farming has no impact.

wexandproud

but for the sake of discussion , if a group of scientists got ALL the information, studied it, and then gave the farm the go ahead , would you accept the decision?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zzippy, it was a joke! A play on words. "Never reach a conclusion" as in infinite or unending.

I'm out if here before fists start flying! Hard to believe that the posters on this thread are actually all on the one side. I'd hate to be somebody entering this discussion to make a case for fish farms - Armageddon would follow! I'll leave you to it?

Zzippy

wexandproud wrote: »

but for the sake of discussion , if a group of scientists got ALL the information, studied it, and then gave the farm the go ahead , would you accept the decision?

As a scientist with training in that field, I'm 100% confident that wouldn't happen. I've read the scientific literature, I know what it says. The decision is in the hands of a minister with no experience in this field, being advised by civil servants with no scientific training, and who are adamantly pro-industry. I would much rather a group of independent scientists did get all the info and were allowed make the decision. I'm pretty sure it would be the right one.

floattuber_lee

Zzippy wrote: »

I would much rather a group of independent scientists did get all the info and were allowed make the decision. I'm pretty sure it would be the right one.

My biggest problem with the whole debacle is why was the marine institute allowed to carry out the scientific investigation? of course they are going to say its all ok! they have an aquaculture division same as BIM. Any governing body that is state funded should be totally non biased sadly it wont happen. The only way to stop it is to put a value on the fishing and hope it is greater than what a fish farm would generate. all ministers see is pound signs, they couldn't care 1 jot if every wild salmon was killed if they were generating jobs and bags of cash!

danbrosnan

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

You sound very angry and I neither want to argue with you nor defend fish farming but I have to say that this talk about angling's contribution to the economy at present is a weak argument. Yes, it attracts touristswho pay for permits, B&Bs, etc but in the overall scheme of things it is a tiny part of our GDP or revenues. As I say, to use the economic benefits of angling in opposing fish farming weakens the case. Fish farming would create more jobs than angling. The product from fish farming would mostly be for export. These arguments cannot be disputed but the risks from fish farming are not all economic - far from it! Unfortunately, I fear it will be judged only on economic grounds but we can only hope not.

I actually think this is the is the most ignorant post i have ever seen on boards…

Here is an example of your ignorance, today i spent 4 hours with 24 anglers fishing a competition on a beach in kerry, within that 24 anglers we had anglers from county clare, cork, limerick and kerry… so i estimate about a grand was spent on petrol/fuel…. Then bait another 200euro, admission to competition 400 euro, everybody has about a grand of fishing gear with them, 24 anglers by a grand is 24grand, presentation after another 300 euro spent..

Thats just one competition at the weekend remember we have winter leagues and summer leagues, you have a vast number of competitions every day all across the country and thats just match sea angling, you have the freshwater angling which is actually more expensive and has more anglers..

Fishing is a huge industry in ireland, honestly you obviously don't understand..

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

danbrosnan wrote: »

I actually think this is the is the most ignorant post....

Fishing is a huge industry in ireland, honestly you obviously don't understand..

Dan, you obviously are not reading all I am trying to say. In the context of salmon fishing, which is the topic, the revenue accrued to the state or local business is very small in the overall scheme of the economy. But the principle point was that anti fish farming arguments (and I am anti fish farm myself) are losing out by emphasising the so called 750million And 10000 job contribution from angling. The fisheries own report states that most of that comes from coastal and sea fishing, like you own recent competition, and not from salmon fishing. It's just the point that there are better anti fish farm arguments than a spurious financial one. Please read all my comments before referring to me as ignorant. I am far from it and it is my scientific and academic background that force me to look beyond the rushed emotive arguments to my detriment at times. Please discuss the topic and the points without resorting to name calling.

floattuber_lee

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

It's just the point that there are better anti fish farm arguments than a spurious financial one..

i agree but unfortunately money talks and the only way to make the government realise what salmon fishing is 'worth' is to put value on it. It means far more to you and me than money. the powers to be however are so detached from it and have no connection to it they have to see a figure.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Agreed, but we need specific salmon angling figures, as using those that include the highly lucrative sea angling activities are working against us as they are too easily refuted as not being relevant to salmon angling. I have heard it used against us too often to realise it is a self defeating line to take. I would like to see the environmental impact more forcefully put. Yes, the state is looking at job creation and export potential but we need to conter like with like by sticking to facts and figures specific to salmon and putting an additional emphasis on our responsibility to the wildlife and environment of Ireland. EU environmental legislation and directives need to be turned to our advantage in our deliberations with the planners.

floattuber_lee

Anson Chubby Vodka wrote: »

as using those that include the highly lucrative sea angling activities are working against us as they are too easily refuted as not being relevant to salmon angling.

I'm not sure sea angling is more lucrative than salmon angling. if you calculate all state licenses all annual permits and day tickets and im sure the salmon and trout angling draws a far higher proportion of angling tourism than sea fishing. I'm sure there are more people sea angling but the majority of those will be buying two spinners a year to throw for mackerel not a massive contribution.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Of course but the report entitled Socio-Economic Study of Recreational Angling in Ireland gave emphasis to the return in revenue and tourists in addition to the overall popularity of sea angling with an aside for "Brown trout and Salmon angling". We need to put forward Salmon specific statistics to strengthen our case.

floattuber_lee

that is exactly what i mean about government negligence. surely that sort of study should be done before they go ahead and build the farm. Bare in mind the farm would be built and not far off operational if it hadn't been so strongly opposed!