DC Reid is wrong again

Dennis,
Your obfuscation and backtracking here is disappointing, and does not help the discussion.

You state: “1 I did not say fish farms only made money when they had disease. I said that as a taxpayer I don’t want my money going to a multinational billion dollar corporation because they get disease. If fish farms are on land, they won’t get disease.” “And I did not say that Mainstream only makes money when it has disease. Wartkentin came to the wrong conclusion..”

No. You clearly said, and people can check it up in the article above where it’s highlighted in big red letters, that Mainstream Canada “only made money this year because of having disease.”

That is false, as I showed in our web post:
http://www.mainstream-group.com/portal/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada/news/conflict-and-criticism/blog+post+full+of+errors%2C+ignorance+about+salmon+farming+and+business

You also continue to ignore the obvious fact that salmon prices played a far greater role in profits and losses than any back-of-napkin compensation calculation you could come up with. Again, our web post addressed this, by showing how salmon prices have drastically risen this year over last year. That extra $3.18 per kilo makes a huge difference.

The FIS article you link states this, although you choose to believe that it says something it does not.

You state: “You just have to find the current information about scientists in Norway and the persuasive graph that shows fish farm fish have more organic pollutants in them by a factor of 10 over any of the usual animal products consumers buy to be persuaded not to buy farmed fish. Norwegian scientists have said they won’t eat farmed fish.”

This is a non-starter. We have addressed this many times, most recently here:
http://www.mainstream-group.com/portal/wps/wcm/connect/msca-content-en/mainstream-canada/news/addressing+norwegian+scientist+claims+about+farmed+salmon

The general consensus of scientists around the world, including the UN FAO (http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/ba0136e/ba0136e00.pdf) is that the proven health benefits of eating seafood, including farmed salmon, far outweigh any potential perceived risks. Certainly, a few scientists and yourself may disagree with the general consensus, like some might disagree that the earth revolves around the sun or that evolution is real, but there are always crank opinions on the fringes of science.

You state: “5. I did not say that disease was a disaster and fish farms should get money. You said that.”
Actually, no I didn’t. You are putting words in my mouth. I will repeat what is in our web post: “Reid seems to think that it is unfair for salmon farmers to be compensated for disaster under any circumstances. Clearly he is ignorant that all Canadian farmers — and commercial fishermen — receive government grants and are eligible for government compensation in certain circumstances.”

You state: “6. As for grants, the recent $400 million grant by Shea to aquaculture, while BC wild salmon netted only $900,000 this year is true, and leads a reasonable person to say, let’s have $400 million to save wild BC salmon.”
I would love to see the government spend $400 million in BC to save wild BC salmon. So we agree on something! But you are still incorrect that this grant money is for aquaculture. Please read what you use to support your arguments.

As I pointed out, the $400 million is for Labrador and Newfoundland only. From the article: “In recognition of the Provincial Government’s decision to forgo its minimum processing requirements for European markets, the Federal Government will provide C$280 million towards a C$400 million fund to significantly enhance the industry’s capacity to compete globally, which will promote economic prosperity for the people and communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.” And also from the article, ““the positive impacts on our fishing sector will be greatest”. It is incorrect for you to call this a grant for aquaculture.

You state: “7. Yes, you had IHN results at Bawden, Dixon, and Millar, but, as stated, harvested Bawden and sent it to consumers to eat”

You are incorrect. IHN was confirmed at only two of our farms last year. IHN was also confirmed in sockeye salmon last year, according to the CFIA:
http://inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/diseases/reportable/2013/infectious-haematopoietic-necrosis-2012-/eng/1339177995042/1339178134615

You state: “8..Yes, Kibenge’s powerpoint presentation says that one third to one half of all aquaculture products in the world are lost to disease.”

His powerpoint also says that 90% of the world’s aquaculture is in Asia. You conveniently ignore this to try and make a specific argument against salmon farms. As I stated in our web post, and as the analysis of nearly a decade of data at the Cohen Commission showed in the Project 5A report, only 10% of our fish die before harvest, making our track record on fish health excellent compared with 90% of the rest of aquaculture farms in the world.

You state: “9. As for the fish health of BC farmed salmon, the Cohen commission had to overrule fish farms complaints about the BC testing system tables being made public, and then required the individual results; Recollection tells me that fish farms have lost 29 Million farmed salmon in the last decade. And haven’t I got it right that Marine Harvest sent smolts with IHN to the on-land Namgis project?”

Your recollections are faulty, I suggest you re-read the sources you use for your claims and try again.