RSS

Category Archives: Series

Profits first!

This is part three in a three part series on Alaskan salmon ranching. Click link to view part 1: Alaska’s Little White Lie and part 2: Hatchery Fish Are Not Wild.

Fishermen don’t catch fish out of the goodness of their hearts. They do not gently whisper to each fish, “you’re sustainable,” as they yard them into their holds. They endure long unpleasant days at sea and hard work for the paycheque that comes at the docks. That has not changed since people started catching fish, and the history of fishing in the Pacific Ocean is no different.

And not surprisingly, the roots of the wild versus farmed salmon dichotomy are firmly and deeply financial. To understand it, we need to look at the history.

Alaska: Turning point 1972

Commercial fishing in Alaska began in earnest at the end of the 19th century. Catches grew rapidly with the expansion of cannery capacity through 1920. This intensity led to overfishing. Low stocks led President Eisenhower to declare Alaska a federal disaster area in 1953. This state of emergency, labeled a severe hardship to salmon industry, was declared for 3 consecutive years.

View of men unloading salmon from fishing boat at cannery in Bristol Bay, Alaska. 1950’s

Alaska achieved statehood in 1959. Written into the state constitution is a policy of sustainable yield which applies to the use of all replenishable resources. The new constitution, as well as a new federal interest in financially supporting commercial fishing in the north, led to a recovery in the stocks and a decade of productive harvests.

But in the 60’s, B.C. and Alaska fishermen were competing with fishing boats from the USSR, Japan and even Poland. The development of new fishing technologies and the foreign fishing fleets competing for fish in the North Pacific led to overfishing and a record low catch in 1972 in Alaska and low catches elsewhere in the world.

Since the 1970s, the situation has improved. Stricter permits, the creation of the 200 mile economic exclusion zone and the creation of private non profit hatcheries (salmon ranching) has led to the extremely high salmon catches experienced today in Alaska.

But high salmon catches do not mean people are acting to protect salmon stocks for the environment’s sake. Fisheries, like all industries, are concerned with profits. The state of emergency in the 50’s was not a call to protect the environment; protecting the jobs of fishermen was more important. The same is true for the decline in the 70’s. In Alaska, the only desire to replenish the salmon stocks using large scale hatcheries was so that there were more available to catch, can and sell.

“It [The hatchery program] was intended to supplement, not supplant, wild stock production.”

The problems with hatcheries, such as loss of genetic diversity, were a concern to some in the 70’s but the priority was jobs, not the environment.

“Governor, I’m sure the proper ‘genetics’ of salmon are important. However, I’ll wager that if our fishermen have to make a choice between salmon with the wrong ‘genetics’ or no salmon at all they’ll not worry that much about the salmon’s parents or where he came from,” state Rep. Oral Freeman of Ketchikan wrote to Gov. Jay Hammond in 1975.”

It was around this time that the largest oil field in North America was found in northern Alaska and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built.This meant that Alaska had more government money to fund projects such as hatcheries which were government-run at first and only later were run as public non profit enterprises.

Commercial fishermen in areas with large hatchery programs have benefited greatly, however, fishermen from other areas of Alaska may have been harmed due to the depressed prices from the larger volumes of fish that are available.

“Many hatcheries are not viable without continuing state subsidies.The Alaska salmon hatchery programme is neither obviously an economic success nor obviously an economic failure.

B.C.: Aquaculture becomes attractive

From California to B.C. salmon harvests were nowhere near as high as in Alaska and hatcheries were having a limited effect. In the 1970s, inspired by the success in other parts of the world, people started looking at aquaculture to provide coastal communities with other options to replace the slowly, but surely, declining commercial fisheries.Salmonids (Rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, and Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar) were being cultured in seawater in Scandinavia, the British Isles and Japan as early as 1969.

“Losses of salmon stocks from damming, logging, pollution, etc., coupled with the rising demand for salmon as food, have led to extensive investment in artificial propagation to augment the natural runs. During the last 100 years, salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast of the United States have evolved into expensive systems under constant economic scrutiny. In many areas rising capital costs and the limited fresh water will prevent much new construction or expansion of salmon hatcheries. Therefore, to expand the present levels of production we must seek new, economical methods of salmon culture.

Aquaculture on the west coast started in Washington but quickly expanded into B.C.

Alaska turns to marketing in 1981 after health scare

ASMI – Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute

The desire to create a wholesome image and worldwide markets for Alaska’s seafood products spawned the creation of ASMI in 1981.

This wholesome image was needed after problems arose in 1980 and 1981 when there were reported cases of botulism infection and one death due to botulism in Belgium. The source of the spores was linked to Alaskan canned salmon. At this time canning salmon was the best way to ship the product worldwide. Flattened cans were shipped to the cannery and were reformed in a machine before the salmon was placed inside and sealed. It is believed that a defect may have been caused in the plant by the can reforming equipment. This may have caused tears in the edges of the can which allowed botulism spores to enter the can. There was a large recall of the product and there were many economic repercussions from this incident.

ASMI started its career when it launched a canned salmon recovery program. Since that time ASMI has evolved into a very powerful marketing group.

“The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute is a marketing organization with the mission of increasing the economic value of the Alaska seafood resource… ASMI is playing a key role in the repositioning of Alaska’s seafood industry as a competitive market-driven food production industry. Its work to boost the value of Alaska’s seafood product portfolio is accomplished through partnerships with retail grocers, foodservice distributors, restaurant chains, foodservice operators, universities, culinary schools, and the media.”

Interestingly, the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association was established shortly afterwards in 1984.

The BC Salmon Farmers Association is a forum for communication and cooperation within the salmon farming sector, and the focal point for liaison between the industry and government. We also provide information to the public and stakeholders about salmon farming, and coordinate industry-wide activities such as a Code of Practice, research, and community events. Our members include both farmed salmon producers, and many of the companies who provide services and supplies to them.”

Here is a case-in-point in the farmed vs wild dichotomy. The BCSFA is painted with a negative brush because it represents “industry” yet the ASMI is applauded by some because it supposedly represents wild seafood interests. But the truth is, both groups represent industries and are equally concerned with the economics surrounding those industries.

90’s – Farmed Salmon makes a splash

Wild salmon dominated the market in the 80’s and experienced record high prices in 1988. At this point farmed salmon entered the market in large volumes.

Commercial salmon farming began in Norway, Washington, Scotland, and British Columbia in the 1970s, but  was not a factor in world markets until the mid-1980s, when production reached 50,000 tons. By 1990, farm production had quintupled to more than 250,000 tons. In 1999, world farm salmon production for the first time surpassed salmon fishery production.”

With the increase in production came a decrease in the market value of salmon, and an end to the “good old days” of the 1980s, when Alaskan fishermen received nearly 1.5 billion (in 2011 dollars) for their harvest.

Fresh salmon available year-round forces market changes

Once farmed salmon became a commodity available year-round to customers, people changed the way they purchase, store and eat salmon. In general, people gradually started eating more salmon year-round. This presented a challenge for fishermen, who have only a short window of time to catch, process and sell salmon.

Generalizations about effects of farmed salmon on “wild” salmon prices risk being overly simplistic and  misleading.

The most important factor driving change in world salmon prices has been rapid and sustained growth in world farmed salmon and salmon trout production. This has fundamentally transformed world salmon markets—not only because of the dramatic growth in total supply, but also because of the changes that it has represented in the kinds of salmon products which are available, the timing of production, market quality standards and organization of the industry.”

Some wild salmon products sell for lower prices than farmed salmon, while others command price premiums.

Many other factors besides farmed salmon have also affected wild salmon prices. These include:
• Increasing concentration in the retail and food service industries
• Increased world pink and chum salmon harvests
• Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the emergence of Russian wild salmon as a significant competitor to North American wild salmon in the Japanese frozen market and world canned salmon and salmon roe markets
• Declining consumer demand for canned salmon
• The end of the Japanese “bubble” economy of the 1980s and a stubborn economic recession in Japan, historically the most valuable market for North American fresh and frozen wild salmon.”

“They [countries that support aquaculture] recognized significant market growth potential and that wild salmon fisheries could not adequately supply the market with uniform fresh salmon of consistently high quality year round. As a result, farmed salmon created a market in the United States and Europe that wild salmon could not supply.

As a fresh product, farmed salmon received a price premium compared to most frozen wild salmon.”

Turn of the new century

Alaska, where the economy is crucially dependent on fisheries, struggled to adapt to new market realities.

Salmon price changes have also severely impacted incomes in Alaska… At current levels of production, each 10 cent per pound decline in salmon prices translates to $66 million in lost income for Alaskan fishermen.”

2002 was a particularly bad year for the market price of salmon.

“Back in 2002, the government of Alaska requested that the BC government keep the moratorium on fish farms until the safety of Alaska’s own wild salmon stocks can be guaranteed. The request reads as follows:

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature requests the United States Department of State, while negotiating trade agreements with Canada and in the arena of the Pacific Salmon Commission negotiations on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to consider the numerous negative effects that farmed salmon from British Columbia have on the economy, environment, and fishing industry of Alaska.”

Notice that “economy” comes before “environment” in this official request. Profits are important for any industry, whether that be wild salmon fisheries or salmon aquaculture. In both cases ignoring the environmental impacts would be detrimental to their products and their bottom lines. The truth is that “wild” salmon coming from “pristine” Alaskan waters are part of a billion dollar a year industry that has a vested interest in the market as much as any multinational corporation.

Large profit losses were felt in Alaska due to the decline in the value of salmon. This directly affected coastal communities and those employed in the fishing industry. It is understandable that there are some bad feelings from Alaska toward salmon farming. In 2002 one angry fisherman wrote an email to the ASMI stating his grievances. The email he wrote is not available but the response letter from the ASMI Director Ray Riutta does comment on the question of “Why ASMI Doesn’t Bash Farmed Fish?”:

“As to attacking farm salmon directly, there is more to the issue than
you may realize.  And ASMI does a lot more behind the scenes then you
are probably aware of.  Why don’t we come out and conduct a frontal
assault on farmed?  Well, it is pretty simple.  Two reasons: the first
is the most practical and it is that most of the large retail food
chains that sell our salmon also sell farmed salmon. It would be nice if
all they sold was our fish, but that is not the way it is so we have to
deal with the reality of the market place. In order for them to sell
“fresh” salmon fillets year round they have little choice.  In many
cases farmed is by far the larger of the two product lines they sell in
terms of volume and profit margin.  They do not expect their wholesaler
(that’s us) to be openly attacking other products they sell.  If we do
we face loosing the accounts which are worth literally millions of
dollars to our industry and would further depress the already low price
you receive for you fish.

The second is a fundamental marketing rule and that is direct attack ads
by people with similar products generally do not work.  They only
confuse the public and end up with both sides loosing market share.
They are seen as self-serving and lack credibility with the general
public.  In our case, it is far more credible to leave the attack to
third parties, such as environmental groups and newspaper columnists,
then it is for us to come out and do it ourselves. We can then leverage
that information with a marketing campaign pointing out the positive
aspects of our fish using the bad things about farmed fish as our points
of difference.  And that is exactly what we are doing.  In addition, we
are helping the people that sell our products or use them in restaurants
understand the differences in wild and farmed fish, which includes
showing them the material that is being generated by the
environmentalists and the media. We also have been working with a number
of environmental groups and media for several years now pointing out the
purity and sustainability of our salmon, which helps them make their
points about the difference in wild verses farmed fish.

We do intend to be aggressive in taking advantage of the current trend
against farmed and in favor of wild salmon at every opportunity, but we
are going to do it in a positive way.  By that I mean we will emphasize
the many good things (purity, health benefits, environmentally friendly,
sustainable runs, small family businesses) about our fish and leave it
to others to emphasize the bad things about farmed fish.  This is a
position that is strongly endorsed by our board, half of whom are
harvesters, like you, and is constantly reviewed to be sure it is the
best way to conduct our business.”

Most of the “bad things ” about farmed fish have been given wide attention through exaggerations and lies told by environmentalists (often through the media) included levels of PCB’s in farmed salmon, sea lice issues, and most recently disease issues.

And Alaskan seafood companies have repeated these claims verbatim, bashing farmed salmon in their promotional material. Because if environmentalists say it, it must be true, right?

Alaskan seafood companies have also been aggressive in passing this information along to media and other sources, “working behind the scenes” to ensure farmed salmon is associated with “bad things” in people’s minds.

For an example, take a look at the comprehensive study of the money trail and the lies behind the 2004 Hites study about PCBs. Read Research on Contaminants in Farmed Salmon:Science or Marketing? by Vivian Krause. For papers regarding sea lice and other issues related to salmon farming visit the BC Salmon Farmers Association. For an in depth look at the recent salmon disease stories being told by environmentalists visit Salmon Farm Science.

Everybody loses

What marketers bashing farmed salmon need to remember is that when farmed salmon are portrayed negatively in the media the value of all salmon diminishes.

“The salmon industry was hurt by negative publicity following publication in the scientific press earlier this year of studies alleging certain health risks associated with farmed salmon. This general perception affected both our retail and food service salmon sales, even though the majority of salmon sold by High Liner is wild pacific salmon.”

It is important to realize that the competition is not fresh Alaskan vs. fresh farmed salmon. It is frozen and canned versus fresh.

Alaskan salmon is still mostly sold canned or frozen or in some other value-added product such as salmon burgers. Fresh farmed salmon is a great product for restaurants and supermarkets. Niche markets for wild salmon and frozen and value-added markets (where wild salmon can compete on lower cost production) is where Alaska will profit the most in the growing diversified market place.

ASMI has been very successful promoting their frozen product with the “Cook It Frozen!” campaign. Marketing such as this and value added products are how Alaska can continue to profit from wild salmon harvests instead of encouraging a negative campaign through environmental groups.

Like many industries, in order to save money and increase profits, Alaskan salmon is being shipped to China to be processed before being returned to the US and sold as a “made in the USA” product. For a closer look at this topic see our post Alaskan salmon: Product of China.

The Future: SUV of the seafood aisle

An excerpt from “Why farm salmon outcompete fishery salmon” written by academics from Stanford University in California makes an interesting point about the place of wild (fishery) salmon in the market.

“Just as US automakers may never be able to outcompete Japanese manufacturers in the small car sector, fishery salmon will probably never be able to outcompete farm salmon on consistency and availability. However, fishery salmon should be able to thrive as the sport utility vehicle of the seafood aisle: a different, though more expensive and slightly less reliable product.

In the document Alaska Seafood Market Changes and Challenges Gunnar Knapp makes some interesting points about the implications aquaculture have for wild seafood markets and he has some great advice about how the two industries should work together.

Aquaculture has far-reaching implications for wild seafood markets.
• Aquaculture competes with wild production
– Aquaculture expands supply which tends to lower prices
– Aquaculture creates new standards for quality, consistency and availability
• Aquaculture expands demand for fish
– Aquaculture makes fish more widely available
– Aquaculture introduces consumers to fish species
– Aquaculture creates new products
– Aquaculture invests in marketing
– By expanding total demand, aquaculture can expand demand for wild fish as
a “natural” alternative to farmed fish—if wild fish is marketed effectively.
• Aquaculture changes seafood market dynamics
– As wild production becomes a smaller part of total supply, prices don’t
increase as much when wild catches fall
– Aquaculture creates price cycles similar to those for meat and poultry
– Over time, fish prices trend downwards as farming costs fall allowing farmed
production to expand.
– Large scale aquaculture production creates new distribution channels for
seafood
– Aquaculture changes the balance of economic and political power in the
seafood Industry

“Part of the opportunity to increase demand for Alaska salmon is to get more consumers to eat SALMON.
• The more salmon consumers there are, the more wild salmon consumers there will be.
• We should be seriously considering working together with salmon farmers for generic promotion of all salmon.”

Sadly this advice was given in 2003 and to date has not been followed. These two industries are spread between many different countries; it is unlikely that we can expect cooperation in the future.

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on July 5, 2012 in Opinion, Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Hatchery fish are not wild

This is part two in a three part series on Alaskan salmon ranching. Click link to view part 1: Alaska’s Little White Lie.

Salmon aquaculture in Alaska can be described multiple ways: salmon ranching, salmon enhancement and salmon hatcheries. Because they don’t grow the fish to full size for market and because of the stigma they and others have attached to salmon farming, Alaska works hard to distance itself from any association with the aquaculture industry by claiming that 100% of its fish is wild.

The Pacific Ocean, like all the other oceans in the world, has been heavily fished for centuries. In the past century, all the world’s oceans have been fished nearly to the limit thanks to the advent of highly industrialized fisheries. In the ‘70s this was clearly felt by both the U.S. and Canada and both countries expanded their hatchery programs to make up for some of the lost fish.

Over time the two countries went in different directions. Alaska focused on industrial scale hatcheries to supplement the commercial fishing industry. B.C. focused on a mix of smaller, government funded, hatcheries to enhance specific wild stocks and to supplement commercial fisheries, and also allowed private salmon farming companies.

Hatcheries have played an important role in conservation. They have contributed to the conservation of salmon populations and also to the conservation and restoration of watersheds crucial for salmon habitat.  They have also contributed to the increase in knowledge about the salmon life cycle and how human impact on the land affects salmon populations. Without hatcheries, our wild salmon would be in a far worse state.

However they were not enough to stop the general decline in wild salmon productivity which was inevitable once we started catching up to 80 per cent of them, every year.

That is why people started trying to farm salmon instead of catch them.

As salmon from salmon farms started making waves in the market, Alaska started its campaign against B.C. farmed salmon. The history of hatcheries is closely tied to economics. However, for this article I am focusing on the risks and benefits of hatchery production. I will take a closer look at the money trail behind hatcheries and the wild vs. farmed debate another time.

Here is an overview of the history of hatcheries:

“The artificial propagation of fish has been around a very long time, but the use of hatcheries to increase the abundance of salmon on a large scale is relatively new, within the last 160 years. Modern hatchery programs for salmon have their roots in a discovery made by two French fishermen in 1841. The fishermen, Messieurs Gehin and Remy, observed salmon spawning for several nights, then developed a procedure for stripping eggs from female salmon and fertilizing them. They also devised apparatus for incubating and hatching the eggs. In the late 19th century, the belief that humans should control the reproduction of economically important fishes and, that in doing so they would increase the abundance of salmon had strong intuitive appeal. The basis for that belief was found in agriculture.

Early proponents of artificial propagation of fishes compared hatcheries to farms. The comparison with farms gave hatcheries instant success by analogy. Agriculture had increased the production of important human foods so it was natural to conclude that fish farms (hatcheries) would increase the production of fishes. This success through association with agriculture was unfortunate because it removed the incentive to actually determine the performance of hatcheries. Thirty-five years after the two French fishermen made their discovery, hatcheries were propagating Pacific salmon and the U. S. Fish Commission was proclaiming that artificial propagation would make salmon so abundant that there would be no need to regulate harvest or protect habitat. Such hyperbole had no basis in science, but those who wanted to maintain high harvest rates or alter the habitat in salmon rivers accepted it as fact.

As a consequence, hatcheries were constructed and used as a substitute for habitat protection and harvest regulation. It is now generally recognized that accepting hatcheries in lieu of habitat and rational harvest was not an effective tradeoff. Artificial propagation was not able to maintain the abundance of salmon. However, as wild populations declined with the loss of habitat and under the pressure of excessive harvest, the small number of adults that hatcheries were able to produce became a larger and larger part of the total run. Salmon of hatchery origin are now the dominant type of fish in many watersheds [in the Pacific Northwest].

…Hatcheries are here to stay. Whether or not the original goal of hatcheries was valid, we did trade habitat for artificial propagation and in many rivers that habitat will not be restored to even a fraction of its original productivity. In many of those systems, natural salmon production will need to be augmented with hatcheries.”

Risks

Sockeye salmon at a Columbia River hatchery

For years the debate over hatcheries has raged. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Those who are cautious about hatcheries generally agree about the risks involved.

In May 2012 the Wild Salmon Center’s program State of the Salmon: Knowledge across Borders uploaded a collection of more than 20 studies by leading university scientists and government fishery researchers in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Russia and Japan. The collective evidence from these studies suggests that salmon raised in man-made hatcheries can harm wild salmon through competition for food and habitat. The research volume was published in the May issue of Environmental Biology of Fishes.

From their press release:

“The genetic effects of mixing hatchery fish with wild population have been well-documented,” says journal editor David Noakes from Oregon State University. “But until now the ecological effects were largely hypothetical. Now we know the problems are real and warrant more attention from fisheries managers.”

…says Pete Rand, “…What we’re seeing here in example after example is growing scientific evidence that hatchery fish can actually edge out wild populations.”

Losing wild fish would mean losing the genetic diversity that has allowed salmon to survive for centuries. Unlike hatchery fish, wild salmon population have a range of highly specialized adaptation to the natural environment. These adaptations not only help them return to their home streams to spawn, but also increase their ability to withstand environmental changes like increase in ocean temperature and extreme variations in stream flows. Hatchery fish, as the name implies, are hatched from eggs fertilized in a controlled environment and raised in captivity until they are big enough to release into the natural environment. They lack the genetic diversity of wild fish that provides insurance against fisheries collapse.

“…These studies suggest that even more caution is needed to make sure hatchery programs keep wild salmon safe, and don’t inadvertently hurt the long term potential of salmon runs,” says Rand.

… The increasing global demand for salmon has resulted in calls to further expand hatchery production, especially in Russia and Alaska. In a 2010 open letter to Alaska hatcheries, seafood processors proposed increasing pink salmon hatchery returns by 25%-115% over the next five years. Similarly, Russian hatchery managers stated in 2010 that Russia is planning to build 23 new hatcheries that would increase the country’s hatchery production by 66% or 680 million fish.

…says Rand “…The prospect of additional increase in hatchery production is worrisome for the long-term survival of wild salmon.”

The press release also notes that one of the new studies indicates that chum salmon from Asian hatcheries,  mostly from Japan, have caused declines in wild chum salmon populations in Alaska. Genetic data is showing that the fish share the same feeding ground in the open waters of the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. The abundance of adult chum salmon from hatcheries is now much greater than wild chum salmon so the authors are not surprised to see evidence of completion in the North Pacific.

It is also noted that competition will get tougher as ocean conditions change. The current patterns are able to support large populations of salmon but as these patterns shift, food availability for salmon could drop making it even harder for wild salmon populations to survive.

These recent findings echo older sources. Other risks are also worth noting:

Oregon business council:

Catastrophic Loss. Because hatcheries raise fish in large numbers that are restricted to relatively small space they are vulnerable to catastrophic losses of biological (e.g. disease) or mechanical (e.g. pump failure) origin.

Loss of Diversity. To reduce cost hatcheries, like factories, employ economies of scale. This leads to reliance on a few large stocks instead of a diversity of stocks of various sizes. This is equivalent to “placing all our eggs in one basket” and increases the risk of major disruptions in production during adverse environmental conditions.

Cost. The economic cost of replacing most or all natural salmon production with hatcheries would be prohibitive.

Loss of Genetic Diversity. In agriculture, where we do have a reliance on artificial production of crops, we maintain at great expense seed banks that attempt to collect and preserve the genetic diversity of important food crops. Those seed banks have proven to be absolutely necessary to maintain production. There is no equivalent seed banks for salmon genetic diversity except in the thousands of populations that still inhabit rivers across the landscape. Heavy reliance on hatcheries could erode the genetic diversity of salmon and threaten their long term productivity.

Evaluating Alaska’s Ocean-Ranching Salmon Hatcheries:

Hatchery fish are different than wild fish:

“Given the controlled environmental conditions in a hatchery, it is not surprising that fish reared under these conditions are markedly different than their wild counterparts in behavior, morphology, survival, and reproductive ability.

…Many studies have indicated that the hatchery-rearing environment can influence the behavior of salmon. Levels of aggression and antagonistic behavior appear to differ between domesticated and wild populations.

…Hatchery strains are typically more surface oriented than are wild fish. Most of the innate surface orientation of hatchery fish is likely an adaptive response to the practice of introducing food at the surface of the water (Flagg et al. 2000).

…Either inadvertently or intentionally, hatcheries often develop strains that spawn at different times than their ancestral stock. The most common practice is to select for early run timing by spawning a disproportionate higher percentage of the early returning fish. An advantage of a temporal separation from a management perspective is to separate stocks in a fishery and minimize interbreeding. A disadvantage is that if interbreeding does take place, the progeny of domestic strains and wild-domestic crosses may emerge prior to peak abundance of natural aquatic food sources and thus suffer higher mortality rates.

…Competition for resources between hatchery and wild salmon stocks has become a significant concern.

…Based on a review of the literature and discussions with biologists, geneticists, and fishery managers, it is widely believed that extensive ocean ranching may pose a threat to the ocean’s carrying capacity and the protection of salmon biodiversity.”

Do Salmon Hatchery ‘Sources’ Lead to In-River ‘Sinks’ in Conservation?:

“The cross breeding of wild and hatchery fish may diminish fitness in the wild. This creates a challenge in managing the stocks – the hatchery may be functioning as a critical conservation tool that itself may erode the natural population.”

The Great Salmon Run:

“Some critics question whether the Alaska salmon hatchery program may adversely affect Alaska’s natural wild salmon runs. One concern relates to the potential for competition for food between hatchery salmon and natural wild salmon, both for juvenile fish in near shore waters as well as in the open ocean. Another set of issues relate to the management of commercial fisheries in which fishermen are catching mixed stocks of hatchery and natural wild salmon. If large returns of hatchery fish are mixed with depleted runs of natural wild fish, there is the likelihood for over-harvests of natural wild fish runs. Finally, an issue which may grow in importance over time is the effect of Alaska’s salmon hatchery program on the “wild” image of Alaska salmon fisheries.

…In British Columbia, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans launched a Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) in 1977… A 2000 review concluded that it was difficult to say whether the SEP had produced any net gain of salmon, and that there was evidence to suggest that it had contributed to a net loss of wild salmon abundance, partly because of competition of juvenile hatchery fish with wild juvenile fish, and partly because of unsustainably high harvest rates on co-migrating wild salmon (Pacific Fisheries Research Council 2000).

…Overall, hatcheries add another dimension of complexity and ambiguity to the environmental, economic and social issues related to wild and farmed salmon. Once thought of as a way to restore and enhance natural wild salmon runs, hatchery salmon are now recognized as potentially harmful to natural wild salmon runs because of genetic interactions and competition for food and habitat in freshwater and marine environments. Particularly in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, there is an active debate among scientists, commercial fishermen and the public as to the appropriate role and scale of salmon hatcheries.”

Wild Salmon center:

  • Hatchery-bred salmon are inefficient in foraging, and more aggressive, yet they tend to congregate during migration, and approach (rather than flee) potential predators;
  • Hatchery-bred salmon have a higher number of eggs when reproducing, yet their breeding success is lower;
  • Hatchery-bred salmon are less variable in shape and size when juveniles, and duller in color;
  • Hatchery-bred salmon have higher survival rates during the egg-smolt stages, but lower survival from smolting to adulthood.

“On the basis of these distinctions, the Wild Salmon Center is concerned about the future genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmon populations; especially the risk that the fitness of wild salmon populations will be degraded by long-term interbreeding between these populations.”

Benefits

Despite the risks involved in hatcheries there are benefits such as the restoration of lost populations. In Washington streams where the fish returns were extremely low (0-12 fish returning) a brood program was started in 1977. In 1999 it saw returns of 800 adults[1]. In B.C., on the Sunshine Coast, Chapman Creek had a record of 40-80 Coho returning before enhancement. In 1999 between 1500-2000 Coho returned to Chapman Creek; this provided an economic benefit to the Sunshine Coast through the recreational fishery[2].

School kids on a hatchery tour at Quatse River Hatchery near Port Hardy B.C.

Another benefit to hatcheries is their educational value. Elementary schools can visit hatcheries to learn about conservation and the salmon life cycle. Some schools even have small hatchery programs where eggs are brought to the school for class to study and are hatched in an aquarium for all the school to see. Those fish are then released (under guidance) into local streams or rivers.

Hatcheries also bring attention to habitat degradation and the importance of enhancement and restoration of spawning grounds. If there had been no major enhancement projects, other uses of water and watersheds would have had a much higher priority. There would have been a lower public awareness of habitat needs and without hatcheries there would have been a greater acceptance of the “writing off” of stocks. Awareness brought about by a focus on hatcheries allowed for governments to restrict development along rivers in order to protect fish. Development would have taken over the watersheds in the urban and developed areas in Washington  and B.C., such as the Georgia Basin area and the Fraser River, had the hatchery programs not been started.[3]

Hatchery salmon are not wild

Alaska has spent a lot of time and money promoting “wild” Alaskan salmon. In a brochure on the Alaskan government’s website the government defends the practices of their hatcheries by stating: “Alaska’s current hatchery program has enhanced and supplemented wild stock production for over 30 years, without detecting adverse impacts on wild salmon, which are at record levels of production.”

This statement assumes that hatchery fish are wild; wild salmon are at record levels of production; therefore hatchery programs have no adverse impacts on wild salmon.

But assuming hatchery fish are wild is a big mistake.

While the paper Evaluating Alaska’s Ocean-Ranching Salmon Hatcheries states many of the risks with hatcheries, it does point out that:

“It may be easy to identify risks that hatcheries pose for natural populations; it is not so easy to predict whether deleterious effects have occurred or, if they have, how serious the consequences will be.

Not all hatchery fish are identified by fin clipping because it would be too time-consuming and expensive. This makes it very difficult to observe a returning population and truly understand the effects hatchery fish have had on the wild population. We just don’t know which returning fish are from a hatchery, and which are truly wild. Hatchery fish are not monitored after they leave the river systems so it is also hard to know exactly what interactions and competition happen in the ocean.

Some of the studies published in the May edition of Environmental Biology of Fishes would agree to some extent that impacts are not easy to see but they are cautious because genetic changes have been proven and the evidence is mounting to support the other risk factors.

From the Heard 2011 abstract:

“Although some interactions between hatchery salmon and wild salmon are unavoidable including increasing concerns over straying of hatchery fish into wild salmon streams, obvious adverse impacts from hatcheries on production of wild salmon populations in this region are not readily evident.”

From the Grant 2011 abstract:

“However, virtually nothing is known about the effects of hatchery fish on wild populations in Alaska.

… Possible effects of these interactions can be inferred from studies of salmonids in other areas, from studies of other animals, and from theory. Numerous studies show a complex relationship between the genetic architecture of a population and its environment.

… Studies of salmonids in other areas show that hatchery practices can lead to the loss of genetic diversity, to shifts in adult run timing and earlier maturity, to increases in parasite load, to increases in straying, to altered levels of boldness and dominance, to shifts in juvenile out-migration timing, and to changes in growth. Controlled experiments across generations show, and theory predicts, that the loss of adaptive fitness in hatchery salmon, relative to fitness in wild salmon, can occur on a remarkably short time scale.”

From the Environmental Biology of Fishes introduction:

“Unintended effects of hatcheries are much more difficult and costly to assess than evaluating the benefits of hatchery production to provide harvest opportunities.”

Science is never “done”

It is apparent that more study needs to be done with regard to the direct effect hatchery salmon have on wild populations. However the risks that have been stated are real and are worth considering when looking at the fitness of wild populations.

To sum up

All human actions impact the environment, including hatcheries. Hatchery programs have important benefits, but they also carry risks of impacting truly wild stocks. Calling hatchery fish wild is dishonest and misleading, and their risks as well as benefits need to be considered, not cloaked in marketing and conveniently ignored.

The Great Salmon Run summarizes the issue of hatchery vs. wild vs. farmed salmon quite well:

Recognize that the choices are not between wild and farmed salmon. It is essential to move away from the simplistic perspective that policy makers and consumers face a choice between wild salmon and farmed salmon. Salmon farming is a major world industry which is here to stay. Wild salmon is incapable of supplying the much larger domestic and world salmon market which has been created by farmed salmon. Natural wild salmon, hatchery salmon, and salmon farming all offer potential economic opportunities and benefits to consumers. All also have inherent risks. The real issues are how to take responsible advantage of the potential economic opportunities and benefits to consumers from both wild and farmed salmon.”


[1] http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/resources/1273782663.pdf An Overview of Washington Hatcheries. Lee Blankenship, Hatchery Review Group, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

[2] http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/resources/1273782663.pdf A Brief History of Chapman Creek Hatchery: Bob Anstead, Chapman Creek Hatchery, Sunshine Coast Salmonid Enhancement Society

[3] http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/resources/1273782663.pdf Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) in British Columbia: Al Wood, Allen Wood Consulting

Part 3: Profits First!

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 12, 2012 in Opinion, Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Alaska’s little white lie

The dichotomy in action.

The state of Alaska, through the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), claims that all the salmon caught by fishermen in Alaska are wild. Sustainable seafood ecolabels such as MSC and guides such as Seachoice perpetuate this claim and further claim that current fishing methods are sustainable.

Is the salmon in our supermarkets as wild as we are led to believe, or is Alaska telling a little white lie to encourage the farmed vs. wild dichotomy?

Looking around the internet at sites that protest salmon farming you are often confronted with the recommendation to “eat wild.” Where am I supposed to get this wild salmon? For most people in B.C., local salmon is not that easy to obtain, except for a month or two in summer. During the rest of the year, most of the salmon sold in large B.C. supermarkets is from Alaska. Most salmon with a Seachoice or MSC label is from Alaska. MSC recently certified B.C. pink and sockeye fisheries, and will certify chum fisheries this year,  but the Seachoice guide still lists B.C. salmon as having “some concerns” while Alaska salmon are green lights all the way.

Chum Opening at Hidden Falls Hatchery – An example of Alaska’s so called “sustainable” fisheries.

Alaska hauls in huge amounts of fish every year. How are they able to sustain such large catches year after year? “Careful management” is the reason given on the MSC website and the Seachoice website. Depending on how you look at it, “Careful management” has three parts: 1. Hatchery programs, 2. catch limits, 3. a prohibition on finfish farming.

Salmon aquaculture protesters hold Alaska in high esteem for their aquaculture policies (prohibitions) and ASMI use this to their advantage when talking about this legislation.

Alaska salmon are wild; there are no salmon farms in Alaska. In order to protect Alaska’s wild fisheries from potential problems, salmon farming was prohibited by the Alaska legislature in 1990 (Alaska Statute 16.40.210).

All Alaska salmon live in their natural habitat in the cold, clean waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Here they grow to adulthood at their natural pace, eating only their natural foods like shrimp, herring, squid, zooplankton, and other marine life. They swim free on the high seas and then return to their natal streams on their own schedule. This is why Alaska’s salmon fisheries are seasonal, rather than year-round. Alaska salmon are wild; there are no salmon farms in Alaska. In order to protect Alaska’s wild fisheries from potential problems, salmon farming was prohibited by the Alaska legislature in 1990 (Alaska Statute 16.40.210).

Here is the statute:

Alaska Statutes – Section 16.40.210.: Finfish farming prohibited.

a) A person may not grow or cultivate finfish in captivity or under positive control for commercial purposes.
(b) This section does not restrict
(1) the fishery rehabilitation, enhancement, or development activities of the department;
(2) the ability of a nonprofit corporation that holds a salmon hatchery permit under AS 16.10.400 to sell salmon returning from the natural water of the state, as authorized under AS 16.10.450, or surplus salmon eggs, as authorized under AS 16.10.420 and 16.10.450;
(3) rearing and sale of ornamental finfish for aquariums or ornamental ponds provided that the fish are not reared in or released into water of the state.
(c) In this section “ornamental finfish” means fish commonly known as “tropical fish,” “aquarium fish,” or “goldfish,” that are imported, cultured, or sold in the state customarily for viewing in aquaria or for raising in artificial systems, and not customarily used for sport fishing or human consumption purposes.

For those not fluent in legalese here is an explanation from an FAQ on the government of Alaska’s site:

Can I raise fish?
No. Alaska statute 16.40.210 prohibits finfish farming. However, Alaska does allow nonprofit ocean ranching. Finfish farming is defined as growing or cultivating finfish in captivity. Ocean ranching, on the other hand, involves releasing young fish into public waters and being available for harvest by fishermen upon their return to Alaskan waters as adults.

So, as with most things in life, it comes down to money. As long as you are not making a profit from your finfish aquaculture facility you can grow fish.

Is there finfish aquaculture in Alaska? Yes. Eggs are harvested from wild fish and grown in closed containment hatcheries. When they hatch they are fed commercial fish feed, then, when they are too big for closed containment facilities, they are put into ocean or lake net pens where they are fed pellets, leave their excrement on the ocean floor, deal with sea lice and receive vaccinations to ensure that the spread of disease is very low. However, because the fish are released into the ocean to return when they are mature, these operations are labeled “hatcheries” or “salmon enhancement programs” instead of fish farms.

In Alaska the hatcheries are run by public non-profit (PNP) organizations paid for by fishermen and the government of Alaska. Because these fish are raised for a few years then released into the ocean to live out their last year or so, any fish caught by a fisherman (regardless of where it started its life) is considered a wild fish:

5 AAC 39.222(f)(43) Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries. “wild salmon stock” means a stock of salmon that originates in a specific location under natural conditions; “wild salmon stock” may include an enhanced or rehabilitated stock if its productivity is augmented by supplemental means, such as lake fertilization or rehabilitative stocking; “wild salmon stock” does not include an introduced stock, except that some introduced salmon stocks may come to be considered “wild” if the stock is self-sustaining for a long period of time.

It cannot be said that Alaska has no finfish aquaculture, only that the fish are not harvested from a site for profit. They are instead released to be caught later by fishermen, who then sell them for a profit.

The Wally Noerenberg hatchery (above) on Esther Island in Prince William Sound is one of the largest such facilities in Alaska, releasing 175 million pink and chum salmon in 2006. The fish farm pens adjacent to the hatchery are used to hold the fish prior to release.

PNPs don’t deny the term aquaculture. In fact, many of them use the word aquaculture in their corporate titles: Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association.

What is aquaculture? According to Wikipedia:

Aquaculture, also known as aquafarming, is the farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants.[1][2] Aquaculture involves cultivating freshwater and saltwater populations under controlled conditions, and can be contrasted with commercial fishing, which is the harvesting of wild fish.

The aquaculture of salmon is the farming and harvesting of salmon under controlled conditions. Farmed salmon can be contrasted with wild salmon captured using commercial fishing techniques. However, the concept of “wild” salmon as used by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute includes stock enhancement fish produced in hatcheries that have historically been considered ocean ranching. The percentage of the Alaska salmon harvest resulting from ocean ranching depends upon the species of salmon and location, [3] however it is all marketed as “wild Alaska salmon”.

Consumers are constantly being advised to “eat wild salmon” but how wild should the fish be? Is Alaska’s definition of any fish caught by a fisherman close enough or do we need to be more exacting in our definition and follow the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council’s definition?

“Salmon are considered “wild” if they have spent their entire life cycle in the wild and originate from parents that were also produced by natural spawning and continuously lived in the wild.”

Is it fair to market Alaskan salmon as truly wild? Many people say no:
The Truth about Alaskan Salmon  :The term ‘wild’ is false – up to 50% of ‘wild’ salmon in Alaska have been hatched in a plastic tray, fed pellets and then released from captivity to mix with real naturally wild salmon. Of course there’s plenty of salmon in Alaska – Alaska releases about two billion (yeah, billion-not to be confused with the word million) cultured salmon into Pacific waters every year. By cultured, we mean hatchery raised, pellet fed, vaccinated little salmon.  Heck, they probably have names!

Fair Questions: In its early years, the commercial fishing industry also made mistakes.  Back in the 1950s, over-fishing got so bad that the U.S. president declared Alaska a federal disaster area.  Since then, stocks have been re-built with hatchery fish. Today, about one third of Alaskan “wild” salmon is actually born in a bucket. It is sometimes said that Alaska banned salmon farming because of environmental concerns. While that may have been part of the reason, the fact is, its too cold for fish farming in most of Alaska.

blogfish: Alaska hates farmed salmon…until Alaska produces them and re-brands them “wild.” It’s a little-known fact that many of Alaska’s so-called “wild” salmon start their lives in a fish farm before being allowed to escape into the ocean. Do you think I’m kidding? Read this just released by the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation:

Pink salmon in the Prince William Sound (Alaska) are a modern, man-made marvel. Hatcheries operated by the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation and the Valdez Fisheries Development Association (VFDA) are responsible for virtually all of the pink salmon harvested in Prince William Sound.

A man-made marvel? These so-called “wild” Alaska salmon start their lives in fish farms before escaping into the ocean and being caught as “wild.”

Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, Alaska

Salmon ranching is not unique to Alaska. Canada (B.C.), Japan and Russia all have “wild” salmon being reared in net pens but each country has different size programs.

Salmon farming in B.C. has been vilified by a handful of very vocal people who are good at getting their opinions into the media. Alaskan salmon ranching has some opponents, or at least people who would like the industry to be more transparent, but it does not face the same scrutiny and negative publicity directed at salmon farming.

As with most issues relating to the ocean, the source of salmon for our dinner plates is not a simple choice of wild or farmed. Wild Alaskan salmon is not all truly wild and farmed salmon is not the enemy of the ocean.

Alaskan salmon is plentiful and flavourful; the same is true for farmed salmon, which is available fresh and affordable all year round. Discounting one source of salmon because of marketing campaigns instead of doing careful research means that you could be missing out on a great product.

Many people have examined and protested the issues of salmon farming in B.C. and around the world but there seems to be some silence surrounding Alaska and it’s hatchery programs.  There is some controversy about how effective hatcheries are at helping wild populations of salmon and some of the potential negative impacts of hatcheries.

Part 2: Hatchery Fish are not Wild
Part 3: Profits First!

 
3 Comments

Posted by on May 23, 2012 in Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Language of Protest Pt. 4 of 4

Organic vs. inorganic or nonorganic, terrorism vs. freedom and democracy, dirty oil vs clean, free range vs. feedlot, farmed salmon vs. wild.

These arguments seem so clear, so black and white, right and wrong, but there is one more that could be added to the list: pirate vs. privateer. If you were Spanish Francis Drake was a pirate (read evil) and if you were English he was a privateer, a man fighting to keep your country safe from the evil Spaniards.

Your perception of the issue will be different depending on what you think you already know about it. The language used to describe that issue will definitely play a part in how you perceive it, whether you know it or not. In this four-part series, I will take a look at some of these dichotomies of language that protesters, governments and industries use to sway public opinion.

To read Part 1 go here.

Part 4 of 4 – Wild Salmon vs. Farmed Salmon

The idea of saving a wild animal pulls at the heart strings of humans. Saying “save the wild salmon” sounds like a great idea! But first you have to ask, are salmon in danger, and do they need saving? If so, from what?

As with everything on the planet, humans are having a negative effect on wild salmon. Is it any action in particular or is it a variety of issues? Logging, habitat destruction, pollution, overfishing, and fish farms all have effects. Is one more to blame than the others?

Logging, hydro dams and pollution

Every human action has environmental consequences.

Logging has come under stricter regulations over the last 30 years or more and everyone seems to understand the importance of leaving trees around streams and rivers. Everyone one also knows that dumping industrial waste into rivers does not benefit anyone. Many hydro dams provide salmon ladders so that spawning salmon can return to their homes.

However, not all hydro dams have had their effects mitigated. In the United States, US Army Engineers spend millions of dollars each year to move salmon past the series of dams on the Columbia River in trucks. Does it help? We don’t know for sure.

Despite being called a source of “clean energy”, the debate over hydro dams continues and many believe dams in the Western US are largely responsible for the decline of salmon in Washington and Oregon. It is highly emotional, much like the debate over fish farms, and like that debate, while the language used is black and white, the actual causes and effects are not so clear.

Net pen salmon aquaculture

Alexandra Morton and the group Salmon Are Sacred certainly believe that fish farms are the cause of all the ills in the ocean. Working from the premise that cattle feedlots are bad for the environment and knowing that the term creates a mostly negative image in peoples minds, she coined the phrase “salmon feedlots” and that term is now widely used by B.C. media.

In 2009 she started a blog and commented on what she felt was a similarity between salmon farming and agricultural feedlots.

“The Norwegian salmon farming companies that operate in BC waters are perhaps the only farmers who never shovel their manure. It flows unimpeded into our ocean and with it the bacteria, viruses and parasites that brew under all feedlot conditions.”

In 2010 her use of the term feedlot becomes more focused until eventually, instead of being like feedlots, salmon farms are labelled as feedlots.

“We the undersigned stand against the biological threat and commerce of industrial net-pen feedlots using our global oceans.”

Prior to the use of the term feedlot the description for the salmon farming that happens off the coast of BC was “net pen salmon aquaculture.” But, let’s face it, feedlot is a lot easier to fit into a headline.

The problem is the negative connotation built into the term feedlot (for more on this discussion see part 3 of this series).

“She [Alexandra Morton] calls salmon farms “industrial salmon feedlots”. Ewwww…conjures up images of chickens stuffed in cages and pigs rolling in their own poo. Ewwww. (no offence to the hard working poultry and pork farmers of this world).”

Morton can’t seem to get her opinion out strong enough with “feedlot” so she adds “industrial” to the front to make it even more “evil” (because, as we know, industry is out to destroy the world).

As discussed in the other parts of this series, if animals (or fish) are kept in unsanitary or stressful situations they will not grow. If they don’t grow, farmers don’t profit. There is no profit in harming your own stock.

Is feedlot a valid description of net pen aquaculture?

One image the term feedlots brings to mind is a large number of animals (or fish) crammed into a small enclosure. This paper takes a fair look at aquaculture and has some interesting points to make about stocking density.

CLOSED WATERS: THE WELFARE OF FARMED ATLANTIC SALMON, RAINBOW TROUT, ATLANTIC COD &  ATLANTIC HALIBUT

Written by Compassion in World Farming and the World Society for the Protection of Animals in 2007

Maximum stocking density

It is important not to stock up to a theoretical maximum but instead to provide a safety margin so as to ensure that, even when problems arise, fish continue to have good water quality and sufficient space for swimming. Farmers are not in control of all the factors – such as water quality and bad weather – that can adversely affect the fish. A safety margin is important to allow for harmful developments.

Recent research shows that above 22kg/m3, increasing density is associated with lower welfare for caged Atlantic salmon. However, in order to provide a safety margin, CIWF and WSPA believe that the maximum stocking density for Atlantic salmon in sea cages should ideally be 10kg/m3, with farmers who achieve a high welfare status and in particular low levels of injuries, disease, parasitic attack and mortality being permitted to stock up to a maximum of 15kg/m3.

Net pens in BC farm at a density that is between 15kg/m3 and 20kg/m3, and try to keep it as low as possible, which, as this study suggests, is optimal. In fact, for each net pen, only 3% of volume of pen is taken up with fish. This is far from the image of feedlots and battery chickens that Ms. Morton and her ilk try to portray.

Ms. Morton and others claim that closed containment is the only choice for the future of salmon farming, while ignoring the fact that farming fish on land on a large scale would be more “industrial” than farming them in the ocean. They seem to blissfully ignore the environmental costs of using agricultural or forest land for industrial purposes, as well as the amount of fresh water that would be required, the energy usage or the environmental cost of trucking and disposing of fecal matter.

When the word industry is Googled under images you see hundreds of photos of smoke stacks and factories. Which seems more “industrial:” a net pen floating in the ocean with a 3% volume of population per net or a land-based factory requiring hundreds of acres of developed land?

Plans for a 2,500 metric tonne land-based fish farm

Plans for a 2,500 metric tonne fish farm show it would take at least five acres of land for the tanks alone.

Current closed containment projects are being held up as examples for the future of the industry but every discussion about taking the industry out of the ocean completely ignores the land use problems. Current successful land based farms grow 100 tonnes of fish. One net pen site in the ocean grows 3000 tonnes. Take one of these land sites and increase them 30 times and you will get one net pen farm. There are many farms currently in the ocean and they do not have anywhere near the impact that land-based sites of equivalent capacity would have.

It is also seldom noted by opponents of net pen farming that the salmon spend the first third of their lifetime in a land-based facility. No one knows better than the fish farming companies about closed containment technologies, and the limitations of the technology, than the industry because they have been using it since the beginning.

Everything humans do affects the environment. Salmon farms are no exception. However, when all the human factors are looked at, it seems highly unlikely that salmon farms caused the decline of salmon runs on the west coast. An unhealthy ocean would mean an unhealthy farm. An ocean without wild salmon would be an unhealthy ocean and this is not something salmon farmers want to see happen.

Commercial fishing

Before I learned about salmon farming I learned about the collapse of the commercial cod fishing industry on the east coast. Overfishing removed fish from the ocean so there were fewer left to spawn and fewer that would be there for next year’s catch. Farmed fish (salmon being my favorite) seems a good solution.

It should be noted that fish meal and fish oil are used in fish feed. It is obtained from “forage fish… [which] are fast-growing and short-lived fish not generally used for human consumption.”

“Ocean-farmed salmon feed comprises about 30% fishmeal, a name for the otherwise unused forage fish that is converted to food. Salmon feed represents nine percent of the world’s fishmeal consumption, otherwise used for fertilizer or livestock and poultry feed…The Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations confirms that forage fish are not over-fished or depleted.”

This is a concern, but I also learned that salmon farmers, and farmers of other types of fish, are working very hard to reduce the amount of fish meal and oil in fish feed. And the amount of small fish harvested to use in fish feed, poultry and hog feed, and health supplements has not changed in decades, despite a growth in aquaculture around the world.

This is a good use of resources because salmon are incredibly efficient eaters.

Ratio of feed required to edible food produced (pounds)
Wild Salmon 10 : 1 or 15 : 1*
Beef 10 : 1
Pork 5 : 1
Chicken 2 : 1
Ocean-Farmed Salmon 1.5 : 1
*Varies depending on mortality rates and feeding

Many groups feel that one way to save the oceans is to not buy farmed salmon for dinner but buy wild salmon instead. Hold on a minute, to save the wild salmon we need to kill and eat them, thus preventing their ability to spawn and removing them from the gene pool? This is cognitive dissonance if ever I saw it.

For most people commercial fishing is their source for wild salmon.  If terms such as “industrial” or “factory” are considered negative when discussing farming why not when discussing fishing?

Factory ship

A fishing "mothership."

A fishing "mothership."

Contemporary factory ships have their origins in the early whalers. These vessels sailed into remote waters and processed the whale oil on board, discarding the carcass. Later whalers converted the entire whale into usable products. The efficiency of these ships and the predation they carried out on whales contributed greatly to the animal’s precipitous decline.

Contemporary factory ships are automated and enlarged versions of these earlier whalers. Their use for fishing has grown dramatically. For a while, Russia, Japan and Korea operated huge fishing fleets centred on factory ships, though in recent times this use has been declining. On the other hand, the use of factory ships by the United States has increased.

Some factory ships can also function as mother ships. The basic idea of a mother ship is that it can carry small fishing boats that return to the mother ship with their catch. But the idea extends to include factory trawlers supporting a fleet of smaller catching vessels that are not carried on board. They serve as the main ship in a fleet operating in waters a great distance from their home ports.

Greenpeace uses some very descriptive language to explain factory fishing.

“Beneath the serene beauty of our ocean waters lurks a nightmare worse than any Jaws movie. You could compare it to alien abduction – massive numbers of fish are being snatched out of the water by high-tech factory fishing trawlers. This nightmare scenario is real, and the impacts on our ocean’s ecosystems are extensive. Entire populations of fish are being targeted and destroyed, disrupting the food chain from top to bottom.”

Commercial whaling caused the decline of whales, these types of ships are now used for fishing. Would it not make sense that they will also cause the decline of wild fish stocks?

Sea Choice is a sustainable seafood program that supports Alaskan fishing over over B.C. fishing and salmon farms.

“Salmon (Chinook, Chum, Coho, Pink, Sockeye) From: U.S. – AK  Method: Wild, drift gillnet, purse seine, troll

Pacific salmon in Alaska is among the most intensively managed species in the world, with excellent monitoring of both the fish populations and the fishery. Alaskan salmon dominates the West Coast salmon market. Over the past 20 years, Alaska has landed roughly 10 times as much salmon as California, Oregon and Washington combined.”

How is catching 10 times more salmon better for the environment? How is catching that many salmon sustainable?

Alaska has a hatchery program that is very different from what we are used to in B.C. Here smolts are released into a river or stream with the hope that they will grow to maturity and return to spawn. In Alaska there is a process called salmon ranching, which is also referred to as salmon enhancement. The problem with this enhancement is that it is not for the purpose of saving the wild stocks and growing the population, instead it enhances the commercial fishery and allows for the 10 times greater catch.

Simply put, salmon ranching refers to a process by which indigenous salmon are initially caught and stripped of eggs and milt. The fertilized eggs are then cultured in a hatchery where they will hatch and begin feeding on a feed powder. Mimicking the natural life cycle of a wild salmon, these salmon are then transported from freshwater hatcheries to saltwater fish farms. The juvenile salmon continued to be cultured in saltwater fish farms using net pens to contain the salmon. While in net pens, salmon are fed feed pellets to gain size and strength. Also, by remaining captive in an area suitable for a future commercial fishery, the salmon are “imprinted” to the area where they are temporarily farmed. Imprinting ensures that these cultured salmon return to the same place where they were “born” – similar to natural, wild salmon. Once large enough to successfully compete with wild salmon for food and space, these cultured salmon are released into the ocean to forage for food (referred to as “ranching”). Depending on the species of salmon (Pink, Chum, Coho, Chinook or Sockeye), they will return to their birthplace in two to four years. Upon return, a mixture of wild and ranched salmon are caught by commercial and sports salmon fisherman. Selected salmon are also retained by the source hatchery to be used again for eggs and milt – thus repeating the process.

See a video of this process here.

The beginning two thirds (or so) of life for these ranched fish is exactly the same as farmed fish. How is releasing them for the last year of their life more sustainable?

There are some opponents of this practice but not nearly as many as oppose BC fish farms. As mentioned in the posting Transparency some of the money that goes into these campaigns against fish farms in BC (such as the David Suzuki Foundation) comes from groups who support the Alaskan commercial fishery and it’s ranches. To try and say they have the best interests of the environment at heart is a double standard.

Here is one article talking about the drawbacks of this kind of salmon rearing written in Oct. 2010:

“We hear so much about missing wild salmon and recently a record run. But Simon Fraser University scientists say a population explosion of hatchery and wild salmon in the North Pacific Ocean is leading hatchery fish to beat out their wild cousins for food…“Higher levels of hatchery fish straying onto spawning grounds, combined with low numbers of wild fish, could further erode wild salmon diversity, which helps stabilize their abundances,” explains Peterman. “Many salmon from both sides of the Pacific intermingle in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and/or south of there. Together, these factors create the perfect storm for reducing wild salmon over the long term.”

Here is another, also written in Oct. 2010:

“We’ve been down this road before, in salmon country further south. I watched Oregon’s salmon economy crash after a failed reliance on hatchery-produced salmon. Oregon and Washington are now busy reforming salmon hatcheries, after learning the hard way that a salmon economy built on hatchery fish is a house of cards.”

If the practice of salmon ranching were stopped in Alaska, the Alaskan fishery would collapse and people would be shocked about how few salmon are left.

Alternatively, the Sea Choice guide says:

“Freshwater habitats in Alaska have remained relatively pristine, and salmon originating in Alaska does not face the same damming, deforestation and development challenges as those in California and the Pacific Northwest. The current abundance of Alaska salmon and its habitat reflects the success of the state’s management practices. For these reasons, wild-caught salmon from Alaska is ranked as a “Best Choice.”

B.C. does face the development challenges mentioned and because of this Sea Choice does not recommend salmon caught in B.C. waters. It doesn’t seem to me that the abundance in Alaska has as much to do with the state’s management practices as it does with the abundance of salmon ranching in the state.

What Sea Choice does not point out is that the fish which spawn in B.C. rivers travel through international boundaries to the northern pacific, where they are taken from the ocean by American fishermen and sold as an American product.

What is sustainable seafood?

Is wild salmon the best choice for dinner? How was it caught? Where was it caught? How much fuel was used to catch it and deliver it? What percentage of the wild stock was directly destroyed by that catch?

Sustainable is a word used by people on both sides of these protests, but what does it mean? The Google dictionary explains it this way: 1. Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level. (esp. of development, exploitation, or agriculture), 2. Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources. Industry Canada explains it this way:

Sustainable development’s most common definition is “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, from the United Nations study which first brought this issue to the world’s attention more than twenty years ago (Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development – Brundtland Commission, 1987). It is an approach to growth that considers the impacts of policies, programs and operations on economic prosperity, environmental quality and social well-being.

Which is more sustainable; an industry that directly kills a population by removing it from the ocean or an industry that strives to have as low an impact on the ocean as possible but is still able to provide a fresh product all year long?

For more information about the aquaculture industry in BC please visit: BC Salmon Facts, Positive Aquaculture Awareness and the blog Salmon Farm Science.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 5, 2012 in News, Opinion, Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Language of Protest Pt. 3 of 4

Organic vs. inorganic or nonorganic, terrorism vs. freedom and democracy, dirty oil vs clean, free range vs. feedlot, farmed salmon vs. wild.

These arguments seem so clear, so black and white, right and wrong, but there is one more that could be added to the list: pirate vs. privateer. If you were Spanish Francis Drake was a pirate (read evil) and if you were English he was a privateer, a man fighting to keep your country safe from the evil Spaniards.

Your perception of the issue will be different depending on what you think you already know about it. The language used to describe that issue will definitely play a part in how you perceive it, whether you know it or not. In this four-part series, I will take a look at some of these dichotomies of language that protesters, governments and industries use to sway public opinion.

To read Part 1 go here.

Part 3 of 4 – Free Range vs. Feedlot

Mmmmm... BBQ!

There is a lot of debate over how beef is raised, slaughtered and sold. If you Google the terms “feedlot vs. free range” you will not find much in favour of this method of cattle farming.

Popular films such as “Fast Food Nation” and documentaries such as “Food Inc.” paint a very unpleasant picture of cattle farming and particularly how beef is processed and sold.

What is a feedlot?

According to the Google dictionary it is “an area or building where livestock are fed or fattened up.”

The US EPA refers to them as AFOs

“Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) are agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations…. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland.”

Not as picturesque as free range cattle, also called grass fed cattle.

“Since the late 1990s, a growing number of ranchers have stopped sending their animals to the feedlots to be fattened on grain, soy and other supplements.  Instead, they are keeping their animals home on the range where they forage on pasture, their native diet. These new-age ranchers do not treat their livestock with hormones or feed them growth-promoting additives. As a result, the animals grow at a natural pace. For these reasons and more, grass-fed animals live low-stress lives and are so healthy there is no reason to treat them with antibiotics or other drugs.”

Since the industrial revolution, the bulk of the human population has become concentrated in cities. One downside of this is that we move further from our food production, creating a great disconnect between what we think we know about farming and what really occurs when food is raised for the billions of people who now live on this planet.

As children we learned about farms with red barns and happy farmers in overalls surrounded by a few animals. But this isn’t real. And this leads to a serious misunderstanding about what is good for food production, and what is good for animals.

The more we are separated from our food sources, the more humans like to anthropomorphize animals. We see an image of cattle close together and we know that we would not like to live that way so we decide that animals should not live that way. As adults living in urban centers we read an article or two about “feedlots”, we see a few pictures that don’t fit with our ideal image of a farm and we start to form opinions about how cattle should be raised.

[When commenting on free range cattle] “Those cows will stay on pasture eating grass for their entire lives, “doing what God intended a cow to do,” said Seth Nitschke, who owns Open Space with his wife, Mica.”

This disconnect from where our food comes from leads to groups like PETA that don’t like any form of meat production:

“Many organic and free-range farms cram thousands of animals together in sheds or mud-filled lots to increase profits, just as factory farms do…”

PETA’s opinion aside, the life of free range cattle seems idyllic, but is it really? No needles, hormones or close quarters but also no shelter, no diet control, no salt lick, no medical care (i.e. antibiotics)… free range doesn’t necessarily mean healthy and happy.

There are environmental issues to consider, too. Would free range cattle be able to feed the growing population of this world? Free range cattle need a lot of grass to graze on. That is land that could be used for growing crops. Soy is being grown not just for food but also as an alternative diesel fuel. What is the best use of agricultural land?

It is so easy to say “no” to a practice because you are removed from it and it makes you uncomfortable, but have you looked at all sides of the issue? Have you investigated the ultimate outcome of your protest?

There are many websites with negative perspectives of feedlots, using language and carefully chosen images to paint a dark and dreary image of sad animals, crammed together, being force fed, drugged and never seeing green grass.

But the truth about feedlots (especially those in Canada) is not what you may believe.  For an example from Ontario check out the virtual farm tours (also see other links at the bottom of this article). The site points out that the animals do not spend their entire lives in pens.

“Cattle being raised for market are moved to feedlots (penned yards) from the open range and pastures for the final months before marketing. They’re fed a high-energy diet of grains, corn or hay silage or hay. The consistent, high quality feed brings them to market weight faster then on grass alone.”

Here is more information from the virtual tour:

“About the Life Cycle of Beef Cattle

Cows are generally bred in the summer because farmers try to time the birthing of calves for the spring. This is so that the calves can be born outside and both cow and calf benefit from fresh pasture and decent weather.”

The tour of the feedlot will take you to the feed control room. Here you will find a description of what kind of food these cattle are fed.

“Once they are moved to feedlots at about fifteen months of age, the cattle are fed a nutritionally balanced mixture of forages such as grasses, alfalfa, or clover with vitamins and minerals added to balance the animal´s nutritional needs. By the end of their stay in a feedlot, cattle will be eating a diet that consists of about 90% grain like corn or barley.”

In BC barley is used exclusively.

The fact is that farmers, whether they are growing grass-fed, free-range or feedlot beef, want their animals to be comfortable and healthy. A sick animal or an animal under a great deal of stress will not grow or gain weight. Any farmer interested in a profit from her herd will ensure the health and well being of her animals.

If you are concerned about where your meat is coming from or how it is raised, ask questions. Talk to your grocer or butcher about where they purchase the meat. Even better, take the time to talk to a farmer about what they do and how they treat their animals. Talk to livestock and poultry feed suppliers and ask questions. It is amazing what you can learn from people who work with animals everyday.

Here are some internet resources to get you started:

Alberta Feedlot Management Guide 2nd Edition

Farmissues.com – your gateway to information about Canadian food and farming

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

Government of Saskatchewan – Agriculture

For a skeptical but balanced look at an American feedlot read this article:  Cattle Feedlot: Behind The Scenes

Part 4

 
Comments Off on The Language of Protest Pt. 3 of 4

Posted by on April 3, 2012 in News, Opinion, Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Language of Protest Pt. 2 of 4

Organic vs. inorganic or nonorganic, terrorism vs. freedom and democracy, dirty oil vs clean, free range vs. feedlot, farmed salmon vs. wild.

These arguments seem so clear, so black and white, right and wrong, but there is one more that could be added to the list: pirate vs. privateer. If you were Spanish Francis Drake was a pirate (read evil) and if you were English he was a privateer, a man fighting to keep your country safe from the evil Spaniards.

Your perception of the issue will be different depending on what you think you already know about it. The language used to describe that issue will definitely play a part in how you perceive it, whether you know it or not. In this four-part series, I will take a look at some of these dichotomies of language that protesters, governments and industries use to sway public opinion.

To read Part 1 go here.

Part 2 of 4: Dirty oil vs. Clean

Is clean better than dirty?

The argument behind the dichotomy of dirty vs. clean makes perfect sense at first glance. Dirty is bad, clean is good. Clean keeps you healthy, it is good for the environment, it is good for the senses, but is dirty all that bad? Ask my children after a rainy day and a few puddles to splash in and they will say no. The truth is that humans are dirty and all human activity creates some kind of mess to our environment. Dirty is not necessarily bad and labeling something as bad does not help the discussion.

In technical terms there are dirty petroleum products, which refers to crude oils and residual fuels such as heavy fuel oils; also known as black products. There are also clean petroleum products, which refers to oil products that do not stain the surfaces in contact with them, e.g. jet fuel, gasoline, diesel oil, etc. This definition is not looking at the environmental impacts of the product but the physical ones.

When groups speak of “dirty” oil, are they making a case that there is “clean” oil? The argument against dirty oil is that the amount of carbon needed to mine the tar sands oil is greater than other methods. Are they comparing crude oil from “tar sands” to crude oil from traditional drilling? If that were the case the questions would be: Is Middle Eastern oil cleaner than Texas oil? Is oil drilled in Alberta cleaner than oil from Albertan tar sands? If one type of oil is better than the other should we not also be concerned about the governments behind the oil? Would they support a Saddam regime over a democratic one? Which country has more regulation and oversight into the mining process?

The interesting thing about this dichotomy is that these groups are not actually comparing dirty oil vs. clean oil. They are comparing dirty oil vs. clean energy.

Greenpeace sets up this dichotomy concisely:

“On the one hand, we have an oil industry-backed proposal to gamble our economic and ecological future on the rapid expansion of the tar sands being “sustainable” in a world already suffering from global warming. On the other hand, we have those who want to ramp up investment in green energy and energy efficiency to meet our energy needs without frying the planet.”

Another group goes so far as to call it dirty energy.

The choice

  • Extracting dirtier and more dangerous sources of energy, or
  • Responding to the climate crisis by embracing clean, renewable and efficient energy.

Earthworks’ No Dirty Energy Campaign works to break our dependence on dirty energy while championing cleaner choices. Our future depends on:

  1. Avoiding so-called “bridge” energy sources, such as natural gas or nuclear power, that pose greater long-term risk without solving fundamental problems.
  2. Ending the “race to the bottom” for dirtier, more dangerous and harder-to-reach energy sources.
  3. Supporting sustainable solutions like solar and wind power and energy efficiency.

The question needs to be asked though: is clean and “green” energy really that clean?

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Having personally used alternative energy sources for a fair number of years, I can tell you this much:

1. None of those components are constructed without using petrochemical products in some form along the way.

2. A few DIY (do-it-yourself) wizards have managed to construct solar systems that cost less per watt than power purchased from your local utility company…but only a few. For the most part, you’re losing money when you go solar, even allowing for highly hyped government “credits”, “rebates”, and the like. (And that’s without considering the ugly truth that all of those coins coming back from Uncle Sam were stolen from you as taxes in the first place.)

3. While some studies swear up, down, and sideways that a solar system can pay for itself over time (years and years), most such puff pieces conveniently ignore the repair-and-replace factor. The wiring/cabling can indeed last for decades, but most (if not all) solar panels do degrade eventually…and the batteries in the battery bank can be a horror story unto themselves. Even the best deep cycle batteries, those specially designed for the purpose, can only be recharged a certain number of times before giving up the ghost. (Those puppies aren’t cheap, either. Try $1,000 per battery –or more– for some of the better models.)

In addition to all of those nasty cost factors (and the fact that you’d better check those batteries regularly) is one really “dirty” problem: Lead-acid batteries run on sulfuric acid, some of which is constantly “offgassing” directly into the atmosphere. Yes, this happens with your normal car battery, too. But the point is that “green energy” advocates declare solar energy to be clean energy…and free-floating sulfuric acid doesn’t exactly fit that definition.

Never mind the battery-disposal problem when it’s replacement time.

Solar power is not without it’s costs and environmental impact, how about wind or hydroelectric energy?

Dirty energy vs. Clean and Green

We also don’t know from the article what percentage of this new, clean, power is coming from wind as opposed to hydroelectric sources. Some of the windmills are employed pumping water back up into the artificial lakes that dams create. Does damming rivers and flooding valleys benefit the environment? Environmentalists used to be opposed to that sort of thing.

And then there are the birds. A single wind farm on Altamont Pass in California has been killing between five thousand and ten thousand birds a year. That is probably the extreme example, but it has been operating since the 1970’s! In case it hasn’t occurred to you, migratory birds often travel where the wind is.

Maybe wind power can meet part of the human need for energy in a way that benefits both us and is kinder and gentler to the environment. Maybe wind power is an economic sink hole that turns wind energy and bird and bat guts into government subsides. We might ought to know which is which before we invest more. One thing is for sure: the language of dirty vs. clean and green energy is an impediment to even asking the right questions.

Here is another case where human activity, our need for energy sources, means that no matter what we do, we will have an impact on our environment. If petrochemicals and metals are needed to make the plastic and other components of clean energy systems then we cannot stop all oil, gas and metal mining.

There is no question that we could be better stewards of the energy sources we use. For example, not everyone needs to commute to work, by themselves, in a giant SUV. However, calling for a complete stop to the mining and processing of these resources is also not an option.

Part 3

 
Comments Off on The Language of Protest Pt. 2 of 4

Posted by on March 30, 2012 in News, Opinion, Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Language of Protest Pt. 1 of 4

Organic vs. inorganic or nonorganic, terrorism vs. freedom and democracy, dirty oil vs clean, free range vs. feedlot, farmed salmon vs. wild.

These arguments seem so clear, so black and white, right and wrong, but there is one more that could be added to the list: pirate vs. privateer. If you were Spanish Francis Drake was a pirate (read evil) and if you were English he was a privateer, a man fighting to keep your country safe from the evil Spaniards.

Your perception of the issue will be different depending on what you think you already know about it. The language used to describe that issue will definitely play a part in how you perceive it, whether you know it or not. In this four-part series, I will take a look at some of these dichotomies of language that protesters, governments and industries use to sway public opinion.

Part 1 of 4: Organic vs inorganic and terrorism vs freedom

Organic vs. Inorganic or Nonorganic

The word organic has many definitions but really has two meanings. The chemistry (scientific) definition is “Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.” The more common usage refers to food. “Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin … Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals…Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle.”

Organically grown or conventionally grown? Either way they look yummy!

Nonorganic and Inorganic are actually scientific terms referring to something that is not composed of organic matter. However with the term organic relating to agriculture nonorganic refers to crops that are not produced according to guidelines restricting the use of fertilizers etc. In other words they have no meaning without the word organic.

This dichotomy creates and image where organic food is presented as pure, wonderful, perfect and nonorganic food must therefore be inherently poisonous, evil and against nature. The fact is that all grown food is organic in the technical sense of the word. Some food is grown using what we now call organic practices but this has been shortened to “organic.” This discussion should really be about food that is organically grown vs food that is conventionally grown. Organic vs. nonorganic sets the so called “nonorganic” food up for failure with out considering the good points about conventional crops, such as its longer shelf life, better survivability in transport (creating better food diversity throughout the year), quantity and price.

Organic vs Non-organic Farming – The Debate

“Organic farming only uses naturally occurring chemicals or traditional remedies to control pests and diseases.

According to public perception, organic food is the healthy option. Sales of organic produce have rocketed over the past few years with the organics industry sending out messages of safer, healthier food created by farming practices which are better for the environment. But is it really as good as we think? Critics argue that organic farming leads to the risk of contamination with potentially dangerous bacteria and mould toxins, and increased levels of ‘natural pesticide’ found in organic produce could even be as dangerous as synthetic chemicals.

So who do we believe? Are organic fruit and vegetables as harmless as they appear? And why do they cost so much?”

I encourage you to read the rest of the articles connected to the above link. It presents a balanced point of view on this topic. When discussing the environmental impact the same website goes on to say:

“Every kind of agriculture has an impact on the environment. It is the belief of the organic farming community that organic farming minimizes the need for chemical inputs thereby limiting damage to health and the environment. It is a more sustainable method of farming than conventional techniques and biodiversity is promoted.  Intensive farming is said to destroy the fertility of the land, but with organic farming and sustainable crop rotations, soil health is improved. However, weed control is carried out mainly by mechanical cultivation methods thereby disrupting the soil structure, releasing carbon into the atmosphere, removing valuable moisture and increasing soil erosion.”

I would expand this point to say that every human activity have an impact on the environment. Whether chemical or physical, the land changes as we use it.

Terrorism vs. Freedom and Democracy

“George W Bush threw out the words terror and terrorism the same way Glenn Beck and friends throw around “socialism.” Terror simply meant evil or bad in Bush’s speeches. In tandem, Bush used the words freedom and democracy to simply mean the opposite of evil. Terror and terrorists are bad, freedom and democracy are good. The Bush administration and its policies were freedom and democracy. Anything that was not in line was terror. This line of thinking became extremely evident anytime someone questioned the policies or actions of the administration and its allies, even if those policies and actions were the exact opposite of freedom and democracy.”

Terrorists, like pirates, have at least one group of people supporting their actions. Those people may even believe that they are fighting for their freedoms (though probably not democracy).  Their actions are deplorable but when looked at through the lens of history, the stories are not as black and white as they first appeared.

Part two

 
3 Comments

Posted by on March 28, 2012 in News, Opinion, Series

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,