I am always open to hearing both sides of the farmed salmon debate. There is always two sides to a story. There is real science on both sides, the former top scientist with the DFO has pointed to some very real evidence that farmed stock is impacting the wild stock.
The work that is being done on both sides helps keep industry in check. My point of view is, the price of farmed fish or all commercial farmed meat has a cost that is not reflected in the price of the product. The real price would take into account the treatment of the waste from beef, hog, chicken and fish farms.
Right now, the majority of these industrial operations have an impact on the environment that is not being taken care of, in my opinion, and we are OK with it as a society — business as usual. The reason industry seems to give, is that we need to provide the meat of animals at the lowest price possible so we can feed the planet, if not people will starve, is not true.
The most powerful mammals on the planet eat a plant-based diet — gorillas, rhinos. I would like to see all industry be responsible for their impact on the natural world, in this case dealing with the waste/disease that occurs with industrial meat production. If the measures require a salmon to be $75 a fish so be it. Humans can survive eating plants, I do, and I’m in the best shape of my life.
If you want to feed the world, let’s all eat plants, instead of feeding it to livestock. This industry does not want to be responsible for the costs, but they could be, they could charge more for fish and take care of their waste, it’s that simple. On land, containment seems the most realistic.
The technology is there to have these fish on land in tanks, they already do it with mature fish in a small-scale.
-Garret Schumacher
Squamish
