Picture this....

wrote...
I, too, was saddened to read Mark's response to Ken. It was a cheap shot.
That said, Ken was indeed forwarned about his venture into personal remarks
about the lives of others well prior to the nasty post.
It is sad enough that Ken feels compelled to play net-nanny, but that he would
feel justified making the remarks he did regarding Mark and Ms. Snakefiddler
shows that class is not reflected by one's cooking talents, taste in wine or
the like.
I dare say that Mr. Bowen has generally shown more dignity and class in this
place than Fortenberry could muster on a dare.
My unsolicited two-cents-worth is that I can forgive him his transgression
here, if he even desired same. OTOH, I, for one, have seen about enough
snobbish generalizations from Ken. The higher education system of the great
state of Illinois must be SO proud of his written contributions!

Very well said Tom. I couldn't agree more.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Yeeeehaw!

Yet another unnerving but successful outing. Quite typical for this season, if
my heart palpitations are any indicator!

http://www.wbcn.com/BCN_Audio/Meat%20Depressed.mp3

GO PATS!

/daytripper (yeah, it's friggin' remorseless thread theft. deal with it ;-)

wrote...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:28:38 -0700, Warren wrote:


Very well said Tom. I couldn't agree more.


Same here.

Okay, what the hell did you lefty *******s put in my beer?!?!? ;-)
--
Warren (wondering how he goes about getting more of the agreement
serum for later use)
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

I've stayed clear of this dust-up until now. Mr. Littleton speaks quite
ably and completely for me in this situation and I've no further need to
post to this thread other than to say, "good response, Tom."

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Have you ever, by any chance, read Samuel Clemens's
critique of James Fenimore Cooper ? :-)

Twain, 1895:
"A work of art? It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or
result; it has no lifelikeness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality;
its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove
that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its
humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are -- oh!
indescribable; its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the
language.
"Counting these out, what is left is Art. I think we must all admit that. "

It has been some time since I read this, and far longer since I read Cooper.
I tend to prefer Twain's and others' actual works rather than critiques.

Now, in this matter I did not, as Clemons suggests one should, eschew
surplusage. Nor have any of us in this thread except the protagonists.
Were you reminding me that I, and others, failed Clemons critiqe? Or, had
you some other purpose for the comment?

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

Greg:
It's Clemens. You're right, we all overdo it at times.
But yours seemed like a particularly convoluted "I agree."

I realized that after hitting the send button. I shall write "Clemens"
several hundred times on paper to atone. And you are correct. It was a
convoluted post. Perhaps I should practice for the Faux Faukner contest.
http://www.hemispheresmagazine.com/contests/enter.htm

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

wrote...
Actually, Warren, I agree with you most of the time
and when I don't it'susually when that wierd alternate
personality takes over your body for a while.

What can I say? I'm "quirky." g Actually, I find myself
disagreeing with you more than you agree with me ITH. C'est la vie.
;-)

BUT that is probably a good thing. What would the world be like if
everyone thought the same thing? Pretty boring and definitely not
enjoyable IMO.

BTW, did you ever read the Healthy Forest Restoration Act or did you
really agree with me on that too? ;-) I saw some interesting stuff
in the local news about projects going on due in a large part to the
funding from the bill. It was pretty cool to read about the
"potential" of the bill while discussing it with you and then
actually see it at work.

Hey, what are you views on salmon farming? What about this TV show
with the chick in Hawaii and all the fat guys and dorks? Just
joking!!!!!bseg
--
Warren (okay, it was funny to ME! Did ya get it Willi? ;-)
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

wrote...
I spent an honest two hours with it one night. I'll
be honest: I don't know what to think. I really, really
would prefer that you are right: we'd be better off
if you were. But I didn't lose my suspicions, especially
after the Tsongas decision buried in the holiday.

Keep your suspicions and keep looking into it. A different
perspective or take on things isn't a bad thing. I took issue with
some of the language and your views may confirm my suspicions or
bring about some new concerns. It could be a very constructive
endeavor.

I think that it is inevitable that an attempt is being
made to replace hunting/gathering (commercial fishing)
with husbandry. It's not clear yet whether it will be
possible to accrue and sustain the high yields that in
theory husbandry could produce, as it has with land
animals. If not then a different paradigm will inevitably
be tried. I personally don't like any of this but with
all of the people we have on the planet I'm surprised
that it has taken this long to get to this point.

I said I was joking! g

BUT you do bring up some very interesting observations. I took a
class several years ago that discussed this very thing. It is a
difficult subject to contemplate when thinking long-term.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Greg Pavlov wrote:




Hey, what are you views on salmon farming?


I think that it is inevitable that an attempt is being
made to replace hunting/gathering (commercial fishing)
with husbandry. It's not clear yet whether it will be
possible to accrue and sustain the high yields that in
theory husbandry could produce, as it has with land
animals. If not then a different paradigm will inevitably
be tried. I personally don't like any of this but with
all of the people we have on the planet I'm surprised
that it has taken this long to get to this point.


....it seems clear to me that without the
"farms", wild fisheries are doomed. in my little area of the world, the
striped bass and catfish farms have burgeoned. i'm all for them.
jeffie's gotta eat, and, jeffie's gotta fish.

jeff

"Jeff Miller" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2QRMb.314$_H5.208@lakeread06...

SNIP
...it seems clear to me that without the
"farms", wild fisheries are doomed. in my little area of the world, the
striped bass and catfish farms have burgeoned. i'm all for them.
jeffie's gotta eat, and, jeffie's gotta fish.

jeff


This is a common misconception, due mainly to lack of information, and also
to farm and industry propaganda.

There are not so many problems with fish farms which are totally enclosed in
various impoundments on land, but still quite a few. The single greatest
problem here, is the fact that the seas are literally being "vacuumed" of
protein in order to support this type of farming. Large areas of ocean in
various places are now almost devoid of life.

The oceans are not an endless resource. Massive inroads have already been
made, and this is worsening daily. There are far more farms in existence
than one imagines. Every hatchery in the world feeds fishmeal pellets, this
is a massive amount alone. All the farms which breed shrimps, prawns,
etc,etc etc, use massive amounts of wild fish protein, which is obtained at
a massive loss ratio. ( 5 lbs of wild protein= 1 lb of farm fish). The waste
discharge from this opeation is also a massive problem.

Factually, the farms are dooming the wild fish.

Sea farm cages are even worse, they have been accurately described as the
"finest pathogen vector created by mankind, a salmon farm acts as a hothouse
for disease and lice and is particularly dangerous when sited in the
migratory path of wild stocks of salmon and sea trout (e.g. river mouths and
estuaries). "

"MARINE AQUACULTURE

THE FUTURE?

Marine aquaculture damages the environment and our sea and salmon fisheries
in many ways;

· Removal of wild fodder fish from the marine food chain damages the
recovery of all marine fish stocks. Five pounds of fodder fish is required
to produce just one pound of farmed salmon and now we are planning to farm
cod and other sea species in the same way?

· The by-catch in industrial fishing comprises a high proportion of salmon
smolt, which depletes numbers which can return to breed in our rivers.

· Concentration of polluting waste products under and downtide of the sea
cages damage shellfish fisheries and the marine food chain.

· Produces concentrations of lice on farmed fish which infest salmon smolts
going to sea for the first time, reducing the number which return and
damaging the wild fish stocks.

· Treating farmed fish with chemicals to reduce the impact of lice
introduces more poisons to the marine environment.

· Farmed fish escapes damage the wild salmon stocks and destroy the genetic
lines of native rivers.

· Producing salmon with fat levels four times higher than wild fish, so
that farmed fish do not deliver the healthy diet which people expect.

· Producing salmon with concentrations of dioxin and other poisons higher
than in wild fish and introducing them to the human food chain.

· If this industry were to be conducted on dry land it would be properly
and heavily regulated. Our seas are not sewers for the use of fish farmers
in an unregulated industry. The Scottish Executive has consistently failed
to address the question and has introduced weak, self regulatory rules for
the industry which do not address the concerns of salmon and sea anglers or
conservationists. "

Infectious disease poses the biggest single threat to aquaculture.
Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) and Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) are
the latest in a long line of infectious diseases such as furunculosis, to
decimate the salmon farming industry. New diseases are appearing all the
time.

Disease outbreaks have also affected the sea bass and sea bream industries
in the Mediterranean. The European Aquaculture Society, for example, has
referred to enormous problems with diseases like Pasteurellosis and
Nodavirosis affecting sea bass and sea bream (EAS: 1996). The
intensification of culture of sea bass and sea bream "has provoked some
severe disease problems" (Agius and Tanti: 1997).

Fish-farm-incubated infestations of sea lice are particularly dangerous to
salmon, sea trout and smolts. Through a magnifying glass, sea lice resemble
tiny horseshoe crabs which scuttle across a salmon's skin eating the mucus,
skin and blood, killing the host in the process. Sea anglers, bass anglers
in particular, will be aware of the naturally occurring sea lice and may
anticipate the consequence of sitting a salmon farm in an estuarine bass
nursery area.

Chemicals

The use of chemicals in an intensive disease and parasite-ridden farming
industry is understandable. However, sea lice chemicals were designed for
use on land animals like sheep, pigs, cattle and chickens. They are
extremely toxic to marine life and marine pollution is sponsored in Scotland
by the organisation set up to protect it.

The north region of SEPA, where most of Scotland's fish farms are located,
approved 45 uses of sea lice chemicals in 1998. That rose to 104 in 1999,
141 in 2000 and a staggering 296 in 2001. In the same four year period
salmon production increased from 110,784 tonnes to 158,000 tonnes last year.

Kevin Dunnion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland said nobody
knew the effects of all these chemicals together. "Worryingly the speed with
which the number and nature of the chemicals being used is outstripping our
ability to understand the impact of this cocktail.

SEPA said it kept no accumulated record of the total chemical quantities it
has licensed, but accepted there had been a big increase over the last four
years. (Scotland on Sunday 24th Feb 2002). At the same time the number of
fish farms has remained stable at about 430.

Salmon Farm Feed

The environmental impact of one salmon farm extends far beyond the patch of
seabed beneath it. For every pound that a salmon in a cage gains, it
consumes commercial feed processed from two to five pounds of small
open-ocean fish like anchovy, herring and mackerel. To satisfy the demands
of a one acre salmon farm, processors vacuum almost everything from 40,000
to 50,000 acres of ocean. Stocks of small oily fish are now fully exploited
worldwide, leaving the aquaculture industry scrambling to formulate
substitutes for fish meal and oil.

Escapes

Brian Simpson (SQS) has said that only 1% of farm salmon escape. This
amounts to 500,000 fish per year in Scotland alone. Escapees interbreed with
wild fish and destroy genetic integrity. A deep bodied salmon with small
tail and fins is ideal for spending its life in a share of a cage equal to a
bathtub, but poorly equipped to swim thousands of miles across ocean, ascend
waterfalls and climb spawning streams.

Drug dependant farmed salmon spread disease to wild fish.

Conclusion

Land-based closed containment systems would stem the tide of pollution from
sea cages, prevent escapes, stop the spread of diseases and parasites to
wild fish, reduce the need for chemicals, remove the impact on coastal
landscapes and the loss of wildland heritage.

The technology required for closed containment systems already exist and is
being commercially developed in Canada but it has not been adopted in Europe
as farmers dismiss it as too expensive.

Salmon and sea trout anglers need to examine the credentials of their
organisations' officers to determine why they have been singularly
unsuccessful in stopping the destruction of wild fish stocks and their
members' sport. "



Quotes from http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/wavemaker.htm

TL
MC