Prime Time - Galway Salmon Farm

Prime Time tonight features the Galway Bay Salmon Farm debate.

It should also be available online later via the RTE Player.

Sent from my GT-S5369 using Tapatalk 2

Yes, meant to post this yesterday. Should be interesting.

Just watching it at the moment. All the for arguments don't even mention the damage of sea lice to the wild population. Typical!

I thought our side came across very well on this and I think our argument is a harder sell to the general public . A bit strange though that IFI didn't provide a spokesman to go head to head with the BIM spokesman. Maybe it's for the best as the guy from the action group was very good as was the ghillie with the sea trout log books. The green party chap and Mr. Dinsmore did a good job too.

Very positive as far as I'm concerned.



Sent from my GT-S5369 using Tapatalk 2

Was really interesting. Hopefully it'll give the general public some food for thought on the subject. Not some one sided propaganda.

Mr. Flynn didnt look so healthy, maybe too much salmon feed. There is no logic behind the creation of this project. I thought myself the rte presenters (even though unbiased) seemed uneased that such a project was even being considered by BIM, IFA and the Marine Institute, considering the obvious sensitivities both environmental and economic. A man in the audience highlighted the importance of such an area being classified as an SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and both he and Colan Folan highlighted that such a project should be carried out on land where it could be fully controlled. It surprises me that the Marine Institute with the wealth of scientific data and scientists at its disposal could support a project like this.

It surprises me that the Marine Institute with the wealth of scientific data and scientists at its disposal could support a project like this.

It's funded by the state, isnt it. And there are representatives from the commercial sector on its board of directors. Draw your own conclusions.

It's funded by the state, isnt it. And there are representatives from the commercial sector on its board of directors. Draw your own conclusions.

I understand, and I am aware of the Marine Institutes role but I suppose what baffles me is the lack of scientific intervention from the very same scientists whose jobs and roles are there to provide accurate and creditable science.

They know what's expected of them. The institute is supposed to be impartial but I don't think it is. They seem to favour the commercials it's the same with bass. More generally the thing with scientific literature is that in most cases you can selectively cherry pick to come up with the result you want. The one that suits your agenda/argument. If you are honest you would take all the scientific papers into account and then come to a conclusion. Original research is a separate matter but there isn't time for that as the Minister's decision is pending. Anyway the ghillies log books and what happened generally to west coast sea trout in the 80's is reason enough for me to put a halt to this.

Sent from my GT-S5369 using Tapatalk 2

Anyway the ghillies log books and what happened generally to west coast sea trout in the 80's is reason enough for me to put a halt to this.

If you look at the logbooks you will see the decline in the sea trout catches before the presence of the farm in this area.

the farm went into operation in 1989.

Anyway the ghillies log books and what happened generally to west coast sea trout in the 80's is reason enough for me to put a halt to this.

If you look at the logbooks you will see the decline in the sea trout catches before the presence of the farm in this area.

the farm went into operation in 1989.

There may have been a decline since 1985 or so but that's an absolute collapse in 1989. Do you have data prior to 1985 to give some context - there will be variability.

I did a quick search and this gives a wider view. 1985 looks like an exceptional year and from then up to 1988 catches look to be of a similar order to the years before.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

There is an obvious decline before the farm was present , thee is also an increase from 2004 even with the presence of the farm

Just a thought but would any form of netting lead to a decline in sea trout numbers between '85 to '89? Its quite obvious from those bar charts that after the emergence of the fish farms there was a complete collapse in the sea trout population.

There is an obvious decline before the farm was present

There is certainly a decline 85-88, but the number caught doesn't look out of the ordinary for any of those years.

A complete collapse would be zero . The bar chart follows a steady decline already in place before the farm, what figure would you expect to see in 1989? Im not sure about the netting situation.

I'm having difficulty in reading the figure for 1990, really must get my eyes tested but what is that figure in the 1990 column? Perhaps your eyes are better than mine. I just notice a sizeable decline in sea trout numbers quite unlike any other differential from previous years prior to the establishment of the salmon farm.

I'm having difficulty in reading the figure for 1990, really must get my eyes tested but what is that figure in the 1990 column? Perhaps your eyes are better than mine. I just notice a sizeable decline in sea trout numbers quite unlike any other differential from previous years prior to the establishment of the salmon farm.

the figure for 1990 is 100...

A complete collapse would be zero .

Not at all, it certainly would not have to hit zero before it is called a collapse. Any reasonable person, involved or not, would call what is charted there a collapse.

A complete collapse would be zero .

Not at all, it certainly would not have to hit zero before it is called a collapse. Any reasonable person, involved or not, would call what is charted there a collapse.

It is a decline , like it declined the year before and the year before that , the trend just continued and it so happened that the farm was present for the final phase of the decline. The catches would have been low regardless.