Seil Chat

Farming animals like this is surely better than supplying the markets with wild-caught alternatives??? It is only because of human demand that we have these types of initiatives, you could say that about wind farms, nuclear power plants or zoo collections...

If only to keep the rat-race losers away, I'm all for fish farms on the West Coast!!!

Smoked Shanks, there's a plethora of fish farm jobs out there:

http://www.westcoastjobs.co.uk/index.ph ... earch=Find

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/category ... tment.html

Spidey, do you eat smoked salmon???or smoked trout???or any kind of fish for that matter???

Aye, CanU, you've spotted my Achilles heel! - I love eating fish. All I can say in my defence is that I'm a hypocrite in this regard but do try to buy from Scottish independent sources which appear to be sustainable, ecologically responsible and to have some kind of accreditation.

spiderman wrote: . . . do try to buy from Scottish independent sources which appear to be sustainable, ecologically responsible and to have some kind of accreditation.

Can you give us a list of the sources you buy from Spiderman? I don't like eating commercially farmed salmon much either . . . it's a bit flacid and fatty anyway IMO

Canu, curious as to exactly who you mean by 'rat race losers'

My experience of people relocating to the West Coast/ highlands and citing "leaving the rat race" as the reason is not generally a good one...But that is perhaps irrelevant to this discussion…

canUsmellthat wrote:My experience of people relocating to the West Coast/ highlands and citing "leaving the rat race" as the reason is not generally a good one...But that is perhaps irrelevant to this discussion…

I haven't heard anyone say that for a long time - but I know what you mean

Re. sustainably farmed salmon - this company appear to use the best fish farming practices : http://www.lochduart.com/ - and they say they are keen to share their new technique for removing sea lice with other companies.

Hopefully the whole industry is gradually moving towards better practices. I know producers are steadily reducing the amount of wild fish as a percentage of the feed as this makes economic as well as environmental sense; if they could address the sea lice problem and reduce the number of chemicals used this would help enormously . . . and of course if they stopped shooting seals they would antagonise the general public less.

NickB, we mainly buy our salmon, trout etc, both smoked and fresh, at The Loch Fyne Oyster Bar, which claims that its sources, including Loch Duart, have accreditation by RSPCA Freedom Foods and by the Soil Association. Locally we tend to use Watts on the railway pier for fresh fish.

spiderman wrote:I find few things more obscene than packing free-ranging globally migratory wonderful fish into little cages

I totally agree spiderman.
You and CanU have raised some interesting points. I have objected to the proposal or environmental grounds but there are other major issues.
1. What benefit does this new fishfarm bring to our area?
Those like NickB who appear to be in favour of salmon farms can only argue jobs and cheap food. Well I'd be interested to know how many full time jobs on this development will be filled by locals. NickB recently said that fishfarm are only second to the council in providing local employment as judged by the Oban Times vacancy page (column!). Well. there is only one today, based in Glasgow. As for cheap food. The consensus appears to be that fewlike it anyway because its flaccid and fatty.
2. Is this salmon farm yet another example of the rapid economic colonisation of Scotland?
Given that something like 80% of the renewable (our next N Sea bonanza according to Salmond) energy companies operating in Scotland are foreign owned what about fishfarming?
Well the job advertised in the Oban Times is with an outfit called Dawnfresh based in Glasgow. Sounds okay? No. Dawnfresh was formed when a family member of the Norwegian Christian Salveson shipping company (now traded on the Paris Stock Exchange as Norbert Dentressangle) hived it off from the main group several years ago. It is wholly owned by Salveson and his family. Coincidentally, also in the OT was an item about a huge fishfarm propsal off Islay. This one was/is for The Scottish Salmon Company. Sounds okay? No. Its a Norwegian owned company and trades on the Oslo Axes stock exchange.

Scotland is rapidly becoming a victim of economic neo-colonialism. Scots appear to be largely unaware of that, but, I feel that all true Scots should be up in arms about it. It is my main reason for objecting to the Ardmaddy salmon farm, but not one I could put on the objection letter as it holds no weight with planners.

.
Last day to comment is today.

As the planning application was in the Oban Times on July 17 there is no excuse for not knowing about it.

Hi

If only to keep the rat-race losers away, I'm all for fish farms on the West Coast!!!

Probably the most pointless comment so far, on so many levels!

I think whether you are pro or anti, the reason for lodging an objection is to buy time and establish the facts. I'm happy to have a larger fish farm if the effects on the environment are not as horrific as suggested. I suspect every situation is unique, so we need some more detailed study. My gut feeling is that these farms should not be positioned so close to populated areas and the promise of jobs etc would never justify the damage to the environment.

Lets hope we get some more information.

Large number of objections on ABC site will at least guarantee the proposed new fish farm gets studied a bit closer ..... I see quite a few familiar local names have commented BUT .. yes a lot of the unfamiliar names come with carbon copy email text .... what alarms me (if correct) is that no eia has been carried out perhaps as farm is slightly misleadingly tagged as a relocation.
Looking at the map perhaps fish farm should go in Port Mor instead so the sizeable hurdle of navigating the proposed structure in less than ideal conditions or by visitors is wiped out?
It will surprise me if this application is accepted

Fish farm very much still an active issue ... link below perhaps worth a read?

http://www.saveseilsound.org.uk/

barky wrote:Fish farm very much still an active issue ... link below perhaps worth a read?

http://www.saveseilsound.org.uk/

An excellent website - very informative, with links to other successful campaigns such as the one in Broad Bay. Well worth a look if you want to find out more about this issue. Good link Barky.

.
BBC Scotland Investigates: Scotland's Fishy Secrets - BBC One Scotland at 22:35 tonight (Tues 18th Oct)

BBC article

Here on the Outer Hebrides the increases in use of chemicals are wrecking the inshore fishing. Anyone who needs proof of that can get in touch through admin.
No need for blah blah, just come and help yourselves to SEPA endorsed FACTS.
Our take on your Eigg fish farm proposal would be very simple. NO INCREASES IN TONNAGE until the salmon industry sorts out the current problems. This is fair and no one presently employed will lose their current job.

Life is not too difficult boys!

.
In today's Oban Times -

Notice of an application by Lakeland Marine for the Port na Morachd development as follows:

Description of Controlled Activity

Discharge of waste effluent from marine cage farming of Atlantic salmon with a maximum tonnage of 2,500 tonnes (including the discharge of sealice chemical therapeutants)

Waters affected

Seil Sound

National Grid Referrence:

NM 7739 1349

"SEPA considers that the above controlled activity is likely to have an impact on the water environment and on the interests of the other users of the water environment.

Any person afected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the applicatiojn may make representations to SEPA in writing within 28 days beginning with the date of this advertisement, at the following address quoting reference number CAR/L/10999009"

Registry Department
SEPA Dingwall Office
Craesser House
Fodderly Way
Dingwall
IV15 9XB

If SEPA think it's likely that these releases will pollute Seil Sound and given that we pay SEPA to stop/prevent pollution, why do they not just do their job and ban the discharges? i.e. why on earth do they need us to write in as well?

spiderman wrote: If SEPA think it's likely that these releases will pollute Seil Sound and given that we pay SEPA to stop/prevent pollution, why do they not just do their job and ban the discharges? i.e. why on earth do they need us to write in as well?

They aren't saying the discharges will pollute the Sound, they are saying it is 'likely to have an impact' - quite different phraseology. I am not sure that SEPA can just block an application unilaterally, though I don't know. It is possibile though that they have to present a case, in which event it makes sense to seek as much input from affected groups as possible.

(I had a look at the Save Seil Sound website to see if there was any clarification of this issue, but couldn't find any)

I say 'likely will pollute', SEPA/you say 'likely to have an impact' - not 'quite different phraseologies' in my view or in the context of SEPA's mandate. The latter includes regulation of water quality, including implementing various rather strict directives on prevention of coastal marine pollution. It's obvious that no-one living or working on Seil or thereabouts would want Seil Sound adversely impacted so, I repeat, why can't SEPA just do what their name and mandate say on the tin? We seem to need to spend a lot of our time worrying and writing objections to mad planning applications about daft over-towering windmills or inputs of sewage-equivalent pollutants etc. from fish-farms into waters which have just had millions spent on removing sewage inputs. It's a mad world and SEPA and planners in general should do their jobs and reject nonsensical proposals at birth! End of rant! KAPPOOOOW!