[Bob Mitchell]

Watched the program on Landward.
Was disappointed at how amateurish the anglers were compared with the professional fish farmers. We need more than some old git [he is younger than me] moaning about he and his mates could catch dozens in a day with a photo of a lot of dead fish hanging there. The public watching this must have thought the fishers killing all those fish have only there self's to blame.
The other part of me was wondering if this was the B.B.C. trying to blame the anglers.
Bob.

[Graeme Stewart]

Yes.
I thought it was just my view of the programme - the fish farmers were all clued up and professional with facts and figures at their fingertips and obviously memorised.
The "anglers" and campaigners they interviewed came across as just "yer man on the street" without any structured argument  other than "it used to be better than this".
Didn't find the programme particularly balanced and, for that very reason, really have to discount any arguments presented within it.

[Hamish Young]

Didn't find the programme particularly balanced and, for that very reason, really have to discount any arguments presented within it.

Whilst I concur that the programme was weighted in the favour of the more 'professional face' of fish farming I disagree that any arguments presented in it against Salmon farming should be discounted because of the way the information was portrayed.

Andrew Graham Stewart actually came over well (as did Ray Dingwall, the Ghillie on the River Ewe) and what they touched on (significantly) wasn't so much about the Salmon but the Sea Trout relationship with coastal Salmon farming. Cut to the evidence presented by Lucy Ballantyne of the Lochaber Fisheries Trust on the cycle of lice problems and you have scientific evidence - proof of the relationship between sea lice populations and wild fish.
The impact on the mature fish (Salmon, wild, returning 'home') wasn't well presented and I am surprised so little was put into talking about the way in which smolts are being decimated in some places by sea lice and undeniably by other predators that used to be more heavily controlled (goosanders, seals etc).
There was a bigger story to be told and although the programme was far from a propaganda piece for aquaculture...  it hardly told the whole story - which is a frustration.
H

[Derek Roxborough]

got to agree with you Hamish, but SEPA need to get their act together as well , but the salmon farmers are now prepared for any thing that  anti's can throw at them,  Derek Roxborough

[Bob Mitchell]

To my mind S.E.P.A. have plenty of money and manpower to bully the wee company but are scared to go after those that fight back.
Bob.

[Hamish Young]

I'm not so sure Bob, whilst I do think SEPA have to step up their game I am of the opinion that if SEPA were appropriately funded in order to provide the required level of qualified staff to deal with aquaculture then self-regulation of the salmon farming industry would not be required.
SEPA would be obliged to do it under their mandate with significant support from Marine Scotland.
What is disappointing is the measures SEPA are putting in place when farms fail the standards, which resonates with the political machinations and propaganda that surrounds the industry - particularly at the moment.

[Bob Mitchell]

Not sure about this but is S.E.P.A. funded by the Scottish Government. Just wondered if they were scared to bite the hand that funds them. Think that the salmon farmers will do as they like and the only thing that will change them is when they start making a loss each year.
Would not like to see the end of the salmon farms as it would put even more pressure on the wild fish. We can not go on as at present. Need to keep the "meat heads" in the newspapers.
Bob.