Comment
BY IAN ROBERTS
Artifishal vision Patagonia’s film shows how blinded it is by anti-salmon farming prejudice
A
S the evening’s host opened the showing of Patagonia’s ‘Artifishal’ documentary, she announced how proud she was for another sell out. The three empty seats beside me and the many other unoccupied chairs spread about the small venue said different. I would soon realise that ignorance of reality about the world around us would be an underpinning theme of the evening. Most of us involved in aquaculture are now aware of the clothing company Patagonia and its dislike for salmon culture, and aquaculture in general. While the company’s interest in protecting our environment is commendable, its hypocrisy and blind incrimination of aquaculture, while itself exploiting wild fish, severely undermines its environmental credentials. Patagonia has now produced three documentaries condemning fish culture, and has specifically targeted Tasmania, Norway, Chile and the US. It doesn’t matter if you grow fish for conservation or commercial purposes, every one of us is on Patagonia’s naughty list. If you haven’t yet seen the documentary Artifishal, no problem, I can provide you with a quick summary. The only thing you’d be missing is the free alcohol you receive for showing up. Patagonia’s utopian vision for protecting fish is this: they want to ‘rewild’ all rivers, lakes and streams. Back to nature, 100 per cent. No need for any fish farming, salmon ranching, or stocking. It’s a lovely vision indeed, if it weren’t for the nearly eight billion people on this planet
20
Ian Roberts.indd 20
looking for a place in which to live, to drink fresh water, and to eat healthy food. I went to watch the film in Edinburgh at a lovely little angling club, surrounded by people who mostly enjoy hunting salmon and trout, and sponsored by the local angling shop. The hypocrisy went unnoticed to most attending. Evidence of harm? Artifishal’s repeated theme is that aquaculture doesn’t protect or conserve wild fish. It only harms them. The primary direction of finger pointing was at enhancement hatcheries, but the documentary failed to provide any scientific evidence to support its claim. There were plenty of opinions and anecdotes to make those who had a ‘feeling’ feel even better about that feeling. In fact, one segment went so far as to suggest that alcohol abuse can be directly linked to a lack of wild fish, which can be linked to supplementation of cultured fish. This is a documentary – it’s supposed to be one sided. But just a smidge of balance would have helped create some level of credibility, and perhaps would have kept the fella seated in front of me awake. Here’s just a wee bit of context that could have easily been included in the one-and-a-half-hour showing. While the documentary focused on US hatcheries, it chose to ignore the fact that Alaska is heavily invested in aquaculture – with hatcheries and net pen rearing providing up to about 40 per cent of the annual commercial salmon landings. Patagonia claims to proudly source salmon from Yakutat, Alaska. The Yakutat Regional Aquaculture Association (YRAA), formed in 2011, says its mission is: ‘To augment the State of Alaska common property fisheries in the Yakutat region that contribute to subsistence, sport, commercial, personal use and other Alaskan fisheries, through the rehabilitation of the State of Alaska salmon fisheries by artificial means.’ Note the correct spelling of ‘artificial’. In the Pacific north-west, pink salmon are by far the most popular cultured fish, with billions raised in hatcheries dotted along the US and Canadian coastlines to supplement sport and commercial fisheries. Patagonia’s website (Patagonia Provisions) states that: ‘In recent
Opposite: Scene from the documentary. Below: Anglers in Canada
www.fishfarmermagazine.com
07/08/2019 16:10:51