Yes, that's all fine, but the only question that matters is whether wild stocks are being affected That's the only thing that counts.
Getting back to your biodiversity report, on page 3 you looked at species population declines in Canada. The source you used was the World Wildlife Fund Canada. Since it is an activist group, that is a very suspect source in my view. For example, you say that “Fish populations declined 20%”. That's a broad generalization. I find it ironic that the sturgeon, a species I've done research on in a previous life, is the iconic species that you've used there, yet the Fraser River sturgeon populations are estimated to be at 60,000 fish, and in Manitoba, the sturgeon populations, through terrific conservation work, are increasing dramatically. This is such a broad-brush table, how could we even consider this to be accurate?