For years, Tasmania has marketed itself as "clean and green" โ a state focused on purity and sustainability.
It's a state that embraces the philosophy of "better, not more".
These are not my thoughts; they're all black-and-white statements taken straight from the Tasmanian government's own website.
But are they true?
If they are, how could a government allow the state's reputation to be put at risk by one major producer at the expense of other industries and businesses, and indeed the public?
For another summer, Salmon Tasmania, the peak body representing the major farmed salmon producers in the state, is seeking to use large quantities of antibiotics to protect against bacterial outbreaks in its salmon.
These salmon aren't housed in carefully contained on-land enclosures.
They're held in dozens of large pens within public waterways that are also used by commercial and recreational fishers.
These waterways are used by humans, too โ people swim and sail in these waters.
The state's health department is at pains to point out that there are "no reports of adverse human health effects" from eating seafood that has florfenicol residue.
And there is "no evidence of harm to human health" from exposure to the antibiotic while undertaking recreational swimming.
The salmon industry itself would also be quick to point out that the reason it wants to use antibiotics is to avoid the mass fish deaths of the 2024-25 summer when thousands of tonnes of dead fish and fatty globules washed up.
Just this week we've learnt, thanks to right to information (RTI) disclosures, that 1,907 tonnes of farmed salmon died in Macquarie Harbour between October 2024 and December 2025.
The information has come to light nearly a year after it happened, only because a RTI request lodged nearly 12 months ago was released this week.
We do not know what killed the salmon; the information does not disclose that.
Would everyday Australians understand that as "clean and sustainable"?
It's certainly not being transparent in a timely way.
Coincidentally, that information has come out as the environment department places a ban on the commercial harvesting of rock lobster and the setting of rock lobster pots within parts of the Southern Channel.
This advisory is "part of the arrangements to mitigate trade risks associated with aquaculture therapeutant use" in waterways around southern Tasmania.
Salmon Tasmania is seeking an emergency permit to treat farmed fish with florfenicol to prevent a disease outbreak that caused mass mortalities last year.
And it is pre-emptively offering to compensate other sectors that might be harmed as a consequence.
If the antibiotics are detected in other species like rock lobster and urchins, which are exported to other countries, those nations might ban the product if trace elements of the drug are found.
As one lobster fisherman, Bryce Way, told 936 ABC Hobart this week: "If you're accepting money, you're selling your soul, that's all you're doing."
In short, one commercial sector is being punished to protect another.
The perception is that the state government has made a decision that the $1 billion farmed salmon sector is more valuable than other jobs and businesses in the aquaculture sector.
Is that fair? Premier Jeremy Rockliff was asked just that on Friday.
"It's important that all sea industries coexist, and coexist amongst the best-balanced approach, which we're trying to achieve here," he said.
Early this month, Tasmanian Rock Lobster Council president Danny Fox told the ABC his people are happy for the salmon industry to be there.
Cray fisherman Kodey Rolston said many in his industry were asking: "Why is one business worth it more than others?"
"Just because it's larger? Maybe they pay more tax, maybe they pay more donations?" he said.
"I am there for salmon farming; I do like it, it's great for industry, and it keeps jobs.
