wow way off topic thread

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by bones, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. Admin

    Admin Admin Staff Member

    Interesting.... @wildmanyeah , when did you take over operation of the forum and appoint @agentaqua as an Admin? That would be ironic as it means AA would have had to ban himself in the past! Couldn't resist a little tongue in cheek comment on this one.
    As to the rest of this thread, there is enough calling out, pot stirring, personal attacks and arguing for us to ban a few of you. So here is how it's going to be. @bones, the truth is we provide the sandbox which means we also have to break up the childish behaviour. If you truly do create your own, you can take care of it anyway you see fit. If you don't like this one, then GET OUT.
    None of you seem to have issues when you post in other parts of the forum, so obviously, you can't control yourselves when it comes to this topic. So, from now on as soon as a thread shows the SLIGHTEST inclination toward going off the rails by people calling others out, getting personal, or simply regurgitating the same endless nonsense over and over again, we will shut it down. If the same member is obviously causing the problems we will put them in a timeout.
    We want to keep this topic available for new information and commentary from both sides, but only if you guys learn how to restrain yourselves from this constant childish behaviour.
     
  2. Birdsnest

    Birdsnest Well-Known Member

    @Admin I think it might be helpful to post more up to date rules and suggestions at the top of the section (conservation, fishery politics and management & look a squirrel!)kidding lol. Its difficult to know what the expectations are when the rules are free floating on a post in a thread that is just going to disappear somewhere in the future. Then it doesn't take long for the the same old issues arising repeatedly. If you really want these threads to be factual and intellectual and readable by all some things have to stop.

    First and foremost "is the regurgitating the same endless nonsense over and over again". It has to stop and from my perspective it wont ever happen unless some solid examples are given of what these items constantly are. I would also point out that the majority of repetive responses are fuelled by repetitive attacks from the the other side. If there are no boundary's set then how is anyone to know what the boundary's are. Admin has previously mentioned in a enforcement post that posters are not to group individuals however it continues to happen. I think we have to find a couple of labels one for each side that we can use and stick to them. For example I know that some here do not appreciate being called activists and I understand that, I get it, maybe a solution would be +ff and -ff and then leave it at that. Some of the labeling and grouping that goes on is ludicrous, inflammatory and plainly FALSE and it is used for winning not discussing.

    I find it odd that on one hand the admin complains and is frustrated with all the posters but on the other hand their are no rules posted with clarifications of what is expected of individuals on this topic particularly when it is the same repeating issues every time.

    Will the admin firm up some rules so there is clarification and put them at the top of the section permanently?

    Seems like an appropriate derail since this thread is obviously going nowhere.
     
  3. shuswap

    shuswap Active Member

    Well from my perspective it’s not a matter of discrediting just because who the authors are but when there are very obvious omissions I just can’t give it a rubber stamp of approval. Case in point is the latest study by Morton and Routledge. Nothing positive happens when claims are made that are not fully supported. It may feel good because it aligns with certain beliefs, but if some are truly in pursuit of defensible scientific work then in might be a good idea to ask questions when something doesn’t make sense.
     
  4. california

    california Active Member

    I'm not sure we should need rules posted on the top of each thread. Comments like " I made a sandbox for you to go play in" or claiming posters are Admins when they are not and insinuating they get away with things because of it are comments we all know we should avoid but sometimes post in response to what we see as attacks. I certainly have done it and received a note from the admin. This is the main issue on this entire site that brings the most heated debate. The +FF and -FF are never going to agree, that is pretty clear! Those of us on the -FF side will keep doing what we can to bring pressure to better regulate the industry and promote more study into potential effects. The FF industry is well funded and has the resources to lobby for the opposite. This battle will go on for years, probably decades.
     
  5. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    I agree, which is why concerned citizens who are members of this forum feel compelled to post information, analysis and academic research that points out the problems with the net pen fish farms industry and the biased, misleading, deflecting, distracting and false information industry supporters disseminate to promote this industry.

    The bottom line is that both sides feel justified to defend their position - and that is good in a free democratic society. The purpose of on-line forums like these is to have discussion of different points of view, to exchange information and ideas and hopefully learn from each other. The key is to do it in a respectful way that does not personally attack each other. I applaud the work on the Admin's in this regard and agree that posting some basic rules (like those found in Buy/Sell/Trade/Wanted forum) for this contentious subject area would be most helpful.
     
    agentaqua likes this.
  6. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Active Member

    And here you go only pointing out one side claiming they are responsible for all the school yard play but you know that both sides are just as guilty of it. Maybe some are just PO'ed that spop got a life long IP ban (confirmed by email) for going back and forth with AA. When one side just gets a BAN its pretty frustrating where the banter is going back and forth.

    I also thought about proposing that we created a thread and stickie it with the both sides of the argument however, it still wont help.

    It is also frustrating for some when a topic has been thoroughly debated, Then one side just creates a new thread so it can be at the top of the forum so all can read, so it then forces the other side to debate it again.

    We have been though certain topics 100's of times. The fact remains this will stay a heated subject for along time. The sad truth to all of this is it wont be settled for a long time. When it come to the political seen most of the general public care about their children more then fish.

    The Green party has more power then ever now, If you want to stop fish farms start writing them letters. Its really probably the only chance in the next 100 years that the political seen will be this favorable to banning fish farms.
     
  7. Birdsnest

    Birdsnest Well-Known Member

    In bold is a perfect example of inflammatory, repetitive drivel that is absolutely false as a blanket statement which it is always used. It is repeated over and over and over, is not factual and really adds nothing to the debate. The admin complains about these statements but does nothing to stop it. Please show me a +ff post that matches this level of pointless false regurgitation.

    Fixed this for you:

     
  8. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    Looks like some have taken to make themselves self appointed forums Admin's and are now editing others members posts as they see fit - cannot be good for open and interesting debate of opposing viewpoints. It is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between statement of opinion and statements of fact (both essential to any public dialogue). I would hope that both are welcome on this forum and forum members are smart enough to distinguish between the two.

    To address the comment that ones opinion does nothing to add to the debate is just - your opinion, which is fine when recognized as just an opinion, not fact.

    If I understand correctly the issue at question here for the Admin's is not whether people repeat themselves on valid points or data, or if there are strong, passionate or even opinionated about their points of view, but that they do not make personal attacks of other forum members and don't violate any freedom of speech and human rights legislation or libel laws.

    This forum and almost all others like it allow its members to express their agreement or disagreement at something or someone as long as they do not make it personal and libelous. If this is not the case, then this forum might as well shut down if it is only to be an echo chamber of people who agree with each other. Thankfully I trust it will not.

    I say lets have a few guiding principles posted on the forum to guide these debates in a civil, respectful and non personal manner. My 2 bits.
     
  9. terrin

    terrin Well-Known Member

    How has Science shown the open net cage fish farms are Safe as the OP title suggests? Please provide the links that fish farms do not kill Wild Salmon.
    Science continues to show B.C. salmon farms are safe
     
  10. Floater

    Floater Active Member

    Id love to hear some views about why Salmon returns are down in places where there arent any FFs on route.

    Im nowhere near as "learned" about the subject as a few here, but it seems like quite a hole in the theory.
     
  11. Admin

    Admin Admin Staff Member

    So...where to start. As evidenced in a couple of replies to my post, we are now having a debate on who is most at fault in this endless confrontation. First, @Birdsnest, I will address your comments about the rules/guidelines for posting. The rules are available in the General Open Forum and they are not "free floating," but it is impossible to create a "rule" for every possible scenario. If we were to literally apply the rules in the most strict manner without warning and trying, as we are right now, to have members adjust their behaviours through this dialogue, the vast majority of the people who regularly post in the FF threads would be gone. We have tried on multiple occasions to have all of you come to the realization that, if you want to keep commenting, you need to rein in your confrontational posts and behaviour. It would make running this forum a whole lot easier if this FF debate didn't exist but we are trying to keep it alive. And, although the endless repetitive posts are annoying, the biggest problem is the pot stirring, name calling and constant attempts to drag other members into a fight, that will ultimately lead to more banning. At the end of the day, we will do our best to keep threads open but it is up to all of you to find a way to keep your posts respectful and move away from the constant badgering of each other as described above.
    One "regurgitated" theme, that has come up on a few occasions and is getting tiresome, is the assertion that we are biased against the pro FF members. If this were true, we would simply use the posting guideline that states- " The owners of SportfishingBC.com Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any content item for any reason. Any forum member in violation of the policies listed or any other act perpetrated by a member that is deemed detrimental to the operation of said forum and SportfishingBC.com will be subject to sanctions or a permanent ban from said forum. These actions shall be taken at the sole discretion of the owners, Administrators or Moderators of the SportfishingBC.com Forum,"- to ban those members at the first sign of trouble. Instead we offer up warnings and opportunities like this to try to have members adjust their behaviours and stay active. However, when someone does not heed these warnings, they most often end up being banned for good, which is where we have arrived at now that this disrespectful treatment of each other has reached a boiling point. If it continues there will be less people participating in the debate.We are not going to waste more space here by pulling examples of text from offending posts. We believe you are all intelligent enough to figure out which ones cross the line. We have heard from both camps about how the "other side" are the worst perpetrators in this never ending argument, but the truth is both sides have engaged in this nonsense far too often and it needs to stop now.
     
  12. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    Did you not notice the trick that Dunn used to prove his point that the science continues to show BC salmon farms are safe? It's a trick I have seem more times then I care to remember.

    "With respect to the opinions expressed in the article, the distortion of facts and spread of untruths are so numerous, it’s impossible in the space given here to refute them all."
    http://www.timescolonist.com/opinio...-to-show-b-c-salmon-farms-are-safe-1.23101758

    So you see it's impossible to show us.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
  13. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

    You could start here if you would like to find answers to your question.
    Look under the heading "State of the Pacific Ocean"
    http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/index-eng.html

    I have found this one interest as it cuts through the signal noise of high and low returns.
    See page 209
    http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/365564.pdf
     
    salmonkiller01 likes this.
  14. Fishmyster

    Fishmyster Active Member

    My last comment for this thread and to get back to the original topic is that my own observations, water testing, water quality research has lead me to believe there is ample science to prove there is greater forces causing salmon depletion than FF's. It has just not been publicized.
     
  15. shuswap

    shuswap Active Member

    Others that don’t necessarily agree with you are also “concerned members”
     
  16. california

    california Active Member

    Maybe the WA based members would have more details on this, but it appears they are getting ready to introduce legislation in WA to potentially terminate the leases of Salmon farms in Puget Sound. It is being introduced by 2 democrats, who have slim majorities in the house and Senate, and a democrat Governor. Its interesting that the legislation will require the industry "certify no negative impacts on WA state waters"". I wonder what kind of evidence they will require to certify them as safe to WA waters. It appears the burden of proof in WA could shift to the industry to show it is safe if they want to continue, as opposed to the BC situation where the opponents must prove they are not safe, and even then its unlikely any action would be taken.

    "The legislation, which might be introduced this week, sets up a process to phase out DNR aquatic leases for net pens by July 1, 2020, unless it can be certified there are no negative impacts to Washington state waters, Chapman said Wednesday."
    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/dnr-chief-cooke-to-dismantle-fish-pens-at-ediz-hook/
     
    trophywife and agentaqua like this.
  17. shuswap

    shuswap Active Member

    Personal opinion shouldn’t get confused with fact here. Current research that is underway (not limited to just wild/farmed fish interactions) is not requiring opponents to prove they are safe. It’s requiring those involved to work cooperatively and collaboratively. Many are doing just that - others not so much. In order to produce defensible results, it requires those involved to leave their preconceived conclusions, conspiracies and rhetoric somewhere else because it does nothing to help the matter. Some “independent biologists” haven’t figured that out yet. Sad.
     
  18. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I (largely) agree with your above post, Shuswap - except to point-out that the industry has people on certain funding & research processes whose job is to ensure that no projects are funded that might demonstrate potential effects to wild stocks. Partnering with industry requires that they get some of their needs met - which is understandable - but they might not want to participate in any research that might endanger the status quo of their operations. That's why we need real-time reporting of fish disease outbreaks w geographic co-ordinates - and that data is kept hidden.

    The roles of promoters and regulators need to be very separate - which they are not, currently...
     
  19. california

    california Active Member

    The fact is the situation in BC is exactly as described. A non native species was introduced, and began being intensively farmed in close proximity with a wild related species with little or no idea of what the effects were (if any). The situation is now largely relying on that industry, which is pulling significant profits for its shareholders and executives, to research and report on the effects of these operations. Limited government funding for comprehensive research is available. The industry is poised to increase production significantly, still in the absence of definitive proof this is safe for wild stocks (or not safe). Unlike Washington state where the burden of proof may shift to showing the farms are safe in order to continue operations - the situation in BC IS one where the farms need to be definitively shown to be not safe for any action to be taken, and most of this research is from the corporate entities that have a vested interest in keeping and expanding the farms. Other industries (Tobacco, Pharmaceutical, Agricultural etc.) have less than stellar records of gearing their research towards a safety bias, why would the Norwegian companies operating in BC be any different? Those industries were dealing with deleterious effects on humans (Lung cancer, Thalidomide, DDT etc. ) despite what I would consider much more stringent oversight from the FDA and USDA than what the FF have from DFO and the MOE. Corporate entities around the world chose profits first. The FF industry is dealing with possible effects on wild salmon, not human lives or health, much lower stakes that would be easy to gloss over in a boardroom, so excuse me for not putting blind faith in these companies to uncover what needs to be known.
     
    rockdog and agentaqua like this.
  20. Floater

    Floater Active Member

    Gotta be honest. Im not anywhere near an expert on this matter, BUT...

    I do get the impression the Anti Fish Farmers just want (like a kid does Santa) this industry gone. No amount of research, or transparency will sway them and they have set up the debate so anyone who provides research that proves that the answer to the decline in Salmon stocks may not be FFs is immediately delegitimized, then we go down the rabbit hole again, and agin, and again, until they find research that makes them feel better.

    Fish Farms are just one of MANY fronts these people fight on. The goal is the end of any semblance of free market commerce between citizens and State run industry where the people provide the labor and the Government in turn will give us what they feel we need.

    Doubt me? Just look how far down the rabbit hole we have gone over the last couple decades with MORE and MORE Government regulations/interference, but then ask yourself, has ANYTHING gotten better?

    If you think so, name one way you live better now than you did a 20+ years ago.
     

Share This Page