What can WE do to help save the salmon?

[GLG]

I'm afraid that the conclusive scientific evidence will be that the wild salmon are gone forever.

Not so, with DNA fingerprinting and the rule of law, science and mother nature might have a chance against greed.

[Lipripper]

Fair enough; we are all entitled to an opinion. On this subject, the crux of the matter boils down to what the science tells us and there seem to be conflicting views. My point was that, pragmatically speaking, nothing will change until there is conclusive scientific evidence, and by that, I don't mean something that someone interprets to be conclusive. That isn't going to be forthcoming anytime soon and the ongoing continued existence of the farms under those circumstances cements their perpetual existence. Agree with the presence of politics or not, at this point it will be the deciding factor be it the attempts at populist politics practiced by the antis or the wait and see politics practiced by the pros. If the antis intend to play on the gamefield of populist politics, and it is clear that is and always has been the strategy, they will need to leverage voters to be able to apply maximum pressure for change. Forcing the regulatory responsibility to the federal level has severely diminished the ability to gain that leverage to influence policy and greatly reduces the potential for attaining more influence to accomplish the anti's desired ends. It's effectively cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

It is an impressive vocabulary you have...

(the part I made bold): What do you need to see? Science can be interpreted many ways....

[lorneparker1]

I'll not get into the accuracy of your characterization of the situation; such discussions on this forum invariably lose their track and turn into slanging matches that serve no other constructive purpose than allowing tribalistic shallow thinkers to vent their very venomous spleens. I will suggest that it seems to me to be a very incongruous action to first force the issue in the courts and transfer responsibility for salmon farms to the DFO and then complain bitterly about how the DFO is managing the farms and suggest that only the provincial government can save the salmon.

When farming was provincially controlled, the regulatory authority was local and much more susceptible to local political pressure from voters. Now that it is federal, it is nearly immune from that pressure because it is distant and influenced to a considerably larger degree by voters who are not at all connected to the issue and who have no stake in it than it is by those who are residents in the province and have a substantial stake in the outcome. The battle to eliminate sea farms will never be won based on science simply because the science is not conclusive in spite of the claims to the contrary. While the populist campaign may attract a few supporters, they have no effect on the validity of the science and I suspect serve to irritate the situation more than resolve it. The only way to win it is through political pressure and the Harper government's recent actions are a clear illustration how effective at the federal level that is.

In my view, it was a strategic error of the first magnitude to force the issue if the antis wanted to have a chance at succeeding. I've been very curious why the decision was taken. Ms. Morton was kind enough to explain and satisfy my curiosity (assuming I understand correctly what she has responded with). While I view it as such, I have no intention of arguing about it or heaping criticism on her for doing so; it was her choice to make as are the consequences of that choice.

[Foxsea]

Not claiming allegiance means people have to at least think about my posts even if its only to decide which side of the issue I'm on.
.

Okay - I've been thinking about your posts. So I don't have to go to sleep pondering this confusion, rather than fleecy creatures - are you absolon, the Chaucer fan or are you Absolom, that recently posted about Marine Harvest and the WWF?

[absolon]

It is an impressive vocabulary you have...

(the part I made bold): What do you need to see? Science can be interpreted many ways....

It's not what I need to see. I don't have the authority to permit or prohibit the farms.

Conclusive science that doesn't require interpretation, that clearly demonstrates a causal link and for which it can be established that good scientific procedure in obtaining that science was followed would go a long way towards convincing the appropriate authorities that the farms are causing harm. Inflammatory rhetoric, unsubstantiated accusations, ad hoc PR campaigns, nuisance legal challenges, and the almost religious certainty that everyone else has it completely wrong and the antis have it completely right even in the absence of those three critical factors I mentioned aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Calling everyone and anyone who disagree with them liars and corrupt and in the pay of the farms isn't a successful technique to get people to take you seriously.

The anti farm movement has reached a point where it has a very large credibility gap. There have been so many instances of frantic declarations that the sky is falling because of the farms that haven't actually resulted in the sky falling, so many attacks on the integrity, professionalism and intelligence of the scientists and regulators who are actually doing the work on this and the farmers who are trying their best to keep their stocks and the environment they live in healthy and such an unwillingness to even consider other factors that clearly have a negative effect on the wild stocks that I think many, including the regulators, just tune it out. The approach has really had a negative effect on the debate by attempting to substitute emotional argument for rational discussion and it has created a poisoned atmosphere where constructive collaboration isn't possible anymore.

How do we get beyond that?...... I don't know but I suggest that the antis need to sit down, think through what they are trying to accomplish and work out a pragmatic strategy to do that. What they are doing now isn't working.

[absolon]

That is funny on several levels.

[absolon]

Okay - I've been thinking about your posts. So I don't have to go to sleep pondering this confusion, rather than fleecy creatures - are you absolon, the Chaucer fan or are you Absolom, that recently posted about Marine Harvest and the WWF?

Look left, look way left.

[Foxsea]

Sweet..... absolon signed up. A guy isn't smart enough to change user names

Forget holmes* and the troll spay.... Look for a shovel, there's a lot of chit about to be dumped. If he sticks around....

Did you ever have that right! Can the Moderator delete the last 3 pages of abs-shit so we can get back on topic? That guy really stunk up the place. He couldn't dazzle with brilliance so he was trying to baffle with abs-shit. He never did douche the sand out. I'll leave him a bowl of milk on his way out...

[absolon]

You guys are doing a great job of proving my point about the current irrelevance of the antis.

Lots of loud grunting, chest beating, mock charges and displaying of teeth. Juvenile baboons go through the same sort of rituals when they are establishing the dominance hierarchy in the troop.

By the way foxsea, how does a guy with less than two months at the forum under his belt get the job of bouncer. Your dad own the place?

[Admin]

Ladies and Gentlemen.

I remind you that the expectation on this forum is for everyone to treat each other with respect. There will be zero tolerance for any member posting statements that are slanderous, using foul language, inappropriate content, or name calling. This topic is one of the most debated and divisive in British Columbia so let's not ruin that debate with mud slinging. We will not pull the plug on this thread but we will ban users who do not follow proper decorum.

Brian