Thank you for your post filled with your honest opinion, aheny. Although I agree with your assessment of the emotional outburst that Alex precipitates using emotional dialogue - that methodology and result is hers alone to own - and she is but one critic among many. It in no way invalidates every other seemingly agreeable concern on the impacts from others - or the data generated to support those perspectives.
One thing I do give you credit for is your criticism of Morton's tactics and that of the Sea Shepard Society this summer.....although much more restrained than me. Others here are reluctant to call her out. I believe that one can still disagree with salmon farming and still not align with the activities of Alexandra Morton.
It is true that the industry has manipulated the regulatory regime through what can only be termed as corruption and interference in government in order to accommodate it's operations. This includes not ever having to go through an environmental assessment - thereby avoiding the generation of the background data to quantify those impacts.
Corruption and interference are pretty serious allegations to make. Do you have evidence of this or is this your personal opinion based on your perception of the situation? Cohen was critical of government and industry of environmental assessment. He was not sure if any had been done. It seemed like benthic impacts were looked upon mostly as the trigger for an assessment. He was also critical of the siting criteria which he was not convinced by the testimony given that the present siting criteria considered Fraser Sockeye migration through the "wild salmon narrows". However, since the conclusion of the inquiry there has been much more movement in regards to scientific study with regards to wild salmon-farm fish interactions as well as disease transmission to name a few. Recently, the department has hired more biological and research staff in the marine environment to work on things such as climate change impacts, improved modelling, stock assessment and aquaculture. This is in addition to the collaborative work being done by the Pacific Salmon Foundation, DFO and BC Genome (i.e. Strategic Salmon Health Initiative). This has also involved the industry (which it should) because this work cannot work in isolation of them regardless of what others feel about them. It should also be mentioned that the industry here is subjected to about multiple pieces of provincial and federal legislation - more regulated than most industries as well as most countries than are involved in aquaculture.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/management-gestion/regs-eng.htm
That is certainly not the fault of the industry's critics. It's not like the critics have not tried to correct the situation - but where they have been successful - the industry flashes-up it's rather impressive PR campaign and tries to invalidate those results and concerns by most often painting the conversation as instead a sporting event where one has to pick a team based on the colour of their jerseys - rather than addressing the concerns. This approach seems to work for many - particularly those who either work or support the industry's perspective. I see those same PR-generated responses embedded in your response: "layman's opinion"... and the rest quoted above.
It's true that critics have tried to work with industry and the government on these issues. In some cases not successful, but in others they have (e.g. BAMP). In some cases it's obvious why some critics can't work with industry or government as they already have preconceived conclusions, are not interested in working collaboratively, are not interested in due diligence, and are working backwards to convict (e.g. Morton). I believe NGOs and critics do have a role to play but collaboration, although necessary, isn't always easy. The goal shouldn't be to determine who is right. If all folks are committed towards objective science and have mutual respect despite having differences then it can work.
For someone that doesn't like this discussion being painted as a sporting event with teams, you and some others here apparently have no problem putting others on teams when you don't agree. So when I see your comments about "PR responses" and how some approach this as a "team based on colour of their jerseys" I do see some hypocrisy.
I find this approach unfortunately quite arrogant and paternalistic - as these articles have been published using the same peer-review process that all science uses - and many other posters have posted links to some of these articles (thank you bigdogeh and others).
Well there are many questionable approaches here on this forum, but I will leave it at that. Peer reviewed work is seen as reliable and credible (sort of like the gold standard), but it doesn't mean that it is beyond being open to criticism. For instance, the peer-reviewed paper which Morton co-authored regarding a fish processing plant (used by Grieg Seafood) on the West Coast appeared to be damning towards towards fish farms because it apparently showed pathogens from processed farm fish being released into the ocean; however, the study failed to mention the rather blatant fact that wild salmon on abundant years are processed at the same plant. The authors never tested those wild salmon for any comparison. The outdated study also failed to mention the improvements made at that plant in regards to waste treatment. When the study came out these improvements were already in place for some time.
Yet - the pro-lobby seems quite attached to the process of invalidating an author by their name - rather than by their science. Furthermore - labeling all those other open net-cage critics as Morton wanna-bees and invalidating their concerns (and science where it exists) - is simply wrong.
I agree that invalidating an author by their name alone without looking at the science that they based their opinion on is not the right approach. However, I don't believe critics of the industry are innocent here. I hear you and understand that people do not want to be labelled as Morton wanna-bees, but on the other hand there are people that don't appreciate being called industry shrills, industry hacks, lobbyists, liars, thieves, wild salmon haters and PR spin machines.
