More Media Seeing the Light.....The Province

[Barbender]

Salmon runs, global warming as clear as mud
Fish farms can no longer be linked to sockeye's demise
By Jon Ferry, The Province September 8, 2010 6:54 AM Comments (4)
•Story•Photos ( 1 )
Province metro affairs columnist Jon Ferry
Photograph by: File photo, The ProvinceYesterday's closure of the Fraser River sockeye fishery -- along with accusations that it's premature and that too many salmon have been spared -- is a tad ironic, to say the least.

For years, we've been led to believe by wild-eyed environmentalists and their media cheerleaders that the science is clear, that wild salmon on our coast are on the verge of extinction and that sea lice and disease from fish farms are to blame.

Last November, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced an inquiry into the apparent decline in

B.C. sockeye stocks, high-profile activist Alexandra Morton was quoted as saying "our sockeye are at the moment of no return."

The sockeye, however, have returned. In full force.

This year's Fraser River run, numbering a projected 34 million fish, is being hailed as the largest since 1913.

Bargain-hunters have been scooping up freezers-full of fish from off the Steveston dock. And grizzled commercial fishermen have been complaining there are scads of sockeye still to be netted.

So perhaps it's time the Harperordered inquiry, now being conducted by Justice Bruce Cohen, changed its mandate from one of investigating the decline in B.C. salmon stocks to probing the increase in them, instead.

Myself, I think we know very little about the reasons for the puzzling yearly changes in salmon returns. In fact, I think we -- and that includes virtually every organization from the federal fisheries department to the David Suzuki Foundation -- know almost as little about them as we do about global warming.

Dr. Carl Walters of the UBC Fisheries Centre, who's spent more than 40 years studying coastal salmon populations, told me Tuesday he thinks the public has been fed a whole bunch of misinformation about the state of sockeye and pink stocks.

"Actually, our best evidence is that they're very close to their historical peak levels and have been for over a decade," he said.

Salmon numbers, Page A11

Certainly, Walters doesn't think those much-hated B.C. fish farms have anything to do with the ups and downs in wild salmon returns.

My view is that it's largely emotion driving the predictions of the doom-and-gloom zealots -- at least when it's not the ready availability of grants from wealthy U.S. foundations.

Former fish-farm consultant Vivian Krause noted Tuesday that this year's bumper sockeye run disproves claims that sea lice from fish farms are destroying B.C.'s wild salmon.

"I think we need to hit the reset button on the salmon-farming controversy," she said. "We need to reboot."

Yes, we need to address this controversy with far less self-righteous conviction, far greater humility . . . and a far more open mind. The Cohen commission, which holds a public forum next Monday in Steveston (at 6:30 p.m. at Steveston-London Secondary School), gives us a perfect chance to do this.

For too long, we seem to have been fed a bunch of lies, or at least half-truths, about the salmon-farming issue.

The science surrounding it is not settled, not by a long way. Pretending it is won't make it so.


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/...9/story.html?cid=megadrop_story#ixzz0yxLdxzVR

 

[Barbender]

London England as well.


Thunderer:
Answer this: who benefits from the salmon scare?By Magnus Linklater This is the true story of the salmon scare which threatened last weekend to bring British salmon farming to its knees. It is a sorry saga of flawed science, selective research and hidden commercial bias. That it was allowed into the pages of the apparently respectable journal Science is inexplicable. Its worldwide promotion by an organisation with a vested interest in undermining farmed Atlantic salmon in favour of the wild Alaskan variety is a scandal. Its central claim, that farmed Atlantic salmon have higher levels of pollutants than wild ones, is simply unproven, since the report itself concedes that it never actually examined wild Atlantic salmon. That a British expert could nevertheless describe the report as “definitive” is dumbfounding.
The report hit the headlines on Friday with a vengeance. Based on a worldwide survey of salmon bought in supermarkets in March 2002, it said that fish raised in Britain and other Northern European countries were so contaminated with carcinogenic chemicals that consumers would be unwise to eat them more than six times a year. It said that their chemical levels broke guidelines set by the US Environmental Protection Agency and greatly outweighed any of the health advantages associated with eating fish. It had the immediate effect of stalling salmon sales and threatening the already fragile fish farming industry in Scotland.

Here are the facts: the survey was conducted by the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York at Albany, whose scientists are respected and respectable. It was financed, however, by the immensely wealthy, Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts, which campaigns actively on global pollution, and which believes in direct intervention against industries that it regards as hostile to the environment. Pew challenges logging companies and air polluters, all legitimate targets, but it has also succeeded in shutting down the long-line fishing industry in the Pacific, in order to protect sea turtles, has curtailed the fishing of Alaskan pollock, which was said to threaten sea lions, and has now turned its sights on Atlantic farmed salmon. According to The New York Times: “With its deep pockets and aggressive political advocacy, Pew is not only the most important new player, but the most controversial” on the environmental scene.

David Carpenter, one of the scientists who conducted the research, was remarkably frank about his funders. While insisting that his own work was purely scientific, he said of the Pew Charitable Trusts: “There may be some legitimacy in saying the reason they chose to fund this study was that they had another agenda well beyond the health effects.” His interview, published on the IntraFish website, is worth reading, as are the details of the way the fish were bought. It emerges that salmon were purchased in Britain before new labelling laws, requiring their source to be identified, were introduced. Thus there was no absolute guarantee that they were wild or farmed. Dr Carpenter confessed he was “unaware” that wild salmon were still on sale in Europe. “If we had been able to get wild Atlantic salmon we would have tested them,” he said.

Both Pew, and the David Suzuki Foundation, a Canadian environmental organisation which campaigns on behalf of Alaskan wild salmon fishing, immediately published the results of the institute’s survey on their websites, with approving headlines. This was not just another Science report, to be picked up or not by sharp-eyed correspondents. It was put out around the world in a press release from the international PR organisation, Gavin Anderson, which confirmed that its client was the institute itself, but refused to say where the funding had come from.

So there we have it. Instead of an independent study from an internationally accepted source, this was a survey with a clearly defined political agenda, funded by a powerful organisation which would be delighted to see fish farms closed down altogether. That is the kind of thing I would like to have known before I read the headlines. And so, I imagine, would the British consumer.

 

[Charlie]

Barbender… YOU ARE LOSING IT!

I am not even going to respond to that second post – who and what did that come from? Yep, very verifiable information on that one – you are kidding there right?

Now as far as your first…I really don’t like responding to this type “news” articles without any viable or verifiable sources, but since two were mentioned? Think about this – just for a moment!

Former fish-farm consultant Vivian Kraused? I guess she and a lot of others have conveniently forgotten she was the “Corporate Development Manager for Nutreco in British Columbia.” I am sure; there is NO bias there, yea right!
http://www.habitatmedia.org/FTS_interviews.html
http://www.habitatmedia.org/FTS_interviews/tran-krause1.html
http://www.habitatmedia.org/FTS_interviews/tran-krause2.html

Let’s not forget she was listed as a “Salmon Farmers & Industry Representative” Not forget, she work for Nutreco during 2002 and 2003. And certainly let’s NOT forget, the part SHE is missing – is Nutreco decided to get OUT of the fish farming business, and sold to - none other than, “March of 2006, Nutreco sold its 75 percent share in salmon-farming joint venture to Marine Harvest, booking a gain of 379 million euros.” http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=7301

Now, don’t forget British Columbia received $363,337,000 in University funding for “SPONSORED RESEARCH INCOME” in 2006. In 2004 British Canadian University R&D Funding in the Natural Sciences and Engineering (incl. Health Sciences) was $237 from the Federal Government, $31 from the Provincial, $31 million from private businesses, and $8 million from FOREIGN sources. So, out a total $648 million in funding, that equals $307 million in funds! Now, the predominant contributors from the Federal Departments, “There are a number of science-based departments and agencies that support university research through grants, contributions or contracts: Environment Canada, Department of National Defense, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Space Agency, etc.”

Number two, right out of the chute, “The following is a description of the main federal funders of research in the NSE, besides NSERC.” you have “Genome Canada”, “Dedicated to developing and implementing a national strategy in genomics and proteomics research for the benefit of all Canadians.” “It has so far received $700 million from the Government of Canada.”

“Together with its six Genome Centres and with other partners, Genome Canada invests and manages large-scale research projects in key selected areas such as agriculture, environment, fisheries, forestry, health and new technology development. Genome Canada also supports research projects aimed at studying and analyzing the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues related to genomics research (GE3LS).”
“To date, Genome Canada has invested more than $700 million across Canada, which, when combined with funding from other partners, totals $1.5 billion in 115 innovative research projects and sophisticated science and technology platforms.”
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/R...s/GSCStructure/APortraitOfCanadianRandD_e.pdf

Ready… Let’s look at the Cohen Scientific Advisory Panel

quote:Scientific Advisory Panel
Dr. Carl Walters is a Professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre whose areas of research include the development of rapid techniques for teaching systems analysis and mathematical modeling to biologists and resource managers. He mainly works on fish population dynamics, fisheries assessment and sustainable management. He believes the heart of fisheries is how to manage harvest. The main thrust of his research is to figure out how to design management systems that are robust in an area of really high uncertainty. A member of several grant committees of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada since 1970, he has done extensive fisheries advisory work for public agencies and industrial groups. He has also conducted over two dozen three to ten day workshops in the past decade, for the International Canadian Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. In 1992, he gave the keynote address to the American Fisheries Society, entitled: Where have all the Coho Gone? He is the editor of The Open Fish Journal and has been on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation, the Northwest Environmental Journal, the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, and Marine and Coastal Fisheries. Dr. Walters is a Fellow of The Royal Society of Canada.

Dr. Paul LeBlond is an ocean scientist, born in Quebec City and now residing on the coast of British Columbia. A graduate of McGill University and the University of British Columbia, Dr. LeBlond taught physics and oceanography at the University of British Columbia where he is now an emeritus professor. He has conducted research and directed graduate students in a wide range of ocean phenomena, particularly on waves, tides, tsunamis and coastal oceanography as well as on the impact of ocean currents and conditions on fish migrations. He was program leader of the Ocean Productivity Enhancement Network, leader of the Canadian World Ocean Circulation Experiment, and served the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) as Chairman of the Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee. Dr. LeBlond was a member of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, created by Minister John Crosby after the northern cod collapse and subsequently a member, and later chair of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. He is a fellow of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and of the Royal Society of Canada.

Dr. John Reynolds is a professor at Simon Fraser University, where he holds the Tom Buell BC Leadership Chair in Salmon Conservation and Management. His research focuses on understanding connections between salmon and their ecosystems, emphasizing implications for conservation and sustainability. This includes research on numerous streams in both the Fraser Basin and in the Great Bear Rainforest. Dr. Reynolds has held a wide range of scientific advisory positions, including the BC Pacific Salmon Forum and the Skeena Independent Science Review Panel. He has written five books and over 150 scientific articles on ecology and conservation. In 2000, he was awarded the FSBI Medal by the Fisheries Society of the British Isles, and in 2003 he received the J.C. Stevenson Award from the Canadian Conference for Fisheries Research.

Dr. Patricia Gallaugher is Director of Continuing Studies in Science, Director of the Centre for Coastal Studies, and Adjunct Professor in Biosciences at Simon Fraser University. Dr. Gallaugher’s research on salmon physiology and selective fishing conducted in partnership members of the BC commercial salmon fishing fleet, coastal communities and First Nations, the Province of BC and Fisheries and Oceans Canada was recognized in 2002 with the Vancouver Aquarium Murray A. Newman Award for Excellence in Aquatic and Marine Conservation Research which she received with Dr. Rick Routledge and Dr. Tony Farrell. Formerly a professor in Biology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. Gallaugher has helped to develop a number of programs dealing with coastal and ocean resource sustainability issues in BC and Atlantic Canada. In 1998, she initiated the Speaking for the Salmon series of workshops, scientists’ roundtables and think tanks focusing on linking science to policy for the future sustainability of Pacific wild salmon. Dr. Gallaugher is a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Canadian Healthy Oceans Network (CHONe), Board Member of Coastal Zone Canada, a co-founder and member of the steering committee of the Canada Ocean Lecture and a co-investigator on the Consortium for Genomic Research on All Salmonids (cGRASP) Genome Canada/BC funded research project based at Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria.

Dr. Thomas Quinn is a professor at the University of Washington in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. His research focuses on the behaviour, ecology, evolution, and conservation of salmonids fishes. He conducted research in British Columbia as a doctoral student, and also as a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo. His current research is largely conducted on sockeye salmon and their ecosystems in western Alaska, and on salmon and trout in the Puget Sound region. Dr. Quinn has held a wide range of scientific advisory positions, including the United Sates National Academy of Sciences panel on the status of Pacific salmon in the Northwest. He has written a book on “The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout” and over 200 scientific articles on salmon and trout.

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/ScientificAdvisoryPanel.php

Couldn’t they have been smart enough to put at least (ONE) person on the “Scientific Advisory Panel” that one could look at, without any possibility of being associated with having a conflict – do to potential funding issues?

 

[highlights]

[xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(]

Media up to it's lame tricks. Preying on the general public to dismiss the woes of those who line their pockets with gold.

To the layman the success of this years sockeye seem to dispell everything we have come to learn of current fish farming practices. This could not be further from the truth however. As Charlie has pointed out in other posts, the farming practices are destroying our wild stocks. PERIOD. YOU CAN"T REFUTE ALL THE DAMNING PROOF depsite a strong run this year.

 

[Cuba Libre]

Charlie, Agentaqua, Terry and all of the others that have taken the time to see through the fish farm open cage BS----THANK YOU!

20ft Alumaweld Intruder