No, I'm sure you weren't personally involved in the backroom deals at higher levels between government officials and fish farm representatives. You shouldn't feel responsible or guilty for actions beyond your own. The industry you are a part of operates within a network of fear and intimidation, though.
And yes, other industries (e.g. pipelines, oil companies, etc.) also often successfully subvert democracy and good governance, as well. That doesn't make it right.
And yes, and other industry that lacks integrity and social licence might act similarly. Again, that doesn't make it right or mean that we have to put up with that behaviour.
AND no, it had everything to do with your industry and it's political and environmental effects interfering with good governance through lobbying, rather than your assertion that it “had nothing to do with us”.No, CK – I can assure you that I do not sit at my computer and rub my hands together and say “I've got CK now”. To be honest, you don't rank that high in my list of priorities and focus; and even if you did I would have a different reaction - hopefully one more mature and productive.
I find your comment both unfortunate and enlightening. Enlightening in the context of where you obviously feel threatened by open and honest dialogue, and unfortunate that you do.
Enlightening in the context of what fear you carry, and unfortunate that you appear to lack the personal and professional maturity to let it go.
Enlightening in the context of what defensive stories pro-industry workers tell themselves, and unfortunate that they do – because I can assure you we all take the future of wild salmon extremely seriously on this forum, and we need to find a way to have these dialogues despite our collective fears.
Enough with the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gushing of environmental/sociological feelings Aqua - I'd like to see some evidence to support your views that doesn't include a hypothesis + fill in the blanks = conclusion type study, and actually presents a cohesive outline of just how you propose salmon farms are harming wild salmon.
Sea lice never panned out as a smoking gun, despite years of study and a whole lot of effort put into it (I'm not talking about the Atlantic, because that is an entirely different system)
If you are on to disease now, which one(s)? Are they endemic to the Pacific? Have wild salmon evolved with them?
Is there any way you can actually show that the risk of farmed salmon being infected with these diseases and immediately culled poses a risk to wild salmon in any significant way?
Are they ones which you propose the introduction of Atlantics for farming in BC might have brought?
Can you show where they are present? And then show when/where they showed up, as to be certain they weren't introduced 100 years ago with the first Atlantics stocked for SPORTFISHING.
It looks to me like the whole theory of farmed salmon introducing disease falls apart when you consider the above and the fact that our fish health is pretty much top priority to us.
You wouldn't be a very good farmer if you tried to raise sick animals, why wouldn't we have practices in place to ensure that we didn't?
You seem to focus on what you see as negative actions and then attempt to extrapolate some sort of evil corporate agenda onto everything we do, while ignoring the fact that without healthy fish we can't make money - and healthy fish pose no threat to wild stocks.
I've got plenty of personal and professional maturity, well enough to let the clown show come out when the going gets tough without engaging in mud-slinging - so if you are the best this forum has to offer maybe try to stay away from the fallback position of attacking perceived corporate and personal agendas and work more on explaining how you can be so sure about something without much, if any tangible evidence.
That sounds to me like more of a religious dogma than any sort of scientific, reality based view.
