Gobsmacked. That's how I would describe my reaction to your response, Dave – if I hadn't had experience with DFO and it's prevalent paternalistic, myopic, defensive attitude.
I'm not blaming you for being a cog in a large bureaucratic machine. Everyone needs to put dinner on the table. I do find it interesting how well you have absorbed the prevailing corporate climate of fear and lies – backed-up with doses of corporate propaganda.
My guess is that others will also read our dialogue and start to realize how bad it really is – how inappropriate and conflicted DFO is to be both a regulator and an enabler/promoter of open net-pen aquaculture.
I do sincerely thank you for your honesty thus far. It has enabled a respectful dialogue.
Having said thus: onto the response....
I don't know if the STC was consulted about the samples that were not replicable nor sure if it was necessary to do so as responsible managers like to be sure of their facts before speaking about or publishing data.
If you didn't know – if you were “not sure” - all you had to do is inform the STC about Molly's ISA results. You should have known that both as a federal employee, and particularly as a federal someone who consults “almost daily” with FN.
A responsible manager would NOT have played gatekeeper and would have told the STC about the results, rather than them finding-out through Cohen 7 years later. A responsible manager would have told FN the results were preliminary (that's called being sure of the results, Dave), and worked with them to get new, fresher samples for analysis.
A responsible manager would have known that the courts have ruled AGAIN and AGAIN that by restricting and filtering information – representatives of the Crown are negotiating in BAD FAITH with FN. It is up to the FN, and NOT you or your bosses – to determine what is relevant or “meaningful”.
This is NOT making a mountain out of a molehill, Dave. This is serious sh*t. The Cultus Lake sockeye are very much impacted and very much still “at risk” whether or not the DFO minister stepped-in to keep the species off the SARA list.
IF ISA is to blame, or partly to blame for the stock decline – stop and think about what that means.
It means that the native (or resident) trout and char population are also likely infected. The whole system might be infected. Adult Pacific salmon die after spawning – so they can't be perennial carriers reinfecting the system - why does this stock decline stayed pinned down for so many years? What if ISA creeps out of the Cultus system into the Fraser mainstem through migrating resident trout?
Yes, I know there are also other potential reasons for a stock decline, but 64 out of 64 samples? COME-ON DAVE. No red flags popped-up for you? You are ok with the way this was handled – with a total lack of professionalism and responsibility?
I get very upset when I envision senior DFO managers sitting down with any FN reps, obviously knowing full well there is a large conservation issue with the potential that ISA was released into a naive system of salmonids – but ho-humm, maybe we shouldn't talk about that. Instead lets talk about those Canucks, eh? Great game last night, eh?
FN are a group of the public that DFO has been forced into talking to by the courts. If DFO is so willing to lie to them - given the potential for law suits – can you imagine how disinterested senior DFO employees (AKA minor royality) must be about being honest and open with us minor redneck peons? The public that pays their salaries?
AND if that corporate climate promotes and forces junior DFO employees to act like this and think it is ok – this confirms my rants and outrage over the past previous postings.
I've got more outrage to spill – but that's enough for now.