I think we all have our biases, yes. For me the question is: are they informed - or instead reactive biases?
Humans are tribal - and unfortunately some people with agendas prey on that human habitat. Human history is full of examples of poor and/or corrupt governance preying on peoples desire to associate - while confusing belligerence with strength. You see that reality very raw now in the states. It is quite dangerous.
The answer to that poor governance model is some form of consensus-bases governance where there are checks and balances to the biases - and especially for the unfortunately often lies used in decision-making. That's what a democracy is supposed to be. That is also what an environmental assessment is supposed to do.
Fish farms have been exempt from a full environmental assessment since their inception.
Instead, the agency that is supposed to regulate them – and do the science to check on the effects/impacts – has also been tasked with promoting them. I would also add that I feel that some people in both CFIA, the Aquaculture Branch of DFO, and the Provincial Vets office have confused themselves over whom they are supposed to work for.
Justice Cohen also noticed this and made it one of his recommendations. It's pretty glaring when you dig into this stuff.
WRT understanding how the rather complicated regulatory apparatus operates (or not) in conjunction with how the ocean operates and fish swim and live – it is really up to each one of us to become informed. Nobody else can do that for us.
Luckily, that information does exist to some extent - in some form – the most reliable source is the science and data that has been vetted in peer review.
If there was real-time disease reporting with geographic co-ordinates that independent researchers could use to study disease outbreaks and epidemiology and all the other things we need to apportion risk and impact – we would all be alot further along and better off – yes?
And that is why it is covered-up, IMHO.
See the remarks about Justice Cohen above.
Since the federal regulators & promoters in Canada have abrogated their fiduciary duty to the public wrt wild stocks from the impacts of open net-cage FFs – sometimes and only sometimes – ENGOs step-in to fill that role. Other times - it is other researchers generating science and research that is critical to the operation of open net-cage industry. There is much more science critical of the open net-cage impacts available that is not associated with ENGOs.
ENGOs are admittedly problematic wrt credibility and biases. I see them as a spectrum of credibility and biases with the SSS, DSF and others on one side of that spectrum – with the PSF, ASF and others on the opposite side. They own their own credibility and biases – nobody else does – and like all information gathering – it is the responsibility of the reader to ascertain the trustworthiness of that info.
If we had some sort of environmental assessment process that info could be vetted and we could have a safe and refereed process to tackle these issues w/o resorting to PR headlines.
See comments about Justice Cohen and environmental assessments above.
So whom does that really serve – blocking research and information?
Follow the breadcrumbs, grasshopper...
