I think some of the reasons Kristi was able to withstand the interference and lack of support for her science (besides her obvious fortitude and professionalism) was that she wasn't directly part of CFIA and/or the Aquaculture Branch of DFO. In addition to that - she developed her own genomics methodology - very different and separate from CFIA's problematic PCR/tissue confirmation process - and so wasn't limited to play by their playbook.
So she subsequently finds ISAv, and other potentially-related pathogens:
“Dr. Miller said the ISA virus has now been confirmed in numerous wild fish, and in chinook samples provided by Creative Salmon, a fish farm on Vancouver Island.”
I see no reason to squish and hide Molly's report over the science, neither.
MANY peer-reviewed studies are still written and published even when they include conflicting and/or unconfirmed results. Sometimes these results are then termed "preliminary". Most reports then recommend further studies in their discussion and Recommendations section.
ALL federal and Provincial departments, agencies and representatives have the legal obligation (a fiduciary duty) to consult, co-manage and accommodate First Nations and their needs and concerns when managing public resources. The degree of the consultation depends upon the degree of potential infringement. It is up to our government officials (each and everyone) to identify potential infringements and consult with FN.
Infecting wild stocks (such as Cultus Lake – now on the SARA lists) with ISA would constitute such an infringement and trigger the need for deep consultation with any infringed FN Bands. Certainly, the investigation of a potential release of ISA into a naive population with the potential for severe population-level impacts would be of paramount importance and priority. And it is up to that FN to determine what is significant to them - not a DFO technician.
So, as Molly's boss (where the buck should stop) - did Jones get hold of the infringed FN IMMEDIATELY and do follow-up studies including getting fresh samples to retest Cultus Lake stocks after Molly's findings?
No, he did not. Instead he apparently blocked Molly from publishing, and when asked specifically and legally by Cohen to provide all documents about ISA, somehow he apparently forgot about Molly's research - research he would have been intimately familiar with - research a responsible and accountable public official would not hide.
How can you legally, honestly and morally defend these actions?
Maybe this is the real reason why:
2011 May: The BC Salmon Farmers Association claimed (in a submission to the Cohen Inquiry dated 19th May) that: “irreparable damage will occur to the reputations and economic interests of the BCSFA’s member companies and their shareholders” if disease data is released publicly (the Norwegian-owned companies Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg control 92% of BC’s salmon farms).
2011 May: The BC Salmon Farmers Association claimed (in a submission to the Cohen Inquiry dated 30th May) that should disease data be disclosed publicly there would be a “likelihood of misuse and irrevocable damage to the economic interests and reputations of participants and individuals”.
So she subsequently finds ISAv, and other potentially-related pathogens:
“Dr. Miller said the ISA virus has now been confirmed in numerous wild fish, and in chinook samples provided by Creative Salmon, a fish farm on Vancouver Island.”
I see no reason to squish and hide Molly's report over the science, neither.
MANY peer-reviewed studies are still written and published even when they include conflicting and/or unconfirmed results. Sometimes these results are then termed "preliminary". Most reports then recommend further studies in their discussion and Recommendations section.
ALL federal and Provincial departments, agencies and representatives have the legal obligation (a fiduciary duty) to consult, co-manage and accommodate First Nations and their needs and concerns when managing public resources. The degree of the consultation depends upon the degree of potential infringement. It is up to our government officials (each and everyone) to identify potential infringements and consult with FN.
Infecting wild stocks (such as Cultus Lake – now on the SARA lists) with ISA would constitute such an infringement and trigger the need for deep consultation with any infringed FN Bands. Certainly, the investigation of a potential release of ISA into a naive population with the potential for severe population-level impacts would be of paramount importance and priority. And it is up to that FN to determine what is significant to them - not a DFO technician.
So, as Molly's boss (where the buck should stop) - did Jones get hold of the infringed FN IMMEDIATELY and do follow-up studies including getting fresh samples to retest Cultus Lake stocks after Molly's findings?
No, he did not. Instead he apparently blocked Molly from publishing, and when asked specifically and legally by Cohen to provide all documents about ISA, somehow he apparently forgot about Molly's research - research he would have been intimately familiar with - research a responsible and accountable public official would not hide.
How can you legally, honestly and morally defend these actions?
Maybe this is the real reason why:
2011 May: The BC Salmon Farmers Association claimed (in a submission to the Cohen Inquiry dated 19th May) that: “irreparable damage will occur to the reputations and economic interests of the BCSFA’s member companies and their shareholders” if disease data is released publicly (the Norwegian-owned companies Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg control 92% of BC’s salmon farms).
2011 May: The BC Salmon Farmers Association claimed (in a submission to the Cohen Inquiry dated 30th May) that should disease data be disclosed publicly there would be a “likelihood of misuse and irrevocable damage to the economic interests and reputations of participants and individuals”.
