What can WE do to help save the salmon?

[alexandramorton]

I would LOVE to do this!

It would be such a mature, adult thing to do if absolon stood up in a public meeting and openly debated with Dr. Morton. He has three opportunities coming up. My guess - instead, he'll be a no-show and continue from anonymity because he's a _______. Absolon - please douche the sand out and prove me wrong!

 

[absolon]

Is there some reason why you can't answer my question here?

 

[alexandramorton]

The reason I went to court started with a deal between Marine Harvest and a coalition of enviros I was part of. To allow Marine Harvest to fallow one route of Broughton every spring Marine Harvest said their farms and to be 2-3 times bigger. The enviros were good with that, but I wasn't because as part of my sea lice research I examined thousands of juvenile salmon (live) as they approached and passed the fish farms in Broughton. Sea lice is a numbers game. They are allowed only a few live per fish, but if they triple the number of fish of course the lice numbers increase. SO I left the coalition and found a lawyer to get an injunction and he said "you know what this whole thing is not legal" they are not farms and should not be managed by the province who have no responsibility to the wild fish. Actually the whole concept of fish farming in net pens runs counter to the Constitution of Canada because no one is allowed to privatize ocean spaces or own fish in the marine waters..... However, the feds are as bad as the province and with Harper hacking away at the Fisheries Act, there really is no progress except that the Broughton sites remain in their original size, most are expired because First Nations refuse to OK their renewal

I've wondered about this ever since you worked so hard to take salmon farms away from provincial control and insisted DFO must be responsible. I have never been able to find an explanation for why you did so. Perhaps you could explain now, particularly in light of the quoted statement?

 

[alexandramorton]

I have a question for you guys. Did any of you see those under-sized chum last fall? Do you know of any in freezers anywhere? Do you know what rivers they went into?

 

[absolon]

Thanks for your response.

What you appear to be saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the pressure to transfer responsibility from the province to DFO was a roadblock tactic; an attempt to derail a process that was underway at the time rather than an action for which you had thought through the likely consequences?

 

[Englishman]

Absolon,
Far from being a roadblock tactic, the injunction highlighted what was going on was ILLEGAL. Because of the political intransigence of the feed lot companies and their friends in high place, this ILLEGALITY has to be fought in series of stages. The "forces of darkness" have too much money and too great a lack of ethical behaviour to deal with in one fell swoop.
The next step is to get the feed lots out of the ocean!! The Cohen Commission may help to do that, but Alex's testing program is going to provide further incontrovertible evidence of the damage these things do.
(The next step will be a lawsuit to rescind the granting of in perpetuity property rights to the slipper skippers in respect of the halibut. English Common Law, which is the basis of much of the law in Canada and the U.S., has held for hundreds of years that no one can "own" fish still in the ocean! This last fight will be the responsibility of us recreational anglers, not Alex.)

 

[Foxsea]

Thanks for your response. What you appear to be saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the pressure to transfer responsibility from the province to DFO was a roadblock tactic; an attempt to derail a process that was underway at the time rather than an action for which you had thought through the likely consequences?

Awww - I was hopefully waiting for an intelligent, genteel rebuttal to Dr. Morton's courteous response to your query but instead we get impolitic sarcasm. You're a brilliant armchair quarterback, absolom! (oops - your sarcasm is apparently contagious) Now, please pick up your pieces and move along or show up and debate, as Dr. Morton has kindly invited you to.

Idle curiosity; why would anyone (without deep-seated issues) willingly choose the handle Absolon? -

From the Coles Notes on Canterbury Tales: "Absolon reveals himself to be – depending on your point of view – either determined or obstinate to the point of stupidity. Despite (Alisoun's) repeated rejections, Absolon just won't quit. "

 

[absolon]

Congratulations on picking off the "Miller's Tale" reference though I suspect that Google had the largest role in that given your reliance on someone else's analysis from Cole's Notes. Somehow, that doesn't come as much of a surprise, and of course, there is much more going on in the tale of Absolon and Allison than Cole's presents and apparently yourself understands.

I use that username on all the forums I participate in and have for many years as a constant reminder to myself that nothing is ever quite what it seems. The "determined" aspect Cole's refers to is quite applicable but that is coincidental and not my motivation. I'm wondering if you appreciate the concept that insults don't make good arguments for or against anything and that the consistent reliance on them reflects your own shortcomings much more than those of anyone else.

 

[absolon]

Absolon,
Far from being a roadblock tactic, the injunction highlighted what was going on was ILLEGAL. Because of the political intransigence of the feed lot companies and their friends in high place, this ILLEGALITY has to be fought in series of stages. The "forces of darkness" have too much money and too great a lack of ethical behaviour to deal with in one fell swoop.
The next step is to get the feed lots out of the ocean!! The Cohen Commission may help to do that, but Alex's testing program is going to provide further incontrovertible evidence of the damage these things do.
(The next step will be a lawsuit to rescind the granting of in perpetuity property rights to the slipper skippers in respect of the halibut. English Common Law, which is the basis of much of the law in Canada and the U.S., has held for hundreds of years that no one can "own" fish still in the ocean! This last fight will be the responsibility of us recreational anglers, not Alex.)

I'll not get into the accuracy of your characterization of the situation; such discussions on this forum invariably lose their track and turn into slanging matches that serve no other constructive purpose than allowing tribalistic shallow thinkers to vent their very venomous spleens. I will suggest that it seems to me to be a very incongruous action to first force the issue in the courts and transfer responsibility for salmon farms to the DFO and then complain bitterly about how the DFO is managing the farms and suggest that only the provincial government can save the salmon.

When farming was provincially controlled, the regulatory authority was local and much more susceptible to local political pressure from voters. Now that it is federal, it is nearly immune from that pressure because it is distant and influenced to a considerably larger degree by voters who are not at all connected to the issue and who have no stake in it than it is by those who are residents in the province and have a substantial stake in the outcome. The battle to eliminate sea farms will never be won based on science simply because the science is not conclusive in spite of the claims to the contrary. While the populist campaign may attract a few supporters, they have no effect on the validity of the science and I suspect serve to irritate the situation more than resolve it. The only way to win it is through political pressure and the Harper government's recent actions are a clear illustration how effective at the federal level that is.

In my view, it was a strategic error of the first magnitude to force the issue if the antis wanted to have a chance at succeeding. I've been very curious why the decision was taken. Ms. Morton was kind enough to explain and satisfy my curiosity (assuming I understand correctly what she has responded with). While I view it as such, I have no intention of arguing about it or heaping criticism on her for doing so; it was her choice to make as are the consequences of that choice.

 

[Foxsea]

Congratulations on picking off the "Miller's Tale" reference though I suspect that Google had the largest role in that given your reliance on someone else's analysis from Cole's Notes. I'm wondering if you appreciate the concept that insults don't make good arguments for or against anything and that the consistent reliance on them reflects your own shortcomings much more than those of anyone else.

Ha ha! Great fun! He rises like a trout to the fly. ( a simile, absolon). A clever fish would have turned away from this pattern.

It's a tongue-in-cheek and loyal culture you do not understand, coming from your place of stridency and sarcasm. You'd find it offshore or on construction sites or in metal fabricating shops - not amongst the briefcase / blackberry toting, slipper skipper crowd. Therein lies my shortcoming - you have not witnessed insults here. I have once again dusted off my Gr. 12 Coles Note that got me (barely) through Hi Scool (sic - just humour, buddy) and will now part with one, final taunt: "M'Lady protesteth too loudly."
Thanks, absolon, even though you spar in an oblique fashion ... it's been such great fun!! Hoping to see you at Alexandra's meetings - we can then compare (Coles) notes - in person!

 

[Mighty Sylvan]

Well I feel like I just walked into an English lesson. Sorry guys, I'm a tradesmen.
I'm not familiar with you Absolon. Could you please explain how you feel about salmon farming. Do you feel that farmed salmon and sea lice are not harmful to wild salmon? Do you make your living in aquaculture?

 

[absolon]

Actually, I'm a tradesman too. I've had a small contract woodworking business for getting close to 20 yrs now so I see a lot of jobsites in the course of my work too. My experience has been that there are intelligent, thoughtful folks to be found on those sites as well as the typical quota of those who are not so much. No shortage of the macho dudes in the "band of brothers" who try to turn every discussion into a dominance contest too.

I'm not sure why my views are relevant to the question I asked. It's pretty obvious that there are some substantial prejudices around here and if I were to announce membership in the pro-farm group, those prejudices would immediately get what I have to say ignored. If I were to claim I was an anti, they would still be ignored because I take a different approach to the subject than that group. As it is, I'd wager there is already a substantial group that do that just because I'm not an obsequious applicant for membership to the particular group here that considers their personal opinions on this subject to be the final truth. Not claiming allegiance means people have to at least think about my posts even if its only to decide which side of the issue I'm on.

I will tell you that I am well-informed on the subject; there are a few here who recognize me that will confirm that even if they don't share my perspective on it.

 

[Charlie]

The reason I went to court started with a deal between Marine Harvest and a coalition of enviros I was part of. To allow Marine Harvest to fallow one route of Broughton every spring Marine Harvest said their farms and to be 2-3 times bigger. The enviros were good with that, but I wasn't because as part of my sea lice research I examined thousands of juvenile salmon (live) as they approached and passed the fish farms in Broughton. Sea lice is a numbers game. They are allowed only a few live per fish, but if they triple the number of fish of course the lice numbers increase. SO I left the coalition and found a lawyer to get an injunction and he said "you know what this whole thing is not legal" they are not farms and should not be managed by the province who have no responsibility to the wild fish. Actually the whole concept of fish farming in net pens runs counter to the Constitution of Canada because no one is allowed to privatize ocean spaces or own fish in the marine waters..... However, the feds are as bad as the province and with Harper hacking away at the Fisheries Act, there really is no progress except that the Broughton sites remain in their original size, most are expired because First Nations refuse to OK their renewal

So... IMHO, a valid question was just answered with a VERY valid answer!

 

[Mighty Sylvan]

So... What can we do to save the salmon?

 

[Englishman]

I'll not get into the accuracy of your characterization of the situation; such discussions on this forum invariably lose their track and turn into slanging matches that serve no other constructive purpose than allowing tribalistic shallow thinkers to vent their very venomous spleens. I will suggest that it seems to me to be a very incongruous action to first force the issue in the courts and transfer responsibility for salmon farms to the DFO and then complain bitterly about how the DFO is managing the farms and suggest that only the provincial government can save the salmon.

Au contraire Absolom, it would be incongruous to just go along with the status quo then endemic, and ignore the illegality of the situation and thereby cement it. Taking on the Province as the supposed “regulators” of farms, when they clearly were not legally, and should not be, the regulators would have been to turn a blind eye to the underlying wrong of the situation. I, for one, am glad this step was taken and as GLG has posted earlier prevented the jurisdictional pointing of fingers from Federal to Provincial arenas and back again.
As for your second point, you are making a confusing generalisation which muddles two distinct roles. No one is saying the Province can, or should, save the salmon by stepping in or acting as regulators. That avenue has been rightfully closed. All that is being suggested is the Province could get involved because they do have a role as “landlord” and issue licenses of occupation. That does present a lever to move, or better yet, to close the salmon feed lots.

When farming was provincially controlled, the regulatory authority was local and much more susceptible to local political pressure from voters. Now that it is federal, it is nearly immune from that pressure because it is distant and influenced to a considerably larger degree by voters who are not at all connected to the issue and who have no stake in it than it is by those who are residents in the province and have a substantial stake in the outcome. The battle to eliminate sea farms will never be won based on science simply because the science is not conclusive in spite of the claims to the contrary. While the populist campaign may attract a few supporters, they have no effect on the validity of the science and I suspect serve to irritate the situation more than resolve it. The only way to win it is through political pressure and the Harper government's recent actions are a clear illustration how effective at the federal level that is.

Absolom, I have said it in other posts and I will say it again, resource management policies of this magnitude and complexity, involving biology, chemistry, ecology, and genomics etc. should NEVER be managed by politics. Politicians have no science training, are ignorant of it, and are therefore unqualified to make decisions as though this were some issue of public policy. Therefore, your argument that it “would have been better if it were kept local” is irrelevant, because this is not and never should be a political decision. Au contraire this IS, and can only be, a science debate based on the preponderance of evidence. The politicians cannot deny evidence and that is why Alex and others are seeking it so diligently. The facts do not lie and although the spin doctors may try to twist them, because in the field of ecology nothing is absolutely certain, the weight of evidence will eventually prove to be overwhelming. The science can then overrule the politics and DFO can then be freed from the chains imposed by their politically radical masters and actually do something for the salmon. I repeat it is politics that has brought us to this sorry state and only science can get us out.

In my view, it was a strategic error of the first magnitude to force the issue if the antis wanted to have a chance at succeeding. I've been very curious why the decision was taken. Ms. Morton was kind enough to explain and satisfy my curiosity (assuming I understand correctly what she has responded with). While I view it as such, I have no intention of arguing about it or heaping criticism on her for doing so; it was her choice to make as are the consequences of that choice.

In my view, you are wrong, for the reasons stated above!

 

[lorneparker1]

I have a question for you guys. Did any of you see those under-sized chum last fall? Do you know of any in freezers anywhere? Do you know what rivers they went into?

I do know the fish in the puntledge were small. THe hatchery manager their also confirmed this at our last SFBC meeting.. I dont have any in the freezer, however come october if its chum samples you are after, there are more then a couple caught by fellas on here., lol

 

[absolon]

Au contraire Absolom, it would be incongruous to just go along with the status quo then endemic, and ignore the illegality of the situation and thereby cement it. Taking on the Province as the supposed “regulators” of farms, when they clearly were not legally, and should not be, the regulators would have been to turn a blind eye to the underlying wrong of the situation. I, for one, am glad this step was taken and as GLG has posted earlier prevented the jurisdictional pointing of fingers from Federal to Provincial arenas and back again.
As for your second point, you are making a confusing generalisation which muddles two distinct roles. No one is saying the Province can, or should, save the salmon by stepping in or acting as regulators. That avenue has been rightfully closed. All that is being suggested is the Province could get involved because they do have a role as “landlord” and issue licenses of occupation. That does present a lever to move, or better yet, to close the salmon feed lots.




Absolom, I have said it in other posts and I will say it again, resource management policies of this magnitude and complexity, involving biology, chemistry, ecology, and genomics etc. should NEVER be managed by politics. Politicians have no science training, are ignorant of it, and are therefore unqualified to make decisions as though this were some issue of public policy. Therefore, your argument that it “would have been better if it were kept local” is irrelevant, because this is not and never should be a political decision. Au contraire this IS, and can only be, a science debate based on the preponderance of evidence. The politicians cannot deny evidence and that is why Alex and others are seeking it so diligently. The facts do not lie and although the spin doctors may try to twist them, because in the field of ecology nothing is absolutely certain, the weight of evidence will eventually prove to be overwhelming. The science can then overrule the politics and DFO can then be freed from the chains imposed by their politically radical masters and actually do something for the salmon. I repeat it is politics that has brought us to this sorry state and only science can get us out.



In my view, you are wrong, for the reasons stated above!

Fair enough; we are all entitled to an opinion. On this subject, the crux of the matter boils down to what the science tells us and there seem to be conflicting views. My point was that, pragmatically speaking, nothing will change until there is conclusive scientific evidence, and by that, I don't mean something that someone interprets to be conclusive. That isn't going to be forthcoming anytime soon and the ongoing continued existence of the farms under those circumstances cements their perpetual existence. Agree with the presence of politics or not, at this point it will be the deciding factor be it the attempts at populist politics practiced by the antis or the wait and see politics practiced by the pros. If the antis intend to play on the gamefield of populist politics, and it is clear that is and always has been the strategy, they will need to leverage voters to be able to apply maximum pressure for change. Forcing the regulatory responsibility to the federal level has severely diminished the ability to gain that leverage to influence policy and greatly reduces the potential for attaining more influence to accomplish the anti's desired ends. It's effectively cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

 

[Mighty Sylvan]

I'm afraid that the conclusive scientific evidence will be that the wild salmon are gone forever.

 

[GLG]

I'm afraid that the conclusive scientific evidence will be that the wild salmon are gone forever.

Not so, with DNA fingerprinting and the rule of law, science and mother nature might have a chance against greed.

 

[Lipripper]

Fair enough; we are all entitled to an opinion. On this subject, the crux of the matter boils down to what the science tells us and there seem to be conflicting views. My point was that, pragmatically speaking, nothing will change until there is conclusive scientific evidence, and by that, I don't mean something that someone interprets to be conclusive. That isn't going to be forthcoming anytime soon and the ongoing continued existence of the farms under those circumstances cements their perpetual existence. Agree with the presence of politics or not, at this point it will be the deciding factor be it the attempts at populist politics practiced by the antis or the wait and see politics practiced by the pros. If the antis intend to play on the gamefield of populist politics, and it is clear that is and always has been the strategy, they will need to leverage voters to be able to apply maximum pressure for change. Forcing the regulatory responsibility to the federal level has severely diminished the ability to gain that leverage to influence policy and greatly reduces the potential for attaining more influence to accomplish the anti's desired ends. It's effectively cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

It is an impressive vocabulary you have...

(the part I made bold): What do you need to see? Science can be interpreted many ways....