wow way off topic thread

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by bones, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member


    Inside DFO’s Battle to Downplay a Deadly Farmed Salmon Disease
    Part one of a series. Provincial lab played key role in denying existence of HSMI in BC.
    By Damien Gillis Yesterday |
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
    Dave H likes this.
  2. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
    Dave H likes this.
  3. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
    Dave H likes this.
  4. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    “You cannot look at infectious disease without questioning the risk of aquaculture,” she says. British Columbia “is the only part of the world where we have a burgeoning aquaculture industry and really big abundances—still, even though they’re in decline—of salmon stocks that are very important commercially.”
    Dave H likes this.
  5. shuswap

    shuswap Active Member

    You don’t know what you are talking about. You basically repeat the activist talking points of conspiracies mixed with red herrings by talking about stuff like Thalidomide. This is why many critics look from the outside because it’s actually counterproductive. You should start by learning about the history of Atlantic Salmon introductions in the Pacific Northwest which predate salmon farming here. I know the many of the people engaged in salmon research - they are not all industry related. It’s true that this work requires cooperation with industry, but as I said before it requires cooperation and collaboration with many different stakeholders, government agencies, ENGOs, and university academia. Fortunately, many of the folks I know have better things to do then dream up conspiracies, wild stories of collusion, or drag up past history of tobacco companies. While many of you spin your wheels day in and day out madly trying to connect dots to satisfy your convictions on the the evils of government and B.C. fish farms their are many good folks out there doing good research. For instance, you might want to take a glance at some of the current research via the UBC website before you go off half cocked and say it’s mostly from “corporate entities”.
  6. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    There's nothing inherently wrong with a team of researchers getting together to focus on a particular deliverable.

    However, DFO is both the regulator AND promoter of the open net-cage industry - and that's an unresolved conflict of interest that Justice Cohen pointed-out.

    In addition - the net cage industry - is exactly that. An industry. An industry that pays political parties and PR firms and employs some people who are potential voters for some politicians in some areas. They are not simply a team of unbiased University researchers. To suggest otherwise is naive and disingenuous.

    In addition - PBS Nanaimo and other DFO research departments also receive 100s of thousands of $ to - $ Millions actually - to partner with industry to look at often production issues through various funding sources:

    Without the industry - they would not have those departments and personnel. I can understand why many in those Aquaculture-supporting departments in DFO are defensive towards the industry that ultimately employs them.

    I think it would be naive, disingenuous and misleading to suggest that this is also not a conflict of interest.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
    Dave H likes this.
  7. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

  8. california

    california Well-Known Member

    You can attack me as much as you want, you just spout the same old nonsense that FF industry apologists (and other industry ) come up with. Trust us, we have the environment's (patient's, consumer's) interest at heart. My references to most (not all most) fish farm specific disease pathogen research is taking place at the industry or industry sponsored level are accurate. Maybe look at Hinch's research before mouthing off and posting his link. His papers in press:

    Short-term physiological response profiles of tagged migrating adult sockeye salmon: a comparison of gastric and external tagging methods. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
    Transcriptome patterns and blood physiology associated with homing success of sockeye salmon during their final stage of marine migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
    Population-specific mortality in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) released from a purse seine fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science.
    Embracing disruptive new science? Biotelemetry meets co-management in Canada’s Fraser River. Fisheries.

    Not to criticize Dr Hinch and his associates and grad students work as I'm sure this work is all valid , but there is nothing even remotely related to fish farms in his in press papers, and if you go through the entire link meant to educate me there only a few papers with anything remotely to do with the topic of Fish farm pathogens or influence of them on pacific salmon. If anything you help prove my point with this link, which is research related to the farms is dominated by corporate entities. I never said there wasn't research being done on fisheries in general. But kind of a basic necessity to do research on fish farms is you need access to the farm to do it, and for that you need permission from the farm, and to get that access and permission from the corporate head office in Norway. The farms aren't going to give access for any research they don't approve of or the government doesn't mandate. As AA has pointed many time out the government has an inherent conflict of both promoting the industry and regulating it. The comparisons to other industries in the past that caused harm due to control of the research is completely valid.

    We will never agree, and you can continue your personal attacks, it certainly doesn't change my mind, and only hardens my resolve that the burden of proof of safety should be on the farms which is not currently the case. I applaud this may change in WA in the future, where if the legislation is passed, FF will have to prove lack of harm in order to have leases renewed.
    trophywife, rockdog and agentaqua like this.
  9. trophywife

    trophywife Well-Known Member

    precautionary principle is not followed, and has never been. all these historic attempts at getting Atlantics to infest, sorry thrive, in Pacific oceans and Pacific rivers/streams may have introduced Atlantic strains of disease which pacific salmon have no natural defences. FN and small pox situation.
  10. shuswap

    shuswap Active Member

    Lol. Not sure where you are reading the personal attacks from but I’m thinking that it’s because you don’t like being challenged. Well get used to it from me. You are so uniformed. All you can see is conspiracies. Madly trying to connect dots. Maybe you need to actually attend some of these presentations and workshops put on by university academia to find out that all this is interconnected. I see you never mention the recent 7 years of telemetry work at Chilko. Do you know the significance of Chilko Sockeye to this? It’s not all about fish farms - there are many things at play in these studies. Maybe you need to open your ears a little more than spout off conspiracies. No we will likely never agree. My life will go on. Lol
  11. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I'd say that qualifies.
    trophywife likes this.
  12. fogged in

    fogged in Well-Known Member

    Shuswap, your posts indicate you are a staunch supporter of Fish Farms.
    Other members often post contrary research, opinions and evidence that Fish Farms do kill wild salmon and should be moved to dryland.
    This is not “activist talking points of conspiracies mixed with red herrings” ordream up conspiracies, wild stories of collusion". as you have stated or as some Fish Farm supporter have called it “False News”
    It is a difference of opinion.
    Your talk of conspiracies and collusion remind me of American politics and we don’t want to go there!!!
    Do we??
    trophywife likes this.
  13. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I'm not seeing where threats and attempts at intimidation are either effective at presenting your perspective - nor mature.

    I think the perspective that has been cultured and nourished in the aquaculture-supporting/promotion branch of DFO is quite enlightening, though - and unfortunate. I would bet that many in that branch of DFO don't have enough corporate memory to even understand where it comes from.
  14. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    1st thing - DFO should NEVER have been put in charge of aquaculture. It is NOT their mandate - as opposed to the PR news releases and denials from the communications branch.

    The department was created in 1979 through the passing of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act (1978-79, c. 13, s. 2.). The first DFO minister was the Hon. Roméo LeBlanc, who was first appointed as the Minister of State (Fisheries) from 1974 to 1976, appointed again as the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment from 1976 to 1979, and then became the first Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in 1979 after the passing of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act in 1979.

    The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act is a short act, and it states:

    2. (1) There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appointed by commission under the Great Seal shall preside.
    (2) The Minister holds office during pleasure and has the management and direction of the Department.
    1978-79, c. 13, s. 3.
    3. The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to hold office during pleasure and to be the deputy head of the Department.
    1978-79, c. 13, s. 4.
    4. (1) The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to
    (a) sea coast and inland fisheries;
    (b) fishing and recreational harbours;
    (c) hydrography and marine sciences; and
    (d) the coordination of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada respecting oceans.
    (2) The powers, duties and functions of the Minister also extend to and include such other matters, relating to oceans and over which Parliament has jurisdiction, as are by law assigned to the Minister.
    5. The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements with the government of any province or any agency thereof respecting the carrying out of programs for which the Minister is responsible.
    1978-79, c. 13, s. 6.
    6. The Minister shall, on or before the 31st day of January next following the end of each fiscal year or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that either House of Parliament is sitting, submit to Parliament a report showing the operations of the Department for that fiscal year.
    1978-79, c. 13, s. 7.

    The strategic objectives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as published in the DFO 1979-80 annual report, are to assure:

    - the comprehensive management of Canada's fisheries resources through the protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of individual fish stocks and the aquatic habitat upon which these resources depend;
    - the "best use" of fisheries resources, through a variety of measures affecting when, where, how and by whom these resources are harvested, processed and marketed to obtain highest possible social and economic benefits;
    - the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge of oceanic processes and environments so as to support activities related to defence, marine transportation, the exploitation of offshore energy resources, and the management of the fishery resource and its aquatic habitat;
    - hydrographic surveying of Canada's coastal and inland waters for the production of nautical charts and other information necessary for safe navigation;
    - the provision of a national ocean information service;
    - the provision and administration of a national system of harbours in support of commercial fishing vessels and recreational boating; and
    - the conduct of a range of international activities in both the fisheries and oceans sectors.

    NOTE: No-wheres is promotion of open net-pen aquaculture listed as one of the key strategic objectives

    So, basically - the minister looks after the fish and the ocean, including all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction (i.e. the management of the fishery resource and its aquatic habitat) BUT *NOT* those duties assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada. This is the basic laws of Canada, here.

    So how did it happen?
  15. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

  16. fogged in

    fogged in Well-Known Member

    Did Wildmanyeah delete his post from this morning where he said he was going to get 3 of the Fish Farm supporters on the case again??
    It was up for an hour or so, but seems now to be gone, or did I just miss it?
    I am thinking good for you Wildmanyeah to delete it as it was very inappropriate to say the least.
  17. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    ya, he must have, FI...
  18. Fishmyster

    Fishmyster Active Member

    This might be off topic but here I go again. So for the last couple years I have been trying to enlighten people on this forum that there is chemistry issues in our fresh waters. I have provided scientific evidence and videos to back my claims that great forces are restricting salmon productivity in fresh water. Every time I ask questions here that nobody can find disputing studies for on the internet the subject gets ignored. I am inviting all of you to please gang up on me! Try and prove there has been stable ecology or chemistry in fresh water since the early 1990's. Maybe try to think outside your box for just a bit and entertain the possibility that freshwater may not always be as fresh as you think! There is plenty of evidence proving it is not. Please, can any of you man up and prove to me that the science and field observations I find are wrong???
    bones and wildmanyeah like this.
  19. fogged in

    fogged in Well-Known Member

    Salmon are vanishing near BC fish farms

    A repeat from AA’s post under Eco Groups Want Emergency protection for Resident Orcas!

    Dr. Rosenau provided some compelling and alarming statistics on the disappearance of radio tagged juvenile salmon in the Greater Georgia Basin and Straight of Georgia. This area is home to the majority of BC’s fish farms. One can come up with their own analysis on why these radio tagged fish are ‘falling of the map’, but it is pretty evident that these fish are experiencing poor survival rates in this region of the BC coast. Is it because fish farms and sea lice are inhibiting their journey? It certainly looks this way from the compiled data.
  20. Fishmyster

    Fishmyster Active Member

    It would be easy to conclude that it is the farms causing the demise of our salmon populations if you only look for information supporting this notion. There is a lot of other evidence and scientific explanation to the demise that is not included in this last blog.
    The fact of many years with acidic rain and how it effects chemistry and ecology are not mentioned or considered in the blog. Jumping to any conclusion without applying ALL the possibilities effecting the environment these fish swim thru is not very scientific!!
    Please try to think outside this box and apply the unsolicited and ignored science of chemistry. You all might be enlightened.
    bones and wildmanyeah like this.

Share This Page