SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
Copy and paste the coolaid you want people to drink, but you dismissed
where it said "potential impacts "
Aquaculture; improving????
- Thread starter islandboy
- Start date
where it said "potential impacts "
carpeweekend
Crew Member
'A scientific sin': 16 Canadian salmon scientists claim DFO sea lice report was manipulated
16 scientists slam a recent DFO report that found salmon farms had an "insignificant" impact on wild salmon infestations — claiming the report's authors cherry-picked data, ignored scientific consensus and failed to consult with experts outside the department.
www.timescolonist.com
G
gone fishin
Guest
'A scientific sin': 16 Canadian salmon scientists claim DFO sea lice report was manipulated
16 scientists slam a recent DFO report that found salmon farms had an "insignificant" impact on wild salmon infestations — claiming the report's authors cherry-picked data, ignored scientific consensus and failed to consult with experts outside the department.
A pattern of scientific manipulation?
does this surprise anyonewildmanyeah
Crew Member
Sports fishing too
Release of emails brings conflict of interest concerns within DFO | Ha-Shilth-Sa Newspaper
The disclosure of internal correspondence between DFO and the Sports Fishing Advisory Board has raised conflict of interest concerns, leading a First Nations’ fisheries group to call for two biologists to leave the federal department.
hashilthsa.com
agent, have you had any dealings with Diana Dobson, one of the DFO people mentioned in this?Sports fishing too
Release of emails brings conflict of interest concerns within DFO | Ha-Shilth-Sa Newspaper
The disclosure of internal correspondence between DFO and the Sports Fishing Advisory Board has raised conflict of interest concerns, leading a First Nations’ fisheries group to call for two biologists to leave the federal department.hashilthsa.com
No - it's supposed to be how science should work HG - and how other peer-reviewed public processes work. Accountability, reproducibility, etc. What DFO Aquaculture has turned certain CSAS reports into is a carefully massaged PR exercise with an industry veto. We need to go back to something like the Fisheries Research Board of Canada that could submit reports that were inconvenient to politicians - and separate science and management.
Maybe you wish to comment on the article you posted, Dave?
I agree AA but most papers can be argued against and they should be debated but in the end not everyone is happy. I've sat in many a CSAS review and seen the debates. I'm sure you can agree that everyone has bias (conscious or not) and can make their case for the results they want.
I think Dave is pointing out that some FN think that a Biologist is acting in a manor that supports the sport fishing sector and he is not giving unbiased information to the Nations that they would like for management purposes. They feel he should be fired same as you think SJ should be fired.
I think Dave is pointing out that some FN think that a Biologist is acting in a manor that supports the sport fishing sector and he is not giving unbiased information to the Nations that they would like for management purposes. They feel he should be fired same as you think SJ should be fired.
I was not the original poster for that link and you know my feelings on Simon Jones.
I agree that everyone has a "bias".
And one of the most unfortunate biases that certain key people in DFO Aquaculture have are that they think that they have a duty to protect the industry rather than wild salmon - and they see themselves as equivalent to a private vet rather than a public employee who's primary duty as legislated is instead to protect the public resources (IMHO). It's an institutionalized bias.
AND they are in key positions to squish inconvenient research, deny data to make good management decisions and collude with industry and occasionally lie - and they do ALL of the above and have for too many years. That's the difference here.
Sort of like dirty cops planting evidence - something most people would be abhorrently against - especially honest cops.
That's the difference here as I see it.
And one of the most unfortunate biases that certain key people in DFO Aquaculture have are that they think that they have a duty to protect the industry rather than wild salmon - and they see themselves as equivalent to a private vet rather than a public employee who's primary duty as legislated is instead to protect the public resources (IMHO). It's an institutionalized bias.
AND they are in key positions to squish inconvenient research, deny data to make good management decisions and collude with industry and occasionally lie - and they do ALL of the above and have for too many years. That's the difference here.
Sort of like dirty cops planting evidence - something most people would be abhorrently against - especially honest cops.
That's the difference here as I see it.
Last edited:
oh and science is occasionally argued within the science literature which is healthy - as you mentioned. But it has to be PUBLISHED 1st (something DFO, the industry and other researchers are well aware of) - which is the problem with DFO Aquaculture getting involved with ACRDP/CSAS processes where: "Potential projects are proposed by aquaculture producers" (and potential inconvenient science is screened against) and they then get a veto on inadvertently generated inconvenient science/data being published:
www.vancouverislandfreedaily.com
thenarwhal.ca
DFO handling of 10-year-old fish virus study disappoints North Island First Nations
DFO says report unreleased due to inconclusive science, Nations say valuable information suppressed
www.vancouverislandfreedaily.com
‘They never said a word’: DFO told B.C. salmon farmers, but not First Nations, about mouth rot infestation | The Narwhal
Documents released under access to information legislation show federal scientists raised the alarm about a bacteria that causes potentially deadly lesions in Atlantic salmon, saying migrating Fraser River salmon were at risk
thenarwhal.ca
Last edited:
An interesting read looking at RAS closed containment aquaculture............................. still not there.
I agree that there are some financial/logistical constraints yet to be worked out for large-scale CC to be a competitor in today's market against the ONP industry behemoth. However, if ONP operations were constrained only to those places with insignificant wild/cultured stock interactions - that would dramatically change that viability.
SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
Sports fishing too
Release of emails brings conflict of interest concerns within DFO | Ha-Shilth-Sa Newspaper
The disclosure of internal correspondence between DFO and the Sports Fishing Advisory Board has raised conflict of interest concerns, leading a First Nations’ fisheries group to call for two biologists to leave the federal department.hashilthsa.com
I'm guessing thats a no @agentaqua @Dave
From the article she is one that should be fired also ......................... along with Wilfe, for with holding data from FN and working for the interests of the Rec sector above all others .............. for many years.
Between the requests from FN and the ENGO's, DFO will not have much for staff left.
Between the requests from FN and the ENGO's, DFO will not have much for staff left.
I don’t think firing anyone would solve anything in DFO.
1st off – you likely couldn’t. Between Labour Laws and unions – only drinking, or drugs on the job might get a person fired.
2nd – more importantly – it would change anything. You would still be left with the same dysfunction, conflicts of interest, collusion, distrust, and institutional bias.
The RCMP have struggled with similar issues for years and still haven’t gotten it cleaned-up. They too are a top-down dysfunctional patriarchal federal department.
For DFO – I suggest that going back to a stark division between science advice and management would be the most plausible corrective action – like back in the days of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. And DFO Aquaculture gets their own funding to research management issues w/o industry veto. That’d be easy to do thru the Conditions of Licence along with 3rd party observers – like they do for commercial fishing.
That’d be the only way I see to repair DFO’s credibility in aquaculture-related issues.
1st off – you likely couldn’t. Between Labour Laws and unions – only drinking, or drugs on the job might get a person fired.
2nd – more importantly – it would change anything. You would still be left with the same dysfunction, conflicts of interest, collusion, distrust, and institutional bias.
The RCMP have struggled with similar issues for years and still haven’t gotten it cleaned-up. They too are a top-down dysfunctional patriarchal federal department.
For DFO – I suggest that going back to a stark division between science advice and management would be the most plausible corrective action – like back in the days of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. And DFO Aquaculture gets their own funding to research management issues w/o industry veto. That’d be easy to do thru the Conditions of Licence along with 3rd party observers – like they do for commercial fishing.
That’d be the only way I see to repair DFO’s credibility in aquaculture-related issues.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Can we get a third party observer to see Elmo’s sampling techniques
I’d love to watch that
I’d love to watch that
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
In not sure how navigating on the ocean has anything to do with what I said
Nice defection
Nice defection
What about DFO credibility in other matters ? The FN pointed out issues related to no aquaculture DFO staff like Diana and Wilfe ....... what can be done about DFO credibility for all other fisheries? Is the only issue you see AA with aquaculture? Or does DFO need to clean up other sectors like stock assessment or fisheries management?
Similar threads
