wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Bias or subject matter expert, guess it depends how on your own bias
Aquaculture; improving????
- Thread starter islandboy
- Start date
Bias or subject matter expert, guess it depends how on your own bias
G
gone fishin
Guest
Don't mean to be argumentative, but
many would say Alexandra Morton is a "subject matter expert" as well
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the fact that the ONP technology remains open to water and pathogen flow and subsequently negative wild-cultured stock interactions is the "absolutism" in this discussion.
And the so-termed science that "fails to line-up with nature" is often DFO Aquaculture and the CSAS process where industry has a veto on publishing. The many hundreds of independent studies World-wide confirm this shared reality - speaking of driving a herring skiff through false narratives. But the ONP industry and DFO share a large and well-funded PR industry always singing the "don't worry be happy" tunes.
None of any of that has to do with myself or others posting on these forums - it is our collective current political reality.
We have ~1000 times more wild salmon on the pacific Coast verses the East Coast of Canada - 1000x more interactions and more risk since risk assessment and management is a combination of interactions times consequence.
I believe that DFO Aquaculture is more than well aware that if the ONP industry was treated like other industries with scoping defining the boundaries of that site application - they wouldn't be able to find a site in the nearshore of BC that didn't have significant negative consequences for adjacent wild salmon. Plume modelling should be used for scoping (even DFO's own science admits this) - and the CoLs should be used to specify the site-specific management actions including surveying adjacent wild stocks for both diseases and parasites openly. But everyone on this forum knows none of this has ever been implemented yet, anyways.
The industry members appear to be unaware of how an actual environmental assessment is done in other industries and should be done for their industry since they have been immune from that process since inception and by design. Scoping is always the 1st step - and it has never been done for the ONP industry in BC.
The lawyers in the DoJ are well aware of what a class-action lawsuit is, as well.
And the so-termed science that "fails to line-up with nature" is often DFO Aquaculture and the CSAS process where industry has a veto on publishing. The many hundreds of independent studies World-wide confirm this shared reality - speaking of driving a herring skiff through false narratives. But the ONP industry and DFO share a large and well-funded PR industry always singing the "don't worry be happy" tunes.
None of any of that has to do with myself or others posting on these forums - it is our collective current political reality.
We have ~1000 times more wild salmon on the pacific Coast verses the East Coast of Canada - 1000x more interactions and more risk since risk assessment and management is a combination of interactions times consequence.
I believe that DFO Aquaculture is more than well aware that if the ONP industry was treated like other industries with scoping defining the boundaries of that site application - they wouldn't be able to find a site in the nearshore of BC that didn't have significant negative consequences for adjacent wild salmon. Plume modelling should be used for scoping (even DFO's own science admits this) - and the CoLs should be used to specify the site-specific management actions including surveying adjacent wild stocks for both diseases and parasites openly. But everyone on this forum knows none of this has ever been implemented yet, anyways.
The industry members appear to be unaware of how an actual environmental assessment is done in other industries and should be done for their industry since they have been immune from that process since inception and by design. Scoping is always the 1st step - and it has never been done for the ONP industry in BC.
The lawyers in the DoJ are well aware of what a class-action lawsuit is, as well.
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Naw we just established their bias your own words
G
gone fishin
Guest
Agreed....we are all bias based on what we see and who's science we choose to believe.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
You don’t care about environmental assessment you already said there is nothing fish farms could do that would convince you for them to stay.
Kinda ended the conversation.
And even if they did more
You wouldn’t beleive anything that’s in any of the reports.
So really what’s the point on debating any of it.
You just want the industry gone plain and simple
But I doubt you would put any money down that bc populations of salmon will increase if they do remove them.
When a salmon population goes up it’s dispite fish farms when they go down it’s because of fish farms.
We know this playbook well
G
gone fishin
Guest
You don't have my feelings correct.
The only reason I want Fish Farms out of our oceans is I believe the science that still says Fish Farm Sea lice and disease are still killing wild salmon.
The problem we all have is the science is not all on the same page.
At such time as they are, I will be happy to reassess my opinions, or bias as some might call it.
Thanks for the debate Wildman...enough though, I am going back to watching the Super Bowl
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
7vs7 and commercial after commercial you got time lol
Last edited:
I don't think demanding accountability, transparency and honesty from our regulators is ever an ended conversation. W/o honest, transparent science to assess the impacts of ONP operations & adjust our regulations - we are stuck in the familiar "he said - she said" narrative that allows the status quo on those operations/methodologies to continue as is - which benefits the industry.
As many including Justice Cohen have openly admitted - DFO Aquaculture is still in an unresolved conflict of interest - where the promotion of the industry rather than their legislated core duty of protecting wild stocks has become their institutionalized focus. It is an institutional failure - and DFO needs a big shake-up to get rid of the interference & collusion from compromised individuals in the regulatory end. This is a large and unresolved issue in our own collective governance that desperately needs fixing - and is one of Cohen's recommendations on fixing this mess.
As many including Justice Cohen have openly admitted - DFO Aquaculture is still in an unresolved conflict of interest - where the promotion of the industry rather than their legislated core duty of protecting wild stocks has become their institutionalized focus. It is an institutional failure - and DFO needs a big shake-up to get rid of the interference & collusion from compromised individuals in the regulatory end. This is a large and unresolved issue in our own collective governance that desperately needs fixing - and is one of Cohen's recommendations on fixing this mess.
Last edited:
James Costello
Member
Are they corrupt, or are you wrong?
11 years ago Cohen released all of his recommendations - and nothing resolved yet on the conflict of interest:
thetyee.ca
hakaimagazine.com
policyoptions.irpp.org
policyoptions.irpp.org
Wild Salmon Advocates Cheer Cohen Commission Report | The Tyee
NDP's Donnelly, Alexandra Morton, farmers and more weigh in on 75 recommendations to protect the fish.
Little Action from Canadian Government as Deadline to Remove Salmon Farms Looms | Hakai Magazine
Eight years ago, the Cohen Commission gave Fisheries and Oceans Canada a deadline to prove salmon farms do not threaten wild sockeye. Despite evidence of harm, it seems unlikely the government will follow the recommendation to prohibit salmon farming in part of British Columbia.
hakaimagazine.com
Integrity of the DFO’s science advisory process in question
Apparent conflicts of interest between Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s science advisory process must be resolved to save endangered wild salmon stocks.
policyoptions.irpp.org
Will new fisheries minister respect salmon science?
Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson should support changes to the way his department treats the science around salmon.
policyoptions.irpp.org
Last edited:
James Costello
Member
Much appreciated, thanks.
James Costello
Member
I was there.11 years ago Cohen released all of his recommendations - and nothing resolved yet on the conflict of interest:
Wild Salmon Advocates Cheer Cohen Commission Report | The Tyee
NDP's Donnelly, Alexandra Morton, farmers and more weigh in on 75 recommendations to protect the fish.
Little Action from Canadian Government as Deadline to Remove Salmon Farms Looms | Hakai Magazine
Eight years ago, the Cohen Commission gave Fisheries and Oceans Canada a deadline to prove salmon farms do not threaten wild sockeye. Despite evidence of harm, it seems unlikely the government will follow the recommendation to prohibit salmon farming in part of British Columbia.
Integrity of the DFO’s science advisory process in question
Apparent conflicts of interest between Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s science advisory process must be resolved to save endangered wild salmon stocks.
Will new fisheries minister respect salmon science?
Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson should support changes to the way his department treats the science around salmon.
I got to ride in an elevator with Don Staniford, it was a lovely experience all around.
I'm wondering,
Does the science that shows harm exist, and it is just being withheld?
Is there evidence that exists supporting a causal link between farms and declines that has been suppressed?
How does this conspiracy between agents of the DFO and industry play out?
What's your theory?
The lack of evidence to support your position does not imply wrongdoing on anyone else's part.
It simply means nature does not agree, and you need to ask different questions - or listen to the answers you get.
There's been plenty of "evidence" drawn from ATIPs in the past few years, and past few weeks - all posted either on this thread or others in this forum - of conflicts of interest, collusion, lying and gatekeeping, withholding data and reports, and changing of wording in CSAS reports to give the industry a free ride along with a veto over publishing. The links are all in here. Page after page.
I would expect industry reps and supporters to already know these reports and links - but pretending ignorance is yet another deflection used by industry supporters along with shooting the messenger and reversing the burden of proof. Thanks for demonstrating some of these techniques to those not as familiar to the PR tricks that DFO and the industry utilize - we all can see the play.
I would expect industry reps and supporters to already know these reports and links - but pretending ignorance is yet another deflection used by industry supporters along with shooting the messenger and reversing the burden of proof. Thanks for demonstrating some of these techniques to those not as familiar to the PR tricks that DFO and the industry utilize - we all can see the play.
James Costello
Member
It sounds like someone should do a TV show on the DFO Aquaculture branch - it might be better than The Beachcombers!
Lots of intrigue and subterfuge by the sounds of it.
So, they're a bunch of liars, and I'm playing tricks on you?
Is that where we're at?
G
gone fishin
Guest
Where we are at is a result of Fish Farms long history of false and misleading information and lack of open and transparent access to their property.
rockdog
Well-Known Member
Best post on this topic for a long while.
James Costello
Member
The property that was occupied by numerous people for weeks at a time?
The sites have been sitting out there with fish on and off for almost 40 years in some spots.
This is not because there is a conspiracy to cover up evidence of harm to wild salmon - it is because there are two scientific camps.
One of those camps uses reality based measurements and observations to guide actions.
The other has an idea that they continually try to prove in multiple ways, and then cry foul when they fail.
Finally, a post I can agree with - as do the independent researchers:
Study suggests sea lice on salmon is under-reported at B.C. salmon farms
A new study, published this week in Ecological Applications, shows striking evidence that counts of parasitic sea lice are under-reported by British Columbia’s salmon farms.
Why a federal salmon study that found viruses at B.C. fish farms took 10 years to be released
The federal Fisheries Department in the government of Stephen Harper would not release the 2012 report into open-net fish farms, a position that continued with the Trudeau government
www.theglobeandmail.com
and that's why we need independent research folks. Because our regulators and the industry they protect all hide critical information including but not limited to timing and location of disease outbreaks so the impacts on adjacent wild salmon cannot be assessed.
Last edited:
SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
aa
You believe ff industry is status quo business as usual?, and nothing has changed?
You are out to lunch and must be a paid anti ff activist for all the copy and paste post you do.
Cohen also recommended the federal minister of fisheries and oceans must be satisfied that “such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm
reports were prepared, "which were reviewed" by representatives from academia, First Nations, the aquaculture industry, and environmental organizations. all reached a verdict of minimal risk.
We have the antis lobbying the 1st nations now to side with them , using their "UN's drip" to stop ff,
we have 1st nations wanting them , whats next for the antis?
You believe ff industry is status quo business as usual?, and nothing has changed?
You are out to lunch and must be a paid anti ff activist for all the copy and paste post you do.
Cohen also recommended the federal minister of fisheries and oceans must be satisfied that “such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm
reports were prepared, "which were reviewed" by representatives from academia, First Nations, the aquaculture industry, and environmental organizations. all reached a verdict of minimal risk.
We have the antis lobbying the 1st nations now to side with them , using their "UN's drip" to stop ff,
we have 1st nations wanting them , whats next for the antis?
Similar threads
