I have read the papers, discussed them with peers, looked at their strengths and weaknesses, and considered their conclusions given observations and other known data.
Many are based on incredibly small sample sizes, with issues around chain-of-custody and collection methods, or simply come to conclusions which are highly speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence.
Others are simply alarmist, containing a wealth of "Could's" and "May's" and serve no purpose other than to propose a theory using "peer -review" as a vehicle for the purpose of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about the aquaculture industry.
Others contain valid concerns which are being followed by the scientific community in the effort to identify and quantify impacts that may exist regarding salmon aquaculture.
All have failed to definitively identify a direct link between the presence of aquaculture and a related, abnormal decline in wild salmon stocks - this is especially true on the BC coast.
After nearly 40 years of management invoking the, "Precautionary Principle" in a variety of ways (some found to be acceptable, others not), the salmon farm industry (and I speak to my area of experience - BC) has proven to have elevated its practices to a level which pushes the limits of the world standard.
Being dismissive of anonymous posters whining about character assassination in one breath and calling people sociopaths in the next is something that I take no issue with.
People demanding peer-reviewed rebuttals to every wad of scientific spaghetti thrown at the wall will be disappointed to find that there is no, and not likely ever will there be, a paper outlining exactly how salmon farms have zero impact on wild populations. (Believe me, I would love to see it.)
Science is left looking at links, correlations, and trends - which have to date not shown evidence that gives reason to move away from current practices regarding net-pen aquaculture, choosing to rather employ high levels of monitoring and selective breeding in the farms (and things like genomic sequencing:
http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=20&id=69378&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target= ) , and related (increasing) monitoring outside, to ensure that farmed fish are kept healthy and their wild counterparts are not put at risk.
Alarmism, catastrophism and hostility from the anti-aquaculture side does nothing to further the debate, and the continued reliance on conspiracies and cries of collusion to fill in the spots where evidence, or the lack thereof, falsifies their hypotheses serves to even further weaken their position.
There are plenty of people working on both sides of the issue to ensure that both wild and farmed salmon are abundant on the BC coast into the future - unfortunately, people like Morton, (And to a lesser degree Volpe, Krkosek et al.) are not part of this effort, and their contributions (in many cases) rely on misinformation, half-truths, suppression of evidence, and what would be considered poor scientific practice.
They are not out to make salmon farming better, they are out to end the practice.
There is a distinct difference, and their material is recieved accordingly.
View attachment 12247