NGOs pulling out of DFOs AMAC process
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
"DFO also rebuffed calls by us and others to commit to broadening the science advice available to the AMAC. This is a fatal flaw in the process, raising a significant risk that the advisory process will be based on incomplete and potentially biased science advice"
Isn't that what DFO wants? No environmental assessments and indefensible siting criteria and lack of science?
"We find this stubborn insistence on filtering and limiting science advice and discovery troubling on many levels."
Just a little understatement here - "troubling"? - How about criminal?
Isn't that what DFO wants? No environmental assessments and indefensible siting criteria and lack of science?
"We find this stubborn insistence on filtering and limiting science advice and discovery troubling on many levels."
Just a little understatement here - "troubling"? - How about criminal?
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
"Our main concerns around the proposed AMAC terms of reference—and DFO’s rigidity against implementing needed changes—lie mainly around the skewed composition of the AMAC’s proposed membership, and the absence of any assurance that the process will be informed by sound science advice being made available to AMAC members and DFO regulators.
DFO initially proposed AMAC membership would include 9 seats for “industry and industry aquaculture associations”—but only 3 for environmental organizations, and 2 for regional districts. Despite repeated and reasonable requests to improve the balance and input, we were informed in an April 14 2014 letter from Diana Trager, DFO’s Pacific Director of the Aquaculture Management Division, that DFO’s opening offer was also its closing one. Aquaculture planning was to be mainly driven by a heavy industry presence, which does little to inspire confidence that DFO is much interested in giving due consideration to environmental, cultural or social sustainability in its oversight of aquaculture."
Yep, sounds like That's what DFO wants.
DFO initially proposed AMAC membership would include 9 seats for “industry and industry aquaculture associations”—but only 3 for environmental organizations, and 2 for regional districts. Despite repeated and reasonable requests to improve the balance and input, we were informed in an April 14 2014 letter from Diana Trager, DFO’s Pacific Director of the Aquaculture Management Division, that DFO’s opening offer was also its closing one. Aquaculture planning was to be mainly driven by a heavy industry presence, which does little to inspire confidence that DFO is much interested in giving due consideration to environmental, cultural or social sustainability in its oversight of aquaculture."
Yep, sounds like That's what DFO wants.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Hey CK and Birdsnest what do you have to say about this? Even the Cohen commission cited ongoing one-sided bias to support net pen salmon farming. If your insutry is so harmless as you make it out to be why does DFO have to protect it so much?
"For years, the conservation and environmental community, the Public, academics 3, First Nations, and most recently, a federal commission into the decline of Fraser River Sockeye, have raised serious concerns that conservation and public interest were being seriously short-changed by "official" government science. Indeed, substantial evidence was tabled throughout the Cohen Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River to support that DFO’s science advice on the impacts of open net-cage aquaculture was overly narrow, often biased, and likely skewed by the Department’s "conflicted" mandate of being both a regulator and promoter of aquaculture.4 Justice Cohen took particular pains to make a case that science advice on salmon conservation and aquaculture regulation should be broadened to include outside academics and conservation groups. That advice—not to mention most of the Inquiry’s other aquaculture specific recommendations—have seemingly been forsaken by the federal government in the proposed structure of the AMAC process."
"For years, the conservation and environmental community, the Public, academics 3, First Nations, and most recently, a federal commission into the decline of Fraser River Sockeye, have raised serious concerns that conservation and public interest were being seriously short-changed by "official" government science. Indeed, substantial evidence was tabled throughout the Cohen Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River to support that DFO’s science advice on the impacts of open net-cage aquaculture was overly narrow, often biased, and likely skewed by the Department’s "conflicted" mandate of being both a regulator and promoter of aquaculture.4 Justice Cohen took particular pains to make a case that science advice on salmon conservation and aquaculture regulation should be broadened to include outside academics and conservation groups. That advice—not to mention most of the Inquiry’s other aquaculture specific recommendations—have seemingly been forsaken by the federal government in the proposed structure of the AMAC process."
It is very crazy how DFO and or the Liberal Government continue to support big business ventures like Net Penned Farmed Salmon, the discrimination of a Sport fishers on Halibut for the benefit of a Commercial enterprise. They are turning a blind eye to our environment and rights of wild fish and opportunities for all.
Similar threads
