Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dave]

Hope ro see Dave and others join the march here in Chilliwack on Thursday.

Ha ha.  not bloody likely ...  can't wait to see if Mr. Strahl is 'away' that day

[alwaysfishn]

Good News! http://www.nifes.no/index.php?page_id=&article_id=3851&lang_id=2

Gotta love this statement: “The European Union believed that Norwegian fish contained ten times as much inorganic arsenic as they actually do.

Inorganic arsenic is toxic to humans and may be carcinogenic.

I guess it's good news that you are only eating 1/10th of the toxic, carcinogenic arsenic that you previously thought you were ingesting when you ate some farmed salmon,!   

[absolon]

For all the many times the same information is repeated and repackaged in the nonsense presented in Chris' chain letters about whether or not the ISA virus has been found, there still remains that unsupported and unsubstantiated allegation that if it is here, it came from fish farms.

There are two questions here, not one as Alexandra's Rag Time Band and the output of the news wires that service the reactionaries would have you believe. Those issues are the question of presence and the question of origin. It is either intellectually weak or outright dishonest not to recognize the difference; their is no other rationalization. Those who are unable to separate the two issues are either demonstrating their own lack of understanding of the situation, or a dishonesty that parallels Morton's.

The first issue, presence, has so far not been established with any level of scientific rigor and will not be until further testing is completed. The second issue, origin, cannot be established until the first is settled and there are a number of possibilities beyond fish farms. Indeed, the history of testing of farm stocks and the lack of outbreaks on farms would suggest that if the virus is here, it is likelier to be so as a result of one of those other possibilities.

It is all well and good to have ones own beliefs, supported by fact or not, but it is undeniably dishonest to claim one knows that the ISAV is present and that it came from farms given what is known at this time.

[alwaysfishn]

For all the many times the same information is repeated and repackaged in the nonsense presented in Chris' chain letters about whether or not the ISA virus has been found, there still remains that unsupported and unsubstantiated allegation that if it is here, it came from fish farms.

There are two questions here, not one as Alexandra's Rag Time Band and the output of the news wires that service the reactionaries would have you believe. Those issues are the question of presence and the question of origin. It is either intellectually weak or outright dishonest not to recognize the difference; their is no other rationalization. Those who are unable to separate the two issues are either demonstrating their own lack of understanding of the situation, or a dishonesty that parallels Morton's.

The first issue, presence, has so far not been established with any level of scientific rigor and will not be until further testing is completed. The second issue, origin, cannot be established until the first is settled and there are a number of possibilities beyond fish farms. Indeed, the history of testing of farm stocks and the lack of outbreaks on farms would suggest that if the virus is here, it is likelier to be so as a result of one of those other possibilities.

It is all well and good to have ones own beliefs, supported by fact or not, but it is undeniably dishonest to claim one knows that the ISAV is present and that it came from farms given what is known at this time.

The point you seem to be raising is that Chris and everyone who reads Chris's postings of 3rd party news releases, believe absolutely everything in them.......  

I would suggest you are over reacting and making a lot of assumptions in your efforts to defend open net salmon farms.

In spite of all of your posts to the contrary, I can't for a moment accept that you believe the open net farms are not causing harm to the wild salmon and their environment!

[absolon]

I said that those chain letters that Chris passes on, I presume to avoid the bad luck that comes from breaking the chain, provide no new information. They are simply the same information endlessly repackaged and served up yet again in hopes of passing off as truth because of repetitive messaging, a well known marketing technique. Most of the individual links are nothing more than rhetorical set pieces based on flights of fancy, not hard fact and none directly related to the ISA situation stand up to critical analysis. I've not said anything about who believes what; indeed I have suggested that it is all well and good to have one's own beliefs regardless of what they are or what they are based on. My only proviso to that statement is that it is dishonest to claim as fact something that is not.

What you can and cannot accept is entirely up to you but I will point out this. I am not defending salmon farms. I am defending rationality, truth and the validity of the scientific process. Morton and cohort are attacking those with twisted truth, distorted logic, and selective information in an organized and well-funded campaign to eliminate fish farms for purposes of their own and their backers. I've been there. I can recognize the dishonesty.

[StillAqua]

What you can and cannot accept is entirely up to you but I will point out this. I am not defending salmon farms. I am defending rationality, truth and the validity of the scientific process. Morton and cohort are attacking those with twisted truth, distorted logic, and selective information in an organized and well-funded campaign to eliminate fish farms for purposes of their own and their backers. I've been there. I can recognize the dishonesty.

Couldn't have said it better myself absolon.

[alwaysfishn]

I'd suggest the fish farms and DFO are the ones that have the funding, marketing savey and organizations to convince the public of whatever they want them to believe. They are motivated solely by money. They have no incentives to protect the wild salmon or their environment other than the fear of being caught. Even then the fear is that bad publicity could mean loss of market share (read profits/taxes).

It's amusing to suggest that Morton is in this for the money.

[absolon]

I didn't say Morton was in it for the money. Indeed, I specifically separated Morton's objectives from those of her backers as a more careful re-read of my post will make abundantly clear. I have my own suspicions what Morton's motivations are, but I don't think it is necessary that I share that information.

If you gave the matter even the slightest thought, you would realize that nearly all of the revenue earned by farms actually goes to pay the costs of production and that profit is just a fractional component out of which a return must be provided to shareholders and business income taxes paid. Total revenue does not equate to funds available to counter the organized campaign against farms.

I know Morton likes to present herself as an underfunded David taking on Goliath, but that is simply not true. They solicit and collect funds from anyone they can convince to pony up and have funding granted by a number of other sources, none of whom can be said to have pure purpose, as is detailed here. She refuses to reveal an accounting of her sources of funds and how much she raises.

http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/sites/default/files/Follow%20the%20money%20feature.pdf

The following is a record of one of the grants issued by one of the foundations Krause discusses, the US based Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. Actually it is two records, both obtained from the granting foundations own records. The first is the record that appeared before Krause made her research into the funding of the reactionary anti-salmon farm lobby public. The second is what it was changed to once Krause publicized it.. Note that this grant represents just a pittance of the money that has been directed at incapacitating salmon farming. Note also the very deliberate intent of the grant to provide the basis for an organized anti-salmon farm campaign. Everyone "sharing" the chain letters is actually doing so in support of that campaign.

[Dave]

Couldn't have said it better myself absolon.

Not sure many could
alwaysfishin, seems to me you're playing with a short stick; you say DFO have no incentive to protect wild salmon - do some research man; check out DFO's Environmental Watch program that collaborates with the best salmonid scientists in North America, the Limnology/Lake studies effort to increase sockeye harvesting opportunities for all users, or a multitude of Stock Assessment programs throughout the Fraser watershed.  Then have a look at the habitat restoration work done on Fraser tribs, and then the economic benefits of it's Salmonid Enhancement Program; hatcheries, spawning channels, community awareness.
People want to eat salmon; there are not enough wild salmon to meet this need and there never will be.  Salmon aquaculture is a necessity and I believe BC is positioned properly to take advantage of this.

Show me some evidence that a salmon farm in BC has impacted wild salmonid productivity. 

[alwaysfishn]

I didn't say Morton was in it for the money. Indeed, I specifically separated Morton's objectives from those of her backers as a more careful re-read of my post will make abundantly clear. I have my own suspicions what Morton's motivations are, but I don't think it is necessary that I share that information.

If you gave the matter even the slightest thought, you would realize that nearly all of the revenue earned by farms actually goes to pay the costs of production and that profit is just a fractional component out of which a return must be provided to shareholders and business income taxes paid. Total revenue does not equate to funds available to counter the organized campaign against farms.

I know Morton likes to present herself as an underfunded David taking on Goliath, but that is simply not true. They solicit and collect funds from anyone they can convince to pony up and have funding granted by a number of other sources, none of whom can be said to have pure purpose, as is detailed here. She refuses to reveal an accounting of her sources of funds and how much she raises.

http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/sites/default/files/Follow%20the%20money%20feature.pdf

The following is a record of one of the grants issued by one of the foundations Krause discusses, the US based Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. Actually it is two records, both obtained from the granting foundations own records. The first is the record that appeared before Krause made her research into the funding of the reactionary anti-salmon farm lobby public. The second is what it was changed to once Krause publicized it.. Note that this grant represents just a pittance of the money that has been directed at incapacitating salmon farming. Note also the very deliberate intent of the grant to provide the basis for an organized anti-salmon farm campaign. Everyone "sharing" the chain letters is actually doing so in support of that campaign.

All non-profit organization's financial records in Canada are public. The last time I looked at Morton's, it showed administrative salaries for her organization totaled less than $100,000 for that year. I don't know how many staff on her payroll, but it's unlikely she does everything alone. I'm guessing she would have made a lot more money if she would have run for the NDP in the last election.

By the way, I have a pretty good understanding of finance. Fish farms currently are not making the profits that they hoped they would be making, and their stock prices reflect that. However if there were less restraints on the expansion of these farms, they would be generating much higher profits, which is their incentive. Governments make less than 1/3 the revenue on company profits as they do on employee taxes. Point being, the more jobs these farms can create (read more farms) the more revenue the government generates.

After doing all the complaining about what Chris posts, I am surprised you would post such nonsense as the .jpg that you posted. It has absolutely nothing to do with Morton, her organization or her fight for wild salmon! 

Dave:  DFO (read provincial and federal governments) generate more net revenue from farming salmon in the ocean than they net from managing wild salmon. There is minimal cost associated with government managing fish farms, so the tax revenue they collect is all net revenue. On the other hand after all management costs related to the wild salmon, I doubt there is anything left over from the taxes and license fees they collect. Which probably explains the DFO layoffs announced today.

[chris gadsden]

March to Chilliwack MP's office by wild salmon protectors
By Jennifer Feinberg - Chilliwack Progress
Published: December 12, 2011 3:00 PM
Updated: December 12, 2011 4:15 PM

Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon MP Mark Strahl is about to get an earful from wild-salmon advocates if he's in town.



A protest rally at the Coqualeetza site is set for Thursday, Dec. 15 at 11 a.m. on Vedder Road to pressure for the removal of open-net fish pens in the ocean.



Protesters will march from Sto:lo Nation headquarters to Strahl's constituency office, starting from Building #10 at 7201 Vedder Road.



The rally on Thursday morning in Chilliwack is part of a larger B.C.-wide effort where First Nations and other salmon advocates are demanding better protection of wild salmon from federal officials, said one of the organizers, Eddie Gardner.



"Scientists and wild-fish advocates have long feared the arrival of the salmon flu, which is linked to open-net fish pens and has killed millions of salmon in Europe and Chile.



"Today, with growing evidence that an ISA virus exists in B.C. waters, the Canadian government says it poses no threat to Pacific wild salmon, but they cannot possibly know this," Gardner said.



Some of the actions they're lobbying for:



• Immediate viral testing at fish farms;



• Removal of open-net fish farms from Fraser sockeye migration routes; and



• Suspension of DFO mandate to support salmon aquaculture.



Demonstrations were also held this week at (DFO) offices in Tofino, Nanaimo, Victoria, Vancouver and Lillooet to press for an immediate government response to the alleged detection of Infectious Salmon Anemia virus (ISAv) in B.C.'s wild salmon, despite the fact that federal officials and the fish farm industry have categorically denied this claim.



CFIA made this announcement, while Marine Harvest made this statement about it.



Seven wild salmon tested positive for ISAv this fall, according to advocates' research. They say a 2004 report co-authored by DFO found over 100 cases of ISAv in wild salmon, and that all of the critically endangered Cultus Lake sockeye tested positive in 2002-03 data.



Particularly alarming is the allegation that 64 out of the 64 samples of Cultus Lake sockeye tested positive. "Outrageous" is how a local Sto:lo chief describes it.



"Why was Stó:lő Tribal Council not informed and involved in an emergency response? Could this explain why Cultus Lake Sockeye are doing so poorly? asked Chief Otis Jasper of the Soowahlie First Nation in a release.



DFO failed to make these findings public, and did not submit the report to the Cohen Inquiry.



“This only confirms DFO appears to support the aquaculture industry over wild salmon, and this is an obvious conflict of interest that needs to be corrected, “ said Ernie Victor, Stó:lő Nation Fisheries officer.



The timing of the rally is to coincide with the re-opening this week of the Cohen Commission into the decline of Fraser Sockeye to hear evidence on the salmon virus.



jfeinberg@theprogress.com

[absolon]

I'd suggest the fish farms and DFO are the ones that have the funding.......

That is what you said speaking of who has the resources to carry out the media campaigns and I corrected you. We were speaking of financing those campaigns, not any desire the farms might have to expand though as you say, expansion would create more jobs in job-scarce regions in the province and increase government revenue to help cover some of the growing shortfalls that are leading to decreased services at increased cost. The argument against expansion comes from the reactionaries and is based on a number of prejudicial assumptions that are unproven in our environment, ignore the track record of both farms and regulators and that rely on a base of half truths and misinterpretation for their justification.

Call that image of the grant report nonsense or what ever else you like. Whatever it is, it and that linked .pdf illustrate that there is an organized and well-funded campaign deliberately intended to disrupt the industry. That is completely relevant to Morton and the campaign to disrupt salmon farm operations in BC. It establishes that Morton is not David taking on Goliath as both you and she claim, and that the campaign to eliminate farms is not grassroots or local. It is established, co-ordinated, well-financed and hiding behind a so-called altruistic and populist screen. When Chris shares his chain letters, he is a part of that campaign whether he realizes what underlies it or not.

I'm certainly not complaining about his posting; he is completely entitled to post whatever he likes just as he is also entitled to believe whatever he wants. Posting it does, however, open it up to fair comment just as my comments then become fair game for you. In the end, any reader will have to decide for themselves which is rhetoric and which is reason. Some will decide based on their emotional responses and others on a reasoned, fact based analysis. Some will respond with a personal attack, others with a cogent argument though I have to admit, I've yet to run across a cogent, well thought out argument from the reactionary perspective..

Needless to say, I'm far more interested in hearing from someone who brings a rational approach to the discussion. I like facts, not fear-mongering, because facts can be confirmed and tied to each other by the known rules of logic to create a much more accurate and reliable understanding than can be had from someone who just knows it's wrong but can't really explain why and who when questioned, makes angry attacks and emotional appeals that are based on things that haven't happened.

Edit: I'd appreciate if you would provide a link to Morton's non-profit financial statements. I've not been able to find them.

[troutbreath]

Sounds like someone took being proactive to be "fear mongering". That's called being paranoid. I would recommend medication to take the bite out of reality.

To say that there's no possible way that fish farms can cause disease problems is also way out there and not logical. If only people defending fish farms could get a grasp of the big picture, without feeling threatened by middle aged women.

[absolon]

Being proactive requires adherence to the truth, logic and scientific principles. Fear mongering doesn't.

Being proactive means acknowledging that not a single instance of the purported ISAV discoveries have been confirmed by retest or culture and not a single instance of clinical ISA disease has ever been found in BC.

Fear mongering requires taking unconfirmed findings of ISAV and announcing to the world that ISA is present in BC waters and it was brought there by the salmon farms.

You tell me which group that middle-aged woman falls into.






And no-one that I know of claims that fish farms can't cause disease problems. Indeed, the awareness of that possibility is why the regulatory regime is as strict as it is. Because of that regime, there have been no serious problems in the 30+ year history of salmon farming in BC. Because of that record, the reactionaries are forced to manufacture all sorts of what-if scenarios to justify their opposition and are reduced to fear mongering as their main tool.

And you talk of farm supporters as not seeing the big picture....................................

[alwaysfishn]

That is what you said speaking of who has the resources to carry out the media campaigns and I corrected you. ......................

This is about as far as I got before I lost interest.....   

Edit: I'd appreciate if you would provide a link to Morton's non-profit financial statements. I've not been able to find them.

Here you go... knock yourself out!  http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/menu-eng.html