Print

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

[Dave]

Welcome aboard Fisherbob

[alwaysfishn]

I am starting to wonder about Dr. Morton.
   http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/salmon-confidential-exposed-%E2%80%93-comment-interest
  Some very good arguments.

If I read only the fish feedlot blogs and accepted them as being the truth......    I'd probably have the same thoughts you are having.

You need to look at what motivates people to write what they do. Feedlots will say and do whatever is necessary to continue generating profits by placing their cesspools in our ocean. Morton's sole motivation is to protect the wild salmon. The income she earns as a result could be labeled as poverty level.

[Dave]

. Morton's sole motivation is to protect the wild salmon. The income she earns as a result could be labeled as poverty level.

I agree with your first sentence above but wonder, are you doing her accounting? How do we know where the thousands of $ collected are directed?  Just asking.

[alwaysfishn]

I agree with your first sentence above but wonder, are you doing her accounting? How do we know where the thousands of $ collected are directed?  Just asking.

Good question....  She operates a charitable foundation. In order to retain charitable status(which gives the donors a tax deduction) every charity (in the US and Canada) must report their income and expenses and the records are public domain. Google is your friend.

Do a search in this forum as this has been reviewed in detail when another feedlot boy posed the same question.

[absolon]

I agree with your first sentence above but wonder, are you doing her accounting? How do we know where the thousands of $ collected are directed?  Just asking.

If Morton's sole motivation is to protect the wild salmon, one has to wonder where her voice is on all those other issues that are proven to affect wild salmon survival.

If one were to look at the actual reality and make a judgement solely based on that rather than on claims made by both Morton and the girls that support her, one would have to say that her single target is the salmon farms and consequently one would be forced to conclude that her sole motivation is to eliminate salmon farms.

[troutbreath]

Maybe she was jilted by a salmon farming type guy? I think your trying to speak for her about motives. That can be called assuming.

[absolon]

Would that be the same kind of assuming as those who claim to know her only motivation is to save the wild salmon?

What I'm applying isn't called assuming. It's called inductive reasoning and as I mentioned, is an attempt to infer a conclusion based on a study of the actual facts.

[chris gadsden]

If Morton's sole motivation is to protect the wild salmon, one has to wonder where her voice is on all those other issues that are proven to affect wild salmon survival.

If one were to look at the actual reality and make a judgement solely based on that rather than on claims made by both Morton and the girls that support her, one would have to say that her single target is the salmon farms and consequently one would be forced to conclude that her sole motivation is to eliminate salmon farms.

The issue she is dealing with is enough for her to tackle. Of course there is an opportunity for you and others to take on the other concerns you mention, maybe you are already and of course we would not know that.

[absolon]

Point is Chris that if she isn't dealing with those other issues it's incorrect to say that her motivation is saving the wild salmon. If that were her motivation, one would expect she would address the broader issues.

Instead, she is motivated on a single issue and that is the elimination of the farms and indeed draws upon support on that issue from major contributors to the problem of declining wild stocks, those being the commercial fishery, native bands and their harvests and the sports fishery.

That clearly indicates that her overall goal is not saving the stocks but rather satisfying a personal agenda. I don't have any issue with her choosing to do that, but I do have an issue with the dishonesty that attempts to cloak those actions as something other than what they are just as I have an issue with all those who use dishonest representations in service of personal ends.

[chris gadsden]

Point is Chris that if she isn't dealing with those other issues it's incorrect to say that her motivation is saving the wild salmon. If that were her motivation, one would expect she would address the broader issues.

Instead, she is motivated on a single issue and that is the elimination of the farms and indeed draws upon support on that issue from major contributors to the problem of declining wild stocks, those being the commercial fishery, native bands and their harvests and the sports fishery.

That clearly indicates that her overall goal is not saving the stocks but rather satisfying a personal agenda. I don't have any issue with her choosing to do that, but I do have an issue with the dishonesty that attempts to cloak those actions as something other than what they are just as I have an issue with all those who use dishonest representations in service of personal ends.

If nothing else it has helped triggered the newly announces study and maybe we all will finally get the answers to the question Alex and many other are asking and have brought to the fore front. I think all this controversy in the media including Cohen has the present government feeling the public pressure to do something. They know an election is not all that far away. I know we all hope the study does not take too long and is done with no hidden agenda.

Here is more on the subject from Damien. http://thecanadian.org/item/1975-new-film-cutting-edge-research-probe-salmon-virus-mystery-confidential-morton-miller-gillis

[alwaysfishn]

Point is Chris that if she isn't dealing with those other issues it's incorrect to say that her motivation is saving the wild salmon. If that were her motivation, one would expect she would address the broader issues.

Instead, she is motivated on a single issue and that is the elimination of the farms and indeed draws upon support on that issue from major contributors to the problem of declining wild stocks, those being the commercial fishery, native bands and their harvests and the sports fishery.

Let's be honest, you would prefer that she disappear off the face of the planet as opposed to addressing the "broader issues". Speak to anyone that has achieved success in an endevour, and they will tell you that the key to success is to remain focused. Perhaps you would like her to "address the broader issues" so as to take a little heat of the feedlots?

That clearly indicates that her overall goal is not saving the stocks but rather satisfying a personal agenda. I don't have any issue with her choosing to do that, but I do have an issue with the dishonesty that attempts to cloak those actions as something other than what they are just as I have an issue with all those who use dishonest representations in service of personal ends.

Why don't you first prove that she is doing this for personal benefit. From what you've posted to date on this issue, all I read is a lot of assumptions and slander. Previously I've given you credit for being more professional than that.

[absolon]

If nothing else it has helped triggered the newly announces study and maybe we all will finally get the answers to the question Alex and many other are asking and have brought to the fore front. I think all this controversy in the media including Cohen has the present government feeling the public pressure to do something. They know an election is not all that far away. I know we all hope the study does not take too long and is done with no hidden agenda.

Here is more on the subject from Damien. http://thecanadian.org/item/1975-new-film-cutting-edge-research-probe-salmon-virus-mystery-confidential-morton-miller-gillis

Chris, the study being proposed is a result of the Cohen Inquiry, plain and simple. Just as Morton tried to turn the Inquiry into the status of the sockeye to an inquiry into fishfarms, she is now trying to take credit for it's results in spite of being censured by Cohen several times for her behavior.

It all comes back to what I said earlier about dishonest representations in service of her own agenda.

[absolon]

Let's be honest, you would prefer that she disappear off the face of the planet as opposed to addressing the "broader issues". Speak to anyone that has achieved success in an endevour, and they will tell you that the key to success is to remain focused. Perhaps you would like her to "address the broader issues" so as to take a little heat of the feedlots?

Why don't you first prove that she is doing this for personal benefit. From what you've posted to date on this issue, all I read is a lot of assumptions and slander. Previously I've given you credit for being more professional than that.

Blah blah blah blah blah..........

[Dave]

Good question....  She operates a charitable foundation. In order to retain charitable status(which gives the donors a tax deduction) every charity (in the US and Canada) must report their income and expenses and the records are public domain. Google is your friend.

Do a search in this forum as this has been reviewed in detail when another feedlot boy posed the same question.

Yeah, I remember that post.  I was meaning the cash and personal cheque donations of all the well meaning grey haired ladies from naturalist clubs, granola eaters and weekend hikers from the British Properties, sports and commercial fishermen from Fish and Game clubs and so called salmon advocacy groups who need to spend their salmon restoration dollars somehow, but sadly have been hoodwinked into funding a cause that will supposedly save wild salmon.
 As absolon stated the irony is it is these groups, along with FN, who are  causing the highest mortality of BC’s wild salmon.
I understand  13,000 people had seen Morton’s  latest documentary before it found it's way on line ... most likely donations were accepted before the screenings (can anyone reading this confirm that?)
If money was collected how is it accounted for?   And what about the money you and other anti salmon farmers have donated to the cause (no names necessary, you know who you are, lol) ... did you receive receipts or any information on where your money went or was heading?
 What's that, you didn't donate??   Oh.
 

[alwaysfishn]

.......... I was meaning the cash and personal cheque donations of all the well meaning grey haired ladies from naturalist clubs, granola eaters and weekend hikers from the British Properties, sports and commercial fishermen from Fish and Game clubs and so called salmon advocacy groups who need to spend their salmon restoration dollars somehow, but sadly have been hoodwinked into funding a cause that will supposedly save wild salmon.
 As absolon stated the irony is it is these groups, along with FN, who are  causing the highest mortality of BC’s wild salmon.
I understand  13,000 people had seen Morton’s  latest documentary before it found it's way on line ... most likely donations were accepted before the screenings (can anyone reading this confirm that?)
If money was collected how is it accounted for?   And what about the money you and other anti salmon farmers have donated to the cause (no names necessary, you know who you are, lol) ... did you receive receipts or any information on where your money went or was heading?
 What's that, you didn't donate??   Oh.
 

What a lot of nonsense! Unless people are walking by her and tucking bills into her pockets, every organization including fish and game clubs and advocacy groups are required to do their own accounting. Since 911 the financial reporting guidelines have become very strict in order to detect funding of terrorist organizations.

You and Abby can't be that naive to believe the nonsense you post....    on the other hand maybe you are.....

The feedlot industry has such a hate on for Morton, that probably this very minute they are trying to dig up dirt on her that they can use in their "PR campaigns". If they had the tiniest bit of information on her financial dealings that could be used to discredit her, they would have used it long ago. As a result they are smart enough to avoid making statements like you've made, which are slanderous and would likely land them in court.

Heck even the government finds her campaign to save wild salmon conflicts with their goal of increasing feedlots in the oceans and would discredit her if they could. They would have all the info they needed if in fact there was any evidence of financial indiscretion on her part. They certainly moved Staniford out the country quickly when they were able to.

Morton is not only passionate about wild salmon, she is not going to do anything as stupid as what you and others are suggesting. My sense is that personal financial gain is something she doesn't even consider.