Alex Morton Launches Petition

Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by canoecat, Mar 19, 2009.

  1. stuckonearth

    stuckonearth Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Pink salmon are wild salmon too, are they not?

    Ken, you go on and on about no statistics and then when someone presents them or in this case indicates that they exist, you still complain and mock the statement. I too am getting the impression that you just like to argue.

    It's an imperfect world in which we live but it's nice to see people like Alexandra Morton doing something on behalf of everyone to make it a better place. I support her!
     
  2. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    I recently went to a meeting about the Plutonic Power Project proposed for Bute Inlet. The intention of the meeting was to discuss some ground rules for an environmental assessment being done by the Province and the Feds.

    There was throng of people who had come to the meeting. They came from as far away as Vancouver and perhaps points beyond. And they didn't come to listen. They came to complain. Even our MLA lined up with the rest of us who were exercising our freedom of expression.

    They complained about the provincial government taking the ability to have a say from the regional districts. They complained about the fact that GE, who is putting up the money, was a US company (one in which you too can buy shares). They complained that the power was earmarked for sale to California when in fact it was being sold to BC Hydro. They complained that the Liberal government was getting a kickback from Plutonic Power. They accused the director of Plutonic of bribing Provincial authorities. Lots of red herrings including lies, damn lies, and statistics were quoted to support their 'plaints.

    Yes, there were also some valid concerns expressed about salmon habitat, bear habitat, transimission corridors through third growth forest, and effects on Bute Inlet viewscapes, but the signal really was lost in the noise.

    Further I think I recognized some people from similar meetings over the gas plant in Nanaimo, the wind turbine farm on James Island and the ocean power projects proposed for Tofino. They are not there to provide constructive criticism and they will also be out there complaining when the Province goes dark for lack of generating capacity.

    This protest about fish farms has a lot of similarities. There may be some facts in the verbiage but I'm not hearing much about anything factual other than information being expressed in terms not stronger than professional opinion.

    I must confess that I don't have a lot of sympathy for fishermen who will not accept any of the blame for the over-fishing that has gone on for too long. My prejudice has me convinced that the fish farms are contibuting naught but a small part to the decimation of the wild fishery.

    I've never been to Missouri but you'll have to show me some facts first anyway. Frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me either.
     
  3. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    Tell me Ken V, what would happen if no one complained and everyone just threw their arms up and went "oh, well".

    As much as I despise the extreme "tree hugger" blind mentality, I'm really glad that those people are there and are questioning the corporate all-for-money megalomaniacs. Perhaps the tree huggers distort their views to suit their needs, but then most others do too -- most certainly the big corporate world does. If no one complained, there would be undoubtedly many, many more places along the coastline (and inland as well) where factories, hydro stations, and other businesses would be spewing harmful pollutants and creating other ecological problems to our natural earth settings. Yes, in order to maintain the existence that we have, some of these non-environmentally friendly factories may need to be there but I'm really glad that someone is actively trying to keep the corporate world in check. I'd hate to even imagine what our world would look like if no one cared enough to say enough is enough.

    I think the tree huggers create a balance for the opposite extremities -- and in most instances their viewpoints are considered to be those of crackpots -- but consider that that at the other end of the scale there are just as many crackpots, who are arguably much more dangerous -- they just wear suits and ties instead of tie-dyed shirts.

    Somewhere in the middle is where I think the rationale exists -- and I firmly believe that Ms. Morton is in that category.

    *****
     
  4. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    The Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway
    Does this count as a fact, Ken V?

    Sure looks like prejudice to me. Wild salmon are threatened by several problems. We should be fixing all the problems. The fish farm threat is easily reduced ... if the price of farmed salmon doubles as a result, so what? The oil companies bitched when tetra-ethyl lead was legislated against ... I don't see that they are hurting for money.
     
  5. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    On the other extreme, where we are now, it is not possible to have a discussion with a high signal to noise ratio. As a result our Provincial government isn't listening anymore. Doing things like negotiating treaties without asking how it affects the public trust doctrine. And that is really bad news.
     
  6. Ken B

    Ken B Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Campbell River, B.C.
    You know what Dan...
    My hat goes off to people like Alexandra.
    Thank goodness someone stands up for the other side of an issue.
    I concede that alot of activities need watchdogs...'Checks and Balances'...Logging, Mining, and Fish Farms included.
    My objection is, as I've stated before, the manner in which information is released...from either side.
    I object to exaggeration, and in some cases information that's just not true!
    Is it ALL lies?...I don't believe so...but did I not catch a lie in this thread?...accident or not.
    Perhaps the unfortunate truth is, special interest groups need to exaggerate/lie to get attention...but I for one don't have to like it.
    Why lie?

    I was in the middle of the whole C.O.R.E. process in the early 90's, I've witnessed the gross exaggeration that both sides can spew.
    For the record...it was a damn good thing there was strong opposition to Logging of the day...anyone with half a sense knew the level of harvesting at the time was not sustainable.
    But...I didn't like the rhetoric...and I didn't like the fact that a lot of people 'Blindly' followed the rhetoric.
    I see the same earmarks with this issue.
    nootka...though I am not exactly a 'TreeHugger', I was an advocate for balance...which, by the way didn't go over very popular with some of my customers (Logging Companies).

    Please allow me to ask you a few things Dan and stuckonearth...
    Are you sure that it is Fish Farms that are THE major factor in wild salmon stock depletion on our coast?...and how are you sure?
    (Please give me an idea of the information that you are basing your opinion on.)
    If it was your decision alone, today...would you ban all open-net Fish Farms on the B.C. coast immediately?...are you alone willing to put (potentially) hundreds/thousands out of a job as a result?

    Or...If a SAFE solution (a balance) can be found that will allow Fish-Farms to operate in our waters...would you support it?

    stuckonearth,
    Did I not say:
    "My point is...one study shouldn't mean it's absolutely CONCLUSIVE.
    If one side puts out a statement or claim...I like to hear what the other side says.
    I think it is a thing that is called 'Critical Thinking'."
    I mock the fact that one side is saying 'The Science is In' ACT NOW...aren't you at least curious to know if it's really true, is it possible the study may be flawed?
    Dan...I firmly don't agree.

    Very good point nootka.
    But it was after a lot of science and an alternative was found that the trigger was pulled.



    Maybe fish farms are a small contributor to the problem...maybe they are poison....do we have enough facts?...I'm not convinced.
    Put the facts on the table...let science take it's course...hopefully, let an informed objective majority decide...is that too much to ask.
    As I've stated many times, I'm not for or against Fish Farming...I'm for science and making an informed decision.
    Maybe a solution/balance can be found that doesn't put hundreds/thousands on the street.
    I'm with Ken V...I'm not convinced yet.
     
  7. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    Good! But perhaps you could tell us what constitutes good science to a man on the street?
     
  8. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Fact: a high abundance of sea lice found in fish from Sognefjord
    Fact: no sea lice found in fish from Namsfjord
    Fact: 15 or more lice per fish kills the fish
    Fact: Average number of 81 lice per fish from Sognefjord
    Fact: distribution theory says 95% of the fish from Sognefjord will die

    Someone needs to figure out where the smolts are picking up so much lice.

    Your statement doesn't even provide that there are fish farms in Sognefjord. Shall we make that assumption?

    From here you can make a hypothesis that the lice are coming from a fish farm in Sognefjord but it is not here established as fact that it is so.

    Yes we should be fixing all the problems. And fish populations were already on the ropes before the fish farms came into being.

    As all we have is a hypothesis that the high incidence of lice is due to fish farming and we know for a fact that the fish stocks are low due to overfishing should we not focus on the problem of overfishing first?
     
  9. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    This deserves a quote even though I've nothing else to add.

    Now who's not reading carefully? I didn't mention anywhere in this discussion that I believe that it is the ONLY factor, or even the major factor. In fact, here's a quote from an earlier post:

    Can I conclude by your not reading what I say carefully, that although you claim to read all available studies and data on the topic that you may not be reading and comprehending it accurately?


    Yes, based on the information that I've read, I indeed would. I don't know where you get the numbers of people who would be out of a job but even assuming that the numbers you quote are correct, there will be no jobs in the distant future is nothing is done to correct the problem. I think (and I know that you disagree so let's not argue the point), that fish farming in it's current state is detrimental to the long-term survival of the salmon.


    As I've already mentioned in the discussion, of course I would (although I would first need to consider your definition of "balance").


    I'll take a stab at this one. You haven't even seen the study that was referenced and yet you've already formed an opinion. C'mon Ken, you've got to open your thinking to accept that all is not doom and gloom and that everyone has a nefarious agenda. And who's to say that one study is not conclusive? And for what it's worth, the other "side" will generally come up with something that will contradict the other so we're right back at a neutral point again. He said, she said. Let's not even go there.


    Fair enough. That's your perogative. My perogative is that I believe her. There are also many in the scientific community who also agree and support what she says. I think her motives are purely for the betterment of mankind and I see not a single hint of a hidden agenda. I believe she's the real deal. I've no reason not to believe her. She stands to personally gain exactly what through all this?

    Ken, at the end of all this, where is the harm in doing EVERYTHING that we can to eliminate all the problems that are obviously there? I doubt that even you can argue that there is enough evidence to know that there is indeed a problem with sea lice and other diseases and that it does create a problem for the survival of salmon. If you can't, I think it's an indication that you can't be open minded enough to accept the scientific evidence that clearly indicates that it is a real problem. I don't think that closing fish farms is the complete answer to the problem at hand, but it is without a doubt part of the equation to solving the problem.

    *****
     
  10. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    I don't know if it is possible. I agree with you but you already know that I (and you) have no control over the people who aren't intelligent enough and honest enough to consider all aspects of a particular problem. The fringe will always muddy the waters. I don't know what the solution to that particular problem is. Maybe education? Ignore them? I just don't know.

    *****
     
  11. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    A real scientist who had read ANY of the quoted literature would not make this statement.

    (1) It's more than just a hypothesis. Define "know for a fact".
    (2) Killing 95% of the smolts is a huge problem ... do it 4 times & you get .000625% of the original population.
    (3) Fixing the fish farm sea lice problem is easily done if our politicians had any backbone. Having a high percentage of science-illiterates lets the politicians get away with this.
    (4) Overfishing also needs to be fixed ... but it's not a case of doing one and ignoring the other.

    source emphasis is mine

    What's your level of science training, Ken V? In your opinion, what is good science? What does it take for you to accept a hypothesis?
     
  12. Ken B

    Ken B Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Campbell River, B.C.
    Guilty as charged.


    No I haven't seen the study yet...to my understanding, this is the first study claiming the effects of Fish Farming to Fraser River Sockeye...do you put all your stock into a first report?
    My point is, regardless of who's 'Study', especially if it's the first claim made, shouldn't one be objective and wait to see if the study has flaws?
    Regardless whether it is the first claim or not...See my previous statement:
    Or as I've said...is it about 'The Science is In' Act Now.

    Popular opinion is, for every direct job, add 4-5 spin-off jobs (suppliers of the industry).
    When I think of a policy issue that deals with job loss...I put myself in the picture...would I be willing to go to that person's house, in front of his/her family and hand them their pink slip based on my belief?
    I own a business...there is nothing worse than to have to make a decision that effects a person's livelihood (layoff). If you haven't done it, you have no idea how traumatic it is. I make damn sure there are no alternatives before I have to do that deed.
    I guess it would make it easier if one didn't know that person...but, isn't that a little heartless?
    Dan, are that sure?...would you personally hand out the pink slips?


    Sea Lice claims...
    One of the reason's I've been cautious about Sea Lice claims:
    I talked with a First Nation's woman once, her family has deep roots (generations) in Commercial Fishing...she told me her Grandfather's first job as a kid on the family boat (in Prince Rupert) was to scrape the sea lice off the fish they caught...that would have been 60-70 years ago...
    Does that give you any pause?...it did me.

    I wonder if the lack of wild salmon hosts has had an effect on sea lice...could it be that they can flourish in open-pen Fish Farms due to density of hosts?
    Like Ken V has stated...I believe the reduction of wild salmon stock is due to over-fishing.
    I won't argue the fact that Fish Farms are a problem regarding sea lice...but, only because it may be an effect from fewer wild salmon which started the problem.
    Can the Fish Farm industry find a way to control sea lice?
    They won't get a chance if Morton has her way.
     
  13. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    They already know how to control sea lice. They do it in Norway via several methods. READ THE LITERATURE!!!
     
  14. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    Ken B: If your main concern is job loss ... then you are for wild salmon fishing and you are against aquaculture. I've kayaked past a few fish farms ... never see any employees. When I kayak past places like Ferrer Pt, there are sport fishing boats all over the place. I've seen commercial fishing boats during most of my V.I. kayak trips.
    Sport fishing has lots of spin-off jobs ... in the little towns that need them. Aquaculture just needs the chemical factories to produce a little more herbicide and pesticide ... maybe some extra copper.
     
  15. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    I've been an employer for most of my life -- laying off and firing people is far from the worst part of being an employer. Depends how you approach it I suppose -- in my case, I've never had hard feelings from anyone I've had to lay off, in fact, most of those people were happy to return when work was once again there (some even left other jobs they had found to return). As far as firing people goes, hey, if someone needs firing, it's because there is good reasoning to let them go and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Life goes on in the business world but if we deplete all the salmon, there won't be any more jobs to come back to.


    No problem at all. But before you start calling me a heartless sob, bear in mind that the entire effort of Ms. Morton is not to abolish fish farming but to create environmentally responsible closed pen farms out of the way of migratory routes. This being the case, it's doubtful that there would be any permanent job loss.


    Fish farms have been in existence in this province for over 30 years, I'd say that's more than ample time for them to find a way to deal with the problem -- the problem is not something that has developed just recently. And the solution that they've come up with is to pour countless chemicals in the water, in open pen fish farms that are not contained, thereby poisoning other natural life in the area -- how large that area is, I suppose depends upon currents, etc., and the amount of chemical they use -- you can argue all you want that there are no conclusive studies but the sorry fact is that you don't need to be a scientist to understand that something introduced into the water to kill a form of life won't have adverse effects on other life -- show me a study conducted by fish farm owners (or any neutral organization) that proves these chemicals don't have any adverse effect on other marine life and you might make a convert out of me. The fact is that areas outside their pens are being adversely effected. They've had their chance and it's time to move on before more damage is done.

    *****
     
  16. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    This discussion is beginning to remind me of the kids song "The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round..."

    *****
     
  17. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
  18. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    You wanted a NON in there, right Dan?

    A good summary (Scottish govt) from 2002 is here. See the Executive Summary on pages 5 - 8

    Well, you'll never convince those that are immune to logic & reason, but maybe we can open a few eyes among those that just aren't aware of the problem.
     
  19. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    I actually appended the post to include neutral organizations but fish farm owners was what I intended -- I'd have no problem entertaining and reviewing a study conducted and funded by fish farm operators. To not do so, might indicate an unfair bias on my part.

    Thanks for the link. I'm heading out right now but I'll take a look at it after I get back.

    *****
     
  20. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Campbell River
    To back up my earlier statement regarding jobs:
    [​IMG]

    source

    That's 4000 person-years for aquaculture & 12,650 person-years for commercial & recreational fishing.