Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by canoecat, Mar 19, 2009.
I don't see how we're for Fish Farms to have unabated operation...
Ken, no offence but i think you're far too opinionated to be considered "in the middle". In the middle to me indicates that one is of an open mind to all aspects of the discussion.
I think that using words like "engage" and "debate" and "debater" may be keeping some people from joining in the discussion.
There is no need to "engage" anyone or anything, nor to "debate", but friendly discussion is encouraged. There's no fight going on here, nor is this some form of verbal boxing competition. No one is keeping score and there are no prizes. If you think that the discussion has taken it's course, please don't feel compelled to continue posting.
I'd much rather see this discussion as a place where people can come in and comment, offer opinions, ask questions, and receive relevant answers to their queries.
And might I remind you that the purpose of this discussion is about bringing awareness to Alexandra Morton's petition.
Thanks for helping out in that regard. :wink:
I am reading, I finally got some time to read all this, although sometimes I get lost in those long sentences and nuclear disaster and orange and apple and smolt.
Thanks, Nootka for the link for me to read some of the study which is written for "us- the evryday paddler". I could read it without having headach and thick dictionary.
And Dan, thanks so much for the kind reply to confirm my understanding about this.
Like Ken B, I don't like to chose which side to take without seeing all the facts in front of me. But as Dan says, doing something ( like Alexandra does.) is better than doing nothing when we know something have to be fixed. I just want to be in nutral position to be able to sign on both paper regulating on farming and regulating wild fishing to protect wild salmon to eat, sell, and go salmon fishing for the years to come.
Hey people, don't waste your fish!!! It surprise me to see how much of the salmon part gose to the garbage after they clean and cut the salmon to sell and eat. No wonder they over harvest the fish. Because people don't learn how to eat the fish with bone and head kept on :evil:
My favorite part of salmon is salmon roe...I might be contributing to decline of salmon :? .
It looks like Sushi and I are pretty much on the same wavelength, as out-of country "neutral" observers, and perhaps a significant portion of a small corps of readers of this messy thread.
I have to confess there seems to be quite a bit of acrimony and finger pointing, and it is tiresome to wade through that to get at the meat of each person's post. As someone not emotionally involved, I just want the salient stuff, and I don't give a rip about who has got what degree or who has done what for a living. None of that is convincing. Evidence and peer-reviewed studies command my attention.
I agree strongly with Sushi that change in an arena like this one only comes if someone pushes "the system" hard, and it appears Ms. Morton is doing that. I don't know how applying the Fisheries Act to the activities and impact of in-water salmon farms will result in careful analysis and monitoring of water quality near those farms, but if that is the avenue to use, then I'm all for it. Even if her focus is a little misguided (the petition provides so little reference for someone unfamiliar with Canadian law it is hard to tell what it might cause to happen), stirring up the agencies to get off their duffs is always a good way to push things forward.
I'll endorse the petition if it will help get things moving, even though I don't understand all of its ramifications. It would seem the best way to promote attention by the agencies overseeing fish farms, short of suing them for inaction.
Excellent points Astoriadave.
Thanks for this. I doubt that everyone wants to be challenged on everything that they post.
Nootka, maybe you can help me clear up two confusions:
1. The Scottish government study ( http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc ... 030621.pdf ) you mentioned did not seem to have conclusive evidence on the effect of sea lice. At least I did not see that language in the executive summary. Did I miss something there?
2. The lay-person-level article sushi describes thusly (Thanks, Nootka for the link for me to read some of the study which is written for "us- the evryday paddler".) -- is that the one linked above. I think I missed the study she is referring to.
Perhaps your right Dan...as I mentioned in a previous post, I went through the whole Logging-Environment debate of the 80's-90's. Maybe that process tainted me.
Dan, take your 'Rose Coloured' ('Colored' for Astoriadave and sushiy) glasses off for just a moment.
The very fact that you are allowing a political discussion like this one on this site...you are going to attract opinionated or even aggressive people, like me.
Someone slides in here and drops a pointed comment, I'm the type of person, if I don't agree, is going to ask that person to back the statement up, or I'll post a counter-point.
In my opinion, you can demand the discussion stay civil, your the moderator...but, you can't allow a Rough topic and try to Smooth all the edges out.
I did warn you... :wink:
The platitude about democracy is that it requires an educated and informed electorate to function properly.
Forum's like this go a long way to help in informing. I know I've learned a lot through participating in this discussion.
Ken B, no rose coloured glasses here.
It is not necessary for this discussion to become heated or for others to challenge everything that is stated -- especially over and over when reasons for their opinions have already been clearly given. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to feel that by entering this discussion that they will be "engaging" in a "debate" -- it's a discussion forum, not a game show site. I would prefer that people can come here, comment on what's posted, ask questions and receive thoughtful and considerate answers (which, historically is the case with this website).
There's nothing wrong with smooth edges when it comes to discussion on this website regardless of the topic -- it helps keep things friendly and it does not mean that discussion needs to be oppressed. This site is a place of learning, not confrontation. Please don't make us rethink the type of discussion that we should allow here.
No argument from me - unfortunately as you mentioned about the meeting that you attended, decorum is not always present (or understood).
Thanks for saying so Ken. The best that we can hope for is that people will go away from this site feeling that they've been elevated a bit -- myself included.
That is correct ADave:
That particular link (tho dated) is probably impartial (Scottish government); states that the farms were only affecting a small portion of seabed with their waste feed etc; and states that the sea lice appeared to be a problem but it was not conclusive.
This is the problem ... the sea lice studies are not 100% conclusive. For me, the studies indicate that there is a potential problem with a huge downside. It appears that others won't be convinced until there are no wild salmon left ... actually they still would not be convinced.
Since ADave is interested in science, here is a summary of URLs posted so far (I've omitted Ken's leech):
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform ... QnBwQmc6MA
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/attachment ... _Final.pdf
http://www.pacificsalmonforum.ca/final/ ... final_faqs
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform ... QnBwQmc6MA
http://www.mangroveactionproject.org/ne ... -standards
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&clien ... arch&meta=
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_qd ... arch&meta=
http://www.imr.no/english/news/2001/lar ... ognefjord2
http://www.saveourskeenasalmon.org/cont ... ild-stocks
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc ... 030621.pdf
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/o ... nomics.pdf
In my opinion Ken & Ken are not posting enough URLs to justify their strongly-worded opinions. And I am referring to scientific URLs, not some opinion by someone with a financial stake in aquaculture.
I too am tiring of this. It certainly appears that Ken & Ken have fixed opinions; so I am posting hoping other readers learn from the discussion. I would appreciate posts from people who are reading this discussion ... is it helpful?
Thanks, nootka. That is a lot of reading! I will chew through it as I get time.
Odd there is nothing definitive on the effect of sea lice. Certainly a common phenomenon on mature fish, fully wild and after long residence in the ocean. Well, I guess I really don't know whether "our" salmon in the Columbia have avoided inner waters or not. I bet no one knows.
Here are some general news urls as well as those for studies themselves. I think there is one about louse effect on juvenile salmon:
farming advocates news item – note discussion similarities - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... rming.html
basic news items
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006 ... 61002.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... -farm.html
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007 ... -lice.html
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/new ... 1c70d77d0c
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/pub ... ochure.htm
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/pub ... icePub.htm
The Uof A
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/Sea ... proofs.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.full.pdf - epizootics
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mlewis/pub ... eaLice.pdf
U of Washington
Let me get this straight...your keeping score by URL links?
You feel I haven't backed up my position?
My one link ALONE deals with an independant summary of 80 study papers.
By your criteria...and if we expand that to individual studies...your WAY behind.
Gee...I guess I could have isolated every study in the link and posted them, separately... :roll:
Further to my point...based on your criteria of URL links, you are also implying that Dan, who has provided only 1 link, hasn't proven his position either.
Is this about right?
Ken, please stop being confrontational and instead listen to what people are saying. As I said before no one is keeping score here. There's no point to the oneupmanship that is being displayed. I really do hope that you can understand my position when I say that we're here to learn from one another and not to be argumentative for arguments sake.
btw: I've removed your quote of nootka's post because it's a long post and it's only two posts above your reply.
Ken, the final report from the Pacific Salmon Foundation (your second URL) states this on page 12:
It seems to me this contradicts your position (new study=hype).
So what exactly is your position & how does this support it?
And I see Dan as not having a position ... more of an interest in what the situation is.
How was that 'Confrontational'?
I was reacting to nootka's statement.
Nootka 'Called Out' the validity of Ken V's and my opinion's...at least, where I come from, it sure sounded that way.
Isn't that the way you read it Dan?
BTW...I made no statements or allegations...just asked questions.
Dan, Ken is not confrontational, he's just direct. :lol:
Now I'm not exactly sure what your referring to...I will assume the 'New Study=Hype' reference is relating to the new study just released (about Fraser River Sockeye) that is mentioned in the petition...and my comments about that...?
Is that it?
Yes Ken. How can you say a study is hype before you read it?
Are you prepared to call yourself out?
You say you are in the middle ... but you also seem to be very critical of the hypothesis that sea lice are a potential disaster. And yet your URL sure makes it look like there is a problem. Help me out here Ken, before I get really confused.
Separate names with a comma.