Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: mykisscrazy on February 06, 2012, 07:33:59 PM
-
Well if this happens....a good deal of bickering will stop on this discussion page!
Mark Hume
Scientists seek to learn whether fish farms kill fish
VANCOUVER— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Feb. 05, 2012 9:06PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Feb. 05, 2012 9:13PM EST
A group of leading fisheries scientists have come up with a proposal to answer some of the most pressing and difficult environmental questions on the West Coast: Are fish farms killing wild salmon? And if so, how many?
Debate on the environmental impact of fish farms has raged in British Columbia for over a decade. Environmentalists blame aquaculture for causing a collapse in wild salmon populations by spreading sea lice and disease, but there has never been any hard scientific evidence to prove those claims.
Now David Welch, who has done groundbreaking work tracking fish at sea with acoustic transmitters, has put together a team of some of the brightest fisheries researchers in Canada to solve the mystery.
Dr. Welch testified last year to the Cohen Commission, explaining how his acoustical tracking work had shown that salmon smolts, in their first year at sea, were vanishing in Queen Charlotte Strait, just past the northern tip of Vancouver Island.
Because fish farms are clustered in a bottleneck in Discovery Passage on the northeast coast of Vancouver Island, Dr. Welch’s research raised suspicions that wild salmon might be picking up diseases and/or lice as they migrated past the farms, then dying some weeks later in Queen Charlotte Sound.
In December, Dr. Welch filed a supplemental report with the Cohen Commission, saying a new analysis shows his data is even stronger than he first thought. So many fish died north of the farms, he stated, that it could explain the Fraser River’s catastrophic sockeye collapse in 2009, when only one million fish returned to spawn, instead of 10 million.
“This level of higher mortality would be sufficient to fully explain the 10-fold decline in Fraser sockeye survival seen since 1990,” states Dr. Welch.
He cautions that “this new result remains a correlation, not proof that the fish farms caused the reduced survival,” but he proposes a way to find out.
Working with several prominent researchers – including Scott Hinch of the University of British Columbia and Kristi Miller of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans – he proposes to tag thousands of salmon smolts with acoustic transmitters and to track them up the coast, past the fish farms and deep into Queen Charlotte Sound.
The researchers would use control groups, including fish held in pens near fish farms, as well as fish released in pristine areas where they cannot come into contact with farms.
“Whether fish farming caused the widespread decline of southern British Columbia salmon stocks is hotly debated, and it is unlikely that evidence reported at the Cohen Judicial Inquiry can resolve the controversy,” Dr. Welch writes in an overview of his proposal. “[But] if fish farms reduce survival by disease transfer, parasite load, or some unknown agent, then there should be a measurable decline in survival of the exposed smolts relative to controls.”
He says the project should not only show whether fish farms are killing salmon – but how many salmon are killed.
“We believe that the statistical power of the design we have identified is high enough that by the end of 3-5 years a clear decision can be made about whether fish-farm impacts are unacceptably large and the industry should be regulated to minimize interaction with wild stocks,” writes Dr. Welch.
Several fisheries scientists have written letters of support that have been filed with the Cohen Commission.
Steven Cooke, Canada Research Chair in Fish Ecology at Carleton University, states the study is sorely needed to finally settle the issue of whether fish farms are to blame for wild salmon declines.
Paul LeBlond, Professor Emeritus at UBC, writes that the study “could save years of further bickering” over the fish-farm issue.
And Neil Frazer, Professor of Geophysics at the University of Hawaii, states that Dr. Welch’s work marks “a watershed in fisheries research” because his methods “turn fish into moving reporters on the marine environment.”
To do the study, Dr. Welch needs $3-million a year in funding for up to five years. That’s a lot of money – but it’s not much when you consider that Dr. Welch could end the war over fish farms and provide the scientific base that government needs to properly regulate the industry.
That’s a deal worth fishing for.
-
Well if this happens....a good deal of bickering will stop on this discussion page!
The fish farms should have an interest in funding this, but they're not going to...... ??? because they are afraid of the results.
-
Lots of big names there from the current experts of the day. Of course this will be funded; can't not be. Get ready to get busy A ;D
-
Good to see that someone else is suggesting there is a concern with the fish farms in the areas they are presently located. ;D ;D ;D
-
Let's see how much Alexandra Morton puts up....All groups who have an interest in wild salmon should take part
Hopefully Alwaysfishin you are wrong about the Aquaculture Industry. I would not be too surprised if they play a role.
All the people who I know who are involved in the Industry do deeply care about Wild Salmon in BC.
But imagine if it's found that the farms are not causing a problem....
-
Let's see how much Alexandra Morton puts up....All groups who have an interest in wild salmon should take part
Hopefully Alwaysfishin you are wrong about the Aquaculture Industry. I would not be too surprised if they play a role.
All the people who I know who are involved in the Industry do deeply care about Wild Salmon in BC.
But imagine if it's found that the farms are not causing a problem....
Do you seriously believe that these people would be fighting the feedlot industry if didn't have many reasons to believe that it is a huge risk to our wild salmon? Morton and Staniford and others are not stupid people, they just carry their passion for wild salmon, to the next level. Unfortunately they don't have the dollars backing them that the feedlots do. All of them operate under non-profit agencies whose financial records are public. Take some time and check them out. It will answer the question as to how much Morton can afford to put up..... ::) ::)
Morton and Staniford's fight can be compared to the growing objection to building the Enbridge pipeline across BC. Unfortunately the feedlot industry got a foot hold in our oceans before we realized the damage they are causing. Now they argue that they are not harming the wild salmon because you can't prove they are killing them. ???
I was being sarcastic when I suggested that the feedlots should fund this new research. There is absolutely no chance that they will ever put up the money.... It's like asking the tobacco industry to put money into researching whether tobacco is harmful. ???
-
Your buddy Don doesn't operate under a registered non-profit agency and his records are certainly not public. In fact, I suspect his organization, the Global Alliance against Industrial Aquaculture, exists only on the harddrive of his laptop and some rented space on a web server. The website lists no information about who backs his group, what specifically he does and how he spends the money he raises. The only name associated with it is his, and the only contact information is an email address that leads to him.
The financial records that are available for Morton show that the bulk of the money she raises comes from re-granting by large private foundations and surprisingly little comes from Joe and Jane Citizen. Both Morton and Staniford are part of a larger coalition of groups that receive considerable funding from a network of private foundations and much less from private individuals. There is a substantial pool of money available to these groups; to suggest they are financially outgunned by the farming industry is to propagate another of the myths that the movement relies so heavily upon.
I don't care a whit about what these people believe is the truth. I care about what they can show to be the truth. It is a nonsensical idea that because they say it is so, it must be so. It is a nonsensical idea to compare this to the Enbridge situation and it is a nonsensical idea to compare the fish farms to the tobacco industry. Indeed, the whole reactionary movement has moved well beyond the reasonable and the rational into the nonsensical where people like yourselves will say absolutely anything regardless of accuracy or ability to substantiate in order to paint fish farms as evil.
-
For someone who is so critical of anyone that posts any unsupported opinion, you certainly are throwing out a lot of it. ::)
Whether a charity is private or public it exists to not only carry out a charitable work, but it also provides a charitable tax receipt for the donors. In other words, the contributions and expenditures are very transparent, as they must be reported through CRA. In order to receive certification as a charity the organization must demonstrate it's charitable objectives. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/pplyng/menu-eng.html (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/pplyng/menu-eng.html) Conditions for registering a charity and maintaining one are much more stringent since 9-11. This is because in the past charities have been used to fund terrorism. Failure to follow the guidelines set out by CRA will result in an immediate withdrawal of the organizations charitable status.
Your biased opinions with respect to the whole topic of salmon feedlots hasn't earned you a lot of credibility. Why don't you provide some backup for your financial conspiracy theories? Apply your own philosophy for a change...... "I care about what they can show to be the truth".
-
Af, If you could have named the tittle of this thread what would you have named it?
-
Af, If you could have named the tittle title of this thread what would you have named it?
I think the title is appropriate. ( I corrected the spelling for you) ;D
-
For someone who is so critical of anyone that posts any unsupported opinion, you certainly are throwing out a lot of it. ::)
Whether a charity is private or public it exists to not only carry out a charitable work, but it also provides a charitable tax receipt for the donors. In other words, the contributions and expenditures are very transparent, as they must be reported through CRA. In order to receive certification as a charity the organization must demonstrate it's charitable objectives. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/pplyng/menu-eng.html (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/pplyng/menu-eng.html) Conditions for registering a charity and maintaining one are much more stringent since 9-11. This is because in the past charities have been used to fund terrorism. Failure to follow the guidelines set out by CRA will result in an immediate withdrawal of the organizations charitable status.
Your biased opinions with respect to the whole topic of salmon feedlots hasn't earned you a lot of credibility. Why don't you provide some backup for your financial conspiracy theories? Apply your own philosophy for a change...... "I care about what they can show to be the truth".
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/basicsearchresult-eng.action?s=registered&k=Global+Alliance+Against+Industrial+Aquaculture&p=1&b=true (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/basicsearchresult-eng.action?s=registered&k=Global+Alliance+Against+Industrial+Aquaculture&p=1&b=true)
-
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/basicsearchresult-eng.action?s=registered&k=Global+Alliance+Against+Industrial+Aquaculture&p=1&b=true (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/basicsearchresult-eng.action?s=registered&k=Global+Alliance+Against+Industrial+Aquaculture&p=1&b=true)
Not sure why you posted that link.....
Apparently you're assuming that he has registered GAAIA as his charitable organization? No wonder you post these conspiracy theories. ;D
-
Wasn't it you that just said this:
Whether a charity is private or public it exists to not only carry out a charitable work, but it also provides a charitable tax receipt for the donors. In other words, the contributions and expenditures are very transparent, as they must be reported through CRA. In order to receive certification as a charity the organization must demonstrate it's charitable objectives.
And wasn't it you that also said this:
Morton and Staniford and others are not stupid people, they just carry their passion for wild salmon, to the next level. Unfortunately they don't have the dollars backing them that the feedlots do. All of them operate under non-profit agencies whose financial records are public. Take some time and check them out.
Are you now suggesting you were making it up? Which story is true?
And you are also wrong about saying I ever suggested he was a operating a charity. Indeed, I indicated that I suspected that the organization with the impressive sounding name existed only on his laptop and a web server. I would be very surprised if he ever issued a tax receipt since he is not registered as a non-profit charity and I would be very surprised if he was not covering his living expenses with donated money.
-
Wasn't it you that just said this:
Yes... you quoted me....
And wasn't it you that also said this:
Yes..... again you quoted me.
Are you now suggesting you were making it up? Which story is true?
Where have I suggested I was making something up? Neither are stories... The first is referring to charities in general. The second is more specific to Morton and Staniford.
And you are also wrong about saying I ever suggested he was a operating a charity. Indeed, I indicated that I suspected that the organization with the impressive sounding name existed only on his laptop and a web server. I would be very surprised if he ever issued a tax receipt since he is not registered as a non-profit charity and I would be very surprised if he was not covering his living expenses with donated money.
Where did I say that you suggested he was operating a charity? Because you left a link in your post without any explanation.....I was guessing as to why you would have posted a link showing you searched his organization's name under CRA's registered charities. Did you have another reason for posting that link, or should I keep guessing?
Why would you be concerned that he might be receiving money personally?? If that is the case I would suggest you should be even more impressed by the commitment of his supporters, as they would be giving him a gift with after tax dollars because they wouldn't be entitled to a tax credit. As far other registered charities, they cannot gift money to anyone other than a qualified donee (registered charity). Corporations can spend their money any way they want. However if they give money to Don on a personal basis rather than through his charity, Don would be required to claim the money as personal income.
I'm not going to help you with all your homework Absolon. You'll have to figure out for yourself how their funding works.... But until you have some facts, I suggest you are just putting out theories.
Why don't you make a donation to to Don yourself? and ask him for a receipt.... ;D I'm quite sure Don would appreciate that.
-
Let's see how much Alexandra Morton puts up....All groups who have an interest in wild salmon should take part
Hopefully Alwaysfishin you are wrong about the Aquaculture Industry. I would not be too surprised if they play a role.
All the people who I know who are involved in the Industry do deeply care about Wild Salmon in BC.
But imagine if it's found that the farms are not causing a problem....
It would be wonderful if they did not cause a problem here but as I have said so many times before ::) from what I have seen in other countries there has been many problems, so once again why will it be different here? Maybe that has been stated before by someone but I have yet seen a good answer and I donot know if there is one.
-
Yes... you quoted me....
Yes..... again you quoted me.
Where have I suggested I was making something up? Neither are stories... The first is referring to charities in general. The second is more specific to Morton and Staniford.
Where did I say that you suggested he was operating a charity? Because you left a link in your post without any explanation.....I was guessing as to why you would have posted a link showing you searched his organization's name under CRA's registered charities. Did you have another reason for posting that link, or should I keep guessing?
Why would you be concerned that he might be receiving money personally?? If that is the case I would suggest you should be even more impressed by the commitment of his supporters, as they would be giving him a gift with after tax dollars because they wouldn't be entitled to a tax credit. As far other registered charities, they cannot gift money to anyone other than a qualified donee (registered charity). Corporations can spend their money any way they want. However if they give money to Don on a personal basis rather than through his charity, Don would be required to claim the money as personal income.
I'm not going to help you with all your homework Absolon. You'll have to figure out for yourself how their funding works.... But until you have some facts, I suggest you are just putting out theories.
Why don't you make a donation to to Don yourself? and ask him for a receipt.... ;D I'm quite sure Don would appreciate that.
Contrary to your assertion that Staniford works under the umbrella of a registered charity that is transparent and aboveboard in it's finances, I suggest he is not. I do agree with your second contention that his "Alliance" is not a registered charity and also that it is completely obscure with respect to it's finances.
As an illegal alien for the last two years, Staniford can neither register a charity nor work for one. His website, which comprises the entire substance of his "Alliance", is not a registered charity. Staniford solicits donations for his "Alliance" but makes nothing public about his sources and uses nor does he demonstrate anything accomplished with those donations he receives. He declared at the beginning of this defamation episode that he has no assets. No assets, no income for at least two years.........who do you think has been buying his bed, beer and grub? Think he has been filing tax returns on the income he gets from his site? You want to donate, suit yourself.
-
Where did you get the idea that his "Alliance" is soliciting donations?
You said that his "Alliance" is not a registered charity, so how could it possibly accept donations? Because his "Alliance" is not accepting donations, then it wouldn't have any sources, nor would it need to demonstrate what it does with the non-existent donations, would it? ::) ???
As far as buying his bed, beer and grub, you could probably ask him. However as a private individual he would probably answer you the same way you would if someone asked you that question..... ;D
I also don't think you have to worry about whether he is filing tax returns.... The CRA looks after issues like that.
Stop the speculations already.... you're looking foolish.
-
Please donate to the legal fighting fund online here!
http://www.gaaia.org/ (http://www.gaaia.org/)
-
It is interesting how a thread about a proposed study that could prove conclusively if the salmon farms in Johnstone strait are or are not having a negative impact on migrating salmon has been tuned into discussion about Staniford's finances. Talk about changing the subject.
-
Please donate to the legal fighting fund online here!
http://www.gaaia.org/ (http://www.gaaia.org/)
Even I can see that these "donations" are for the defense fund, not the Alliance's work. Where are the donations for the Alliance itself being solicited?
-
Staniford is the sole member of the "Alliance", and since the "Alliance" has no legal standing, he is legally indistinguishable from it. He personally is being sued for actions he undertook under the auspices of the "Alliance". It matters not which name he begs for support under, the money ends up in the same pocket.
-
It would appear that Staniford/GAAIA agree.
From http://gaaia.org/ (http://gaaia.org/)
Please support the work of GAAIA - details online here
"online here" is a live link to this site: http://www.gofundme.com/donstaniford (http://www.gofundme.com/donstaniford)
-
It is interesting how a thread about a proposed study that could prove conclusively if the salmon farms in Johnstone strait are or are not having a negative impact on migrating salmon has been tuned into discussion about Staniford's finances. Talk about changing the subject.
Off the rails with the second post..........this is the internet after all. ;)
-
Off the rails with the second post..........this is the internet after all. ;)
So perhaps a new thread titled "Fingers crossed that people stop funding Staniford" is in order?
-
Staniford .........money sent. Have a cold one on me old boy. This poor guy's been living out of his backpack trying to save the salmon.
I like some of the comments on gofundme very heartwarming and positive:
"Don I will see you in Vancouver on Monday in support. I know this could be a long battle for you but the people of BC want wild salmon and those that know you and your efforts will stand up and support you. Salmon Farms are toxic to this coast. I applaud your fearlessness in standing up to this dangerous industry."
-
It would appear that Staniford/GAAIA agree.
From http://gaaia.org/ (http://gaaia.org/)
Please support the work of GAAIA - details online here
"online here" is a live link to this site: http://www.gofundme.com/donstaniford (http://www.gofundme.com/donstaniford)
Good work Absolon! From GoFundMe help page: "Anyone can raise money online using GoFundMe's customizable donation pages. Our users often raise money for themselves or for friends they want to help out. GoFundMe was designed to allow everyday people to do wonderful things with the money they raise online."
-
Staniford .........money sent. Have a cold one on me old boy. This poor guy's been living out of his backpack trying to save the salmon.
Nice! ;D ;D
-
So perhaps a new thread titled "Fingers crossed that people stop funding Staniford" is in order?
No doubt by the second post that one will be talking about the government conspiracy to conceal science.
-
Good work Absolon! From GoFundMe help page: "Anyone can raise money online using GoFundMe's customizable donation pages. Our users often raise money for themselves or for friends they want to help out. GoFundMe was designed to allow everyday people to do wonderful things with the money they raise online."
I think we all know what the site is. I think it's also pretty clear that Staniford is soliciting donations on his sites.