Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on March 19, 2014, 02:21:04 PM
-
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1194343-fish-farm-culls-cost-public-138m
Too bad, some of this money could have been used in the FOC budget, instead the government has slashed FOC's budget over the last while.
-
http://www.southcoasttoday.ca/content/millions-fish-disease-bailouts-must-stop-say-community-conservation-groups
-
How is there justification in spending all this money? Could some of those from the pro FF side give us some answers or explain why our taxpayers money is spent this way, thanks in advance.
http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2014-03-24/article-3660449/Diamond-agrees-on-call-for-end-to-public-bailouts-for-salmon-feedlots/1
-
Fishfarminbawb is probably busy with his favorites links trying to find an answer. When he should be feeding the penstock more slice.
-
Chris knows why this happens, been posted before, but once again :D … farmed salmon, trout and shellfish are considered an agricultural crop, just like beef, pork, poultry, strawberries, wheat, corn, potatoes, etc. Our government compensates these producers in the event of crop failures.
One wonders what has been paid out to poultry (avian flu) or beef (mad cow disease) producers country wide over the years; add in failures for grain, berries, root veggies and yeah, it seems we pay considerable $$ for farmer insurance. Should we be? Some obviously think not but right now it’s Canadian government policy, and certainly not only for farmed salmon.
-
The big difference between the fish farm payouts and agricultural crop insurance is that farmers pay 50% of the crop insurance premiums (the rest by fed/prov govt).
You would think that fish farmers would procure their own "crop insurance" but why when it is provided free by the government.
-
It would be interesting to know the amount of taxes payed over the years by aqauculture.
-
The big difference between the fish farm payouts and agricultural crop insurance is that farmers pay 50% of the crop insurance premiums (the rest by fed/prov govt).
You would think that fish farmers would procure their own "crop insurance" but why when it is provided free by the government.
Not the same program; fish farms don't have the public subsidized access to crop insurance that other farmers do.
These crop payouts arise from a Canada Food inspection Agency program that compensate all types of animal producers for losses related to a destruction order issued by the agency to that farmer. It includes (and pays compensation to) cattle, pig, bird and fish producers. Details here:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/terrestrial-animals/diseases/compensation/eng/1313712524829/1313712773700 (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/terrestrial-animals/diseases/compensation/eng/1313712524829/1313712773700)
-
So it's cool for the Canadian taxpayer - to guarantee income streams with taxpayers money for companies that aren't Canadian owned or based? Most of the land farms are Canadian owned. Is it just me or does anyone else find this incredibly stupid? Show me another jurisdiction in the world that does this please.
"Come to Canada- open a business and if it flops, we'll open the vault for you!"
-
So it's cool for the Canadian taxpayer - to guarantee income streams with taxpayers money for companies that aren't Canadian owned or based? Most of the land farms are Canadian owned. Is it just me or does anyone else find this incredibly stupid? Show me another jurisdiction in the world that does this please.
The only reason most Canadian farms are Canadian owned is simply because of provinicial laws that limit foreign ownership of farmland. China and other developing countries are buying up millions of acres of farmland around the world to secure their country's access to foodcrops.
I'm curious though, if BC had similar laws restricting foreign use of fish farm sites, and only Canadian companies could farm salmon in BC waters, would the industry be any different? Would it even matter to fish farm opponents? Somehow I doubt it.......
-
The only reason most Canadian farms are Canadian owned is simply because of provinicial laws that limit foreign ownership of farmland. China and other developing countries are buying up millions of acres of farmland around the world to secure their country's access to foodcrops.
I'm curious though, if BC had similar laws restricting foreign use of fish farm sites, and only Canadian companies could farm salmon in BC waters, would the industry be any different? Would it even matter to fish farm opponents? Somehow I doubt it.......
But why should Canadian taxpayers cover the losses of foreign companies? That's OUR money, going to companies that take their profits back home with them and leave us to cover losses when they occur. That's not rational . When they hit profits do they pay back any of the money to us? Nope.
-
They sure helped Chile out when they poluted that country with dead diseased fish. :-\
-
Contrary to the inaccurate and untrue message being promoted by some, there is no guaranteed income for fish farms under any program and no public subsidized crop insurance. As is obvious to anyone who actually took the time to read about the CFIA program, compensation is paid only when the CFIA orders the destruction of the crop. Beyond that, the farms are on their own with respect to covering operating losses.
-
Contrary to the inaccurate and untrue message being promoted by some, there is no guaranteed income for fish farms under any program and no public subsidized crop insurance. As is obvious to anyone who actually took the time to read about the CFIA program, compensation is paid only when the CFIA orders the destruction of the crop. Beyond that, the farms are on their own with respect to covering operating losses.
Oh? Do a search and you'll find out there's a lot of taxpayer funding thrown at the industry and it's not just for diseased fish.Try again as that's not accurate at all. And again, why am I responsible for a foreign companies failure?
-
No, you do the search for the example of the government giving the farms money to guarantee their income stream. After all, you're the one making the claim so assuming you're not just righteously shaking your jowls, you should have some basis for it that you would be willing to share.
And while you're at it, explain why we should use taxpayer money to subsidize crop insurance for any business, Canadian owned or otherwise. This is a test; there is a rationalization for it, but I'm curious if you have any understanding of the bigger picture or whether you just do this to feel like you're relevant.
-
I don't agree with any business venture pulling money out of the taxpayers wallet- especially foreign owned and operated ones. But, just to expose the utter stupidity of your side- Can you tell me how much money is given to commercial fishermen if there's a collapse? What's that? Nothing you say? But we open the vault for the feedlots. Here you go, read through this list and when you're done, I'll dig up another pile for you."Shake your jowls" at this..... And, sweeping aside the "relevant" dig, I can't read it for you if you're too lazy to do so.
Have a nice day! :D
http://www.grants-loans.org/reports.php?WhereInd=AgrFor&extra_title=Agriculture,+Forestry,+Fishing+and+Hunting
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/fish.pdf
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/canadian-taxpayers-bail-norwegian-fish-farms-diseased-fish/
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/will-your-tax-dollars-subsidize-bc-unsustainable-fish-farms
http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2014-03-24/article-3660449/Diamond-agrees-on-call-for-end-to-public-bailouts-for-salmon-feedlots/1
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/109644-ns-invests-25-million-in-fish-farm
http://thetyee.ca/Election/Hotbuttons/2005/05/06/FishFarming/
-
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4647E/y4647e06.htm
-
I admit I scanned it Bawb, but I didn't see squat about covering foreign companies losses - which is what this thread is about.
-
"Federally-funded programmes providing income support and re-training have allowed many rural people to stay in their home communities, and encouraged them to believe that the cod fishery would come back, but in the summer of 1998 the final version was announced. Fishing licences and fish plants are to be drastically reduced in number, and inducements are offered "
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/fishery.html
-
I don't agree with any business venture pulling money out of the taxpayers wallet- especially foreign owned and operated ones. But, just to expose the utter stupidity of your side- Can you tell me how much money is given to commercial fishermen if there's a collapse? What's that? Nothing you say? But we open the vault for the feedlots. Here you go, read through this list and when you're done, I'll dig up another pile for you."Shake your jowls" at this..... And, sweeping aside the "relevant" dig, I can't read it for you if you're too lazy to do so.
Have a nice day! :D
http://www.grants-loans.org/reports.php?WhereInd=AgrFor&extra_title=Agriculture,+Forestry,+Fishing+and+Hunting
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/fish.pdf
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/canadian-taxpayers-bail-norwegian-fish-farms-diseased-fish/
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/will-your-tax-dollars-subsidize-bc-unsustainable-fish-farms
http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2014-03-24/article-3660449/Diamond-agrees-on-call-for-end-to-public-bailouts-for-salmon-feedlots/1
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/109644-ns-invests-25-million-in-fish-farm
http://thetyee.ca/Election/Hotbuttons/2005/05/06/FishFarming/
I don't think you could read them for me; it's pretty apparent you didn't even read them for yourself. Most deal with the CFIA compensation for destruction order program and the rest don't even address fish farms directly. None deal with the guaranteed income program for fish farms that you insist exists. It is pretty apparent though that mink farmers in the Maritimes clean up on government grants.
It's also pretty apparent from your response to the test question that the bigger picture is beyond your grasp; that you don't understand the rationalization for the subsidized crop insurance that land farmers receive.
And it's also clear, as Bob has just demonstrated, that you don't have a clue about subsidies to the wild fishery. I would think that with your background you would clearly understand the extent that, for instance, Unemployment Insurance as applied in the Maritimes was a direct subsidy to both fishing and fish processing by providing a subsidized income to workers for ten months of the year so they would be available to work for the two months their services were required by fishing businesses.
It's nice that you have all these opinions, but you would probably find they were taken a little more seriously if you could provide some sort of support for what you claim to be facts.
-
If you have to subsidize, take care of Canadian firms first and only.
First link - Grants given to feedlots
2 - ooops, but it does provide insight
3 - Mainstream Canada reported an EBIT pre fair value and non-recurring items of NOK 43 million, an improvement from a loss of NOK 26 million the previous year, even though volumes sold declined from 5,600 tons to 4,400 tons. EBIT per kilo was 9.6 NOK. Good prices in the North American market and the IHN outbreak last year are the main factors behind the improved result.(2) (bailout, subsidy same crap)
4 - Are you unable to comprehend that? Pretty plain in the English dept.
5- See above^
6 - Only a 25,000,000 gift? Cheapskates!
7 - "The federal and B.C.governments subsidize the fish farming industry by underwriting scientific research, indemnifying fish farms against losses from disease, and leasing public sites to fish farms for just a few thousand dollars. Are these subsidies appropriate? Would your government permit new open-cage salmon farms?"
I'm led to the conclusion you are unusually thick, have comprehension issues or prefer to ignore facts when they don't suit your agenda.
Try again sonny. I'm talking about CANADIAN taxpayer money -GIVEN TO OFFSHORE COMPANIES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-hnVeq9FTg
-
" In the Atlantic region the major income supplement is provided by unemployment insurance, to which self-employed fishermen (owner-operators) as well as crew have been entitled."
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/m/article/fisheries/
No offshore investment in the Canadian wild fisheries? Sure would be interesting to see the link you get that idea from NB. .)
Dont twitch too hard.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_ownership_of_companies_of_Canada
-
Thanks for backing up my points Bawb - not only do we back foreign firms if they fail, we also back their seasonal employees with EI.
-
I don't agree with any business venture pulling money out of the taxpayers wallet- especially foreign owned and operated ones. But, just to expose the utter stupidity of your side- Can you tell me how much money is given to commercial fishermen if there's a collapse? What's that? Nothing you say? But we open the vault for the feedlots.
Happy to help you out NB. :)
" In the Atlantic region the major income supplement is provided by unemployment insurance, to which self-employed fishermen (owner-operators) as well as crew have been entitled."
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/m/article/fisheries/
-
I don't think you could read them for me; it's pretty apparent you didn't even read them for yourself. Most deal with the CFIA compensation for destruction order program and the rest don't even address fish farms directly. None deal with the guaranteed income program for fish farms that you insist exists. It is pretty apparent though that mink farmers in the Maritimes clean up on government grants.
It's also pretty apparent from your response to the test question that the bigger picture is beyond your grasp; that you don't understand the rationalization for the subsidized crop insurance that land farmers receive.
And it's also clear, as Bob has just demonstrated, that you don't have a clue about subsidies to the wild fishery. I would think that with your background you would clearly understand the extent that, for instance, Unemployment Insurance as applied in the Maritimes was a direct subsidy to both fishing and fish processing by providing a subsidized income to workers for ten months of the year so they would be available to work for the two months their services were required by fishing businesses.
It's nice that you have all these opinions, but you would probably find they were taken a little more seriously if you could provide some sort of support for what you claim to be facts.
Looks like Novabonker got owned again. Yeah he kind of forgot about that little EI thing....lol. He never read the other article he posted before (the one with old data). Keep trying Bonker.
-
Shoeswap! That explains the sniffing I feel behind me!
-
Shoeswap! That explains the sniffing I feel behind me!
That's not Steve. That's your dog reminding you it's date night!
-
That's not Steve. That's your dog reminding you it's date night!
Decided not to comment...
-
Shoeswap! That explains the sniffing I feel behind me!
Sheesh. That all ya got big boy?
-
That's not Steve. That's your dog reminding you it's date night!
Sorry, but that's definitely Steve. Nobody else sniffs "parts" like that. ;)
Again, blur the lines.Convenient to skip past the foreign ownership thingy isn't it? Like it or not, we're supporting foreign owned companies failures with Canadian tax dollars. Do you buffoons like paying taxes so Norwegian companies that foul our waters can stay afloat?
-
Sorry, but that's definitely Steve. Nobody else sniffs "parts" like that. ;)
Again, blur the lines.Convenient to skip past the foreign ownership thingy isn't it? Like it or not, we're supporting foreign owned companies failures with Canadian tax dollars. Do you buffoons like paying taxes so Norwegian companies that foul our waters can stay afloat?
I must say, I have had more intelligent topic debates with my grandchildren.
-
I must say, I have had more intelligent topic debates with my grandchildren.
Yeah I know what you mean. He doesn't like talking about that EI subsidy much. I like it when he gets so upset about fish farm but forgets how the Canadian taxpayer is doing its part to help out his friends 10 months of the year. Keep ranting, Bonker...lol. Thanks for the little tid bit of info, Absolon.
-
Shoeswap! That explains the sniffing I feel behind me!
Lol
Damage control going on at the fear monger camp AGAIN.
-
Lol
Damage control going on at the fear monger camp AGAIN.
Mothership down, and apparently out. Not much left, is there boys ;D
-
Sorry, but that's definitely Steve. Nobody else sniffs "parts" like that. ;)
Again, blur the lines.Convenient to skip past the foreign ownership thingy isn't it? Like it or not, we're supporting foreign owned companies failures with Canadian tax dollars. Do you buffoons like paying taxes so Norwegian companies that foul our waters can stay afloat?
Let's be real here.
Steve is geographically unable to be anywhere near your unwashed nether regions; that snuffling you feel is either your dog or a figment of your imagination used to take a personal shot at him, which conveniently obviates the need for you to actually respond to what he said.
There are five forms of defense used when someone is trying to avoid actually dealing with the facts presented to them.
One is as you demonstrated when you took the shot at Steve. It's called shooting the messenger and is intended to upset them enough to blur their focus on the subject and allow you to escape questions you can't answer. It appears to be by far your favourite. Another is to personally attack the original source of the facts, usually undertaken when you can't actually discredit the facts.
A third is to evade the facts entirely, as you are doing when you represent the funds paid to the farms as compensation for an order to destroy their crop as a guaranteed income program or a subsidy and as you also are doing with respect to the use of UI as a subsidy to the fishing industry, something you, as a Maritimer with family you claim was involved in the industry, can't help be aware of.
Related to that is the fourth, the diversion of the discussion away from a legitimate point someone makes, often carried out by proffering opinion pieces written by authors who share both your opinion and your disregard for the real facts. It's also often attempted by moving the goalposts; ignoring a valid rebuttal of your point by altering your complaint to focus on some other aspect.
Finally, there is the construction of straw men, the creation of false scenarios you think you can easily muster a convincing argument against. In some cases, you might actually be able to do that, but it is meaningless because those scenarios aren't actually reflections of reality. Examples would be the idea that we are subsidizing incomes of foreign companies or that fish farms are recipients of untold government largesse are all nicely attackable constructs but in reality are grossly oversimplified, twist too many facts and overlook too many relevant details to be even an inaccurate representation of reality.
I ran across a post on another forum tonight where someone was able to use all five techniques in the short space of about ten lines, as impressive a performance as I've ever run across. I can respect that just for the simple fact it was so well executed even if I can see at the same time that it was solely intended to avoid dealing with the reality of the actual facts. I can't say I'm much interested in having a discussion with someone who needs multiple posts to accomplish only one or two of the techniques of evasion and especially when they don't do it very well. The discussion goes nowhere but downhill. That may be your intention in the first place; I've not actually seen you do anything else here. If that is indeed the case let me point out to you that if you really feel the need to have a pissing contest, "Bawb" and "shoeswap" are just dribbles getting your shoes wet.
No need to reply, these are just observations and not an invitation to discuss anything.
-
Blah,blah,blah. Who do I give my nickel to Lucy?
Let's be real here.
Steve is geographically unable to be anywhere near your unwashed nether regions; that snuffling you feel is either your dog or a figment of your imagination used to take a personal shot at him, which conveniently obviates the need for you to actually respond to what he said.
There are five forms of defense used when someone is trying to avoid actually dealing with the facts presented to them.
One is as you demonstrated when you took the shot at Steve. It's called shooting the messenger and is intended to upset them enough to blur their focus on the subject and allow you to escape questions you can't answer. It appears to be by far your favourite. Another is to personally attack the original source of the facts, usually undertaken when you can't actually discredit the facts.
A third is to evade the facts entirely, as you are doing when you represent the funds paid to the farms as compensation for an order to destroy their crop as a guaranteed income program or a subsidy and as you also are doing with respect to the use of UI as a subsidy to the fishing industry, something you, as a Maritimer with family you claim was involved in the industry, can't help be aware of.
Related to that is the fourth, the diversion of the discussion away from a legitimate point someone makes, often carried out by proffering opinion pieces written by authors who share both your opinion and your disregard for the real facts. It's also often attempted by moving the goalposts; ignoring a valid rebuttal of your point by altering your complaint to focus on some other aspect.
Finally, there is the construction of straw men, the creation of false scenarios you think you can easily muster a convincing argument against. In some cases, you might actually be able to do that, but it is meaningless because those scenarios aren't actually reflections of reality. Examples would be the idea that we are subsidizing incomes of foreign companies or that fish farms are recipients of untold government largesse are all nicely attackable constructs but in reality are grossly oversimplified, twist too many facts and overlook too many relevant details to be even an inaccurate representation of reality.
I ran across a post on another forum tonight where someone was able to use all five techniques in the short space of about ten lines, as impressive a performance as I've ever run across. I can respect that just for the simple fact it was so well executed even if I can see at the same time that it was solely intended to avoid dealing with the reality of the actual facts. I can't say I'm much interested in having a discussion with someone who needs multiple posts to accomplish only one or two of the techniques of evasion and especially when they don't do it very well. The discussion goes nowhere but downhill. That may be your intention in the first place; I've not actually seen you do anything else here. If that is indeed the case let me point out to you that if you really feel the need to have a pissing contest, "Bawb" and "shoeswap" are just dribbles getting your shoes wet.
No need to reply, these are just observations and not an invitation to discuss anything.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/300px-Lucy-van-pelt-1-_zps577d3cac.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/300px-Lucy-van-pelt-1-_zps577d3cac.jpg.html)
-
Techniques 1 and 3.
-
Let's be real here.
Steve is geographically unable to be anywhere near your unwashed nether regions; that snuffling you feel is either your dog or a figment of your imagination used to take a personal shot at him, which conveniently obviates the need for you to actually respond to what he said.
There are five forms of defense used when someone is trying to avoid actually dealing with the facts presented to them.
One is as you demonstrated when you took the shot at Steve. It's called shooting the messenger and is intended to upset them enough to blur their focus on the subject and allow you to escape questions you can't answer. It appears to be by far your favourite.
Yeah Big Boy - Read the post. I've taken a few cheap shots - Read your posts. Pffft!
Another is to personally attack the original source of the facts, usually undertaken when you can't actually discredit the facts.
See above
A third is to evade the facts entirely, as you are doing when you represent the funds paid to the farms as compensation for an order to destroy their crop as a guaranteed income program or a subsidy and as you also are doing with respect to the use of UI as a subsidy to the fishing industry, something you, as a Maritimer with family you claim was involved in the industry, can't help be aware of.
Obviously you missed or skip over little things like the Canadian taxpayer paying for foreign companies failures. But that's an inconvenient truth that we should ignore....
Related to that is the fourth, the diversion of the discussion away from a legitimate point someone makes, often carried out by proffering opinion pieces written by authors who share both your opinion and your disregard for the real facts. It's also often attempted by moving the goalposts; ignoring a valid rebuttal of your point by altering your complaint to focus on some other aspect.
Yeah, because Bawb never does that :o ::) ;D
Finally, there is the construction of straw men, the creation of false scenarios you think you can easily muster a convincing argument against. In some cases, you might actually be able to do that, but it is meaningless because those scenarios aren't actually reflections of reality. Examples would be the idea that we are subsidizing incomes of foreign companies or that fish farms are recipients of untold government largesse are all nicely attackable (inventing words?LOL!) constructs but in reality are grossly oversimplified, twist too many facts and overlook too many relevant details to be even an inaccurate representation of reality.
Do we give taxpayer money to foreign firms when their ventures don't succeed? It doesn't take 7 years in school to answer that
I ran across a post on another forum tonight where someone was able to use all five techniques in the short space of about ten lines, as impressive a performance as I've ever run across. I can respect that just for the simple fact it was so well executed even if I can see at the same time that it was solely intended to avoid dealing with the reality of the actual facts. I can't say I'm much interested in having a discussion with someone who needs multiple posts to accomplish only one or two of the techniques of evasion and especially when they don't do it very well. The discussion goes nowhere but downhill. That may be your intention in the first place; I've not actually seen you do anything else here. If that is indeed the case let me point out to you that if you really feel the need to have a pissing contest, "Bawb" and "shoeswap" are just dribbles getting your shoes wet.
No need to reply, these are just observations and not an invitation to discuss anything.
Yep - take the cheap and easy way. run away and avoid the simple fact that our tax dollars are funding foreign interests.It IS just that simple - and those are the facts. You don't like them because they don't suit your agenda. Take your ball and run home!
Hypocrisy anyone?
-
Looks like you're getting your boilers stoked up!
-
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/dog-psychiatrist_zpsb1b2fbf2.png) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/dog-psychiatrist_zpsb1b2fbf2.png.html)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690)
Beauty!!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690)
Good one lol
-
Sooooo- in conclusion, the circle believes the Canadian taxpayer should fund offshore corporations, that take their profits out of the country if they have failures?????
The Atlantic EI thing is for Canadians, funded by Canadians, but , in your generosity, you feel we should extend our wallets to the rest of the world.
Can you tell me when you all get together for the next meeting? Do you prefer to catch the bus or do you ride in on your unicorns? I bet you all look cute in your gear.......
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/delusional-01-curatedmag1_zps3a289052.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/delusional-01-curatedmag1_zps3a289052.jpg.html)
-
Sooooo- in conclusion, the circle believes the Canadian taxpayer should fund offshore corporations, that take their profits out of the country if they have failures?????
The Atlantic EI thing is for Canadians, funded by Canadians, but , in your generosity, you feel we should extend our wallets to the rest of the world.
Can you tell me when you all get together for the next meeting? Do you prefer to catch the bus or do you ride in on your unicorns? I bet you all look cute in your gear.......
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/delusional-01-curatedmag1_zps3a289052.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/delusional-01-curatedmag1_zps3a289052.jpg.html)
I would rather see our tax dollars going to keep employment in Canada than have foreigners trying to take employment away. :)
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2010/12/alexandra-morton-correspondence.html