Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on January 16, 2012, 08:09:38 PM
-
So on his first day in court defending himself against Mainstream Feedlots accusations, Don was approached by the police and the Canadian Border guards with a deportation order.
Is this a coincidence or does Mainstream have this much clout with our government to be able to orchestrate this kind of action? Staniford has lived here in Canada for a few years. He's attended the Cohen hearings, and suddenly when he is about to air Mainstream's dirty laundry, the authorities step in to deport him??
I don't know any other details other than from his facebook page. It will be interesting hearing more of the story when this hits the papers...
-
Wonder if he's been deported to Norway? ;D
-
He now has to hire an immigration lawyer too. :o
-
No doubt some BC Liberals and fed Conservatives who have stock options in fish farms are (as usual) wasting tax payers money siccing the authorities on him.
-
No doubt some BC Liberals and fed Conservatives who have stock options in fish farms are (as usual) wasting tax payers money siccing the authorities on him.
looks suspiciously like Government interference, though this type of thing is not uncommon. I will bet that Harper will use this tactic more often, as he wages his vendetta on Environmentalists: Starting to look like the McCarthy of the fifties. Are you now, or were you ever an Environmentalist? :(
-
looks suspiciously like Government interference, though this type of thing is not uncommon. I will bet that Harper will use this tactic more often, as he wages his vendetta on Environmentalists: Starting to look like the McCarthy of the fifties. Are you now, or were you ever an Environmentalist? :(
You don't even have to be an environmentalist to feel the wrath of Harper's axe......he's been chopping away at his own scientists and biologists in Environment Canada and DFO all year with much more to come. Gotta clear the way for industry.....
If Staniford has not been convicted of a criminal offense (yet), the only grounds for deportation would be if he overstayed his Visa, lied to or mislead Immigration or ignored the need to apply for landed status. Can't kick him out for just being a thorn...
-
f Staniford has not been convicted of a criminal offense (yet), the only grounds for deportation would be if he overstayed his Visa, lied to or mislead Immigration or ignored the need to apply for landed status. Can't kick him out for just being a thorn...
X2
-
I haven't been able to locate any other information regarding any possible deportation other than what Staniford has provided.
Anyone else had any success?
-
We need you now Chris ;D The world is waiting ....
-
Well if the CBC isnt carrying it by now, must not be newsworthy enough........ :D
-
We need you now Chris ;D The world is waiting ....
Don't panic Dave, I will keep you in the loop. ;D ;D ;D
-
If Staniford has not been convicted of a criminal offense (yet), the only grounds for deportation would be if he overstayed his Visa, lied to or mislead Immigration or ignored the need to apply for landed status. Can't kick him out for just being a thorn...
X3
-
Don on CBC radio 1.
Starts at 30 seconds in.
http://youtu.be/EMFQfjvbgfU
-
With all of the illegals in Canada who have become "lost" it's a real surprise that Don Staniford has been singled out so quickly.
-
With all of the illegals in Canada who have become "lost" it's a real surprise that Don Staniford has been singled out so quickly.
Could have been the court that turned him in to border services when they ID'd him and his citizenship for the court documents.
-
Don on Norwegian TV.
http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/magasinet/don-kjemper-mot-norsk-lakseoppdrett-3688619.html
-
Any further news on the supposed deportation?
-
Any further news on the supposed deportation?
Apparently right after he wins the court case.... ;)
-
Don on Norwegian TV.
http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/magasinet/don-kjemper-mot-norsk-lakseoppdrett-3688619.html
Any further news on the supposed deportation?
Google was responsible for the translation......
Now, the state-controlled farming company Cermaq that the court should stop villaksforkjemperens statements.
Share with others:
Facebook Twitter
Email Share
Don Staniford fighting a hard battle against Norwegian salmon farming. Now the farming company Cermaq force him to silence. Staniford on its side refuses to stop.
- I will fight to the end. They have no right to stop free speech around the world. I lose this case, I continue my campaign in Norway. I will knock on the door of their in Norway, in Oslo.
Provokes industry
Outside the courthouse in Vancouver are a handful of protesters carrying posters. The message has provoked the Norwegian aquaculture industry.
Staniford has mainly used social media to drive his campaign. Worldwide, there are scattered around 90 images that mimic the health warnings on cigarette packages.
With the Norwegian coat of arms and the inscription "Norwegian owned" run out a strong message as:
"Salmon Farming is Poison"
"Salmon Farms are cancer»
"Salmon Farming Kills Workers'
"Salmon Farming Kills"
"Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health"
Requires suspension
Cermaq believes the campaign is defamatory to the company's products, and require economic redress. The most startling is the claim that Staniford imposed a ban on expressing itself defamatory.
- Mainstream plaintiff concerned because of the erroneous claims about fish farming. He suggests that you get health problems of farmed fish. And he draws parallels to the tobacco industry. Mainstream says it is not true, explains Cermaq lawyer David Wotherspoon.
Stanifords defender David Sutherland believes the trial is fundamentally very interesting.
- The court must ultimately decide which of the slogans that are acceptable and which ones are not. We all hope so, but the court must decide. You and I have a very heavy responsibility to ensure that we do not create a precedent that prevents statements on this matter, says Sutherland.
- So I will end up in prison? asks Staniford
- Potentially seen.
Unable to finance the fight
While the party has engaged one of Canada's largest law firms, has Staniford problems with financing the defense. He hopes that the donations from groups and individuals who support the struggle to cover part of the costs.
- I have not had any income since May 2010. Norwegian authorities will have $ 50,000 from me. If I lose the case, I have to NOK pay them $ 200,000. But there is not much to get here. I will never pay a single cent, says Staniford.
Broad support
Around Vancouver Island, many of the fish farms to Cermaq. For years, local leaders tried to move the fish farms out of the area. The reason is the fear that wild salmon populations are threatened by sea lice, disease and escapes from the cages.
- We call him "Dangerous Don". He is dangerous for fish farming. There are not many that are tough NOK to fight these companies and the government, said the local leader Joe Martin.
He believes that the Canadian government has ignored indigenous rights including the Charter of the United Nations resolutions. They see it as extremely provocative that the government wants farming operations to grow in scope. The case against Don Staniford is important to clarify how the game should be pursued.
- If the prisons Don, we will fill the prisons, says one of the leaders of TLA-o-qui-AHT-stem, Terry Dorward.
- Do you believe it?
- I know. If government and industry do not listen, so we must stop these farms.
If growth
In the summer of 2010 about 5000 people took part in a demonstration against the Norwegian fish farms. Indigenous, local fishermen, the tourist industry, families and environmentalists joined together to demand action. But little happened.
In the town of Squamish, in an area that has always lived by wilderness tourism, the federal Minister of Canadian fisherman on tour with a local parliamentarian.
The area was known for its many rivers and wildlife. For 20 years they have every year on record how many eagles there are in the areas, but the last seven years, the incidence gone steeply downhill.
Politicians are interested in listening to the local population experiences and concerns, but will not have the media present at the meeting.
TV 2 wants to interview the minister about the situation, but are politely declined. Only when the questions concern the investment security, he stops for a moment on the way into the car.
- Sir, the Norwegian investment in Canada, are they safe?
- Investment in primary industry is important for the country, just like wild salmon is important. We must understand that the aquaculture sector is important for Canada.
- It seems as if it damages nature and animals?
- I will not say.
- What about the case against Staniford?
- Thank you, 'he says before he slams the door.
-
Thanks for the translation AF. ;D
-
Apparently right after he wins the court case.... ;)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I take that to mean that you're not aware of further confirmation by sources other than Staniford himself.
-
This deportation thing is starting to smell a bit like the farmed Atlantic's supposedly found and purchased by a Morton supporter in the Superstore in Campbell River ::)
Again, kudos to whoever is the mastermind behind this media manipulation ... certainly got me going!
-
Again, kudos to whoever is the mastermind behind this media manipulation ... certainly got me going!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnWf1sQkjY
-
This deportation thing is starting to smell a bit like the farmed Atlantic's supposedly found and purchased by a Morton supporter in the Superstore in Campbell River Roll Eyes
Again, kudos to whoever is the mastermind behind this media manipulation ... certainly got me going!
I am wondering about this myself. Probably pumped up the donations a bit. Funny how he stopped working in May 2011 and states he has no intention of paying any fines if convicted.
-
Its funny, I just wasted 20 minutes going through Dumb Stanifords facebook page and only saw mention once of his deportation woes, but boy he sures a begging for the cash. Reminds me of a quote from Forrest Gump, and Ill leave you to figure out which one.
-
Given the rules for visitor's and work permits, Staniford's comments that he hasn't worked since May 2010 and has no financial resources and the fact that he has somehow been covering his costs of living, it is quite possible that he is in violation of the rules and subject to deportation, a fact that would come out, as was pointed out earlier, when he got involved with the legal system this time.
It is quite interesting that no media picked up on Staniford's facebook comment and that Staniford himself shut right up about it. No doubt, if it is true, that Staniford saw this as a good opportunity to raise even money by presenting himself as the righteous but downtrodden victim of a system out to railroad him.
I suspect that his lawyer's first response, should the claim actually be true, would be to shut him up and tell him he wasn't doing himself any favours by complaining of being treated badly for flaunting the law. Any statements he made now would likely affect the outcome of prospective deportation proceedings. Staniford, now running scared in spite of his bravado and bluster, obviously would recognize the merits of that suggestion though he wasn't smart enough to restrain himself from saying that he wouldn't pay any judgments obtained against him. Truly an ethical man!
I'm also curious what that "$50,000 dollars the Norwegian government would have" as noted in the translated article refers to. I'm wondering if he moved here to avoid paying some previous judgment against him that will be enforceable once he returns to Europe.
-
Ya, they sure are quiet. Seems like he is following his PR rule "when in a hole, stop digging" as he states on CBC radio @ 2:10 in this utube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMFQfjvbgfU&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMFQfjvbgfU&feature=youtu.be)
Guess I was wrong about the media blitz that would follow this but I guess when the judge said he would not allow this case to be a grandstand for anti-global aquaculture, he meant it. Bumber for Don.
-
Again, kudos to whoever is the mastermind behind this media manipulation ... certainly got me going!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnWf1sQkjY
.........Jizz in My Pants..................?
The new battle hymn of the anti-salmon farm forces?
-
Given the rules for visitor's and work permits, Staniford's comments that he hasn't worked since May 2010 and has no financial resources and the fact that he has somehow been covering his costs of living, it is quite possible that he is in violation of the rules and subject to deportation, a fact that would come out, as was pointed out earlier, when he got involved with the legal system this time.
It is quite interesting that no media picked up on Staniford's facebook comment and that Staniford himself shut right up about it. No doubt, if it is true, that Staniford saw this as a good opportunity to raise even money by presenting himself as the righteous but downtrodden victim of a system out to railroad him.
I suspect that his lawyer's first response, should the claim actually be true, would be to shut him up and tell him he wasn't doing himself any favours by complaining of being treated badly for flaunting the law. Any statements he made now would likely affect the outcome of prospective deportation proceedings. Staniford, now running scared in spite of his bravado and bluster, obviously would recognize the merits of that suggestion though he wasn't smart enough to restrain himself from saying that he wouldn't pay any judgments obtained against him. Truly an ethical man!
I'm also curious what that "$50,000 dollars the Norwegian government would have" as noted in the translated article refers to. I'm wondering if he moved here to avoid paying some previous judgment against him that will be enforceable once he returns to Europe.
Or........
It was a failed attempt by the government to try and rattle him. After the initial shock of being confronted by immigration in the hallway, Don decided to set it aside and focus on the trial.
Hard to believe that Absolon is resorting to spreading silly conspiracy theories... when he prides himself on backing everything with science. ::)
-
What conspiracy theories am I spreading? Suggesting the government is trying to rattle him sounds more like spreading a conspiracy theory.
Since Staniford raised the subject and then abandoned it, it's hard to know what to make of it. I'm doing nothing more than looking at different ways the known facts fit together and wondering which is correct.
-
Hard to believe that Absolon is resorting to spreading silly conspiracy theories... when he prides himself on backing everything with science.
Its pretty clear in his post that he is just speculating and curious. This is far from spreading conspiracy theories or unsubstantiated facts as so often seen here and on certain "blogs"....growth hormones..pffft!
Given the rules for visitor's and work permits, Staniford's comments that he hasn't worked since May 2010 and has no financial resources and the fact that he has somehow been covering his costs of living, it is quite possible that he is in violation of the rules and subject to deportation, a fact that would come out, as was pointed out earlier, when he got involved with the legal system this time.
It is quite interesting that no media picked up on Staniford's facebook comment and that Staniford himself shut right up about it. No doubt, if it is true, that Staniford saw this as a good opportunity to raise even money by presenting himself as the righteous but downtrodden victim of a system out to railroad him.
I suspect that his lawyer's first response, should the claim actually be true, would be to shut him up and tell him he wasn't doing himself any favours by complaining of being treated badly for flaunting the law. Any statements he made now would likely affect the outcome of prospective deportation proceedings. Staniford, now running scared in spite of his bravado and bluster, obviously would recognize the merits of that suggestion though he wasn't smart enough to restrain himself from saying that he wouldn't pay any judgments obtained against him. Truly an ethical man!
I'm also curious what that "$50,000 dollars the Norwegian government would have" as noted in the translated article refers to. I'm wondering if he moved here to avoid paying some previous judgment against him that will be enforceable once he returns to Europe.
-
interesting read.
http://salmonaresacred.org/sites/default/files/about/Don_Staniford_Interview.pdf
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/173748/Oceans_Advocates.pdf
-
Or........
It was a failed attempt by the government to try and rattle him. After the initial shock of being confronted by immigration in the hallway, Don decided to set it aside and focus on the trial.
Hard to believe that Absolon is resorting to spreading silly conspiracy theories... when he prides himself on backing everything with science. ::)
Failed attempt by the government to try and rattle him?? You are too funny. You actually believe this stuff. So who else is part of the conspiracy along with the Province of BC, DFO, CFIA, CBSA and Mainstream to have poor Don deported? Maybe they all know where Jimmy Hoffa is.
Unlike that Italian curise ship captain at least you are going down with your ship....so I give you credit.
-
Failed attempt by the government to try and rattle him?? You are too funny. You actually believe this stuff. So who else is part of the conspiracy along with the Province of BC, DFO, CFIA, CBSA and Mainstream to have poor Don deported? Maybe they all know where Jimmy Hoffa is.
Unlike that Italian curise ship captain at least you are going down with your ship....so I give you credit.
Going down with the ship? This whole issue about salmon has been going on for years, before most of us took an interest and I donot see it ending any time soon.
Have you read the book previously mentioned and suggested reading by Terry, A Stain Upon The Sea that was published 8 years ago in 2004? If not maybe you should consider doing so, it is more than just ones person opinion on what is going on.
Thanks for your contributions to this subject.
-
Failed attempt by the government to try and rattle him?? You are too funny. You actually believe this stuff. So who else is part of the conspiracy along with the Province of BC, DFO, CFIA, CBSA and Mainstream to have poor Don deported? Maybe they all know where Jimmy Hoffa is.
Unlike that Italian curise ship captain at least you are going down with your ship....so I give you credit.
Apparently you haven't read the email that circulated at the CFIA? "It is clear that we are turning the PR tide to our favour," he writes, "and this is because of the very successful performance of our spokesmen at the Tech Briefing yesterday... Congratulations! One battle is won, now we have to nail the surveillance piece, and we will win the war also."
CFIA is a government agency.... It's pretty obvious that they will do anything to "win the war"! That's not funny!
-
Week 1 Review: Cermaq Vs. Staniford, From Global Alliance
http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/week-1-review-cermaq-vs-staniford
-
So, uh, how much money are you (Chris, alwaysfishin,Troutbreath, etc) donating to defend this guy?
Anyone?
-
I would guess they already lost there shirts on closed containment.
The old "donate" button on those sites is always an indicator.
I see it as a bit of a flaw in the anti salmon farming crusade. Seems to be a fair number of anti-groups out there scrachin for the donations. You would think they would be united some how but the competition for funding is stiff I guess. Now don is cuttin in as an dependent just pissing all that money away. And if he loses and does not pay we are all paying for it as taxpayers. That irks me.
And by the way, there seems to be allot of talk of sea lion and seal deaths in the last posts. In my neck of the woods we have not had a death of either for over 3 years. This is the result of new nets specifically designed to defend farm stocks from critters and not accidentally kill them. Basically reducing contact between the two to zero.
This is what bothers me about the anti's is that they keep hammering away at old situations that have long since been resolved. This by the way is the case in much of the info in the old "stain upon the sea" book. I find it hard to believe that chris has "just found it". Time for those guys to write an up to date version though I think that would reduced it to a small brochure if it contained actual facts and no fear mongering.
Thanks for the post chris...interesting read indeed.
-
I would guess they already lost there shirts on closed containment.
The old "donate" button on those sites is always an indicator.
I see it as a bit of a flaw in the anti salmon farming crusade. Seems to be a fair number of anti-groups out there scrachin for the donations. You would think they would be united some how but the competition for funding is stiff I guess. Now don is cuttin in as an dependent just pissing all that money away. And if he loses and does not pay we are all paying for it as taxpayers. That irks me.
And by the way, there seems to be allot of talk of sea lion and seal deaths in the last posts. In my neck of the woods we have not had a death of either for over 3 years. This is the result of new nets specifically designed to defend farm stocks from critters and not accidentally kill them. Basically reducing contact between the two to zero.
This is what bothers me about the anti's is that they keep hammering away at old situations that have long since been resolved. This by the way is the case in much of the info in the old "stain upon the sea" book. I find it hard to believe that chris has "just found it". Time for those guys to write an up to date version though I think that would reduced it to a small brochure if it contained actual facts and no fear mongering.
Thanks for the post chris...interesting read indeed.
I should remind you that Staniford didn't start this wasted court time. It is Mainstream that took it to court.
That's what should irk you!
-
So, uh, how much money are you (Chris, alwaysfishin,Troutbreath, etc) donating to defend this guy?
Anyone?
I don't know how to say "It's none of your business!" in a polite way.
Any suggestions? ;D
-
I should remind you that Staniford didn't start this wasted court time. It is Mainstream that took it to court.
That's what should irk you!
Free speech is one thing, this case is another. I think they should take him to court. I am glad they did. I think they should.
Funny that all the grandstanding attempts by staniford are being denied. That does not happen in the public forum.
I wonder why he isn't wearing any of his costumes to court? Oh I guess he doesn't have to, his true colors are shining just fine.
-
You can deny it is about free speech, however when a Corporation takes a person to court to stop them from speaking their mind it is an attempt to limit free speech.
A win for Mainstream would mean that any company could muzzle any individual if they felt that the individual was saying something they disagreed with..... That's why I can't see this going anywhere.
Is there a Canadian legal precedent that you are aware of that would give Mainstream any hope of winning this? Notice I said Canadian, not some communist country where this goes on all the time.
-
Don't you think that there has to be a limit to what a person can say in and how they say it? Or are you just a hands down "free speech" guy and truth does not matter? There has to be a boundary. Even for him to be credible there has to be a boundary otherwise the public will just see him for the cracker that he is.
-
It is pretty unprofessional of don to push the boundary. If this case is about free speech then that kinda discredits him in the sense that it doesn't matter what he says. He can say whatever he wants even if it is BS or unrealistic, which in this case it obviously is!
-
It is pretty unprofessional of don to push the boundary. If this case is about free speech then that kinda discredits him in the sense that it doesn't matter what he says. He can say whatever he wants even if it is BS or unrealistic, which in this case it obviously is!
You must remember that Staniford is the defendant. He is defending against Mainstream trying to muzzle him because they argue he is saying untrue statements about them. I think if you look at all Stanifords statements, you will find some truth in all of them and at the very least you would be hard pressed to prove that the statements are not true....
Salmon farming kills - they kill seals for example
Salmon farming harms the environment - of course it does
Salmon farming products make people sick - if a person eats enough PCB's they will get sick and die. That's why the EPA suggests limiting the intake of farmed salmon.
Salmon farming does illegal activities - they just admitted guilt to that
Salmon farming's business and products kill the environment - you know very well that it's a dead zone under the pens
This is just a few of the examples...
Change and reforms only happen when individuals "push the boundaries". They couldn't do this if they were muzzled. If individuals didn't push boundaries women wouldn't be voting..... Slavery wouldn't have been abolished. ???
-
You want it to be a muzzling but I see it as more about truth.
It is hard to have a debate with you when you are exaggerating everything so extensively.
-
You want it to be a muzzling but I see it as more about truth.
It is hard to have a debate with you when you are exaggerating everything so extensively.
Which of Staniford's statements don't have any truth in them?
-
Everyone here seams to agree that that salmon farms have an effect. The truth is not so black and white as you may prefer it to be. Based on your principle use of truth we should move vancouver, stop farming fields near rivers, stop driving cars...the list goes on and on. How do you feed yourself under those rules of engagement. My point is you exaggerate every item that suits your cause. Your level of Zero tolerance if applied to most of our daily lives make nothing possible. I could go on and on of examples but I think most people can figure it out.
The only thing I can suggest to you to help you understand this is that you have yourself a personal zero tolerance week where for 1 week you use and eat nothing that has an impact on the environment period. I am pretty sure you will find yourself out in the mountains, naked, frozen solid in the dark on your first night. Maybe you would get it then but I doubt it.
-
Everyone here seams to agree that that salmon farms have an effect. The truth is not so black and white as you may prefer it to be. Based on your principle use of truth we should move vancouver, stop farming fields near rivers, stop driving cars...the list goes on and on. How do you feed yourself under those rules of engagement. My point is you exaggerate every item that suits your cause. Your level of Zero tolerance if applied to most of our daily lives make nothing possible. I could go on and on of examples but I think most people can figure it out.
The only thing I can suggest to you to help you understand this is that you have yourself a personal zero tolerance week where for 1 week you use and eat nothing that has an impact on the environment period. I am pretty sure you will find yourself out in the mountains, naked, frozen solid in the dark on your first night. Maybe you would get it then but I doubt it.
so if everyone agrees that salmon farms have an effect, why would Mainstream try and muzzle Staniford?
-
Which of Staniford's statements don't have any truth in them?
Ummmm....as soon as he opens his mouth... ;D
-
so if everyone agrees that salmon farms have an effect, why would Mainstream try and muzzle Staniford?
The bottom line is that stanfords statements are obviously not true to the extent that you and he present them to be. This zero tolerance exhibited by you both can be inflicted on most food products we all consume everyday.
Even honey is bad.http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/grocery-store-honey-not-actually-honey.html (http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/grocery-store-honey-not-actually-honey.html)
You can search for problems with pretty much any food and find problems with it. This is why I wonder how you are surviving. Maybe you are living off walnuts cuz for the life of me I could not find any problems with walnuts except for the fact that they don't really fall into the shop local only tolerance and no small farmer makes money off them. There is even little talk about PCB's in walnuts but I bet there is. You better stop eating them just in case.
Let me know how your zero impact week goes or are you waiting for summer just to bump up your odds of surviving the first night.
Don sure seems to be using a softer quieter voice in his videos these days. Can't help but to wonder why.
You can call it a muzzling all you want but mainstream just wants him to quit with the cigarette comparison because it is totally not true.
-
The bottom line is that stanfords statements are obviously not true to the extent that you and he present them to be. This zero tolerance exhibited by you both can be inflicted on most food products we all consume everyday.
Even honey is bad.http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/grocery-store-honey-not-actually-honey.html (http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/grocery-store-honey-not-actually-honey.html)
You can search for problems with pretty much any food and find problems with it. This is why I wonder how you are surviving. Maybe you are living off walnuts cuz for the life of me I could not find any problems with walnuts except for the fact that they don't really fall into the shop local only tolerance and no small farmer makes money off them. There is even little talk about PCB's in walnuts but I bet there is. You better stop eating them just in case.
Let me know how your zero impact week goes or are you waiting for summer just to bump up your odds of surviving the first night.
Don sure seems to be using a softer quieter voice in his videos these days. Can't help but to wonder why.
You can call it a muzzling all you want but mainstream just wants him to quit with the cigarette comparison because it is totally not true.
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/bc_ctv_investigates_food_fish_100219/20100304
-
So, uh, how much money are you (Chris, alwaysfishin,Troutbreath, etc) donating to defend this guy?
Anyone?
Lets put it this way, more than you and some others here. ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/bc_ctv_investigates_food_fish_100219/20100304
The video's did not mention that farm salmon is substantially lower in cholesterol. They also didn't say that eating farmed fish is similar to smoking cigarettes. Hmmm?
-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848610003297
-
The video's did not mention that farm salmon is substantially lower in cholesterol. They also didn't say that eating farmed fish is similar to smoking cigarettes. Hmmm?
They didn't want to offend the cigarette companies.... ;D
-
The video's did not mention that farm salmon is substantially lower in cholesterol. They also didn't say that eating farmed fish is similar to smoking cigarettes. Hmmm?
with that logic, eating non of it, should be even healthier .
-
Okay, let me see if I've got this one straight. Staniford conducts a campaign against global Norwegian salmon farming, claiming, among other things, that farmed salmon causes cancer (like cigarettes) and suggests, through his use of mock cigarette packs, that salmon companies should be warning consumers of the dangers (like the cigarette companies do). Mainstream Canada and its parent Cermaq are offended by his campaign and launch a civil defamation suit against him, arguing that his claims (like those mentioned above) are false and have caused harm to the company's image. In the proceedings so far (1 week of testimony), the ads shown in exhibits do not mention the company at all (only the Norwegian flag and coat of arms appear in the ads linking the campaign to Cermaq, Mainstream's parent company, which is partly owned (48%) by the Norwegian government), and the defense has presented peer a reviewed article in leading scientific journal that concludes that "In considering cancer risks only from PCBs, dieldrin, and toxaphene, use of the USEPA approach triggered very stringent advisories against frequent consumption" in the amount of 1 meal for every 2 to 4 months, depending on the country of origin, which was at least "an order of magnitude higher in farmed and market samples than in wild Pacific salmon." To which the plaintiff's witness, Dr Gallo admitted there was a "scientific controversy" over the data, and that while he did not agree with their (Huang et al.) interpretation of the data, he admited that "no reasonable scientist would argue with the data."
So tell me, where was the defamation against Mainstream/Cermaq committed?
Works Cited
Huang et al., "Consumption advisories for salmon based on risk of cancer and noncancer health effects," Environmental Research, 101 (2006) 263–274.
BTW - I have not donated anything to his defense, and in reading the complaint against Staniford, and the judge's ruling against his attempts to get the case expanded to essentially put the salmon farming industry on trial, I found it all quite damaging to him. It all seemed to be a slam dunk to Cermaq...if they could prove he lied. Now, I am intrigued that Cermaq would really want all this to come out in court. I mean, what if the court finds that Staniford did not "falsify" information in his campaign? What if the judge finds that there is enough truth in the ads to have a defamation case thrown out? What is THAT going to do to Cermaq's image? All their PR and advertising dollars are not going to fix their image then, is it? I mean, he did not even mention their company by name, but they have now irrevocably tied their name to those cigarette ads. Truly a bizarre move.
-
Staniford doesn't claim that eating farmed fish causes cancer. He claims that fish farms are, amongst many other nasty things, a cancer. That is the defamation and a defence that eating farmed salmon increases risk of cancer doesn't really address it.
-
Staniford doesn't claim that eating farmed fish causes cancer. He claims that fish farms are, amongst many other nasty things, a cancer. That is the defamation and a defence that eating farmed salmon increases risk of cancer doesn't really address it.
Interesting...I wonder how "fish farms are a cancer upon the sea" is that different from "fish farms are a stain upon the sea?" Furthermore, the testimony in that first week seemed to be focusing on how his campaign likened the fish farm companies to tobacco companies, which willfully mislead the consumers about the health effects of their products (can the tobacco companies now sue Cermaq because their employees are claiming the tobacco companies are dishonest?). They do not appear to be approaching the argument from your perspective. Maybe they need you on their legal team.
-
Okay, let me see if I've got this one straight. Staniford conducts a campaign against global Norwegian salmon farming, claiming, among other things, that farmed salmon causes cancer (like cigarettes) and suggests, through his use of mock cigarette packs, that salmon companies should be warning consumers of the dangers (like the cigarette companies do). Mainstream Canada and its parent Cermaq are offended by his campaign and launch a civil defamation suit against him, arguing that his claims (like those mentioned above) are false and have caused harm to the company's image. In the proceedings so far (1 week of testimony), the ads shown in exhibits do not mention the company at all (only the Norwegian flag and coat of arms appear in the ads linking the campaign to Cermaq, Mainstream's parent company, which is partly owned (48%) by the Norwegian government), and the defense has presented peer a reviewed article in leading scientific journal that concludes that "In considering cancer risks only from PCBs, dieldrin, and toxaphene, use of the USEPA approach triggered very stringent advisories against frequent consumption" in the amount of 1 meal for every 2 to 4 months, depending on the country of origin, which was at least "an order of magnitude higher in farmed and market samples than in wild Pacific salmon." To which the plaintiff's witness, Dr Gallo admitted there was a "scientific controversy" over the data, and that while he did not agree with their (Huang et al.) interpretation of the data, he admited that "no reasonable scientist would argue with the data."
So tell me, where was the defamation against Mainstream/Cermaq committed?
Works Cited
Huang et al., "Consumption advisories for salmon based on risk of cancer and noncancer health effects," Environmental Research, 101 (2006) 263–274.
BTW - I have not donated anything to his defense, and in reading the complaint against Staniford, and the judge's ruling against his attempts to get the case expanded to essentially put the salmon farming industry on trial, I found it all quite damaging to him. It all seemed to be a slam dunk to Cermaq...if they could prove he lied. Now, I am intrigued that Cermaq would really want all this to come out in court. I mean, what if the court finds that Staniford did not "falsify" information in his campaign? What if the judge finds that there is enough truth in the ads to have a defamation case thrown out? What is THAT going to do to Cermaq's image? All their PR and advertising dollars are not going to fix their image then, is it? I mean, he did not even mention their company by name, but they have now irrevocably tied their name to those cigarette ads. Truly a bizarre move.
Sums it up nicely Sandman. Kinda like watching a 2 year old have a temper tantrum.
-
Interesting...I wonder how "fish farms are a cancer upon the sea" is that different from "fish farms are a stain upon the sea?" Furthermore, the testimony in that first week seemed to be focusing on how his campaign likened the fish farm companies to tobacco companies, which willfully mislead the consumers about the health effects of their products (can the tobacco companies now sue Cermaq because their employees are claiming the tobacco companies are dishonest?). They do not appear to be approaching the argument from your perspective. Maybe they need you on their legal team.
The last thing they need is another armchair quarterback. There are more than enough contributing their two cents (more or less) already. And I'll leave deciding the relevance of the arguments to the judge; after all, even if I was there to observe everything, it's his impressions that are the critical ones.
-
The last thing they need is another armchair quarterback. There are more than enough contributing their two cents (more or less) already. And I'll leave deciding the relevance of the arguments to the judge; after all, even if I was there to observe everything, it's his impressions that are the critical ones.
It's a her..... Justice Elaine Adair
-
Staniford doesn't claim that eating farmed fish causes cancer. He claims that fish farms are, amongst many other nasty things, a cancer. That is the defamation and a defence that eating farmed salmon increases risk of cancer doesn't really address it.
I guess that's why the judges get paid the big bucks.
I think the argument hinges on Staniford's view that in the past some suspected and accused Big Tobacco Inc's products of causing illness among both the direct and the accidental users of causing all sorts of nasty illnesses; Big Tobacco Inc fought back at first with the help of local to national Governments until it was undeniable anymore. We have all seen the results of that argument.
I think Staniford is using the analogy in his campaign that Big Fish Farm Inc. is using the same tactics, and that history will tell if he's right.
The right of one indusry or another to pollute is a differant issue.
-
LOL!
Staniford isn't waiting for history to tell if he's right.
-
Sums it up nicely Sandman. Kinda like watching a 2 year old have a temper tantrum.
That's a good analogy for Staniford...he does seem to think he can say and do anything he wants....which he amply demonstrated at the Cohen Commission posting stolen evidence from Ms. Morton.
-
That's a good analogy for Staniford...he does seem to think he can say and do anything he wants....which he amply demonstrated at the Cohen Commission posting stolen evidence from Ms. Morton.
Yes, some people interpret free speech really liberally...... ::)
-
http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/girl-who-kicked-hornets-nest-and-girl-who-played-fire
-
http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/girl-who-kicked-hornets-nest-and-girl-who-played-fire
Funny how Mainstream has backed down from their original charges, revised the charges and are now focusing on the "sting". I wonder how much longer before they back off on all these silly charges?
-
I find it interesting that, given the arguments last week, Mainstream's lawyer did not anticipate that the defense was going to present the same papers on the elevated levels of contaminates in farmed salmon and, therefore, should have been prepared with those papers Ruth Salmon suggested were out there contesting the scientific findings. It made her argument that the science had been refuted to the point that “We don’t have a controversy now” seem very weak, especially given the subsequent paper confirming the higher levels of contaminates in farmed salmon. Very weak.
-
It's still early but Mainstream is not looking too bright so far....
-
Update on Staniford: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ixYrxeGUMw&fb_source=message (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ixYrxeGUMw&fb_source=message)
-
From Alex
In an unprecedented move fishing lodges are challenging other lodges to support the legal costs of the 20-day defamation trial: Staniford vs Mainstream (owned by Cermaq, largely owned by the Norwegian government). Staniford compared the salmon farming industry to big tobacco.
Central to the case is whether the salmon farming industry read the scientific papers recommending limiting farm salmon consumption due to toxin levels and then spent millions trying to convince people to eat more farm salmon.
The trial is ongoing this week. Already $24,000 has come from over 300 donations from the public. $10,000 came from a group of fishermen in Norway. A Swedish fly-fishing magazine has put out a plea for funding of this case.
The trial is public and ongoing at: Law Courts, Nelson and Hornby entrance 10 am #52.
See the BC fishing lodge challenge: alexandramorton.typepad.com
If we want wild salmon it is up to us.
Alexandra Morton
alexandramorton.typepad.com
-
Ludicrous! Skeena steelhead are in far more danger from Babine sockeye commercial fisheries. Read Bob Hooton's recent book on the mismanagement of these fish :( If anything these lodge owners should be pushing for terminal sockeye fisheries on the Skeena system.
-
These are intelligent business men and I admire their generosity. They are taking an opportunity to express their appreciation for someone they know is fighting to preserve their lively hood.
Interesting thing is that Don isn't even fighting for their lively hood. He just wants to see the wild salmon survive.
-
These are intelligent business men and I admire their generosity. They are taking an opportunity to express their appreciation for someone they know is fighting to preserve their lively hood.
Interesting thing is that Don isn't even fighting for their lively hood. He just wants to see the wild salmon survive.
Thank goodness for the fish farms. If it weren't for the farms who would they blame. I always am surprised that commercial and sport fishers(some not all) support so generously, a group that, say once the fish farms were gone, would shut them down in a heart beat. After all, He just wants to see the wild salmon survive.
I know others will think that would never happen.
IMO
Save the wild salmon by eating them?
Interesting thing is that Don isn't even fighting for their lively hood.
I couldn't agree more.
-
Thank goodness for the fish farms. If it weren't for the farms who would they blame. I always am surprised that commercial and sport fishers(some not all) support so generously, a group that, say once the fish farms were gone, would shut them down in a heart beat. After all,
I know others will think that would never happen.
IMO
Save the wild salmon by eating them?
I couldn't agree more.
Is this the new pro feedlot slogan? seem to be hearing it more and more. Maybe it will be part of the next salmon farm marketing campaign.
A lot us like to eat wild salmon, probably because of the very low PCB content..... :D
-
You seem to be holding on tightly to this PCB thing even though you very well know the levels are well within the acceptable levels and the varied results are currency to controversy.
We are going to see what the court thinks. Oh, I just about forgot, you do not trust the government.
You know if stanford loses, there whole story is going to change to freedom of speech, and conspiracy ideas and all of that. :'(
-
A lot us like to eat wild salmon, probably because of the very low PCB content..... :D
Now now. It is not "low"...it is just a heck of a lot lower than farmed salmon. PCBs continue to plague all sea food chains, and salmon (as a top end predator) is affected by the bio accumulation of these chemicals. This is why we need to continue to fight to have the use and disposal of these chemicals controlled. The farmed fish, because of the concentration of their food pellets, are simply more affected than wild fish by an order of magnitude.
-
I see it like this. Farm Fish have a higher fat content so like everything else there is potential for higher PCBs. So you could eat less of it and receive the same or better benefits of eating a regular portion of wild fish. Especially in the case of the leaner wild species.
What did you have for supper tonight, AF? Walnuts?
-
What did you have for supper tonight, AF? Walnuts?
;D ;D I had some baked "low PCB dose" wild sockeye salmon (that I caught myself), marinated in maple syrup, soya sauce, crushed fresh garlic and ginger root. Served over white rice and a mix of lightly stir fried fresh vegetables. A topping of crushed roasted walnuts would have been a nice touch... :)
The nice thing about wild salmon versus the feedlot stuff is it tastes great, and I can eat it 5 times a month yet I walk away from the table each time knowing that I will have eaten less PCB's than someone who has one atlantic salmon meal per month.
-
;D ;D I had some baked "low PCB dose" wild sockeye salmon (that I caught myself), marinated in maple syrup, soya sauce, crushed fresh garlic and ginger root. Served over white rice and a mix of lightly stir fried fresh vegetables. A topping of crushed roasted walnuts would have been a nice touch... :)
The nice thing about wild salmon versus the feedlot stuff is it tastes great, and I can eat it 5 times a month yet I walk away from the table each time knowing that I will have eaten less PCB's than someone who has one atlantic salmon meal per month.
Or you could have had a 1/5 portion of farmed salmon crushed into a pâté paste and scraped onto a cracker and still have the same PCBs.
-
Actually I have a great cedar plank recipe for feedlot atlantics.... ;) Substitute the white spring with an atlantic...
www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24243.msg228603 (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=24243.msg228603)
-
So you do not each chicken, butter, tuna because all that has higher pcb's than farm salmon.
Also, I have had some white springs that did not taste so good the way I cooked them but i recently found that I like it in soup. Like cajun style, tomato based with sausage and other seafood items. ;D I hope your not throwing white springs in the trash :'( like you suggest in your recipe. That would be a shame and unlawful.
-
So you do not each chicken, butter, tuna because all that has higher pcb's than farm salmon.
Also, I have had some white springs that did not taste so good the way I cooked them but i recently found that I like it in soup. Like cajun style, tomato based with sausage and other seafood items. ;D I hope your not throwing white springs in the trash :'( like you suggest in your recipe. That would be a shame and unlawful.
Check the ;D ;D's after his recipe. ;D
-
http://youtu.be/MAE-5HKZ96c
-
http://youtu.be/MAE-5HKZ96c
Interesting, very interesting. I agree.
-
A lot us like to eat wild salmon, probably because of the very low PCB content..... :D
The risk to your health is far greater by not eating either famed or wild salmon than by consume either of them. The truth of the matter is that there are small amount of PCBs all over the world. PCBs are lipophillic (like to bind to fat) so they will concentrate in fat. The 2004 Hites study over exagerates the issue and creates a lot of unneccessary fear. The levels of contaminants found are less than 1/80th of the acceptable levels established by Health Canada. Thus, if you are that concerned about PCB levels that low then you should really be cutting out other more prone sources of PCBs like beef, milk, eggs, poultry and pork. If this still does not satisfy you then you could trim the fat from farmed salmon. It should be noted that the farmed salmon used in the 2004 Hites report were not trimmed of any fat. Even if you do not decide to trim the fat from farmed salmon you are still better off eating it than not eating any salmon. Authors of these studies that claim that farm salmon is dangerous to your health also make the numbers (concentrations of contaminants) bigger than they actually are. Instead of using the commonly used ppm (parts per million) these authors use ppt (parts per trillion). When you report a number like 50,000 ppt to Joe Public he would tend to think that is a very high number, but in fact it is very, very, very small. Be careful of the use of units in reports because they can be misleading.
Statistically, you are at more risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) than cancer-related diseases due to PCBs in farmed salmon. The benefits of eating farmed or wild salmon with Omega-3 fatty acids far exceed any risk posed by PCBs. I would be more concerned with Type 2 diabetes (a much bigger concern in this country) than the extremely minimal risks posed by eating farmed salmon. Not even in the same ballpark.....Sorry. Even the World Health Organization agrees CHD is a much greater risk to your health (check out the rankings). A diet rich in Omega-3 fatty acids is a good place to start to help improve your health. This should really not be a farmed salmon vs. wild salmon issue. This is more of a public health issue. We should be not discouraging anyone from eating either farmed or wild salmon. That is totally the wrong direction in my opinion. In essence, the Hites study does more of disservice to public health than good. No wonder Suzuki hardly mentions it anymore. I like your recipe though.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/15/1885.full
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/other-autre/fish-poisson/index-eng.php
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5655/226 (Hites study)
-
Interesting, very interesting. I agree.
That lawyer is one cunning fellow and has chosen his words very carefully to sound as if he is simply discussing the underlying issues without prejudice. Though he explicity presents his comments as being non-prejudicial, he then goes on to portray Staniford as the little guy and implies that rather than being challenged by Mainstream, a BC salmon farming company, it is actually the government of Norway trying to shut Staniford up. Of course, he completely overlooks the very well organized and well funded campaign against salmon farming of which Staniford represents a very active component part.
He also presents this as a challenge against the right to free and fair comment on issues of great social concern. He completely neglects to mention the need for free and fair comment to remain within the boundaries of truth and provable fact.
For all the comments that are made about the importance of and interest in this trial, a Google search of the news turns up absolutely no coverage other than a few blogger sites and what Staniford and the reactionary movement have posted to youtube. This is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup every day; an inconsequential event to everyone but Staniford.
-
That lawyer is one cunning fellow and has chosen his words very carefully to sound as if he is simply discussing the underlying issues without prejudice. Though he explicity presents his comments as being non-prejudicial, he then goes on to portray Staniford as the little guy and implies that rather than being challenged by Mainstream, a BC salmon farming company, it is actually the government of Norway trying to shut Staniford up. Of course, he completely overlooks the very well organized and well funded campaign against salmon farming of which Staniford represents a very active component part.
He also presents this as a challenge against the right to free and fair comment on issues of great social concern. He completely neglects to mention the need for free and fair comment to remain within the boundaries of truth and provable fact.
For all the comments that are made about the importance of and interest in this trial, a Google search of the news turns up absolutely no coverage other than a few blogger sites and what Staniford and the reactionary movement have posted to youtube. This is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup every day; an inconsequential event to everyone but Staniford.
I think he is choosing his words carefully because it is clear that if he were to say anything that can be perceived to damage Mainstream's reputation then he would face a similar lawsuit himself.
-
For all the comments that are made about the importance of and interest in this trial, a Google search of the news turns up absolutely no coverage other than a few blogger sites and what Staniford and the reactionary movement have posted to youtube. This is looking more and more like a tempest in a teacup every day; an inconsequential event to everyone but Staniford.
We are getting lots of coverage here, isn't this a main stream media site? ;D ;D ;D
-
http://salmonaresacred.org/blog/sabra-truth-pens-letter-judge-adair-presiding-over-staniford-vs-mainstream-1
-
We are getting lots of coverage here, isn't this a main stream media site? ;D ;D ;D
I have to agree. The three of you are just whipping up a storm of coverage :D
It's a pity that Staniford doesn't look more like Pamela Anderson. If he did, I'd watch those videos he keeps posting telling us who is winning and panhandling for more spare change.
-
I have to agree. The three of you are just whipping up a storm of coverage :D
It's a pity that Staniford doesn't look more like Pamela Anderson. If he did, I'd watch those videos he keeps posting telling us who is winning and panhandling for more spare change.
My cousin's cousin is P.A. ??? ::) so take it easy on her. ;D The money he has raised is more than just spare change. ;D ;D ;D
-
The risk to your health is far greater by not eating either famed or wild salmon than by consume either of them. The truth of the matter is that there are small amount of PCBs all over the world. PCBs are lipophillic (like to bind to fat) so they will concentrate in fat. The 2004 Hites study over exagerates the issue and creates a lot of unneccessary fear. The levels of contaminants found are less than 1/80th of the acceptable levels established by Health Canada. Thus, if you are that concerned about PCB levels that low then you should really be cutting out other more prone sources of PCBs like beef, milk, eggs, poultry and pork. If this still does not satisfy you then you could trim the fat from farmed salmon. It should be noted that the farmed salmon used in the 2004 Hites report were not trimmed of any fat. Even if you do not decide to trim the fat from farmed salmon you are still better off eating it than not eating any salmon. Authors of these studies that claim that farm salmon is dangerous to your health also make the numbers (concentrations of contaminants) bigger than they actually are. Instead of using the commonly used ppm (parts per million) these authors use ppt (parts per trillion). When you report a number like 50,000 ppt to Joe Public he would tend to think that is a very high number, but in fact it is very, very, very small. Be careful of the use of units in reports because they can be misleading.
Statistically, you are at more risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) than cancer-related diseases due to PCBs in farmed salmon. The benefits of eating farmed or wild salmon with Omega-3 fatty acids far exceed any risk posed by PCBs. I would be more concerned with Type 2 diabetes (a much bigger concern in this country) than the extremely minimal risks posed by eating farmed salmon. Not even in the same ballpark.....Sorry. Even the World Health Organization agrees CHD is a much greater risk to your health (check out the rankings). A diet rich in Omega-3 fatty acids is a good place to start to help improve your health. This should really not be a farmed salmon vs. wild salmon issue. This is more of a public health issue. We should be not discouraging anyone from eating either farmed or wild salmon. That is totally the wrong direction in my opinion. In essence, the Hites study does more of disservice to public health than good. No wonder Suzuki hardly mentions it anymore.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/15/1885.full
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/other-autre/fish-poisson/index-eng.php
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5655/226 (Hites study)
Your post reminds me of this link.... http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm (http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm) Apparently smoking isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. ???
Myth: Cigarettes cause lung cancer.
Truth: Cigarettes do not cause cancer but are but one of many factors that can increase the incidence of lung cancer. People who have never been exposed to any type of cigarette smoke still get lung cancer. Not only that but for every 100 lifelong heavy smokers, less than 6 of them would ever get lung cancer.1,2 Hardly any direct correlation.
Myth: Smoking has no medical benefits.
Truth: It helps to prevent the development of neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.9-14 It may also be helpful in ADHD, schizophrenia, and depression.14 Smoking has been found to be relaxing for beneficial for some anxiety disorders and people with type A personalities. In fact, taking away smoking from some subgroups can increase their medical problems and chance of dying). Smoking like caffeine can help a person get going in the morning and improve their energy state.7 Though some of the benefits from smoking may be due to some individual components such as nicotine, studies need to be done and an effective means of administration needs to be developed.
I like your recipe though.
Thanks, I recommend it for all atlantic salmon..... ;D
-
The money he has raised is more than just spare change. ;D ;D ;D
But will it be enough?
-
Your post reminds me of this link.... http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm (http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm) Apparently smoking isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. ???
Myth: Cigarettes cause lung cancer.
Truth: Cigarettes do not cause cancer but are but one of many factors that can increase the incidence of lung cancer. People who have never been exposed to any type of cigarette smoke still get lung cancer. Not only that but for every 100 lifelong heavy smokers, less than 6 of them would ever get lung cancer.1,2 Hardly any direct correlation.
Myth: Smoking has no medical benefits.
Truth: It helps to prevent the development of neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.9-14 It may also be helpful in ADHD, schizophrenia, and depression.14 Smoking has been found to be relaxing for beneficial for some anxiety disorders and people with type A personalities. In fact, taking away smoking from some subgroups can increase their medical problems and chance of dying). Smoking like caffeine can help a person get going in the morning and improve their energy state.7 Though some of the benefits from smoking may be due to some individual components such as nicotine, studies need to be done and an effective means of administration needs to be developed.
Thanks, I recommend it for all atlantic salmon..... ;D
Tobacco Facts
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable illness and death in the United States. It causes many different cancers as well as chronic lung diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and heart disease. Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 443,000 deaths each year, including approximately 49,400 deaths due to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States, and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men and approximately 80 percent of lung cancer deaths among women are due to smoking.
Smoking causes many other types of cancer, including cancers of the throat, mouth, nasal cavity, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, bladder, and cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia.
People who smoke are up to six times more likely to suffer a heart attack than nonsmokers, and the risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked. Smoking also causes most cases of chronic lung disease.
In 2009, approximately 20.6 percent of U.S. adults were cigarette smokers.
Nearly 20 percent of high school students smoke cigarettes.
(See Tobacco Statistics Snapshot for references for this information.)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/tobacco/smoking
and yes ! 3 heart attacks later (one of which the pump stopped for over 2 mins) Had I not been on the table already ,i would not be here now to annoy the hell out of some :) I still have the occasional puff on a pipe or a cigar. I think it feels like it's benificial in relieving stress or like a meditation........ but it is stupid to deny it's detriments to health or to claim benifit.
an analogy perhaps?
-
an analogy perhaps?
Definitely an analogy! There is no question that smoking carries a huge health risk!
I was referencing Shuswapsteve's post where he said: ....and I paraphrase.. "Eating PCB laced farmed salmon is actually good for you, because while you are eating the PCB's you are benefiting from some Omega 3's."
Sorry to hear about your heart attacks. :(
........ And stay away from any form of tobacco.... or PCB's for that matter. ???
-
But will it be enough?
A lot of people that care about our wild salmon are stepping up to the plate and are not striking out but helping the best they can on this very important case.
-
Those people who step up to the plate aren't helping save the wild salmon. They are contributing to the personal welfare of a self-proclaimed illegal alien who displays very little personal responsibility.
-
A lot of people that care about our wild salmon are stepping up to the plate and are not striking out but helping the best they can on this very important case.
seems that many forget that the outcome of this trial may or may not muzzle folks from publicly communicating their thoughts or perceptions on any industry practice, especially so, if that industry feels it may promote a negative image .
What is fair comment and what is not: Are you allowed to publicly communicate those thoughts?
Now, if the decision goes against Mr.Staniford will that mean we/us /anyone cannot voice their opinion on any project ( name your Dam, Pipe Line here) or company As it will be seen as promoting a negative image?
-
Maybe Chris could post stanford's deportation papers in the spirit of transparency.
-
seems that many forget that the outcome of this trial may or may not muzzle folks from publicly communicating their thoughts or perceptions on any industry practice, especially so, if that industry feels it may promote a negative image .
What is fair comment and what is not: Are you allowed to publicly communicate those thoughts?
Now, if the decision goes against Mr.Staniford will that mean we/us /anyone cannot voice their opinion on any project ( name your Dam, Pipe Line here) or company As it will be seen as promoting a negative image?
The issue is not whether a person can speak up in opposition. The issue at stake in this case is that the comments must be based on truth and cannot simply be the fabrication of an overactive imagination served up in an organized PR campaign as a means to attain a personal end. Staniford is simply being given the opportunity to demonstrate that all the comments he made are true. If he can satisfactorily accomplish that, he has nothing to fear and walks away unencumbered. If he cannot, he will be required to face the consequences of abusing his right to speak out. This trial is a pointed reminder that with rights come responsibilities.
-
Maybe Chris could post stanford's deportation papers in the spirit of transparency.
Should probably wait until it happens, I have heard some reasons but have not verified them to date. One small item for you, his name is spelt Staniford.
-
Those people who step up to the plate aren't helping save the wild salmon. They are contributing to the personal welfare of a self-proclaimed illegal alien who displays very little personal responsibility.
If we did not have people willing to speak up, stand up for our environment, our fish and wildlife they, as well as the human race would be a lot worse off than what we are faced with now, in British Columbia, Canada and around our planet. There is so many examples of that and I donot have to list them as most of us personally know what some of them are as we have all seen and read about them during our life time and during the past century.
It certainly is a disappointing state of affairs that human apathy, in too many cases let this all happen without questioning decisions made by some levels of government and those that gain financially, all at the expense of the environment and those that rely on a pristine environment to survive.
History proves that, I think you would agree, I hope you do.
-
http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/green-warriors-world-unite
-
If we did not have people willing to speak up, stand up for our environment, our fish and wildlife they, as well as the human race would be a lot worse off than what we are faced with now, in British Columbia, Canada and around our planet. There is so many examples of that and I donot have to list them as most of us personally know what some of them are as we have all seen and read about them during our life time and during the past century.
It certainly is a disappointing state of affairs that human apathy, in too many cases let this all happen without questioning decisions made by some levels of government and those that gain financially, all at the expense of the environment and those that rely on a pristine environment to survive.
History proves that, I think you would agree, I hope you do.
Personally, I wouldn't include Staniford among those you are talking about nor do I consider his cause, his approach or his "accomplishments" to be worthy of support. I appreciate someone who can back up their beliefs with a something more than caustic PR campaigns, media manipulation, comic book characters and that ever-present outstretched hand in search of just a few dollars more. Needless to say he won't be seeing any of my support, financial or otherwise. I know there are a few who disagree with me and are happy to fund and support him; there is an expression attributed to PT Barnum that in my view, aptly describes them.
-
http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/green-warriors-world-unite
Does that mean we are finally gonna be rid of him.. ;D
Absolon I disagree with the PT Barnum quote, Im leaning more to the quote from Forrest Gump.
-
Does that mean we are finally gonna be rid of him.. ;D
Absolon I disagree with the PT Barnum quote, Im leaning more to the quote from Forrest Gump.
Maybe in years past but in the new age we are in, nothing will change as of course the internet reaches in nearly every corner of our world.
Good try though. ;D ;D
-
Does that mean we are finally gonna be rid of him.. ;D
Absolon I disagree with the PT Barnum quote, Im leaning more to the quote from Forrest Gump.
I suspect I know which one you mean. I try to be a little more generous and only apply that one when it has been well earned.
-
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2012/01/fishing-lodges-step-up-to-help-pay-don-staniford-legal-costs.html
-
As I said the first time you posted this Chris - ludicrous. As absolon has so many times stated, the best thing for wild salmon, and logically for lodge owners, is for less commercial fishing on our remaining wild stocks.
Salmon farms are not impacting any lodge owners I know of (if I'm wrong here please correct me, anyone) and I question how much money will be collected by these gullible but supposedly business savvy owners to defend Staniford.
-
As I said the first time you posted this Chris - ludicrous. As absolon has so many times stated, the best thing for wild salmon, and logically for lodge owners, is for less commercial fishing on our remaining wild stocks.
Salmon farms are not impacting any lodge owners I know of (if I'm wrong here please correct me, anyone) and I question how much money will be collected by these gullible but supposedly business savvy owners to defend Staniford.
I will be joining the gullible next week when I take some funds down, let me know if you change your mind and wish to send some too. ;D ;D ;D
By the way, donations going very well now with thousands rolling in daily from the............, proud to be one of them. ;D ;D ;D
-
Imagine what all this and other moneys could do if it went toward research and technology to better our wild salmon rather than just pissing it into the wind and fueling this emotional drama.
-
Imagine what all this and other moneys could do if it went toward research and technology to better our wild salmon rather than just pissing it into the wind and fueling this emotional drama.
Imagine if big companies like Mainstream, accepted some responsibility and moved their feedlots on land. Then there would be no need for Morton and Staniford to fight to protect the wild salmon from the feedlots.
-
I will be joining the gullible next week when I take some funds down, let me know if you change your mind and wish to send some too. ;D ;D ;D
By the way, donations going very well now with thousands rolling in daily from the............, proud to be one of them. ;D ;D ;D
Chris, we're good friends so don't take toooo much offence but your track record of backing critical thinking is weak. You once politically supported Chilliwack locals Barry Penner and John Les. You also once supported opening the Fraser River to sockeye salmon “harvesting”. You have admitted you were wrong in those support initiatives and I know you well enough that you will also admit, eventually, that curtailing commercial fisheries, increasing available habitat, and promoting salmon farming in BC is/will be, the only hope for wild salmon ;)
-
Chris, we're good friends so don't take toooo much offence but your track record of backing critical thinking is weak. You once politically supported Chilliwack locals Barry Penner and John Les. You also once supported opening the Fraser River to sockeye salmon “harvesting”. You have admitted you were wrong in those support initiatives and I know you well enough that you will also admit, eventually, that curtailing commercial fisheries, increasing available habitat, and promoting salmon farming in BC is/will be, the only hope for wild salmon ;)
Just deleted my comment I had typed out to this as turning into getting a little too personal that really does not accomplish much, so will not go there, for now. ::) ::)
PS Time for you to go fishing Dave.
-
Chris, we're good friends so don't take toooo much offence but your track record of backing critical thinking is weak. You once politically supported Chilliwack locals Barry Penner and John Les. You also once supported opening the Fraser River to sockeye salmon “harvesting”. You have admitted you were wrong in those support initiatives and I know you well enough that you will also admit, eventually, that curtailing commercial fisheries, increasing available habitat, and promoting salmon farming in BC is/will be, the only hope for wild salmon ;)
Nice work Dave..... Asking someone to not take offense and then criticizing them isn't in the book, "How to win friends and influence people". You may want to re-read it. ::)
Hopefully you an Absolon will eventually come to your senses and admit that the salmon feedlots are a poison in the ocean and a threat to our wild salmon.
-
Chris . . . I know you well enough that you will also admit, eventually, that curtailing commercial fisheries, increasing available habitat, and promoting salmon farming in BC is/will be, the only hope for wild salmon ;)
Dave, farming Atlantic salmon in open net pens on the BC coast is not, nor will it ever be, the salvation of wild salmon.
-
Maybe in years past but in the new age we are in, nothing will change as of course the internet reaches in nearly every corner of our world.
Good try though. ;D ;D
You give him far too much credit. I had never heard of him until he turned up as the one who released those Cohen documents that Morton had made an undertaking not to release. I suspect he made a much greater impression on those of you who were predisposed to see him as a hero and give him money; the rest of the world, not so much. Comic book characters don't usually make much of an impression with adults, and other than his legal troubles, those characters seem to be his claim to fame.
I wonder if he is going to apply for a work permit from the Norwegian government so he can accept his new job?
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canada+failure+protect+marine+biodiversity+disappointing+dismaying+asserts+panel+chair/6091476/story.html#ixzz1lPvuhrUu
From the article above if you do not want to read it all, interesting, maybe what some of us are concerned about is not just us that are seeing what is going on in our oceans.
Hutchings urged Canadians to show greater concern about the impact of climate change, fishing, and aquaculture on marine biodiversity. The best strategy against such "key stressors" is to protect existing diversity and to rebuild depleted populations and species to restore natural diversity.
-
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2012/02/free-speech-on-trial.html
-
Off to the trial today to offer support and give Don some funds, will give him your best wishes too. ;D ;D ;D
Should be a good day as tubed a steelhead for the hatchery program this morning and lost 3 others.
-
Good chris. Can you find out why he is being deported while your chatin him up and, maybe post the documents?
-
Say hi to Don for me :D
-
LOL! Say goodbye for me!
-
Off to the trial today to offer support and give Don some funds, will give him your best wishes too. ;D ;D ;D
Should be a good day as tubed a steelhead for the hatchery program this morning and lost 3 others.
What was the name of that song??...Fools Rush In.... ;D
Grats on the steely Chris.
-
Found a little more information about the ongoing case in the student newspaper at U Vic where Dr. John Volpe teaches. The key points, assuming accurate reporting, are as follows:
Staniford has a month left before he has to be out of the country and he is being deported because he didn't renew his visa, no specification whether it was a visitor's or work visa, but I suspect visitor's since work would require a sponsor and no capability within country to fill the job.
The only witness for the defense was Volpe and although defense tried to have him admitted as an expert witness, the judge ruled against that and declared Volpe's testimony inadmissible.
Staniford has raised $20,000 from U Vic's Enironmental Law defense fund, $10,000 from a group of Norwegian fishermen and $28,000 from online begging through gofundme.com. Staniford claims his costs are $3000 a day; he is still short $2000 for the projected 20 day trial but maybe Chris will help him out with that.
That leaves the question of the verdict. Guilty would leave him on the hook for some substantial judgment and potentially Mainstream's legal costs. It would also leave him in Norway, within reach of Cermaq with the judgment in hand. Innocent would perhaps even cover his legal costs and would leave him a nice little chunk of pocket change to fund setting up household in Norway unless he returns the money.
Article is here:
http://martlet.ca/martlet/article/industry-sues-antifish-farm-activist/ (http://martlet.ca/martlet/article/industry-sues-antifish-farm-activist/)
-
Thanks absolon for your continuing diligence in rooting out the facts. My guess is Chris could fund that last 2k by selling all his recovered Drennans ;)
Interesting that Volpe was not recognized as an expert witness but, perhaps correctly considering his publication record.
If Mr. Staniford is indeed found innocent wouldn't he have to return the money donated to his defence?
-
Thanks Dave. I'm finding the whole saga quite entertaining once the partisan rhetoric is stripped away. You'd figure a guy that was living "black" would have the good sense to keep his head down. I guess celebrity can warp judgment.
I doubt that the larger donations will be made if not required but I assume all the funds raised from well-meaning individuals through the begging site are a done deal through the miracle of paypal and credit cards. As an aside, I wonder how much the begging site skims off the top as their cut.
One would assume a moral obligation to return unneeded funds dedicated to the defense should the innocent scenario occur, but if and until that happens, any prediction is simply unfounded speculation.
-
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/02/05/anti-fish-farming-campaigner-to-land-on-scottish-shores/
-
Thanks Dave. I'm finding the whole saga quite entertaining once the partisan rhetoric is stripped away. You'd figure a guy that was living "black" would have the good sense to keep his head down. I guess celebrity can warp judgment.
I doubt that the larger donations will be made if not required but I assume all the funds raised from well-meaning individuals through the begging site are a done deal through the miracle of paypal and credit cards. As an aside, I wonder how much the begging site skims off the top as their cut.
One would assume a moral obligation to return unneeded funds dedicated to the defense should the innocent scenario occur, but if and until that happens, any prediction is simply unfounded speculation.
My, my, all this speculation on what Staniford should or shouldn't or will do with the funds he is raising......... and the trial is still on. Whether Staniford is proven guilty or innocent, he will still be responsible for his legal costs. If the judge dismisses the charges and requires that Mainstream pay court costs, they are only a small fraction of his actual costs.
I appreciate your passion for your industry, however you're stooping pretty low in your attempts to discredit a man who's pure motivation is the preservation of BC's wild salmon.
-
Don was awesome today while being cross examined today. ;D ;D ;D Watch for the transscript of this morning proceedings.
-
My, my, all this speculation on what Staniford should or shouldn't or will do with the funds he is raising......... and the trial is still on. Whether Staniford is proven guilty or innocent, he will still be responsible for his legal costs. If the judge dismisses the charges and requires that Mainstream pay court costs, they are only a small fraction of his actual costs.
I appreciate your passion for your industry, however you're. stooping pretty low in your attempts to discredit a man who's pure motivation is the preservation of BC's wild salmon
Discredit a man whos in Canada illegally...please.... "stooping pretty low in your attempts to discredit a man who's pure motivation is the preservation of BC's wild salmon"....not as low as the claims he was making.
-
My, my, all this speculation on what Staniford should or shouldn't or will do with the funds he is raising......... and the trial is still on. Whether Staniford is proven guilty or innocent, he will still be responsible for his legal costs. If the judge dismisses the charges and requires that Mainstream pay court costs, they are only a small fraction of his actual costs.
I appreciate your passion for your industry, however you're stooping pretty low in your attempts to discredit a man who's pure motivation is the preservation of BC's wild salmon.
Staniford has made it his mission to stoop pretty low to discredit people in the fish farm industry and governmental scientists. He has been running his mouth off for awhile now and it finally has caught up with him. Sorry, I don't feel too bad for the position he is in. I actually feel sorry for Norway who might have to put up with him. Why can't we find a job for Don at our country's embassy in Syria and give Norway a break?
Who's pure movtivation is the preservation of BC's wild salmon? Oh pleeeese! If he is so committent to preserving BC's wild salmon then he should try considering the possibility that his narrow view is not consistent with what went on at the Cohen Inquiry (the whole inquiry - not just what happened after August). More like preservation of his own butt. Free the new Teflon Don..lol!
Time to support new and much better initiatives such as the one proposed by Dr. Welch.
-
Anyone know the details on why Volpe was not allowed as an expert witness?
-
Staniford has made it his mission to stoop pretty low to discredit people in the fish farm industry and governmental scientists. He has been running his mouth off for awhile now and it finally has caught up with him. Sorry, I don't feel too bad for the position he is in. I actually feel sorry for Norway who might have to put up with him. Why can't we find a job for Don at our country's embassy in Syria and give Norway a break?
Who's pure movtivation is the preservation of BC's wild salmon? Oh pleeeese! If he is so committent to preserving BC's wild salmon then he should try considering the possibility that his narrow view is not consistent with what went on at the Cohen Inquiry (the whole inquiry - not just what happened after August). More like preservation of his own butt. Free the new Teflon Don..lol!
The movement to stop the ocean feedlots is much bigger than one person. I'm sure others will carry on from where he leaves off. And last time I checked the internet seems to be available in most parts of the world....
Time to support new and much better initiatives such as the one proposed by Dr. Welch.
Why don't you get your bosses to write a cheque?
-
Why does Don Staniford say salmon farms are like the tobacco industry? Here is just a fraction of what has been reveled in courtroom #52, Vancouver Law Courts, corner of Nelson and Hornby:
2002 – Scientific paper published in Chemosphere reports: “relatively high concentrations of PCBs” in Scottish farm salmon warning, “…high consumption of salmon, particularly by children under 4 years, could lead to intakes above the tolerable daily intake …. Of these chemicals.” (Download Jacobs.pdf (146.0K))
2002 – A second scientific paper in Chemosphere found because farmed salmon are intentionally fattened, PCBS collect in the fat at 5 – 10 times the levels found in average wild salmon. It was suggested that “Frequent farmed salmon eaters may exceed government health limits for these pollutants, which are linked to immune system damage, fetal brain damage, and cancer” (paper)
2004 – Scientific paper in the journal of SCIENCE analyzed over 2 metric tons of farmed and wild salmon from around the world and reported consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose a health risk.
2007 – Salmon of the Americas, a non-profit trade organization, whose mission is to educate consumers recommends pregnant mothers eat farm salmon suggesting it will make their babies more healthy and intelligent!!!
The Pure Salmon Campaign retaliates with a N.Y. Times Download nyt_ad copy.pdf (151.0K)
2011 – BC Salmon farming corporations join forces to pay for a multi-million dollar ad campaign that suggests farm salmon are free of contaminants.Download NoAddedChemicalsMHBCSalmon4C300.jpg (2983.9K)
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/ (http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/)
-
If we did not have people willing to speak up, stand up for our environment, our fish and wildlife they, as well as the human race would be a lot worse off than what we are faced with now, in British Columbia, Canada and around our planet. There is so many examples of that and I donot have to list them as most of us personally know what some of them are as we have all seen and read about them during our life time and during the past century.
It certainly is a disappointing state of affairs that human apathy, in too many cases let this all happen without questioning decisions made by some levels of government and those that gain financially, all at the expense of the environment and those that rely on a pristine environment to survive.
History proves that, I think you would agree, I hope you do.
I've posted this in hope that some will reread it. I think we must do what we can to mitigate the damage done by any industry whether it be; Aqua/agriculture, resource extraction, manufacturing or heavy industries.
So why is it, that common sense is oftem ignored by both sides? One side seems to deny that they affect anyone or anything else in their attaining their goal of making profit, a Neo-liberal view? http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376 .
Unfortunately, the other side often garners groups that say no-way and no-how the cost is too much etc...to accept, others reason that there may be room in the system for a particular industry in a particular local, providing that certain condition are followed.
Those arguments will never end, Fact! We all have our own pre-programming on what we think is right and wrong and therefore we have a supposedly democratic process where society is supposed to set the rules of acceptable behavior to balance those preprograms for the good of the General public.
Some will accept those rules, but others on the periphery of the Pro/against spectrum will always be there forcing the issue and those people very often they do have input! They force us to look at the issues and make a decision on if we accept the status quo or do we get involved ,again Pro or against.
I have not always been mindful of Environmental causes, especially so when I made my living in the Mining business and history has proven that many industries have had to change their methods when often solutions are there, and a bit of profit is all that is required along with the acceptance by some that we need to encourage industry, but certainly not at the cost to the environment. That I think is something we do not have the right to give away.
-
A good point Sandy, but I'll add just two things:
First, commercial fishing and salmon ranching both fall into that category of potentially causing damage and need to be included in your list of things that should be examined closely.
Second, the responses to those speaking out also require serious consideration. Just because some people speak up doesn't necessarily mean they are correct in their understanding or their interpretations. Consideration of the responses is essential to ensure that it is actually a problem being addressed by speaking up rather than the speaking up being done to further an agenda.
Just because someone says they represent the best interests of all of us doesn't indicate that they do. People need to understand that both sides of an issue require examination if they are to arrive at a correct perception.
-
Trial is almost over.... http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/10887-farmed-salmon-disparagement-trial-nears-finish.html (http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/10887-farmed-salmon-disparagement-trial-nears-finish.html)
-
http://coheninquirynotes.blogspot.com/2012/02/intention-of-don-stanifords-campaign.html
-
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
I am glad that there are people that have the balls to speak out against the atrocities of fish farming. Without people like Chris and alwayfishn and others like them we would be a silenced voice perpetuating the same mistakes made where ever fish farms are put.
It has been a huge mistake for Cermaq to take Staniford to trial because it brings even more into the limelight the horrors of fish farming. And even if he loses what will stay in the minds of those that watched this fiasco is the damage inflicted on our environment and the species therein.
I have been watching with interest all the news alerts brought to us by Chris and also news emailed to me from other sites concerning fish farming. I haven't bothered to reply here before because I didn't want to get caught up in a never ending spiral of debate, discoveries and then more debating. I have a wife and children, work and then play if I can find time and you won't see me putting in many minutes with those for or against. But I have thrown my hat in the ring just to let it be known where I stand.
What is so very surprising to me that on the Best fishing site on the web, on an issue that should be so important to all sportsmen concerning our habitat that there are more proponents speaking for the fish farming industry than against it. Perhaps there are many more people like me that don't want to get involved and caught in the net of debate. But it is surprising to me.
But it surprises me even more that there are actually sportsmen ??? that support the farms because everywhere the farms have been
placed tragedy occurrs and will continue to occurr. This industry truly has a Licence To Kill and there is so much money to be made by those involved to just stay blind to the truth and allow the pesticide to flow from their mouths that it shouldn't surprise me.
Afterall, Marine Harvest's owner John Fredriksen is the 72nd richest man in the world, worth $10.7 Billion dollars. That should tell
us all a bit about this industry and the money that is to be had, by all involved.
-
Excellent post Athezone. I was also wondering why more fishermen haven't contributed to the discussions on fish farming. I'm not concerned about that, because based on the number of times the threads have been read, there is a following of fishermen who are getting educated on the issue. They will in turn educate their friends and families on the subject.
It's seems that most of the posters that support fish farms are or were in some way compensated in their work relating to fish farms. I'm sure if I was dependent on a fish farm for my living that I would also look for ever argument possible to rationalize the income I was relying on. It's the same reason why you won't hear the fish farms admitting any negative effects of their operations on the environment. And as Staniford has demonstrated, it's similar to the tobacco industry who in spite of all the scientific evidence, maintains it's products are not a problem.
We need to be encouraged however that with continued discussion, changes will happen. 30 years ago no one would have thought that smoking would be banned in public places. Hopefully in less than 30 years salmon feedlots will be banned from the oceans.
-
Its funny how some one so against fishfarms is in favor of the Enbridge pipeline to Kitimat.
-
Its funny how some one so against fishfarms is in favor of the Enbridge pipeline to Kitimat.
Don't interpret being in favor of the economic benefits of selling oil to China with being in favor of the project.
I also appreciate the economic benefits that the fish farms provide to the BC economy and to the pro-fish farmers on this board, and that's why I've never proposed getting rid of fish farms...... just get them out of our oceans!
P.S. I'm also opposed to smoking but I wouldn't suggest for a moment that we ban tobacco companies.
-
I am an employee of the salmon farming industry in bc and have been for just about 20 years. Over those years I have seen drastic changes to industry for the better. In the last 10 years I have seen the idea and tactics the anti salmon farming movement have been using. From my own observations while at work as a diver I have seen the opposite of what the morton camp have been claiming. Claims such as salmon farms are dead zones, farm salmon take growth hormones, farms use high volumes of antibiotics, farms are lice infested, farms kill the sea life under the farm, farms cause algae blooms. Farms destroy community's. These are only a few items I have found to be totally not true where I have worked for so long. Yes the bottom under a farm can be altered. Yes I have seen sealions and seals die accidentally in nets. Yes I have seen fish densities that were to high IMO. And yes I have seen these issues change.
I have followed these threads closely for a while now an for the most part I think I am the only one employeed by a salmon farm.
Why do I participate? Basically in my day to day life the majority of the persons I can have a similar discussion with on the topic are so emotionally brainwashed that for the most part it is pointless. Then there are those who know fair well that the anti group has an agenda and that is to get rid of salmon farms regardless of facts.
-
It's seems that most of the posters that support fish farms are or were in some way compensated in their work relating to fish farms.
For the record, I'm not one them. I support fish farms because it is a natural progression in our evolution of what we were, hunter-gatherers. Until I see evidence to the contrary I also support salmon farming in properly located net pens/cages.
-
For the record, I'm not one them. I support fish farms because it is a natural progression in our evolution of what we were, hunter-gatherers. Until I see evidence to the contrary I also support salmon farming in properly located net pens/cages.
That means you are not happy with some places they are presently located?
-
That means you are not happy with some places they are presently located?
Sorrry Chris, I meant for the inevitable expansion of the industry :D
-
Then there are those who know fair well that the anti group has an agenda and that is to get rid of salmon farms regardless of facts.
I am curious what you think the motivation behind this "agenda" is?
I am also curious if you think the "drastic" changes you have witnessed in your industry, especially those changes in their practice that have tried to reduce their impacts on the environment, would have occurred at all or as quickly if no one was watching and pushing for those changes from the outside?
-
I am curious what you think the motivation behind this "agenda" is?
There are many motives. Given the huge amounts of $$$ that are given to these anti organizations is motivating. Given the fact that there has been an assigned amount of $$$ to demarket BC salmon farming is motivating. The fact that the alaskan salmon fishery has benefited greatly from demarketing is motivating. I have no doubt that these anti groups feel a sense of heroics all the while feeling they are doing the right thing. The common ring of , government suck, DFO suck, they suck, those guys suck, their wrong just does't fly with the general public. It attracts an angry looking mob that is viewed as just that. Like an angry child that isn't getting its way the average adult just ignores it.
I am also curious if you think the "drastic" changes you have witnessed in your industry, especially those changes in their practice that have tried to reduce their impacts on the environment, would have occurred at all or as quickly if no one was watching and pushing for those changes from the outside?
I think many changes were so beneficial to the farm that they were forced into it. High densities would be on item that I had seen change. I think the farms just realized that with lower densities they had a better product and better conversion etc. And one thing I can see that will have a negative affect on wild salmon is where there is no control of seal and sea lion predation. Some here like to point at the atlantic cod scenario and I to will do. It has just been reported that the cod there are not making a comeback because of the grey seal. I believe that seals and sea lions should be controlled to help protect wild salmon but the antis get caught in conflict between naturalism and protecting wild salmon. I see this as evidence of there reckless ways.
Those are two huge questions. I barely touched on them with a couple of examples. No I would not credit mortion with many of the changes put on the farms. Her biggest move, having the feds take over for the Provence has changed NOTHING but maybe put a little sticky star on the shoulder of a superhero suit.
-
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/
-
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/victoria/Anti+fish+farm+activist+sent+home+after+hearing/6130594/story.html
-
Quote from: Dave on January 23, 2012, 09:25:01 AM
So, uh, how much money are you (Chris, alwaysfishin,Troutbreath, etc) donating to defend this guy?
Anyone?
Quote from: Chris
Lets put it this way, more than you and some others here.
Put gold in my pockets and I'll put God in your heart ;)
-
Here's the draft text of the injunction Cermaq's lawyers are applying for: "Mr. Staniford by himself, his agents, servants or otherwise shall be restrained from publishing, or causing to be published, on the internet or by any other methods or medium, any defamatory statement referring in any way to the plaintiff, whether by name, pseudonym, address, photograph or other means of identity"
-
There are many motives. Given the huge amounts of $$$ that are given to these anti organizations is motivating. Given the fact that there has been an assigned amount of $$$ to demarket BC salmon farming is motivating. The fact that the alaskan salmon fishery has benefited greatly from demarketing is motivating.
So the anti-farm movement is spearheaded by the Alaskan salmon ranchers? Is that what you are saying?
No I would not credit mortion with many of the changes put on the farms. Her biggest move, having the feds take over for the Provence has changed NOTHING but maybe put a little sticky star on the shoulder of a superhero suit.
Morton is not the first, only, or last person to disagree with open pen salmon farming.
-
Here's the draft text of the injunction Cermaq's lawyers are applying for: "Mr. Staniford by himself, his agents, servants or otherwise shall be restrained from publishing, or causing to be published, on the internet or by any other methods or medium, any defamatory statement referring in any way to the plaintiff, whether by name, pseudonym, address, photograph or other means of identity"
Judge Adair is reserving on all matters. Trial now adjourned.
-
So the anti-farm movement is spearheaded by the Alaskan salmon ranchers? Is that what you are saying?
No, not spearheading. More like active indirect participants.
Morton is not the first, only, or last person to disagree with open pen salmon farming.
I agree. I should not have used only her name.
-
No, not spearheading. More like active indirect participants.
I agree. I should not have used only her name.
Do you think the Leggatt Inquiry and its findings had any impact on encouraging them to change their procedures and policies?
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/23543/1/Clear%20Choices%20Clear%20Waters%20The%20Leggatt%20Inquiry%20into%20Salmon%20Farming%20in%20British%20Colombia.pdf?1 (http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/23543/1/Clear%20Choices%20Clear%20Waters%20The%20Leggatt%20Inquiry%20into%20Salmon%20Farming%20in%20British%20Colombia.pdf?1)
-
Do you think the Leggatt Inquiry and its findings had any impact on encouraging them to change their procedures and policies?
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/23543/1/Clear%20Choices%20Clear%20Waters%20The%20Leggatt%20Inquiry%20into%20Salmon%20Farming%20in%20British%20Colombia.pdf?1 (http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/23543/1/Clear%20Choices%20Clear%20Waters%20The%20Leggatt%20Inquiry%20into%20Salmon%20Farming%20in%20British%20Colombia.pdf?1)
Thanks for that link Sandman.
Interesting recommendations:
Recommendations of the Leggatt Inquiry
1. Remove all net-cage salmon farms from the marine environment by January 1, 2005.
2. Remove responsibility for promotion of aquaculture from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; increase monitoring and regulation of salmon farming by government regulators.
3. Increase involvement of communities, especially First Nations, in consultation, partnership and ownership of salmon farming operations.
4. Maintain the moratorium on new farm sites with no further expansion at existing sites; complete and update the Salmon Aquaculture Review.
5. Apply the precautionary principle to regulation of the salmon farming industry.
6. Require labeling and identification of farm salmon at the consumer level.
-
Do you think the Leggatt Inquiry and its findings had any impact on encouraging them to change their procedures and policies?
Yes in some cases.
-
Yes in some cases.
Was the Leggatt Inquiry not struck because of concerns raised (by people like Morton) that the industry was poorly regulated and was not being environmentally responsible?
-
I would and have never said that morton and others have not had and effect on industry. I just do not believe that it is a great as some may claim as was the switch from the province to the feds regulating the industry.
What are you trying to get at?
-
Final video from Don, re trial.
http://youtu.be/I1MB5Tc5DPg
-
Never have heard of this infection, kudoa.
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/blog/tag/kudoa/
-
It's pretty common Chris - I've seen it more often in chums but some Early Stuart sockeye as well.
-
"The second most prevalent parasite in farmed salmon is kudoa thyrsites, commonly called "soft flesh syndrome." This microscopic insect breaks down muscle fiber in fish, turning the flesh to a jelly-like consistency and making it commercially worthless. Deterioration occurs rapidly after salmon are killed and there is no known cure. Kudoa contamination is usually first detected when salmon are slaughtered and processed. Outbreaks have forced many salmon producers to offer discounts or credits for infected fish.
According to IntraFish, an industry newspaper, the kudoa parasite affects 20-50 percent of all salmon produced in British Columbia, costing the industry there at least $30 to $40 million annually. Atlantic salmon, the predominant commercial stock for farming operations, are more vulnerable to the kudoa parasite than Pacific salmon."
I guess that's a warning to never ever buy Atlantic salmon that you find on sale at your Superstore.... Perhaps that's why Morton was able to buy these fish at such a discount. http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29173.0 (http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29173.0)
-
It's also a warning to check the flesh of wild caught salmon. If it's there you'll see it.
-
It's also a warning to check the flesh of wild caught salmon. If it's there you'll see it.
Caught many fish over the years, never seen any thing like that, thank goodness.
-
What are you trying to get at?
That it has been the close scrutiny of people opposed to the salmon farms and their practices that have led to many of the "improvements" in the industry's practices in the last ten years."
-
Caught many fish over the years, never seen any thing like that, thank goodness.
I have never caught a fish that had that.
That it has been the close scrutiny of people opposed to the salmon farms and their practices that have led to many of the "improvements" in the industry's practices in the last ten years."
Not on all fronts.
-
Salmon Aquaculture Critic Don Staniford on Long Beach Radio, February 13, 2012
http://youtu.be/wBe-l0OgLgI
-
The March 2012 issue of Legacy is our most comprehensive issue to date with articles and photos from Alaska to Venezuela and
many locations in between.
We opted to publish the March issue about a week earlier than planned due to the ongoing legal wrangling by Mainstream Canada / Cermaq regarding what can and cannot be published regarding the open pen salmon feedlot industry. As you'll learn by reading this issue, open pen salmon feedlots are of worldwide concern.
The March 2012 issue of Legacy is available at the link below via page flip technology to provide additional flexibility for our readers.
http://issuu.com/steelhead-salmon-society/docs/legacy312
Please feel free to share this issue with those who care deeply about wild game fish and their fragile ecosystems.
Your feedback regarding the March 2012 is welcome and appreciated.
Legacy - March 2012
issuu.com
Compilation of media coverage associated with wild game fish conservation efforts around planet earth.
.
-
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=362c21b1-3b33-4836-bc7f-b88c1ce68265
-
Wonder what happened to all the money donated to his defence fund? ::)
-
Wonder what happened to all the money donated to his defence fund? ::)
Lawyer fees and I was glad to donate too, from one pocket to another. ;D ;D ;D
See you for coffee in 15 minutes, I still have enough left to buy you coffee. ;D
-
Wonder what happened to all the money donated to his defence fund? ::)
Who cares I wasnt gullible enough to donate to his fund, all that matters is he's gone and that makes me a very happy camper. ;D
-
Who cares I wasnt gullible enough to donate to his fund, all that matters is he's gone and that makes me a very happy camper. ;D
OK. News flash, he is back in year. ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/bc-salmon-farming-critic-removed-from-canada-but-vows-to-continue-battle-141397213.html
C. salmon-farming critic removed from Canada but vows to continue battle
By: Keven Drews, The Canadian Press
Don Staniford, of The Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture, was removed from Canada for overstaying a visitor's permit and the controversial salmon-farming critic says he has settled in Norway to "slay the dragon in its own lair."
VANCOUVER - Only days after he was removed from Canada for overstaying a visitor's permit, a controversial salmon-farming critic says he has settled in Norway to "slay the dragon in its own lair."
Since 2005, British-born activist Don Staniford has been a divisive force in British Columbia's ongoing salmon-farming debate. He has been accused by the industry of going beyond rational dialogue and distorting facts and has twice been sued by B.C. companies for defamation.
But supporters see him as a tireless critic and Staniford is promising to take his battle against the industry to Europe, where he'll serve as the global campaign co-ordinator for another environmental group.
"I've gone straight to work for the Green Warriors of Norway and straight to the belly of the beast here in Norway," said Staniford, in a phone interview.
"Norway controls much of the global industry and I'm going to slay the dragon in its own lair."
The new job is significant because Kurt Oddekalv, leader of the Green Warriors of Norway, has described himself as the most "hard hitting environmental warrior" in his country.
Also significant is Staniford's legal history.
Staniford's most-recent defamation case was launched by Mainstream Canada, a subsidiary of the Norwegian company Cermaq.
The case has wrapped up in the Supreme Court of B.C., but a judgment has yet to be made.
Staniford began his journey back to Europe in the same over-the-top theatrical style that inflamed his targets: He arrived at Vancouver International Airport clad in an orange Guantanamo Bay-like jump suit and fake, rubber chains.
After half a dozen supporters bid farewell, he said he entered a room full of immigration officials and boarded an aircraft for England.
After spending two days in England, Staniford said he headed off for his new job in Norway.
Colleen Dane, spokeswoman for the BC Salmon Farmers Association, said her organization would not comment on Staniford.
"From our perspective, the association's focus is about encouraging and creating discussion with people who want to know more about our operations and how we raise fish in B.C. and obviously to keep that dialogue moving forward," she said.
But in the past, Laurie Jensen, a spokeswoman for Mainstream Canada, and Mary Ellen Walling, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, have criticized Staniford for his personal attacks.
Staniford said he's already planning his next action. A delegation of Norwegian politicians is heading to B.C. to meet with the industry this week, and Staniford said he plans to raise his concerns with Norway's parliament.
He said he wants to know the purpose of the trip.
Dane confirmed an invitation-only meeting, planned and organized by the Norwegian ambassador, will take place Thursday on Quadra Island, off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island, near Campbell River.
She said her organization has been invited to talk about the relationship between First Nations and the industry in B.C.
"Any time people who are involved in aquaculture around the world in which ever jurisdiction they are operating in, if they can get together and talk a little bit more about their experiences and their learned lessons I think that's a positive thing."
Meantime, Oddekalv, who has led the Green Warriors of Norway since 1993, said he and Staniford should complement each other because of their experience.
"I think joining us together will really make an international force," he added, noting his organization has 22 employees and has a budget of millions of dollars. "I think that will mean a lot."
Both are also planning another action for Vancouver in 2013, when Staniford will be allowed to return to Canada.
Staniford said he wants to organize a two-day conference on salmon farming.
"I'm going to continue this fight," he said. "The Green Warriors of Norway are going to take the battle, take the fight directly to the Norwegian-owned industry here in Norway, and we're also going to take the fight to the market place where Norwegian owned companies are selling their farmed salmon."