I realize they coughed up a limited number of the records under court order..... That in itself revealed some of the disease outbreaks they had been hiding.
Today supposedly about 60% of the farms voluntarily provide disease records which are "compiled" into a report. Exactly what sort of value is a voluntary summary report providing, other than window dressing and public relations? Why aren't they required to publish the disease records by individual farm today? They are crapping in our public oceans and aren't required to let us know what they are depositing....... What are they hiding? Why are they allowed to hide that info?
Isn't it fair for them to reveal the same kind of detail that they/you are demanding of Morton?
They complied with what was requested from the commission - read the rulings. The raw data has been summarized by the province in the annual reports which debunks your theory that farms are hiding something. The reality is that the raw fish health data that is generated by the fish farms will likely mean very little to the average member of the general public. There are some people that know how to interpret this sort of data and take a keen interest in it (I have no problem with experienced people looking at raw data), but it can be easily misinterpreted if you don't have any biological experience such as fish pathology or virology. In the extreme case, raw data can be manipulated and with the conclusions published in the press incorrectly. There can also be negative biological consequences for misinterpreting data. That is why it is not just released to anyone at anytime.
Morton has created the myth that she and most members of the general public are being cheated out by not looking at these raw data records. The fact of the matter is that it is not uncommon to compile data like this and summarize it in reports. I deal with exclusively with raw data on a daily basis and I can tell you that the numbers by themselves would mean very little if you did not have an understanding how they fit into the bigger picture. This understanding comes with education and experience. It is not learned over the internet or watching the news. Broadly speaking, interpretation and analysis of the results is often necessary before it actually makes sense - even to those that collected the data in the first place. There is also a big issue as to how the data is saved and in what format. Older data is likely in hard copy paper format which is much more difficult to archive and retrieve than modern electronic copies. It is not a simple exercise to just open a filing cabinet and you automatically find what you need. Some data on paper may be non-legible, torn or collected in such a way that it is confusing to interpret years later. Ever tried to interpret someone’s notes regarding data collected many years ago? I have and it is not easy exercise. You then need the personnel in order to devote the time to retrieve and compile this paper data and put it in a more useable electronic format. You may choose to not believe me, but I have 20 years at this so I speak from experience. With more and more people online these days and taking more of an interest in environmental data I believe this type of information will slowly make its way onto the web more and more each year.
What sort of value are these reports? Well, to you they might not have much value at all because you have not really read and understood what I have posted for you already. For one thing, you are incorrect when you call them “voluntary summary report” and they are more than just “window dressing”. Secondly, you still do not understand the sampling methodology that was employed by the province in their audits (previously discussed at length in another thread on this site). Sorry, I do not have the time to keep repeating it for you, AF.
Why aren't they required to publish the disease records by individual farm today? You need to read the new federal regulations and understand the sampling methodology. I am not going to do your research on this. If you have a computer or a phone you can do this on your own. A better suggestion is to actually contact those responsible for monitoring.
As for detail, in my opinion, the “Dept. of Wild Salmon” website does not even compare to the level of detail produced by the province or the feds. Governments have their shortcomings, but in this instance they deliver far more detail and professionalism than this activist site. The “Dept. of Wild Salmon” site looks unprofessional by leaving many questions unanswered. For instance, what are these “standardized protocols” they are following? With the government reports I posted previously, sampling methodology is outlined in much more detail. That is the difference between someone that does not know what they are doing (i.e. Ms Morton) and someone that actually does (i.e. Dr. Gary Marty). In addition, there is absolutely no mention of Harrison Sockeye. Considering Ms Morton spent considerable time at Harrison Mills last year one would think that either positive or negative results would have made it onto that site. To you, that site might be impressive, but to me it is kind of a joke. If Morton truly believes that the public deserves to be informed then she would do a better job with that site.
Actually, it would be “fair” for people like Morton to be releasing the same sort of detail as she is demanding from the province and federal government. Considering the extensive reporting that the province and the feds have to do and the transparency that is demanded, I do not believe it is totally unreasonable to request that Ms Morton be a little more transparent herself by releasing these recent lab results. She has already released her conclusions on the results. What is of particular interest to me are the notes and interpretation done by the lab – not just the individual fish results. I would like to know what her lab had to say. We are not talking about a lot of fish here. The level of detail demanded from these lab results doesn't compare to what the province, feds or fish farms have to produce. Again, if the results match her conclusions (which she boldly made on her blog) then she should have no problem with this.
Author
Topic: Alexandra Morton: A corporation is like a giant mosquito (Read 54039 times)