Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Get your facts straight?  (Read 1308868 times)

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #960 on: September 13, 2014, 12:13:58 PM »

Meanwhile, you skipped over this part ;D

Now a quick quiz for you. How many times as I foil your posts have I quoted Ms. Morton? Whats that? None you say? Here's a challenge for you- go and find some info that isn't from the feedlot back patting crew polishing their own turds. I'm betting you can't do that on orders from your masters........ :o ;) ;D
Logged
http://

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #961 on: September 13, 2014, 12:17:30 PM »

Look back and find where I said you did :)
Logged

rjs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
  • work is over rated !!!!
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #962 on: September 13, 2014, 06:42:47 PM »

Looks like another great year for Alaska farmed salmon. :)
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/pink-salmon-the-muffin-stumps-of-the-pacific-northwest/

just propaganda by the usually folks Bawb !
Logged

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #963 on: September 13, 2014, 07:09:10 PM »

just propaganda by the usually folks Bawb !
Please feel free to prove your feelings. :)
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #964 on: September 13, 2014, 08:38:41 PM »

Please feel free to prove your feelings. :)
That might be hard to do, what with the returns of Fraser pinks last year, this years pink and chinook returns to VI, and of course 2014 Fraser sockeye numbers :D
Logged

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #965 on: September 14, 2014, 12:01:25 PM »

just propaganda by the usual turd polishers Bawb !

So Bawb do you prefer a random orbit polisher or the varible speed buffer to make that brown really stand out and gleam? Do you wet sand first and go from 1200 to a 2000 grit finishing polish? Do you apply carnuba as a finishing coat? ;D ;) ;D
Logged
http://

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #966 on: September 14, 2014, 07:35:43 PM »

So Bawb do you prefer a random orbit polisher or the varible speed buffer to make that brown really stand out and gleam? Do you wet sand first and go from 1200 to a 2000 grit finishing polish? Do you apply carnuba as a finishing coat? ;D ;) ;D


Hey, it is not my fault all the great numbers of salmon returning to the BC coast are making your argument redundant. You seem to be stuck on speculation Nova. It realy is ok to take a bite of that Humble Pie, its not too bad at all.  LOL. :)
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/275007951.html?mobile=true
« Last Edit: September 14, 2014, 09:16:29 PM by Fisherbob »
Logged

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #967 on: September 15, 2014, 08:04:47 AM »

Dr. Patrick Moore - Higher Ground by ResourceWorks.com
Are you an anti-everything?

http://youtu.be/TlgY3tQSXNg
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #968 on: September 15, 2014, 08:36:31 AM »

Thanks for that Bob  8)
Logged

banx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #969 on: September 15, 2014, 12:14:38 PM »

not really a farm related question... more history related.

it's about pink salmon.... i'm well into my 30's and I do not recall an abundance of pink salmon when I was fishing in the 90's.  It was actually pretty uncommon to catch one in the rivers I fished up until probably 1998.  there is no odd year wierdness up north either.

the last 10 years or so, there appears to have been a population explosion.  Also a noticeable decrease in chum salmon numbers, and a decrease in chinook size.  I have no solid morton backed science numbers other than first hand experience.  ;)

so for you baby boomers, were there ever large numbers of pinks showing up in the lower mainland flows 'back in the day'?
and if you felt that there is an increase in abundance, what do you think is contributing to it?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 12:16:51 PM by banx »
Logged

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #970 on: September 15, 2014, 02:06:33 PM »

Very good question Banx. I often wonder if Alaska farmed salmon that are released are invading our rivers. This site gave me some thing to think about.

http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/NAsept-oct-pgs14-15c.pdf
Logged

salmonrook

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #971 on: September 15, 2014, 10:25:42 PM »

if these are  the pinks and chum that are coming to our rivers to spawn,wouldnt they have to be native to the river so they knew where to return.?
 
Logged

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #972 on: September 16, 2014, 06:13:37 AM »

Dr. Patrick Moore - Higher Ground by ResourceWorks.com
Are you an anti-everything?

http://youtu.be/TlgY3tQSXNg


Patrick Moore is and was a sellout. I met and knew him in the 70's when I was a volunteer at Greenpeace. He's abused that past with little or no shame. Have a nice read about your hero here Bawb. Just another round of baloney. Have a little read about this nit below.



http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/


 Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining.  Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who's Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals. 

Moore's claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that "clear-cutting is good for forests" and Three Mile Island was actually "a success story" because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying "my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn't die."

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways.  Unfortunately, the media - especially conservative media - give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.

The following provides a brief overview of Patrick Moore's positions and his history of working for corporate polluters.

TRUTH V. FICTION ON PATRICK MOORE:

Patrick Moore claims he is an environmentalist and represents an independent scientific perspective on forest issues.

TRUTH: Moore was paid by the British Columbia Forest Alliance, an industry-front group set up by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller (the same PR firm that represented Exxon after the Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the Bhopal chemical disaster). The BC Forest Alliance is funded primarily by the logging industry. He also has ties to other corporations including Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser.

According to Moore, logging is good for forests causing reforestation, not deforestation.

TRUTH: Webster's Dictionary defines deforestation as "the action or process of clearing of forests." The argument advanced by forest industry spin-doctors that clear-cutting "causes reforestation, not deforestation" is without basis in fact. It is like arguing that having a heart attack improves your health because of the medical treatment you receive afterwards.

According to Moore: "Forward-thinking environmentalists and scientists have made clear, technology has now progressed to the point where the activist fear mongering about the safety of nuclear energy bears no resemblance to reality."

TRUTH:

- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) concluded years ago that the lack of containment on Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored advanced nuclear reactor designs constituted a "major safety trade-off."

- Patrick Moore has recently begun touting the "safety" of nuclear energy at the behest of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which is being bankrolled by the nuclear industry to promote nuclear energy as clean and safe energy. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton has been hired to roll out a multi-million dollar campaign to repackage Moore's propaganda to convince congressional leaders of public support for the building of new nuclear plants.

Hill and Knowlton are most well known for their public relations work defending the tobacco industry. The PR firm has also worked for industry interests to stall action to protect the ozone layer by executing "a carefully designed campaign attacking the science behind the ozone depletion and delaying government action for two years. This was enough time for DuPont to bring new, ozone-friendly chemicals to market." Austin American Statesman, Cox News Service Jeff Nesmith June 26, 2005 http://www.statesman.com/search/content/insight/stories/06/26doubt.html

More information on Hill and Knowlton can be found at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hill_%26_Knowlton

Moore's recent call that the U.S. should generate 60 percent of U.S. electricity from nuclear power is ludicrous. These plants are acknowledged by the federal government's own National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission - as terrorist targets. An accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear plant could result in thousands of near-term deaths from radiation exposure and hundreds of thousands of long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within only fifty miles of a nuclear plant.

His proposal not only fails to address the risk posed to the American public by our existing plants, but also fails to address the urgent issue of global warming. According to Dr. Bill Keepin, a physicist and energy consultant in the U.S., "given business-as-usual growth in energy demand, it appears that even an infeasibly massive global nuclear power programme could not reduce future emissions of carbon dioxide. To displace coal alone would require the construction of a new nuclear plant every two or three days for nearly four decades…in the United States, each dollar invested in efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon than a dollar invested in new nuclear power."

According to Moore, "Three Mile Island was actually a success story in that the radiation from the partially melted core was contained."

TRUTH:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 10 million curies of radiation were released into the environment by the Three Mile Island Meltdown. Expert witnesses in the TMI law suits estimated that 150 million curies escaped, because the containment at Three Mile Island was not leak tight and the NRC ignored many of the potential escape routes for the radiation.

VVPR info: Jane Kochersperger, 202-319-2493
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 06:47:30 AM by Novabonker »
Logged
http://

Fisherbob

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #973 on: September 16, 2014, 07:45:37 AM »

if these are  the pinks and chum that are coming to our rivers to spawn,wouldnt they have to be native to the river so they knew where to return.?
I would think that salmon repopulating rivers after ice ages would suggest that not all salmon return to their native river. Dave or Steve?

Found this one :)
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/uww-msm/articles/pacificsalmon-saumonpacifique-eng.htm
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 08:25:02 AM by Fisherbob »
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
Re: Get your facts straight?
« Reply #974 on: September 16, 2014, 08:43:53 AM »

Pink salmon tend to stray more often than other salmon so I suppose it is possible Alaskan pinks could spawn in BC rivers ... I would be more concerned with the sheer numbers of released hatchery pink fry competing for food with wild salmonids.
Logged