Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on July 07, 2013, 09:22:21 AM
-
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Scientists+concerned+over+chill+reporting+salmon+virus+after/8626743/story.html
-
Get Jesse Ventura on this case right now.
http://www.oln.ca/shows/conspiracy-theory/
-
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Scientists+concerned+over+chill+reporting+salmon+virus+after/8626743/story.html
Rumor has it that new rules are in effect; in order for an independent lab to get any virus testing contracts from the feedlot industry or CFIA/DFO, they first need to sign an agreement not to find ISAv.....
The existing governments labs have probably had those instructions in place for a long time.
-
Get Jesse Ventura on this case right now.
http://www.oln.ca/shows/conspiracy-theory/
Now grasping at straws. ;D ;D
-
salmon confidential predicted this would happen. not saying the rest is right but dfo and cfia is doing exactly what they said they would do. if special interest are going to be the fate of our wild salmon than someone needs to be taken outback and shot in the nicest possible way. this issue is just like the pipelines, locals take all the risk while people in the country's make all the profit.
-
question for any other members that might know, is their a reason why only Atlantic salmon are used. couldn't the farms use pacific salmon species so we wouldn't have to worry about all of the foreign disease that go with them? i know the best outcome would be for the lots to be on land contained so it could be sustainable but cant see that happening anytime soon.
-
The makers of Salmon Confidential coincidentally are directly associated with those who are suggesting that the loss of certification due to failing procedure audits is really a punishment for going against the government line so it isn't much of a surprise they predicted it; you might say it's a case of declaring innocence just before charges are laid.
You might also note that the "scientists" quoted in the article referred to in the link-and-run are actually just one person, a statistician named Rick Routledge who again, coincidentally of course, just happens to be directly associated with Morton and the submission of the samples that are at the root of the controversy. In actual fact, the only mention of this conspiracy comes from those who are opposed to farms and there has been absolutely no factual evidence produced to support their claims. In spite of claims of rumors circulating about the controversy, what you really have are some jokers trying to start one.
Atlantic Salmon are used for several reasons. One is that there were domesticated strains available that do much better than wild Pacifics in a farm environment. Pacifics could have eventually been domesticated but there are a few issues arising from doing that. Atlantics and Pacifics belong to different Genera and have some different characteristics, one of which is disease susceptibility and another is ability to interbreed.
If farmed and wild fish have different disease susceptibility there is some reduction of potential for diseases being spread from wild to farm and from farm to wild and less likelihood that one population will become a disease reservoir affecting the other. In spite of the rhetoric, there is an elaborate screening and quarantine process that applied to the importation of all the Atlantic eggs from which farm stocks come and the likelihood of a disease slipping through that process, again in spite of the rhetoric, is very small.
Because the two don't interbreed, the risk of contaminating the wild gene pool with genes selected for hatchery and pen environments is negligible, not the case if large quantities of Pacifics were farmed because some escapes will occur. The other consideration is that in spite of the many attempts over more than 100 years to establish Atlantic populations in B.C. to service the sport and commercial fisheries, none have been successful at establishing breeding populations. The likelihood of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon establishing successful populations to compete with Pacifics has been proven to be very low.
-
well i hope your right because their is no room for error. personally i believe nothing of what the government tells me or its branchs like dfo and cfia. i am not sure i even believe you in saying their is no factual evidence about the issue. I think there are a bunch of issues that need to be answered. i dont think they belong where they are and the only reason they do is because the average person will never see one. kinda like out of sight out of mind sort of thing, but again i hope you are right.
-
but thank you for answering the second part of my question about the reason they use atlantic.
-
What you choose to believe is entirely up to you as is the standard of evidence you require in support of those beliefs. One thing is for certain and that is the greater your knowledge and understanding about the issue, the better your choices about what to believe will be and the more credible your disagreement or agreement becomes. A good test of the validity of your beliefs is to be able to justify them with actual facts that you have confirmed. If you can do that, the chances are pretty good you're on the right track; if you can't, the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.
-
the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.
That's the most truthful statement I've heard from the feedlot tools. ;D
(This was a joke.)
-
the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.
That's the most truthful statement I've heard from the feedlot tools. ;D
(This was a joke.)
Absolon, your the tool as well...... ;D
-
i made it through half that thread, hopefully finish the other half tomorrow. if you could some it up in a few sentences absolon, why are you for it? sorry if i am puting you on the spot just curious.
-
What you choose to believe is entirely up to you as is the standard of evidence you require in support of those beliefs. One thing is for certain and that is the greater your knowledge and understanding about the issue, the better your choices about what to believe will be and the more credible your disagreement or agreement becomes. A good test of the validity of your beliefs is to be able to justify them with actual facts that you have confirmed. If you can do that, the chances are pretty good you're on the right track; if you can't, the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.
sorry should have quoted. read above post.
-
No need to apologize, I'm not shy about explaining my views. I've had education directly related to the subject and broad first hand experience in the sector in the past so I'm basing my views on information I know to be factual, I'm well aware of the real issues and I have some tools to assist my understanding of them.
Because of that, I'm a lot less susceptible to the misleading critical rhetoric about the industry and the people who run and regulate it than I would be if I'd never seen a real salmon farm or studied the associated biology, a condition that commonly afflicts those who are the most vocal critics of the industry.
-
(This was a joke.)
.....but not a very good one..........
-
"I've had education directly related to the subject and broad first hand experience in the sector in the past so I'm basing my views on information I know to be factual."
When taken into consideation of the small area of old style dirty fish farming I believe you meant. Not when based on newer ways of farming salmon. Or other aquaculture as well.
-
Can you repeat that in coherent English?
-
why :)
-
why :)
Cause it makes you look like a tool.... ;D
-
why :)
So we can tell if you are an oyster producing pearls of wisdom or just another dung beetle rolling up little brown balls.
-
So we can tell if you are an oyster producing pearls of wisdom or just another dung beetle rolling up little brown balls.
Lol...Absolon said DUNG...... :o
-
No need to apologize, I'm not shy about explaining my views. I've had education directly related to the subject and broad first hand experience in the sector in the past so I'm basing my views on information I know to be factual, I'm well aware of the real issues and I have some tools to assist my understanding of them.
Because of that, I'm a lot less susceptible to the misleading critical rhetoric about the industry and the people who run and regulate it than I would be if I'd never seen a real salmon farm or studied the associated biology, a condition that commonly afflicts those who are the most vocal critics of the industry.
Your education is only as good as the those who write the books you read.
Don't forget that.
Educated elites believed that sun was rotating around the earth and the earth was flat because that's what they read in the books.
Until some un-educated dumbass said I don't believe you; and went to prove it for himself.
-
Your education is only as good as the those who write the books you read.
Don't forget that.
Educated elites believed that sun was rotating around the earth and the earth was flat because that's what they read in the books.
Until some un-educated individual said I don't believe you and went to prove it for himself.
Lol....stop it you make me laugh..... ;D
Wonder what books Morton read....
-
bassonator.... adriaticum is correct on that. 16th century scientists didn't believe rocks could fall from the sky. what you consider 'fact' may not be so in the very near future.
-
Your education is only as good as the those who write the books you read.
Don't forget that.
Educated elites believed that sun was rotating around the earth and the earth was flat because that's what they read in the books.
Until some un-educated dumbass said I don't believe you; and went to prove it for himself.
Couple of comments:
-Education involves considerably more than just reading books.
-It is telling that you need to reach so far back in time for an example of heretics rewriting the rules. It is also telling that you neglect to consider that most discoveries of the nature you described were a result of someone applying a primitive version of the scientific method, a process that didn't really come into play in an evolved form until the 18th and 19th century, to discount knowledge based on superstition.
-what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Discount my education and you also discount the education of everyone including those who attack salmon farms. That is an inevitable consequence since we all start from the same body of knowledge that has been building since the scientific method began to be applied as the standard procedure for expanding knowledge. We might just as well go back to throwing the bones to obtain pertinent answers if you choose to do that. In some specific instances where the opposition to the collected knowledge is based on dire predictions and unproven accusations of both malfeasance and conspiracy, it appears that is precisely what is being done.
-
Couple of comments:
-Education involves considerably more than just reading books.
-It is telling that you need to reach so far back in time for an example of heretics rewriting the rules. It is also telling that you neglect to consider that most discoveries of the nature you described were a result of someone applying a primitive version of the scientific method, a process that didn't really come into play in an evolved form until the 18th and 19th century, to discount knowledge based on superstition.
-what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Discount my education and you also discount the education of everyone including those who attack salmon farms. That is an inevitable consequence since we all start from the same body of knowledge that has been building since the scientific method began to be applied as the standard procedure for expanding knowledge. We might just as well go back to throwing the bones to obtain pertinent answers if you choose to do that. In some specific instances where the opposition to the collected knowledge is based on dire predictions and unproven accusations of both malfeasance and conspiracy, it appears that is precisely what is being done.
- It wasn't a primitive scientific method. For that time it was a top notch scientific method. Just like your scientific method is top notch for this time and will be primitive 100 years from now.
All I'm saying is anyone dealing in absolutes, like some scientists do, don't really understand the depth of their stupidity.
In other words all you know is what is being fed to you. Unless you have discovered it on your own, which most scientists don't have opportunity to do.
Unfortunately there is no law that puts scientist in jail for propagating falsehoods or protecting their own interests and there should be.
If it's ever discovered that DFO or any regulatory body covered up and hid evidence of problems with fish farms to protect their jobs, I would like to grind them all into fertilizer for rivers so that at least that way they be of some benefit to the environment.
-
- It wasn't a primitive scientific method. For that time it was a top notch scientific method. Just like your scientific method is top notch for this time and will be primitive 100 years from now.
Think about what you've just said here. If it happened hundreds of years ago, it was, as you've acknowledged, a primitive method. The jist of my point was that scientific method was being applied against superstition; thus the opportunity for substantial differences between the received wisdom and the provable truth.
All I'm saying is anyone dealing in absolutes, like some scientists do, don't really understand the depth of their stupidity.
In other words all you know is what is being fed to you. Unless you have discovered it on your own, which most scientists don't have opportunity to do.
Unfortunately there is no law that puts scientist in jail for propagating falsehoods or protecting their own interests and there should be.
If it's ever discovered that DFO or any regulatory body covered up and hid evidence of problems with fish farms to protect their jobs, I would like to grind them all into fertilizer for rivers so that at least that way they be of some benefit to the environment.
Your suggestion starts from the manufactured premise that there is malfeasance and a conspiracy, a substitute amongst the reactionaries for any kind of evidence. To be equitable, I would suggest that law be broadened to apply to self-righteous activists and that they also should be candidates for grinding up to fertilize the rivers.
-
To be equitable, I would suggest that law be broadened to apply to self-righteous activists and that they also should be candidates for grinding up to fertilize the rivers.
I do agree with that.
-
talk about having blinders on....... ::) now were grinding up people who don't have the same bumps on their head as fish farming righteous :)