I posted this somewhere else so instead of typing out something new (which could take up most of the evening) I thought I would just repost this here with a few small additions. It would be very easy to instantly react to some of the first comments posted on this thread and get into another circular debate, but for anyone that has followed this inquiry as closely as I have it is easy to see who has taken the effort to actually read the report (at least some of it) and "try" to understand it and who is still stuck saying the same old rhetoric which gets shot down very easy:
One of my initials fears before the inquiry began was that this was going to be framed as an Inquiry on Aquaculture. When I watch the television, read the newspapers (most of which hardly provided any coverage of inquiry other than the start and the end) and follow the forum comments its pretty clear that's what it turned out to be. That's a shame because when you actually start reading the report and not reactionary media stories you get more of an appreciation of what is involved and what is actually said. Just last week we all saw that many departmental habitat employees were presented the new reorganization changes. This came before lengthy recommendations in the Cohen Final report that specifically took aim at habitat issues (also stressors which present risk). At this time, my thoughts are for those employees who are (were) entrusted and were doing the best job possible to monitor these habitat issues listed by Justice Cohen, but are now likely looking at those recommendations as rather empty now. Let's be honest....It's hard to put horsepower behind recommendations if the support to implement them is in doubt. When you think about it, if this can happen before the inquiry was complete what is the chance that other recommendations will be enacted. People thinking instant implementation is going to be forthcoming in the next few months should instead bet on the Canucks to win the Stanley Cup. Just because Cohen makes recommendations does not necessarily mean government will agree with all of them. It does not mean that government, stakeholders and the general public will all agree at the best way to implement them - if any. Whether you are an environmentalist, a commercial fisherman, a recreational angler, a fish farmer, a First Nations elder or a fish counter you probably will agree. I encourage people to read Legislative Amendments (Volume 3, Chapter 3) to get Cohen views on this. It is kind of an eye opener and will likely get you starting to think more about the far-reaching implications these changes will have.
I like the recommendations on more research to help fill in these gaps identified (i.e. fish health, production dynamics, mortality of Sockeye during downstream migration, conducting more annual lake stock assessments and more funding for other salmon species that share the same Fraser River). Unfortunately, much of this has been stated before with no traction behind it. I do not think it needed a 26 million dollar inquiry to explain the importance. People doing this work have been saying this for awhile. I believe Dr. Peterman's and Dr. Dorner 's work on time series trends in productivity over a large spatial area is something we need to seriously look at. The Fraser may be part of a much larger issue. I encourage members to read up on this work. I agree with Cohen that Fraser River Sockeye salmon research data should be more readily available because new perspectives from non-governmental scientists (like universities) might be helpful for DFO to help meet its mandate. Personally, I would like to see the DFO website be revamped to make it easier for the public to access information.
Personally, I agree with many of Judge Cohen's recommendations; however, there are some I do not agree with. Some are kind of unrealistic, but that is the nature of these types of reports - not everyone is going to agree all the time or as strongly on certain items. Cohen is not saying that fish farming in BC is bad and must be removed immediately. He is accepting that there is some risk to wild Fraser River Sockeye salmon which is understandable because there is always risk to any industry of development in and around water. The difference this time around is that Cohen is weighting his recommendations in this regard on public submissions which demand that the risk be no more than "minimal". For him, this is the bar he is using to measure with, so people that say that Cohen was not listening to their concerns were mistaken. I believe he was also using the Wild Salmon Policy and his interpretation of the precautionary principle to guide his recommendations in this regard; however, final implementation of the WSP is still uncertain. In addition, I believe the tipping point for his recommendations in regard to fish farming were the technical reports submitted by Dr. Korman, Dr. Noakes and Dr. Dill and the interplay between them. I do not see anything wrong with collecting more data to satisfy Dr. Korman's and Dr. Dill's recommendations; however, getting any research done like this these days involves some monetary commitment. There lies another issue.
With the uncertainty that surrounds wild fish health (as outlined in Dr. Kent's Technical Report on Diseases and Parasites) I can see why Cohen chose not to conclude that there is low risk to Sockeye from salmon farms. Cohen actually took this approach to many other stressors also - not just salmon farms. Dr. Kent stated that most of the work on impact of pathogens has been done on fish farms and fish hatcheries. It should be noted that Cohen concluded that there is no evidence that diseases on fish farms are out of control or unusually high. Prominent fish farm activists have been planting this in the minds of the public for awhile now, amongst other things (more below). This is one of the reasons why I take issue with their claims and have never been a Rah Rah anti fish farm activist. I would rather see knowledge and research form the basis of these decisions - not reactionary rhetoric which scares the public rather informs responsibly. In one way Cohen cannot say the risk is low, but on the other he cannot say the risk is high. I believe Cohen is trying to strike a balance with such a contentious issue and see this as objectively as possible because the last thing he would want is either side saying that the other got ripped off. By the reaction of the BC Salmon Farmers Association they are pleased with the recommendations with more research on the potential impacts of diseases on wild fish and want to support it. Anti fish farm activists are happy with recommendations on an extended moratorium and the possibility of removal. My pessimistic side says that after 2020 many anti-fish farm activists will still hold on to the same view of the industry even if the data does not support their opinion. Hopefully, if more collaboration is done along with more transparency (which is coming with the new DFO regulations albeit slow) there will be some hope.
Because Ms Morton was such a big advocate of her theory about the cause of the decline of Fraser River Sockeye (actually creating a document for the inquiry and the general public) I think it is only fair to see how some of those theories were viewed by Cohen. In his findings, Cohen did not agree with Ms Morton's theory on marine anaemia on Chinook farms. If you recall, this was applauded by activists as a great theory. According to Ms Morton, the closure of Chinook farms in a certain area (which were false and exaggerated if you read the testimony) was the likely cause for the huge 2010 return. However, Cohen found contradictory evidence by actual fish health professionals to be more credible. Secondly, Cohen also concluded that there was uncertainty about the migratory route the Harrison River Sockeye take after they leave the Strait of Georgia. If you recall, Ms Morton insisted that Harrison River Sockeye avoid fish farms and their impacts between the mainland and eastern side of Vancouver Island by migrating through Juan de Fuca Strait to the west coast of Vancouver Island. This was the hallmark of her theory where she used a fancy coloured map to show how Harrison Sockeye avoid salmon farms (there are salmon farms on the WCVI also). However, Cohen determined that the evidence about this is incomplete (basically Morton only cites one paper to make this claim). Cohen recommends that DFO undertake research into the life history of the Harrison Sockeye which is a good thing.
Finally, I encourage members to read Volume 1 Chapter 5 on the Management of the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Fishery. One of the things I have noticed on this and other forums are incorrect statements about how the fishery is managed and how it is assessed. For instance, there is a specific section about forecasting. You can still disagree with the chapter's contents, but at least you will be informed. Like nibbles I will be reading some more this weekend.
Author
Topic: Latest On Cohen (Read 12968 times)