H
handee
Guest
This idea of posting CV's is ignorant and demeaning.
Even if iam a paid shill for fish farming who cares? By the way, what is a paid shill? I dont care if anyone on this site is a paid shill. This is fact against fact not a CV competition.
Lets say that I reveal that i am an ex fish farmer biologist who is now a landscaper. how does that help decide the argument? it doesnt. from that point on I'll be called a lying ex fish farmer biologist who is now a landscaper. Lets say I run a fish farm, again, who cares?
Heck, many people here believe morton (US billionaire with a arts degree in whale music), Krkosek (math student) and Volpe(granted this guy has fishery experience, but has turned activist) and have dismissed out of hand two dozen fishery experts with decades of experience and no reason to lie. Why state my CV when you won't even consider the evidence presented by a recipient of the order of Canada?
If I show you peer reviewed science that says pink salmon returns are not going down then its not me who needs to be judged, its the evidence. then you tell me that it doesnt count because of fish ladders. then i point out that that is irrelevant as stated in a peer reviewed study because the ladders do not effect return numbers just where in the river the fish spawn. then you call me a name. Iam actually interested in the rebuttal not who you are or what you call me.
I have challenged the argument that says that it is a fact that salmon farms impact wild salmon by pointing out independent peer reviewed science that supports the opposite view.
I have pointed out that american bilionaire Alexandra Morton is not an expert and that some of her stuff that was peer reviewed, she herself has agreed is wrong. For example her first study (if you believe she wrote it), the one that got things going about sea lice is a joke. she chased some pinks with dip nets obviously leading to bias (because she could only catch the fish with the lice) and then compared it to a farm free study area where they used seine nets, voila the farm free area had more lice than another. she now swears up and down that that was stupid and she is not doing it anymore. she does not however throw out her conclusions based on that junky science. she pounds the pulpit about those and dares us not to BELIEVE.
I have provided evidence that the pocket of science done in BC that seems to suggest that sea lice is a threat against wild salmon is paid for by the alaska seafood marketting institute to increase the market share of alsaka farmed salmon being marketted as "wild". the evidence i supplied was direct quotes from the activist websites and the websites of the people providing the funding.I have pointed out where the funders are acknowledged on morton and Krkosek's latest paper. so far the only rebuttal I have seen is calling me a shill and a liar.
Knowing the CV of agentaqua, sockeyefry or gimp helps me in no way. iam not about BELIEVING people because of who they are. iam about looking at EVIDENCE.
No evidence, peer reviewed computer model studies aside, has been put forward to support the argument that BC fish farms impact wild stocks. The return data of the rivers in and away from the Broughton do not support this theory. the hypothesis is certainly provocative. I am sorry Iam not going to BELIEVE Morton, just because her Mommy can afford to make youTube videos of her that pull heartstrings. Yes she can repeat it over and over and to layman it sounds very plausible. But iam more interested in evidence.
For example if the salmon farms impact the wild fish ALL the Alaska paid activists have to do is show that the number of wild salmon is going down and not up. and I dont mean by only counting the rivers where the returns are lower and hoping no one asks about the other ones. the least they could do is show that sea lice numbers are going up, but that isnt happening either. lice loads on farm salmon remain virtually zero and lice loads on wild salmon fluctuate as per usual.
So if we do not have the pink returns in the Broughton going down or behaving differently than they always have and the way they do in other jurisdictions, and if even Morton can't make sea lice kill pacifics in fish tanks and nor can a team of DFO scientists lead by Simon jones (all this is published on the pacific salmon forum website, please look before calling me a liar), then why do we BELIEVE a handful of activists and disbelieve the peer reviewed, published science of our DFO experts? does DFO have to make snappy little youtube videos too?
This should be good news to the people of BC. We can eat farm salmon, relieve pressure on the wild and, if we stop killing them, they may come back in larger numbers one day- provided we actually stop doing the other things that kill them such as destroying their spawning beds.
Now Iam not sure how the above words can be seen as vitriolic or mean spirited, other than because Iam not a true believer in the Prophet Morton.
Besides, we just had some more evidnce presented last week: based on this year's DFO survey study (which includes Prophet Morton data) sea lice numbers are down. Even when they were up it had no effect on salmon retruns, but the important bit here is that Krkosek and Morton's computer models (the last two peer reviewed studies by the activists have been based on computer modelling where they tell a computer all their assumptions then see what it says) all predicted the numbers would be spiralling upwards and thus impacting wild salmon. wrong again (and again and again).
now instead of wondering about my CV, just submit a tiny scrap of evidence that shows farming salmon in netpens kills more (or any) wild salmon than killing wild salmon commercially or for sport? please, im begging you to stay on topic here.
what kills more wild salmon? sportsfishing, commercial fishing or sea lions? this is a genuine question, does anyone know?
Even if iam a paid shill for fish farming who cares? By the way, what is a paid shill? I dont care if anyone on this site is a paid shill. This is fact against fact not a CV competition.
Lets say that I reveal that i am an ex fish farmer biologist who is now a landscaper. how does that help decide the argument? it doesnt. from that point on I'll be called a lying ex fish farmer biologist who is now a landscaper. Lets say I run a fish farm, again, who cares?
Heck, many people here believe morton (US billionaire with a arts degree in whale music), Krkosek (math student) and Volpe(granted this guy has fishery experience, but has turned activist) and have dismissed out of hand two dozen fishery experts with decades of experience and no reason to lie. Why state my CV when you won't even consider the evidence presented by a recipient of the order of Canada?
If I show you peer reviewed science that says pink salmon returns are not going down then its not me who needs to be judged, its the evidence. then you tell me that it doesnt count because of fish ladders. then i point out that that is irrelevant as stated in a peer reviewed study because the ladders do not effect return numbers just where in the river the fish spawn. then you call me a name. Iam actually interested in the rebuttal not who you are or what you call me.
I have challenged the argument that says that it is a fact that salmon farms impact wild salmon by pointing out independent peer reviewed science that supports the opposite view.
I have pointed out that american bilionaire Alexandra Morton is not an expert and that some of her stuff that was peer reviewed, she herself has agreed is wrong. For example her first study (if you believe she wrote it), the one that got things going about sea lice is a joke. she chased some pinks with dip nets obviously leading to bias (because she could only catch the fish with the lice) and then compared it to a farm free study area where they used seine nets, voila the farm free area had more lice than another. she now swears up and down that that was stupid and she is not doing it anymore. she does not however throw out her conclusions based on that junky science. she pounds the pulpit about those and dares us not to BELIEVE.
I have provided evidence that the pocket of science done in BC that seems to suggest that sea lice is a threat against wild salmon is paid for by the alaska seafood marketting institute to increase the market share of alsaka farmed salmon being marketted as "wild". the evidence i supplied was direct quotes from the activist websites and the websites of the people providing the funding.I have pointed out where the funders are acknowledged on morton and Krkosek's latest paper. so far the only rebuttal I have seen is calling me a shill and a liar.
Knowing the CV of agentaqua, sockeyefry or gimp helps me in no way. iam not about BELIEVING people because of who they are. iam about looking at EVIDENCE.
No evidence, peer reviewed computer model studies aside, has been put forward to support the argument that BC fish farms impact wild stocks. The return data of the rivers in and away from the Broughton do not support this theory. the hypothesis is certainly provocative. I am sorry Iam not going to BELIEVE Morton, just because her Mommy can afford to make youTube videos of her that pull heartstrings. Yes she can repeat it over and over and to layman it sounds very plausible. But iam more interested in evidence.
For example if the salmon farms impact the wild fish ALL the Alaska paid activists have to do is show that the number of wild salmon is going down and not up. and I dont mean by only counting the rivers where the returns are lower and hoping no one asks about the other ones. the least they could do is show that sea lice numbers are going up, but that isnt happening either. lice loads on farm salmon remain virtually zero and lice loads on wild salmon fluctuate as per usual.
So if we do not have the pink returns in the Broughton going down or behaving differently than they always have and the way they do in other jurisdictions, and if even Morton can't make sea lice kill pacifics in fish tanks and nor can a team of DFO scientists lead by Simon jones (all this is published on the pacific salmon forum website, please look before calling me a liar), then why do we BELIEVE a handful of activists and disbelieve the peer reviewed, published science of our DFO experts? does DFO have to make snappy little youtube videos too?
This should be good news to the people of BC. We can eat farm salmon, relieve pressure on the wild and, if we stop killing them, they may come back in larger numbers one day- provided we actually stop doing the other things that kill them such as destroying their spawning beds.
Now Iam not sure how the above words can be seen as vitriolic or mean spirited, other than because Iam not a true believer in the Prophet Morton.
Besides, we just had some more evidnce presented last week: based on this year's DFO survey study (which includes Prophet Morton data) sea lice numbers are down. Even when they were up it had no effect on salmon retruns, but the important bit here is that Krkosek and Morton's computer models (the last two peer reviewed studies by the activists have been based on computer modelling where they tell a computer all their assumptions then see what it says) all predicted the numbers would be spiralling upwards and thus impacting wild salmon. wrong again (and again and again).
now instead of wondering about my CV, just submit a tiny scrap of evidence that shows farming salmon in netpens kills more (or any) wild salmon than killing wild salmon commercially or for sport? please, im begging you to stay on topic here.
what kills more wild salmon? sportsfishing, commercial fishing or sea lions? this is a genuine question, does anyone know?
] 
