fish farm siting criteria & politics

Barbender and Handee,
So now you two propose using a correlation between Ak. pink catches and BC pink returns to explain away Broughton pink declines? More apples and oranges guys, more smoke and mirrors. Weren't you the guys who demanded a smoking gun (causation) before salmon farm generated sea lice could be blamed for pink declines? You don't accept others' correlations, but now propose we accept yours. You can't have it both ways. And by the way Handee, your last two posts weren't even spin, more like a rant. I don't know why I even bother.
 
quote:Originally posted by cuttlefish

Barbender and Handee,
So now you two propose using a correlation between Ak. pink catches and BC pink returns to explain away Broughton pink declines? More apples and oranges guys, more smoke and mirrors. Weren't you the guys who demanded a smoking gun (causation) before salmon farm generated sea lice could be blamed for pink declines? You don't accept others' correlations, but now propose we accept yours. You can't have it both ways. And by the way Handee, your last two posts weren't even spin, more like a rant. I don't know why I even bother.

Cuttlefish ,

we didnt say there was a correlation. we didnt say there was cause. we said those that think there is proof ie YOU! Ignore other variables such as Alaskan catch rates.

The fact that you think fishfarming is detrimental to the wild yet dont say a peep about the mass-scale ocean ranching-and fishing- in Alaska are either blind, ignorant or in collusion (probably unwittingly) with Alaska.

All we know is that the pink populations everywhere have always fluctuated and are today fluctuating AS PER USUAL.

The fluctuations are caused by a complex myriad of variables. Only ONE of which is considered by you and Morton: sea lice.

Barbender and I are trying to illustrate the ignorance at the root of your assumption by opening your eyes to a ,pardon the pun, sea of other, more likely, possibilities.

The stupidity of the Morton camp is to ignore, or dismiss without investigation, a long list of variables known to be , at various times and to various degrees, an influence on wild salmon return rates.

The ultra stupidity to all these is we have yet to see any evidence to be concerned about the pink salmon return rates in the Broughton. They appear to be normally fluctuating as they have been doing since we began keeping records. They also seem to be normal as compared to fish farm free areas.


Dont worry cuttlefish, with these two thick layers of ignorance (lack of a Broughton pink problem and the fanatical belief that not only there is a problem, but its caused by sea lice dammit) its hard to see the truth.

Fear not, Barbender and i are not assigning a cause to your fantasy effect.

(I wonder if Morton gets on her knees every night praying the pinks dont come back and make her look silly as they have done every fall since she started predicting THE END)
 
Handee,

Why do you focus your hate and vitriol on Alex Morton? She's only trying to change the world she lives in for the better. I think very highly of her for her efforts, as do many others. The world would be a much better place if we all followed her lead.

Yet, you persist in your childish slander. It's very tiring to everyone else on this forum - and adds nothing to your credibility.

Why do you post such dribble on this forum. Are you truly that afraid of being wrong?
 
Dont mistake our distaste for Miss Morton as a opposition for the enviromental movement in general. Or lack of caring for wild salmon. She is a very dangerous person in the sense that she makes up stories and does the whole enviromental movement a injustice. I for one support legitimate enviromental causes that are science backed and do not have any hidden agenda's. Ms Morton and her co-horts I feel mislead people to look at only one cause of salmon declines and pulls away much needed resources to find the real cause of global salmon collapses. Eventually people wont care anymore as they have been lied to. I am sure Handee shares my love of seeing wild salmon on the coast. We do not deny enviromentalists are a valuable champion of our natural resources, sadly Miss Morton is not the pied piper you make her out to be.
 
quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

Originally posted by Barbender

Dont mistake our distaste for Miss Morton as a opposition for the enviromental movement in general. Or lack of caring for wild salmon. She is a very dangerous person in the sense that she makes up stories and does the whole enviromental movement a injustice. I for one support legitimate enviromental causes that are science backed and do not have any hidden agenda's. Ms Morton and her co-horts I feel mislead people to look at only one cause of salmon declines and pulls away much needed resources to find the real cause of global salmon collapses. Eventually people wont care anymore as they have been lied to. I am sure Handee shares my love of seeing wild salmon on the coast. We do not deny enviromentalists are a valuable champion of our natural resources, sadly Miss Morton is not the pied piper you make her out to be.
How does one become "legitimate" in your eyes, Barbender - are you "legitimate" only if you agree with advocates of the open net-cage industry? Pretty narrow views there.

Why not look at the scientific literature for legitimacy, then?

Alex has also published something like 9+ peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature. Before you go off on another rant and try to slam all the science she has accomplished as "junk science" (the expected PR spin from advocates of the open net-cage industry) - remember that there has already been a jury of "peers" of many, many PhD's in related fields that already critiqued and passed approval on that science. Nothing you can say or do detracts from that reality.

Sea lice & disease transfer to/from adjacent wild salmonid stocks has been the experience world-wide and is well represented and acknowledged by many, many other scientists world-wide.

Where's your studies Barbender and Handee?
 
quote:How does one become "legitimate" in your eyes, Barbender - are you "legitimate" only if you agree with advocates of the open net-cage industry? Pretty narrow views there.
I know one thing for sure and that you are the least legitimate person here AA. You talk about spin and misrepresentation. Yet here we are on a sportfishing website and the only topics you have posted on is anti fish farming. Gee what a coincidence,not one post about your catches or where your fishing. The only thing you can do is bash fish farms. You are quite clearly misrepresenting yourself here as a fisherman when clearly you are a shill for the anti fish farm movement.
 
quote:Originally posted by Barbender

quote:How does one become "legitimate" in your eyes, Barbender - are you "legitimate" only if you agree with advocates of the open net-cage industry? Pretty narrow views there.
I know one thing for sure and that you are the least legitimate person here AA. You talk about spin and misrepresentation. Yet here we are on a sportfishing website and the only topics you have posted on is anti fish farming. Gee what a coincidence,not one post about your catches or where your fishing. The only thing you can do is bash fish farms. You are quite clearly misrepresenting yourself here as a fisherman when clearly you are a shill for the anti fish farm movement.
Well, Barbender - one thing is for certain. I can't say your posts aren't entertaining; even while often filled with unfortunate childish antagonism.

1/ I first noted you decided not to answer any of my direct questions to you regarding Alex's record of publishing in the peer-reviewed journals, your critiques/attacks of her, and your obvious lack of any substantial personal experience with associated topics like sea lice transfer.

2/ Your antagonistic assumption that the only topics I have posted on is anti fish farming is unsupported, as is your companion declaration that "the only thing I can do is bash fish farms".

Some other topics I have posted on include:
a) salmon age http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9099
b) Tapeworms in Salmon http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9162
c) Canada 'caught in middle' over salmon cull http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9340
d) DFO incompetence http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7210

You are correct in the assertion that the majority of my posts on this sportsfishing forum often relate to the effects of the open net-cage industry on adjacent wild salmon stocks - but not exclusively so.

AND SO WHAT?</u>

The effects of the open net-cage industry has serious population-level effects on adjacent wild salmon stocks. That reality concerns all those who care about wild salmon - including sportsfishermen, commercial fishermen, First Nations, and all those living in communities that depend upon wild salmon stocks.

It is arrogant and ignorant in the extreme to state that one must somehow declare oneself a sportsfishermen before one can post about wild salmon on this forum, or to state that these effects on wild salmon stocks are not of interest to sportsfishermen, or to try and limit the interest in effects to wild salmon to sportfishermen alone.

These are issues that need to be fully discussed and understood by all concerned.

3/ You claim that I am: "quite clearly misrepresenting yourself here as a fisherman", and "clearly you are a shill for the anti fish farm movement".

Nowhere's on any of this forum's topic postings did I make any such claim of being a sportsfishermen (although I do sportsfish).

In fact, if you read the postings on the Forum topic called: "Agentaqua, Sockeyefry & Handee", at http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9573&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=Agentaqua you will see that I posted:
"I have a degree in Biology among other qualifications, and yes I am a fisheries biologist (if it matters).

I don't consider these qualifications above the norm on this forum, as many posters (e.g. wolf, Little Hawk, r.s craven, Gimp, etc.) have many years of studying fish through recreational fishing on this forum and are very "qualified" to give input and separate the BS from the truth when it concerns fish. We can all learn from each other here.
"

Why do I post?

On http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9573&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=Agentaqua I answered this already by stating:
"I also respect his and everyone else's privacy on this forum.

Sometimes that information can also detract from the message. It then becomes a battle of experts - and a "miss congeniality" contest verses a debate on the facts.

I've seen enough of that in the media on this fishfarm topic for many a year. I'm tired of it. It's a stalling and bluffing tactic. The facts should stand for themselves - and they do when you look at the peer-reviewed science.

That's why I've been countering argument with logic and science whenever I can get it. Not all the science is finished, because it takes time to understand such a dynamic place like the ocean.

But what we know so far screams to me that we should be precautionary and most of all - HUMBLE.

You only get to have hindsight after it's happened. We need to develop our sense of stewardship and action to have the foresight to be responsible stewards of our spaceship.

I don't think we should be shooting-off to Mars until we understand and learn to look after our own planet, first.

That's what drives me to respond to sockeyefry, Handee and Barbender - that need to get that understanding and stewardship happening. It's long overdue.

Believe-it-or-not - I am not a member or employee of any eNGO. I simply care too much to let a tragedy happen on my watch. I think others on this forum feel the same way, too.
"

4/ You state that I am: "the least legitimate person here"

I'll let others on this forum comment on this claim if they want, rather than giving any energy to this attempt to derail the debate.

You can't win this debate through belligerence, Barbender - although you can loose it that way.
 
The truth is starting to come out finally about the anti farming groups and I think eventually most of them will be exposed as the charlatans they are. With regards to Miss Morton's peer reviewed junk science which one are you referring too? She seems to have a different report out each week (oddly with the same result each time). Most credible organizations will not acknowledge her work any more simply because it is not worth reviewing. I do not think I am being beligerent when I say that you are not here to discuss salmon fishing. 99% of my posts are about sportfishing. 99% of yours are anti fish farming. Just pointing out facts. No disrepect is intended just trying to seperate the fact from fiction.
As a side note how come you never wrote anything about the report recently that wild fish had far higher concentrations of mercury than farmed fish? I would think that would have been worth mentioning.
 
Not taking sides but mercury is measured at low levels in farmed and wild salmon. Both are well below regs and are measured at similar levels. No issue here.

For more info read: Metal accumulation in farmed and wild salmon, Ikonomou et al, Volume preprint, Issue 2008 in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Journal.
 
quote:Originally posted by Barbender

The truth is starting to come out finally about the anti farming groups and I think eventually most of them will be exposed as the charlatans they are. With regards to Miss Morton's peer reviewed junk science which one are you referring too? She seems to have a different report out each week (oddly with the same result each time). Most credible organizations will not acknowledge her work any more simply because it is not worth reviewing. I do not think I am being beligerent when I say that you are not here to discuss salmon fishing. 99% of my posts are about sportfishing. 99% of yours are anti fish farming. Just pointing out facts. No disrepect is intended just trying to seperate the fact from fiction.
As a side note how come you never wrote anything about the report recently that wild fish had far higher concentrations of mercury than farmed fish? I would think that would have been worth mentioning.
Barbender, some of the published and peer-reviewed scientific reports by Morton on sea lice and impacts of salmon farms include:

1/ Sea louse infestation in wild juvenile salmon and Pacific herring associated with fish farms off the east-central coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia (2008)
2/ Declining Wild Salmon Populations in Relation to Parasites from Farm Salmon. (2007)
3/ Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish. Proceedings of the National Acadamey of Sciences. (2006)
4/ Fulton's Condition Factor: Is it a valid measure of sea lice impact on juvenile salmon? (2006)
5/ Mortality rates for juvenile pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha and chum O. keta salmon infested with sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis in the Broughton Archipelago (2005)
6/ Temporal patterns of sea louse infestation on wild pacific salmon in relation to the fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms (2005)
7/ Nonlethal assessment of juvenile pink and chum salmon for parasitic sea lice infections and fish health (2005)
8/ Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infection rates on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon in the nearshore marine environment of British Columbia, Canada (2004)
9/ A Description of Escaped Farmed Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Captures and Their Characteristics in One Pacific Salmon Fishery Area in British Columbia, Canada, in 2000 (2002)

Some of the respected and prestigious journals that have published her stuff include:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Science
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Where did you say your stuff was published?
 
quote:Originally posted by agentaqua

quote:Originally posted by Barbender

The truth is starting to come out finally about the anti farming groups and I think eventually most of them will be exposed as the charlatans they are. With regards to Miss Morton's peer reviewed junk science which one are you referring too? She seems to have a different report out each week (oddly with the same result each time). Most credible organizations will not acknowledge her work any more simply because it is not worth reviewing. I do not think I am being beligerent when I say that you are not here to discuss salmon fishing. 99% of my posts are about sportfishing. 99% of yours are anti fish farming. Just pointing out facts. No disrepect is intended just trying to seperate the fact from fiction.
As a side note how come you never wrote anything about the report recently that wild fish had far higher concentrations of mercury than farmed fish? I would think that would have been worth mentioning.
Barbender, some of the published and peer-reviewed scientific reports by Morton on sea lice and impacts of salmon farms include:

1/ Sea louse infestation in wild juvenile salmon and Pacific herring associated with fish farms off the east-central coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia (2008)
2/ Declining Wild Salmon Populations in Relation to Parasites from Farm Salmon. (2007)
3/ Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish. Proceedings of the National Acadamey of Sciences. (2006)
4/ Fulton's Condition Factor: Is it a valid measure of sea lice impact on juvenile salmon? (2006)
5/ Mortality rates for juvenile pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha and chum O. keta salmon infested with sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis in the Broughton Archipelago (2005)
6/ Temporal patterns of sea louse infestation on wild pacific salmon in relation to the fallowing of Atlantic salmon farms (2005)
7/ Nonlethal assessment of juvenile pink and chum salmon for parasitic sea lice infections and fish health (2005)
8/ Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infection rates on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon in the nearshore marine environment of British Columbia, Canada (2004)
9/ A Description of Escaped Farmed Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Captures and Their Characteristics in One Pacific Salmon Fishery Area in British Columbia, Canada, in 2000 (2002)

Some of the respected and prestigious journals that have published her stuff include:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Science
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Where did you say your stuff was published?

Careful AA, You know that just because you get something published doesnt mean its true or high quality (for example getting into the Alaska Fishery bulletin just means they found no typos). The above list is only impressive to a layman. Morton got her name on a few papers (by her Mommy paying for boat gas) and then lied to the public about what they meant.
They were meaningless little bits of drivel that showed nothing. They have been denounced and ridiculued by real scientists and all her predictions based on them (eg the pinks not coming back and the lice population going up) have all failed to come true.

However science that disagrees with her conclusions, based on larger data sets have all been borne out to be correct ie there is no pink collapse and there is no correlation between salmon returns or farm levels or sea lice leves in the Broughton.

The pink returns continue fluctuate normally in the Broughton as they do everywhere else.

In the true arena of peer review, which occurs AFTER publishing and after time has passed to test researchers predictions, the papers with Morton's name on them have looked to be a joke and cast shame upon the journals that published them.
 
Mortality rates for juvenile pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha and chum O. keta salmon infested with sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis in the Broughton Archipelago (2005)

AA,

im glad you mentioned the above study by Morton. Its one of her stupidest. What she did here barbender is she put a bunch of pinks in different barrels. Supposedly she made sure they had different lice loads. Now dont forget she lies to the press constantly so we only have her word that she did this . then as the fish dies she implied it was because of sea lice. She lied about that to the press. But in order to get published she had to admit , as a footnote, that she did not determine the cause of death of the juvenile pinks!!!No post mortem was done!!

And her results were scarily perfect. She got results no sea lice expert every got for any species: a perfectly straight line with the tiniest of tiny error bars. I mean she accomplished a Mortality vs time graph almost perfectly symmetric: more lice = more death, direct proportionality almost never observed in any biology experiments.

Sooo when a liar gets something published in a peer reviewed journal one must take pause. when the same liar has her published stuff totally contradicted by actual experts, in peer reviewed published papers, one must take pause. And when the liar was an anti fish farmer LOOOOng before she heard of sea lice or ever got her name on a sea lice paper one must be pretty skeptical of her objectivity.

The moral of the story?

Rich liars can get their name on science papers that get published in journals.

Oh it would be wonderful to get sued by Morton for slander. I would love to give evidence supporting my claim that she lies about her own work. Especially about this particular paper on sea lice causing mortality, its gotta be her most flagrant ******** to date. she is quoted as saying: "this paper proves sea lice kill juvenile pink salmon" when the actual paper says "the cause of death is undetermined"!!!!

Bee uuu tee full!!

Then this same **** paper is cited by Krkosek in his 2008 paper! What a house of cards. One piece of junk science citing other junk science as support for its conclusions.

It reminds me of the sub prime mortgage fiasco: banks selling other banks mortgages with faulty triple AAA securtity ratings when in fact they are the worst least safest mortgage possible!
 
All this talk!!!!! why dont you present your evidence to us (link the reports and the quotes and your case) and let us look at it and make our own opinion sir or kindly stop trashing people on this fourm. I am personaly tired of coming on here and seeing your posts trashing morton while she is a member of this fourm and yet the mods do Nothing about it

P.S. try posting on something about actual sportsfishing once in a while also. O wait you said you dont fish you just come here to trash morton and promote FISH FARMS

At least barbender fishes and posts accordingly

Picture002-1.jpg
 
I am currently in Japan on a business trip and talking to a customer today about his needs. He was looking to buy more farmed salmon(from all over the world) because the wild salmon population here in Hokaido had collapsed this year. When I asked why this was he said that their scientists blamed ocean conditions which have been the worst on record the last few years and that it had caused the poulation to collapse from a record high a few years ago. Now this may come as a big huge shock to AA, LH and Gimp but there is not one single salmon farm anywhere on the whole island of Japan. Maybe just maybe there might other causes out there guys.
As a footnote I also made another discovery while here. Russia within the last 5 years has become the 2 largest producer of wild salmon in the world. According to some estimates they are harvesting over 300 million pounds of sockey, chums and chinook salmon. Food for thought when you order that made in Moscow wild sockey salad.
 
quote:Originally posted by gimp

All this talk!!!!! why dont you present your evidence to us (link the reports and the quotes and your case) and let us look at it and make our own opinion sir or kindly stop trashing people on this fourm. I am personaly tired of coming on here and seeing your posts trashing morton while she is a member of this fourm and yet the mods do Nothing about it

P.S. try posting on something about actual sportsfishing once in a while also. O wait you said you dont fish you just come here to trash morton and promote FISH FARMS

At least barbender fishes and posts accordingly

Picture002-1.jpg


Gimp,

I have listed my links and references all the way through. I just quoted Mortons paper directly. You have all heard her say that she has PROVED this or that.

Im not trashing her, Im juxtaposing her printed comments that are directly in conflicting. Im comparing her predictions to reality.

Her arguments do not stannd the test of experience or true peer review.

Barbender is doing a great service by also introducing you anti fish farmers to the idea of context. He is showing that there direct causes to fish stock levels that are clear, present dangers. sea lice for the time being remains a hypothesis thathas been tried and failed. That dog dont seem to hunt.

Again iam not trashing Morton. She does that herself by making false statements about her own work and demonizing true experts in the field. She is trash and needs to be treated as such so we can get on with a honest discussion of how best to protect wild salmon stocks.

Barbender,
How long until the russians wipe out their fish stocks? Also do you know much about the dangers of salmon enhancement? Why is ithard on wild stocks to release hundreds of millions of smolts each year? I heard Wash/ oregon and California banned it as an unsafe practice?

Scary that the governor of the biggest salmon farmer (the dangerous kind of farming, even more dangerous than salmon enhancement) in the world (Alaska)is now vice presedential candidate to Mccain.


ps cuttlefish, i havent forgotten, my source is still looking into the proof of Alaska's involvement with the latest article from Science (Krkoseks little computer model) that tries to demarket BC farm salmon- holidays are slowing things down. Sorry I dont keep a good filing system, but my memory is pretty good so I know its there.
 
[
quote:Careful AA, You know that just because you get something published doesnt mean its true or high quality (for example getting into the Alaska Fishery bulletin just means they found no typos). The above list is only impressive to a layman. Morton got her name on a few papers (by her Mommy paying for boat gas) and then lied to the public about what they meant.
They were meaningless little bits of drivel that showed nothing. They have been denounced and ridiculued by real scientists...
Handee,
you are AGAIN</u> only showing your ignorance about sea lice and science to everyone on this forum.

Here is the web references for instructions to authors for the respected and prestigious journals that have published Alex's stuff that detail how the peer-reviewed review works:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml

North American Journal of Fisheries Management and the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
http://afs.allenpress.com/fima.pdf

Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/

Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin
Published twice a year on the Web by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska fishery research bulletin (AFRB) provides free access to full-text articles. The Journal publishes research articles on which examine shellfish or finfish or aspects of their environment or community from a variety of disciplines, such as aquaculture, biometrics, ecology, economics and marketing, genetics, law, life history, limnology and oceanography, management, pathology, and population dynamics. Articles are available from 1995 onwards, and are provided in PDF, requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader.
http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/afrb/afrbhome.php

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/cjfas_instruct_e.pdf

Publishing in a scientific journal is way more than "just meaning they found no typos", Handee. The only reason you do not know this is obviously because you don't understand the peer-review process.

the Journal "Science" accepts less than 10% of the original research papers submitted - as an example.

This debate has instead devolved into a childish rant about how badly you and Barbender hate Alex Morton - like as if someone you like has more credibility simply because you like them.

It's as if your opinion about whether you like someone matters to science. Grow-up and debate the science. Quit being so childish.
 
My dear AA,

the fact that Science publishes garbage by Krkosek and Morton is proof they suck- they are subject to payoffs from high places.

Sometimes its not their fault. I supppose they don't know for sure that Morton will lie about her results. I have demonstrated this fact over and over.

I know EXACTLY how the peer review process is supposed to work and I also know how it actually works. the process varies from journal to journal. A journal receives a paper. It looks for volunteers from a list of self acclaimed and known experts. The key word here is volunteers.

The volunteers look over the paper as best they can in the allotted time and submit their critiques back to the journal who then collates them and gives them back to the authour for resubmission. blah blah blah.

So, morton gets her name on the study and uses mommy's money to have her sciency friends write up the study and respond to the peer panels edits. Once the reviewers are satisfied that the conclusions are supported by the results publishing is considered.


When Mortons seminal study showed "no causal link between juvenile salmon infection and salmon farms" the panel said 'ok to publish'. then morton went to the media and said: "I have proved their is a causal link and the fact that iam published in a peer reviewed journal proves Im right".

Just because Science magazine rejects 99% of submissions does not mean that what it prints isnt sometimes ****. Science magazine has one key purpose: to sell magazines. if you come to them, as Morton did, with a ****ty little study that uses the word "extinction", a communications mega budget from The alaska seafood marketting institute and a few celebrity scientists willing to lie on camera...BINGO you have an opportunity to sell ALOT of magazines.

And besides AA, if you think being published and peer reviewed is the holy grail of truth telling then let me ask you AGAIN how you reconcile the fact that major studies by Jones, Beamish, Neville McVicar, Trudel and Brooks show NO correlation let alone causation between sealice, salmon farms and wild salmon return rates.


So in published peer reviewed journals Beamish and Morton agree that there is no causal link. Only in the media does morton contradict what she says in the journals that she is published in.

In science magazine Krkosek states his conclusions based on the assumptions he fed into his computer model. In a peer reviewed and published analysis (Brooks and Jones 2008)of those assumptions they were totally dismantled as basless- 18 of Krkoseks peers (superiors actually as he is still a student) said he was full of it.

So AA and Gimp,

here i go again listing the peer reviewed authors contradicting Mortons claims in the media. i also cite Mortons own published and peer reviewed conclusion of no causal link (same as stated in Krkosek 2005) .

This is not childish or trashing. What is childish is your refusal to reconcile that both morton and others, in published peer reviewed journals, state no causal link can be found. Research by DFO and Beamish and Jones and Brooks shows no CORRELATION can even be found.

The only place you can find researchers stating unequivocally that there is proof that there is a causal link (or even a correlation) is in PRESS CLIPPINGS!!

My question again: if you think Morton has been purified by the waters of peer review and therefore her whacko conclusions made in the media are sanctified, how do you explain that peer reviewed published scientists with 10x the credentials, 100x the experience and no history of bias for or against salmon farms totally disagree with her statements to the media about the proof of a causal link between sea lice, salmon farms and wild salmon?

ps and besides you know she didnt write a word of any of the studies she has her name on. she talks in colours and flowery mother earth language. the reason shes popular with the sportsfishers and first nations is because she dummies down the whole debate. she only knows simple language, she removes context and makes things black and white- hence the media appeal.
 
The Times Colonist, 18th September 2008
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimes....html?id=02793c8a-007d-4fc2-b8a3-6a1be103417e

Sea lice killing B.C. wild salmon

D.C. Reid, Times Colonist

So you thought fish farm sea lice problems were restricted to pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago? Not so. In fact, the problem is vastly worse than we have been told. New studies from the U.S.A., Canada and Norway indicate lice and the diseases they carry are killing all five salmon species in B.C. and also herring.

You may recall Alexandra Morton was the biologist who set off alarm bells that fish farm sea lice resulted in a healthy 150,000 annual pink run from the Broughton Archipelago being reduced to virtually nothing. She is now in court trying to get the memorandum of understanding that DFO signed with the province to carry the can declared as invalid, and thus that DFO will have to step in -- if they lose -- and we have to wait many years for them to clean up the industry.

Morton's new research has begun to reveal that the lice and disease problem is huge in B.C. Her research indicates that sockeye smolts migrating up Johnstone Strait from the Fraser River have been infected with lethal numbers of infected lice as they swim through the Campbell River area. Little wonder this year's run of Fraser sockeye was one of the poorest on record -- and the problem will continue unless we do something.

Juvenile herring, the fish that salmon feed on primarily, are also infected and infested in the Campbell River area, as are chum salmon fry.

Morton has now found lethal levels of fish farm sea lice in chinook smolts from the Megin River that flows into Clayoquot Sound, meaning all the United Nations World Heritage 650,000-acre Site salt-waters are a gauntlet of sea-lice death for all species of salmon migrating through the narrow fjords near Tofino.

Morton and others have discovered viral outbreaks from now antibiotic resistant infected lice from the Johnstone Strait all the way up to Bella Bella on the mid-coast. This is also wiping out herring stocks to the point where DFO no longer assesses their spawn in Kingcome Inlet. And you will remember that DFO is the only stakeholder that thinks harvesting herring for roe is a good thing, and now has authorized a whack at the larger pilchards, for the first time in almost 50 years.

In addition, fish farms attract fry with a sheen of fish chow and lights at night. Young coho eat the weakened salmon fry and become infected themselves.

From 2001 to 2003, 12,000,000 farmed Atlantic salmon died in B.C. from the infectious haematopoietic necrosis epidemic. The first problem was more than 15 years ago in B.C. Even Canada's highly regarded -- and DFO's own scientist -- Dick Beamish, has published research showing that when Atlantic salmon are removed wild salmon smolts thrive.
 
Wow Alexandra Morton is now saying salmon farms are the cause of every single species collapsing on the west coast. Glad to see she is not getting more radical and irresponsible in her conspiracy theories. I wonder if it is coincidence,just as ocean conditions are improving and stocks are starting to show signs of recovery she decides to release this nonsense. I guess she better print something before she is found out to be the empty barrel she truely is. If next season fish numbers rebound as all these young salmon we are all of a sudden seeing indicate will she finally go back to counting whales?
 
quote:Originally posted by handee

My dear AA,

the fact that Science publishes garbage by Krkosek and Morton is proof they suck- they are subject to payoffs from high places.
...
I know EXACTLY how the peer review process is supposed to work and I also know how it actually works.
...
Just because Science magazine rejects 99% of submissions does not mean that what it prints isnt sometimes ****.
...
And besides AA, if you think being published and peer reviewed is the holy grail of truth telling then l...
In a peer reviewed and published analysis (Brooks and Jones 2008)of those assumptions they were totally dismantled as basless-
...
Handee,
Every time, before I respond to your postings I have to ask myself: "is it worth it?". I figure that most people on this forum will easily see through your bias, unsupported statements, and often childish rants.

What most astonishes me - is your inability or possibly unwillingness to understand your own hypocrisy.

In your last posting (yet another example of your hypocrisy) is that you are highly critical of the peer-review process. In this case, the journals that have published Alex Mortons work that you would like to dismiss.

Yet, when it supports your arguments - you heap lavish praise on those scientists, their work, and those peer-reviewed institutions that publish their work that you say support your arguments - as proof of their credability.

This is where I am astounded, Handee - these are the same peer-review processes, and often the same Journals that publishes both Jones and Mortons works.

Don't you see your blatant and obvious hypocrisy, Handee?

Either the peer-review process adds credibility to both Jones and Mortons work; or you are in denial, again</u>.

Like I say most readers on this forum will probably catch this obvious hypocrisy and denial of yours, but what stuns me - is that you don't.
 
Back
Top