Fish Farms

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, I must address concerns over a recent internal report that presents DFO Science Advice in response to a request submitted by DFO Aquaculture Management Division.
As Wildman had said your only posting half of the topic. Could we see the other half? If not what does this even mean?
 
As Wildman had said your only posting half of the topic. Could we see the other half? If not what does this even mean?
Re Read it until you understand what it means. To me it points out the recent internal DFO report only saw what the writers wanted to see and went out of its way not to see anything else.
 
Actually Fabian, you were the one that could not answer a simple question. The question as a refresher was "do you think the massive sea lice outbreak on the Clayoquot farms, which coincided with the out migration of smolts, had a negative impact on smolt survival?"
You never answered that question. A simple yes or no will do.

Do I think you are a fish farm supporter? I'm not sure. If you weren't hired by farms I doubt you would be advocating so strongly.
Wow topic shift, what a surprise. I've answered your question 3 times. Again do you have any supportive information regarding sea lice? All you have done is taken number counted by the farm in June and turned it around and made the statement that fish farms are killing out going smolt production. All this from a person who a page ago said I only believe the science. Still waiting. How anyone can make assumptions about an industry and then come on a public forum and try to sell it is ........

Should I keep going or are you going to share the science, any science. Do you have beach seine numbers or citizens for science trawl surveys? Nothin? Well sorry but.....
 
Very interesting thanks
Ya - it looks like Mark Higgins and Stewart Johnson signed off on this. Sure doesn't help provide assurance to the public that our regulators are "unbiased" - or even honest for that matter. Justice Cohen mentioned this as one of his recommendations.

as I said:
...4/ It is long past time to assume either the regulators or spokespersons from the industry they protect tell the truth or can be trusted....
 
Thank you and I know what Eulachon are other than great bait. How do rainbow get infected? And isn't this just theoretical science? In other words, this is all in a lab isn't it? If its not were are the samples taken from?s

I believe the term is “weaponized science”
 
Lol....
Peer reviewed papers only look at how the science was conducted not if it is factual. This is something that other people seem to have forgotten.
 
Lol....
Peer reviewed papers only look at how the science was conducted not if it is factual. This is something that other people seem to have forgotten.

Peer reviewed was also a useful qualifier before today’s public climate.

I know at least 15 peers who will review everything I say and concur. Every time.
 
I know at least 15 peers who will review everything I say and concur. Every time.

Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.
 
Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.

Lol.

Yea that’s how it works in real life.
 
Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.

Well as noted in the article those days are gone
This is not the first time that this has happened.
 
Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.

Have a listen to this podcast on your free time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/07/591213302/episode-677-the-experiment-experiment
 
“It might be time for the world to talk to Canada on the whales’ behalf.”
“Washington state recently legislated the phase-out of Atlantic salmon farms in four years to protect wild salmon.
However, just across the border in British Columbia, there are 120 Atlantic-salmon farms, many sited on Fraser River salmon-migration routes.
Of direct concern to Tahlequah, Scoter and the pregnant mother whales, the B.C. salmon farming industry reports that 80 per cent of B.C. farm salmon are infected with a virus called piscine orthoreovirus. Canadian government scientists recently reported that the same strain of PRV that is in the farmed salmon infects chinook-salmon red blood cells, causing them to rupture en masse, leading to organ failure.
Washington state responded by prohibiting the transfer of 800,000 Atlantic salmon into a farm in Puget Sound that were infected with an Icelandic strain of PRV.
Canada has a very different policy. It allows farmed salmon, infected with what appears to be a Norwegian strain of PRV, to exist in salmon farms on the Fraser River salmon-migration route.
Directly affecting the whales, the 2018 Fraser River chinook salmon return is nothing short of a collapse. The ‘Namgis First Nation of Alert Bay and I were in court last month to try to stop PRV-infected Atlantic salmon from entering the farms in their territory.
Hundreds of miles north of Puget Sound, chinook salmon tags from Washington state hatcheries have been collected in ‘Namgis territory, where the fish are being exposed to this blood disease.
Turning off exposure to PRV might save enough chinook salmon to feed the orca.
Two countries, one virus, opposite policies — and families of whales caught in the middle. We know them by name and we know they are dying. One virus, opposite policies, only one can be right.
It might be time for the world to talk to Canada on the whales’ behalf.”


https://www.timescolonist.com/opini...e-virus-two-countries-dying-whales-1.23455707
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top