… Judge Bruce Cohen concluded that the "data presented during this Inquiry did not show that salmon farms were having a significant negative impact on Fraser River sockeye" (Final Report, Volume 3, p. 24, column 2).
Great post GLG!
sockeyefry2, I would NEVER post anything written or said Ian Roberts, who is the Manager of Communications for Marine Harvest Canada. Ian Roberts can call whatever he wants to task, especially as he has lost any and all creditability half-truths and flat-out LIES. IMHO, Marine Harvest would be much better off sending him, with his “popcorn,” half-truths, and flat-out lies back to Norway? I am actually surprised he hasn’t been fired yet and he really needs to brush up on the ten “D’s” and remember to stay away from anything considered “outright blatant lies”:
Here is a list of the ten "D's":
1. Deflection.
2. Delays.
Delays are one of the more common responses that a community initiative may face. With delays, the opposition may
say it is working on the problem, when the reality is that nothing is being done. They may also suggest that more information is needed (and form committees to gather it, as evidence of good faith) when there is already plenty of information on the problem. One of the worst consequences of the delay tactic is that it can hurt the momentum of a strong organization, and it can cause community members to lose heart and give up.
3. Denials.
Denial is used when your opponent refuses to admit there is any truth to either: a) the problem you say exists (e.g., "We don't have a problem with teen pregnancy in
our community"), or b) the solution that you propose (e.g., "Giving kids condoms won't reduce the pregnancy rate, it will just make them more likely to have intercourse"). A second kind of denial is when an official or other opponent says they would like to help, but don't have the resources or clout necessary to actually make a change.
4. Discounting.
Discounting occurs by suggesting that the problem you are working on isn't really that important ("Our community is basically a healthy place"), or by questioning the legitimacy of your organization or its efforts. In its most extreme form, the latter can take the form of lies, mud slinging, and accusations: "That group is just a bunch of liberals, conservatives, communists... just fill in the blank?."
5. Deception.
Deception is the act of intentionally misleading someone by lying or by "forgetting" to tell the whole story. Deceptions may be carried out in a variety of ways, such as trying to confuse your organization with bureaucratic nonsense and red tape, misrepresenting statistics, or making suggestions that in reality have nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish.
6. Dividing.
7. Dulcifying, or appeasing.
To dulcify an organization is to try to appease or pacify members with small, meaningless concessions. This tactic is particularly tricky because it may be difficult to determine the line between compromise (which your group may find helpful) and allowances that turn out to be meaningless.
8. Discrediting.
Discrediting is similar in many ways to discounting. When a member of the opposition tries to discredit an organization, (s)he may attempt to make your group look incompetent (unreasonable, unnecessary, et cetera) to the community at large. Your motives and ways of accomplishing your goals are both called into question.
9. Destroy.
The destroy tactic has the simple, clear goal of trying to ruin your organization or initiative in any way possible. This method may use one or more of the other tactics as a means to achieve the ends. The threat of a lawsuit is often used in this case (for example, by saying that you have committed slander against an organization); it's important to realize that these threats are usually only words. Make sure you know your rights and have access to legal assistance, and you will be able to contend with even these serious methods of intimidation.
10. Deal..
In Summary
When you are working for change in your community, it's certain that you'll run into problems. There will always be people who benefit from the status quo, people who are afraid of change, or people who just don't want to see you succeed. As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, "Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for." Understanding all of the different ways you can "catch hell" from your opponents, as well as knowing how to respond to those attacks, makes you a very strong adversary. What's more, it gives you a good shot at truly making the difference you set out to make.
We encourage the reproduction of this material, but ask that you credit the Community Tool Box http://ctb.ku.edu
Anyone missing what the industry and DFO is doing here? Ian Roberts knows full well, what Judge Bruce Cohen concluded and is intentionally leaving portions out to deceive the general public. The quote that Judge Bruce Cohen concluded that the "data presented during this Inquiry did not show that salmon farms were having a significant negative impact on Fraser River sockeye" is iinsinuating Judge Cohen found those feedlots have no significant negative impact and that is an… OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE!
“Data presented during this Inquiry did not show that salmon farms were having a significant negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.
However, as noted above, the statistical power of the database (containing fish health data from 2004 to 2010) was too low to rule out significant negative impact.”
What part of the “
was too low to rule out significant negative impact” did Mr. Ian Roberts seem to intentionally omit?? The reason the Cohan Commission was unable to fully state whether wild sockeye salmon have been affected by fish farms on their migration route was because there wasn’t enough research done by the DFO into the pathogen transmission from fish farm into wild salmon. Just on page 24 alone, the “as noted above” includes and reads:
“Given the
risk of serious harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye, DFO needs to ensure that existing farm sites conform to the most up-to- date knowledge to ensure that risks are minimal.”
“
These examples cause me concern. They
provide little confidence that the most up-to-date standards and practices are being applied to all salmon farms potentially affecting Fraser River sockeye, irrespective of when the farm site first became operational. If siting measures are to serve as a useful tool to minimize the
risk of serious harm to Fraser River sockeye, they must be adaptive to new scientific information. If new information reveals that existing farm locations pose more than a minimal
risk of serious harm to Fraser River sockeye, those farms should be removed.”
“For the “proper farm siting” mentioned in the Wild Salmon Policy to effectively minimize the
risk of serious or irreversible harm to Fraser River sock- eye, DFO needs to focus on the following measures:”
“Protection of Fraser River sockeye from
negative impact along their entire migratory route.”
“Protection of Fraser River sockeye from the potential
negative cumulative effects of swimming past multiple farms sited on their entire migration route”
“In short, siting should be approached with the goal of the Wild Salmon Policy in mind: restoring and maintaining healthy and diverse salmon populations and their habitats for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada in perpetuity. DFO should seek to approve the best sites to avoid
negative impact on wild stocks, such as Fraser River sockeye, rather than the best sites to produce farmed salmon.”
“DFO also needs to take steps to minimize the
scientific uncertainty about salmon farms and to
re-evaluate its mitigation measures as that uncertainty diminishes.”
“I accept the evidence of Dr. Korman and Dr. Dill that scientists need another 10 years of regulatory data (until at least mid-2020) before they can more confidently identify any relationships that may exist. As well, other than a few studies related to sea lice (mostly in species other than sockeye),
DFO has not completed research into the effects of diseases and pathogens from salmon farms on wild Fraser River sockeye.
Nor has DFO done any research into the cumulative effects on sockeye of having multiple salmon farms sited on their migration route.”
“In sum, there are insufficient data (almost no data) to evaluate cause and effect relationships, and insufficient data (in terms of a time series of fish health data) to look for correlations between fish farm factors and measures of sockeye health such as productivity. As a result, significant scientific uncertainty remains around the effect of salmon farms on Fraser River sockeye salmon.”
http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/FinalReport/
