SEA LICE, SALMON - CANADA (BRITISH COLUMBIA)

OK - one more post in response to Susan. Yes, as was pointed out by others, some scientists (like all groups of people) do lie. So do some real estate agents, but I think you're safe with Tom :wink: ! In fact there was a recent Seattle Times front page story about a former UW faculty member who literally "created" data with Photoshop. That guy was in the office right next to my current office so I am fairly familiar with the story. So, I'm not naive about dishonesty in science. I've seen it first hand on more than one occasion. However, there are several things to point out:

1) While some scientists do lie, most (like any other group of people) do not. So for science in general to be painted with the large negative brush strokes above is not fair. I've known a few shady real estate agents too but I wouldn't think of impugning Tom and all of his colleagues with stuff such as was said by others about scientists. That's not naivety about the possibility of dishonest real estate agents, but rather a realization that most are good people.

2) While some scientists may lie, the data itself does not. Publications require that you not only show your data but describe how it was produced. If the conclusions are important, the work will be tested or replicated by others. If the work cannot be reproduced, it won't hold up. As they said on the X-files, "the truth is out there" and ultimately is will come out.

3) The peer review system (while certainly not perfect) does a pretty good job at ratting out bad work and/or dishonest scientists. The guy I refer to above (the front page Seattle Times story a few weeks ago) was discovered to be faking data by a reviewer of his manuscript. Ultimately this was referred to the NIH who did a very thorough investigation. He'll never get an NIH grant or work in academia again. So, this is but one example of the peer review system working.

While I may be going out on a limb here AND I completely admit that I have no data to prove this, I actually believe that on average, scientists are a slightly more honest group than most. I would claim that the nature of science - e.g. constantly questioning data, constantly questioning each other, constantly questioning oneself and holding beliefs no more tightly than the data allows, tends to select for people who are, on average, pretty honest people.
 
From the dept of fisheries Oregon State University:
"Seafood producers face the challenge of presenting their products to market in excellent condition within just a few days of harvest (Kristinsson et al., 2003). These products must retain the quality consumers demand. To meet this demand, aquaculturists design efficient systems and feeds, and breed animals to optimize growth and quality. They use additives, hormones, vaccines, antibiotics, and genetic engineering to improve quality while also improving the efficiency of the process. " Yes, unfortunately hormones are use in aquaculture.

Dave, Don't run away--There are stimulating parts of these conversations--but not directly related to the boats we love. The conversation is similar to what we have at our TGIF;s. You make a good point--of course I had a certain type of "scientist" in mind--that which I have found who is for sale, especially in "environmental" situations, where they present a theory or as they describe it to the courts as facts. A hypothesis would never go over with a judge-sort of don't confuse me with facts! There is one of these folks who is always hired by the attorneys in town to back up the polluters, and because he has a PhD, is an "expert" in any thing on which he wishes to hypothesize....In another instance, there was a PhD hired from Univ. of Florida at $250,000 a year, to prove that the paper company was not polluting the bay on which I live. His raw data showed that his "Theory" was wrong--but as Susan noted in her case, he made the data appear to be consistent. It is sematics but indeed it is important for a real scientist to differeniate between a theory (or "law" )or hypothesis.
 
Well, the beauty of Dave's boat is something we can all agree on. Well Done!

90298894.CQoYehQM.jpg
 
Susan – thank you for your post. As us country folk here on Michigan Hill in Rochester, Washington would say, you seem to have your head screwed on right.

Roger - I am glad you decided to continue posting on this thread. Even though I disagree with some of you political views, I do value your opinion and I agree with you that most scientist, real estate agents, loggers, lawyers and other people are honest, but those that seem to get the most press are the questionable ones or those with a political agenda.

I have personally been involved in two cases where the scientific data was skewed for political purposes, so I am a little jaded when it comes to scientific data. I also have a problem when someone throws in the “consensus of the scientific community”. Science is not a consensus, if it is, it is not true science. If mankind were to go with the consensus of the scientific community we would still be living on a flat earth and the sun and stars would still revolve around the earth.

Dave - I am glad you decided to hang around a while longer. Personally I took a little offense with your statement that the site had degraded into too many threads like this. If I remember correctly, you were a major contributor to this thread and you contributed to several other controversial threads.

There are plenty of other threads that do not deal with anything controversial, so anyone that doesn't not like subjects like this, quit reading it as soon as you determine it is controversial. Don't try and ruin it for those that want to discuss these issues in a rational and civil way.
________
Dave dlt.gif
 
oldgrowth":2i5cwdk2 said:

Roger - <stuff clipped> Science is not a consensus, if it is, it is not true science. If mankind were to go with the consensus of the scientific community we would still be living on a flat earth and the sun and stars would still revolve around the earth.<stuff clipped>



________
Dave dlt.gif
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with you there Dave. Eventually the data so overwhelms the biases that the consensus does in fact tend to converge to the explanations that are most consistent with the data. The fact that most people today believe the earth is flat and that the earth revolves around the sun is perhaps the best counter example to your hypothesis that consensus and science don't fit together.

added on edit
Oops - should say most people no longer think the earth is flat! Brain fart there...

In response to Dave's post below - the point is that at any given time in history for any given question, the scientific consensus may be wrong. However, over time, the data wins and the consensus will converge to the better (e.g. more correct answer). E.g. people cannot ignore the data forever. My point with the above is that in both of your examples, the consensus today in fact does have it right. The earth is in fact round and does in fact circle the sun. Further more, those two examples point out some important aspects of the process. With the data and understanding available in early times, the assumption that the earth is flat was reasonable. However, as people began to travel long distances and, in particular, record data on solar position and shadows in different locations, it became obvious that the earth is round. Interestingly, this fact was known to many Greeks long before it became believed by those in the west (see for example this link).

The position and motions of the sun and other planets relative to the earth brings out the same issue but with an additional twist. In this case, very complicated models were created to explain the motion of the planets in the sky. In the 1500's people had very good predictive ability of where the planets would be relative to each other with models that had the planets taking very twisted paths in their apparent travels "around the earth". However, over time, it became apparent that a far simpler explanation of all the data combined was to put the sun and not the earth at the center of our system. Then all the data made sense with a simpler explanation and furthermore was consistent with theories of gravity that were later developed (e.g. the model fit even more data). In general, scientists tend to prefer the simpler model when it explains the data as well or better than the complicated one.

So what I draw from your examples is exactly the opposite of what you draw. Eventually, the scientific consensus will converge to the best and simplest answer that is consistent with the greatest amount of data. The data will drive it there. Hence, Astoria Dave's claim that it is useful to respect the consensus opinion of scientist who are most familiar with the greatest amounts of data is (IMHO) right on target as eventually science as a whole will get it right (if "it" really matters and enough people study "it").

Now how do you know when "eventually" has been reached? That's tough, especially if you are not personally familiar with all the data, the methods and the studies. However, I would argue (and have previously argued) that if you are not personally familiar with all the data, the methods and the studies that you will be correct more often by trusting the consensus opinion of those who are.

One additional response to Thataway Bob's comments about distinguishing between "laws", "theories" and "hypotheses" - In my opinion, there are no "laws" in science even though some people label some things as "laws". Everything is a theory/hypothesis and I don't really distinguish those two either. HOWEVER, there are some very good theories that are consistent with vast amounts of data and which I can depend on with very high certainty. For example the theory that the earth is round and circles the sun has such a high probability of being correct, that I refer to it as a "fact" above and very few people would argue with this. However, I suppose it is possible that there is some alternative explanation to the vast quantities of data that have been gathered over 100's of years that would conceivably make us question even that. The odds of this are very low but if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow, some new theory will likely be quickly developed to explain this unexpected data. If that were to happen, we'd all be plunged into darkness and during our short remaining lifespans, we'd have plenty of time to comment on this board about how those darn scientists got it wrong and can't be trusted! Yes, we'd all be cold, in the dark and moody - just like Alaskans in the winter!
 
rogerbum":2nmqo4mj said:
I'd disagree with you there Dave. Eventually the data so overwhelms the biases that the consensus does in fact tend to converge to the explanations that are most consistent with the data. The fact that most people today believe the earth is flat and that the earth revolves around the sun is perhaps the best counter example to your hypothesis that consensus and science don't fit together.
Click to expand...
Roger – you lost me here. I am not sure what you are saying, even with the flat earth changed to round earth.

Science should be based on provable facts, not what the consensus of the scientific community believes. The flat earth theory, round earth theory was a few (not the consensus of the scientific community) going out and proving the earth was round. Then there was not a consensus any more. It became a proven fact. Until that time, the consensus was that the earth was flat so it seems to me the consensus was wrong.
________
Dave dlt.gif
 
Oldgrowth wrote: Dave - I am glad you decided to hang around a while longer. Personally I took a little offense with your statement that the site had degraded into too many threads like this. If I remember correctly, you were a major contributor to this thread and you contributed to several other controversial threads.

There are plenty of other threads that do not deal with anything controversial, so anyone that doesn't not like subjects like this, quit reading it as soon as you determine it is controversial. Don't try and ruin it for those that want to discuss these issues in a rational and civil way.

Oldgrowth, is that last sentence directed at me? Are you suggesting that anything I have written within this thread is irrational or uncivil, or would in some way lead to uncivil, irrational discourse? Before I respond, I just want to make sure that is what you mean to say. I'd be happy to receive a PM, in lieu of a public response, if that makes you more comfortable.

Thanks a heap.
 
Dave- I honestly believe that Oldgrowth just meant that he feels these threads, while contentious, are rational discussions that many on both sides "enjoy". While I seem to disagree with Oldgrowth about a lot of things, I do "enjoy" the back and forth on these threads as a real reflection of how things are, or at least perceived, by lots of people. It hurts me sometime to learn that some of my friends hold views so different than my own, but, I still consider them my friends. Also, often, I am in the minority and, because that's been the case my whole life, I find myself "comfortable" being "different", if you know what I mean. Anyway, your boat is beautiful, your contributions are significant, and, if you go, you will be missed.
 
oldgrowth":23a4rew3 said:
rogerbum":23a4rew3 said:
I'd disagree with you there Dave. Eventually the data so overwhelms the biases that the consensus does in fact tend to converge to the explanations that are most consistent with the data. The fact that most people today believe the earth is flat and that the earth revolves around the sun is perhaps the best counter example to your hypothesis that consensus and science don't fit together.
Click to expand...
Roger – you lost me here. I am not sure what you are saying, even with the flat earth changed to round earth.

Science should be based on provable facts, not what the consensus of the scientific community believes. The flat earth theory, round earth theory was a few (not the consensus of the scientific community) going out and proving the earth was round. Then there was not a consensus any more. It became a proven fact. Until that time, the consensus was that the earth was flat so it seems to me the consensus was wrong.
________

Dave dlt.gif
Click to expand...

Dave,

I edited my post above to acknowledge a typo and to respond to this. Oh and by the way - since I said above that I was definitely done with this thread but allowed myself to be drawn back in, I lied when I said I was done. So - Susan - your argument about scientists lying has been confirmed by data in this thread :wink:
 
dotnmarty":l9url15l said:
Dave- I honestly believe that Oldgrowth just meant that he feels these threads, while contentious, are rational discussions that many on both sides "enjoy". While I seem to disagree with Oldgrowth about a lot of things, I do "enjoy" the back and forth on these threads as a real reflection of how things are, or at least perceived, by lots of people. It hurts me sometime to learn that some of my friends hold views so different than my own, but, I still consider them my friends. Also, often, I am in the minority and, because that's been the case my whole life, I find myself "comfortable" being "different", if you know what I mean. Anyway, your boat is beautiful, your contributions are significant, and, if you go, you will be missed.
Click to expand...

Marty

Along with really liking the looks of Dave's boat your comments reflect a opinion very similar to my own. I too enjoy the back and forth between some very knowledgeable people who I have come to respect from there many other post and comments on this site. I do however find myself agreeing not disagreeing with Oldgrouth on a lot of things.

What a good looking boat Dave has. It pleases my eye as much as our C-Dory does. Thanks for posting the photo.

Jay
 
Now that we have (I think I started it) issued opinions on why we do don't trust the scientific community depended on who they work for and what their personal agenda is, lets get back to the lice.

I never thought that the lice are not a problem, just not a problem that can not be solved without closing the farms. I would really like to see more farms and less netting and I would like to see it here in the U.S. and I will use the logging industry as a example but first I have to pound Larry a little. Larry if you think that all these pens, nets, float, food, supplies, hardware and the transportation of it all does not make a economic impact on the B.C. economy then you need to look again. All the people that supply these services to the farms work and live up and down the coast. All those fish have to be processed some where. Just as the closing of logging mills up and down the california mts and coast cost town to decline and families to lose their homes and way of life for a owl, closing the farms would cost jobs have a economic impact.

Ok. so why do I want to have the farms here? Well when we closed logging in the west to a trickle we did not reduce the amount of trees cut and harvested in the world . In fact with the housing boom the amount of trees cut each year for the U.S. market the amount cut has gone up ever year. So if we, the USA, are cutting those trees then who is? THe Canadians and the Russians thats who. Well do any of you think that the russians are concern with how they treat the land when cutting??? do you think that with the hugh amount of land they have the russians bother with replanting after harvest? Do the russians run clean processing plants? or do they just dump the water untreated back in to the oceans and streams? A lot of ply wood now comes from china and I truly doubt they are even as good as the russians. Do the canadians replant all of their harvested land? the short answer is no. After that think about how much more oil is needed to transport these material from the FAR Right coast. to the biggest market here in america. I think the the over all enviroment would be better off with the wood used here in the U.S. being produced here in the U.S. Less oil used and more regulation then any other place on earth. It seems to me that as soon as logging left the U.S people stopped thinking about it. Its the whole not in my back yard mentality that seems silly to me. We have to have certain things in this world. building materials, food, and oil for transport seems to be the big three and we are better off if we, the country using it, control our supply lines from start to finish with in our own boarders and if we can supply others then even better.

Not to knock the canadians to much but every thing I hear from the folks up there, here on this site and other places, is that they have even less control of their leaders and industry then we do down here. In
russian and china???? So lets get the production back here were we can control it and benefit from it with jobs and taxes etc...

Now back to the other thing. What is being done about the problem and by who. Robbi mentioned a new look by the industry that I have not had time to read yet. What is the local goverment doing up north. what do the scientist suggest other then stopping which is not a answer??
 
Good morning folks,

Tom, on logging,

As far as I know, the Canadians replant logged area south of Cape Caution and rely on natural reseeding north of Cape Caution.

Tom,

From what I have seen of the fish farming in the Broughtons compared to commercial fishing, there appears to be fewer workers, ( who are paid less), fewer boats, (transport is the same, but no fish boats), and very little of the money is returned into the local economy. I have been to Sointula, BC back in the late 80's and early 90's when commercial fishing was the main industry and really supported the town.

If the pink salmon runs go extinct, I think it will have a real negative effect on the forest and its creatures.

During and after spawning, the salmon are eaten by many animals, from bears to eagles, ravens, sea gulls, crabs, shrimp, and so forth. The carcasses are drug into the woods and many rot there, fertilizing the forest. Without this flow of protein from offshore (where the salmon mature) the forest and its inhabitants will suffer.

When the negative effects of logging, (spraying alder killing chemicals from the air, damage to salmon breeding streams from logging equipment, dynamite blasts which kill the salmon eggs in the streams, mud washing down the clearcut into the streams, etc) are added to the negative effects of the fish farms, the pink salmon runs are really in trouble.

In the Broughton Islands area, the 'scientist' involved in the fish farm protest is mainly Alexandra Morton, who has been a whale researcher for 20 years or so and lives in that area. She has been trying to get the negative effects of the farms recognized by Canada DFO for years.

In my opinion, Canada DFO has not done a good job of managing the fishing or the fish farming. The DFO(Dept of Fisheries and Oceans) favors the large corporations, both fishing and farming, and tend to ignore the locals who live 'with the fish' and may know more about local conditions than the DFO officers who are in an office is a large city. [End of my opinion]

For anyone who doesn't know, the fish raised at the farms are Atlantic salmon, not native west coast fish. Atlantic salmon are more aggressive and survive spawning, unlike native salmon. Many have escaped the pens and may become residents and displace the native west coast salmon. If you should catch an Atlantic salmon in B C, the DFO wants you to ship the fish to them for research.

I intend to eat wild caught west coat salmon while I can. They and the fishermen who catch them may be extinct some day.

Larry H
 
Not to knock the canadians to much but every thing I hear from the folks up there, here on this site and other places, is that they have even less control of their leaders and industry then we do down here.
Click to expand...


Sorry couldn't let this comment go. May in fact be the most ludicrious comment made on this site.


regards \
Jim
 
One possible economic tool to help in these situations would be for governments, with diverse input of course, to attempt to establish a monetary value of some sort on public resources. We're really talking about private individuals using/harvesting or otherwise impacting public resources in the pursuit of private profits. Within the limits of sanity I see nothing inherently wrong with this as long as the harvester is paying the full cost of his harvest activity, including all cleanup and impact mitigation. A fair solution would be for the public to exact compensation for the monetary value of loss and repair of native fisheries, forests, wetlands, clean air, recreational opportunities, etc. In my industry, for example, folks build bigger structures than needed and waste materials primarily based on cost. But if the cost of a 2x4 milled from lumber harvested on public land, for example, reflected the "intrinsic" value of the loss of mature forests, erosion control, recreational use, etc., the 2x4 would become much more expensive and builders like myself would be more judicious in our use, re-use, recycling, etc.; our buildings would cost more per square foot and purchasers would presumably downsize accordingly. Under the current system the public is heavily subsidizing the purchasers of large houses, as well as the consumers of both farmed and wild fish, drivers of gas guzzlers, etc. If the cost were a personal monthly billing rather than dirty air, denuded forests, diminished fisheries, etc.,people would scream! But because it's indirect many don't give it a second thought. The laws of supply and demand can dispassionately regulate by requiring the end user pay the full cost, which should control demand . Questions of how to value public resources would likely be politicized, so people who had an opinion would still need to engage and vote. I realize this is going pretty far afield from my use of my C-Dory, but I'm having fun learning how some of you fellow C-Brats view the world. Thank you all! Mike.
 
I intend to eat wild caught west coat salmon while I can. They and the fishermen who catch them may be extinct some day
Click to expand...

larry I just dont beleive that the impact from the farms is as low as you think it is, maybe your not looking. when we went thru nanimo and points north (brain fade or names) we saw barges of nets ,cages, and docks headed north. You cant have a industry that big and not have a positive impact. Maybe the impact does not equel what the fishing fleet had when they were destroying the fish stocks but look where that lead. Commercail fishing the inside has not crashed because of the farms, the farms were built to replace a demand that could no longer be supplied by a over fished resource. Can it be done better? yes. so lets hear some ideas on how, if you can find info out there that is new lets hear it. I will not eat wild fish. I am not allowed to fish for wild fish in the sound so why would I except buying it??? I think that the netters are in some ways better regulated then once where but why do we still allow netting on rivers with ESA listed runs???? money???

Also larry, "Natural replanting" sounds like no replanting to me!

Ryder - :wink: I get that impression from listening to you complain about your goverment and industry.. [/url]
 
Since this thing has already gone so unbelievably many directions, lets back up one to all those "special use taxes".
Where do you draw the line on that sort of thing? Do we get the hookers to pay a condom tax? Do we get the Girl Scouts to pay a brownie tax?
No mater what you think the answer IS, I hope we can all agree , more taxes won't fix it! :sad
Mike
 
Mike/Alasgun: I wouldn't characterize the fees I suggest as taxes, but rather usage fees specifically tied to the use in question. Yes, I know that both are $$$ just the same, and that both would be somewhat inefficiently administered by government. But you and I both know that someone will pay the costs of the damage done by industry, sure as the sun will come up tomorrow. I would prefer that someone to be the industry itself and/or its customers rather than you and I. If as a result of their private behavior prostitutes are found to consume higher amounts of subsidized health care, we could either have a condom tax to mitigate or you and I could continue to take up the slack. On the Girl Scout cookie thing, you got me! Mike.
 
Back
Top