Becherer's attack on Morton not warranted
Courier-Islander: Thursday, April 1, 2010
12Share

In Response to Eric Becherer "Cameron, Morton a dangerous duo"

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions. It bothers me to see people attacking the very woman who has the commitment and passion to stand up for our wild fish- Alex Morton. I, and many others are deeply grateful for who she is and her work. SFU did not grant Alex an honorary PHD for "pseudo-science". Alex lives and breathes coastal biology. In the several months that I accompanied her during her research she was on the water from first thing in the morning till dusk looking for fry, netting them, counting lice, watching the currents and the farms- day in and day out She has done this for decades now. There is no one else in BC who has her depth of knowledge about the ecosystem in the Broughton Archipelago.

Alex is not receiving big funding- she gets small donations mostly from private individuals, which she puts straight into research or legal fees. She has little interest in money. She lives in a teeny, rustic cabin and likes it that way. Her motivation is simple- she deeply loves the coast and this is what gives her the energy to do what she does. In fact she resents that fact she has to waste years of her life dogging these irresponsible corporations and the department of fisheries. But what else do you do when you can see clearly that what you love most is being destroyed?

The fact that people still try to dispute the science on the issue of lice and disease from salmon farms decimating wild salmon astounds me. When Alex says, "the science has been done" she means that it has been proven over and over again, study after study- to no avail.

Alex is not the only one publishing science on this issue, far from it. There are many other independent scientists (i.e. not employed by govt or industry) who have come to similar conclusions in their research. In fact, the only scientists who don't agree large farms are impact wild fish are those working for the salmon farming industry or DFO (who unfortunately also works for industry). In fact the independent scientific community is pretty much unanimous in their understanding that industrial salmon farming eventually decimates local wild fish- whether in Scotland, Ireland, Norway or BC. You show me one scientist who doesn't acknowledge this and I'll show you their link to industry.

Perhaps what the public doesn't understand is that there are varying levels of quality and integrity when it comes to "science"- and yes, even science can be corrupt. So how does one tell good, solid science from "pseudo-science?". Well, good science should be published and peer reviewed in a journal that is respected within the scientific community. There are all sorts of journals (also of varying levels) that papers can be published in. The most difficult journals to get published in are ones like "Science" or "Nature", as these are the most respected journals in the world. The vast majority of scientists will never dream of getting their work published in these journals; it is an extremely rigorous review process, denying thousands of submissions.

Only the very best science in the world stands a chance of being published there. For example, in Dec 2007 Martin Krkosek, PhD and Morton had their research published in the journal "Science" outlining the future collapse of wild salmon in BC in the near future due to sea lice, and yet DFO, government and industry tried to call it pseudo-science.

Totally ridiculous, yes, but they count on the public not knowing any better. If research published in the world's top scientific journals does not constitute evidence then I don't know what does.

DFO knows full well the impacts of lice and disease from farms on our wild fish. I often wonder how they sleep at night, but then I think maybe these guys are just caught in the wheels of an even bigger machine.

Whatever you hear from DFO on this issue- understand that that department has become a PR machine and support system for the salmon farming industry. Make no mistake - DFO no longer has the interest of wild salmon in mind. DFO is in a simple, obvious conflict of interest. On one hand they are the ones responsible for protecting wild salmon, while on the other hand, they are mandated to promote and expand salmon farming. Atlantic salmon is the new commercial species and so the fox is guarding the hen house. If we want wild fish, people are going to have to take matters into their own hands. We cannot trust multinational corporations (and those profiting from them) to do the right thing.

Wild salmon has intrinsic value beyond the viability of a commercial net fishery. It is a lynchpin of our whole coastal ecosystem that cannot be replaced. Yes people need jobs, but we can't trade those jobs for our vital coast, which is also a supplier of many jobs, not to mention our own local, natural, feed basket.

Twyla Roscovich

CallingfromtheCoast.com
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service[b][i][i][/i][/i][/b]