Blog Archives
Alexandra Morton rewrites her own history
It seems Alexandra Morton, embarrassed by a particularly stupid comment she made back in February, has deleted the post from her blog and is now pretending she never said it.
Morton is technically correct. The words “in quotes” were not hers. What she actually said was:
… While the governments of British Columbia and Canada turn a blind-eye, I believe the Norwegian salmon feedlots operating in BC are perpetrating one of the greatest threats known to the living world. Turning feedlot viruses from the Atlantic Ocean loose into the Pacific is damage that might not ever be repaired.
She may try and deny she ever said this, but even though she has deleted the original post from her blog, (which was found at the following URL: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2013/02/voice-to-salmon.html ), the link still shows up in a Google search (see the eighth result).
This is what it looks like in the Google search results:
Is Morton trying to rewrite her own history now, and pretend she never said this? Her behaviour smacks of dishonesty and an inability to admit when she makes a mistake.
Which is nothing new, we’ve seen her do this when she makes rather large scientific boo-boos, like calling henneguya kudoa and never admitting she was wrong.
Why did she delete the blog post?
UPDATE: 4:06 p.m. 10/04/2013
A sharp-eyed reader found that Morton’s original blog post was reposted by the Gorilla Radio blog, and is still available online in its entirety. Read it for yourself. We have also now archived a PDF copy for posterity.
Bullies fear they’ll be ignored
Now this is an interesting turn of events.
Dr. Craig Orr, who has made a career out of being a scientific gun-for-hire and media go-to guy for negative quotes about salmon farming, is complaining that the new Integrated Management of Aquaculture Plan advisory committee just isn’t fair.
Orr is quoted as saying he thinks environmental groups should have more than three seats at the table, otherwise they will just be “shouted down.”
“All we’re saying is, make it fair,” he said. “Have some (federal fisheries) scientists, have some academics, have some NGO scientists.”
But that’s exactly what the committee has, Dr. Orr. how is it not fair?
The current make-up of the advisory committee already has more environmental group representation than regional districts, yet they are not complaining about fairness. The committee has seven First Nations representations, and seven salmon farm company representatives, which makes perfect sense because it’s all about the Integrated Management of Aquaculture.
How is this not fair? Does Dr. Orr think the First Nations and salmon farm companies should give up some of their seats so environmental groups, who have no direct stake in managing aquaculture, should be given equal footing?
Besides, isn’t it environmental groups who have the tendency to “shout down” anyone who disagrees with them? How did BAMP turn out? How did CAAR’s partnership with Marine Harvest turn out? The ENGOs got mad, took their ball and went home when they found they couldn’t shout and bully the salmon farmers at the table to bend to their will.
These are projects in which Dr. Orr participated. Maybe he doesn’t like to participate in groups where he doesn’t have control over the Talking Stick all of the time.
Or perhaps Orr simply isn’t qualified to sit on the committee, since he’s published more papers about East Coast birds and rabbits than he has about aquaculture in B.C.
Either way, it doesn’t matter because despite his complaining, Orr says he isn’t going to participate.
But Orr said his organization has decided not to participate in the committee. He said he’s been involved in similar processes in the past where “things get blocked.”
“We don’t want to get into an arena where that advice is going to go into a black hole or just give us ulcers,” said Orr.
That’s right. It’s only OK to participate in committees where “things get blocked” for the salmon farmers, and where advice from salmon farmers goes into a “black hole” and where salmon farmers get ulcers.
This response shows that when some salmon farming opponents are denied their bully pulpit, they really aren’t interested in participating and collaborating to help make things better. They just want a platform to berate and condemn the things they hate.
That’s not science, and doesn’t belong at the IMAP advisory committee table.
