On basing policy on science

Precious natural resources are being lost because a government has not only decided to ignore sound science in favour of the unsubstantiated position of its donors, but also decided to harass the independent third parties who can demonstrate that its position is wrong.

Sound like Bushco on oil? Nope - it's Gordon Campbell on salmon:

The last report on Broughton, by a blue ribbon scientific panel led by Dr. John Volpe of UBC, traced the lice directly to the responsible fish farms and these findings were published by the Royal Society in London. They’ve been supported by every independent scientist in the world who is familiar with the subject, including Dr. Dan Pawley of UBC, named by TIME magazine as one of the top 50 scientists in the world.

What have the governments done in these circumstances? Notwithstanding the independent evidence, and having none of their own to contradict, they’ve nevertheless embarked upon a policy of harassing Ms. Morton, denying overseas reports and simply refusing to accept the independent evidence of our own independent scientists. DFO scientists, we have reason to believe, support the independent scientific findings but are suppressed by their politically controlled seniors.

The reaction of the fish farming companies is interesting. “There are no lice” they say until you point out that for years they have been using a highly poisonous compound, called Slice, consumed by the farmed fish, to get rid of this problem that doesn’t exist!

Rafe Mair suggests that the longer-term goal may be to eliminate wild salmon outright so as to allow rivers to be dammed. Whether or not that's the case, the science here gives an obvious answer to an important question: fish farms seem to directly cause damage to wild salmon, and all the diversion tactics Gordo can muster can't change that fact.

If only more media than the Tyee were making the fact known - but then that's what we're here for, right?