IronNoggin
06-05-2014, 11:02 AM
"DFO also rebuffed calls by us and others to commit to broadening the science advice available to the AMAC. This is a fatal flaw in the process, raising a significant risk that the advisory process will be based on incomplete and potentially biased science advice"
"We find this stubborn insistence on filtering and limiting science advice and discovery troubling on many levels."
WELL Beyond "Troubling"! http://forum.flybc.ca/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif
"Our main concerns around the proposed AMAC terms of reference—and DFO’s rigidity against implementing needed changes—lie mainly around the skewed composition of the AMAC’s proposed membership, and the absence of any assurance that the process will be informed by sound science advice being made available to AMAC members and DFO regulators.
DFO initially proposed AMAC membership would include 9 seats for “industry and industry aquaculture associations”—but only 3 for environmental organizations, and 2 for regional districts. Despite repeated and reasonable requests to improve the balance and input, we were informed in an April 14 2014 letter from Diana Trager, DFO’s Pacific Director of the Aquaculture Management Division, that DFO’s opening offer was also its closing one. Aquaculture planning was to be mainly driven by a heavy industry presence, which does little to inspire confidence that DFO is much interested in giving due consideration to environmental, cultural or social sustainability in its oversight of aquaculture."
http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AMACletter-May26_2014.pdfAnd On It Goes... http://forum.flybc.ca/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif
"We find this stubborn insistence on filtering and limiting science advice and discovery troubling on many levels."
WELL Beyond "Troubling"! http://forum.flybc.ca/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif
"Our main concerns around the proposed AMAC terms of reference—and DFO’s rigidity against implementing needed changes—lie mainly around the skewed composition of the AMAC’s proposed membership, and the absence of any assurance that the process will be informed by sound science advice being made available to AMAC members and DFO regulators.
DFO initially proposed AMAC membership would include 9 seats for “industry and industry aquaculture associations”—but only 3 for environmental organizations, and 2 for regional districts. Despite repeated and reasonable requests to improve the balance and input, we were informed in an April 14 2014 letter from Diana Trager, DFO’s Pacific Director of the Aquaculture Management Division, that DFO’s opening offer was also its closing one. Aquaculture planning was to be mainly driven by a heavy industry presence, which does little to inspire confidence that DFO is much interested in giving due consideration to environmental, cultural or social sustainability in its oversight of aquaculture."
http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AMACletter-May26_2014.pdfAnd On It Goes... http://forum.flybc.ca/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif