Avian flu outbreak in Fraser Valley threatens Christmas turkey supply, but where are the compensation critics?

Several years ago, two BC salmon farming companies experienced outbreaks of disease which resulted in the cull of all fish at three farm sites.

The outrage from the usual small group of anti-salmon farming clicktivists resulted in several news stories and blog posts condemning the CFIA’s policy of compensation for farmers who are ordered to destroy their stock.

This month, avian flu has once again hit poultry farms in the Fraser Valley, the second time in a decade, but there is not a peep from the “Wild Salmon Warriors.”

This group is happy to hitch its star to issues about pipelines, mine spills and whatever their Illustrious Leader posts about. Oh, they’ll bring the outrage, you better believe it, prompting some of the laziest journalists in BC to include their perspectives in the name of false balance.

But avian flu? Forget about it.

Unless you live in the Fraser Valley, you probably don’t even know that hundreds of thousands of birds are being destroyed, and that farmers will rightly be compensated for it.

Because that’s the law. It’s the Health of Animals Act.

It’s intended to encourage farmers to report serious outbreaks of illnesses, and it works.

As salmon farmers, our sympathies are with the poultry farmers and hope that this is resolved quickly, with minimal loss of livestock.

And for all those who complain about compensation, yet have the audacity to ask for lower taxes, welfare, higher minimum wages, better benefits and a massive infrastructure so you can drive to Starbucks? Give yourself a reality check. Your precious opinions are just that: opinions. If you can’t admit to yourself that they might be wrong, they’re not worth anything in the first place.

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.