« David Suzuki Foundation Disagrees That It Removed Salmon Farming Press Releases & Web-Pages | Main | By Vivian Krause in The Financial Post »

06/03/2011

RE: 23 Press Releases & Web-Pages No Longer On-line. My Response to the David Suzuki Foundation

Mr. Robinson, 

Your article yesterday raises several points. It would have been nice if you would have sent me a copy or somehow let me know that you posted this article.  As it was, I found out on Twitter.

1.  Our Correspondence

You suggest that we have a long history of communication and that last year (eg. 2010), you decided to stop dedicating resources to responding to my correspondence.  Its true that I've been writing letters to David Suzuki for some time, four years, in fact.  However, the only responses that I've received are 1) a brief e-mail from Dr. Suzuki in May of 2007, 2) an e-mail from Jay Ritchlin in June of 2007, and 3) an e-mail from Mr. Ritchlin in June of 2009.

When we met in February of 2010, you said that you would get back to me about the document (46 pages) that I provided. However, I did not receive any response from you.

In light of the above, I don't see how you can say that the David Suzuki Foundation has dedicated much in the way of resources to respond to my inquiries. 

2.  Removed Press Releases & Web-Pages

You say, "all of our formal publications, briefing notes and research remain readily available on our site and are searchable — including our science."  That's not what I find.

As I've said, 23 press releases and web-pages about farmed salmon and salmon farming are no longer on-line at your foundation's web-site. This includes, as far as I can tell, every single one of the press releases that the David Suzuki Foundation issued to publicize research about contaminants in farmed salmon, and sea lice.

If  you disagree that the David Suzuki Foundation removed on-line material about salmon farming, why didn't you say so when I wrote to you about this on January 20, 2011, March 14, 2011,  March 23, 2011, March30, 2011 and May 25, 2011? I e-mailed you specifically to let you know that unless I heard from you otherwise, I would assume that you removed 16 web-pages on Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 of 2010 - the very same day that I posted an open letter to Dr. Suzuki.

Far from broad-siding you, I sent you the entire draft of my op-ed that ran on June 1 in The Financial Post. I sent you that a full week ahead of time so that you could let me know if anything in it was inaccurate. I phoned your executive assistant and spoke with her to verify and ensure that you were indeed receiving my e-mails. If you disagreed with me that your foundation had removed 16 press releases and web-pages on Feb. 3 and Feb. 4, why didn't you ever say so?

You say that web-pages about salmon farming were removed, along with other material, during April and May of 2010.  If so, then I am surprised that six of your press releases about research on farmed salmon and salmon farming were not archived at all, not once, after August 9, 2009. See here, here and here.

You suggest that the Wayback Machine only archives a website every few months. According to my analysis of the archives for the 23 press releases and web-pages that are now no longer on your site, these pages were crawled by the WayBack Machine, on average every 1.3 months.  If, indeed, the David Suzuki Foundation removed these web-pages during April and May of 2010, as you say, then it surprises me that not one of the 16 web-pages that was last archived on Feb. 3 or Feb. 4, was crawled during February, March, or April of 2010.

For a larger version, please click on the image itself:

Tab Way Back Machine Analysis
You say that the David Suzuki Foundation removed web-pages that were more than five years old. As far as I can tell, you also removed your key press release about sea lice research published in the journal SCIENCE, in December of 2007.  That's not five years ago.

With the Cohen Commission ongoing, it seems to me that its not right that your sea lice press releases are now no longer in the public domain, especially since it was largely the alarm over sea lice, fomented by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Farmed and Dangerous campaign, that pressured government into spending more than $15 million on the Cohen Commission. That's money that could have been spent on other priorities.

3.  My Employment with the Salmon Farming Industry in 2002 and 2003

You note that I used to work in the salmon farming industry. That's true. That was in 2002 and 2003, eight years ago. I also did two short consultancies in 2007. For those, I was paid $10,000 and $7,750, respectively.  As I've said many times, since July of 2007 I have not worked for the salmon farming industry in any paid capacity. In January, I was the keynote speaker at the Nova Scotia Annual Aquaculture Conference but apart from my airfare and hotel costs, I was not paid. Over the years, I have also tried to support the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association in small ways but I have not been paid.

To be clear, if anyone has reason to be an adversary of the salmon farming industry, it might be me. After all, I was fired.  And having never supported my research and writing, the industry is now taking advantage of it. The truth is, however, I'm not supported by anyone but my family and personal friends, none of whom are involved in salmon farming in any way.

You refer to me as "hardly an unbiased and self-funded researcher...."  I acknowledge that (despite having been fired!) I am prone to a positive view of salmon farming because of my experience in the industry.  However, in suggesting that I am not self-funded and insinuating that I am working on someone else's dime, you are mistaken. Please take that back.

You say that I regularly misrepresent the work of others.  Please specify or retract that. It is not my intention to misrepresent anyone.

If you would like to know why I am raising questions about the "demarketing" of farmed salmon, and why, perhaps, others aren't, please click here.

In closing, please allow me to re-iterate my appeal to David Suzuki to please clarify that contrary to his claims over the years, the actual research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation:

  • Does not show and has never shown that farmed salmon is high in PCBs.
  • Does not show and has never shown that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.

Lastly, please allow me to suggest that we meet again and talk.  It might be worthwhile.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause

 

Below, here's the correspondence that I've kept. If I've missed anything, please let me know.

2006

2007

2009

2010

2011

  • e-mail March 23, 2011 RE: when the brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon" was taken off-line.
  • e-mail June 7, 2011: Request to please ammend the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation to note that I am self-funded.  I am not "on the dime" of anyone. 

Posted at 07:43 AM |

|

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ned Ludd

Vivian, this is simply outstanding work. I think that he is facing a superior intellect in taking you on. Plus, he just doesn't have much, if any, credibility after falling for the Gore's "Global Warming" scam. As a scientist he ought to have known that Gore had it exactly backwards. It is warming climates that cause CO2 release and not the other way round. By selling his soul to whoever paid for his opinion, he has brought considerable harm to economy.

Because of people like David Suzuki, we now have a carbon tax that approaches 20 cents per liter of gas. Because of David Suzuki, some politicians believed his pontifications and pushed for things like "electric cars" - which is about the stupidest thing they could do for the economy. Electric cars are "coal powered cars"! The majority of US power comes from coal powered generation plants. Nuclear is a small bit, as is hydro.

So to produce electric cars today, ensures that there will be an increased demand on power and that will ensure that more coal is burned. The net result is supporting electric cars will far worsen the environment that almost anything else we humans can do.

David Suzuki either lacks the capacity to think things through, or he is vocationally committed to and end that is unclear. Either way, I cannot trust anything he says.

Posted by: Ned Ludd | 06/03/2011 at 11:00 AM

Kelly Bennett

That is an excellent response Vivian. And the fact that you gave him a week to review Financial Post op-ed and he didn't afford you the same is quite telling.

Good work - keep it up!!

Posted by: Kelly Bennett | 06/03/2011 at 11:33 AM

kim rhodes

I am impressed at how you have exposed the hidden evidence of America's wealthy contributors. This touches a number of industries from oil & gas to recreational sport fishing and tourism. Isn't it ironic that profits made from Canadian consumers are being used to wrongfully influence our purchasing decisions and affect our livelyhood. Kudos to you for standing up for so many.

Posted by: kim rhodes | 06/03/2011 at 12:45 PM

bigcitylib

"This includes, as far as I can tell, every single one of the press releases that the David Suzuki Foundation issued to publicize research about contaminants in farmed salmon, and sea lice..."

As far as I can tell, this is bullshit. Or at least: there is still a ton of material on the Suzuki.org website on sea lice and their effect on salmon mortality. You are confusing your own inability to understand net technology with real insight.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 06/04/2011 at 02:37 AM

J Webb

Bravo Vivian,
You have had the courage to expose and question what many of us have long suspected. The work you are doing is important for all of us --keep it up! And thank you! JW

Posted by: J Webb | 12/13/2011 at 10:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Vivian Krause
Vivian Krause

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search

    Basic Info

    Archives

    Categories

    Subscribe to this blog's feed
    Blog powered by Typepad

    Visitors


    Google

    • Google