March 7, 2003

 To: The Editor Vancouver Sun

 Why would David Suzuki respond personally to Patrick Moore’s March 5/03 commentary? After all he has at least 6 communications specialists on staff at “his foundation”. Maybe the answer lies in his March 6/06 letter to the Vancouver Sun? His response is the same old media inflaming fear mongering. This is an affront to the may scientists and eco-conscious families working in industry. 

Why would a respected scientist such as David stoop to newspaper science? Why would Patrick Moore’s article be such a threat to David and the many who have “fun” careers at “his foundation”? Could it be that he needs a media campaign to keep the TAX DEDUCTIBLE donations flowing into “his foundation”? Do the media campaigns they depend on to support their careers, in turn hurt the careers of eco-conscious working families?

I know that it approaches heresy to question such a Canadian icon. But don’t Canadian workers and taxpayers deserve some answers?

 Sincerely,

Gord Clandening

March 13, 2003

 From 1969-1985 my career was commercial fishing. I also sport fish. During this career I killed, or contributed to killing hundreds of thousands of wild salmon. Since 1986 I have chosen a career as a supplier to salmon growers. 

This career continues to feed my family and employ a number of former fishermen. The sad fact is that during my career I likely wiped out at least on unique genetic stock of wild salmon.            

How? By killing the last salmon returning to a small stream on this coast. Sadly the odds are very good that this was the case.

 Whether you kill wild salmon for profit or for pleasure, can you guarantee that the wild salmon that you bagged this morning or the one on your dinner plate this evening, is not the last on of a unique genetic stock?

 Set emotions aside for just a moment. Which industries really pose the greatest threat to wild salmon? Growing salmon? Killing wild salmon for pleasure?

 Our economy needs all of these industries, so let’s drop the market-based squabbling and get on with business.

Gord Clandening

March 29, 2003

To: The Editor North Islander

 After reading today’s paper, I’m sure many of your reads will agree with my mother-in-law, “It’s full of that fish farm crap.”

 Here are a few headlines I’d rather see: “The Raincoast Conservation Society funds a reforestation and habitat restoration project”. “

The Georgia Strait Alliance contributes to the Oyster River salmon enhancement society”. “The David Suzuki Foundation provides a grant to help the old folks at Lions View Lodge”. The list could go on.

 Will we ever see these, or similar headlines?

 My dictionary defines “charity” as: “the giving of help, money etc. to those in need; organizations for doing this”. All of the above are registered charities. These charities rake in millions, enough money to pay an arm of communications specialists, the same specialists we are forced to defend our families from, by writing letters to your paper [not that we enjoy doing this. Or really have the time for it].

 Until these groups no longer have a “campaign issue” to keep their tax-deductible donations rolling in, genuine charities will have to compete for the available philanthropic dollars, and everyone will be compelled to put up with the “crap”.

 Sincerely,

Gordon Clandening

April 3, 2003 

To: The Editor, Times Colonist 

When a media darling, controlling a foundation with 28+ employees that have job descriptions like, "pitch stories to the media", and "develop relationships with media persons", says in a recent interview, "we'll struggle for the minds...of the ordinary people". [Drew Cherry, Intra Fish] Does it bother anybody but me? 

It reminds me of something I heard of recently. An experiment published in the New York Times science section. A teacher comes into the classroom and he sends one of the cleverest, most popular students out on an errand. When the student returns, he finds the class working on a problem involving parallel lines. Some lines match, others are clearly longer or shorter. 

The teacher points to a pair of lines and asks if they match, clearly they don't, but all of the class raise their hands to say they do. At first the popular student disagrees strongly. As the teacher continues, the student begins to doubt himself; eventually his opinion falls in line with the rest of the class. A similar phenomenon suggests, despite all the evidence to the contrary, there is something wrong with growing salmon. 

It takes many expensive communications specialists to accomplish such mind control in a classroom called, "general public". But there's no shortage of tax-deductible millions, when you've got a good scare campaign going. 

Gordon Clandening 

June 14 2003

To: Burnaby Now; Editor Pat Tracy

 RE: “Use sustainable caught salmon” Rachel Forbes 

In her letter to your paper Ms. Forbes urges your readers to consume more “sustainably caught wild salmon” in order to save them. This line of reasoning is absurd in itself (kill ‘em to save ‘em?). Every wild salmon you eat is one less that returns to the spawning grounds. Furthermore what is sustainably killed wild salmon anyway? To be guaranteed sustainable each wild fish would have to come with a certificate guaranteeing it was not the last spawner of a unique genetic stock returning to a small stream along the entire pacific coast. Because of the intermingling of migrating wild pacific salmon stocks this is impossible. Consider this, every wild salmon you eat could be the last spawner of a unique genetic stock. Maybe for some people there is a thrill in this, kind of like eating tiger or bear parts, but the majority of consumers today are a lot more aware. They can see through the misinformation propagated by Alaskan eco- imperialists whose real concern is market share and not the environment? 

Everyone has freedom of choice and I recommend your readers make the truly wise choice for the environment, and for wild salmon, choose sustainably grown salmon it’s the only choice guaranteed not to have originated from an endangered wild salmon run. Plus farmed salmon is fresh, tastes good, and is good for you.

Sincerely,

Gordon Clandening