Whenever you see a journalist use the word according, the alarms should sound! The quoted is the only "fact" and everything else is opinion. Yet this fact is probably opinion. The writer does nothing to support the "fact" or advance the knowledge of the reader.
Now, who expresses the opinions composing the remainer of the article?:
BIO is a modern oceanographic research facility, established in 1962 by the Federal Government of Canada and is located on the shores of the Bedford Basin in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
http://www.bio.gc.ca/info/about-e.html
" So why would a mouthpiece for the Canadian government be whipping up hysteria over cod? How about this:
In its 2003 summary on the provincial economy, the government notes fisheries incomes rose from $170 million in 1991 to $374 million in 1999, the last year tax data were available. The total value of fish landings hit $515 million last year, compared to an average of $260 million during most of the 1990s." http://www.creativeresistance.ca/canada/2003-the-codless-sea-cbc.htm
So do you think these fisheries contributed to the political campaigns of whoever is in government? Hmmm...
And how about this:
The tension has eased somewhat. Now the main complaint from both fisherman and scientists is Ottawa's lack of money for scientific research. Id.
So notwithstanding the lack of funding and study, these three "experts" have it all figured out. Ooookay. This study seems to be, at least in part, a scientists play for funding. Yet the writer does nothing to identify the source of any potential bias for the opinions of the "experts."
I am not denying there has been a change is the population of the waters resulting in frictional unemployment on the land. I just doubt that a government funded study has the answers.
Government funded studies are the answers to those who's rice bowl are government funded studies.