fish farm siting criteria & politics
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Nice try, but, “simply…. No…” at least that was the jest of the answer I received. As far as releasing tons of details to the general public, they already are. That is smart on their part. They are only releasing information required, or to their benefit to increase their public image. The information I am requesting is not in any way “proprietary” in nature and is currently information being posted on “certain” of their sites already. Take a look here: http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/pdf/sea_lice/05_10_09_cyrus.pdf page down and look at the lice counts for 6 Jul and 27 Jul? Yep, that would be “CALIGUS” 16.53 & 12.20 respectfully and no “slice” treatment until 8 Aug? Not so sure how well things are being monitored? They are currently refusing to provide past data… I ask why?
First… it is probably not best to refer to Morton, as Moron? It does nothing to help your credibility, does it?
Secondly… I never thought of comparing “sea lice” with “herpes”, good acknowledgement!
Well, I have to ask again, how well are they really monitored and regulated? Do a little research on that one yourself and don’t rely on information provided by anyone else! It is hard to separate all the “crap” thrown around by both sides! The environment is being harmed, period! That is proven over and over again! Here is a farm “fallowed” in 2004 at Kyuquot - it is estimating 15 years to recover? Pay close attention to the comments made by everyone, including Marine Harvest. You want me to believe all these sites are being “monitored and regulated”? NOPE! I don’t believe they are! http://www.vancouversun.com/busines...farm site government finds/1929149/story.html
I am NOT throwing stones at you or any company in BC, or aquaculture, but I certainly hope you weren’t part of the Kyuquot fish farm! I do seem to have a LOT of questions concerning the data supplied, including those “peer reviewed papers” you refer to, and no one wants to answer? That concerns me!
Aquaculture is providing somewhere in the area of 50% of worlds seafood (if my memory serves me) and growing! It is here to stay, but it shouldn’t be here at the price of “killing” off the wild? Better environmental practices needs to put into place, period!
If you want, I can load this site up with so many “links” and "studies", it would make your head spin and take you months to read, and they are not all that good. Can you argue points… sure can? For every good point, I can show a contradicting one! It seems every organization is spending millions to discredit each other in all these studies. Someone publishes a “peer reviewed” study, the other side just gets their own “peer reviewed” study to contradict it? No one is really getting anything done to save the “wild” salmon? It has been proven by several “independent” studies “peer reviewed”, abroad, in the U.S, and Canada, there is a "link" between both "sea lice" and "disease" being transmitted back and forth between “wild” and “farmed” salmon. You can start with reading about the "Campbell River" collapse. Ireland actually requires the fish farms to “fallow” for a year, due to their sea lice problem. So, why aren’t all the “proper” procedures being put into place, required by Canadian Law? I have my believes there. DFO doesn’t want to, as the have been directed by other “Governmental Officials”! Can you say “Pressure”, “Cost” and “Bottom Line”! If everyone was to take those "millions" being spent on generating all the "peer reviewed" studies, advertising, and bickering, that alone would probably be enough to end the issues in BC? Regardless of “cost”, in the end… the consumer is the one that going to be asked to bear it. That itself is creating thought problems, as everyone involved in aquaculture. They are way too concerned about being “competitive”, “cutting costs”, and “market share”! The biggest offender seems to be - Marine Harvest Norway? If you don’t think they can put some pressure and heat on – Boy, are you wrong!
I am really starting to dislike the philosophies and practices of “Marine Harvest Norway”? The jury is still out, but it isn’t looking good? The more I read, the more discouraged I get with their practices. It appears they just “flat-out” want to “rule” aquaculture worldwide and they are willing to do it “at all costs”? Go to their homepage and start reading the comments throughout the years in their financial statement made by “the board of directors”. That does bring up several questions and I can start to see why they don’t want to answer a lot of questions. Then, I run across this letter: http://www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/Labor_letter_2.pdf and they care? Yep! They care… about “expanding” “market share”, and “bottom line”!
Ok forgot again... I am okay on focusing, "on food source, climate change, fishing (legal and illegal), predators, sea temperatures, spawning ground condition etc." Start "Googling" there is none of the before mentioned known to be a cause, at this time? If there is please enlighten me... I can't find it! If there is NOT a "link" between fish farms and the Fraser Sockeye, I would probably be as happy as you, just to be able to eliminate a possible cause! Oh no, let's not do that, it is not to Marine Havest NORWAY advantage to give out any information there... it more to DFO and Marine Harvest advantage to keep playing this sick "shell game"!
Why won't anyone provide the information to prove it?
October 22, 2009
Paul Sprout
Regional Director General – Pacific DFO
Vancouver. BC
Dear Paul Sprout:
I agree with your statement in the Vancouver Sun (October 21), that the collapse of the 2009 Fraser River sockeye occurred in the ocean. Furthermore, I think the nature of the collapse makes it possible to identify the problem.
Here is what we know.
1 – The Harrison sockeye within the Fraser River returned at 3-4 times the DFO forecast;
2 – The other Fraser River sockeye runs collectively failed at 90% or more;
3 – Some runs were completely wiped out with zero returns;
4 – Other nearby sockeye runs to the south and west did well (Columbia River, Somass River);
5 – Just north of Campbell River the Heydon Creek sockeye did very well;
The Harrison sockeye have an unusual life cycle. They leave the river earlier than the other sockeye, spend extended periods of time in the Strait of Georgia (which should be a stroke against them) and, according to an unpublished paper by DFO, have been found to migrate to sea via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. If they were the only good south coast return, the pattern would be less definitive.
However, the nearby Somass, Columbia and Heydon Creek sockeye also did well, forming a tight circle of high sockeye production all around the Fraser. Heydon Creek enters Loughborough Inlet north of Campbell River. One hypothesis is this data gives us the boundary defining the geographic zone of greatest impact.
Pursuing this line of inquiry further. What variables exist only between the Fraser River and Loughborough Inlet, and not on the migration routes of the Columbia, Harrison, Heydon and Somass sockeye? One that fits this description is:
18 Marine harvest fish farm sites
3 Mainstream fish farm sites
1 Grieg fish farm site
1 Yellow Island fish farm site
Some people think all fish farms have the same potential for impact. This would suggest that since the Heydon Creek sockeye did pass some salmon farms north of Campbell River, fish farms are not the problem. However, my research has shown an empty farm is different than a full one and a farm with new smolts has different impact than one with fully-grown fish. The Marine Harvest Canada website reports losses in the order of a 100,000 fish or more month to month. How many of these were due to disease? One fully stocked farm experiencing a viral or bacterial epidemic in the narrow passages of the Discovery Islands in June-July 2007 could have killed millions of Fraser sockeye smolts.
Please note, I said, “could have,” because I don’t know the disease history of the fish farms. To complete this line of reasoning we need to know the state of health, maturity and stocking of the BC salmon farms in spring 2007.
There is no point to guessing as the Provincial Minister of Agriculture of Lands should have this data, as well as the fish farmers themselves and you have the power to request it. There can be no confidence in statements by government or NGO’s on the cause of the catastrophic collapse of one of Canada’s most significant fish stocks, unless this information becomes public.
Another fact must be considered. In 2005, the Fraser sockeye return exhibited the same pattern – failure of most runs, high production by the Harrison. In that case, we know northbound sockeye smolts passed through unprecedented high levels of IHN viral effluent from fish farms off Campbell River and elsewhere (Saksida 2006).
Was there a bacterial or viral outbreak again in 2007? Is that why the pattern is the same but more severe? BC Supreme Court Justice Hinkson ruled that the ocean inside and outside the farms is the same. It is public. Fish inside the farms are a fishery. As a result, Norwegian fish farmers have no legal right to say disease data and statistics are ‘proprietary’.
If these companies are harming a Canadian fishery resource, it is DFO’s responsibility to correct this. Before he became Premier, Stephen Harper called for a judicial inquiry into what happened to the 2005 Fraser sockeye. The ruling party said “no.” Was the truth inconvenient? Is it still inconvenient? Would we have abundant sockeye this year if a 2005 Inquiry had occurred? If Canada had done a Judicial Inquiry into the declining North Atlantic cod stocks we would still have those fish. We would have learned that crucial findings by government scientists such as Dr. Ransom Myers had been suppressed by DFO.
Given the above, you cannot avoid examination of the production and husbandry records of all salmon farms on the Fraser River migration route. Furthermore, you could test every farm in production right now, as well as their hatcheries, for disease, including the ISA fish virus (an exotic virus rapidly appearing everywhere Marine Harvest, Mainstream and Grieg farm salmon.) The Minister’s policy to continue Atlantic egg imports is reckless.
Mr. Sprout, these are critical issues that need addressing. I am formally requesting a meeting with you to discuss further information at your earliest convenience.
Alexandra Morton R.P.Bio.
Paul Sprout
Regional Director General – Pacific DFO
Vancouver. BC
Dear Paul Sprout:
I agree with your statement in the Vancouver Sun (October 21), that the collapse of the 2009 Fraser River sockeye occurred in the ocean. Furthermore, I think the nature of the collapse makes it possible to identify the problem.
Here is what we know.
1 – The Harrison sockeye within the Fraser River returned at 3-4 times the DFO forecast;
2 – The other Fraser River sockeye runs collectively failed at 90% or more;
3 – Some runs were completely wiped out with zero returns;
4 – Other nearby sockeye runs to the south and west did well (Columbia River, Somass River);
5 – Just north of Campbell River the Heydon Creek sockeye did very well;
The Harrison sockeye have an unusual life cycle. They leave the river earlier than the other sockeye, spend extended periods of time in the Strait of Georgia (which should be a stroke against them) and, according to an unpublished paper by DFO, have been found to migrate to sea via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. If they were the only good south coast return, the pattern would be less definitive.
However, the nearby Somass, Columbia and Heydon Creek sockeye also did well, forming a tight circle of high sockeye production all around the Fraser. Heydon Creek enters Loughborough Inlet north of Campbell River. One hypothesis is this data gives us the boundary defining the geographic zone of greatest impact.
Pursuing this line of inquiry further. What variables exist only between the Fraser River and Loughborough Inlet, and not on the migration routes of the Columbia, Harrison, Heydon and Somass sockeye? One that fits this description is:
18 Marine harvest fish farm sites
3 Mainstream fish farm sites
1 Grieg fish farm site
1 Yellow Island fish farm site
Some people think all fish farms have the same potential for impact. This would suggest that since the Heydon Creek sockeye did pass some salmon farms north of Campbell River, fish farms are not the problem. However, my research has shown an empty farm is different than a full one and a farm with new smolts has different impact than one with fully-grown fish. The Marine Harvest Canada website reports losses in the order of a 100,000 fish or more month to month. How many of these were due to disease? One fully stocked farm experiencing a viral or bacterial epidemic in the narrow passages of the Discovery Islands in June-July 2007 could have killed millions of Fraser sockeye smolts.
Please note, I said, “could have,” because I don’t know the disease history of the fish farms. To complete this line of reasoning we need to know the state of health, maturity and stocking of the BC salmon farms in spring 2007.
There is no point to guessing as the Provincial Minister of Agriculture of Lands should have this data, as well as the fish farmers themselves and you have the power to request it. There can be no confidence in statements by government or NGO’s on the cause of the catastrophic collapse of one of Canada’s most significant fish stocks, unless this information becomes public.
Another fact must be considered. In 2005, the Fraser sockeye return exhibited the same pattern – failure of most runs, high production by the Harrison. In that case, we know northbound sockeye smolts passed through unprecedented high levels of IHN viral effluent from fish farms off Campbell River and elsewhere (Saksida 2006).
Was there a bacterial or viral outbreak again in 2007? Is that why the pattern is the same but more severe? BC Supreme Court Justice Hinkson ruled that the ocean inside and outside the farms is the same. It is public. Fish inside the farms are a fishery. As a result, Norwegian fish farmers have no legal right to say disease data and statistics are ‘proprietary’.
If these companies are harming a Canadian fishery resource, it is DFO’s responsibility to correct this. Before he became Premier, Stephen Harper called for a judicial inquiry into what happened to the 2005 Fraser sockeye. The ruling party said “no.” Was the truth inconvenient? Is it still inconvenient? Would we have abundant sockeye this year if a 2005 Inquiry had occurred? If Canada had done a Judicial Inquiry into the declining North Atlantic cod stocks we would still have those fish. We would have learned that crucial findings by government scientists such as Dr. Ransom Myers had been suppressed by DFO.
Given the above, you cannot avoid examination of the production and husbandry records of all salmon farms on the Fraser River migration route. Furthermore, you could test every farm in production right now, as well as their hatcheries, for disease, including the ISA fish virus (an exotic virus rapidly appearing everywhere Marine Harvest, Mainstream and Grieg farm salmon.) The Minister’s policy to continue Atlantic egg imports is reckless.
Mr. Sprout, these are critical issues that need addressing. I am formally requesting a meeting with you to discuss further information at your earliest convenience.
Alexandra Morton R.P.Bio.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Certainly as learned a person as Morton is, she would know that IHN virus is also known as "Sockeye" Disease, and nearly 99% of all sockeye stocks in the pacific NW are known to carry the virus and from time to time have natural outbreaks? Then why is she suggesting that the sockeye casught the disease from some farmed fish in 05?
She also states:
"Please note, I said, “could have,” because I don’t know the disease history of the fish farms. To complete this line of reasoning we need to know the state of health, maturity and stocking of the BC salmon farms in spring 2007."
Then she shouldn't have mentioned it at all if she did not have any proof. This is an old tactic of planting the suggestion to make the reader draw the desitred conclusion. Now people will think that she said there is a nysterious disease killing all the sockeye, when this is not the case.
She also states:
"Was there a bacterial or viral outbreak again in 2007? Is that why the pattern is the same but more severe?"
Could it be a natural cycle? that is another conclusion she doesn't mention because she doesn't want you to draw that conclusion.
She also states:
"Before he became Premier, Stephen Harper called for a judicial inquiry into what happened to the 2005 Fraser sockeye."
Huh? Steven Harper became Premier? Makes me wonder what other mistakes of fact are in this letter.
She also states:
"The Minister’s policy to continue Atlantic egg imports is reckless."
There are no egg imports. Comnpanies have captive broodstock programs which provide all the eggs necessary. DFO will not permit the import of eggs into BC. Morton knows this, but the truth doesn't make very good copy for the media. Unless of course she doesn't and she simply got it wrong... again like so many other times before.
She also states:
"...you could test every farm in production right now, as well as their hatcheries, for disease,..."
They are. Every lot of fish that leaves a hatchery for marine farm sites is tested for disease status by independent labs to ensure that they are in compliance with DFO section 56. If they come down with anything while at sea, is a result of exposure to an already existing pathogen in the ocean. Fish are also vaccinated to prevent any outbreak of the most commonly occuring pathogens which occur naturally on the West coast. Again, Morton should know this, but again, the truth is inconvenient for her story.
She also stated:
"We would have learned that crucial findings by government scientists such as Dr. Ransom Myers had been suppressed by DFO."
Hey Agent, was Ransom ever a DFO scientist? I thought he was at Dalhousie U. before he passed away. Would he have had any findings regarding West Coast Salmon that were suppressed? How does Morton know they were suppressed if they had been suppressed?
Anyways, I grow weary of pointing out her inaccuracies. Boy she sure is a piece of work. I have to hand it to her though she can manipulate the truth with the best of them. I thought Dave Suzuki was good at the old "make the listener draw the conclusion you want by giving only the info they need to draw your intended conclusion" but I think she might have surpassed the master.
Did you all know that she has broken off all ties to the other NGO groups such as CAAR, GSA and Suzuki? Seems she doesn't agree with trying to find a solution so farms and wild salmon can co exist. She'd rather shut them all down, and throw 6000 people on the dole. They are also fighting because her little court "Victory" has really hurt the NGO political power.
Oh yeah BTW, no one has yet explained why there are so many Pinks around. Notice she forgot to mention that her prediction of extinction has gone horribly wrong. That would have been another inconvenient truth. Maybe she should have suppressed it.
She also states:
"Please note, I said, “could have,” because I don’t know the disease history of the fish farms. To complete this line of reasoning we need to know the state of health, maturity and stocking of the BC salmon farms in spring 2007."
Then she shouldn't have mentioned it at all if she did not have any proof. This is an old tactic of planting the suggestion to make the reader draw the desitred conclusion. Now people will think that she said there is a nysterious disease killing all the sockeye, when this is not the case.
She also states:
"Was there a bacterial or viral outbreak again in 2007? Is that why the pattern is the same but more severe?"
Could it be a natural cycle? that is another conclusion she doesn't mention because she doesn't want you to draw that conclusion.
She also states:
"Before he became Premier, Stephen Harper called for a judicial inquiry into what happened to the 2005 Fraser sockeye."
Huh? Steven Harper became Premier? Makes me wonder what other mistakes of fact are in this letter.
She also states:
"The Minister’s policy to continue Atlantic egg imports is reckless."
There are no egg imports. Comnpanies have captive broodstock programs which provide all the eggs necessary. DFO will not permit the import of eggs into BC. Morton knows this, but the truth doesn't make very good copy for the media. Unless of course she doesn't and she simply got it wrong... again like so many other times before.
She also states:
"...you could test every farm in production right now, as well as their hatcheries, for disease,..."
They are. Every lot of fish that leaves a hatchery for marine farm sites is tested for disease status by independent labs to ensure that they are in compliance with DFO section 56. If they come down with anything while at sea, is a result of exposure to an already existing pathogen in the ocean. Fish are also vaccinated to prevent any outbreak of the most commonly occuring pathogens which occur naturally on the West coast. Again, Morton should know this, but again, the truth is inconvenient for her story.
She also stated:
"We would have learned that crucial findings by government scientists such as Dr. Ransom Myers had been suppressed by DFO."
Hey Agent, was Ransom ever a DFO scientist? I thought he was at Dalhousie U. before he passed away. Would he have had any findings regarding West Coast Salmon that were suppressed? How does Morton know they were suppressed if they had been suppressed?
Anyways, I grow weary of pointing out her inaccuracies. Boy she sure is a piece of work. I have to hand it to her though she can manipulate the truth with the best of them. I thought Dave Suzuki was good at the old "make the listener draw the conclusion you want by giving only the info they need to draw your intended conclusion" but I think she might have surpassed the master.
Did you all know that she has broken off all ties to the other NGO groups such as CAAR, GSA and Suzuki? Seems she doesn't agree with trying to find a solution so farms and wild salmon can co exist. She'd rather shut them all down, and throw 6000 people on the dole. They are also fighting because her little court "Victory" has really hurt the NGO political power.
Oh yeah BTW, no one has yet explained why there are so many Pinks around. Notice she forgot to mention that her prediction of extinction has gone horribly wrong. That would have been another inconvenient truth. Maybe she should have suppressed it.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Sockeye... what you are missing is she is asking for and stating the information to make an intelligent decision is NOT being given by Marine Harvest or DFO. They are NOT providing "anyone" any information to make an informed decision! Why is that?
And, I am starting to agree? I have asked several times and I also receive "no response", Why is that?
And, even here on this site, I have asked for information to make some kind of informed decision; to include you... and haven't received any, that can be verified. Why is that?
What some don’t understand “history does repeat”, if the informed do not share with the ill-informed, the consequences are usually NOT good for anyone! I believe there have been several “wars” started over that! And, I do admit... I might be "ill-informed", but if no one that is informed shares information... I will stay ill-informed! Guess what, that is unacceptable to me!
I am not wanting to debate with you or anyone, I would just like to have the information requested, provided so, I can make an intelligent decision, and I am not getting any, again I ask… Why is that?
The information addressed and provided in her letter, is true, at least based on what I have beem able to find. The questions asked are very valid. If one can provide any answers or information to questions ask, this whole mess can be focused elsewhere. Can you do that, or is everyone going to be satified in just trying to discredit someone's questions. If that is, than I have to ask YOU, Why is that?
Everything in her letter I already know and so do a LOT of others. Here is some additional information for you to think about... which is fact!
The diseases and parasites may be different but the problems are exactly the same - worldwide. Whether it is Sea Lice, Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV), endemic to salmonids in the Pacific Northwest (which is now a world concern); Infectious Salmon Anaemia (I.S.A.) in the Americas, Faroe Islands, Norway; Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IJPN) found in Scotland and Norway; Rickettsia and I.S.A in Chile; or, Kudoa in Canada, diseases and parasites are simply a function of intensification, of over crowded conditions, and overproduction happening, while the “wild” and “farmed” salmon just continue passing them back and forth due to many different circumstances. Cramming fish into cages with the current densities of these diseases are a recipe for disaster. It was once reported by Compassion in World Farming they calculated that each farmed salmon has the equivalent space to swim around in as a bathtub of water. That really hasn’t changed much since that report, has it? The continued explosion of these diseases is endemic in salmon farming and will inevitably manifest into uncontrollable situations, and the effects on the “wild” stocks are easy... Simply, they will die!
Concerning IHN, and your reference to it only being a "Sockeye" disease... that might not be quite true:</u>
“With the development of marine farming, new pathological risks are more and more important. Moreover, taking into account that the farms are close to the coast and estuaries, the main potential danger for fish health are the effluents from fresh-water fish farms. But the presence of wild fish is also dangerous especially when migrating species are concerned. Owing to the highly damaging nature of viruses, the absence of antiviral therapy and the stability of viruses in water, they must be considered as a limiting factor to the growth of marine aquaculture. A previous experimental study has demonstrated the high susceptibility of seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax, turbot, Scophthalmus maximus and seabream to the Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS). The present study was carried out to investigate the susceptibility of those three species to a virus of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHN) a disease well known on the Pacific coast of USA and Japan, which recently appeared in Europe,…”
http://wfrc.usgs.gov/research/fish health/IHNVreflibintro.htm
Epizootics of IHN virus in juvenile steelhead trout have affected operations at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery each year since 1982. The source of the virus is unknown, but several observations have indicated . that virus is present in the hatchery water supply.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries Research Reports/Volume 080_Article 09.pdf
Infectious haematopoietic necrosis [IHN]
Introduction/Aetiology
Infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) is an infectious disease of rainbow or steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Pacific salmon including chinook (O. tshawytscha), sockeye (O. nerka), chum (O. keta), yamame (O. masou), amago (O. rhodurus), and coho (O. kisutch) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
The most prominent environmental factor affecting IHN is water temperature. Clinical disease occurs between 8oC and 15oC under natural conditions
High levels of virus are shed from infected juvenile fish.
Older fish are increasingly resistant to infection, but adult fish at spawning may shed virus in se*ual products
Epidemiology
• Historically, the geographical range of IHN was limited to the western parts of North America, but the disease, caused by a rhabdovirus, has spread to continental Europe and the Far East via the importations of infected fish and eggs.
• The reservoirs of IHN are clinically infected fish and covert carriers among cultured, feral or wild fish.
• Virus is shed via faeces, urine, ***ual fluids and external mucus, whereas kidney, spleen, encephalon and the digestive tract are the sites in which virus is most abundant during the course of overt infection.
Diagnosis
• Infection is often lethal due to the impairment of osmotic balance, and occurs within a clinical context of oedema and haemorrhages.
• Virus multiplication in endothelial cells of blood capillaries, haematopoietic tissues and nephron cells, underlies the clinical signs.
• The screening procedure for IHN is based on virus isolation in cell culture.
Disease Prevention And Management
• Good overall fish health condition seems to decrease the susceptibility to overt IHN, while handling and other types of stress frequently cause subclinical infections to become overt.
• Control methods for IHN currently rely on avoidance of exposure to the virus through the implementation of strict control policies and sound hygiene practices
• The thorough disinfection of fertilized eggs and the incubation of eggs and rearing of fry and alevins on virus-free water supplies in premises completely separated from those harbouring possible virus carriers and free from possible contact with fomites, are critical for preventing the occurrence of IHNV in a defined fish production site.
Treatment
• Salmon
• Trout
References
Arnzen J.M., Ristow S.S., Hesson C.P. & Lientz J. (1991). Rapid fluorescent antibody tests for infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) utilizing monoclonal antibodies to the nucleoprotein and glycoprotein. J. Aquat. Anim. Health, 3, 109-113.
Deering R.E., Arakawa C.K., Oshima K.H., O'Hara P.J., Landolt M.L. & Winton J.R. (1991). Development of a biotinylated DNA probe for detection and identification of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus. Dis. Aquat. Org., 11, 57-65.
Jorgensen P.E.V., Olesen N.J., Lorenzen N., Winton J.R. & Ristow S.S. (1991). Infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS): detection of trout antibodies to the causative viruses by means of plaque neutralization, immunofluorescence, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J. Aquat. Anim. Health, 3, 100-108.
*Copyright © 2004-09 Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation*
I stop here as you can see IHN is NOT “Just a Sockeye” disease as you suggest. It is now a “worldwide” concern - thanks to the importation of infected eggs to other countries? Wonder how that happened?
The more I research and study Marine Harvest Norway (MHN) - parent to Marine Harvest Canada (MHC), the further ”I” do not like their callous business practices, ethics, or philosophies! I believe they are not concerned with any damage “they” are doing to the environment or wish to sustain any “wild” species; rather, just market share, cost of production and bottom line are the driving forces that will gain the world dominance in aquaculture they desire. This company will actually profit from the collapse of BC wild salmon, which does compete directly with their “aquaculture” industry. Talk about a “fox in the henhouse”! This has pretty much been confirmed by their “senior executives” and “board of directors” comments made throughout the years, in financial statements, and with their insistence not to provide requested information regarding the Fraser River Sockeye collapse.. I also considerate it as reiterated and confirmed with the lackadaisical comments regarding the damage done in Kyuquot. I certainly hope Canada holds someone financially responsible and a proper “clean up” made mandatory. I also believe that… to be “gross negligence” which severe penalties should be imposed. Yes, those contaminates can be removed!
It appears MHN and MHC is providing Canada, DFO, and the World with “very” selective information –minimizing “bad publicity”, and “limiting exposures” - while trying to convince the world – “they care”! They are providing only minimum information required by law, while camouflaging all the detrimental information they can. Their objective to remain indiscernible of their surrounding environment is not going to continue to work. There are now way too many, asking way too many questions. I personally “specifically” asked for “sea lice count” and “SLICE” usage for the “individual sites” in Campbell River, 2007. What do I get… Charts with the the following statements?
“I understand your time may be limited to what I can show you, so instead of sending you individual graphs for 2007 for each site, I thought maybe it’s best to consolidate the sea lice trends (attached a chart called “MHC BA mean numbers of sea lice 04-08”)</u> that shows the levels of sea lice on our fish (Marine Harvest specifically) over the last few years. It is specific to the area of farming known as the Broughton Archipelago.</u> We are producing the same charts for other areas of operation (Campbell River, Port Hardy), but I can tell you know the trend and prevalence of sea lice is very similar. You’ll see there is a reduction in sea lice numbers each year, both inside and outside of that management period (March-June). The fact that the outside period (July-February) is also lowering over these years would suggest that the natural sea lice levels in the area of study are lowering for other reasons than a salmon farmer’s sea lice management. Regardless, it’s good news for wild and farmed salmon. I intend on posting this graph on our website soon, just for the reason you mention in your letter – historical data that gets erased from the website when we move to a new year-class of fish.
I’ve also attached a chart (Slice 1996-2008) which shows the Slice usage by the entire industry over the past decade.</u> It averages around 0.1 - 0.2 grams per metric tonne of salmon produced. 2007 was an average year at about 0.13 grams/tonne. To put that into context, the industry has averaged about 75,000 tonnes of production so the average usage of emamectin benzoate is about 11-15 kgs (24-33 pounds) annually.”
Please note that charts sent do say, “Use of In-Feed Sea Lice Therapeutants in British Columbia (1996-2008)”and “MH Canada (Broughton Archipelago) all farms sea lice management, 2004-2008” and this message that accompanied kink of indicates their attempt to continue the “shell games”. Nope, I never did get the requested information. Why is that?
It appears Marine Harvest is generating “combined site information” and “sub-zone” reports, which indicates everything is well within environmental limits of Canadian law. We already know their practices - are not within Norway standards or laws, but they are allowed in BC? I do NOT believe Norway would authorize most the current sites used in British Columbia? When I ask MHC about individual information and they state information has been “posted” since 2004 and why is that information NOT showing on their website, as stated? I was advised, “historical data that gets erased from the website when we move to a new year-class of fish.” and it was added they only post data on active farms and remove inactive farm data. I question that? To my knowledge there are 18 Marine harvest fish farm sites in the Campbell River area, with only 7 listed on their website. Are there really 11 Marine Harvest farms fallow and inactive in that area, that is hard to believe! But, again “they” refuse to provide the information to the public!
Canada inspectors have access to this information, I believe it is law. But, do the ones doing the inspecting “really understand” what they are looking for and are they retaining any information needed for DFO to make a proper and intelligent decision or is DFO only going by those meaningless “combined” reports they are send everyone? I am not sure, but I believe it is those meaningless reports? Please someone prove me wrong!
Are they taking YOU and everyone in Canada as “fools”… or is it just me? I believe you know that answer all ready?
I am sure you have heard of “There is a “fox” in the henhouse”…
You my friends, have a "large""hungry" pack of "Wolves"!
And, I am starting to agree? I have asked several times and I also receive "no response", Why is that?
And, even here on this site, I have asked for information to make some kind of informed decision; to include you... and haven't received any, that can be verified. Why is that?
What some don’t understand “history does repeat”, if the informed do not share with the ill-informed, the consequences are usually NOT good for anyone! I believe there have been several “wars” started over that! And, I do admit... I might be "ill-informed", but if no one that is informed shares information... I will stay ill-informed! Guess what, that is unacceptable to me!
I am not wanting to debate with you or anyone, I would just like to have the information requested, provided so, I can make an intelligent decision, and I am not getting any, again I ask… Why is that?
The information addressed and provided in her letter, is true, at least based on what I have beem able to find. The questions asked are very valid. If one can provide any answers or information to questions ask, this whole mess can be focused elsewhere. Can you do that, or is everyone going to be satified in just trying to discredit someone's questions. If that is, than I have to ask YOU, Why is that?
Everything in her letter I already know and so do a LOT of others. Here is some additional information for you to think about... which is fact!
The diseases and parasites may be different but the problems are exactly the same - worldwide. Whether it is Sea Lice, Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV), endemic to salmonids in the Pacific Northwest (which is now a world concern); Infectious Salmon Anaemia (I.S.A.) in the Americas, Faroe Islands, Norway; Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IJPN) found in Scotland and Norway; Rickettsia and I.S.A in Chile; or, Kudoa in Canada, diseases and parasites are simply a function of intensification, of over crowded conditions, and overproduction happening, while the “wild” and “farmed” salmon just continue passing them back and forth due to many different circumstances. Cramming fish into cages with the current densities of these diseases are a recipe for disaster. It was once reported by Compassion in World Farming they calculated that each farmed salmon has the equivalent space to swim around in as a bathtub of water. That really hasn’t changed much since that report, has it? The continued explosion of these diseases is endemic in salmon farming and will inevitably manifest into uncontrollable situations, and the effects on the “wild” stocks are easy... Simply, they will die!
Concerning IHN, and your reference to it only being a "Sockeye" disease... that might not be quite true:</u>
“With the development of marine farming, new pathological risks are more and more important. Moreover, taking into account that the farms are close to the coast and estuaries, the main potential danger for fish health are the effluents from fresh-water fish farms. But the presence of wild fish is also dangerous especially when migrating species are concerned. Owing to the highly damaging nature of viruses, the absence of antiviral therapy and the stability of viruses in water, they must be considered as a limiting factor to the growth of marine aquaculture. A previous experimental study has demonstrated the high susceptibility of seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax, turbot, Scophthalmus maximus and seabream to the Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS). The present study was carried out to investigate the susceptibility of those three species to a virus of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHN) a disease well known on the Pacific coast of USA and Japan, which recently appeared in Europe,…”
http://wfrc.usgs.gov/research/fish health/IHNVreflibintro.htm
Epizootics of IHN virus in juvenile steelhead trout have affected operations at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery each year since 1982. The source of the virus is unknown, but several observations have indicated . that virus is present in the hatchery water supply.
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries Research Reports/Volume 080_Article 09.pdf
Infectious haematopoietic necrosis [IHN]
Introduction/Aetiology
Infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) is an infectious disease of rainbow or steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Pacific salmon including chinook (O. tshawytscha), sockeye (O. nerka), chum (O. keta), yamame (O. masou), amago (O. rhodurus), and coho (O. kisutch) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
The most prominent environmental factor affecting IHN is water temperature. Clinical disease occurs between 8oC and 15oC under natural conditions
High levels of virus are shed from infected juvenile fish.
Older fish are increasingly resistant to infection, but adult fish at spawning may shed virus in se*ual products
Epidemiology
• Historically, the geographical range of IHN was limited to the western parts of North America, but the disease, caused by a rhabdovirus, has spread to continental Europe and the Far East via the importations of infected fish and eggs.
• The reservoirs of IHN are clinically infected fish and covert carriers among cultured, feral or wild fish.
• Virus is shed via faeces, urine, ***ual fluids and external mucus, whereas kidney, spleen, encephalon and the digestive tract are the sites in which virus is most abundant during the course of overt infection.
Diagnosis
• Infection is often lethal due to the impairment of osmotic balance, and occurs within a clinical context of oedema and haemorrhages.
• Virus multiplication in endothelial cells of blood capillaries, haematopoietic tissues and nephron cells, underlies the clinical signs.
• The screening procedure for IHN is based on virus isolation in cell culture.
Disease Prevention And Management
• Good overall fish health condition seems to decrease the susceptibility to overt IHN, while handling and other types of stress frequently cause subclinical infections to become overt.
• Control methods for IHN currently rely on avoidance of exposure to the virus through the implementation of strict control policies and sound hygiene practices
• The thorough disinfection of fertilized eggs and the incubation of eggs and rearing of fry and alevins on virus-free water supplies in premises completely separated from those harbouring possible virus carriers and free from possible contact with fomites, are critical for preventing the occurrence of IHNV in a defined fish production site.
Treatment
• Salmon
• Trout
References
Arnzen J.M., Ristow S.S., Hesson C.P. & Lientz J. (1991). Rapid fluorescent antibody tests for infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) utilizing monoclonal antibodies to the nucleoprotein and glycoprotein. J. Aquat. Anim. Health, 3, 109-113.
Deering R.E., Arakawa C.K., Oshima K.H., O'Hara P.J., Landolt M.L. & Winton J.R. (1991). Development of a biotinylated DNA probe for detection and identification of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus. Dis. Aquat. Org., 11, 57-65.
Jorgensen P.E.V., Olesen N.J., Lorenzen N., Winton J.R. & Ristow S.S. (1991). Infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS): detection of trout antibodies to the causative viruses by means of plaque neutralization, immunofluorescence, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J. Aquat. Anim. Health, 3, 100-108.
*Copyright © 2004-09 Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation*
I stop here as you can see IHN is NOT “Just a Sockeye” disease as you suggest. It is now a “worldwide” concern - thanks to the importation of infected eggs to other countries? Wonder how that happened?
The more I research and study Marine Harvest Norway (MHN) - parent to Marine Harvest Canada (MHC), the further ”I” do not like their callous business practices, ethics, or philosophies! I believe they are not concerned with any damage “they” are doing to the environment or wish to sustain any “wild” species; rather, just market share, cost of production and bottom line are the driving forces that will gain the world dominance in aquaculture they desire. This company will actually profit from the collapse of BC wild salmon, which does compete directly with their “aquaculture” industry. Talk about a “fox in the henhouse”! This has pretty much been confirmed by their “senior executives” and “board of directors” comments made throughout the years, in financial statements, and with their insistence not to provide requested information regarding the Fraser River Sockeye collapse.. I also considerate it as reiterated and confirmed with the lackadaisical comments regarding the damage done in Kyuquot. I certainly hope Canada holds someone financially responsible and a proper “clean up” made mandatory. I also believe that… to be “gross negligence” which severe penalties should be imposed. Yes, those contaminates can be removed!
It appears MHN and MHC is providing Canada, DFO, and the World with “very” selective information –minimizing “bad publicity”, and “limiting exposures” - while trying to convince the world – “they care”! They are providing only minimum information required by law, while camouflaging all the detrimental information they can. Their objective to remain indiscernible of their surrounding environment is not going to continue to work. There are now way too many, asking way too many questions. I personally “specifically” asked for “sea lice count” and “SLICE” usage for the “individual sites” in Campbell River, 2007. What do I get… Charts with the the following statements?
“I understand your time may be limited to what I can show you, so instead of sending you individual graphs for 2007 for each site, I thought maybe it’s best to consolidate the sea lice trends (attached a chart called “MHC BA mean numbers of sea lice 04-08”)</u> that shows the levels of sea lice on our fish (Marine Harvest specifically) over the last few years. It is specific to the area of farming known as the Broughton Archipelago.</u> We are producing the same charts for other areas of operation (Campbell River, Port Hardy), but I can tell you know the trend and prevalence of sea lice is very similar. You’ll see there is a reduction in sea lice numbers each year, both inside and outside of that management period (March-June). The fact that the outside period (July-February) is also lowering over these years would suggest that the natural sea lice levels in the area of study are lowering for other reasons than a salmon farmer’s sea lice management. Regardless, it’s good news for wild and farmed salmon. I intend on posting this graph on our website soon, just for the reason you mention in your letter – historical data that gets erased from the website when we move to a new year-class of fish.
I’ve also attached a chart (Slice 1996-2008) which shows the Slice usage by the entire industry over the past decade.</u> It averages around 0.1 - 0.2 grams per metric tonne of salmon produced. 2007 was an average year at about 0.13 grams/tonne. To put that into context, the industry has averaged about 75,000 tonnes of production so the average usage of emamectin benzoate is about 11-15 kgs (24-33 pounds) annually.”
Please note that charts sent do say, “Use of In-Feed Sea Lice Therapeutants in British Columbia (1996-2008)”and “MH Canada (Broughton Archipelago) all farms sea lice management, 2004-2008” and this message that accompanied kink of indicates their attempt to continue the “shell games”. Nope, I never did get the requested information. Why is that?
It appears Marine Harvest is generating “combined site information” and “sub-zone” reports, which indicates everything is well within environmental limits of Canadian law. We already know their practices - are not within Norway standards or laws, but they are allowed in BC? I do NOT believe Norway would authorize most the current sites used in British Columbia? When I ask MHC about individual information and they state information has been “posted” since 2004 and why is that information NOT showing on their website, as stated? I was advised, “historical data that gets erased from the website when we move to a new year-class of fish.” and it was added they only post data on active farms and remove inactive farm data. I question that? To my knowledge there are 18 Marine harvest fish farm sites in the Campbell River area, with only 7 listed on their website. Are there really 11 Marine Harvest farms fallow and inactive in that area, that is hard to believe! But, again “they” refuse to provide the information to the public!
Canada inspectors have access to this information, I believe it is law. But, do the ones doing the inspecting “really understand” what they are looking for and are they retaining any information needed for DFO to make a proper and intelligent decision or is DFO only going by those meaningless “combined” reports they are send everyone? I am not sure, but I believe it is those meaningless reports? Please someone prove me wrong!
Are they taking YOU and everyone in Canada as “fools”… or is it just me? I believe you know that answer all ready?
I am sure you have heard of “There is a “fox” in the henhouse”…
You my friends, have a "large""hungry" pack of "Wolves"!
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
I hope your not holding your breath Charlie.
Check out the date on the article below.
Governments share sea lice information, but not with public
Salmon farm sea lice infestations are now a global problem costing industry more than $100 million a year, says a funding application for an information-sharing project by government agencies from Canada, Ireland, Scotland and Norway.
By The Vancouver Sun April 21, 2008
Salmon farm sea lice infestations are now a global problem costing industry more than $100 million a year, says a funding application for an information-sharing project by government agencies from Canada, Ireland, Scotland and Norway.
A draft of the project summary, directed to the Norwegian government's science research granting agency in 2007, cites independent studies that in 2004 analysed overall industry spending for sea lice prophylaxis and for removal of the parasites from carcasses during processing.
Cumulative costs ranged as high as 45 cents per kilogram. The summary also acknowledges sea lice from farmed fish have been "implicated in the marked decline of wild salmon and sea trout in areas where salmon farms are located."
"In Scotland, farmed Atlantic salmon in their second year in the sea accounted for 98 per cent of the sea lice population," it says. "The dispersal of larvae has been of great concern in the debate concerning appropriate sites of salmon farms with regard to their distance from wild salmonid rivers."
Controversy still rages in British Columbia over the location of salmon farms on migration routes for wild salmon stocks that appear to be in crisis. Critics claim exposure of immature fish to sea lice infestations contributes to dramatic wild stock declines. Aquaculture advocates vehemently deny a connection. Both federal and provincial governments have been strong promoters of fish farms.
Canada's department of fisheries and oceans last week confirmed participation in what seems to be a strangely low-profile plan to coordinate field experiments and hold meetings where scientists share knowledge, methods and experimental results. The environmental organization Pure Salmon obtained the summary from Scotland's government using freedom of information laws and forwarded it and other documents to The Vancouver Sun last week.
The disclosure comes as controversy over salmon farming in South America intensifies. Safeway, one of the largest supermarket chains in the United States, is restricting purchases from Marine Harvest, its main supplier in Chile, because of an outbreak of infectious salmon anemia, which it says adversely affects quality and taste.
B.C.'s salmon farmers announced last week U.S. demand outstrips their supply capacity. The industry produces about 72,000 tonnes of farmed salmon annually from 126 licensed sites, of which about 80 operate at any one time. Industry wants to expand. but the provincial government recently placed a moratorium on new farms in pristine areas of the north coast.
Pure Salmon is an organization advocating aquaculture reform with branches in North America, Europe and South America. It often works with local organizations, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Raincoast Conservation Society and the Georgia Strait Alliance.
The environmental group obtained 95 pages of e-mails, letters, drafts of grant applications and reports relating to creation of the scientific information exchange, initially identified as CompareLice but renamed InterLice. Documents indicate that three scientists from Canada's department of fisheries and oceans, one from the University of B.C. and an American scientist from Washington state participated.
The Canadians included a specialist in fish pathogens, immunology and sea lice biology, a physical oceanographer and a numerical modeller. The American, according to one document, appears to be a private laboratory operator who was involved in monitoring salmon farms in Washington and B.C. Others came from Scotland's Fisheries Research Service, Norway's Institute of Marine Research and Ireland's Marine Institute. CompareLice meetings were held at Nanaimo, Campbell River and in the Broughton Archipelago, ground zero for B.C'.s controversy over whether sea lice from salmon farms concentrated there negatively affect immature wild fish.
Further meetings took place in Norway and Scotland, where similar major controversies have also occurred.
The documents obtained by Pure Salmon were censored by the Scottish government's information commissioner. Names of all participating scientists and government officials were blacked out. Several photographs, including one taken at a meeting at Painter's Lodge in Campbell River, were obscured so that individual faces and even clothing can't be recognized.
The cloak-and-dagger routine seems peculiar for a publicly funded information exchange on matters of public concern.
shume@islandnet.com
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=cb0b868b-7799-4ea7-ab35-612a9a535138
Check out the date on the article below.
Governments share sea lice information, but not with public
Salmon farm sea lice infestations are now a global problem costing industry more than $100 million a year, says a funding application for an information-sharing project by government agencies from Canada, Ireland, Scotland and Norway.
By The Vancouver Sun April 21, 2008
Salmon farm sea lice infestations are now a global problem costing industry more than $100 million a year, says a funding application for an information-sharing project by government agencies from Canada, Ireland, Scotland and Norway.
A draft of the project summary, directed to the Norwegian government's science research granting agency in 2007, cites independent studies that in 2004 analysed overall industry spending for sea lice prophylaxis and for removal of the parasites from carcasses during processing.
Cumulative costs ranged as high as 45 cents per kilogram. The summary also acknowledges sea lice from farmed fish have been "implicated in the marked decline of wild salmon and sea trout in areas where salmon farms are located."
"In Scotland, farmed Atlantic salmon in their second year in the sea accounted for 98 per cent of the sea lice population," it says. "The dispersal of larvae has been of great concern in the debate concerning appropriate sites of salmon farms with regard to their distance from wild salmonid rivers."
Controversy still rages in British Columbia over the location of salmon farms on migration routes for wild salmon stocks that appear to be in crisis. Critics claim exposure of immature fish to sea lice infestations contributes to dramatic wild stock declines. Aquaculture advocates vehemently deny a connection. Both federal and provincial governments have been strong promoters of fish farms.
Canada's department of fisheries and oceans last week confirmed participation in what seems to be a strangely low-profile plan to coordinate field experiments and hold meetings where scientists share knowledge, methods and experimental results. The environmental organization Pure Salmon obtained the summary from Scotland's government using freedom of information laws and forwarded it and other documents to The Vancouver Sun last week.
The disclosure comes as controversy over salmon farming in South America intensifies. Safeway, one of the largest supermarket chains in the United States, is restricting purchases from Marine Harvest, its main supplier in Chile, because of an outbreak of infectious salmon anemia, which it says adversely affects quality and taste.
B.C.'s salmon farmers announced last week U.S. demand outstrips their supply capacity. The industry produces about 72,000 tonnes of farmed salmon annually from 126 licensed sites, of which about 80 operate at any one time. Industry wants to expand. but the provincial government recently placed a moratorium on new farms in pristine areas of the north coast.
Pure Salmon is an organization advocating aquaculture reform with branches in North America, Europe and South America. It often works with local organizations, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Raincoast Conservation Society and the Georgia Strait Alliance.
The environmental group obtained 95 pages of e-mails, letters, drafts of grant applications and reports relating to creation of the scientific information exchange, initially identified as CompareLice but renamed InterLice. Documents indicate that three scientists from Canada's department of fisheries and oceans, one from the University of B.C. and an American scientist from Washington state participated.
The Canadians included a specialist in fish pathogens, immunology and sea lice biology, a physical oceanographer and a numerical modeller. The American, according to one document, appears to be a private laboratory operator who was involved in monitoring salmon farms in Washington and B.C. Others came from Scotland's Fisheries Research Service, Norway's Institute of Marine Research and Ireland's Marine Institute. CompareLice meetings were held at Nanaimo, Campbell River and in the Broughton Archipelago, ground zero for B.C'.s controversy over whether sea lice from salmon farms concentrated there negatively affect immature wild fish.
Further meetings took place in Norway and Scotland, where similar major controversies have also occurred.
The documents obtained by Pure Salmon were censored by the Scottish government's information commissioner. Names of all participating scientists and government officials were blacked out. Several photographs, including one taken at a meeting at Painter's Lodge in Campbell River, were obscured so that individual faces and even clothing can't be recognized.
The cloak-and-dagger routine seems peculiar for a publicly funded information exchange on matters of public concern.
shume@islandnet.com
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=cb0b868b-7799-4ea7-ab35-612a9a535138
You've made some good points, sockeyefry - and unlike Handee, you're open and mature enough to debate the issues.
That may or may not be true - I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'd like to see the science, as I doubt if all stocks have in fact been tested. Where did you get your number?
Secondly, if only 1 sockeye in a stock of 1 MILLION fish had IHN (or was a carrier) then that stock would be one of the 99% of stocks that carry the virus, yes.
But, as a percentage of the population (or prevalence) - that stock would test positive with only 0.0001% of those fish having the disease, where 99.9999% would be certified disease-free, if tested - so, it's a little misleading just stating stocks, without including prevalence. Do you have prevalence numbers?
Thirdly, chum and other salmonids can and do catch IHN. You never mentioned that.
Morton is obviously not the only one being selective in what she talks about.
Yes, farmed fish most likely get diseases and parasites from wild fish first.
SO WHAT?</u>
The issue is the amplification and re-release of those same parasites and diseases back into the wild population, that haven't been vaccinated by your friendly neighbourhood fish vet. The issue is particularly sensitive to things like migration of small, vunerable salmon smolts past those now-infected farm fish.
You somehow failed to mention this. Again, Morton is obviously not the only one being selective in what she talks about.
We had a long conversation about this at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=11
http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/content/resume.html
Many people started-out early in their careers as DFO scientists, then went off into less restrictive and lass compromised positions. Otto Langer is another example.
For your IHN comment: "nearly 99% of all sockeye stocks in the pacific NW are known to carry the virus"...
That may or may not be true - I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'd like to see the science, as I doubt if all stocks have in fact been tested. Where did you get your number?
Secondly, if only 1 sockeye in a stock of 1 MILLION fish had IHN (or was a carrier) then that stock would be one of the 99% of stocks that carry the virus, yes.
But, as a percentage of the population (or prevalence) - that stock would test positive with only 0.0001% of those fish having the disease, where 99.9999% would be certified disease-free, if tested - so, it's a little misleading just stating stocks, without including prevalence. Do you have prevalence numbers?
Thirdly, chum and other salmonids can and do catch IHN. You never mentioned that.
Morton is obviously not the only one being selective in what she talks about.
I disagree strongly. Risk management is a process where all the variables (or stresses and impacts) are looked at, then ranked. We need to know all the possibilities.
Was that so-called "natural" cycle disrupted by interactions with farmed fish?
You're missing the point here sockeyefry (purposely?) - it's called disease and parasite amplification - something that can't be mitigated using open net-cage technology.
Yes, farmed fish most likely get diseases and parasites from wild fish first.
SO WHAT?</u>
The issue is the amplification and re-release of those same parasites and diseases back into the wild population, that haven't been vaccinated by your friendly neighbourhood fish vet. The issue is particularly sensitive to things like migration of small, vunerable salmon smolts past those now-infected farm fish.
You somehow failed to mention this. Again, Morton is obviously not the only one being selective in what she talks about.
We had a long conversation about this at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=11
From 1983 - 1997 he was a Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. Johns, NF, Canada. See:
http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/content/resume.html
Many people started-out early in their careers as DFO scientists, then went off into less restrictive and lass compromised positions. Otto Langer is another example.
Peahead
Well-Known Member
Sorry guys , not to switch gears on you
....consider this a quick news break.....
From A. Morton:
Hello All
Good News Finally! Peter Julian, Member of Parliament – New Westminster has just launched a petition for a Judicial Inquiry into the Fraser sockeye crash.
CONSIDER THIS: If there had been a Judicial Inquiry into the declining North Atlantic cod, we would have rebuilt that fish stock by now because we would have discovered that the critical research by Dr. Ransom Myers of DFO was being suppressed by DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans).
Here we are again. DFO is completely silent, they have not even acknowledged that the Fraser sockeye crash pattern is extremely specific and provided the media with misinformation.
A judicial inquiry will place people under oath so they can be heard over the politics.
Please go to Peter Julian’s website: http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/node/864
And download the petition document, and sign: http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/sites/def...nquiry on salmon crisis_October 2009.ENG_.pdf
This has to be a paper copy, there can be 1 signature on a page, or a full page of signatures, the address is on the document and postage to the federal government is free.
You cannot say you care about wild salmon if you don’t make this effort. This will make a very big difference in the future of BC and the eastern pacific.
Alexandra Morton
Www.adopt-a-fry.org
....consider this a quick news break.....
From A. Morton:
Hello All
Good News Finally! Peter Julian, Member of Parliament – New Westminster has just launched a petition for a Judicial Inquiry into the Fraser sockeye crash.
CONSIDER THIS: If there had been a Judicial Inquiry into the declining North Atlantic cod, we would have rebuilt that fish stock by now because we would have discovered that the critical research by Dr. Ransom Myers of DFO was being suppressed by DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans).
Here we are again. DFO is completely silent, they have not even acknowledged that the Fraser sockeye crash pattern is extremely specific and provided the media with misinformation.
A judicial inquiry will place people under oath so they can be heard over the politics.
Please go to Peter Julian’s website: http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/node/864
And download the petition document, and sign: http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/sites/def...nquiry on salmon crisis_October 2009.ENG_.pdf
This has to be a paper copy, there can be 1 signature on a page, or a full page of signatures, the address is on the document and postage to the federal government is free.
You cannot say you care about wild salmon if you don’t make this effort. This will make a very big difference in the future of BC and the eastern pacific.
Alexandra Morton
Www.adopt-a-fry.org
Alberni Valley Times, 27th October 2009
Fish farmers must pull their nets if they don't change
Tinkering is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. A few weeks ago, the tendency was demonstrated by NASA's latest work, essentially bombing the moon in a search for water.
The underlying assumption of this long-held idea of inhabiting other orbiting bodies is that once we trash Earth, we will simply pack up and move somewhere else. Beginning again with hardly a hiccup.
So much of what we do follows in this same vein.
While farming fish may not seem to be a fantastical idea, the reasons that justify doing so come from the same mindset that the planet, and everything on it, is ours to dominate.
We already farm numerous animals, exercising our dominion, polluting the land and producing food that is mostly bad for us but often tortuous for the creatures in the pens. It's not a huge leap to do the same in marine ecosystems.
As wild salmon stocks dwindled in the Atlantic and Pacific, it seemed a natural to follow the lead of other northern nations and enclose fish and raise them for human feed.
The cost of this tinkering came second to economic development or even protecting wild fish stocks.
After an initial blossoming of fish farming in B.C., a moratorium was put in place as negative environmental effects and the less-than-stellar economic returns became apparent.
Reformed fish farmers from Scotland and Norway came to this region during that period to warn the province, the fish farmers and the biologists to not make the same mistakes that they had.
Then the moratorium was lifted and the farming of Atlantic salmon in coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest went back to business as usual.
There have been many good arguments against this practice. There are concerns about escapees, increased sea lice, feeding edible fish to the farmed fish and the injection of pharmaceutical-laced nutrient into the environment.
The list goes on.
The industry has made attempts to clean up its practices and has hired public relations firms to give its image a makeover. The fact remains that the only people defending fish farming are the direct beneficiaries of it.
Last week, another large escape of farmed salmon from Port Elizabeth opened the debate again. Marine Harvest Canada, the largest aquaculture company in B.C., lost 40,000 fish through holes in nets. The fish are roaming the Broughton Archipelago and beyond and although they are free for anglers to take, there's no way to get them all back.
Besides environmental impacts, this represents a significant financial loss for Marine Harvest. It seems the industry has little control over the product even when it is in its best interest to do so.
In fact, the loss, which is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, would have been better spent on movement to a closed system, eliminating future escapes.
The fish got away on Wednesday but the company did not make the incident known until Thursday.
The Living Oceans Society has renewed its call for closed-containment systems. They suggest the government support the transition financially, so that people don't lose their livelihoods.
The time is long overdue to create an aquaculture industry that produces food, economic development and protects the marine environment. This isn't rocket science.
http://www2.canada.com/albernivalle....html?id=a2293a40-a6d2-442a-a3a1-db7772482a1f
Fish farmers must pull their nets if they don't change
Tinkering is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. A few weeks ago, the tendency was demonstrated by NASA's latest work, essentially bombing the moon in a search for water.
The underlying assumption of this long-held idea of inhabiting other orbiting bodies is that once we trash Earth, we will simply pack up and move somewhere else. Beginning again with hardly a hiccup.
So much of what we do follows in this same vein.
While farming fish may not seem to be a fantastical idea, the reasons that justify doing so come from the same mindset that the planet, and everything on it, is ours to dominate.
We already farm numerous animals, exercising our dominion, polluting the land and producing food that is mostly bad for us but often tortuous for the creatures in the pens. It's not a huge leap to do the same in marine ecosystems.
As wild salmon stocks dwindled in the Atlantic and Pacific, it seemed a natural to follow the lead of other northern nations and enclose fish and raise them for human feed.
The cost of this tinkering came second to economic development or even protecting wild fish stocks.
After an initial blossoming of fish farming in B.C., a moratorium was put in place as negative environmental effects and the less-than-stellar economic returns became apparent.
Reformed fish farmers from Scotland and Norway came to this region during that period to warn the province, the fish farmers and the biologists to not make the same mistakes that they had.
Then the moratorium was lifted and the farming of Atlantic salmon in coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest went back to business as usual.
There have been many good arguments against this practice. There are concerns about escapees, increased sea lice, feeding edible fish to the farmed fish and the injection of pharmaceutical-laced nutrient into the environment.
The list goes on.
The industry has made attempts to clean up its practices and has hired public relations firms to give its image a makeover. The fact remains that the only people defending fish farming are the direct beneficiaries of it.
Last week, another large escape of farmed salmon from Port Elizabeth opened the debate again. Marine Harvest Canada, the largest aquaculture company in B.C., lost 40,000 fish through holes in nets. The fish are roaming the Broughton Archipelago and beyond and although they are free for anglers to take, there's no way to get them all back.
Besides environmental impacts, this represents a significant financial loss for Marine Harvest. It seems the industry has little control over the product even when it is in its best interest to do so.
In fact, the loss, which is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, would have been better spent on movement to a closed system, eliminating future escapes.
The fish got away on Wednesday but the company did not make the incident known until Thursday.
The Living Oceans Society has renewed its call for closed-containment systems. They suggest the government support the transition financially, so that people don't lose their livelihoods.
The time is long overdue to create an aquaculture industry that produces food, economic development and protects the marine environment. This isn't rocket science.
http://www2.canada.com/albernivalle....html?id=a2293a40-a6d2-442a-a3a1-db7772482a1f
H
handee
Guest
Dont worry guys. If the provincial and/ or private vets discover a reportable disease they have to report it, until then you are not getting access to private production data and intellectual property of the fish farm companies so you can do the dirty with it. It would be like giving the keys to the family car to an 8 year old.
Why not celebrate the fact that there appears to be no correlation between salmon farming and wild salmon returns , let alone causal link and move onto exploring solutions to the known threats- can you say "stream rehab" instead of "sea lice research"?
Or how about this for an idea. Morton et al give full access to their fudged- I mean raw- data, strategy papers, links to Alaska fsh farmers and money sources in exchange for some MHC production data?
Morton of course can say she is not paid by Sea web, probably because as the daughter of an American billionaire she is the funder as well as the fundee.
Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?
SUMMARY
Since 2005, the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta has
published a series of research papers claiming to show that sea lice from salmon farms
put wild salmon at serious risk of extinction in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia.1,2,3
In 2008, the University of Alberta awarded the lead researcher, Dr. Martin Krkosek, the
Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada.4
Senior scientists and experts have noted peculiarities and serious flaws in this research:
lack of adequate baseline data, selective use ("cherry-picking") of data, flawed assumptions,
selective and inaccurate reporting, and unsubstantiated claims.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In stark contrast to
the CMB, 20 scientists have endorsed the view that wild salmon returns in the Broughton
appear to be increasing.12
According to Dr. Krkosek, more than 500 news stories have reported the CMB's findings.13
In the wake of extensive bad press over sea lice, a "war on salmon farmers" has been
declared and more than 18,000 people have signed a petition to close salmon farms.14,15
David Suzuki, Alexandra Morton and others have petitioned the King of Norway to intervene.16
The CMB has or had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization.17,18
According to the author's calculations based on U.S. tax returns, since 2000 SeaWeb
has been paid in excess of $US 8.5 million to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, a marketing
strategy to get Wal-Mart and other large U.S. retailers to preferentially sell seafood from
fisheries that are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).19 Most MSC-certified
products are Alaskan salmon.20 SeaWeb was also paid to co-ordinate an "antifarming
campaign" involving "earned media" to shift consumer and retailer demand away from the
competing product: farmed salmon.21,22 SeaWeb reports that the international publicity of
the CMB's sea lice research findings is one of SeaWeb's "top accomplishments."23
"Even a single louse can spell disaster," says SeaWeb.24
Since 2003 and the bad press over farmed salmon, many consumers and restaurants
have switched to "wild" salmon.25,26,27 The ex-vessel value of Alaskan "wild" salmon has
more than tripled from $125 million in 2002 to $409 million in 2008.28,29
According to the CMB, its sea lice research was funded by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, Mathematics
for Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS), the David Suzuki
Foundation and other sources.30 Funds granted through the David Suzuki Foundation
originated from the same source as funds for SeaWeb's "antifarming campaign."31
This was not mentioned in published papers nor in press releases.
The author raises questions and requests proper disclosure of the origins of the research
funding, and clarification of the actual findings in the scientific literature and in the media.
Why not celebrate the fact that there appears to be no correlation between salmon farming and wild salmon returns , let alone causal link and move onto exploring solutions to the known threats- can you say "stream rehab" instead of "sea lice research"?
Or how about this for an idea. Morton et al give full access to their fudged- I mean raw- data, strategy papers, links to Alaska fsh farmers and money sources in exchange for some MHC production data?
Morton of course can say she is not paid by Sea web, probably because as the daughter of an American billionaire she is the funder as well as the fundee.
Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?
SUMMARY
Since 2005, the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta has
published a series of research papers claiming to show that sea lice from salmon farms
put wild salmon at serious risk of extinction in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia.1,2,3
In 2008, the University of Alberta awarded the lead researcher, Dr. Martin Krkosek, the
Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada.4
Senior scientists and experts have noted peculiarities and serious flaws in this research:
lack of adequate baseline data, selective use ("cherry-picking") of data, flawed assumptions,
selective and inaccurate reporting, and unsubstantiated claims.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In stark contrast to
the CMB, 20 scientists have endorsed the view that wild salmon returns in the Broughton
appear to be increasing.12
According to Dr. Krkosek, more than 500 news stories have reported the CMB's findings.13
In the wake of extensive bad press over sea lice, a "war on salmon farmers" has been
declared and more than 18,000 people have signed a petition to close salmon farms.14,15
David Suzuki, Alexandra Morton and others have petitioned the King of Norway to intervene.16
The CMB has or had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization.17,18
According to the author's calculations based on U.S. tax returns, since 2000 SeaWeb
has been paid in excess of $US 8.5 million to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, a marketing
strategy to get Wal-Mart and other large U.S. retailers to preferentially sell seafood from
fisheries that are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).19 Most MSC-certified
products are Alaskan salmon.20 SeaWeb was also paid to co-ordinate an "antifarming
campaign" involving "earned media" to shift consumer and retailer demand away from the
competing product: farmed salmon.21,22 SeaWeb reports that the international publicity of
the CMB's sea lice research findings is one of SeaWeb's "top accomplishments."23
"Even a single louse can spell disaster," says SeaWeb.24
Since 2003 and the bad press over farmed salmon, many consumers and restaurants
have switched to "wild" salmon.25,26,27 The ex-vessel value of Alaskan "wild" salmon has
more than tripled from $125 million in 2002 to $409 million in 2008.28,29
According to the CMB, its sea lice research was funded by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, Mathematics
for Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS), the David Suzuki
Foundation and other sources.30 Funds granted through the David Suzuki Foundation
originated from the same source as funds for SeaWeb's "antifarming campaign."31
This was not mentioned in published papers nor in press releases.
The author raises questions and requests proper disclosure of the origins of the research
funding, and clarification of the actual findings in the scientific literature and in the media.
H
handee
Guest
Dont worry guys. If the provincial and/ or private vets discover a reportable disease they have to report it, until then you are not getting access to private production data and intellectual property of the fish farm companies so you can do the dirty with it. It would be like giving the keys to the family car to an 8 year old.
Why not celebrate the fact that there appears to be no correlation between salmon farming and wild salmon returns , let alone causal link and move onto exploring solutions to the known threats- can you say "stream rehab" instead of "sea lice research"?
Or how about this for an idea. Morton et al give full access to their fudged- I mean raw- data, strategy papers, links to Alaska fsh farmers and money sources in exchange for some MHC production data?
Morton of course can say she is not paid by Sea web, probably because as the daughter of an American billionaire she is the funder as well as the fundee.
Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?
SUMMARY
Since 2005, the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta has
published a series of research papers claiming to show that sea lice from salmon farms
put wild salmon at serious risk of extinction in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia.1,2,3
In 2008, the University of Alberta awarded the lead researcher, Dr. Martin Krkosek, the
Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada.4
Senior scientists and experts have noted peculiarities and serious flaws in this research:
lack of adequate baseline data, selective use ("cherry-picking") of data, flawed assumptions,
selective and inaccurate reporting, and unsubstantiated claims.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In stark contrast to
the CMB, 20 scientists have endorsed the view that wild salmon returns in the Broughton
appear to be increasing.12
According to Dr. Krkosek, more than 500 news stories have reported the CMB's findings.13
In the wake of extensive bad press over sea lice, a "war on salmon farmers" has been
declared and more than 18,000 people have signed a petition to close salmon farms.14,15
David Suzuki, Alexandra Morton and others have petitioned the King of Norway to intervene.16
The CMB has or had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization.17,18
According to the author's calculations based on U.S. tax returns, since 2000 SeaWeb
has been paid in excess of $US 8.5 million to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, a marketing
strategy to get Wal-Mart and other large U.S. retailers to preferentially sell seafood from
fisheries that are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).19 Most MSC-certified
products are Alaskan salmon.20 SeaWeb was also paid to co-ordinate an "antifarming
campaign" involving "earned media" to shift consumer and retailer demand away from the
competing product: farmed salmon.21,22 SeaWeb reports that the international publicity of
the CMB's sea lice research findings is one of SeaWeb's "top accomplishments."23
"Even a single louse can spell disaster," says SeaWeb.24
Since 2003 and the bad press over farmed salmon, many consumers and restaurants
have switched to "wild" salmon.25,26,27 The ex-vessel value of Alaskan "wild" salmon has
more than tripled from $125 million in 2002 to $409 million in 2008.28,29
According to the CMB, its sea lice research was funded by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, Mathematics
for Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS), the David Suzuki
Foundation and other sources.30 Funds granted through the David Suzuki Foundation
originated from the same source as funds for SeaWeb's "antifarming campaign."31
This was not mentioned in published papers nor in press releases.
The author raises questions and requests proper disclosure of the origins of the research
funding, and clarification of the actual findings in the scientific literature and in the media.
Why not celebrate the fact that there appears to be no correlation between salmon farming and wild salmon returns , let alone causal link and move onto exploring solutions to the known threats- can you say "stream rehab" instead of "sea lice research"?
Or how about this for an idea. Morton et al give full access to their fudged- I mean raw- data, strategy papers, links to Alaska fsh farmers and money sources in exchange for some MHC production data?
Morton of course can say she is not paid by Sea web, probably because as the daughter of an American billionaire she is the funder as well as the fundee.
Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?
SUMMARY
Since 2005, the Centre for Mathematical Biology (CMB) at the University of Alberta has
published a series of research papers claiming to show that sea lice from salmon farms
put wild salmon at serious risk of extinction in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia.1,2,3
In 2008, the University of Alberta awarded the lead researcher, Dr. Martin Krkosek, the
Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada.4
Senior scientists and experts have noted peculiarities and serious flaws in this research:
lack of adequate baseline data, selective use ("cherry-picking") of data, flawed assumptions,
selective and inaccurate reporting, and unsubstantiated claims.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In stark contrast to
the CMB, 20 scientists have endorsed the view that wild salmon returns in the Broughton
appear to be increasing.12
According to Dr. Krkosek, more than 500 news stories have reported the CMB's findings.13
In the wake of extensive bad press over sea lice, a "war on salmon farmers" has been
declared and more than 18,000 people have signed a petition to close salmon farms.14,15
David Suzuki, Alexandra Morton and others have petitioned the King of Norway to intervene.16
The CMB has or had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization.17,18
According to the author's calculations based on U.S. tax returns, since 2000 SeaWeb
has been paid in excess of $US 8.5 million to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, a marketing
strategy to get Wal-Mart and other large U.S. retailers to preferentially sell seafood from
fisheries that are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).19 Most MSC-certified
products are Alaskan salmon.20 SeaWeb was also paid to co-ordinate an "antifarming
campaign" involving "earned media" to shift consumer and retailer demand away from the
competing product: farmed salmon.21,22 SeaWeb reports that the international publicity of
the CMB's sea lice research findings is one of SeaWeb's "top accomplishments."23
"Even a single louse can spell disaster," says SeaWeb.24
Since 2003 and the bad press over farmed salmon, many consumers and restaurants
have switched to "wild" salmon.25,26,27 The ex-vessel value of Alaskan "wild" salmon has
more than tripled from $125 million in 2002 to $409 million in 2008.28,29
According to the CMB, its sea lice research was funded by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, Mathematics
for Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS), the David Suzuki
Foundation and other sources.30 Funds granted through the David Suzuki Foundation
originated from the same source as funds for SeaWeb's "antifarming campaign."31
This was not mentioned in published papers nor in press releases.
The author raises questions and requests proper disclosure of the origins of the research
funding, and clarification of the actual findings in the scientific literature and in the media.
H
handee
Guest
Another breath of fresh air, look! they mention agent aqua by name!:0)
BC VIEWS: Usual suspects in salmon crisis
Published: October 27, 2009 10:00 AM
By Tom Fletcher - BC Local NewsVICTORIA – Listening to politicians in recent years, one forms the impression that there is a single existential threat to B.C.’s iconic Pacific salmon.
That of course is sea lice, a natural parasite on salmon that has allegedly exploded into a plague due to the presence of offshore salmon farms. And the greatest sea louse of all, the conventional wisdom goes, is Premier Gordon Campbell, who’s selling off the fragile coastal habitat to his multinational pals from Norway who run these farms around the world.
This could be called the Rafe Mair or Agent Aqua</u> school of thought, and it’s bunk. Evidence of that at least is becoming as abundant as the poor overfished sockeye are scarce. Yet debate here at the B.C. legislature has focused almost entirely on fish farms, and the theoretical need to get them out of the open ocean.
In response to this controversy, in 2004 Campbell appointed the Pacific Salmon Forum, with a mandate to find ways of protecting B.C.’s wild salmon.
It was the proverbial “blue ribbon panel” of independent experts, chaired by former federal environment and fisheries minister John Fraser. Members include Teresa Ryan, a marine biologist from the Tsimshian Nation in northwestern B.C., Christina Burridge of the BC Seafood Alliance, former Campbell River mayor Jim Lornie, veteran fishing guide Jeremy Maynard, Harry Nyce, director of fish and wildlife programs for the Nisga’a Lisims government, and John Woodward of Woodward’s stores fame, who has devoted his later life to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and river recovery projects.
After exhaustive study of the available research, the forum’s final report was issued early this year, and largely ignored. One of its key findings was that sea lice can be managed to protect wild stocks, as the B.C. government has also demonstrated for some time.
The forum’s experts concluded that efforts should focus on conditions in the ocean and in B.C.’s vast, battered network of rivers, lakes and creeks that sustain this annual miracle. Land farms, not fish farms, along with subdivisions, roads, logging sites and industry have made sewers out of too many streams.
Here’s just one example of why the sea lice theory is so lousy. Through most of its existence it has focused almost entirely on pink salmon. Apparently the pinks didn’t get the memo that said they are doomed, because they have come back this year in numbers seldom if ever seen.
It’s sockeye that have gone missing, no surprise given how relentlessly humans prey on them. Still, millions of them went to sea from B.C. and for reasons not yet understood, most did not return.
Here’s one possible clue. Again this summer, Humboldt squid were washing up on Tofino’s beaches. These man-sized monsters chase fish into shallow water and sometimes beach themselves in the process. They’re native to California waters, but in recent years they have hunted in uncounted packs up here. This suggests a profound shift in ocean currents and conditions where the sockeye are disappearing.
Do these squid have a taste for sockeye as we do? Hardly. They eat mackerel down south, and apparently any fish they can snare in their long tentacles will do.
The Rafe Mair school has now moved on to a new bogeyman, run-of-river power projects. This is also bunk.
So what is the answer? As the Pacific Salmon Forum has shown, there is no single, easy answer so craved by grandstanding politicians and environmentalists.
The experience of Alaska and Washington states is different than B.C., and I’ll look at that in a subsequent column.
BC VIEWS: Usual suspects in salmon crisis
Published: October 27, 2009 10:00 AM
By Tom Fletcher - BC Local NewsVICTORIA – Listening to politicians in recent years, one forms the impression that there is a single existential threat to B.C.’s iconic Pacific salmon.
That of course is sea lice, a natural parasite on salmon that has allegedly exploded into a plague due to the presence of offshore salmon farms. And the greatest sea louse of all, the conventional wisdom goes, is Premier Gordon Campbell, who’s selling off the fragile coastal habitat to his multinational pals from Norway who run these farms around the world.
This could be called the Rafe Mair or Agent Aqua</u> school of thought, and it’s bunk. Evidence of that at least is becoming as abundant as the poor overfished sockeye are scarce. Yet debate here at the B.C. legislature has focused almost entirely on fish farms, and the theoretical need to get them out of the open ocean.
In response to this controversy, in 2004 Campbell appointed the Pacific Salmon Forum, with a mandate to find ways of protecting B.C.’s wild salmon.
It was the proverbial “blue ribbon panel” of independent experts, chaired by former federal environment and fisheries minister John Fraser. Members include Teresa Ryan, a marine biologist from the Tsimshian Nation in northwestern B.C., Christina Burridge of the BC Seafood Alliance, former Campbell River mayor Jim Lornie, veteran fishing guide Jeremy Maynard, Harry Nyce, director of fish and wildlife programs for the Nisga’a Lisims government, and John Woodward of Woodward’s stores fame, who has devoted his later life to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and river recovery projects.
After exhaustive study of the available research, the forum’s final report was issued early this year, and largely ignored. One of its key findings was that sea lice can be managed to protect wild stocks, as the B.C. government has also demonstrated for some time.
The forum’s experts concluded that efforts should focus on conditions in the ocean and in B.C.’s vast, battered network of rivers, lakes and creeks that sustain this annual miracle. Land farms, not fish farms, along with subdivisions, roads, logging sites and industry have made sewers out of too many streams.
Here’s just one example of why the sea lice theory is so lousy. Through most of its existence it has focused almost entirely on pink salmon. Apparently the pinks didn’t get the memo that said they are doomed, because they have come back this year in numbers seldom if ever seen.
It’s sockeye that have gone missing, no surprise given how relentlessly humans prey on them. Still, millions of them went to sea from B.C. and for reasons not yet understood, most did not return.
Here’s one possible clue. Again this summer, Humboldt squid were washing up on Tofino’s beaches. These man-sized monsters chase fish into shallow water and sometimes beach themselves in the process. They’re native to California waters, but in recent years they have hunted in uncounted packs up here. This suggests a profound shift in ocean currents and conditions where the sockeye are disappearing.
Do these squid have a taste for sockeye as we do? Hardly. They eat mackerel down south, and apparently any fish they can snare in their long tentacles will do.
The Rafe Mair school has now moved on to a new bogeyman, run-of-river power projects. This is also bunk.
So what is the answer? As the Pacific Salmon Forum has shown, there is no single, easy answer so craved by grandstanding politicians and environmentalists.
The experience of Alaska and Washington states is different than B.C., and I’ll look at that in a subsequent column.
H
handee
Guest
Another breath of fresh air, look! they mention agent aqua by name!:0)
BC VIEWS: Usual suspects in salmon crisis
Published: October 27, 2009 10:00 AM
By Tom Fletcher - BC Local NewsVICTORIA – Listening to politicians in recent years, one forms the impression that there is a single existential threat to B.C.’s iconic Pacific salmon.
That of course is sea lice, a natural parasite on salmon that has allegedly exploded into a plague due to the presence of offshore salmon farms. And the greatest sea louse of all, the conventional wisdom goes, is Premier Gordon Campbell, who’s selling off the fragile coastal habitat to his multinational pals from Norway who run these farms around the world.
This could be called the Rafe Mair or Agent Aqua</u> school of thought, and it’s bunk. Evidence of that at least is becoming as abundant as the poor overfished sockeye are scarce. Yet debate here at the B.C. legislature has focused almost entirely on fish farms, and the theoretical need to get them out of the open ocean.
In response to this controversy, in 2004 Campbell appointed the Pacific Salmon Forum, with a mandate to find ways of protecting B.C.’s wild salmon.
It was the proverbial “blue ribbon panel” of independent experts, chaired by former federal environment and fisheries minister John Fraser. Members include Teresa Ryan, a marine biologist from the Tsimshian Nation in northwestern B.C., Christina Burridge of the BC Seafood Alliance, former Campbell River mayor Jim Lornie, veteran fishing guide Jeremy Maynard, Harry Nyce, director of fish and wildlife programs for the Nisga’a Lisims government, and John Woodward of Woodward’s stores fame, who has devoted his later life to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and river recovery projects.
After exhaustive study of the available research, the forum’s final report was issued early this year, and largely ignored. One of its key findings was that sea lice can be managed to protect wild stocks, as the B.C. government has also demonstrated for some time.
The forum’s experts concluded that efforts should focus on conditions in the ocean and in B.C.’s vast, battered network of rivers, lakes and creeks that sustain this annual miracle. Land farms, not fish farms, along with subdivisions, roads, logging sites and industry have made sewers out of too many streams.
Here’s just one example of why the sea lice theory is so lousy. Through most of its existence it has focused almost entirely on pink salmon. Apparently the pinks didn’t get the memo that said they are doomed, because they have come back this year in numbers seldom if ever seen.
It’s sockeye that have gone missing, no surprise given how relentlessly humans prey on them. Still, millions of them went to sea from B.C. and for reasons not yet understood, most did not return.
Here’s one possible clue. Again this summer, Humboldt squid were washing up on Tofino’s beaches. These man-sized monsters chase fish into shallow water and sometimes beach themselves in the process. They’re native to California waters, but in recent years they have hunted in uncounted packs up here. This suggests a profound shift in ocean currents and conditions where the sockeye are disappearing.
Do these squid have a taste for sockeye as we do? Hardly. They eat mackerel down south, and apparently any fish they can snare in their long tentacles will do.
The Rafe Mair school has now moved on to a new bogeyman, run-of-river power projects. This is also bunk.
So what is the answer? As the Pacific Salmon Forum has shown, there is no single, easy answer so craved by grandstanding politicians and environmentalists.
The experience of Alaska and Washington states is different than B.C., and I’ll look at that in a subsequent column.
BC VIEWS: Usual suspects in salmon crisis
Published: October 27, 2009 10:00 AM
By Tom Fletcher - BC Local NewsVICTORIA – Listening to politicians in recent years, one forms the impression that there is a single existential threat to B.C.’s iconic Pacific salmon.
That of course is sea lice, a natural parasite on salmon that has allegedly exploded into a plague due to the presence of offshore salmon farms. And the greatest sea louse of all, the conventional wisdom goes, is Premier Gordon Campbell, who’s selling off the fragile coastal habitat to his multinational pals from Norway who run these farms around the world.
This could be called the Rafe Mair or Agent Aqua</u> school of thought, and it’s bunk. Evidence of that at least is becoming as abundant as the poor overfished sockeye are scarce. Yet debate here at the B.C. legislature has focused almost entirely on fish farms, and the theoretical need to get them out of the open ocean.
In response to this controversy, in 2004 Campbell appointed the Pacific Salmon Forum, with a mandate to find ways of protecting B.C.’s wild salmon.
It was the proverbial “blue ribbon panel” of independent experts, chaired by former federal environment and fisheries minister John Fraser. Members include Teresa Ryan, a marine biologist from the Tsimshian Nation in northwestern B.C., Christina Burridge of the BC Seafood Alliance, former Campbell River mayor Jim Lornie, veteran fishing guide Jeremy Maynard, Harry Nyce, director of fish and wildlife programs for the Nisga’a Lisims government, and John Woodward of Woodward’s stores fame, who has devoted his later life to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and river recovery projects.
After exhaustive study of the available research, the forum’s final report was issued early this year, and largely ignored. One of its key findings was that sea lice can be managed to protect wild stocks, as the B.C. government has also demonstrated for some time.
The forum’s experts concluded that efforts should focus on conditions in the ocean and in B.C.’s vast, battered network of rivers, lakes and creeks that sustain this annual miracle. Land farms, not fish farms, along with subdivisions, roads, logging sites and industry have made sewers out of too many streams.
Here’s just one example of why the sea lice theory is so lousy. Through most of its existence it has focused almost entirely on pink salmon. Apparently the pinks didn’t get the memo that said they are doomed, because they have come back this year in numbers seldom if ever seen.
It’s sockeye that have gone missing, no surprise given how relentlessly humans prey on them. Still, millions of them went to sea from B.C. and for reasons not yet understood, most did not return.
Here’s one possible clue. Again this summer, Humboldt squid were washing up on Tofino’s beaches. These man-sized monsters chase fish into shallow water and sometimes beach themselves in the process. They’re native to California waters, but in recent years they have hunted in uncounted packs up here. This suggests a profound shift in ocean currents and conditions where the sockeye are disappearing.
Do these squid have a taste for sockeye as we do? Hardly. They eat mackerel down south, and apparently any fish they can snare in their long tentacles will do.
The Rafe Mair school has now moved on to a new bogeyman, run-of-river power projects. This is also bunk.
So what is the answer? As the Pacific Salmon Forum has shown, there is no single, easy answer so craved by grandstanding politicians and environmentalists.
The experience of Alaska and Washington states is different than B.C., and I’ll look at that in a subsequent column.
H
handee
Guest
quote:Originally posted by Charlie
Originally posted by handee
The environment is being harmed, period! That is proven over and over again! Here is a farm “fallowed” in 2004 at Kyuquot - it is estimating 15 years to recover? Pay close attention to the comments made by everyone, including Marine Harvest.
If you want, I can load this site up with so many “links” and "studies", it would make your head spin and take you months to read, and they are not all that good. Can you argue points… sure can? For every good point, I can show a contradicting one! It seems every organization is spending millions to discredit each other in all these studies. Why won't anyone provide the information to prove it?
Please dont load up the with links. The Morton gang is nothing if not prolific. Their studies are cheap, simplistic computer models based on cherry-picked data and flawed assumptions. They were so bad that even the biased Pacific salmon Forum had to admit there seems to be no case to suggest salmon farming is a threat to wild salmon. It is their marketting campaigns of these same studies that are expensive. Fortunately Morton's billionaire mommy has deep pockets and powerful friends in Alaska. The pink runs (the most vulnerable fish according to Morton) are alive and well, stocks have been on an increasing trend since salmon farming started.
As for the Kuyoquot salmon farm bottom. I just know that patch of mud was near and dear to your heart. It has been deactivated and unlike all those forests that were mowed down for your roads and Ikea Parking lots, as well as cornfields, it will be recovered back to its old muddy self, all 600 feet by 60 feet of it, in less than two decades. Beats the hell out of never. Maybe we can have a party in 2020 when that beloved patch of mud under 100' of water,the size of your front lawn, FINALLY recovers to being a patch of mud of a slightly different colour and worm composition. Oh the tears of joy knowing that the mud has turned back to gray, halleleujah.
Meanwhile you can rest easy that other patches of mud being effected by fish farms are being enhanced by the addition of nutritients and the reef-like shelter of the floating cage system. Not to mention that a tempoarily impacted patch of mud the equivalent of one runway at YVR is supporting 6000 BC jobs and producing farm fish in lieu of legal and illegal dead wild salmon.
Why not actually look for a real environmental issue to fight rather than doing the dirty work of demarketting the only logical source of salmon on behalf of the Alaskan fish farmers?
H
handee
Guest
quote:Originally posted by Charlie
Originally posted by handee
The environment is being harmed, period! That is proven over and over again! Here is a farm “fallowed” in 2004 at Kyuquot - it is estimating 15 years to recover? Pay close attention to the comments made by everyone, including Marine Harvest.
If you want, I can load this site up with so many “links” and "studies", it would make your head spin and take you months to read, and they are not all that good. Can you argue points… sure can? For every good point, I can show a contradicting one! It seems every organization is spending millions to discredit each other in all these studies. Why won't anyone provide the information to prove it?
Please dont load up the with links. The Morton gang is nothing if not prolific. Their studies are cheap, simplistic computer models based on cherry-picked data and flawed assumptions. They were so bad that even the biased Pacific salmon Forum had to admit there seems to be no case to suggest salmon farming is a threat to wild salmon. It is their marketting campaigns of these same studies that are expensive. Fortunately Morton's billionaire mommy has deep pockets and powerful friends in Alaska. The pink runs (the most vulnerable fish according to Morton) are alive and well, stocks have been on an increasing trend since salmon farming started.
As for the Kuyoquot salmon farm bottom. I just know that patch of mud was near and dear to your heart. It has been deactivated and unlike all those forests that were mowed down for your roads and Ikea Parking lots, as well as cornfields, it will be recovered back to its old muddy self, all 600 feet by 60 feet of it, in less than two decades. Beats the hell out of never. Maybe we can have a party in 2020 when that beloved patch of mud under 100' of water,the size of your front lawn, FINALLY recovers to being a patch of mud of a slightly different colour and worm composition. Oh the tears of joy knowing that the mud has turned back to gray, halleleujah.
Meanwhile you can rest easy that other patches of mud being effected by fish farms are being enhanced by the addition of nutritients and the reef-like shelter of the floating cage system. Not to mention that a tempoarily impacted patch of mud the equivalent of one runway at YVR is supporting 6000 BC jobs and producing farm fish in lieu of legal and illegal dead wild salmon.
Why not actually look for a real environmental issue to fight rather than doing the dirty work of demarketting the only logical source of salmon on behalf of the Alaskan fish farmers?
H
handee
Guest
Oh a judicial review- great idea, yup that would have saved the cod for sure. Spending another couple million dollars plus a couple years of paper shuffling. Here is a better idea: ban sportfishing and commercial fishing, lobby hard to shine a light on the GIGANTIC unregulated Alaskan Fish farm industry and start rehabbing streams. Also make sure you arrest poachers of any race caught violating the fishing ban. Thats how you save wild fish. a couple million dollars spent on enforcement and bringing First nation gill netters to trial would save alot more fish.
And what about the Skeena river sockeye crash? Why does Morton only mention Fraser River? what about the sockeye crashes near Alaskan fish farms? Oh yeah the alaskans are calling the shots, looking at the Skeena sockeye crash may be hitting a little too close to home.
This brings up one more question: why did Morton not protest DFO this year when they opened up the fishery on pink and chums in the Broughton? Is it ok for fishers to kill them, but not ok for salmon farms to supposedly kill them? She wants us to adopt a fry, but is totally ok if we hook, gill, seine and ultimately club adult pinks and chums to death?
I want some answers! I have answered why it would be ridiculous and totally unnecessary to release all your production data to Morton et al, answer me this one question.
H
handee
Guest
Oh a judicial review- great idea, yup that would have saved the cod for sure. Spending another couple million dollars plus a couple years of paper shuffling. Here is a better idea: ban sportfishing and commercial fishing, lobby hard to shine a light on the GIGANTIC unregulated Alaskan Fish farm industry and start rehabbing streams. Also make sure you arrest poachers of any race caught violating the fishing ban. Thats how you save wild fish. a couple million dollars spent on enforcement and bringing First nation gill netters to trial would save alot more fish.
And what about the Skeena river sockeye crash? Why does Morton only mention Fraser River? what about the sockeye crashes near Alaskan fish farms? Oh yeah the alaskans are calling the shots, looking at the Skeena sockeye crash may be hitting a little too close to home.
This brings up one more question: why did Morton not protest DFO this year when they opened up the fishery on pink and chums in the Broughton? Is it ok for fishers to kill them, but not ok for salmon farms to supposedly kill them? She wants us to adopt a fry, but is totally ok if we hook, gill, seine and ultimately club adult pinks and chums to death?
I want some answers! I have answered why it would be ridiculous and totally unnecessary to release all your production data to Morton et al, answer me this one question.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Handee said;
- 1.
We went through all this earlier where I showed Morton was not the daughter of an American billionaire. At first Handee said she was the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=21. When shown to be wrong he fell back to other erroneous ranting about Morton. Handee refuses to accept fact and continues to spew the same old misinformation even after being directed to the facts. As far as the summary goes, who's summary, Handee? Yours? When I got a copy of the Vivian Krause paper, there was no summary and no references included. At the end of the paper it gave an email link to get the references but when I sent an email, it bounced back to me. - 2.
Hmmmm. I'm sure Agentaqua will do an adequate job responding to this, but I should point out that same op/ed didn't contain any mention of Agentaqua in the local paper I read. http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/northislandgazette/opinion/66590317.html So are you making this up, Handee? Is this a Halloween trick of yours? Or do you have a different version not publicly available? I seriously doubt if the public would know who Tom Fletcher was writing about if he did mention Agentaqua.
- 3. I personally enjoy going to the links Charlie provides. I actually learn something when I do, unlike when I read your posts Handee. Keep 'em coming, Charlie.
- 4.
What are you saying here? People should examine sockeye crashes near Alaska salmon hatchery operations (or "fish farms" as you call them) but sockeye crashes near BC salmon farms should only examine possible threats other than salmon farms? That's not even logical. I think it is logical for people to examine sockeye crashes where ever they happen, near or far from fish farms for any and all possible threats.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Handee said;
- 1.
We went through all this earlier where I showed Morton was not the daughter of an American billionaire. At first Handee said she was the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847&whichpage=21. When shown to be wrong he fell back to other erroneous ranting about Morton. Handee refuses to accept fact and continues to spew the same old misinformation even after being directed to the facts. As far as the summary goes, who's summary, Handee? Yours? When I got a copy of the Vivian Krause paper, there was no summary and no references included. At the end of the paper it gave an email link to get the references but when I sent an email, it bounced back to me. - 2.
Hmmmm. I'm sure Agentaqua will do an adequate job responding to this, but I should point out that same op/ed didn't contain any mention of Agentaqua in the local paper I read. http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/northislandgazette/opinion/66590317.html So are you making this up, Handee? Is this a Halloween trick of yours? Or do you have a different version not publicly available? I seriously doubt if the public would know who Tom Fletcher was writing about if he did mention Agentaqua.
- 3. I personally enjoy going to the links Charlie provides. I actually learn something when I do, unlike when I read your posts Handee. Keep 'em coming, Charlie.
- 4.
What are you saying here? People should examine sockeye crashes near Alaska salmon hatchery operations (or "fish farms" as you call them) but sockeye crashes near BC salmon farms should only examine possible threats other than salmon farms? That's not even logical. I think it is logical for people to examine sockeye crashes where ever they happen, near or far from fish farms for any and all possible threats.
Similar threads
