Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
california said:
Its now not even just the fish farms that are the problem, you have a processor in Browns bay discharging raw effluent, mostly blood directly into discovery passage. I guess Bones and the other fish farm supporters will see no issue with this, but it doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada...-into-key-salmon-migration-corridor-1.3696793
Click to expand...


I actually have an issue with all blood released into the environment including Sport, commercial and ceremonial fisheries that release blood into the lakes, rivers and streams. I do this using a precautionary principle because we really don't know how viral transmission works in these scenarios. Wild salmon carry viruses just the same as farm salmon. I have this concern because I worry about the well being of wild salmon and I clearly understand that wild salmon carry viruses as well.

Ive mentioned my concern here on this forum previously and it is no surprise the usual seemingly educated self appointed/potentially professional activist, concerned citizens want to make the issue all about salmon farms when it clearly is not. The public, thanks to activist is being lead to believe that wild salmon don't carry viruses or don't die naturally from disease. Scary fact but this is what I am seeing to emerge from this. I believe the term is propaganda.

For activist there are no standards or ethics involved. There is no scientific process that they need to achieve in any of their activities. I am fine with this because citizens need to have the ability to address concerns in the environment to whomever they want. The media are story tellers and often with media and activists you get half truths that equal a full lie.

Unfortunately the public absorbs this as education and this is a bad situation. This rings similar to the ani vaccination campaign.

Petitions understandably have no parameters set to professionalism or accountability or scientific process as well.

This particular petition is pretty effective however when I look at the effect I cant help but to think of the young man who was falsely accused of rape by a young woman and his future and career potential was ruined despite the young lady admitting she lied. His life was ruined long before his court date. Its just interesting that some here or ok with that.

Clearly activist want to highlight PRV to this story with their own set of facts but to date DFO has sampled aggressively to better understand distribution of this genetically unique to bc version of this pathogen. This version of prv has been found to be on the west coast from Alaska to California and has been found that it has been here since long before salmon farms were ever in BC waters.

Bc Prv has been proven to show high levels of ineffectively when injected into pacific salmon species.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aah-saa/species-especes/aq-health-sante/prv-rp-eng.html

Ill sit back now and watch the others focus strictly on the farm fish aspect of this topic as much as they can. lol it is a thread about fish farms however the root of the topic is wild salmon. Don't forget that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the post and the link Birdsnest
There are others on this forum who can interpret your DFO link much better than I, but my take on it is this;
"Incomplete and conflicting science"
Briefly, this is what leads me to this conclusion
These quote I am listing jump out at me and it is not my intention to discredit the findings of DFO or distort the report.
Clearly there is much room for debate on Fish Farm viruses and how, if at all ,do they effect our Wild Salmon.

"In Canada, PRV was first detected in 2011
These authors proposed that PRV first arrived in BC from Norway sometime around 2007.
However, recent testing of archived samples held by DFO has revealed that PRV has been present in salmonids on the Pacific coast of North America for a much longer time than reported in that paper (Dr.Marty)
To date the disease HSMI always occurs in the presence of PRV. While there have been other agents in addition to PRV which have been found in fish with HSMI disease, researchers agree that PRV is one of the leading candidates to be a causative agent.
HSMI has never been reproduced in the laboratory without the presence of PRV
A study documenting the first farm-level diagnosis of HSMI in BC was recently published (Di Cicco et al. 2017). The study showed inflammatory lesions in heart and skeletal muscle tissue diagnostic of this disease in a longitudinal study from one Atlantic Salmon farm in BC. At an individual level, not all fish carried both heart and skeletal lesions at any given point in time, but at the farm level, both were present and diagnostic of the disease
The finding of inflammatory (myocarditis) heart lesions in this study is consistent with heart lesions of suspected viral origin that have been reported through the DFO audit program since 2008, and from industry fish possibly as early as 2002, but never diagnosed to a specific disease."
 
Birdsnest said:
I actually have an issue with all blood released into the environment including Sport, commercial and ceremonial fisheries that release blood into the lakes, rivers and streams. I do this using a precautionary principle because we really don't know how viral transmission works in these scenarios. Wild salmon carry viruses just the same as farm salmon. I have this concern because I worry about the well being of wild salmon and I clearly understand that wild salmon carry viruses as well.

Ive mentioned my concern here on this forum previously and it is no surprise the usual seemingly educated self appointed/potentially professional activist, concerned citizens want to make the issue all about salmon farms when it clearly is not. The public, thanks to activist is being lead to believe that wild salmon don't carry viruses or don't die naturally from disease. Scary fact but this is what I am seeing to emerge from this. I believe the term is propaganda.

For activist there are no standards or ethics involved. There is no scientific process that they need to achieve in any of their activities. I am fine with this because citizens need to have the ability to address concerns in the environment to whomever they want. The media are story tellers and often with media and activists you get half truths that equal a full lie.

Unfortunately the public absorbs this as education and this is a bad situation. This rings similar to the ani vaccination campaign.

Petitions understandably have no parameters set to professionalism or accountability or scientific process as well.

This particular petition is pretty effective however when I look at the effect I cant help but to think of the young man who was falsely accused of rape by a young woman and his future and career potential was ruined despite the young lady admitting she lied. His life was ruined long before his court date. Its just interesting that some here or ok with that.

Clearly activist want to highlight PRV to this story with their own set of facts but to date DFO has sampled aggressively to better understand distribution of this genetically unique to bc version of this pathogen. This version of prv has been found to be on the west coast from Alaska to California and has been found that it has been here since long before salmon farms were ever in BC waters.

Bc Prv has been proven to show high levels of ineffectively when injected into pacific salmon species.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aah-saa/species-especes/aq-health-sante/prv-rp-eng.html

Ill sit back now and watch the others focus strictly on the farm fish aspect of this topic as much as they can. lol it is a thread about fish farms however the root of the topic is wild salmon. Don't forget that.
Click to expand...

Do we really need to argue this link between PRV and HSMI and the effects on wild salmon? I thought this was argued in a court of law and as it turned out the fish farms lost. Did they appeal the case to a higher court? NO.... so you see you're not basing your arguments on science or law. Seems you're using a paintbrush to compare other members here to false accusers in a rape trial should be rethought.

For Immediate Release
May 7, 2015
Victory for wild salmon as Federal Court strikes down aquaculture licence conditions


Department of Fisheries and Oceans needs to err on the side of caution in regulating fish farms, Court rules

VANCOUVER — The Federal Court has struck down aquaculture licence conditions that allowed private companies to transfer fish infected with viruses to open-pen farms in the ocean.

“This is a great day for wild salmon,” said Margot Venton, Ecojustice staff lawyer. “The Court has sent a clear message confirming the Department of Fisheries and Oceans duty to protect and conserve wild fish and the marine environment.”

Ecojustice lawyers, acting on behalf of biologist Alexandra Morton, filed a lawsuit in May 2013, after learning that fish later confirmed to be infected with the piscine reovirus (PRV) had been transferred into an open pen fish farm operated by Marine Harvest in Shelter Bay, BC. The farm is located along the migration route of the Fraser River sockeye. The presence of PRV at Marine Harvest’s Dalrymple hatchery was confirmed by a provincial pathologist during legal proceedings last year.

Marine Harvest was operating under the terms of a federal aquaculture licence that gave it the power to decide whether to transfer fish carrying viruses that may be harmful to wild fish into the ocean. The Court found that the licence conditions at issue in the case were inconsistent with the law which prohibits the transfer of fish carrying diseases or viruses that may be harmful to conservation of wild fish.

“This was a reckless practice that put wild salmon at risk by exposing them to potentially dangerous disease agents,” Morton said. “The Court’s judgement comes as a big relief. Salmon farms are just nets or cages open to our oceans. To stock them with farmed fish carrying viruses is playing biological roulette. It cannot be left to these companies to decide whether putting farmed fish carrying viruses into the ocean environment is safe.”

Scientists have identified PRV as the most likely cause of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI), a severe disease that affects the muscles and heart of salmon. The Court rejected the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) argument that its license conditions were based on sound science about HSMI or other fish diseases, finding there was no evidence that DFO relies on science in issuing aquaculture licenses. Instead, after noting that “the weight of the expert evidence before this Court supports the view that PRV is the viral precursor to HSMI”, the Court accepted that transfers of farmed salmon infected with viruses like PRV may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish – and thus contrary to the law.

HSMI is prevalent in farmed salmon in Norway, and has since appeared in Scotland, another jurisdiction with an intensive fish farming industry. In this case, the Court stated that “it would be an unreasonable inference to draw from the evidence that it will not appear in farmed Atlantic salmon on the Pacific Coast.”

“Common sense, experience from around the globe, and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence all tell us that putting farmed fish carrying viruses in close proximity to healthy wild fish is a bad idea,” Morton said. “We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting wild fish, and I am delighted that the Court agrees.”

Read the full federal court decision.

https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/T-789-13-Judgment-and-Reasons.pdf
 
GLG your issue would be with the up to date information provided by DFO on the page I provided. It says in this page that the information is up to date and will be updated as new information is confirmed. You can go up against me or you can go up against the link I provided. In your post above you are going against me and my views on it. Fair enough but you have not addressed any of the information in the dfo link. Can you do that?
That court case was from 2.5 years ago and much information on PRV NP (north pacific) has been gathered since which is why the dfo info on pvr reads as it does. If you want to consider yourself a informed citizen on a court case from some time ago that is your choice but it does not reflect being up to date on the science on PRV NP nor does it reflect an honest response coming from a guy who I don't think is a dummy.

So ya I don't think we have to argue about it unless you can show me a study where PRV NP has proven to cause harm or desease in a wild pacific species. No need to reply because I know you cant.
 
Last edited:
Birdsnest said:
GLG your issue would be with the up to date information provided by DFO on the page I provided. It says in this page that the information is up to date and will be updated as new information is confirmed. You can go up against me or you can go up against the link I provided. In your post above you are going against me and my views on it. Fair enough but you have not addressed any of the information in the dfo link. Can you do that?
That court case was from 2.5 years ago and much information on PRV NP (north pacific) has been gathered since which is why the dfo info on pvr reads as it does. If you want to consider yourself a informed citizen on a court case from some time ago that is your choice but it does not reflect being up to date on the science on PRV NP nor does it reflect an honest response coming from a guy who I don't think is a dummy.

So ya I don't think we have to argue about it unless you can show me a study where PRV NP has proven to cause harm or desease in a wild pacific species. No need to reply because I know you cant.
Click to expand...

You seem to forget why DFO and the fish farms did not appeal to a higher court. Is was because of this study that is on dfo's website.
"A study documenting the first farm-level diagnosis of HSMI in BC was recently published (Di Cicco et al. 2017). The study showed inflammatory lesions in heart and skeletal muscle tissue diagnostic of this disease in a longitudinal study from one Atlantic Salmon farm in BC. At an individual level, not all fish carried both heart and skeletal lesions at any given point in time, but at the farm level, both were present and diagnostic of the disease."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471

So it seems that transferring PRV infected smolts to a fish farm is a bad idea when wild salmon have to swim by them. The question is what are we going to do. We could ban transfers like the court has asked or we could change the rules. What do you think will happen? My guess is we will change the rules and eff the wild fish till the next court case.

Question for you does your farm have PRV?
 
agentaqua said:
I think Kristi Miller and her research team pretty much debunked Marty's biased, flawed defensive pro-farm lobby paper: https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/02/27/BC-Salmon-Farm-Disease-Confirmed/
Click to expand...

Agent you are again presenting a half truth. Millers work on this is about farmed atlantics and is at a very low level of infection population wise. This work clearly does not prove or even suggest prv harms wild pacific species. If you dont like that then you should address the peer revewed studies that has brought this information to the forefront.

From the DFO link: "A study documenting the first farm-level diagnosis of HSMI in BC was recently published (Di Cicco et al. 2017). The study showed inflammatory lesions in heart and skeletal muscle tissue diagnostic of this disease in a longitudinal study from one Atlantic Salmon farm in BC. At an individual level, not all fish carried both heart and skeletal lesions at any given point in time, but at the farm level, both were present and diagnostic of the disease."

"However, unlike in Norway, as yet, all experimental exposures of the BC strain of PRV to Pacific and Atlantic salmon in BC have failed to induce disease or mortality. This suggests PRV in BC has a low ability to cause disease (low virulence) for these species (Garver et al. 2016a; Garver et al. 2016b).

In a collaborative study led by researchers at the DFO Pacific Biological Station, it was revealed that sockeye salmon infected with PRV exhibit a remarkable lack of response to the virus at 2 and 3 weeks after infection even though substantial viral amplification occurred during this period (Polinski et al. 2016)."

I prefer to look at the issue as a whole and looking at PRV in terms of atlantic farm fish only is meaningless and doesn't respect the issue as a whole.
 
GLG said:
You seem to forget why DFO and the fish farms did not appeal to a higher court. Is was because of this study that is on dfo's website.
"A study documenting the first farm-level diagnosis of HSMI in BC was recently published (Di Cicco et al. 2017). The study showed inflammatory lesions in heart and skeletal muscle tissue diagnostic of this disease in a longitudinal study from one Atlantic Salmon farm in BC. At an individual level, not all fish carried both heart and skeletal lesions at any given point in time, but at the farm level, both were present and diagnostic of the disease."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471

So it seems that transferring PRV infected smolts to a fish farm is a bad idea when wild salmon have to swim by them. The question is what are we going to do. We could ban transfers like the court has asked or we could change the rules. What do you think will happen? My guess is we will change the rules and eff the wild fish till the next court case.

Question for you does your farm have PRV?
Click to expand...

Again you aggressively want to turn a blind eye to the effect PRV is having on wild pacific which is ZERO. Dont attack me the messenger, go after the peer reviews science. PRV is everywhere. It is dishonest and unscientific to only look at it at the farm level. The last few post have done nothing but deflect from my point that PRV NP has no effect on wild/enhance pacific salmon stocks.

I dont own a farm.
 
According to Marty et al they believe the first evidence of PRV in pacific species was in 1985, and some samples from 1977 in steelhead may have been positive. In the paper they also reference samples taken from wild salmon in 2013 indicating low infection rates in Coho <5%, only 1 in 180 Sockeye, no infection in sampled Pinks, and relatively high infection rates of about 20% in Chinook . They could not do analysis of if the infections were due to genotypes found in Norway due to the preservation methods.

Regardless of if you believe the virus has always been here or not, it seems the infection rates of wild salmon, at least in 2013 were relatively low, except for chinook salmon. Of course if severely infected wild fish die before they are sampled the rates could be higher if its only the non-HSMI afflicted fish surviving. We cant know what goes on if a wild fish progresses to HSMI, presumably it wouldn't last long in the wild whereas these infected Atlantic fish can survive in net pens. What is obvious is that you can ignore if the virus was native or not, that is now a moot point as it now exists in the population

What is clear is the high rates of infection of farmed salmon are a significant potential source of INCREASED infection for wild fish, particularly if waste products are being pumped into areas of wild fish utilization. Furthermore the potential for the Virus to mutate and become more virulent in a high density high stress environment is significant. These atlantic slamon are mass produced, with significant loss of genetic diversity. Disease transmission between domestic bovine species and wild ungulates has been studied for far longer, and transmission of viruses has been documented both ways, from the domestic animals to wild ones, but also the other way around, and there is concern these viruses from the wild animals while having a relatively small effect on the wild population may enter domestic animals and develop increased virulence and be transmitted back. It seems this potential exists here as well. It is also very likely IF PRV was always present in wild pacific salmon, it is a different genotype than that of Atlantic farmed species. If it has always been here its likely it is not an issue for pacific wild fish survival as they would have adapted to it. A more significant threat is a different strain being introduced which pacific species may not be as resistant to, and the opportunity for the virus to mutate and modify its virulence within the high density high stress environments of fish pens with fish that are mass produced with high amounts of inbreeding. This type of environment is perfect for diseases to evolve.

So even if the virus has always been here, introducing a non-native species, with high susceptability and infection rates to a potentially significant disease, and employing intensive farming methods in close contact with related wild species has significant potential for harm. This isn't even an industry with any local ownership. Its All owned by Norwegian companies with little vested interest in the BC environment or its wild fisheries. For the risk what do we get? A few jobs that are small in number in comparison to the economy of BC, the possibility of spreading PRV much more widely than it would exist in the natural population, and possibly spreading a new form of it through the Pacific stocks if not now, in the future.
 
Wow. This forum is crazy. Full of conspiracies, half truths, edited facts...Yikes. Citing a court decision as a proof of science is blatantly wrong. However, the long and short of it is this...

How can we improve our aqua culture such that any negative impacts will be so small that they are manageable and allow us sustainability? Putting our heads in the sand and pretending that we can make them disappear is juvenile and not really trying to protect the resource - wild salmon.

We should work to create standards that are vigilantly adhered to but that are also fair and economically sound. When a company successfully follows the standards and achieves success, we should allow for growth and applaud profitability. We cannot get rid of fish farms no more then we can get rid of oil and gas. I bet if you examined the carbon cost of producing a single farmed salmon, and then compared it to the cost of gassing up a boat and heading out to catch a wild salmon, well we would all be ashamed. Maybe the climate warriors can start chastising the fisherman for there blatant disregard for our planet. Pick your poison but the truth is we need all food we can get and the unintended consequence of your petitions and objectives will have you sitting at home when the salmon fishing bans come into affect.
 
Given all the risks we know about farming animals on land why for the love of god are we not farming land animals in the ocean!!! lol All kidding aside despite the risks of farming animals and land we seem to be doing ok however I agree there are concerns.
 
spopadyn said:
We cannot get rid of fish farms no more then we can get rid of oil and gas. .
Click to expand...

That part is certainly not true, BC produces a small proportion of the worlds farmed fish, and mostly for export. Almost none of us would have any impacts from eliminating farmed salmon here. We would all feel the impacts of eliminating oil and gas since our cars require it and our homes are mostly heated by NG.

Governments could easily mandate the farms move their production to land based facilities within a certain time frame as well. Lots of industries go by the wayside for a host of reasons. This one could with little impact on BC as a whole.
 
It's bc #1 agricultural export which of most, but no all is foreign owned. This does not mean its not a substantial tax base for the bc economy. Far from it.
 
Birdsnest said:
Agent you are again presenting a half truth. Millers work on this is about farmed atlantics and is at a very low level of infection population wise. This work clearly does not prove or even suggest prv harms wild pacific species.
Click to expand...
I think that anyone who suggests that PRv/HMSI does not negatively affect wild salmon - possibly even worse than the protected couch potatoes that farmed fish are - is being disingenuous to the point of absurdity. We already have a risk-based federal policy called the "Precautionary Approach" that all FF supporters seem to ignore. Another issue that your post adequately demonstrates is called: shifting the burden of proof - any assertions about no effect on wild stocks HAS TO be proven by the industry doing the affect.
 
spopadyn said:
... Citing a court decision as a proof of science is blatantly wrong...
Click to expand...
What a completely absurd statement.

Well, I guess we should get rid of courts then - if they serve no purpose - that way we couldn't force FF companies & their biased supporters/regulators to be accountable. Wait a minute - are those 2 things related??? hmmmm....

Actually, the judge rules on the "weight of evidence", spopadyn. In this case - the weight of scientific evidence. It's entirely appropriate.
 
Birdsnest said:
It's bc #1 agricultural export which of most, but no all is foreign owned. This does not mean its not a substantial tax base for the bc economy. Far from it.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention a source of election funds for compromised lobbyists and their lackey politicians - like the BC Liberals.
 
Birdsnest said:
Given all the risks we know about farming animals on land why for the love of god are we not farming land animals in the ocean!!! lol All kidding aside despite the risks of farming animals and land we seem to be doing ok however I agree there are concerns.
Click to expand...
And we have buffer zones between bison and domesticated cattle due to brucellosis and anthrax disease transmission concerns - yet nothing similar for open FF net-pens in the oceans where even the water moves. Good example, BN! Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
‘Shockingly huge’ steelhead salmon escape fish farm, threatening B.C.’s Lois Lake ecosystem
Replies
5
Views
1K
agentaqua
A
T
Ice On Southern BC ( Merrit, Kamloops, 100 Mile area, Okanagen and the Kooteneys)
Replies
5
Views
154
Samnjoe
S
Derby
BC wildlife federation town hall meeting
Replies
0
Views
159
Derby
Derby
A
Chinook bycatch by BC trawlers
Replies
21
Views
2K
wildmanyeah
W
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
3K
Fishing?
F
Back
Top