Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[GLG]

Or it is just impossible to refute my post thus the victim response. I think it's pretty clear that all of Morton and routlage science results in might, may and maybe with a compleat lack of any quantification whatsoever. This is no attack. This is just an observation of their repeated scientific results. my observation may be critical but it is still part of the scientific process.

Your observation is not part of the scientific process neither is a press release in the form of a pdf from industry. Now if you published a rejoin (sp) or a new paper or you could point to one then yes it would be part of the scientific process but to attack their credentials or their character is weak.

Dont worry I don't need to play the victim I've had much bigger challenges before.

 

[Birdsnest]

Pretty clear?
Maybe you should show us some examples.

Your observation is not part of the scientific process neither is a press release in the form of a pdf from industry. Now if you published a rejoin (sp) or a new paper or you could point to one then yes it would be part of the scientific process but to attack their credentials or their character is weak.

Dont worry I don't need to play the victim I've had much bigger challenges before.

I can tell it is difficult to disprove my observation that mortons and routlage' s science only results in might, may and maybe with a compleat lack of quantification in terms of effect and probability. If it is not factual then by all means show so but 6 post later all I am getting is how unfair and weak my point is without addressing my point.

 

[GLG]

I can tell it is difficult to disprove my observation that mortons and routlage' s science only results in might, may and maybe with a compleat lack of quantification in terms of effect and probability. If it is not factual then by all means show so but 6 post later all I am getting is how unfair and weak my point is without addressing my point.

Then show us the proof with a peer reviewed science paper that backs up your claim. Till then you are just giving us your opinion. Nothing more and nothing less, but it's not science so don't dress it up like it is.

 

[Birdsnest]

It used to be on these forums that one would make a claim and the others would refute it simply by showing otherwise. That's how it's always been. What Makes my point about Morton and routlage science any different? I'm not going to get into the antics of "I know you are but what am I". I'll settle for no response to my observation.

 

[spopadyn]

different area, different problems. Isnt that what you guys say when the Norway word gets thrown out there?

Well - then why when they have a great return of Sockeye would the anti-FF group say it is proof that in the absence of FF's the salmon come back? Geez - a collective suck and blow. I am not FF employee or an advocate, but seriously, those folks actually provide statistical science. Again, not a climate denier or a believer FF's have zero impact, but frankly, when the US states to the south post there salmon are dying due to ocean temps, and the Alaskan scientists say the same, it is downright BLIND to suggest that the salmon in the middle are dying from FF's. Give your head a shake. At least Fogged In came out and said he doesn't believe the science that Ocean temps are the greatest threat to salmon. Take a page from him and have the guts to say that "Ocean Temps, habitat destruction and over fishing are all less harmful to our salmon stocks than FF's". Then we can all try and get educated.

 

[GLG]

It used to be on these forums that one would make a claim and the others would refute it simply by showing otherwise. That's how it's always been. What Makes my point about Morton and routlage science any different? I'm not going to get into the antics of "I know you are but what am I". I'll settle for no response to my observation.

Well you might try something different then just saying (paraphrasing) she's fat and he is slow so the science is junk. Look we know you guy's are on the ropes and you need to lash out. We get that but I'll call you out when your arguments go down the road of just insults. Now do you have a point on why you think that their latest paper is wrong?

 

[spopadyn]

GREAT! conversation about temps. PRv gets activated as the temps rise - data from a number of researchers. I'd like to see a study looking at this piece of emerging science....

On one thread you are posting about the destruction of coral reefs caused by climate change but on this thread you wont tell us what the single largest stressor facing salmon is. Why not just answer my question - Is it ocean temps, habitat destruction , over fishing or FF's. What is the order of these stressors causing damage?

 

[eaglemaniac]

Pack it up and move out. eman

 

[Dave]

Pack it up and move out. eman

Why? He makes a lot of sense. Perhaps it's time for a few folks to read his posts; you might notice how you have been led.

 

[Birdsnest]

Well you might try something different then just saying (paraphrasing) she's fat and he is slow so the science is junk. Look we know you guy's are on the ropes and you need to lash out. We get that but I'll call you out when your arguments go down the road of just insults. Now do you have a point on why you think that their latest paper is wrong?

Well you might try something different then just saying (paraphrasing) she's fat and he is slow so the science is junk. Look we know you guy's are on the ropes and you need to lash out. We get that but I'll call you out when your arguments go down the road of just insults. Now do you have a point on why you think that their latest paper is wrong?

By admission in the results and conclusion and discussion of the paper which states that pvr infection MAY effect salmon fitness. The term "may" also means "may not". This is my point about all of their work. There is no arguing a result that states maybe for its fairly self explanatory. The same can be said for most of their other papers which again lack information in terms of probability or quantification.

 

[fogged in]

By admission in the results and conclusion and discussion of the paper which states that pvr infection MAY effect salmon fitness. The term "may" also means "may not". This is my point about all of their work. There is no arguing a result that states maybe for its fairly self explanatory. The same can be said for most of their other papers which again lack information in terms of probability or quantification.

I need to ask you this question Birdsnest
Now that your Fish Farm pathologist Dr. Gary Marty finally admits he has found HSMI virus in Atlantic Salmon and research states HSMI is almost always accompanied by the PRV virus...is the presence of HSMI another MAY effect wild salmon or a for sure that it at least weakens wild salmon to the point they become vulnerable to predators?
I do believe Dr. Marty is quoted as saying in the past that he does not test for the HSMI virus because it does not exist on the west coast.
Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

[terrin]

I wonder if the BC Fish Farms are monitored in the same way for PRV & HSMI? Bacterial kidney disease is a notifiable disease under the Diseases of Fish Acts 1937 and 1983 and is a List III disease under European Community Council Directive 91/67/EEC. In Great Britain, all fish farms holding salmon or trout are inspected at least once a year for BKD. Fish are examined visually for evidence of infection and suspect tissue samples are taken for testing in the laboratory.



Under Commission Decision 2004/453/EC the zone of Great Britain is approved for having a control and eradication programme for BKD. To maintain the control and eradication programme, 30 fish are sampled for BKD every second year from each farm holding salmonids.



Under this legislation zones cannot export to zones of equal or higher health status except from farms which become approved through an inspection and testing programme.



Farms which are confirmed as infected with BKD are controlled by movement restrictions and must enter into an eradication programme with a view to the controls being removed.



Transmission of BKD can be vertical via eggs or sperm, or horizontal by direct contact with infected fish or water. There are no licensed vaccines or antibiotic treatments for BKD, so the most effective method of control is prevention of movements of live fish. Eggs from infected farms are not permitted to be used as broodstock.

 

[spopadyn]

Pack it up and move out. eman

Love how all the climate deniers, habitat deniers and overfishing deniers want me to move on. Eagle, why don't you read the posted articles and tell me how all that real science is wrong. This might be hard to figure out so let me help you with the math:

If half of the fish are being killed by fish farms, and fish farms are scientifically proven to be less of a stressor causing salmon destruction, then say, rising ocean temps, that means we have zero salmon. Do you get what you anti FF's r actually claiming? You should do a bit of reading and then maybe contribute something educated to the debate.

Have you noticed how GLG, AA, Terrin, Rockdog, Bigdoegh. Etc won't actually go on the record as to the biggest problem facing our salmon collapse? Why is that? Can anybody help me on this? Hey Eagle, care to take a position?

 

[agentaqua]

I think that the point that there is multiple stressors/impacts to our wild stocks - has been covered numerous times on this thread and others - by numerous posters posters - both pro and con. I know I have - along with other posters already openly acknowledged that fact - and I know that I have already numerous times gave my opinion as to why that is - and the fact that the relative amounts of those impacts vary temporally and geographically. I also know we have had the conversation around why we can and should focus on the impacts we have some control of - and demand openness and transparency in generating the data we need in order to understand and manage those impacts - including actual environmental assessments that other industries already adhere to (and the FF industry never has due to collusion) - and a consensus-based decision-making process (again, something the FF industry has successfully avoided).

SO I find it extremely disingenuous that the numerous FF advocates/pundits always seem to conveniently forget these conversations that they have been a part of - and attempt to shift both the burden of proof - as well as the direction of the conversation when it gets uncomfortable - and looks at the potential and realized impacts from the FF industry. The "look over there - a squirrel" defense.

I am not seeing where they are committed to resolving the issues surrounding the open net-cage technology - and protecting wild stocks. Frankly - I don't believe they are committed to helping protect the health of wild salmon when they demonstrate this kind of focused distraction. The lack of responsible data - and the lack of interest in generating those data - only benefits the status quo for the open net-cage industry and fails to professionally and responsibly deal with the debate.

To me - it simply reaffirms my belief that the promoters of any industry should never simultaneously be the regulators - as in the case of the BCMoA, DFO and CFIA.

 

[agentaqua]

Glad we cleared that up that its restricted to norway! can we stop mention norway and studies from their now?

Yet another example of "nothing to see here, folks". ""look a squirrel!" defense.

It should be VERY obvious that the only logical and plausible rational explanation as to how a "Norwegian" disease got to BC was through the NORWEGIAN FF industry.

The lame but irresponsible alternative excuses offered by the FF pundits - are at least - entertaining yet sad - if nothing else. It does however confirm their lack of commitment to the health of wild salmon to me.

 

[agentaqua]

Nice try agent. How do you suppose this virus was found in Alaska?

Another disingenuous attempt at a diversion from the implications of the finding that a new, novel Norwegian-based disease was introduced to the West Coast and spread far enough to be found in Alaska.

The anadromous salmon from the Fraser (as one example) - travel hundreds and hundreds of kilometers down the Fraser as smolts - up through the "Salish Sea' and to the Discovery Islands where there are numerous FFs - up through to Alaska - many hundreds of KMs - out to the Alaska Gyre for a few trips around - maybe thousands of KM this time - and down back again in reverse. Round trip - maybe +5000km.

Yet Dave seems to pretend in his post that an arbitrary and invisible line placed by humans at the BC/Alaskan border can somehow magically stop this migration and the viral disease found within those salmon hosts - and protect Alaska from getting PRv. I find that both an irresponsible and uniformed view that actually staggers my mind - since I would expect that most of the posters would at least already know this rudimentary information on Pacific salmon.

This was discussed at least a couple times already in the past:

agentaqua, Dec 20, 2016
Viruses in present bc salmon farms

A qoute from Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders given in evidence at recent House of Commons Fisheries Committee hearings;

" When I started down this path of research in 2012, I was told by an upper manager, who's no longer with the department, that it was irresponsible to ask research questions that could potentially result in negative economic ramifications on an industry if we did not already know the answer. At the time, my lab was developing very powerful technology that could simultaneously quantitate 47 different pathogens—viruses, bacteria, and fungal parasites—in 96 fish at once. We had populated this platform with assays to virtually all the infectious agents that were known or suspected to be pathogenic in salmon worldwide, including many that were associated with emerging diseases in other parts of the world but that had never been assessed in Canada. The manager was concerned that by employing this technology, we would make our salmon in B.C. look dirty, and impact their economic value in the market, and that if we uncovered agents that were not known to be endemic, ENGOs and the public would immediately point to the aquaculture industry as the culprit. As such, the attitude was don't look closely, especially for things that we didn't know already were there. It took almost two years to get approval to go ahead with this technology, which we are now employing on over 26,000 wild, enhanced, and farmed salmon in B.C."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...m=FOPO&Mee=38&Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1

There are more interesting tidbits as well. Dr. Miller-Saunders testimony begins at 1645 in the link above.

Thanks for the post Cuttle. Unfortunately, not unexpected nor shocking. Been saying that there has been pressure and collusion w the industry in the Aquaculture Branch of DFO for years now. Reference the "scary scenario" posted at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/dfo-still-says-no-isa.47986/#post-581876

I would add PRv to ISAv now - as a concern.

AND:
agentaqua, Dec 5, 2011
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/dfo-still-says-no-isa.47986/#post-581876

 

[Birdsnest]

Interesting agent how you always turn the conversation into grouping individuals on this forum into the side of pundits and spokes persons etc instead of addressing the individual posters dispite admins wishes not to do so.
It also shows that you don't have the eye on the prize(protecting wild salmon) when your so eager to believe pvr came from salmon farms despite a lack of evidence of such.
I think spopadyn is asking some reasonable questions.

 

[wildmanyeah]

AA,

GLG already stated that a FF only a few KM away does not have an impact on wild stock returns such as cowichan chinook. Now you want us to believe that FF thousands of KM away are having an effect on alaska wild salmon returns.

was GLG wong in what he stated then?

 

[bones]

The sign of a weak argument is to attack the messenger not the message.

WOW YOUR NOT KIDDING!!!!!

 

[spopadyn]

AA,

GLG already stated that a FF only a few KM away does not have an impact on wild stock returns such as cowichan chinook. Now you want us to believe that FF thousands of KM away are having an effect on alaska wild salmon returns.

was GLG wong in what he stated then?

I think the Anti-FF contingent is actually running out of any real science and just blindly charging off a cliff. As neither a FF advocate nor a Anti-FF advocate, it seems so bizarre that organizations like the WWF (arguably the largest conservation society on our planet) are busy tackling the salmon issue based upon what they see as the greatest threat to the species (there top two supported by vast scientific studies are: rising ocean temps followed by habitat destruction (over fishing remains a solid 3)). The Anti-FF group won't even concede what the real science is showing, and oddly enough, people like A. Morton would never have an issue with that. Real science isn't about hyperbole and exaggeration or a picture. If the Anti FF group stated that the likely damage to the wild stock population was 3% or 1% or even 0.5%, I wouldn't believe that this is so inconsequential that something shouldn't be done. It means there are actions that need to be taken until this numbers become negligible. I think the FF's are actually pretty responsive to that. When the Barkley Sound salmon returned in 2016 to record numbers all the while the Fraser sockeye didn't show up, the issue of migrating past FF's as the cause was irrelevant (we all know it was a temperature blob). There are FF's right at the top of the Alberni Inlet and yet that (albeit man made) sockeye run remains really strong.

So, is it that the FF's are tucked away so that they are far enough away from the migration path so as to have no effect? Maybe. Maybe GLG could be on to something and a movement of a few 100 m's is enough to remove any appreciable damage from the FF's. Sounds good - we should be testing this (I know, this is already being scienced). This is something to get behind. If the FF's need to be relocated, what would the cost be? Is it excessive or is it cheap? We already know that the first land locked salmon system in Canada is bankrupt and needs additional government funds or it closes its doors. Likely, this technology, while attractive, is still uneconomic.

In the meantime, how can we replenish the wild stocks that have been decimated by the other factors. I not really sure what the answer is, but I think there are some solutions.

Habitat restoration is successful and we can all support and get behind this. In fact, many times when salmon habitat is restored, the result is even better then the previous undisturbed numbers. Maybe programs to augment habitat (they are doing this in Alaska) that isn't disturbed but has a positive impact should be considered (maybe it already is).

As GLG stated, salmon are all pre-wired to follow specific migratory paths. IS it acceptable to interbreed different strains in order to enhance a sockeye run? I know they return to wherever they have been transplanted, but if the placed a Harrison or Lake Cowichan fry in a system of collapses, would it return to that system but follow its normal migration route?

Over fishing is easy - but needs better predictive models and testing for us to get to the point where we are confident that the fish removed from the wild system by sport or commercial means is not damaging.

It is without a doubt that FF's carry pathogens and likely spread disease to wild stocks. I don't have any issue accepting this. But, I also believe that FF's serve a greater good and addressing all of the concerns raised by the conservationists, while essential to survival, doesn't preclude their existence.

So when AA ducks a simple question of what is the main cause of salmon decimation with:

"SO I find it extremely disingenuous that the numerous FF advocates/pundits always seem to conveniently forget these conversations that they have been a part of - and attempt to shift both the burden of proof - as well as the direction of the conversation when it gets uncomfortable - and looks at the potential and realized impacts from the FF industry. The "look over there - a squirrel" defense.

I am not seeing where they are committed to resolving the issues surrounding the open net-cage technology - and protecting wild stocks. Frankly - I don't believe they are committed to helping protect the health of wild salmon when they demonstrate this kind of focused distraction. The lack of responsible data - and the lack of interest in generating those data - only benefits the status quo for the open net-cage industry and fails to professionally and responsibly deal with the debate. "

it is actually a joke. On behalf of all the industry supporters I can only say "We care about our salmon and kids just as much as you do". Now put away your sanctimonious babble and man (or woman) up.