N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis the reason I keep asking "what strain of IHNv" do those feedlots have and probably also the reason "they" don't answer that question.

Not saying this was the case or cause; however, it sure is a reason NOT to be giving disease records to "independent scientists". Our salmon have built up resistance to the U clade strain of IHNv. In the wild they never have a high density exposure to the L clade. IF, a California salmon happens to swim by those feedlots and infect them with that L clade. And, the feedlot un-naturally multiplies that strain and there is a high density exposure to our "adult" mature migrating sockeye (who have not built any resistance to that strain) that very much has the potential of high mortalities and morbidity to their offspring going unnoticed on their out migration. Next thing you know the entire run could very well "go missing" for unknown reasons. e.g. 2009 Fraser River Sockeye? Again, it sure is a reason NOT to be giving disease records to any "independent scientists" and would love to see how the industry and DFO would defend something like that.

Here's the lab report confirming IHN, as found on our website: http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Dixon Bay Lab Report.PDF

Original page: http://www.mainstreamcanada.com/dixon-bay-virus-update

As far as I know it was the "U" clade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anybody else feel like we are living in a real-life bad George Orwell novel where "sustainability officers" spew lies, deflection and propaganda in order to convince the population "there's nothing to see here - move along"; and the government makes open net-cage aquaculture "sustainable" meerly by calling it so - meanwhile - demeaning, silencing and intimidating independent researchers?

How did we fall so far from the ideals of democracy and good governance?

Where are we headed as a society?

Agreed, What the hell happened to the Canada that I grew up in?
 
Here's the lab report confirming IHN, as found on our website: http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Dixon Bay Lab Report.PDF

Original page: http://www.mainstreamcanada.com/dixon-bay-virus-update

As far as I know it was the "U" clade.
Thanks for the info, CK. I have 3 questions:

1/ They state that the IHN titre levels in the one sockeye that died in the cohabitation study w IHN injected Atlantics was "low". Why? How could this be? How could IHN kill a fish and yet - the titre levels remain low? That just doesn't make sense to me. If IHN did kill the fish - the titre levels would be high - would they not? Was it actually IHN that killed that sockeye - or was it something else? This was not explained.

2/ What was described in the 3 lines at the bottom of page 3, after Marty sent the results to the National Aquatic Animal Health Program - the one that also supposedly tests for wild stocks?

3/Why wasn't the positive IHN results reported up the line to OIE?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why thank you... based on what you just posted, as far as I know exposure was to the L clade? Want to dispute that?

Why would you think that was the case Charlie?

I will see if I have anything more than remembering a personal conversation with a DVM to back it up.

The "U" clade would seem to be the most likely one, being widespread (from Washingtom to Alaska) and multi-species (salmonids and herring).

The "M" clade effects trout and steelhead from Idaho to Washington hatcheries, and the "L" clade is found in Chinook in Oregon and Northern California.

I'm sure you already know this, but here's some reading for everyone else:

http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/305/5story.html

http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/304/1story.html

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2003/55/d055p187.pdf
 
Why would you think that was the case Charlie?

I will see if I have anything more than remembering a personal conversation with a DVM to back it up.

The "U" clade would seem to be the most likely one, being widespread (from Washingtom to Alaska) and multi-species (salmonids and herring).

The "M" clade effects trout and steelhead from Idaho to Washington hatcheries, and the "L" clade is found in Chinook in Oregon and Northern California.

I'm sure you already know this, but here's some reading for everyone else:

http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/305/5story.html

http://www.newsdata.com/fishletter/304/1story.html

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2003/55/d055p187.pdf

Wow, thats alot of information on the last link.
 
Canada missing the aquaculture boat
Canada: An independent think tank on issues of national policy suggests that Canada needs to do a much better job of farming the seas


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

When one looks at the graph of output by the Canadian aquaculture industry, it is a picture of growth followed by stagnation. And this is troubling, given the huge coastline that this country owns and the continued world demand for health-promoting seafood. Managing Director Brian Lee Crowley of the Ottawa, Ontario-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute seems to agree; “Canada needs a “Blue Revolution” of its own so it can start wringing from its waters the same bounty of food and prosperity that its land has yielded for generations, says a study by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute released today. The Institute is the only non-partisan, independent national public policy think tank in Ottawa focusing on the full range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

An Institute media release issued recently provides more details about the missed opportunities:

Aquaculture is a clear case of Canada failing to live up to its natural and human endowment, says Brian Lee Crowley, in calling for reforms to antiquated property rights and cumbersome regulations that have hamstrung the industry for years. Aquaculture should be every bit as synonymous with Canada as wheat or beef, given the enormous length of this country’s coastline and the world-class expertise in fish farming that exists here, said the author, Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. “Instead, we are literally treading water,” “Aquaculture is one of those places where we have got it wrong.”

Canada’s aquaculture industry has stagnated in recent years, the victim of a cumbersome and inefficient regulatory system, restrictive tariff and non-tariff barriers, special interest groups, and an antiquated system of property rights that makes little distinction between wild fish gathered in the open ocean and those that are farmed. “Only one factor explains our lack of progress: the rules and institutions under which we operate,” Mr. Crowley said. “We have not created the conditions in which it is worthwhile to invest capital in aquaculture.”

In Canada, aquaculture production has varied only slightly between 155,000 and 175,000 tonnes over the past decade. If anything, total production was slightly lower in 2010-2011 than in 2000-2001. While average annual rates of growth in the industry for the rest of the world are 6 percent or more, Canada’s output has fallen outright. Yet, the so-called Blue Revolution – taking food production off the land and into the waters of the globe – is already well advanced, Mr. Crowley said. “Aquaculture is the fastest growing source of food in the world at the moment. Global demand for seafood is increasing by almost 10 percent a year. A fifth of humanity finds its main source of protein in fish, and those people are concentrated disproportionately in the developing world.”

Global production reached 73 million tonnes in 2009, over seven times the total in 1984. Between 1970 and 2008, the worldwide production of food fish from aquaculture rose at an average annual rate of nearly 10 percent, while the world population grew at an average of less than 2 percent a year. “And yet for the last decade in Canada the industry has at best just marked time, while other producers in New Zealand and Norway and Scotland and Chile have raced ahead,” Mr. Crowley said. Aquaculture is a clear case of Canada failing to live up to its natural and human endowment, he said. “The world beats a path to our natural resources, but not chiefly due to the resources themselves. What makes that endowment almost uniquely valuable in the world is that it exists within another vastly more important endowment of rules, institutions, and behaviours in Canada.”

Mr. Crowley said companies can invest billions of dollars to unlock opportunities, such as the oil sands, reasonably secure in the knowledge that the fiscal, regulatory, and contractual conditions they will face over a period of years are sufficient to recoup their investment and make some money. “It is precisely the absence of several aspects of the institutional endowment that make our aquaculture resources highly undesirable as a place to invest”, he said. “Secure property rights and stability of the regulatory regime were key in unlocking the long-term capital investment that has created such wealth elsewhere for Canada in natural resources. This is exactly what is lacking in aquaculture.”

Mr. Crowley calls for a five-point strategy. Foremost would be to establish the same private property rights in aquaculture that exist in agriculture. This would entail giving fish farmers ownership of the means of production and exclusive rights to the profit gained from using those means. “If outright ownership is not possible, the alternative should be to issue high-quality leases and licences for a sufficient length of time to encourage investment in water quality, equipment, and fish health,” Mr. Crowley said.

In addition, Canada must eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers that stand in its way of reaching markets. This will require reforming our thinking about food and agricultural trade, Mr. Crowley said. “We need to stop giving up so much of our international trade negotiating power to protect a few small supply-managed sectors that serve only a tiny domestic market, and instead use our negotiating power to open up the international opportunities in foreign markets,” he said. “Our grain farmers recently won this freedom. It is imperative that we not stop there, but integrate all of our food producers into that web of international rules and institutions that are part of the institutional endowment that confers success in Canada.”

Other strategies include creating an independent government agency to regulate and support aquaculture; replacing politicized decision-making with objective cost-benefit analysis in disputes concerning aquaculture; and reforming the cumbersome regulatory approach to aquaculture to encourage farmers and food processors to adopt new technologies and products.
Publisert: 30.04.13 kl 07:00
 
I second that Clipper. written by a fish farner for fish farmers
The only thing that scares me about these right-wing yahoos (i.e. "special interest" group as they describe themselves) - is that they have Harper's cell on speed dial.
 
The above article scares the crap out of me. It's exactly the wrong thing to do.

No kidding. But if I recall, these papers that these guys keep posting up are just feedlot propaganda. Those papers (Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland), are not peer reviewed, nor are they accepted as scientific fact.
Correct me if Im wrong, but I'm sure someone pointed that out many pages back.
 
And by the way I was in superstore yesterday looking at some anemic looking atlantic salmon that were yellow where they should have been white. blahhh
 
The above article scares the crap out of me. It's exactly the wrong thing to do.
Exactly Clipper!
What the good Mr. Crowley fails to understand is that the huge ocean coastline of Canada (plus the Continental shelf) and our rivers and streams ALREADY represents the greatest "fish farm" we could ever wish for. All it requires is proper protection and management, including habitat protection and nature will take care of itself. Instead his philosophy appears to be a bizarre mixture of privatisation and industrialisation of the oceans. As though somehow nature is not "productive" enough!! He wants to break all the natural laws and confine all ocean production to private pens, just like the land feed lot models, and ship in food for the "stock" in the pens. Only in the world of business can this bizarre world of "something for nothing" be promoted, because he fails to mention this wonderful productivity he hints at can only be sustained by stripping the ocean of fish and krill in other parts of the world. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, with all its environmental consequences. Carnivorous fish feed lots are nothing more than energy consuming conveyer belts for moving ocean protein from the Southern Oceans and other parts of the world to the rich Northern Hemisphere. And to even make that mad scheme viable it has to be accompanied with drugs, vaccines and dyes because of the unnatural crowded conditions the fish "stock" is confined within! And he wishes to, at the same time, put at risk the wild salmon and everything that depends on it, in order to make the profits he sees possible. The arrogance and ecological ignorance of the man are simply staggering.
A true Force of Darkness if ever there was one!!
 
One of the best articles on this whole mess I have read so far
http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/477

One a side note we are seeing the "death throws" of feedlots PR machine with the "Odd" article posted by Seye2.
The question is not if they will die, its is when they will die and what kind of a mess they will leave behind.
 
Exactly Clipper!
What the good Mr. Crowley fails to understand is that the huge ocean coastline of Canada (plus the Continental shelf) and our rivers and streams ALREADY represents the greatest "fish farm" we could ever wish for. All it requires is proper protection and management, including habitat protection and nature will take care of itself. Instead his philosophy appears to be a bizarre mixture of privatisation and industrialisation of the oceans. As though somehow nature is not "productive" enough!! He wants to break all the natural laws and confine all ocean production to private pens, just like the land feed lot models, and ship in food for the "stock" in the pens. Only in the world of business can this bizarre world of "something for nothing" be promoted, because he fails to mention this wonderful productivity he hints at can only be sustained by stripping the ocean of fish and krill in other parts of the world. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, with all its environmental consequences. Carnivorous fish feed lots are nothing more than energy consuming conveyer belts for moving ocean protein from the Southern Oceans and other parts of the world to the rich Northern Hemisphere. And to even make that mad scheme viable it has to be accompanied with drugs, vaccines and dyes because of the unnatural crowded conditions the fish "stock" is confined within! And he wishes to, at the same time, put at risk the wild salmon and everything that depends on it, in order to make the profits he sees possible. The arrogance and ecological ignorance of the man are simply staggering.
A true Force of Darkness if ever there was one!!

You said it very well Englishman, this is why all the salmon feedlot farmers arguments dont't ultimately stand up as their industry is not sustainable over the long term. Our coastline is the biggest, best salmon producing entity on the planet if it is protected and managed well. Fish farms are man made interventions, short term, short sighted for quick profits only endeavour that will destroy the marine environment and ultimately themselves given enough time.
 
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald-Laurier_Institute

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) is a right-leaning public policy think tank located in Ottawa, Canada. The Managing Director of MLI is Brian Lee Crowley who was also the founding President of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a think tank based in Atlantic Canada.

Founded in 2010, the group is named after two of Canada’s earliest and most recognizable political leaders: Sir John A. Macdonald was Canada’s first prime minister, famous for his subsidized rail program and high manufacturing tariffs. [1] [2] Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the country’s first French-Canadian prime minister.[3] MLI is politically independent and a Canada Revenue Agency-registered charity for educational purposes.[4] Its official mandate is "to make poor quality public policy unacceptable in Ottawa".[5]

The institute provides detailed information with respect to its research independence, which includes both internal controls (through a board of directors and a research advisory board) and external peer review of research efforts.[6] The institute derives its undisclosed financial support from individual, corporate[7] and private foundation [8] funding sources.[9] Its stated focus is on reducing the federal government's role in society and advocating for greater private corporate development.

The Institute professes to be strictly non-partisan and points to its name as a prime indicator of this intent. However, as a think tank directed by high-profile businesspeople with an emphasis on lowering business taxes, reducing government spending [1], privatizing the healthcare system [2] and "working toward a common security perimeter with the United States"[3] the institute's sympathies are on the right wing of the political spectrum. There are direct links between the founding of the institute and Jim Flaherty, the Conservative finance minister [4]. The founder of the institute (Brian Lee Crowley) has been a close advisor of Flaherty as well.[5] In addition, some of the institute's report writers have strong conservative views.[6] Moreover, links between Brian Lee Crowley and the right-wing Galen Institute [7] and intellectual debts to free market economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises [8] mark clearly its neoliberal position.

be very, very afraid (Crowley on right, socially/mentally challenged on left):
 

Attachments

  • timthumb.jpg
    timthumb.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 45
Last edited by a moderator:
You said it very well Englishman, this is why all the salmon feedlot farmers arguments dont't ultimately stand up as their industry is not sustainable over the long term. Our coastline is the biggest, best salmon producing entity on the planet if it is protected and managed well. Fish farms are man made interventions, short term, short sighted for quick profits only endeavour that will destroy the marine environment and ultimately themselves given enough time.

X2, Englishman & WitW,

On a global scale, there's a whole lot more to aquaculture than just net cage salmon farming. I believe producing protein through aquaculture can be a net gain. China has been doing it for centuries. Canada has had a thriving shellfish aquaculture industry and a freshwater aquaculture industry for nearly a century. Not at the same scale as salmon farming is at today but I think that 'get rich quick' Monsanto domination model will fail in the long run.

We just need to ensure we help our wild salmon survive in the interim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top