Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Good to see a website like this finally. Let me help you guys out. Here are some other myths or exaggerations spread by the film:
1. There is no evidence that diseases are out of control on fish farms. Critics can check out the Cohen Report.
2. The film is not entirely accurate about Harrison Sockeye migration. Actually there is uncertainty in their migratory route as explained in the Cohen Final Report (Vol. 3, Chapter 2, pg 62).
3. The film did not mention that Harrison Sockeye can suffer high prespawn mortality.
4. Salmon Leukemia diagnosis requires more than just a few symptoms, but the film doesn’t mention that.
5. DFOs Aquaculture website releases fish farm information to the public now, so to say that this information is not available is not true.
6. The film makes reference to the Chilean situation, but if ISA was here the fact is that we would likely see it on the farms first. There would not just be a few dead Atlantic Salmon, but millions of dead Atlantic Salmon. This was described by Dr. Nylund during the Cohen Commission. His comments and Dr. Miller’s were convienently edited during the film.
7. ISA is a reportable disease (OIE website) so if it is present on fish farms they have a legal obligation to report it.
8. Where was the testing of Harrison Sockeye? I noticed that Coho, Chum and Chinoook were sampled, but no Sockeye given that there were thousands of Sockeye carcasses for her to choose. Seeing as though Ms Morton was at the Harrison in 2011 what were the test results from Sockeye. Simple question. Fact is that she does not tell us in the film.
9. It was the OIE that conducted the audit of the AVC lab – not CFIA (http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/pr...le/information-on-oie-reference-laboratories/). However, this fact was not mentioned in the film.
10. The Moncton lab can find and report ISA. Saying that they cannot is incorrect. For instance, the lab has found ISA on east coast fish farms and it was reported to the OIE. Check out the database (http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Wahidhome/Home)
11. ISA was routinely tested by the province (see Annual Reports by the province). It wasn’t just selected because of something sinister.
12. Instead of getting Jody Eriksson’s (field researcher) opinion why wasn’t someone with some knowledge of fish pathogens consulted. He obviously has not been on spawning grounds much. White gills? How old was the carcass? Gills will go white after awhile. He is implying that the fish has ISA, but it is obvious that he doesn’t really know what he is doing or what to look for. He then when on to discover a common parasite in Pacific Salmon, but instead called it instantly suspicious. In fact, Mr. Eriksson called every spot, blemish, soft spot, parasite and wound suspicious and implied that it was because of disease. There is a problem and we should be doing more about it, but Mr. Eriksson’s way is not the way to go about it.
13. Ever seen stocked rainbow trout from BC hatcheries with deformities, Annisa? I don’t think so. Showing a fish with deformaties is again implying that some mysterious disease is implicated. She is working the “ick” factor to scare people from eating farmed fish, but it is not uncommon for even wild fish to have deformaties. Annisa needs to get out more see fish.
14. A skinny, GUTTED fish is determined to be unhealthy by Annisa.
15. The films says to buy your fish wild? Sure, I like eating wild fish, but remember that wild fish have pathogens also. Fact is that adult Fraser Sockeye are carriers of IHNV but do not typically develop IHN. Fact is that wild salmon have parasites also. Most of these pathogens are endemic to our coast (http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-Report.pdf#zoom=100)
16. There is no direct evidence that PRV gives heartattacks in fish. The presence of PRV alone does not constitute a diagnosis of HSMI. There is absolutely no evidence that PRV turns fish hearts to mush. Showing a soft looking heart from a salmon carcass does not necessarily mean that we should be automatically suspicious and think HSMI. There are likely other factors which interact with PRV infected fish to develop disease or not. Proper fish husbandry likely plays a key role and this is done on BC fish farms. This was omitted from the film. The fact is that HSMI has never been diagnosed on BC fish farms and that healthy fish that make it to market size can have PRV but not show HSMI. Ms Morton’s own supermarket trip proved that.
17. Bill 37 is misinterpreted by Morton again. This myth was already dispelled here: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/morton-petition.pdf
18. Morton’s marine anemia theory was not endorsed Justice Cohen (Vol. 2, Ch 5, pg 113). What Cohen did agree with was that governmental and non-governmental scientists should be reviewing fish health data to ask tthese “big picture” questions and encourage some open scientific debate.
I find it funny that farm critics complain about government and industry not being transparent, but after watching the film it is clear what they do not want the general public to see. Dr. Miller had much more to say but her comments were edited to just focus on what critics wanted. Most of the other factors brought up at the Cohen Commission were hardly even mentioned. For instance, Scott Hinch and his team has done some outstanding research with Fraser Sockeye for over 12 years now, but not even mentioned in the film. In my opinion, the Cohen Final Report provides an objective view to the issue. This film doesn’t even come close.
http://salmonconfidential.com/2013/03/11/harrison-sockeye-salmon-aids-and-other-fibs/
1. There is no evidence that diseases are out of control on fish farms. Critics can check out the Cohen Report.
2. The film is not entirely accurate about Harrison Sockeye migration. Actually there is uncertainty in their migratory route as explained in the Cohen Final Report (Vol. 3, Chapter 2, pg 62).
3. The film did not mention that Harrison Sockeye can suffer high prespawn mortality.
4. Salmon Leukemia diagnosis requires more than just a few symptoms, but the film doesn’t mention that.
5. DFOs Aquaculture website releases fish farm information to the public now, so to say that this information is not available is not true.
6. The film makes reference to the Chilean situation, but if ISA was here the fact is that we would likely see it on the farms first. There would not just be a few dead Atlantic Salmon, but millions of dead Atlantic Salmon. This was described by Dr. Nylund during the Cohen Commission. His comments and Dr. Miller’s were convienently edited during the film.
7. ISA is a reportable disease (OIE website) so if it is present on fish farms they have a legal obligation to report it.
8. Where was the testing of Harrison Sockeye? I noticed that Coho, Chum and Chinoook were sampled, but no Sockeye given that there were thousands of Sockeye carcasses for her to choose. Seeing as though Ms Morton was at the Harrison in 2011 what were the test results from Sockeye. Simple question. Fact is that she does not tell us in the film.
9. It was the OIE that conducted the audit of the AVC lab – not CFIA (http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/pr...le/information-on-oie-reference-laboratories/). However, this fact was not mentioned in the film.
10. The Moncton lab can find and report ISA. Saying that they cannot is incorrect. For instance, the lab has found ISA on east coast fish farms and it was reported to the OIE. Check out the database (http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Wahidhome/Home)
11. ISA was routinely tested by the province (see Annual Reports by the province). It wasn’t just selected because of something sinister.
12. Instead of getting Jody Eriksson’s (field researcher) opinion why wasn’t someone with some knowledge of fish pathogens consulted. He obviously has not been on spawning grounds much. White gills? How old was the carcass? Gills will go white after awhile. He is implying that the fish has ISA, but it is obvious that he doesn’t really know what he is doing or what to look for. He then when on to discover a common parasite in Pacific Salmon, but instead called it instantly suspicious. In fact, Mr. Eriksson called every spot, blemish, soft spot, parasite and wound suspicious and implied that it was because of disease. There is a problem and we should be doing more about it, but Mr. Eriksson’s way is not the way to go about it.
13. Ever seen stocked rainbow trout from BC hatcheries with deformities, Annisa? I don’t think so. Showing a fish with deformaties is again implying that some mysterious disease is implicated. She is working the “ick” factor to scare people from eating farmed fish, but it is not uncommon for even wild fish to have deformaties. Annisa needs to get out more see fish.
14. A skinny, GUTTED fish is determined to be unhealthy by Annisa.
15. The films says to buy your fish wild? Sure, I like eating wild fish, but remember that wild fish have pathogens also. Fact is that adult Fraser Sockeye are carriers of IHNV but do not typically develop IHN. Fact is that wild salmon have parasites also. Most of these pathogens are endemic to our coast (http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-Report.pdf#zoom=100)
16. There is no direct evidence that PRV gives heartattacks in fish. The presence of PRV alone does not constitute a diagnosis of HSMI. There is absolutely no evidence that PRV turns fish hearts to mush. Showing a soft looking heart from a salmon carcass does not necessarily mean that we should be automatically suspicious and think HSMI. There are likely other factors which interact with PRV infected fish to develop disease or not. Proper fish husbandry likely plays a key role and this is done on BC fish farms. This was omitted from the film. The fact is that HSMI has never been diagnosed on BC fish farms and that healthy fish that make it to market size can have PRV but not show HSMI. Ms Morton’s own supermarket trip proved that.
17. Bill 37 is misinterpreted by Morton again. This myth was already dispelled here: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/morton-petition.pdf
18. Morton’s marine anemia theory was not endorsed Justice Cohen (Vol. 2, Ch 5, pg 113). What Cohen did agree with was that governmental and non-governmental scientists should be reviewing fish health data to ask tthese “big picture” questions and encourage some open scientific debate.
I find it funny that farm critics complain about government and industry not being transparent, but after watching the film it is clear what they do not want the general public to see. Dr. Miller had much more to say but her comments were edited to just focus on what critics wanted. Most of the other factors brought up at the Cohen Commission were hardly even mentioned. For instance, Scott Hinch and his team has done some outstanding research with Fraser Sockeye for over 12 years now, but not even mentioned in the film. In my opinion, the Cohen Final Report provides an objective view to the issue. This film doesn’t even come close.
http://salmonconfidential.com/2013/03/11/harrison-sockeye-salmon-aids-and-other-fibs/
LOL
