Court Case Won Against Salmon Farm Industry Abuses!

[ClayoquotKid]

Worth a read: http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/conne...interactionsGDMarty2015-03-16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

10
Piscine reovirus (PRV) in British Columbia Piscine reovirus has generated significant publicity in BC over the past 2.5 years. An American organization, the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee, recently investigated the available information about PRV in Western North America and concluded, “The ubiquitous nature of piscine reovirus (PRV), its apparent long time presence in wild Pacific salmonid stocks and the lack of clear association with disease suggest the virus poses a low risk to wild species of Pacific salmonids.”20 The lead author on the resultant white paper, Dr. Ted Meyers, has a Ph.D. in fish histopathology, and he has been conducting histopathology on Alaska salmonids for about 30 years. The white paper also stated: 1. “The disease "heart and skeletal muscle inflammation" (HSMI) has not been reported in wild salmon populations in Norway or elsewhere and thus appears to only be a threat to farmed fish.” 2. “Surveys detected the presence of PRV genetic material in wild and cultured Chinook and coho salmon from Washington State, BC Canada, and Alaska, where years of surveillance have reported no presence of HSMI.” 3. “HSMI has not been reported in North America.” 4. “HSMI has not been reported in trout or Pacific salmon species.”
These conclusions are consistent with the data in the three peer-reviewed scientific publications that include analysis of samples from BC (Kibenge et al. 2013; Marty et al. 2014; Garver et al. 2015).

UPDATE:

Molecular testing of archived fish tissues in BC, Canada has shown that PRV was present in asymptomatic wild and farmed Pacific salmon since 1987 and may have been present as early as 1977 before Atlantic salmon were imported for aquaculture.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/pnfhpc/pubs/ireports/Piscine_Orthoreovirus_PNFHPC_Whitepaper.pdf
Most important - The presence of a virus does not equal the presence of a disease.

 

[salmonkiller01]

Just a question CK, although the farmed fish have the virus and it does not lead to the disease as said may of time would it not be in the interest of fish farms to sell virus free fish? I would think the consumer would be turned off by this. I am sure that all our cows chickens and pork have something wrong with them and it will be brought up, but again is there not an impact on consumption if it was out that Atlantic salmon in BC contains the PRV virus although it is said to be safe for consumption.

 

[GLG]

Worth a read: http://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/conne...interactionsGDMarty2015-03-16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

10
Piscine reovirus (PRV) in British Columbia Piscine reovirus has generated significant publicity in BC over the past 2.5 years. An American organization, the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee, recently investigated the available information about PRV in Western North America and concluded, “The ubiquitous nature of piscine reovirus (PRV), its apparent long time presence in wild Pacific salmonid stocks and the lack of clear association with disease suggest the virus poses a low risk to wild species of Pacific salmonids.”20 The lead author on the resultant white paper, Dr. Ted Meyers, has a Ph.D. in fish histopathology, and he has been conducting histopathology on Alaska salmonids for about 30 years. The white paper also stated: 1. “The disease "heart and skeletal muscle inflammation" (HSMI) has not been reported in wild salmon populations in Norway or elsewhere and thus appears to only be a threat to farmed fish.” 2. “Surveys detected the presence of PRV genetic material in wild and cultured Chinook and coho salmon from Washington State, BC Canada, and Alaska, where years of surveillance have reported no presence of HSMI.” 3. “HSMI has not been reported in North America.” 4. “HSMI has not been reported in trout or Pacific salmon species.”
These conclusions are consistent with the data in the three peer-reviewed scientific publications that include analysis of samples from BC (Kibenge et al. 2013; Marty et al. 2014; Garver et al. 2015).

Most important - The presence of a virus does not equal the presence of a disease.

It's no wonder your team lost in court. With statements like this the judge must have rolled his eyes.

1. “The disease "heart and skeletal muscle inflammation" (HSMI) has not been reported in wild salmon populations in Norway or elsewhere and thus appears to only be a threat to farmed fish.”

Let's break down the logic....
In Norway, HSMI has not been reported in wild salmon but appears to be only a threat to farmed fish.
or we could say this
HSMI is not a threat to wild salmon but is a threat to farmed salmon.
or we could say this
HSMI does not occur in wild salmon but it does occur in farmed salmon.
or we could say this
HSMI does not occur in wild salmon (because we don't find the sick ones) but it does occur in farmed salmon (because the sick ones can be found in the net).

What happens to a sick salmon in the wild? Answer is, they don't last long because they are picked off by predators.
What happens to a sick salmon on your farm? Answer is, they get hand feed and are protected until they recover from the virus and get sent to market.

These conclusions are consistent with the data in the three peer-reviewed scientific publications that include analysis of samples from BC (Kibenge et al. 2013; Marty et al. 2014; Garver et al. 2015).

No they are not.... you need to read the papers and dozens more that are from scientist in Norway

and....
Kibenge et al. 2013 showed us that this new strain of the PRV virus is a new comer to BC and came from Norway in '06-'08 the same virus that is confirmed in Norway to cause HSMI.

Conclusions

PRV should be considered as a member of a new genus within the family Reoviridae with two major Norwegian sub-genotypes. The Canadian PRV diverged from Norwegian sub-genotype Ia around 2007 ± 1, whereas the Chilean PRV diverged from Norwegian sub-genotype Ib around 2008 ± 1.
http://www.virologyj.com/content/10/1/230

Most important - The presence of a virus does not equal the presence of a disease.

If your so sure of yourself with this statement then let the public test your fish. It wont cost you a dime and we can have the samples sent to Norway for an independent 3rd party check. Seems to me your industry agreed to Kristy Miller checking them right? What happened there? Oh Yea... you reneged on that deal. Why is that? Afraid what she might find?

CK your industry is responsible for bring this virus from Norway to here. Do you really think that's a good idea? Your sitting on a powder keg and playing with matches and you seem not to care. Thankfully the Judge can see this and that would be why you have been ordered to clean up your mess. You have 115 day's left what are you going to do?

 

[GLG]

[3scxcIDuEOo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3scxcIDuEOo

 

[tortuga]

Keep up the good work Gil.
The tide seems to be turning on these scumbags.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Just a question CK, although the farmed fish have the virus and it does not lead to the disease as said may of time would it not be in the interest of fish farms to sell virus free fish? I would think the consumer would be turned off by this. I am sure that all our cows chickens and pork have something wrong with them and it will be brought up, but again is there not an impact on consumption if it was out that Atlantic salmon in BC contains the PRV virus although it is said to be safe for consumption.

All salmon carry viruses - wild, or farmed.

There are roughly 10,000,000 viruses in every drop of water in the ocean.

PRV was around before salmon farms, exists in fish from Alaska to Oregon, and has never even been associated with a disease in the Pacific, let alone been shown to cause one.

This PRV PR stunt is directed soley at harming the salmon farm industry through frivolous lawsuits, and damage to its social license to operate.

You will now see a distinct separation in postitions between accredited fish health professionals and activist biologists/lawyers as this plays out.

One side will use scientifically sound empirical evidence to support their case, and the other will rely on the emotions of the general public being led by spectacular leaps of logic, half-truths, lies by omission, and genetic fallacies.

Producing a viable product for market is extremely high on the priority list of anyone involved in salmon aquaculture, and those same healthy fish, as pointed out by fish health professionals, pose a very low risk of harm to wild stocks in the areas they are farmed.

Some people may not agree with the practice, but the decades old track record of salmon farms operating on the coast shows that there is no discernable negative impact on wild stocks where they exist.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Keep up the good work Gil.
The tide seems to be turning on these scumbags.

Always a pleasure, you guys have fun now.

 

[rockdog]

The constant spin from CK and his buds is absolutely nauseating. If I sat around and killed salmon smolts, I'd get roasted. But your industry, does it day in and day out, and it's okay. Absolutely disgusting, the time has come, move on....

 

[Whole in the Water]

"If your so sure of yourself with this statement then let the public test your fish. It wont cost you a dime and we can have the samples sent to Norway for an independent 3rd party check. Seems to me your industry agreed to Kristy Miller checking them right? What happened there? Oh Yea... you reneged on that deal. Why is that? Afraid what she might find?"

CK, if the salmon net pen feedlot industry is above board and innocent of causing and spreading any diseases and parasites in the marine environment then I challenge you and your industry to let independent, 3rd party tests to be completed on your fish as GLG noted above.

This is a completely reasonable request for an industry that as you and other industry supporters have stated here has done little wrong and has nothing to hide. Will you and your industry take up this challenge?

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain right? We await your response....

 

[finaddict]

This is a completely reasonable request for an industry that as you and other industry supporters have stated here has done little wrong and has nothing to hide. Will you and your industry take up this challenge?

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain right? We await your response....

You might waiting a loooooong time......................

 

[GLG]

All salmon carry viruses - wild, or farmed.

There are roughly 10,000,000 viruses in every drop of water in the ocean.

PRV was around before salmon farms, exists in fish from Alaska to Oregon, and has never even been associated with a disease in the Pacific, let alone been shown to cause one.

Are you talkin about the stealhead that tested positive for PRV back in 1977?
The one that refers to this golden nugget in the "new evidence" that the judge did in fact see....
From the XLS spreadsheet

the extract from recut section #3 was retrieved from the freezer and retested in duplicate for the L1 gene (Ct = 38.4 and undetected); and this from the cover page of the same spreadsheet *some paraffin blocks in this group probably include organs from the same fish as other blocks; because of tissue degradation in many samples, suspect results (nonrepeated Ct > 35.00) are reported as positive. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfd.12285/suppinfo

<tbody>
</tbody>

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that say the retest came out negative but Dr. Marty marked it as positive? How do you explain that?

This PRV PR stunt is directed soley at harming the salmon farm industry through frivolous lawsuits, and damage to its social license to operate.

If it was frivolous lawsuit why did go to court and why did you lose?
You want a social license then let the public test your fish.
Do you have something to hide?

You will now see a distinct separation in postitions between accredited fish health professionals and activist biologists/lawyers as this plays out.

One side will use scientifically sound empirical evidence to support their case, and the other will rely on the emotions of the general public being led by spectacular leaps of logic, half-truths, lies by omission, and genetic fallacies.

You are right about this... the question is why did the judge think your side was not using science?
...the weight of the expert evidence before this Court supports the view that PRV is the viral precursor to HSMI. [35]
...the evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, [45]
...it would be an unreasonable inference to draw from the evidence that it will not appear in farmed Atlantic salmon on the Pacific Coast. [57]
The evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, and therefore a “lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation” [45]

Producing a viable product for market is extremely high on the priority list of anyone involved in salmon aquaculture, and those same healthy fish, as pointed out by fish health professionals, pose a very low risk of harm to wild stocks in the areas they are farmed.

And that is what everyone wants and why we are asking for 3rd party testing.

Some people may not agree with the practice, but the decades old track record of salmon farms operating on the coast shows that there is no discernable negative impact on wild stocks where they exist.

Well that's rich.... What makes BC so special? Do we have some kind of force field that protects us from the rest of the world?

 

[bigdogeh]

[3scxcIDuEOo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3scxcIDuEOo

very good and informative video. I hope many here will watch it.
it's very sad that our government and these corporations won't even allow the public to sample these fish. If they were healthy they would have nothing to be concerned about. but it's pretty obvious they are trying to hide their complete mismanagement of our natural resources. shame on them. the public will eventually find out and the industry will hopefully die. hopefully before it's not too late for our wild salmon. Is there no-one higher up in our government involved with fisheries and farmed salmon with more than half a brain cell?
thxs alex and twyla and others that are helping spread the word of what's happening around our sacred coastal waters.
·

 

[Birdsnest]

From another forum:

The pathogenicity of a pathogen like a virus can be influenced by environmental factors (i.e. water temperature) and things like stress. One seldom works in isolation of the other. Endemic pathogens that we currently have in our waters are really no different. Having a virus doesn’t necessarily mean death of the host (fundamental, but often forgotten). Impacts can be either acute or chronic. It could impact a host’s fitness, reproduction and feeding which in combination with another pathogen lead to death. When you find a salmon carcass it is not exactly simple and straightforward to claim that one pathogen killed the fish over the other. Salmon carcasses can have many pathogens inside them. Secondly, some life stages are more susceptible than others to a pathogen. For instance, adult Pacific Salmon that have IHNv have developed a natural resistance to IHN; whereas, juvenile Pacific salmonids (i.e. fry) are more susceptible to IHN. Thirdly, some species are more susceptible than others to certain pathogens. For instance, IHN is very fatal to Atlantic Salmon who have not developed an natural immunity like Pacific Salmon.

From 2010 to 2013, the case for PRV being a disease agent centered around its association HSMI due to correlation studies despite the fact that PRV genetic material in the fish has never been shown to actually cause HSMI. The fact that PRV is not part of any established national surveillance here in Canada kind of worked in Morton's favour during the trial and not so much for the Federal Government. The trial was more about the shortcomings of the government rather than Marine Harvest, in my opinion. However, since 2013, we have learned much more about PRV. Since the end of Cohen, the PRV controversy has spurred interest here so it has become more an area of research. In 2014, it was reported that PRV may have been here in our waters longer than salmon farming. In that study, none of the preserved samples or the fresh-frozen samples showed evidence of HSMI. In stark contrast, a study co-authored by Morton in 2013 determined that the Canadian PRV diverged from the Norway strain in 2007, but concluded that it was not known how the virus could have been transmitted from Norway to Canada since there has not been any direct importation of eggs from Norway since 1985. Well, salmon farming has been here longer than 2007. Morton has long theorized that viruses like PRV were brought into our waters from egg imports from Norway. Studies released this year have also shown that the PRV strain here is of low pathogenicity to Chinook, Sockeye and Atlantic Salmon. Researchers took PRV genetic material and inoculated Chinook (adult), Sockeye and Atlantic Salmon and held them for 5 months (HSMI typically develops 5-9 months after fish are transferred from fresh to salt water). After the holding period, none of the fish showed microscopic evidence of HSMI or any other disease (Note: The Chinook used were adult fish because researchers wanted to mimic conditions on the farm where jaundice occurs)

This does not mean that we do not need to know more about PRV (and researchers here in this country have indicated that), but then again we are still learning about other endemic viruses here – all have their different levels of risk. However, given current information since the beginning of the trial, I don’t see how the argument of PRV being guilty by association is very strong anymore. Many fish health professionals here in the Pacific Northwest are referring to PRV as low risk. We (governments, general public) currently accept and do much more risky things with our wild salmon. Although I concede that is not a great argument, it frustrates me that I see more accepted, riskier things going on while other things with less risk are vilified to no end. Other countries pump out millions of ranched salmon every year and there is mounting literature about its potential impact on wild salmon. I don’t see many fish farm critics concerned about risk there. But because these Pacific cousins are seen as “native” and not “non-native” like those horrible Atlantic Salmon it gets swept under the rug. Gravel is being removed from the Fraser River (thanks Kristy) as we speak and some folks that rag on fish farms and PRV have no problem with this gravel removal. Given what we know about this area of the Fraser River for Sturgeon and wild Salmon and what we know about PRV what would you say has more risk? From what I have read on the topic, I believe that HSMI becomes an issue when fish are stressed, but as I stated earlier this should not come as a big surprise as stress could contribute to the development of disease. Perhaps countries that experience HSMI are doing something different in their fish husbandry, but that is just speculation on my part. I believe there will be more research on PRV because of this ruling. If PRV genetic material can actually be scientifically shown to cause disease in not only Pacific Salmon, but also Atlantic Salmon then I can start seeing the concern of critics. In the meantime, I wonder what this ruling means for hatchery salmon because PRV has already been found in Pacific salmonids.

Lastly, the trial and the resulting comments by Morton afterwards make it seem that fish farm veterinarians do not take their jobs seriously enough when it comes to these fish transfers, but that is not true. They are licensed professionals who take their role seriously, so when they determine “low risk” they don’t do it lightly. Personally, it would not make sense to knowingly transfer diseased farm fish into net pens. Why spend all that money and effort on fish that are likely not going to make it to market size? That would be a money losing venture. The frustrating thing is that those transferred fish were deemed to be diseased without any evidence of disease. Thanks for your comments.

 

[Birdsnest]

Double post.

 

[GLG]

Birdsnest I ask you a question back on post #19
Here it is again
Have a question for Birdsnest, how old were the salmon that died from the Jaundice Syndrome?

More questions

Why wont the fish farm industry agree to have an independent 3rd party from Norway test our BC farm fish?

Do you think that would give some credibility to the question if HSMI is here or not?

Do you not think your industry needs to earn your social licence? This court case has the recreational anglers very concerned and you of all people must be aware of this.

Why wont your industry co-operate with Kristy Miller and Genome Canada?

“I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye salmon from salmon farms is serious or irreversible. Disease transfer occurs between wild and farmed fish, and I am satisfied that salmon farms along the sockeye migration route have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases that could have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.”
— Cohen Commission Final Recommendations, Vol. 3, page 6, column 1

The public spent a lot of money for this and other conclusions and don't you think we have a right to know what goes on inside those fish farms. After all you are on public waters that you share with the wild salmon.

You want a future here? Then your industry better step up to the plate and quit hiding behind 50 cent words and blog posts.

 

[agentaqua]

Who says hatchery fish don't get released without prv or other viruses for that matter. Carful for what you wish for.

I haven’t heard anyone make this claim, BN. I do know that hatchery fish are tested for some common diseases like IHN – and if they show positives – those eggs are destroyed – and NOT grown into smolts and stuck in open net-pens.

… Are you honestly telling me salmon farmers would knowingly spend that kind of money on diseased fish, fish that might not make harvest weight...

SM – I don’t think anyone WANTS “diseased” fish – either so-called “pro” nor “anti” camps. It’s (from the perspective of a company trying to make a buck) – when someone hands you lemons – do you make lemonade or do you throw the lemons out? What if there is no appreciable oversight – which is really what this court case was all about:
“On May 6, 2015 The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie handed down the decision that DFO has been unlawfully allowing the salmon farming industry to transfer farmed salmon into marine net pens that are carrying diseases with the potential to 'severely impact' the wild fishery at an international level [72].
He ruled that DFO is abdicating its legal responsibility to protect and conserve wild fish by handing off decisions about transferring fish with diseases to the salmon farming industry [83].”
I think fogged in and GLG covered this already.

It’s my understanding this virus is endemic here on the Pacific coast, and has been shown to exist before fish farms started their operations…. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Although GLG already adequately addressed this – I would like to add that Kibenge et al. (2013) found that the PRV reported in BC’s farmed salmon is a 98.1% nucleotide match to PRV sequenced from an Atlantic salmon diagnosed with HSMI in 2007 in Northern Norway. This nucleotide result suggests that a potentially pathogenic variant of PRV has entered BC much more recently.

Somewhat immune to Slice. That's BS. Lice have very short life cycles, and salmon are harvested, how can you explain an immunity ?

YIKES! SM! It’s called “slice resistance” and is a well-known phenomenon. for every expert dealing with pest management. GLG already covered this.

In 2013, ranched salmon accounted for 40% of the total commercial catch in Alaska. In fact, Alaska pumps out millions of ranched salmon (primarily pink) each year. Recent studies are looking more and more at competition from hatchery pinks from Alaska and Russia and their impact on wild stocks. If you look at Alaskan Chinook I would wager that you would not find many that would say they are thriving and abundant. The culprit is likely marine survival. Ranched salmon are not necessarily wrong, but they are not wild. The broodstock is chosen by humans, the fertilized eggs are raised in a hatchery, fed pellets, and raised in tanks before being reared for a short period of time in the ocean. So, although it is true that “fish farms” similar to those in BC are not in Alaska it is still involves the artificial propagation of juvenile salmon nonetheless.

Yes, Shuswap – but the real difference is length of time in pens, numbers of older year classes, and interactions with outmigrating juveniles. Yes – so-called “ocean ranching” is a form of aquaculture – it is usually only for a few weeks and involves (as you mentioned) juvenile fish.

Commercial open net-pen aquaculture – on the other hand – involves many months (some 18+) with older year classes that have had time to be exposed to numerous pests and pathogens and have had time for those vectors to amplify – and usually are in the pens when the wild juvenile stocks outmigrate.

From the perspective of epidemiology – it’s comparing apples and oranges, and a deliberately misleading defence of open net-pen industry.

I would add however – there are concerns around the numbers of juvenile salmon being pumped-out and carrying capacity and density-dependent effects on overall wild survival and stock trajectories from all the hatcheries and ocean ranching - all around the Pacific.

You do not understand the difference between a virus and a disease. Infected with a virus does not necessarily equate to having a disease. Wild Pacific salmonids already have endemic viruses but do not necessarily develop disease because of it. You don’t have to take my word for it – talk to any fish health professional.

Again – although what you say is correct Shuswap – it is again – a deliberately misleading defence of open net-pen industry.

The issue wrt impacts (potential and/or realized) to wild stocks is the “risk” of disease and parasite transfer (and amplification) to (particularly) susceptible life history stages – particularly the outmigrating juvenile wild salmon.

So the argument here seems to be ..

Excellent response, GLG!

A valid point indeed if the conditions for the two licences (marine finfish aquaculture and enhancement facilities) were the same which they are not.
The Minister delegates the decision to transfer fish from a licenced enhancement facility to a fish health veterinarian on staff with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not on staff with the enhancement facility.

Another excellent post, Cuttle…

All salmon carry viruses - wild, or farmed. There are roughly 10,000,000 viruses in every drop of water in the ocean.

GAG! CK!
That’s like saying since all humans have viruses we should fly into ebola country and roll on the corpses. I don’t need to say more here.

 

[Dave]

Wow, six pages and aa finally makes an appearance, lol! Most times, when an anti salmon farming thread is posted you are on it like mergansers on just released hatchery juveniles.
Just wondering … was the data you posted from Kibenge regarding a strain of PRV he claimed originated in Norway and was now in BC, suggesting salmon farms as the reason, obtained from the lab he ran, and was found to be not acceptable regarding protocols and procedures?

And, in a weaker moment aa, you confessed to having a fish hatchery background; I don’t but have some knowledge of how they work so if I’m wrong please help me out here. Other than the Cultus Lake sockeye hatchery program that screens broodstock for IHN and BKD, I know of no salmon hatcheries that screen fish for any disease, be it broodstock or juveniles, meaning it is entirely possible released fish have an endemic strain of PRV. To my knowledge it’s never been checked. Should it be?

 

[GLG]

Just wondering … was the data you posted from Kibenge regarding a strain of PRV he claimed originated in Norway and was now in BC, suggesting salmon farms as the reason, obtained from the lab he ran, and was found to be not acceptable regarding protocols and procedures?

Ah yes the sign of a weak argument..... You can't attack the message so you attack the messenger. Predictable isn't it, from the "friends of fish farms". The thing with science is that you can make predictions. So to answer your question watch this video from the Cohen Commission and then answer my question. Do you support a 3rd party testing of the salmon farms fish on behalf of the public?

[c7v17HSjrlM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7v17HSjrlM

 

[Dave]

Hmmm, different virus but reading your response confirms my suspicions.

 

[GLG]

Hmmm, different virus but reading your response confirms my suspicions.

The merchant of doubt.....
Marty and others have no problem citing his work so I would think it's political.
Oh and why don't you answer the question....
Do you support a 3rd party testing of the salmon farms fish on behalf of the public?