Viruses in present bc salmon farms

I have no point to make other than you obviously don't believe the Canadian results of viral testing. If the US researchers are also saying ISAv is not present in their waters I wonder how they come to that assumption.
 
Nice sincere video. I'll bet none of them have investigated the changing water chemistry that has been happening to coastal salmon streams. Chemistry issues are notably effecting some interior lakes. The rise in ph that might be detrimental in some waters will benefit other waters. Just my opinion.

Is your comment based on in-depth knowledge / research of the changing chemistry of water in BC? or just, as you say at the end, you opinion?

I can say that while some of the dialogue we get into here on SFBC forum as it relates to science & research can be extremely useful as there are some very knowledgeable members on here, there are also those who 'just have an opinion' and that opinion could very well be completely baseless. I am not a scientist nor to do I conduct research for a living but I do get the chance to speak with scientists (many in that video in fact) who do this full time and have dedicated decades of work to their research. The ones I speak with are very hesitant to overstate their findings and when they do 'speak out' like in the video above they are doing so on very solid grounds (ie they have ample research/evidence to support what they say). As it relates to the protection of wild salmon (the point of the video) I can safely say these scientists have considered and are very well aware of changes in the chemistry in BC waters.

When scientists and researchers speak out like this I think the public needs to realize that they are doing do so because there are major issues/problems that are not be dealt with by gov't/industry and they have finally gotten to the point where they feel the need to go public. Not an easy thing to do for most of them but good on them and we should be supporting them when they do so. just my opinion.
 
Nice sincere video. I'll bet none of them have investigated the changing water chemistry that has been happening to coastal salmon streams. Chemistry issues are notably effecting some interior lakes. The rise in ph that might be detrimental in some waters will benefit other waters. Just my opinion.
I think the issue of impacts to wild salmon stocks is in a far larger context than just potential impacts through pH changes. Other posters have correctly characterized those impacts as: "death by a thousand cuts".

However, it you had wanted to follow the link I gave, Fishmyster (http://www.sfu.ca/coastal/research-series/listing/SpeakingfortheSalmon.html) - you would have found abundant peer-reviewed references and "Associated Resources" from past years series/workshops - some of which do mention water quality impacts in the context of climate change.

The link that corresponds most closely to the topic this thread discusses is: http://www.sfu.ca/coastal/research-series/listing/SpeakingfortheSalmon/PathogensAndDisease.html
 
Is your comment based on in-depth knowledge / research of the changing chemistry of water in BC? or just, as you say at the end, you opinion?

I can say that while some of the dialogue we get into here on SFBC forum as it relates to science & research can be extremely useful as there are some very knowledgeable members on here, there are also those who 'just have an opinion' and that opinion could very well be completely baseless. I am not a scientist nor to do I conduct research for a living but I do get the chance to speak with scientists (many in that video in fact) who do this full time and have dedicated decades of work to their research. The ones I speak with are very hesitant to overstate their findings and when they do 'speak out' like in the video above they are doing so on very solid grounds (ie they have ample research/evidence to support what they say). As it relates to the protection of wild salmon (the point of the video) I can safely say these scientists have considered and are very well aware of changes in the chemistry in BC waters.

When scientists and researchers speak out like this I think the public needs to realize that they are doing do so because there are major issues/problems that are not be dealt with by gov't/industry and they have finally gotten to the point where they feel the need to go public. Not an easy thing to do for most of them but good on them and we should be supporting them when they do so. just my opinion.


My opinion is based on in depth, long term observations, water sample analysis, water testing and studying the science in fresh water ecology.

I mean no disrespect to any of the scientists on the video but none of them have ever mentioned water chemistry. My personal lifetime observations in the field have me believing that rain chemistry is the smoking gun in depressed salmon populations. Its just too bad that none of them have researched rain chemistry or stream ecology changes because if they did they might be a little more optimistic right now.

Do you know any scientists who have been studying how the changing rain chemistry effects freshwater ecology?? If you do send them my way.
 
I think the issue of impacts to wild salmon stocks is in a far larger context than just potential impacts through pH changes. Other posters have correctly characterized those impacts as: "death by a thousand cuts".

However, it you had wanted to follow the link I gave, Fishmyster (http://www.sfu.ca/coastal/research-series/listing/SpeakingfortheSalmon.html) - you would have found abundant peer-reviewed references and "Associated Resources" from past years series/workshops - some of which do mention water quality impacts in the context of climate change.

The link that corresponds most closely to the topic this thread discusses is: http://www.sfu.ca/coastal/research-series/listing/SpeakingfortheSalmon/PathogensAndDisease.html

You and me just don't think alike on this topic. I do happen to think ph is the most important force challenging salmon populations. Many of the other issues are the effects from such force like starvation and poisoning. The starvation and poisoning causes weak immune systems.....ect.

Anyone who thinks that acid rain can not cause "death by thousands" should educate them selves on the subject a little.
 
About PRV and HSMI
PISCINE REO-VIRUS

• A durable virus concentrated in red blood cells that may move into the heart and skeletal muscle

• Shown to infect B.C. chinook, sockeye and Atlantic salmon

• Highly contagious, but low virulence or disease-causing ability

• Can be present for months without causing disease or death'

• Samples show presence in Pacific coast salmon as early as 1988

• On the farm that was studied, 20 per cent tested positive for PRV in May 2013, rising to 100 per cent by October

• Found in 80 per cent of farmed Atlantic salmon tested by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture

HEART AND SKELETAL MUSCLE INFLAMMATION DISEASE

• Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation is a disease that causes lesions on the heart

• Makes fish lethargic

• Believed to be triggered by stress

• First observed in 1999 Atlantic salmon farmed in Norway

• Not on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s list of reportable diseases, which are considered of significant importance to human or animal health

• Mortality on farms tends to be low, however it may kill up to 20 per cent of fish on an affected farm. Farm-wide mortality was not shown to increase with HSMI in this study

THE LINK

• HSMI has never been reproduced without the presence of PRV

• PRV has never been successfully cultured, so a cause and effect relationship between PRV and HSMI in Atlantic salmon cannot be definitively established

- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/l...in-b-c-salmon-1.11579555#sthash.EkwrjNhC.dpuf
 
Last edited:
Is your comment based on in-depth knowledge / research of the changing chemistry of water in BC? or just, as you say at the end, you opinion?

I can say that while some of the dialogue we get into here on SFBC forum as it relates to science & research can be extremely useful as there are some very knowledgeable members on here, there are also those who 'just have an opinion' and that opinion could very well be completely baseless. I am not a scientist nor to do I conduct research for a living but I do get the chance to speak with scientists (many in that video in fact) who do this full time and have dedicated decades of work to their research. The ones I speak with are very hesitant to overstate their findings and when they do 'speak out' like in the video above they are doing so on very solid grounds (ie they have ample research/evidence to support what they say). As it relates to the protection of wild salmon (the point of the video) I can safely say these scientists have considered and are very well aware of changes in the chemistry in BC waters.

When scientists and researchers speak out like this I think the public needs to realize that they are doing do so because there are major issues/problems that are not be dealt with by gov't/industry and they have finally gotten to the point where they feel the need to go public. Not an easy thing to do for most of them but good on them and we should be supporting them when they do so. just my opinion.


Search his user name, he's provided lots of good info about his observations and theories.
 
IHN virus outbreak forces fish kill at Robertson Creek Hatchery
A virus outbreak has killed 60,000 juvenile steelhead at Robertson Creek Hatchery and prompted the involvement of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has confirmed that there was an outbreak of Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis (IHN) virus at the Robertson Creek Hatchery.

The virus was diagnosed in January after extensive laboratory testing, said Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) spokesperson Carrie Mishima, who only responded to questions from the News by e-mail.

The virus has infected more than 60,000 juvenile steelhead at the hatchery, which have since been destroyed, officials said.

Hatchery staff became aware of the outbreak after noticing higher than normal mortalities in juvenile steelhead. Staff noticed signs of the virus and initiated lab tests.

According to the fisheries department, IHN is a naturally occurring pathogen in wild fish throughout the Pacific West Coast from Alaska to California.

IHN poses no risk to humans but it can spread quickly and has a 100 per cent mortality rate if a fish population becomes infected.

The virus is known to exist in Great Central Lake where the hatchery draws its water supplies. Lab tests identified the virus as the endemic, naturally occurring strain that is commonly found in Pacific sockeye.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was called because IHN is a reportable disease.

Staff have isolated the area where the infected fish were being held, and are cleaning and disinfecting the area.

Measures have also been put in place to control the movement of staff and fish in and out of the hatchery.

Cleanup will be completed when the CFIA is satisfied that the process has met their requirements.
 
Many here have expressed that fish farms are the major cause of our diminished wild salmon populations. If there is now a crash in SE Alaska's wild salmon runs. Where are the Alaskan salmon farms located that would cause their wild stocks to be infected by sea lice and disease? I could not find any info by google searching?
 
IHN virus outbreak forces fish kill at Robertson Creek Hatchery
A virus outbreak has killed 60,000 juvenile steelhead at Robertson Creek Hatchery and prompted the involvement of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It would be helpful to the members here if you provided a link to your story so that we would know that this story was from 2014 - 3 years ago......
http://www.albernivalleynews.com/news/243845191.html
 
Many here have expressed that fish farms are the major cause of our diminished wild salmon populations. If there is now a crash in SE Alaska's wild salmon runs. Where are the Alaskan salmon farms located that would cause their wild stocks to be infected by sea lice and disease? I could not find any info by google searching?

Perhaps this is what scientists were warning us about when the said the "blob" would have consequences to salmon.
 
Perhaps this is what scientists were warning us about when the said the "blob" would have consequences to salmon.

So are you implying that perhaps fish farms have nothing to do with the coastal dye off of salmon and it is the "blob" that caused it?
 
So are you implying that perhaps fish farms have nothing to do with the coastal dye off of salmon and it is the "blob" that caused it?

I'm implying that the news of the Alaska run could be explained by the warnings that the scientists gave us over the last two years.
 
I don't think it needs to be presented as an "either/or" choice between potential impacts to wild stocks from numerous sources such as low pH or fish farm impacts. It think it is instead an "and" inclusion from all those potential many sources - and that the potential and realized impacts from any single sources (such as introduced diseases from farms) does not need to be invalidated in order for a hypothesis that climate change and associated changes in water quality (such as lowered pH) be successful.

I think every year/season there are a suite of interacting variables that often work synergistically and reflect the compound of all those variables - it is complicated - and as many have suggested - is "death by a thousand cuts". There are statistical methods available to make inferences about the scale and scope of any one impact in relation to the rest of the impacts - but it is a moving target - and environmental variables change often over the course of time, and there are different geographic scales and time frames in play.

The question instead for me - is what variables do we have any measure of control over? Obviously, the open net-cage technology and interactions with the wild stocks is one of the things we can change.
 
I don't think it needs to be presented as an "either/or" choice between potential impacts to wild stocks from numerous sources such as low pH or fish farm impacts. It think it is instead an "and" inclusion from all those potential many sources - and that the potential and realized impacts from any single sources (such as introduced diseases from farms) does not need to be invalidated in order for a hypothesis that climate change and associated changes in water quality (such as lowered pH) be successful.

I think every year/season there are a suite of interacting variables that often work synergistically and reflect the compound of all those variables - it is complicated - and as many have suggested - is "death by a thousand cuts". There are statistical methods available to make inferences about the scale and scope of any one impact in relation to the rest of the impacts - but it is a moving target - and environmental variables change often over the course of time, and there are different geographic scales and time frames in play.

The question instead for me - is what variables do we have any measure of control over? Obviously, the open net-cage technology and interactions with the wild stocks is one of the things we can change.

The answer from me is that the climate change [ph] has caused the crash in population by acid shocking the reproductive and nursery areas of salmon which kills the ecology. Just like a new aquarium that has been filled with water municipal water shocked from addition of chlorine the decomposer bacteria can be reintroduced after the chlorine dissipates. This would be very inexpensive.

This whole "death by a thousand cuts" line as you keep referring to does apply to the demise of stream productivity you know. In fresh water it can be referred to as "death by a million cuts" as that would still be an understatement to how many juvenile and invertebrates have died off. How about, "death of successful ecology", that suits too.
 
Back
Top