Going to Court to Stop Spread of Disease (Part 2 of 2)

[ClayoquotKid]

It is interesting that in one paper provided by the anonymous poster, "Agentaqua", there is an emphasized section in which states,

"Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) belongs to the Reoviridae family and is the only known fish virus related to the Orthoreovirus genus. The virus is the causative agent of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI)"

The reference papers listed say,

"Formal implication of PRV in HSMI will require isolation in cell culture and fulfillment of Koch's postulates, or prevention or modification of disease through use of specific drugs or vaccines. Nonetheless, as our data indicate that a causal relationship is plausible..."

"Further investigations are required in order to make conclusions regarding the cause and pathogenesis of HSMI."

Also, in another paper, it states,

"Piscine reovirus (PRV) was selected as the model organism as it is widely distributed in both farmed and wild Atlantic salmon in Norway, and because infection not necessarily will lead to mortality through development of disease."

Seems like the jury is still out on this one.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"Choosing an assay that has a high false negative rate is effectively slanting results to favor the industry."?

How so?

If our fish are sick, we need to know exactly what it is in order to react appropriately.

Especially in the case of a virus like ISA.

It's in our best interest to have very high levels of screening, monitoring, and testing in place in order to ensure that our fish make it to market.

ISA is incredibly harmful to farmed Atlantic salmon, as is seen on the East coast (where it is endemic), where it is tested for and found regularly.

It seems highly unlikely that it would be present in BC, given the thousands of tests run (even South of the border), and the fact that clinical signs of disease remain absent.

 

[agentaqua]

It is interesting that in one paper provided by the anonymous poster, "Agentaqua", there is an emphasized section in which states,

"Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) belongs to the Reoviridae family and is the only known fish virus related to the Orthoreovirus genus. The virus is the causative agent of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI)"

The reference papers listed say,

"Formal implication of PRV in HSMI will require isolation in cell culture and fulfillment of Koch's postulates, or prevention or modification of disease through use of specific drugs or vaccines. Nonetheless, as our data indicate that a causal relationship is plausible..."

"Further investigations are required in order to make conclusions regarding the cause and pathogenesis of HSMI."

Also, in another paper, it states,

"Piscine reovirus (PRV) was selected as the model organism as it is widely distributed in both farmed and wild Atlantic salmon in Norway, and because infection not necessarily will lead to mortality through development of disease."

Seems like the jury is still out on this one.

The way I read this one - is to differentiate between the expression of a disease - and the cause of a disease.

It seems that PRV is the cause of HSMI.

However, just because the host has the virus - does not necessarily mean that the host response will show HSMI. It may or may not. The virus may cause other symptoms/histology in addition to - or instead of - HSMI - or none at all.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0037269&representation=PDF

Atlantic Salmon Reovirus Infection Causes a CD8 T Cell Myocarditis in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.)
Aase B. Mikalsen1, Oyvind Haugland1, Marit Rode2, Inge Tom Solbakk2, Oystein Evensen1*
1Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic Medicine, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway, 2PHARMAQ AS, Oslo, Norway

Abstract
Heart and skeletal inflammation (HSMI) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) is a disease characterized by a chronic myocarditis involving the epicardium and the compact and spongious part of the heart ventricle. Chronic myositis of the red skeletal muscle is also a typical finding of HSMI. Piscine reovirus (PRV) has been detected by real-time PCR from farmed and wild salmon with and without typical changes of HSMI and thus the causal relationship between presence of virus and the disease has not been fully determined [1]. In this study we show that the Atlantic salmon reovirus (ASRV), identical to PRV, can be passaged in GF-1 cells and experimental challenge of naı¨ve Atlantic salmon with cell culture passaged reovirus results in cardiac and skeletal muscle pathology typical of HSMI with onset of pathology from 6 weeks, peaking by 9 weeks post challenge. ASRV replicates in heart tissue and the peak level of virus replication coincides with peak of heart lesions. We further demonstrate mRNA transcript assessment and in situ characterization that challenged fish develop a CD8+ T cell myocarditis.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/Disease Leaflets/Sheet no. 58.pdf

Biering, E. and Garseth, Å. H. 2012. Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and the associated Piscine reovirus (PRV). ICES Identification Leaflets for Diseases and Parasites of Fish and Shellfish. Leaflet No. 58. 6 pp.

p.1: An infectious aetiology was suspected since the recognition of HSMI disease outbreaks and this has since been supported by experimental transmission trials (Kongtorp et al., 2004a; Kongtorp and Taksdal, 2009). Virus-like particles have been associated with HSMI (Watanabe et al., 2006), but a causal relationship between these findings and the disease was not established. In 2010, a reovirus with the proposed name Piscine reovirus (PRV) was linked to HSMI. The titre of PRV as measured by real-time PCR correlated with disease development (Palacios et al., 2010). This link has been further strengthened as virus detection by immunohistochemistry also seems to follow progression of clinical signs (Finstad et al., 2012). However, it is also clear that PRV can be present in salmon at relatively high titres without typical HSMI pathology (Garseth et al., 2012).

 

[tincan]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12164/full

Infectious disease, shifting climates, and opportunistic predators: cumulative factors potentially impacting wild salmon declines

Kristina M. Miller1,2,*,
Amy Teffer3,
Strahan Tucker1,
Shaorong Li1,
Angela D. Schulze1,
Marc Trudel1,3,
Francis Juanes3,
Amy Tabata1,
Karia H. Kaukinen1,
Norma G. Ginther1,
Tobi J. Ming1,
Steven J. Cooke6,
J. Mark Hipfner5,
David A. Patterson4 and
Scott G. Hinch2

Article first published online: 27 MAY 2014

Abstract

Emerging diseases are impacting animals under high-density culture, yet few studies assess their importance to wild populations. Microparasites selected for enhanced virulence in culture settings should be less successful maintaining infectivity in wild populations, as once the host dies, there are limited opportunities to infect new individuals. Instead, moderately virulent microparasites persisting for long periods across multiple environments are of greatest concern. Evolved resistance to endemic microparasites may reduce susceptibilities, but as barriers to microparasite distributions are weakened, and environments become more stressful, unexposed populations may be impacted and pathogenicity enhanced. We provide an overview of the evolutionary and ecological impacts of infectious diseases in wild salmon and suggest ways in which modern technologies can elucidate the microparasites of greatest potential import. We present four case studies that resolve microparasite impacts on adult salmon migration success, impact of river warming on microparasite replication, and infection status on susceptibility to predation. Future health of wild salmon must be considered in a holistic context that includes the cumulative or synergistic impacts of multiple stressors. These approaches will identify populations at greatest risk, critically needed to manage and potentially ameliorate the shifts in current or future trajectories of wild populations.

 

[Englishman]

CK this is another one of your rants that mixes up fake assurances, a pretense to be knowledgeable about science, ad hominem attacks against individuals and the scientific community in general , and spreads denial and doubt in the same way as climate change deniers. Lets pick apart your very simplistic generalisations.

I have read the papers, discussed them with peers, looked at their strengths and weaknesses, and considered their conclusions given observations and other known data.

You have done nothing of the kind. You have no scientific background whatsoever and certainly your knowledge is not is the same league as Agent Aqua or Seadna. You are using words which imply you are qualified to make these judgments when in fact you do not and you merely quote industry PR denials

Many are based on incredibly small sample sizes, with issues around chain-of-custody and collection methods, or simply come to conclusions which are highly speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence.

First you dismiss all or the papers that myself and others here have posted under the “chain of custody” buzzword. Even though many of the papers linked here and on other threads have absolutely nothing to do with ISA or DNA sampling at all. Then, get this, the scientific community has reviewed the data in the papers, the supporting statistics, and the conclusions drawn and found them sound for publication. That is what the peer review process is all about! Then you come along and make ridiculous accusations such “or as simply come to conclusions which are highly speculative and unsupported by empirical evidence” as though you have more knowledge and insight than the scientific authors and the peer reviewers. Next you will be telling us you are scientific peer reviewer for the Proceedings of Royal Society! CK your pompous pretense at deep scientific knowledge is simply laughable.

Others are simply alarmist, containing a wealth of "Could's" and "May's" and serve no purpose other than to propose a theory using "peer -review" as a vehicle for the purpose of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about the aquaculture industry.

What utter rot! This is a direct accusation against the integrity of the scientific publication process, as though it is somehow being manipulated by sinister forces. When in fact it is you CK, and your industry that tries to create doubt and suspicion of the scientific community and the way it operates, for your own monetary and completely unethical motives.

Others contain valid concerns which are being followed by the scientific community in the effort to identify and quantify impacts that may exist regarding salmon aquaculture.

And those concerns have emanated from the independent scientific research community, not from the greedy , cavalier and unethical salmon feed lot industry.

All have failed to definitively identify a direct link between the presence of aquaculture and a related, abnormal decline in wild salmon stocks - this is especially true on the BC coast.

And so pronounces the great all knowing and all seeing CK. Absolutely wrong again.
Take this one paper the link to which was posted by Agent.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/....1371/journal.pbio.0060033&representation=PDF
This paper clearly shows run impacts from many parts of the world, including Ireland, Scotland, Eastern Canada and BC.
So go ahead, prove your assertion CK that this paper is flawed. Show us your analysis of the statistics and methodology to prove it wrong. Please provide your statistics, analysis and scientific rebuttal in a clear concise way, so that the scientific community can be dazzled by your brilliance.
Or are you simply going to attack those scientists too (Ford and Myers). I suppose they are all part of the “biased” scientific community as well eh CK?

After nearly 40 years of management invoking the, "Precautionary Principle" in a variety of ways (some found to be acceptable, others not), the salmon farm industry (and I speak to my area of experience - BC) has proven to have elevated its practices to a level which pushes the limits of the world standard.

It is particularly nauseating for you to trot out the words Precautionary Principle and try to sell the notion that the industry has been following that for 40 years. Firstly you had never even heard of the term before Agent, myself and others began to use it in our rebuttals to your false assertions that the industry was diligent and careful. Secondly the term has only been in the scientific lexicon since the mid-eighties. And your industry most certainly has not, and still does not abide by the Precautionary Principle in any way whatsoever.

People demanding peer-reviewed rebuttals to every wad of scientific spaghetti thrown at the wall will be disappointed to find that there is no, and not likely ever will there be, a paper outlining exactly how salmon farms have zero impact on wild populations. (Believe me, I would love to see it.)

Another revealing piece of terminology by you CK - “wad of scientific spaghetti thrown at the wall”. In a single phrase you have managed to demonstrate your contempt, lack of respect and utter incomprehension when it comes to the work, patience and diligence that accompanies scientific work and publication. To you science is some kind of irritating parlour game, when in fact it is a much more serious, sophisticated and worthwhile endeavour than you could ever comprehend.

Science is left looking at links, correlations, and trends - which have to date not shown evidence that gives reason to move away from current practices regarding net-pen aquaculture,

On the contrary science is not “left” with anything. Links correlations and trends are exactly what science looks at and the evidence of open net pen feed lots impacts on wild fish and the ecosystem are incontrovertible and are detailed in the dozens of papers I and others have linked to in previous threads. Your industry just chooses to ignore them and instead employs spin doctors like yourself to spread doubt and mis-information

choosing to rather employ high levels of monitoring and selective breeding in the farms (and things like genomic sequencing: http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=20&id=69378&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target= ) , and related (increasing) monitoring outside, to ensure that farmed fish are kept healthy and their wild counterparts are not put at risk.

You have muddled what your industry is “choosing” to do and what the independent scientific community is doing and tried to make them the same thing. Very revealing that the health of your feed lot salmon come before the wild fish. That is how it has always been and always will be with your industry so don’t try and pretend adherence to the Precautionay Principle. That assertion is demonstrably utter nonsense.

Alarmism, catastrophism and hostility from the anti-aquaculture side does nothing to further the debate, and the continued reliance on conspiracies and cries of collusion to fill in the spots where evidence, or the lack thereof, falsifies their hypotheses serves to even further weaken their position.

Here the good CK reverts to the climate change denial tactics, calling those who are concerned about what is happening and have evidence from all over the world “alarmist”. As for your industry – all you ever do, as amply demonstrated in your post I am exposing here – is claim sinister conspiracies and devious motives by the international scientific community. Another tactic employed by climate change denialists!!

There are plenty of people working on both sides of the issue to ensure that both wild and farmed salmon are abundant on the BC coast into the future - unfortunately, people like Morton, (And to a lesser degree Volpe, Krkosek et al.) are not part of this effort, and their contributions (in many cases) rely on misinformation, half-truths, suppression of evidence, and what would be considered poor scientific practice.

They are not out to make salmon farming better, they are out to end the practice.

There is a distinct difference, and their material is recieved accordingly.

So if the science shows that there are impacts on the wild salmon and the ecosystem, the publishers of those finding are demeaned dismissed and personally attacked and denigrated? They are not being “helpful” to the feed lot industry are treated as the enemy and so you make disgusting accusations that - “their contributions (in many cases) rely on misinformation, half-truths, suppression of evidence, and what would be considered poor scientific practice”.
CK your post reveals you not are only scientifically ignorant but totally unethical too and I could not let your falsehoods, generalisations and mis-information go without exposing and rebutting you.

 

[tincan]

Questions being raised at the open house today in Port Hardy by Pacific Salmon Foundation, Watershed Watch, Save our Salmon, and David Suzuki Foundation re: new aquaculture sites near northern Vancouver Island:

To:
Tlatlasikwala First Nation Chief and Council
DFO representative(s) tasked with the Ghi ya and Wanx talis applications
Provincial representative(s) tasked with the Ghi ya and Wanx talis applications

June 25, 2014

Questions regarding applications for two open net-salmon farms
Ghi ya (Bull Harbour)
and Wanx talis (Heath Bay)

In striving to share their expertise and contribute to the assessment regarding the Pacific Marine Finfish Aquaculture Applications to farm Atlantic salmon at Ghi ya and Wanx talis, the SOS Marine Conservation Foundation, Watershed Watch Salmon Society, David Suzuki Foundation and Pacific Salmon Foundation put forward the following questions.

Prior to being able to provide informed comment on these applications, written responses are needed.

Assessment Process:
1) We understand that DFO has prepared a science based environmental and fish health assessment and that this assessment will inform both the Province of BC’s and DFO’s decision making on the two new site applications. Will that assessment be made available for public review?

2) We understand from previous correspondence with the Applicant’s agent (MHC), Front Counter BC and DFO that there is a commitment to receiving comments about the suitability of the proposed sites for aquaculture. Absent a formal environmental assessment process, we have a number of questions regarding the process that will be used to consider submissions:
a. What is the timeline for public input and decision-making by the Province of BC and DFO for each of the proposed new site leases/tenures and the related aquaculture licences and will this allow for the public to have enough time to review each application?
b. We appreciate that the applications are now available on the Applicant’s website. In our initial review of the applications we note that there are a number of missing items and gaps in the information provided i.e., Fish Health Management Plans, ROV and SCUBA swim video. Are the Applicant, Front Counter BC and DFO committed to responding in a timely manner to requests for these gaps and other information necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of the application and make an informed submission regarding the suitability of the proposed site for marine finfish aquaculture?
c. Will the applicant and/or the Province of BC and/or DFO make publicly available all of the information requests and responses relevant to the two new site applications, as well as all submissions received on the suitability of the proposed sites for marine finfish aquaculture?
d. Will the Province of BC and DFO provide the public, or those making written submissions, with information regarding how the submissions have been incorporated into a decision to issue a site lease/tenure and aquaculture licence respectively, and the related terms and conditions of the licence?
e. In addition, are these applications for multi-year licences and is offering multi-year licences being considered?

Navigation:

Ghi ya / Bull Harbour is an important place of refuge for mariners. Permanently placing such a large work with associated anchor lines in the entrance to this important harbour has implications for safe navigation. This should be the first consideration and the application should be reviewed by Transport Canada before moving to the Province for tenure approval.
1) The Ghi ya application includes a map as information for Transport Canada. Who determined that 15 metres above anchor lines is the threshold for safe navigation?
2) Has anchoring within boundaries of the proposed tenure been considered?
3) Why is no information provided for Transport Canada in the Wanx talis application?


Valued Ecological Components:

Wild Salmon Interactions:
4) The sea lice studies associated with these applications reveal a bias because the monitoring reports’ citations focus on work conducted by DFO scientists, an agency which has been criticized by several high profile investigations to be potentially biased towards industrial interests. As a result, the agency’s ability to perform its mandates of conservation of wild salmon, protection of marine biodiversity, and its commitment to the public interest may be hampered (Cohen 2012; Hutchings 2012). By overlooking large swaths of research from independent academics in these applications, the assessment cannot be considered thorough or unbiased. Will you revise the study to include a synthesis of the risks of this industry that include consideration of the following published work and the published work of other academics?

Krkosek, M., J.S. Ford, A. Morton, S. Lele, R.A. Myers, and M.A. Lewis. 2007. Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farmed salmon. Science 318:1772-1775

Ford, J. S. and Myers, RA (2008) A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids. PLoS Biol 6(2): e33 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

Price MHH, Proboszcz SL, Routledge RD, Gottesfeld AS, Orr C, et al. (2011) Sea Louse Infection of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon in Relation to Marine Salmon Farms on Canada’s West Coast. PLoS ONE 6(2): e16851. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016851
5) The 2011 and 2013 sea lice studies associated with these applications focus on pink salmon; however, other salmon species are also at risk. The 2011 sea lice report states pink salmon were the target species; but several scientific papers have highlighted sea lice from salmon farms pose a risk to other species such as sockeye and coho (Price et al. 2011 and Connors et al. 2010). In addition, the 2013 sea lice report uses a very similar methodology as the 2011 report and thereby also does not take into account risks to other salmon species. Connors et al. (2010) found that productivity (recruits per spawner at low abundance) of wild coho was reduced sevenfold in a region of open-net salmon farming compared with nearby coho populations in areas without salmon farming. The authors controlled for other factors, and surmise that impacts were caused by farm-source lice transmitted up the food web (infected prey to predator). The sample sizes of coho capture in the sea lice monitoring study for these two proposed farms are not robust enough to provide meaningful baseline information on juvenile coho salmon. Will studies be conducted to focus on juvenile coho and sockeye salmon prior to any decision making around these applications?

6) With regards to salmon farm citing criteria, Justice Cohen’s recommendations 15, 16 and 17 state:

Cohen Recommendation #15: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms.

Cohen Recommendation #16: After seeking comment from First Nations and stakeholders, and after responding to challenge by scientific peer review, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should, by March 31, 2013, and every five years thereafter, revise salmon farm siting criteria to reflect new scientific information about salmon farms situated on or near Fraser River sockeye salmon migration routes as well as the cumulative effects of these farms on these sockeye.

Cohen Recommendation #17: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should apply revised siting criteria to all licensed salmon farm sites. Farms that no longer comply with siting criteria should be promptly removed or relocated to sites that comply with current siting criteria.

Will the Province of BC and DFO meet their commitment to revise siting criteria for salmon farms through a science-based, peer-reviewed process laid out in these recommendations before decisions are made around new farms? More specifically, will the suitability of the Ghi ya and Wanx talis sites continue to be considered before these 3 recommendations are implemented contrary to the $26 million Cohen Commission recommendations?

7) If sea lice monitoring was conducted, why were no other pathogens tested for to provide a baseline? Bacterial and viral pathogen testing should also occur. Testing should be conducted for pathogens such as Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus, Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis, Renibacterium salmoninarum, Piscine Reovirus, Salmon Alpha Virus and others.

8) It appears from these applications that no DNA testing has been conducted on wild salmon. Some BC wild salmon stocks are listed as endangered by COSEWIC (Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) such as Cultus Lake sockeye. Since many studies highlight salmon farms as a risk to wild fish, particularly from pathogens and disease (Cohen 2012), a priority should be placed on protecting at risk populations (Miller et al. 2014). Will DNA testing be conducted of all previous samples to identify the stock of sockeye in particular? Will more sampling be conducted of sockeye to achieve meaningful sample sizes of sockeye?

 

[tincan]

con't....

9) Please explain in detail how wild salmon migrations, both adult fish and juveniles, have been taken into account in the siting of these farms beyond the arbitrary 1 km distance from any stream mouth?

10) The Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, a collaborative research project between the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Genome BC and Fisheries and Ocean Canada is examining pathogens and disease as a factor in high mortality rates of juvenile salmon in BC (http://www.genomebc.ca/index.php?cID=1235). The first public reporting of results is anticipated for September 2014. This coupled with the conclusion from the Cohen (2012) Inquiry, that pathogens and disease associated with salmon farms are a risk to wild salmon, infers that moving forward with an expansion of new farms sites is not a precautionary direction and further puts our wild salmon economy at risk. Will the results of the BC Genome study around the risks of pathogens and disease be reviewed and incorporated prior to any decision making around these applications?

Abalone:
11) In consideration of the following points, will further assessment for abalone take place?
• The fieldwork for these abalone surveys was conducted between August 6 to August 11. This is a time of year when the amount of growth in the shallows makes abalone detection extremely challenging. The much greater likelihood of detection is before May/June.
• Two transects of the Wanx talis application Transect 8A (northwest side of the bay) and Transect 10B (southeast side within proposed tenure) had densities of 0.11 abalone/m2 (critical threshold density of 0.1 abalone/m2 identified in the 2012 Action Plan for this species [DFO 2012]).
• Figure 5 on page 98 of the pdf; shows significant amount of good abalone habitat within the proposed Wanx talis tenure. Again, the Wanx talis Abalone Population Assessment states; “If this site is chosen for development additional assessments of the area may be required.
• Both the Wanx talis Abalone Population Assessment and the Ghi ya Abalone Population Assessment state “if this site is chosen for development, additional assessment of the area may be required.”
12) Are there videos of the survey swims and will they be made available?
13) What types of abalone monitoring are required for such sites were they to be approved for development?

Marine Mammals:
14) Steller Sea Lions: The notation that Pacificus Biological Services observed a Steller sea lion in Ghi Ya in June of 2011 does not belong in this report as this appears not to be part of any survey but rather is an anecdotal sighting. Sightings of Steller sea lions are frequent in the area and the close proximity of the year-round haulout at Ashby Point means that interactions with Steller sea lions will be inevitable were there to be open net facilities at these sites. With Steller sea lions being recognized as being of “Special Concern” and thereby under protection of SARA, what management will be undertaken? Will there be culls? And if so, under what authority will this exemption from SARA be undertaken?
15) Sea Otters: Since the 2008 Raincoast Conservation Foundation report referenced in the applications, Sea Otters have become common in this area and are recognized as being of “Special Concern”. This is no consideration of Sea Otters in the applications. Will an effort be made to get more recent data regarding Sea Otter use of the area?
16) Cetaceans: Has any effort been undertaken to get sightings data from the DFO Cetacean Research program and the BC Cetacean Sightings Network?

Sediment Sampling:

The Baseline Sediment Assessment Report for Ghi ya was prepared by Mainstream Biological for the Tlatlasikwala First Nation and amalgamates data collected by Marine Harvest Canada (agent for the proponent). The entire Baseline Sediment Assessment Report for Wanx talis was prepared by Marine Harvest Canada (agent for the proponent). These Baseline Sediment Assessment Reports are not independent and allow for conflict of interest. Still, the two reports appear to contain conflicting information regarding the heavy metal results at the three Reference Stations selected. According to Ghi ya assessment, elevated copper levels resulted at one of the three Reference Stations (page 263 of the Ghi ya pdf) yet the Assessment for Wanx talis (prepared by Marine Harvest Canada), indicates mean copper results were above standard for two of the three Reference Stations selected (page 294 of the Wanx talis pdf).
17) Why is DFO accepting a baseline report from an agent of the proponent?
18) Were the three selected Reference Stations the same for both applications?
19) Why were these Reference Stations selected when some produced above-standard mean copper results?
20) Were other potential Reference Station locations considered and sampled?


Please respond to:

Stan Proboszcz - proboszcz@watershed-watch.org

Jackie Hildering - jackie@saveoursalmon.ca





References:

Cohen, B. 2012. The uncertain future of Fraser River sockeye. Commission of Inquiry into the decline of Fraser sockeye.

Connors, B. M., Krkošek, M., Ford, J. and Dill, L. M. (2010) Coho salmon productivity in relation to salmon lice from infected prey and salmon farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, no. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01889.

Hutchings, J.A. and 9 other authors. 2012. Sustaining Canadian marine biodiversity: responding to the challenges posed by climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture. Expert panel report prepared for the Royal society of Canada, Ottawa.

Miller, K. and 13 other authors. 2014. Infectious disease, shifting climates, and opportunistic predators: cumulative factors potentially impacting wild salmon declines. Evolutionary Applications. doi:10.1111/eva.12164.

 

[agentaqua]

Hey cDNA. Just to help you find the information on the CFIAs testing methods - try these links:

http://www.salmonguy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dr-Sally-Goldes-report.pdf
http://vdi.sagepub.com/content/17/2/151.full.pdf
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...yHrex4OpoGOGfnUvo8sPzHg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.dGI

Thanks for you posts Englishman and tincan!

 

[agentaqua]

Report slams fish farm secrecy on B.C. coast
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/report-slams-fish-farm-secrecy-on-b-c-coast-1.1189673

The federal government puts wild salmon stocks and research at risk by not releasing important data about fish farms along the B.C. coast, says a report by the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria.

The report takes issue with the lack of information available to researchers and the public about when and where disease outbreaks occur on salmon farms. Currently, when there is a disease outbreak at an aquatic animal facility — such as a fish farm — it must be reported to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

However, the federal agency only makes some of that information available to the public. For example, on March 26 a fatal virus called hemorrhagic septicemia was reported in Atlantic salmon somewhere in B.C. with no further details.

“The basic issue is that government fails to disclose exactly where diseases have broken out, and only releases such extremely generalized information when it’s too late to be useful. This needs to change,” states the report.

There are hundreds of fish farms in B.C. Dozens pepper the coastal areas of Vancouver Island. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, farmed Atlantic salmon is the country’s top seafood export. Production has increased fourfold in the past 20 years and B.C. accounts for half of it.

“Detailed information about outbreaks should be public, especially for scientists trying to find solutions,” said Calvin Sandborn, supervising legal director.

The report was prepared by law student Sam Harrison on behalf of the Wuikinuxv Nation on the northwest coast. They wanted to look at the effects of salmon farms in traditional fishing territories.

Sandborn said the most shocking thing about the report is how Canada’s laws compare to other countries. He noted Norwegian fish farm owners in B.C. face fewer reporting regulations here than in their own country.

“Canada used to be seen as a leader in environmental protection law, now we’re the laggards,” he said.

David Lane, executive director of the T. Buck Suzuki environmental foundation, said the report should be a wake-up call to the federal government.

“We have wild salmon to protect in this province and we have to know what’s going on to inform policy and respond to potential dangers,” he said, noting the costly near-collapse of the Chilean salmon farm industry in 2007 after disease spread.

He also cited the 2012, $26-million report by Justice Bruce Cohen on the disappearance of the Fraser River sockeye. Cohen called for a relocation of fish farms along wild salmon migration routes, such as in and around the Discovery Islands, and warned that “devastating disease could sweep through the wild populations, killing large numbers of wild fish without scientists being aware of it.”

Both Lane and Sandborn said that public pressure led to better regulations and reporting on sea lice at fish farms and they hope to see the same for disease outbreaks.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Canada follows international guidelines set by the World Organization for Animal Health on reporting of animal diseases.

“The Government of Canada is committed to protecting human and animal health, and providing the public, stakeholders and trading partners with up-to-date information on reportable disease detections in Canadian livestock and aquatic animals,” said spokeswoman Lisa Murphy.

The agency said providing more details would result in the release of information considered confidential and covered under the Privacy Act.

spetrescu@timescolonist.com

© Copyright Times Colonist

- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/l...y-on-b-c-coast-1.1189673#sthash.iLu0zkuz.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

Åse Helen Garseth, Eirik Biering, Arnfinn Aunsmo. 2013. Associations between piscine reovirus infection and life history traits in wild-caught Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. in Norway. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112 (2013) 138–146

Discussion p. 144: In 2010, thirty-six of thirty-eight escaped farmed salmon captured in river Etne were PRV-positive by qRTPCR (Garseth et al., 2013). These salmon were not included in this study since they were thought to have escaped from the same farm and would represent a selection bias. Nevertheless, the result supports the findings of Lovoll et al. (2012) and the conclusion that escaped farmed salmon not only supply local rivers with unwanted genes (Hindar et al., 1991a,b; Hindar et al., 2006). They probably also supply unwanted pathogens with potential harmful effects.