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

[ClayoquotKid]

'Round and 'round we go.

Despite concern, and a great deal of alarmist hand-wringing (including very well organised and funded opposition to the industry), it has not been shown (in the most easily achievable way - through looking at escapement trends) that the presence of salmon farms has a negative impact on wild salmon at the population level.

While targeted efforts such as reduction in fishing pressure, or increases in spawning habitat do often show change, there is nothing I have seen brought forward that shows that runs in areas with farms have decreased, or fluctuated, any differently than areas without.

Creating conspiracy theories and speculating about impacts is simply a political tool used to create fear, and to portray the companies involved as the, "Bad Guys", with DFO being presented as being complicit, and instilling distrust from the general population.

Focusing on what "Might" happen, and attempting to artificially elevate the perception of risk completely ignores the work being done by the companies, and DFO in the effort to manage the industry sustainably - with the health of both farmed and wild salmon being paramount to that goal.

As I have said before, the simple truth is that if there was ever a case where there was a quantified negative impact from farms - that impact would be weighed against all others that are known, and would be managed appropriately.

Now for some context - What might that % look like compared to the mortality in wild fish caught and released by fishermen all over the coast?

What might that % look like compared to the number of herring used for bait?

You guys have such a myopic view when it comes to salmon aquaculture that you can't seem to realise that everything has an impact, and just because you don't like the idea of something - it doesn't mean it is going to go away.

So, speculate away, share your peer-reviewed hypotheses, and discuss all you want - but remember, there are also lots of other professionally trained people looking at the same stuff and making management decisions based on those findings, and their own conclusions.

 

[Dave]

I'm a faculty member in a microbiology department and I have extensive experience in virology and genomics (more than 20 years of research experience in genomics). I'm convinced that the currently available peer reviewed data shows that fish farms sited near terminal fisheries not only can but likely have increased wild fish mortality. What's your extensive science background? More importantly, serious scientists don't hide their data from public scrutiny but rather are so confident of all their data that they make it publicly available. Why is it that both the fish farms and their government protectors are so interested in hiding important data? If there's really no problem, let everyone see the identified disease outbreaks and their location in real time. Let the government researchers speak freely to media. That level of transparency will only help to make the case the industry hopes to make (unless of course the data indicates actual problems). Keep hiding the data and stifling scientific discussion and the industry will only further raise suspicions.

seadna, thanks for sharing your background. Very refreshing, and afaik you are the first heavy hitting anti to do so. Always good to know the credentials of posters.
I am curious as to your thoughts on the recent announcement of genome sequencing of Atlantic salmon … am I right in thinking this research will have greater implications in areas other than the Pacific coast farming areas?

 

[seadna]

'Round and 'round we go.
<stuff clipped>

So, speculate away, share your peer-reviewed hypotheses, data and manuscripts, and discuss all you want - but remember, there are also lots of other industry paid people and government cronies looking at and ignoring the same stuff and making management decisions based on those findings, their own conclusions or financial interests (in spite of what is good for the sport fisher, wild salmon or the rest of the population and in spite of what the voter may want).

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[agentaqua]

Hmmm....
First you started out by saying that no one here has the necessary expertise to really question the science. Then when presented with expertise, a question about your expertise and a question about industry and governmental transparency when it comes to the data, you state (without cited research to back it up) that there is no evidence that your industry causes harm. Then you accuse others of "cherry picking" and, as was pointed out, distract from the questions that were asked of you. Since you like cute images better than substantive debate -

You can see how frustrating it is to have a debate with any industry or government reps on this issue, Seadna. Requests for information are met with the same stonewalling, ignoring, belittling, character assassination and the like. It would be a parody - if not for the seriousness of the issues. It's like trying to have a discussion with a kid - who has his fingers in his ears going "na-na--na-na". This also from our government regulators, as well. They all generate their speaking notes and strategies from the same PR people. The difference with the government regulators verses industry spokespeople - is that regulators are supposed to carry-out due diligence and be PUBLIC employees, working on the regulation and protection of a PUBLIC resources with PUBLIC monies, and open to the PUBLIC. Since many of the DFO Aquaculture staff started in the fish farming business, then got rolled into the Provincial regulatory bureaucracy, then into DFO - they are compromised in their perspective and allegiance. Manila envelopes at the top end probably also helps dictate how the corruption flows downhill. Mulroney and Schriber were lightweights compared to this new bunch of sociopaths in the Harper Regime.

'Round and 'round YOU go - Costello.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Ah, the anonymous poster strikes again.

Why don't you guys man up and stop hiding behind your computer when having a discussion.

You know well enough who I am, I'd like to know who I'm talking to - there are plenty of others out there who dislike aquaculture and are able to do it using their own name.

Since you've had me pegged for so long - here's a few of my favourite moments to check out:

 

[Dave]

Wait, are those sea lice?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Wait, are those sea lice?

Hahahaha.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Well, this is certainly interesting...

" the company provided the Court with evidence including fish health data which refuted the allegations made by Ms Morton showing them as clearly erroneous and scientifically baseless."

"MHC provided the Court with independent third party evidence that confirms PRV occurs naturally in wild fish in the Pacific Northwest, predates the start of BC salmon farming operations, does not compromise fish health in the farms of MHC or in farmed or wild salmon in B.C. in general, and is not associated with HSMI. Furthermore, HSMI has not been found in any fish (farmed or wild) in the Pacific Northwest despite extensive testing."

http://bftech.org/?p=55

I'm sure there will be more to come.

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Do you really need to bring your kids into this. Man alive you'll use anything in your PR job! Now I guess we are supposed to feel better about your message and you the person delivering it? I don't know you and don't need to. I don't like the message.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Do you really need to bring your kids into this. Man alive you'll use anything in you're PR job! Now I guess we are supposed to feel better about your message and you the person delivering it? I don't know you and don't need to. I don't like the message.

Don't like the message?

What, reality?

Here's another fishing pic - just because. (I'll leave my little fishing buddy out of it, good call, a lot of weirdos out there...)

 

[fishnwhenIcan]

Don't like the message?

What, reality?

Here's another fishing pic - just because. (I'll leave my little fishing buddy out of it, good call, a lot of weirdos out there...)

View attachment 12198

Wow!!! You're really something man! I think you messed up the script though. Isn't it supposed to be something like we're stripping your privacy and "you can stand with us or you can stand with the child molestors".

You guys all go to the same school together?

Work the other angle of being a "Sportsfisher". Let us know how many you whacked yesterday. You getting a little worried. Think maybe your employer sees you're loosing this one. Come on over to our side, it looks like you know how to fish. Somebody will find another job for you.

 

[seadna]

When CK starts posting actual recreation fishing reports, I'll be interested in reading them. However, to date, it's almost all posts supporting the industry all the time. BTW - was that "cherry picking" I spotted above? E.g. you never address the multiple peer review manuscripts posted by others (other than a quick a weak dismissive comment with no substance) but you're quick to put an industry positive quote in here or there. However, nice looking kids and fish. I bet we'd enjoy each other's company just fishing or drinking beer.

 

[Birdsnest]

Are you going to respond to this from KC seadna: http://bftech.org/?p=55

Morton was on here and she never posted one thing about fishing and she was quite welcomed. Hypocritical??? ya Id say so.

I bet we'd enjoy each other's company just fishing or drinking beer./QUOTE] ... X2 This "us and them" is BS we all fish. It may be that I and KC fish far more than some of the Anonymous personalities on here. If I didn't fish tuna I would rarely post fishing stuff even tho I fish allot. Theres lots of experts on here for that.

Heres one from my recent annual interior trout trips. Caught this pennask fishing chronomids.

Lets see who really fishes in these salmon farming debate threads. Lets see some proof there anonymous posters. lol Just for fun.

 

[GLG]

Thanks for the link...
Still have some questions that I want answered and comments on this "proof" that was supplied.

MHC provided the Court with independent third party evidence that confirms PRV occurs naturally in wild fish in the Pacific Northwest, predates the start of BC salmon farming operations, does not compromise fish health in the farms of MHC or in farmed or wild salmon in B.C. in general, and is not associated with HSMI. Furthermore, HSMI has not been found in any fish (farmed or wild) in the Pacific Northwest despite extensive testing.

Did the smolts have PRV or not?
(Give us the test results from this crop.)
If they did, how did they get PRV?
Did it come from your broodstock eggs?
OR
Did it come from your water supply?
Seems to me that you have had a break down of your Bio-Security.
What are you doing to fix that problem?

The quote from your link proves nothing about your smolts and PRV virus.
It does not answer the questions that people in BC want answered.
Giving us the "look we have pandas" line of answers just doesn't cut it.

Please give us a link to the research that PRV is not the cause of HSMI.
Please give us the link to the research that shows what the cause of HSMI is.
Please give us a link to the evidence that supports your claim in this court case.
I would like to see the research that says PRV is not harmful to wild stocks.

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

If your going to claim that your fish are healthy you better provide proof and it better be good, as there is other peer reviewed papers that differ to your claims.

Seems to me the ball is in your court and your swinging like mad without holding a racket.
You hand waving is getting old...

 

[seadna]

Are you going to respond to this from KC seadna: http://bftech.org/?p=55

Sure - show me the peer reviewed research and the actual data, not just a press release from a company that adjudicated science in a court. Good science will stand up to peer review.

Morton was on here and she never posted one thing about fishing and she was quite welcomed. Hypocritical??? ya Id say so.

Morton posts very infrequently. CK posts frequently but only on one topic. I respect you tremendously as a sports fisherman because you post about fishing often and you know your tuna fishing well. If you look through all of CK's nearly 300 posts, almost all are about protecting the industry. His contribution to the site is mostly being dismissive of others.

I bet we'd enjoy each other's company just fishing or drinking beer./QUOTE] ... X2 This "us and them" is BS we all fish. It may be that I and KC fish far more than some of the Anonymous personalities on here. If I didn't fish tuna I would rarely post fishing stuff even tho I fish allot. Theres lots of experts on here for that.

Heres one from my recent annual interior trout trips. Caught this pennask fishing chronomids.

Lets see who really fishes in these salmon farming debate threads. Lets see some proof there anonymous posters. lol Just for fun.

Nice fish.

 

[agentaqua]

Lets see some proof there anonymous posters.

Eh - BN - I did post some peer-reviewed "proof" - which is way more scientifically-defensible than Gary marty's "opinion". It's just that you and your industry ignore any science or people posting that science - that is critical of the open net-cage technology or the potential consequences including disease transfer. I will post it again - re: HMSI/PRV:

http://www.virologyj.com/content/pdf/1743-422X-10-230.pdf
www.veterinaryresearch.org/content/pdf/1297-9716-43-27.pdf
www.nr.no/~aldrin/artikler/FishDiseasePrevet09.pdf

 

[Squid Row]

No need to waste gas to go catch and kill wild salmon... You guys kill a shitload of them right at your work.

Why not pose with these for your glory shots.

Wow where did that pic come from?

 

[Dave]

seadna, thanks for sharing your background. Very refreshing, and afaik you are the first heavy hitting anti to do so. Always good to know the credentials of posters.
I am curious as to your thoughts on the recent announcement of genome sequencing of Atlantic salmon … am I right in thinking this research will have greater implications in areas other than the Pacific coast farming areas?

seadna, I suspect you are ignoring my question regarding genome sequencing of Atlantic salmon. A man I respect, Dr. Brian Riddell, had good things to say about this and I had hoped you with a background in this science would chime in.
I have been accused of $hit disturbing on this site, and rightfully so, but that is not the case now. You have stated you have expertise in this stuff; please share your thoughts on how this will impact salmon farming here in BC and Washington, and the rest of the world.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Wow where did that pic come from?

Hmmm, I wonder...

 

[Sangstercraft]

Clayoquot kid (James Costello, Mainstream Canada's sustainability officer for those of you who don't know) - your approach is not working. Morten's one of the few people who's dedicated her life to saving wild salmon. Who do you think we believe, you or her?

Take a look at what's happened in Scotland and Chile - ah forget it, why argue with you. Take your kids fishing, then tell em how your day job is decimating wild stocks.