P.E.I. fish lab loses international credentials

[agentaqua]

Any chance you can provide some links to support these numbers?

the weblinks and contact info are provided in the news releases if you wanted to follow-up CK.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

the weblinks and contact info are provided in the news releases if you wanted to follow-up CK.

Nothing there that I saw Aqua.

Just a "guesstimate" by their own admission.

Getting compensation for culling fish instead of being able to sell them as a premium product is no way to run a business though, I'm sure no one is thrilled on either end.

 

[agentaqua]

try:

ASF Contact: Livia Goodbrand, Manager of Public Information: Lgoodbrand@asf.ca; 506-529-1033 (o); 506-469-1033 (c)

 

[ClayoquotKid]

try:

ASF Contact: Livia Goodbrand, Manager of Public Information: Lgoodbrand@asf.ca; 506-529-1033 (o); 506-469-1033 (c)

Sure, so I can ask her what they meant by "guesstimate"?

Thanks for the ever-so-helpful spoonfeeding there Aqua - LOL!

 

[agentaqua]

You're welcome. Glad to be of service. You might find that I am in agreement with letting the other side see all the data, and help them get what they need, - even if it doen't help my case - and even accept corrections to data after having a good debate about the data and it's limitations and inferences. That's what science is all about.

I just refuse to wade through a big pile of BS to get there. Been doing that far TOOOO long.

If Damien Gillis says you contribute $8M while you actually generate $20M/yr - fine. He gets called on the BS. No need to BS. Bad is bad enough.

If Sockeyefry says the pumping requirements are xL/sec and it will cost $XM more to do CC. Okay - that's what we need to make a profit over. maybe a special certification will help boost the revenue, and fishfarmers need help to develop that market by turning niche markets into competitive mainstream farm produxct - they get that help. Close the market to all non CC product and legislate that only CC is used. Canada ships $MILLIONS to the US in seafood, US ships very little back. All these markets shift and can change given market development and legislation. Lobsters used to be the food that poor fishermen's kids used to eat in their sandwichs at school. Sablefish used to be black cod which used to be lumped-in with Pacific cod - a weak-fleshed fish good for Captain Highliner fish sticks, if at all. Smoke it, change the name - sell it for 14-18$lbnow.

These things change with a little help and gentile persuasion through direction and $ help. If those numbers for compensation for the destroyed FF product are too low or high - lets correct that.

let us know what she said.

 

[shuswap]

Hey Agent,

The purpose of my post was to provide you a different perspective that you and others may not be familiar with. In your previous post you suggested that you wanted to have this controversy put to rest, but what I am trying to convey to you once again is that it is not that simple. I understand that you are interested in bringing the political side of things into this and that is fine if you want to do that (it’s a forum after all), but in my opinion it is not relevant to what I was talking about for the most part. For instance, politics aside, there are inherent logistical challenges with collecting, sampling and testing prespawn fish for the goals you have stated previously. This is not just me saying this, but also professionals that deal with this. These were clearly outlined in my previous post.

There are a few things that need to be discussed from your last post. First, I did not say that sampling of prespawn salmon was impossible. What I said was that finding the “culprit” amongst many in a salmon carcass (who knows how long it has been dead for) that has been undergoing decomposition is simply not that easy - if not impossible. A researcher or Joe Public can sample any prespawn carcass they want, but if the carcass is of questionable quality (anything less than fresh live) it could be wasted effort. That is why scientists who are interested in sampling fish on the spawning grounds prefer to capture their fish live, euthanize them and sample them immediately afterwards. Priority is given to fish that are fresh live, then moribund (alive but close to death) and then fresh mortalities within 24 hours (less than that – the better). However, if water temperatures and air temperatures are warm like they have been lately that time can be reduced even more. Again, to get a fresh prespawn on the spawning grounds that is not impacted by predation and within 24 hours is not simple. Although I do loath most of our political leadership and many senior beaurocrats they are not going to change this particular challenge that I have mentioned. Decomposition does not recognize politics although politics can certainly smell like it sometimes.

Secondly, the reason why I did not mention RNAlater is that it is not going to make a questionable carcass provide the same results as a fresh live sample handled properly. RNAlater is also not the easiest to work with if you talk to some experts. Some prefer to have tissues rapidly chilled and analyzed within 24 hours. Samples can also be rapidly frozen and kept frozen for good results, but as I said before this negatively impacts histopathology. RNAlater is a type of preservative that helps stabilize and protect cellular RNA from further degredation and is used in histology to some extent. The question I have is how much cellular degradation has gone on with the carcass before RNAlater is used. Sure you can store samples for a long time in RNAlater, but if the carcass is questionable to start (i.e. tainted) with how do you think those results would compare to a fresh live that is rapidly chilled and analyzed within 24 hours of collection? I agree that when neither chilling nor freezing is available RNAlater is better than a rotten carcass. What is preferred is to use RNAlater immediately following collection of fresh live sample – not sample questionable carcasses and add RNAlater expecting miracles later on. What it comes down to is garbage in equals garbage out.

Thirdly, as for neglecting to mention the constraints/limitations of what DFO tests for even if ISAv or PRV was detected 100% successfully it does not necessarily mean that a particular prespawn fell victim to either one of those. If you still disagree then I will refer you to the places I talked to (see below) as they are better qualified to answer you than I. If you are talking about Exhibit #2147 (the web link you posted a few postings back) I will question whether Justice Cohen as well as the experts on ISAv during the inquiry put much weight on this exhibit in the Final Report. As I stated before, I am not against more or better tests, but finding the smoking gun/culprit is not as easy as it appears on the surface. That is basically what I am trying to say.

As for the suggestion, “maybe you could also tell that to DFO/CFIA and while you are at it - also describe to them what is science verses politics. Case in point, look at: http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordp...2065-NonRT.pdf", I would respectfully suggest that you should tell them yourself. I am of the opinion that if one feels so strongly or passionate about something like this that they should contact those they want answers from or voice their concerns. You will likely trust what you find over a person like me anyway. I presently do not have much time these days with fieldwork preparation to start investigating possible conspiracies and political influences. I am the wrong guy for that job. I would rather put my energy to the fish and doing the best job possible. However, whatever you have I am always willing read even if I do not necessarily agree with it.

Lastly, the field of pathogens is not my area of expertise so that is why I looked towards people at the Molecular Genetics and Fish Health labs at PBS, DFO Environmental Watch Program and the BC Provincial Ministry of Agriculture. I am sure if you were to speak to anyone of those scientists or technicians in those places you would find them highly competent and not as corrupted as you might believe. PBS was one of the labs being used in the CFIA’s wild anadromous salmonid sampling in BC. In addition, DFO’s Kristi Miller (who works at PBS) along with Brian Riddell of the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Genome BC are collaborating in a salmon health initiative to help clarify the presence or absence of microbes in Pacific Salmon. Hopefully, we can all get some better answers in the coming years and some more funding to carry it out.

 

[agentaqua]

Hey Agent, The purpose of my post was to provide you a different perspective that you and others may not be familiar with.

I appreciate the intention, shuswap - but that perspective you relay is one I am reasonably familar with - and often fustrated by. Just because there are serious, but not insurrmountable logistical issues wrt sampling for fish health - does NOT mean that:

1/ It is an irrelvant or unimportant issue,
2/ that Morton and other independent researchers did not find ISA,
3/ That there has NOT been overwhelming political interference and obstruction to getting to the bottom of the controversy,
4/ That certain DFO and CFIA officials were NOT working in collusion with industry to cover-up and hide results,
5/ That there is NOT a serious question of competence, professionalism and liability in responding appropriately to this issue of whether or not we have "false" positives verses "unconfirmed" positive results, and
6/ That there has NOT been a serious fiduciary failure and associated liability issues surrounding egg importation and the potential release of exotic disease vectors on a naive wild population.

THESE are the real issues I wish to get to the bottom of - but that starts with a comprehensive sampling program and follow-up including access to data. The lawyers for DFO/CFIA/FF fully understand this - and that is why (I believe) there is such interference and double-speak from certain key reps in the feds. They already realize the political/legal/financial implications of positive ISA/PRV findings. Those lawyers from DFO/CFIA/Justice "advise" senior DFO/CFIA managers and key politicians as to how to proceed. That is why there is so much fear in the upper to mid echelons in DFO/CFIA at present. Lawyers advise that independents can't be controlled and results will leak-out and somebody will sue. Government begins the campaign of intimidation and controlling the media releases. There is now little seperation between what DFO researchers would like to do and having to do what is dictated from Ottawa. That affects even field staff in DFO. Try to get a scientific permit to sample for ISA and see what happens. Talk about iSA to senior managers and watch their faces. See the fear and discomfort. They have already been coached as how to respond - "I can't speak about this", "call this number", "talk to the communications branch".

YA - I understand how it is "not that simple". The sampling constraints ARE the simple part. Don't sample suboptimum carcasses. Check the gills. If they are pink to red - go ahead and sample. White to pink - don't bother. Keep fish samples cool on ice if it is warm and keep them out of the sun. Use RNALater. NONE of these issues are insurrmountable. Politics at this point - maybe insurrmountable for federal reps. Politics is unfortunately extremely relevant here.

I appreciate you would prefer to do fieldwork and stay out of the politics. Who wouldn't? What if funding, permits, access to labs, access and release of data - are ALL tied to politics?

I know it's a chilling, Orwellian thought - but have you actually tried to get a project off the ground recently looking at fish health issues?

If you haven't - you might be surprised.

Do you know who sits on the federal funding boards and how technical review committees are constructed and run? Are you suggesting there is no politics there?

Fred's labs got inspected and OIE yanked his designation. Okay maybe needed to be done. BUT DFO/CFIAs lab didn't get the same complaint and treatment. Why not? Shouldn't the "official" labs be the best and lead by example? Fred didn't give the OIE $2M, but Canada did. Think there are no politics in any of these connections?

I don't blame you for wanting to keep your head low. Lot of flack flying around right now. Rule by fear is Harper's motto.

 

[Theb55]

Since we are to understand that complaints about the PEI lab originated in the PM's Office, what credible and approved lab does the DOF use?

 

[agentaqua]

Since we are to understand that complaints about the PEI lab originated in the PM's Office, what credible and approved lab does the DOF use?

ASSUMING that the OIE website is up-to-date:
http://www.oie.int/en/our-scientific-expertise/reference-laboratories/list-of-laboratories/
the only OIE-certified ISA lab left is this one in Oslo, Norway:

Infection with infectious salmon anaemia virus
Dr Knut Falk
National Veterinary Institute
P.O. Box 750
Sentrum
0106 Oslo
NORWAY
Tel: +47-23 21 60 00 Fax: +47-23 21 63 01
Email: knut.falk@vetinst.no

As far as I know the DFO/CFIA lab in Moncton is uncertified for ISA. YET these are the "experts". Strange, eh?

 

[Englishman]

What "approach" would that be Aqua?

Asking for opponents of aquaculture to provide more evidence than weak correlations and ever increasing conspiracy theories to explain their incredibly deep-set position regarding the status of wild stocks in relation to existing farms?

Many people have provided many facts here and links to the scientific literature about the negative and deleterious effects of open net cage salmon feed lots around the world. But all you keep doing is deny, deny , deny. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. It is you CK who have an incredibly deep set position regarding the “benign” effects of the salmon feed lots because you and your industry are motivated solely by one thing money and greed! You do NOT have the best interest of wild salmon at heart because EVERYTHING is secondary to money and jobs and NO sacrifice or risk is too great for the gods you worship

In regard to all the "facts" you have provided in support of your view that salmon farms have negatively impacted wild salmon runs I think a quote from Einstein is appropriate, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

Well clearly one is not enough for you CK. I have posted this before from the big list of links to original papers I posted before and I will post it again every time you put your ridiculous and ignorant assertions up here that there that “there is no evidence”.
This paper was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, one of the most prestigious science journals existing in the UK.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1672/3385.short
So go ahead and enlighten us CK on where the actual science is wrong. Where is the rebuttal of the actual data and conclusions of this paper and where/when was it published?
At the end of the day it does not matter to people like you if we post links to a hundred papers (and we can do that), you will just continue to deny, deny, deny with weasel words like “weak correlation”, “not proven”, “not applicable in BC”, or “it was not us” because all the mountains of evidence can NEVER overcome your greedy industry self-interest.

When the scientific, or evidence based end of your argument runs out you start bashing Harper and his "band of con men", while ranting about how "fish farm industry co-ops democracy and good governance".

So you think DFO promoting salmon feed lots and the government muzzling scientists or firing them IS democracy and good governance. Incredible, absolutely incredible!!

It is impossible to prove a negative so there will never be an instance where it can be definitively shown that farms have zero impact on wild stocks - the whole point of my position is that after more than 30 years the opposite (farms have a negative impact) has never been shown either - this would lead me to believe that the impact (if it is present) is very small, as it seems impossible to measure given the rest of the background variations.

So instead your industry makes a huge gamble with OUR environment and wild fish and conducts continuous experiments that put at risk millions of wild salmon and thousands of jobs, not to mention the culture and ecosystem of BC in order that Norwegian companies and their shareholders can make money. Whether you can prove salmon feed lots have zero impact or not is irrelevant. For your industry to use that as a justification of why you have inflicted this plague upon us and continue to do so every day is inexcusable and a travesty for anyone who cares about husbandry and sustainability for the future. WE in BC bear all the risk, and you make all the money. Such a deal!!

My position relies on empirical evidence, science and logic - my job relies on using the resulting facts to form arguments based in reality and devoid of speculation.

That is a laughable statement. Your posts above and earlier clearly show your position is founded on denial and questioning of facts and devoid of any logic except that of making money. You are exactly the same as the climate change deniers and the deniers of evolution. There are no amount of facts and evidence that you cannot ignore because your money corrupted “world view” will not allow you to accept those facts.

You keep on working on the what ifs and I will keep working on the what we know and what we are already doing about its.

Science will keep on working on the facts and you will keep on working on ways to obfuscate and deny, or attack the integrity of the messengers. You will keep on working on what you know you can get away with – after all money and “economics” are the justification of any mis-use of the environment, and risks to which our wild salmon ecosystem is continuously exposed.

 

[Cuba Libre]

Thank you Englishman..... but it is falling on deaf ears. These guys just dont give a **** about the marine environment. As you stated, its the money... and if they have to sacrifice our BC wild salmon-- to them that is the price of doing business

 

[reelfast]

this is EXACTLY what the tobacco companies did some years ago regarding lung cancer. until a mega law suit is filed, nothing is going to change up your way. might as well go fish and stop your personal frustration talking past a guy who is brain dead or on the take. either way, you can't make a dent in his thinking or posting.

 

[GLG]

might as well go fish and stop your personal frustration talking past a guy who is brain dead or on the take. either way, you can't make a dent in his thinking or posting.

Nope.... no going to stop till we win.... difference between them and us is we don't do it for money or our job. We do it for the salmon and our children. enough said....

 

[shuswap]

I appreciate the intention, shuswap - but that perspective you relay is one I am reasonably familar with - and often fustrated by.

How familiar if you don't mind me asking? How much experience do you have on the spawning grounds doing biosampling, stock assessment or some other research?

There is now little separation between what DFO researchers would like to do and having to do what is dictated from Ottawa. That affects even field staff in DFO. Try to get a scientific permit to sample for ISA and see what happens. Talk about iSA to senior managers and watch their faces. See the fear and discomfort. They have already been coached as how to respond - "I can't speak about this", "call this number", "talk to the communications branch".

Who are these senior managers you speak of? Have you personally run into roadblocks trying to obtain a scientific permit to sample for ISAv? Actually, the biggest hurdle that most biologists and technicians in the department face nowadays is the administrative burdens being placed upon them. These issues are actually more predominant than being worried about some lawyer from the CFIA.

YA - I understand how it is "not that simple". The sampling constraints ARE the simple part. Don't sample suboptimum carcasses. Check the gills. If they are pink to red - go ahead and sample. White to pink - don't bother. Keep fish samples cool on ice if it is warm and keep them out of the sun. Use RNALater. NONE of these issues are insurrmountable. Politics at this point - maybe insurrmountable for federal reps. Politics is unfortunately extremely relevant here.

Well, for something that is the apparently the simplest part you have only skimmed the surface, Agent. For instance, if a major prespawn event is occurring then the timing of biosampling has to ideally coincide with the peak of that event, so you have some fresh, live females or males to sample. If you wait too long you will end up having a bunch of yogurt sacks left to try and sample. Depending on watershed location and stock, some spawning can be done in a matter of a week or protracted over a longer period of time. It also depends how often you are able to visit the stream in question. If it is only once every seven days you can totally miss out collecting the samples you need. It might be too late to get anyone from Fish Health to investigate. It could take at least 48 hours before people from Fish Health can get to a prespawn event and when you add the logistics in getting a remote place and back out then that compounds it. Fish Health is also not deep with staff so they cannot just respond at a moment’s notice to event and drop everything they are doing already.

If you are sampling for bacteriology then aseptic techniques are crucial or it is a wasted effort. You either need to use totally different instruments for each fish or sterilize each sampling tool in the field using a flaming techniques. Not the easiest to do in the field. In addition, you need to be careful about contamination - between fish and from the samplers themselves. Microbiology is very sensitive and even the pros concede that it is possible for them to fall victim to contamination. Dead samples can be of questionable quality for the genomic work, which detects subtle changes in RNA expression. Even the method of euthanizing a fish can impact the analysis of the samples. Scientists can tell how a fish was euthanized by looking at the cells in the liver for example. Simply pithing a fish in the brain will impact the histological examination of that region. This and more is on top of actually trying to get fresh, live fish for sampling and enough of them. I wish it were that simple to say, “if they are pink to red – go ahead and sample”. A prespawn carcass that has pink or red gills is already relegated to number 3 in the priority order provided it has only been dead for 24 hours or less. The pros do not waste their time if the carcass is at all questionable because of the cost in preparation versus what you can reasonably expect in terms of reliable results. Political interference has nothing to do with this part. There are no lawyers coming out telling you how to sample or to stop sampling. If there are, I have not encountered them. The only part I can see that is somewhat “political” in this is the funding and staffing levels provided to those responsible, but they are not alone and neither is any other department in government these days. Again, the sampling part is not insurrmountable as anyone can collect whatever they want (fresh live to yogurt sacks); however, if you want quality and reliable results then it does not come easy. It is not the simple part. I seems like we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

I know it's a chilling, Orwellian thought - but have you actually tried to get a project off the ground recently looking at fish health issues? If you haven't - you might be surprised.

I haven’t personally been involved in getting a fish health project off the ground, but if you have I would be interested in your recent personal experiences with the process if you would not mind sharing.

Do you know who sits on the federal funding boards and how technical review committees are constructed and run? Are you suggesting there is no politics there?

I never suggested there was no politics in either. I am somewhat familiar with how technical review committees are constructed and run – not so much with the federal funding boards. What is your experience with either of these at the department?

Fred's labs got inspected and OIE yanked his designation. Okay maybe needed to be done. BUT DFO/CFIAs lab didn't get the same complaint and treatment. Why not? Shouldn't the "official" labs be the best and lead by example? Fred didn't give the OIE $2M, but Canada did. Think there are no politics in any of these connections?

Why don’t you ask the OIE?

 

[agentaqua]

How familiar if you don't mind me asking? How much experience do you have on the spawning grounds doing biosampling, stock assessment or some other research?

I don't mind you asking, shuswap. If we were having a beer somewhere w/o the whole world over our shoulders - I'd give you details. there are reasons why people might wish to remain anonymous on any public forum. I know I'm asking you for faith here - but suffice it to say "familiar".

Who are these senior managers you speak of? Have you personally run into roadblocks trying to obtain a scientific permit to sample for ISAv? Actually, the biggest hurdle that most biologists and technicians in the department face nowadays is the administrative burdens being placed upon them. These issues are actually more predominant than being worried about some lawyer from the CFIA.?

I wish that were accurate, shuswap. certainly administrative burdens (esp. financial) are always a large factor. The managers know who they are. It's difficult to accurately tell exactly where the flack and interference is coming from at higher levels w/o having legal access (like the Cohen Commission) to emails and other written records. Many upper-level managers are well aware of this and use the telephone instead, so that there is no paper trail.

I have little anger towards field staff or lower to mid-level managers. largely, they are doing the best they can given the resources that they have available to them. It's a working environment with a very poor corporate atmosphere in many of the offices - where many employees go out frequently on stress leave if Harper hasn't axed their job out from underneath them.

I find it interesting how viseral a reaction I see coming from FF boosters when Alex Morton releases "Salmon Confidential", and how much power they ascribe to her, individually. She is but 1 researcher with similar experiences when dealing with CFIA/DFO, however. There are, in fact - many other researchers who have had very similar experiences. Salmon Confidental merely mirrorred and confirmed the experiences of other researchers who viewed the film.

Well, for something that is the apparently the simplest part you have only skimmed the surface, Agent. For instance, if a major prespawn event is occurring then the timing of biosampling has to ideally coincide with the peak of that event, so you have some fresh, live females or males to sample. If you wait too long you will end up having a bunch of yogurt sacks left to try and sample. Depending on watershed location and stock, some spawning can be done in a matter of a week or protracted over a longer period of time. It also depends how often you are able to visit the stream in question. If it is only once every seven days you can totally miss out collecting the samples you need. It might be too late to get anyone from Fish Health to investigate. It could take at least 48 hours before people from Fish Health can get to a prespawn event and when you add the logistics in getting a remote place and back out then that compounds it. Fish Health is also not deep with staff so they cannot just respond at a moment’s notice to event and drop everything they are doing already.

That's EXACTLY why we should NEVER assume that we should wait for self-called "experts" from DFO or CFIA to be able to respond, or why we should NEVER assume that the fish health sampling is adequate. Yes, we can get pointers and refreshers and maybe work within a DFO/CFIA sampling program - but ONLY if there is not only "care and control" of samples - but very public "care and control" of the lab results and data. DFOs and CFIAs lab need to get the same treatment and scrutiny as Kibenge's lab. We have to ensure that there is NO WAY that DFO/CFIA can squash the results or intentionally (calling it "accidental")destroy samples that they are scared contain ISA -thereby blocking trade in Ff product to the US. There needs to be trust on both sides - or we leave DFO/CFIA to their own devices - leaving them as irrelevant in this context when we are dealing with stewardship of our resources. This is actually what has been happening in the past few years, particularly when dealing with First Nations. This is how far this issue has become. I think there are key people in DFO and CFIA that should be tried for treason, rather than just liability or lack of competence.

There are no lawyers coming out telling you how to sample or to stop sampling. If there are, I have not encountered them.

Lucky for you. Guess you don't run a lab dealing with fish health issues.

 

[shuswap]

I don't mind you asking, shuswap. If we were having a beer somewhere w/o the whole world over our shoulders - I'd give you details. there are reasons why people might wish to remain anonymous on any public forum. I know I'm asking you for faith here - but suffice it to say "familiar".

I appreciate your honesty here, Agent. At this point I also have to tell you that I am “familiar” also.

I wish that were accurate, shuswap. certainly administrative burdens (esp. financial) are always a large factor. The managers know who they are. It's difficult to accurately tell exactly where the flack and interference is coming from at higher levels w/o having legal access (like the Cohen Commission) to emails and other written records. Many upper-level managers are well aware of this and use the telephone instead, so that there is no paper trail

You are not sure if that is accurate? It is accurate all right and it is more than just a “large factor”. If you are familiar as you claim then you have likely experienced the full wrath of trying to staff positions in government these days (term and indeterminate) with all the policies and committees; have your computer technical problems solved (or basically left on your own to deal with); deal with increasing financial accountability in this era of deficit reduction, deal with the minefield of collaborative agreements and the policies and oversight that go with it. Biologists are taking on more and more administrative tasks on their shoulders which detract from the actual biology side of things. This is on top of being in an environment of steady reductions in funding.


I didn’t ask if the senior managers know who they are – I asked if you knew who they were. Because I apparently seem to be in the dark about this and who those managers are I merely asked if you knew who they were. If you do not than just indicate that. If it is difficult to accurately tell as you have indicated then I will take that as an answer?

That's EXACTLY why we should NEVER assume that we should wait for self-called "experts" from DFO or CFIA to be able to respond, or why we should NEVER assume that the fish health sampling is adequate. Yes, we can get pointers and refreshers and maybe work within a DFO/CFIA sampling program - but ONLY if there is not only "care and control" of samples - but very public "care and control" of the lab results and data. DFOs and CFIAs lab need to get the same treatment and scrutiny as Kibenge's lab. We have to ensure that there is NO WAY that DFO/CFIA can squash the results or intentionally (calling it "accidental")destroy samples that they are scared contain ISA -thereby blocking trade in Ff product to the US. There needs to be trust on both sides - or we leave DFO/CFIA to their own devices - leaving them as irrelevant in this context when we are dealing with stewardship of our resources. This is actually what has been happening in the past few years, particularly when dealing with First Nations. This is how far this issue has become. I think there are key people in DFO and CFIA that should be tried for treason, rather than just liability or lack of competence.

I will counter by saying that’s why we should never assume that fish health sampling performed by other individuals with no (or little) formal training or education is adequate. The people that you have described as “self-called experts” from DFO (i.e. PBS in particular) actually have that training and experience. A couple of them in particular have done some very unique and interesting research. Some of them participated in the Cohen Commission Inquiry exposed to questioning from lawyers representing different groups. All of them have put their time and sweat into their trade and fully realize the pros and cons that come with sampling and analysis. Being open about “not being always perfect” should not be seen as a failure on their part, but rather being honest about the process. This is what they provided to me and this is what I am relying to you. I realize your position and respect it, but I know where I would put my faith in for reliable information to the fish health questions I have. I have crossed paths with many of them in the field over the years and find them to be not only professional, but also people with integrity. They have my respect and admiration even if they don’t have yours or others on this forum. It is more than just some pointers and refreshers to do the type of work they do. Seeing it first-hand I can tell you that it is not trivial. For instance, if they say microbiology sampling and analysis is not easy to do then it should indicate that perhaps a few pointers or refreshers might not be enough.

I agree that this should not preclude obtaining the same information from somewhere else (or in a collaborative way) provided they can satisfy the expectations that come with that work – including being open and honest themselves. It is a two-way street being transparent and honest. I agree there needs to be more trust on both sides and that the current political climate in Ottawa does not foster much trust. This is why I support collaborative efforts that have been proposed for fish health issues – namely the one proposed by Miller/Riddell/GenomeBC. If you are familiar with this you will find many collaborative efforts are either in the proposal stage or are already ongoing. With budgets the way they are now, there is more external funding coming from other sources like the PSC and PSF for these types of projects. However, it is critical to note that they are not exclusively fish health related because it is important to realize that it is rare to have various factors work in isolation to each other.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for the reply, Shuswap.

Sorry for being obtuse about the names of the upper level managers. I'll add some context: w/o being in the same room as the meetings about policy and communications were made - it's difficult to see where a manager is relaying information rather than adding to existing direction, or whether or not this is the source and it is getting made on the fly. I think I know the most likely culprits and the most likely open (but not hidden) chains of command - but I could be wrong about who made what decision and why.

Stating somebody did and said x when they said and did y opens a person up for charges of slander when posting on an open forum - even if you got it right - you might be expected to prove it in court which might be nearly impossible given how lawyers coach people how to use and not use publically-available correspondence.

As far as fish health sampling - you don't need a PhD to sample a fish. Yes, there are very technical skill sets in a lab - but that's not what I am talking about here. There could be issues around aseptic techniques that could be improved where a refresher tutorial could help.

As far as having "false positives" come from an improperly sampled fish - it is possible, but is it likely?

From what I understand, RNALater "fixes" the RNA virus so that no degradation or in-vial culturing happens. The virus gets "fixed" in the tissues. Any cross-contamination would happen as viral particles left on the scalpel from a previous fish where they could contact the preservative. So, the preservative could have been contaminated - NOT the inside of the original tissues. on the lab end - rinse off the tissues and take a fresh slice of tissue for histology and/or culture. From what I understand - it is far easier and more likely that a virus would be killed, rather than amplified during the preservation phase.

I also understand it is very difficult to culture virus, anyways.

So it would be far more likely to produce false negatives - rather from false positives - when dealing with the fieldwork end of things.

so why does the CFIA state they won't take samples because they can't track chain of custody?

Are they really afraid somebody has developed a way to culture ISA and are intentionally adding ISA to every vial they can access when nobody is looking?

Have you had DFO reject DNA samples from you because they can't authenicate chain of command?

Sounds like a very big pile of BS to me.

CFIA seized all of Rick Routledges frozen sockeye smolts because they "posed a risk" (was what I understand), but then claimed they couldn't replecate the positive ISA results and called the samples degraded.

OF COURSE the samples were degraded - they weren't sampled and preserved for viral testing, but for growth and feeding studies. So it is even more miraculus that they got enough viral segments to get a positive ISA hit. The proper follow-up would be to get more samples and preserve properly for viral testing. Did DFO do that? NO - they were scared to find out.

So DFO claims there is no ISA virus and gives the minister his talking notes instead.

Well if there is no virus - why were Rick's samples a "risk"? Were they scared that the ISA virus was going to jump out of the bag of frozen smolts? What about all the dead/living adults and juveniles lying/swimming in River's inlet. Wouldn't they be a "risk"?

Why was Fred Kibenge's lab the only one inspected by DFO/CFIA? Why didn't DFOs lab undergoe a similar treatment? Why is DFOs lab not certified for testing ISA by the OIE, but they are the ones doing the testing? How can they be certified to determine ISA status if they are not certified by the OIE? Why don't we have access to FF records?

These are the kinds of policy decisions and communications coming from "the experts" in the upper echelon of DFO/CFIA and why I believe that somebody should go to jail. i am not judging the on-the-grounds vets - just their bosses up the line.

AND we haven't even discussed the impacts that the sociopathic federal conservative government made to the Fisheries Act, CEAA, Nav Waters protection Act and to public access to information....

 

[agentaqua]

If you are talking about Exhibit #2147 (the web link you posted a few postings back) I will question whether Justice Cohen as well as the experts on ISAv during the inquiry put much weight on this exhibit in the Final Report.

I think we should question ALL the data, testimony and exhibits; and examine it and pull-out the potentially important and relevant parts. In that vein, lets look at what I consider to be some of the important highlights of Exhibit #2147 http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Exh-2147-NonRT.pdf that lead to some serious and important questions:

1/ p.2: "that despite the devastation ISA has caused aquaculture elsewhere, ISA is still not listed in the current CFHPR as a pathogen of concern". Why isn't it listed? How does that change the surveillance and reporting requirements? Who made that decision and why?

2/ p.2: "This visual analysis (of cell culture required to "confirm" ISA) is very subjective, requires substantial experience and is likely to vary between individuals since there is no licensing or standardization of training requirements. Ultimately all virus detection depends on the knowledge of the virologist. Inexperience can lead to a high number of false negatives". no licensing or standardization of training? No certification by OIE, either it seems. Yet DFO is claiming they are the "experts" wrt fish health testing. Why don't they go through rigorous inspection and training? Think about how this one factor could influence what is now declared a "false positive" where it is an actual positive (now in reality - a "false negative"). Think about how this would affect response actions or deny them. Who made that decision and why? .

3/ p.2: 'ISAV has only been cultured successfully in CHSE214 cells. Note that the CFHPR does not require the use of CHSE214 cells since other combinations of other specified cell lines could technically suffice. In the case of Atlantic salmon imports I believe CHSE214 cells were used, however not all records are available. The use of SHK1 cells was also not mandated by the CFHPR during the certification of Atlantic salmon source facilities, despite the fact that in 1997 the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) Aquatic animal manual specified that SHK1 cells were the cell line of choice for detection of ISAV (". So, they are not using OIE-recommended and approved cell lines to test for ISA. As above, Why don't they go through rigorous inspection and training? Think about how this one factor could influence what becomes a "false positive" from an actual positive. Think about how this would affect response actions or deny them - AGAIN. Who made that decision and why?.

4/ p.3: "Re‐inoculations, known as blind passes, are not required by the CFHPR, consequently samples with no initial CPE (CPE or abnormalities referred to as cytopathic effect - which is what they look for to certify a positive culture) would be classified as negative. CPE also develops more slowly in CHSE214 as compared to AS and SHK1 cell lines. At 14 days post inoculation CPE was present in 93.8% of ISAV positive samples in SHK1 cells, but only 23% of ISAV positives samples using CHSE214 cell lines (Rolland et al., 2005). This means that if CHSE214 cell lines are only kept for 14 days (as permitted under the CFHPR), then there would be a high number of false positives.". AGAIN, why not? As above, Why don't they use blind passes and longer incubation times? Think about how this one factor could influence what is now declared a "false positive" - from an actual positive. Think about how this would affect response actions or deny them - AGAIN. Who made that decision and why? .

5/ There is more in the critique about assumptions of what prevalence these diseases might exhibit in wild stocks and how incomplete and possibly undersampled the wild fish population is for the detection of ISA using CFHPR methodology.

SO, lots to think about and discuss. ALL of this happening behind closed doors - where the sign on the door says: "Nothing to see here - no ISA - move along - WE are the experts - not you peons - just read the headlines and the PR releases"...

 

[agentaqua]

Disease killing Pacific herring threatens salmon, scientist warns
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...atens-salmon-scientist-warns/article13722113/

 

[agentaqua]

Check this out:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/Bib92987.pdf

WAY - WAY back in 1992, they were developing the Fish Health Protection Guidelines.

Check-out page 9 where this industry associated vet admits problems with reporting, and assumes that the provincial vet act and the vet lab act will apply - so that there is public reporting, accounting and transparency will be upheld wrt fish health reporting. What does the newly-elected Liberal government do in 2003? - repeal and remove both acts to protect their buds - the fish farmers.

THERE'S BEEN NO ACTS SINCE TO COMPEL FISH FARMS TO REPORT DISEASE ISSUES.