Reposted from the "New Forum Rules" Thread....Conspiracy?!
- Thread starter Englishman
- Start date
Lipripper
Active Member
Sorry John.. I have to agree with this.. From the trees to the algae that grow from the nutrients that host the bugs that support the next generation of fish...
From the bears to the moss.
fish stalker
Active Member
and I think Holmes just answered his own question because those sound like some important reasons.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
The most important thing for the salmon is the salmon. This is why I am very interested in fertilization projects to help rehab streams. Other than that, where I live, lots and lots of e-gulls, c- gulls, bears, otters, cougars, martins, trees, herons, wolves, an overwhelming number of sealions and lots of seals. Nothing seems to be missing. I would like to see more orcas. Of course this is just my observation, its not peer reviewed so it is no really factual in comparison to what normal capacity of all these animals is. The sea lion populations are certainly not an indicator of low salmon runs but orcas on the other hand, oh I bet there is a relationship there. No doubt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Are you certain about this statement? Seems to be a fairly large double standard on many levels. Commercial fishers have and effect, sport fishers have an effect. Why different standards for them?
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Well, its a common theme here to deflect accountability. I just don't see it as cut and dry as you do i guess.
How about this: all user groups stop including salmon farming and we monitor and study the salmon. By this we are eliminating many factors which we can control and we then can focus on the environmental factors without all the goobely gock. I know, I'm dreaming.
How about this: all user groups stop including salmon farming and we monitor and study the salmon. By this we are eliminating many factors which we can control and we then can focus on the environmental factors without all the goobely gock. I know, I'm dreaming.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Except perhaps wild Chinook and Coho?
quote taken from the draft 2013 Salmon IFMP in regards to Chinook...
So the question is.... are the Megin and Bedwell-Ursus near your operation?
GLG
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
No they are not. But there is a whack of farms in the bedwell and far less around the megin and they booth struggle to get good returns. There also is alot of traditional rights being practice at the mouth of the megin regardless of numbers.
Yes, I agree but that is my point. I am not going to deny poor numbers in this area as you seem to be pressing. My point is there lots of animals and forest here despite low salmon returns but that is just a personal observation that can be made over most of the island.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
kudos to many - response to industry trolls/hacks
Firstly, some kudos to specific members on their postings on this topic thus far:
Englishman and Fourty-Four: I share your sense of bewilderment over the dishonesty and utter lack of common sense and understanding of these very serious common societal issues by industry hacks. Just remember the brains of sociopaths do NOT work like a normal person's brain which is why we should have checks and balances to keep them from becoming political leaders like Harper or paid lobbyists who promote and contribute to government collusion and corruption. The cost to society and our future is too great.
LastChance and Fogged-in: I share your outrage over some of the insincere and utterly stupid remarks and attacks made by industry hacks BUT by having them post openly here on this forum we get a chance to air, dissect and correct the drivel they tell themselves before they go to sleep at night curled up with Wallings photo. That way we are all prepared to respond to the sh*t they peddle no matter what our backgrounds are in this or other topics. In that sense, industry hacks/trolls perform an important public service. Remember: bullies are actually scared kids who never grew-up and they lash out in fear.
Rockfish, Mighty Sylvan, Dave S., Holmes, GLC, Lipripper and others: Thanks for your compassion and understanding. It's great having you on this forum keeping it real.
Kudos to all of you.
Now we get to Birdsnest: Maybe you could indicate whether or not you are employed by the fish farming business, or the associated support industries like the communication consultants, or if your spouse is. That way we could begin to understand your fear against those who criticize that industry and your lack of understanding of the issues.
Quid pro Quo: I am not employed by one of those nefarious “evil” NGOs. I am an activist – which I believe is a damn good thing – like all the posters on this form – active about our precious wild fish stocks.
I am NOT an “anti” fish farm person. I am an anti- open net-pen advocate. I believe in aquaculture – just not the current Norwegian-developed open net-pen technology. Who can neither see nor understand what the implications are of the transfer of sea lice and diseases back and forth between cultured, farm stock and wild stocks.
I also believe that there are many hard-working caring people in the fish farm industry and they live in a constant state of denial sheltered from the implications of their industry through the BS delivered by protective organizations such as the BC Salmon Farmers organizations and their associated media spin artists. Much like Harper does.
WAKEY-WAKEY!!! I believe your industry can and occasionally has severe population-level effects on our wild stocks. That is why there should be complete openness, transparency and honesty about every aspect of your operations. You should be able to respond to and answer tough questions w/o shooting the messenger (i.e. Morton) to avoid answering those questions.
If fact – we the affected public – DEMAND it. It's called democracy - somethng our grandfathers fought for and died for during the 2 world wars - something Harper is now actively trying to remove. Hilter gained power by stealing means to dissent and hiding truths also.
We are not going away – so get used to it. That's the “private club” here on this forum that you are feeling away from the safety of the BC Salmon Farmers PR releases. Thanks for being brave enough to venture out into the reel world.
Stay tuned - your BS will be debunked shortly..
Firstly, some kudos to specific members on their postings on this topic thus far:
Englishman and Fourty-Four: I share your sense of bewilderment over the dishonesty and utter lack of common sense and understanding of these very serious common societal issues by industry hacks. Just remember the brains of sociopaths do NOT work like a normal person's brain which is why we should have checks and balances to keep them from becoming political leaders like Harper or paid lobbyists who promote and contribute to government collusion and corruption. The cost to society and our future is too great.
LastChance and Fogged-in: I share your outrage over some of the insincere and utterly stupid remarks and attacks made by industry hacks BUT by having them post openly here on this forum we get a chance to air, dissect and correct the drivel they tell themselves before they go to sleep at night curled up with Wallings photo. That way we are all prepared to respond to the sh*t they peddle no matter what our backgrounds are in this or other topics. In that sense, industry hacks/trolls perform an important public service. Remember: bullies are actually scared kids who never grew-up and they lash out in fear.
Rockfish, Mighty Sylvan, Dave S., Holmes, GLC, Lipripper and others: Thanks for your compassion and understanding. It's great having you on this forum keeping it real.
Kudos to all of you.
Now we get to Birdsnest: Maybe you could indicate whether or not you are employed by the fish farming business, or the associated support industries like the communication consultants, or if your spouse is. That way we could begin to understand your fear against those who criticize that industry and your lack of understanding of the issues.
Quid pro Quo: I am not employed by one of those nefarious “evil” NGOs. I am an activist – which I believe is a damn good thing – like all the posters on this form – active about our precious wild fish stocks.
I am NOT an “anti” fish farm person. I am an anti- open net-pen advocate. I believe in aquaculture – just not the current Norwegian-developed open net-pen technology. Who can neither see nor understand what the implications are of the transfer of sea lice and diseases back and forth between cultured, farm stock and wild stocks.
I also believe that there are many hard-working caring people in the fish farm industry and they live in a constant state of denial sheltered from the implications of their industry through the BS delivered by protective organizations such as the BC Salmon Farmers organizations and their associated media spin artists. Much like Harper does.
WAKEY-WAKEY!!! I believe your industry can and occasionally has severe population-level effects on our wild stocks. That is why there should be complete openness, transparency and honesty about every aspect of your operations. You should be able to respond to and answer tough questions w/o shooting the messenger (i.e. Morton) to avoid answering those questions.
If fact – we the affected public – DEMAND it. It's called democracy - somethng our grandfathers fought for and died for during the 2 world wars - something Harper is now actively trying to remove. Hilter gained power by stealing means to dissent and hiding truths also.
We are not going away – so get used to it. That's the “private club” here on this forum that you are feeling away from the safety of the BC Salmon Farmers PR releases. Thanks for being brave enough to venture out into the reel world.
Stay tuned - your BS will be debunked shortly..
Last edited by a moderator:
steel_dreamin
Member
Sorry Birdsnest, I think some of it is self induced... Not to worry, apparently I'm a commercial fisherman in a sport fishermans body...
Very ammusing how people on this forum like to alienate some because they don't conform to their internal philosophy.
If everyone was truly interested in "stengh in numbers" they would be looking for opportunities to collaborate and not exclude.
This type of BS does confirm that this forum is going down fast. I've read a number of your posts in "Tuna" thread that have been informative and a valuable contribution - how soon some forget.
Very ammusing how people on this forum like to alienate some because they don't conform to their internal philosophy.
If everyone was truly interested in "stengh in numbers" they would be looking for opportunities to collaborate and not exclude.
This type of BS does confirm that this forum is going down fast. I've read a number of your posts in "Tuna" thread that have been informative and a valuable contribution - how soon some forget.
Birdsnest: You posted:
1/ That the latest “Salmon Confidential” video was “old News”. Please explain this. What is your definition of “old”? Even if the news is dated by a few months – if the issue is unresolved, does that mean we should ignore it? Should we all ignore the issue of fish viruses in wild stocks now because you said it is old news? Or were just trying to find a way in your mind to mitigate the seriousness of the questions Morton raises by labelling them as “old”? You sure do not sound sincere when you respond in this fashion.
2/ You reposted a response to Morton from a hatchery worker that had some good questions and references in it. I agreed with most of the posting except for the first sentence at the beginning: “There is no evidence to date that the piscine reovirus (PRV) causes HSMI.”.
Later, the same author uses this as a reference: Palacios, et al. 2010. Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation [HMSI] of farmed salmon is associated with infection with a novel reovirus. [PRV] PloS One 5(7), e11487. Or, how about another reference he uses: Finstad et al. 2012. Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI).
Here is a partial abstract from another one of his references, Løvoll et al. 2012:
ABSTRACT: The newly described piscine reovirus (PRV) appears to be associated with the development of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. PRV seems to be ubiquitous among fish in Norwegian salmon farms, but high viral loads and tissue distribution support a causal relationship between virus and disease.
It helps to actually read what you post, Birdsnest.
As far as the current science is concerned: PRV is associated with HMSI. PRV may or may not cause HMSI, but likely does (see Løvoll).
Remember when we knew little about AIDS but found-out later that the HIV virus caused AIDS? Likely to turn-out to be the same here.
NOBODY is saying PRV does NOT cause HMSI. There IS evidence to suggest PRV causes HMSI, but it is correlative evidence so far.
Just because it is correlative, does NOT in-substantiate the possibility that it is connected and it is real – that is the false trap that fish vets get themselves into when they parrot the tired statement “correlation does not [necessarily] mean causation”. I's like they have it tattooed on their rather thick foreheads.
The BC Salmon Farmers PR team always forgets the [necessarily] part, as do some of the vets and frankly – they should know better particularly with stats training. It's a classic Type II error - one of the simpliest and well-known fallacies that beginner stats students make.
Instead, fish vets should citing Hill's Postulates - Critera for Causal inference in epidemiology:
a.Strength of Association: The larger the relative effect, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
b.Dose-response: If the risk increases with increasing dose of the risk factor, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
c.Consistency: If similar associations are found in different studies in different populations, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
d.Temporality: Risk factor exposure must precede the outcome.
e.Intervention: Reduction or removal of the risk factor must reduce the risk of the outcome.
f.Biological Plausibility
g.Coherence: Associations between the risk factor and the outcome must be consistent with existing knowledge.
In addition, CFIA - as a federal agency - is also supossed to follow the precautionary principle - which it appears they are not.
The precautionary principle denotes a duty to prevent harm, when it is within our power to do so, even when all the evidence is not in. This principle has been codified in several international treaties to which Canada is a signatory.
AND even if PRV turns out to not cause HMSI – so what? Should we ignore a disease (whatever the causative agent) that destroys the hearts of affected wild fish before they get to spawn? Is it okay to let penned cultured stock infect wild stocks so that they potentially die in large numbers?
In this posting, the provincial fish vet is defended and the author of this posting cites the letter Dr. Marty wrote to the RPB newsletter as proof of his defence. In that letter however, Marty states: that: “every fish in my database was tested for ISAV using highly sensitive and specific RT-PCR tests, and that all results were negative--no virus”
Marty's assertion lacks depth because he neglects to admit that the PCR method only tests for known segments of known ISA virus and like all viruses – over time ISA will mutate to a point where the PCR test is useless for unknown mutated strains. It's why there is a “new” flu shot every season.
So – the actual response should have said that wild Pacific salmon could be infected with an unknown strain of ISA virus, but Marty neglected to point that out – it's called professional liability and I'm sure his department's legal advise pointed that out.
Anyways that's all the debunking time I have for now, Birdsnest. Maybe you can read what you post next time.
1/ That the latest “Salmon Confidential” video was “old News”. Please explain this. What is your definition of “old”? Even if the news is dated by a few months – if the issue is unresolved, does that mean we should ignore it? Should we all ignore the issue of fish viruses in wild stocks now because you said it is old news? Or were just trying to find a way in your mind to mitigate the seriousness of the questions Morton raises by labelling them as “old”? You sure do not sound sincere when you respond in this fashion.
2/ You reposted a response to Morton from a hatchery worker that had some good questions and references in it. I agreed with most of the posting except for the first sentence at the beginning: “There is no evidence to date that the piscine reovirus (PRV) causes HSMI.”.
Later, the same author uses this as a reference: Palacios, et al. 2010. Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation [HMSI] of farmed salmon is associated with infection with a novel reovirus. [PRV] PloS One 5(7), e11487. Or, how about another reference he uses: Finstad et al. 2012. Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI).
Here is a partial abstract from another one of his references, Løvoll et al. 2012:
ABSTRACT: The newly described piscine reovirus (PRV) appears to be associated with the development of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. PRV seems to be ubiquitous among fish in Norwegian salmon farms, but high viral loads and tissue distribution support a causal relationship between virus and disease.
It helps to actually read what you post, Birdsnest.
As far as the current science is concerned: PRV is associated with HMSI. PRV may or may not cause HMSI, but likely does (see Løvoll).
Remember when we knew little about AIDS but found-out later that the HIV virus caused AIDS? Likely to turn-out to be the same here.
NOBODY is saying PRV does NOT cause HMSI. There IS evidence to suggest PRV causes HMSI, but it is correlative evidence so far.
Just because it is correlative, does NOT in-substantiate the possibility that it is connected and it is real – that is the false trap that fish vets get themselves into when they parrot the tired statement “correlation does not [necessarily] mean causation”. I's like they have it tattooed on their rather thick foreheads.
The BC Salmon Farmers PR team always forgets the [necessarily] part, as do some of the vets and frankly – they should know better particularly with stats training. It's a classic Type II error - one of the simpliest and well-known fallacies that beginner stats students make.
Instead, fish vets should citing Hill's Postulates - Critera for Causal inference in epidemiology:
a.Strength of Association: The larger the relative effect, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
b.Dose-response: If the risk increases with increasing dose of the risk factor, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
c.Consistency: If similar associations are found in different studies in different populations, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
d.Temporality: Risk factor exposure must precede the outcome.
e.Intervention: Reduction or removal of the risk factor must reduce the risk of the outcome.
f.Biological Plausibility
g.Coherence: Associations between the risk factor and the outcome must be consistent with existing knowledge.
In addition, CFIA - as a federal agency - is also supossed to follow the precautionary principle - which it appears they are not.
The precautionary principle denotes a duty to prevent harm, when it is within our power to do so, even when all the evidence is not in. This principle has been codified in several international treaties to which Canada is a signatory.
AND even if PRV turns out to not cause HMSI – so what? Should we ignore a disease (whatever the causative agent) that destroys the hearts of affected wild fish before they get to spawn? Is it okay to let penned cultured stock infect wild stocks so that they potentially die in large numbers?
In this posting, the provincial fish vet is defended and the author of this posting cites the letter Dr. Marty wrote to the RPB newsletter as proof of his defence. In that letter however, Marty states: that: “every fish in my database was tested for ISAV using highly sensitive and specific RT-PCR tests, and that all results were negative--no virus”
Marty's assertion lacks depth because he neglects to admit that the PCR method only tests for known segments of known ISA virus and like all viruses – over time ISA will mutate to a point where the PCR test is useless for unknown mutated strains. It's why there is a “new” flu shot every season.
So – the actual response should have said that wild Pacific salmon could be infected with an unknown strain of ISA virus, but Marty neglected to point that out – it's called professional liability and I'm sure his department's legal advise pointed that out.
Anyways that's all the debunking time I have for now, Birdsnest. Maybe you can read what you post next time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Ya its self induced, around here anyways. I am just trying to be open about my perspective. I find it unfortunate that the moderators support the aggressive bashing. It just represents sport fishing poorly in a public place although at the end of the day its private so it is what it is. I like the site and benefit from it and try to contribute but I am a fish farmer that fishes and has been fishing since long before I was a farmer, nothing can change that.
Gear'n'beer!
Well-Known Member
I'm considering quitting my job as an interprovincially recognized red seal tradesman to get into tuna farming. Then tuna fishing fish farmers can see how most everyone else on here feels about ocean net pens for atlantics. Put them on dry land, period. If one single wild salmonid has been affected by ocean net pens then that's unacceptable. I usually stay out of this type of thread but jeez.....enough is enough already.
been away for some time birdsnest. Just got back into this forum. I'll have to go back and read your previous posts if I have time.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
1. old news. All the topics in the video have been discussed extensively on fishing forums before in the past year and longer. That is what I meant. Not of it was new information or ideas. It was just a creative recap of what they have been working on for a couple of years.
As for the rest of your post. Leave it with me for a bit and I will go back through it and make certain I am clear about it. I would never say ignore viruses and I fully support further research into our pacific situation, absolutely. is not true that Morton is saying PRV Causes HSMI because it seems that you are stating it differently?
As for the rest of your post. Leave it with me for a bit and I will go back through it and make certain I am clear about it. I would never say ignore viruses and I fully support further research into our pacific situation, absolutely. is not true that Morton is saying PRV Causes HSMI because it seems that you are stating it differently?