Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts...
- Thread starter Andrew P
- Start date
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
CK, again I ask you to stand behind the industry you like and support and please post some scientific, peer reviewed research that backs up your industry's claims that it has minimum detrimental impact of wild salmon population and the surrounding environment. Please show us the scientific data and facts you say that we constantly ignore and suppress (i.e. that evidence that conclusively proves that salmon feedlots are not doing harm). Please in all sincerity show us how we and the evidence we have provided on the forum fails in not only scientific methodology but logic as well. You do have some conclusive evidence to share with us (and not just mere opinion and generalized so called "simple truth" observations as this is what you basically criticize us doing) right? I know an industry that you purport to be conscientious, sustainable and non-harmful will have some scientific evidence to back up what they do - can you share this with us please? Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
FishNazi
Member
Send a diver down with a camera to ANY fish farm on the coast and you will see that EVERY SINGLE FKN THING is DEAD. The ocean floor is like a barren wasteland under the pens and all around these farms. You don't have to be a marine biologist or "The ClayoquotKid" to see what's going on.
FishNazi
Member
Quote Originally Posted by Whole in the Water
CK, again I ask you to stand behind the industry you like and support and please post some scientific, peer reviewed research that backs up your industry's claims that it has minimum detrimental impact of wild salmon population and the surrounding environment. Please show us the scientific data and facts you say that we constantly ignore and suppress (i.e. that evidence that conclusively proves that salmon feedlots are not doing harm). Please in all sincerity show us how we and the evidence we have provided on the forum fails in not only scientific methodology but logic as well. You do have some conclusive evidence to share with us (and not just mere opinion and generalized so called "simple truth" observations as this is what you basically criticize us doing) right? I know an industry that you purport to be conscientious, sustainable and non-harmful will have some scientific evidence to back up what they do - can you share this with us please?
Thanks.
Send a diver down with a camera to ANY fish farm on the coast and you will see that EVERY SINGLE FKN THING is DEAD. The ocean floor is like a barren wasteland under the pens and all around these farms. You don't have to be a marine biologist or "The ClayoPunkKid" to see what's going on. Kid is an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about.
CK, again I ask you to stand behind the industry you like and support and please post some scientific, peer reviewed research that backs up your industry's claims that it has minimum detrimental impact of wild salmon population and the surrounding environment. Please show us the scientific data and facts you say that we constantly ignore and suppress (i.e. that evidence that conclusively proves that salmon feedlots are not doing harm). Please in all sincerity show us how we and the evidence we have provided on the forum fails in not only scientific methodology but logic as well. You do have some conclusive evidence to share with us (and not just mere opinion and generalized so called "simple truth" observations as this is what you basically criticize us doing) right? I know an industry that you purport to be conscientious, sustainable and non-harmful will have some scientific evidence to back up what they do - can you share this with us please?
Thanks.
Send a diver down with a camera to ANY fish farm on the coast and you will see that EVERY SINGLE FKN THING is DEAD. The ocean floor is like a barren wasteland under the pens and all around these farms. You don't have to be a marine biologist or "The ClayoPunkKid" to see what's going on. Kid is an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about.
FishNazi
Member
Speaking of Dave ...where's David Suzuki? Isn't he the big advocate for protecting the oceans? Not a word out of the Suzuki Foundation. Kinda makes you go hmmmmm...... These farms are a disaster waiting to happen ...or rather, waiting to be found out.
Anyone, ANYONE who advocates for fish farms doesn't know what they're talking about or there getting $ from the industry. Don't insult mine or anyone else's intelligence ClayoPunkKid. You're an idiot and know not of what you speak.
Anyone, ANYONE who advocates for fish farms doesn't know what they're talking about or there getting $ from the industry. Don't insult mine or anyone else's intelligence ClayoPunkKid. You're an idiot and know not of what you speak.
Strange as it may sound - I welcome CK's input on this forum. Without his input (and a few others) - there would be no debate. It seems to be that industry and the regulators get all their info and talking points from the same place - rebuttals posted on the BCSFA webpage, developed by PR people. CK's responses give you not just the flavour - but the content of the rebuttals - and mindset of the pro-farm lobby.
1 word - DENIAL!
That pretty much sums it up - along with putting their fingers in their ears and going "na-na-na-bo-bo". That's the response one gets when one questions the staus-quo of the lack of risk assessment and mitigation from DFO and other government regulators. That's why this debate is soo divisive and acrimonious - and disrespectful.
I guess the same kind of acrimonious debate happened before England outlawed slavery. Economics kept the debate stalled and emotional there for some time as well. EVENTUALLY, people relented and changes were made.
I expect the same here. Some year we will look back and say "Boy - that was a dumb idea" - as far as allowing open net-cage technology loose upon the coast. I'm not sure if I will live long enough to see that happen, or not. I hope so. The question remains: "at what cost?". When will we be given the truth and clarity so we can have a debate about what levels of risk and impacts are we (as a society) prepared to accept (or NOT)?
What if diseases like PRv/HMSI; ISAv and others have been released upon a naive population?
I think - at the very least - we need to have openness and transparency about siting criteria and fish health reporting - so we can begin to understand these issues fully.
1 word - DENIAL!
That pretty much sums it up - along with putting their fingers in their ears and going "na-na-na-bo-bo". That's the response one gets when one questions the staus-quo of the lack of risk assessment and mitigation from DFO and other government regulators. That's why this debate is soo divisive and acrimonious - and disrespectful.
I guess the same kind of acrimonious debate happened before England outlawed slavery. Economics kept the debate stalled and emotional there for some time as well. EVENTUALLY, people relented and changes were made.
I expect the same here. Some year we will look back and say "Boy - that was a dumb idea" - as far as allowing open net-cage technology loose upon the coast. I'm not sure if I will live long enough to see that happen, or not. I hope so. The question remains: "at what cost?". When will we be given the truth and clarity so we can have a debate about what levels of risk and impacts are we (as a society) prepared to accept (or NOT)?
What if diseases like PRv/HMSI; ISAv and others have been released upon a naive population?
I think - at the very least - we need to have openness and transparency about siting criteria and fish health reporting - so we can begin to understand these issues fully.
soxy
Member
We now have land based technology and should be using it. Never mind the hand wringing and hoping the status quo will suffice. That's not good enough.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
This is an attack on the scientific results and on the scientists who have carried it out. You present no evidence for your accusation. Just a bald statement of opinion with nothing to back it up. Where are the analyses of the published papers which prove your unsubstantiated accusations? Where are the published retractions from the journals withdrawing the papers because of bias, or flaws or shoddy work?
You are completely ignorant of how science publication works because they are all peer reviewed. So you are accusing the reviewers of shoddy or poor work too, because they must have missed all these “flaws” you say exist.
CK your “opinion” is just that, and uninformed opinion with nothing to back it up. Your accusations are baseless!
Wrong again CK. Science is about gathering data and information and then forming a hypothesis. What does the evidence tell you?
Further evidence is then collected and it may support the hypothesis or it may not, in which case the hypothesis may have to be modified. That is how science advances. It does not start out to invalidate anything. Data and evidence first and hypothesis testing second.
Again CK you are ignorant of science and the scientific method and unqualified to make the weird statements you do.
There you go attacking the scientists again and calling into question their integrity and professionalism. This is a low and dirty tactic.
In addition these two scientists are NOT the only ones working in the field. Far from it. Many scientists have published papers from all over the world with similar findings. I suppose they are all biased or carry out flawed work eh CK?
I shake my head at your paranoia and at your unethical and nasty attacks.
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. Or since you are not qualified and can only state belief based opinions, show us where this paper has been shown to be “shoddy work” or has been withdrawn by the publishing journal.
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?
This so called “simple truth” that you state is a simple lie. You falsely accuse the entire scientific community of bias, incompetence and conspiracy and then call it truth. CK you are travesty of a normal rational person who can debate from facts and evidence. You have nothing to back up what you say except accusations and then you have the effrontery to call it “truth”.
This one is absolutely amazing. You turn our accusation against you and your industry around and baldly accuse we fish feed lots opponents of ignoring evidence. Please show us the papers and science which supports your opinions and stop making baseless attacks.
Wrong again CK. Again, take a look at the paper I have linked to above which clearly shows run declines in many parts of the world correlated to fish feed lots. However, since you cannot refute it with clear science and facts, you will ignore it or make baseless accusations about it being biased and flawed etc without a shred of evidence to back it up.
This is a rant this is not science! Yet you seriously believe this is a counter to the paper above and to the hundreds out there containing an overwhelming amount of evidence on the impact of fish feed lots on the ecosystem?
I am absolutely blown away by the child like level of your intellectual discourse and reason on this topic CK. It is totally unreal.
Again, you consider this a rational reason? Unbelievable!
You have not provided any science, any data or any shred of evidence and yet you call this “rational reason”?
The motivation for your total suspension of all reality and the ignoring of all the links to factual papers myself Agent and Charlie keep posting up here, is simply economics and greed. No more no less
Englishman: CK already knows all this. He has read/heard it before - and obviously and obliviously ignored all evidence that runs contrary to his indoctrinated mind.
I give you examples:
On 03-24-2013, 01:33 PM on the N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon thread: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-fish-farm-rejected-risk-to-wild-salmon/page7
I posted:
The peer-review process is not perfect - but reasonable enough to start answering some questions while developing new questions. It's a work in progress.
Either you believe in science - or you believe in religion and theology, and flat Earths. You either believe in the peer-review process or you don't. Either you believe in the process that has produced a few somewhat supportive papers on the impacts of the open net-cage technology, and many slightly-to-highly critical scientific papers - or you don't believe in the scientific process at all, and you go through life wearing tinfoil hats and hiding from the aliens.
You can't use half-read and half-understood scientific papers as your true light one minute, and in the next minute state that you don't believe in science or the scientific process, CK. You can't have it both ways, CK.
CNN and the press releases from the BC Salmon farmers are NOT science, CK. Either you are committed to having a debate over the science, using the available literature (like sockeyefry) - or you are not committed to science, finding truths, or even having a debate.
So far, you have demonstrated the latter - not the former.
Have you ever published in Plos, CK? How do you know then that "anyone can put-up a paper" on that journal? Do you even know ANYTHING about scientific publishing or even science, CK?
Because if you do - you haven't demonstrated it here.
Englishman posted on 5-28-2013, 08:01 PM on the Lawsuit Filed against DFO & Marine Harvest!!! thread at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...iled-against-DFO-amp-Marine-Harvest!!!/page14
And I'll yet again leave you with "just" these. Which are examples of scientific work in the real world (which you continue to ignore in your never-never world of fish feed lots), that provide an overwhelming mountain of evidence of harm to wild salmon and their environment.
Impacts on wild fish populations
General
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0060033
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/co...3/7/1162.short
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...5#.UaTaVJwalzM
http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aqu...tes_Enviro.htm
Thru’ Sea lice infestation
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...672/3385.short
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0212085841.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...1564/689.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UZ-mUMoambs
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-016
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...20lice&f=false
http://vhost1.ucs.sfu.ca:9870/scienc...1320967624.pdf
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/co...59/1/131.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...627.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4484860500030X
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UaQgapwalzM
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...5#.UaQmD5walzM
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1772.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UaTWlpwalzM
Thru’ Disease Transmission and Interaction
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4484869190392K
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...2#.UaTaA5walzM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4484869190370M
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.o...4/15/699.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...20751907000100
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...44848686901675
Thru’ Harvesting wild fish for Feed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...4051017a0.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...285.x/abstract
I give you examples:
On 03-24-2013, 01:33 PM on the N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon thread: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-fish-farm-rejected-risk-to-wild-salmon/page7
I posted:
The peer-review process is not perfect - but reasonable enough to start answering some questions while developing new questions. It's a work in progress.
Either you believe in science - or you believe in religion and theology, and flat Earths. You either believe in the peer-review process or you don't. Either you believe in the process that has produced a few somewhat supportive papers on the impacts of the open net-cage technology, and many slightly-to-highly critical scientific papers - or you don't believe in the scientific process at all, and you go through life wearing tinfoil hats and hiding from the aliens.
You can't use half-read and half-understood scientific papers as your true light one minute, and in the next minute state that you don't believe in science or the scientific process, CK. You can't have it both ways, CK.
CNN and the press releases from the BC Salmon farmers are NOT science, CK. Either you are committed to having a debate over the science, using the available literature (like sockeyefry) - or you are not committed to science, finding truths, or even having a debate.
So far, you have demonstrated the latter - not the former.
Have you ever published in Plos, CK? How do you know then that "anyone can put-up a paper" on that journal? Do you even know ANYTHING about scientific publishing or even science, CK?
Because if you do - you haven't demonstrated it here.
Englishman posted on 5-28-2013, 08:01 PM on the Lawsuit Filed against DFO & Marine Harvest!!! thread at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...iled-against-DFO-amp-Marine-Harvest!!!/page14
And I'll yet again leave you with "just" these. Which are examples of scientific work in the real world (which you continue to ignore in your never-never world of fish feed lots), that provide an overwhelming mountain of evidence of harm to wild salmon and their environment.
Impacts on wild fish populations
General
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0060033
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/co...3/7/1162.short
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...5#.UaTaVJwalzM
http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aqu...tes_Enviro.htm
Thru’ Sea lice infestation
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...672/3385.short
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0212085841.htm
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...1564/689.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UZ-mUMoambs
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f04-016
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...20lice&f=false
http://vhost1.ucs.sfu.ca:9870/scienc...1320967624.pdf
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/co...59/1/131.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...627.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4484860500030X
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UaQgapwalzM
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...5#.UaQmD5walzM
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1772.short
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UaTWlpwalzM
Thru’ Disease Transmission and Interaction
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/42/15506.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4484869190392K
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...2#.UaTaA5walzM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4484869190370M
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.o...4/15/699.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...20751907000100
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...44848686901675
Thru’ Harvesting wild fish for Feed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...4051017a0.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...285.x/abstract
Last edited by a moderator:
Additionally, I posted on 04-26-2008, 06:56 PM on the N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?6746-fish-farm-siting-criteria-politics/page23
So then - let’s ask the questions more directly, and then answer them:
1/ Has anyone conclusively proven that 1 sea lice from an open net-cage landed on a smolt, and
2/ What is the cumulative action of that transfer to the wild stocks? Is it both an individual, and a population-level impacts?
The answer to the second question is a resounding – YES!!
Krkosek and Ford both model and quantifies that population-level impact (we posted and discussed these reports earlier), while Morton has been the only one thus far to demonstrate the individual impacts to pink smolts (and we discussed other pro-salmon farming researchers that had been given monies to research this)…
But there are still doubts from the fish farming community as to whether or not their lice contribute to that population-level impact – question1 is unproven thus far. Even though it is admitted that their caged cultured stock get sea lice from the wild stocks through the mechanism of the open net-cage which allows parasites and diseases to flow both ways.
This is because researchers have looked at the DNA, and since there is so much transfer of lice back-and-forth between wild and cultured stocks – there is effectively no difference that the researchers can tell them apart. Think about that one for a minute. What does that say about transfer through the open nets? Wouldn't you say that proved it? If there wasn't sustained gene flow back and forth - you would be able to see DNA differences, wouldn't you?
Even though logically, one would assume that the transfer is the most plausible cause of that population-level impact from sea lice - is there some other scientifically-validated way of assessing the likelihood of that transfer?
Luckily, the answer is – yes there is.
It is called “Hills Criteria of Causation”, and it’s straight out of epidemiology textbooks – something that the public would have expected fish farm vets and BCMAFF personnel to not only be aware of, but have read during their education. The question becomes – why aren’t they using it? Isn't that their jobs to be educated, competent, and responsible? What possible excuse can they invent to explain why they are negligent in their duties?
Hills Criteria of Causation has been around and utilized in the Health Sciences field since 1965 – some 43 years ago. Hill outlined a systematic approach for using scientific judgment to infer causation from statistical associations observed in epidemiological data, listing nine issues to be considered when judging whether an observed association is a causal relationship. These systematic associations are now cited as the "Bradford-Hill criteria". The more of the associations that are proven - the more likely factor "A" causes disease "B".
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?6746-fish-farm-siting-criteria-politics/page23
So then - let’s ask the questions more directly, and then answer them:
1/ Has anyone conclusively proven that 1 sea lice from an open net-cage landed on a smolt, and
2/ What is the cumulative action of that transfer to the wild stocks? Is it both an individual, and a population-level impacts?
The answer to the second question is a resounding – YES!!
Krkosek and Ford both model and quantifies that population-level impact (we posted and discussed these reports earlier), while Morton has been the only one thus far to demonstrate the individual impacts to pink smolts (and we discussed other pro-salmon farming researchers that had been given monies to research this)…
But there are still doubts from the fish farming community as to whether or not their lice contribute to that population-level impact – question1 is unproven thus far. Even though it is admitted that their caged cultured stock get sea lice from the wild stocks through the mechanism of the open net-cage which allows parasites and diseases to flow both ways.
This is because researchers have looked at the DNA, and since there is so much transfer of lice back-and-forth between wild and cultured stocks – there is effectively no difference that the researchers can tell them apart. Think about that one for a minute. What does that say about transfer through the open nets? Wouldn't you say that proved it? If there wasn't sustained gene flow back and forth - you would be able to see DNA differences, wouldn't you?
Even though logically, one would assume that the transfer is the most plausible cause of that population-level impact from sea lice - is there some other scientifically-validated way of assessing the likelihood of that transfer?
Luckily, the answer is – yes there is.
It is called “Hills Criteria of Causation”, and it’s straight out of epidemiology textbooks – something that the public would have expected fish farm vets and BCMAFF personnel to not only be aware of, but have read during their education. The question becomes – why aren’t they using it? Isn't that their jobs to be educated, competent, and responsible? What possible excuse can they invent to explain why they are negligent in their duties?
Hills Criteria of Causation has been around and utilized in the Health Sciences field since 1965 – some 43 years ago. Hill outlined a systematic approach for using scientific judgment to infer causation from statistical associations observed in epidemiological data, listing nine issues to be considered when judging whether an observed association is a causal relationship. These systematic associations are now cited as the "Bradford-Hill criteria". The more of the associations that are proven - the more likely factor "A" causes disease "B".
continued...
These criteria are in standard use in epidemiology studies, e.g.:
http://www.sv40foundation.org/Bradford-Hill.html
http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstr...?pmid=17408310
Those criteria as listed are (in italics from: http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm):
1. A Temporal Relationship: Exposure always precedes the outcome. If factor "A" is believed to cause a disease, then it is clear that factor "A" must necessarily always precede the occurrence of the disease. This is the only absolutely essential criterion.
In the case of open net-cages and their effects on wild stocks – are net cages there and operating before smolts come out of the creeks. Yes they are. There has only been 1 epidemiological incidence of sea lice reported on ADULT sockeye salmon in Alberni Inlet not being associated with salmon-farming areas. This is because the water conditions were too low for the adult salmon to enter the creek to spawn, and they milled around outside at the end of Alberni Inlet long enough to elevate the levels of lice on adjacent adult salmon while waiting in the salt chuck. The lice were on ADULT salmon who were waiting to enter freshwater, spawn, and die. It is very unlikely that juvenile salmon were affected (and none were noted or found), as this is much later than when they leave the creeks. It is easy to see how open net-pen salmon farms upsets what is the normal temporal association of low contact and low sea lice transfer between outmigrating juvenile salmon at the creek mouth (April to June) with the return of adult salmon at the creek mouth from August to October.
2. Strength of Association: This is defined by the size of the association as measured by appropriate statistical tests. The stronger the association, the more likely it is that the relation is causal. For example, the more highly correlated hypertension is with a high sodium diet, the stronger is the relation between sodium and hypertension. Similarly, the higher the correlation between patrilocal residence and the practice of male circumcision, the stronger is the relation between the two social practices.
Okay, again - In the case of open net-cages and their effects on wild stocks – this effect has been appropriately demonstrated, modeled and published by both Krkosek and Ford.
3. Dose-Response Relationship: An increasing amount of exposure increases the risk. If a dose-response relationship is present, it is strong evidence for a causal relationship. However, as with specificity, the absence of a dose-response relationship does not rule out a causal relationship. A threshold may exist above which a relationship may develop. At the same time, if a specific factor is the cause of a disease, the incidence of the disease should decline when exposure to the factor is reduced or eliminated. An anthropological example of this would be the relationship between population growth and agricultural intensification. Other things being equal, as population growth increases within a given area, we should see a commensurate increase in the amount of energy and resources invested in agricultural production. Conversely, when a population decrease occurs, we should see a commensurate reduction in the investment of energy and resources per acre. The same analogy can be applied to the current debate on global warming. If increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of increasing global temperatures, then "other things being equal", we should see both a commensurate increase and a commensurate decrease in global temperatures following an increase or decrease respectively in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
This effect is very strong with effects from the open net-cage industry. Look at the results from the 2003 fallowing in BC, or any data from Ireland or Scotland.
4. Consistency: The association is consistent when results are replicated in studies in different settings using different methods. That is, if a relationship is causal, we would expect to find it consistently in different studies and in different populations. This is why numerous experiments have to be done before meaningful statements can be made about the causal relationship between two or more items. For example, it has taken thousands of highly technical studies of the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer before a definitive conclusion can be made that cigarette smoking increases the risk of (but does not cause) cancer. Similarly, it would require numerous studies of the difference between male and female performance of a specific behavior (e.g., cognitive tasks, domestic violence, nurturing activities, etc.) by a number of different researchers and under a variety of different circumstances before a conclusion could be made regarding whether a gender difference exists in the performance of such behaviors.
Again, this effect is very strong with effects from the open net-cage industry. Look at the data from Ireland or Scotland or Norway. It is very consistent that there are population-level effects associated with sea lice wherever open net-pen salmonid aquaculture interacts with wild salmon stocks. Ford’s work confirms this.
5. Plausibility: The association agrees with currently accepted understanding of pathological processes. However, studies that disagree with established understanding of biological processes may force a reevaluation of accepted beliefs. In other words, there needs to be some theoretical basis for making an association between a vector and disease, or one social phenomenon and another. One may, by chance, discover a correlation between the price of bananas and the election of dog catchers in a particular community, but there is not likely to be any logical connection between the two phenomena. On the other hand, the discovery of a correlation between population growth and the incidence of warfare among Yanomamo villages would fit well with ecological theories of conflict under conditions of increasing competition over resources.
Again – all logic says this is consistent and logical – water flows both ways bring vectors of disease and parasitic transfer.
6. Consideration of Alternate Explanations: In judging whether a reported association is causal, it is necessary to determine the extent to which researchers have taken other possible explanations into account and have effectively ruled out such alternate explanations. In other words, it is always necessary to consider multiple hypotheses before making conclusions about the causal relationship between any two items under investigation.
Okay – how about sticklebacks without any lice babies to re-infest wild smolts. Nope – debunked that one already. How about 10-50 MILLION penned salmon. Gee – never thought of that…
7. Experiment: The condition can be altered (prevented or ameliorated) by an appropriate experimental regimen.
Can you artificially infect salmon in tanks – yep. Better not give Morton her permit to transfer smolts, though. Wouldn't want to prove or admit anything. Don't repeat that 2003 fallowing experiment, either though. That worked way too well. Wouldn't want to have to explain that one...
8. Specificity: This is established when a single putative cause produces a specific effect. This is considered by some to be the weakest of all the criteria. The diseases attributed to cigarette smoking, for example, do not meet this criteria. When specificity of an association is found, it provides additional support for a causal relationship. However, absence of specificity in no way negates a causal relationship. Because outcomes (be they the spread of a disease, the incidence of a specific human social behavior or changes in global temperature) are likely to have multiple factors influencing them, it is highly unlikely that we will find a one-to-one cause-effect relationship between two phenomena. Causality is most often multiple. Therefore, it is necessary to examine specific causal relationships within a larger systemic perspective.
Do sea lice cause death and sub-lethal effects on immature salmon – yep. Bet your flippers they do...
9. Coherence: The association should be compatible with existing theory and knowledge. In other words, it is necessary to evaluate claims of causality within the context of the current state of knowledge within a given field. What do we have to sacrifice about what we currently know in a given area in order to accept a particular claim of causality. What, for example, do we have to reject of our current knowledge in geography, physics, biology and anthropology in order to accept the Creationist claim that the world was created as specified in the Bible a few thousand years ago? Similarly, how consistent are racist and sexist theories of intelligence with our current understanding of how genes work and how they are inherited from one generation to the next? However, as with the issue of plausibility, research that disagrees with established theory and knowledge are not automatically false. They may, in fact, force a reconsideration of accepted beliefs and principles. All currently accepted theories, including Evolution, Relativity and non-Malthusian population ecology, were at one time new ideas that challenged orthodoxy. Thomas Kuhn has referred to such changes in accepted theories as "Paradigm Shifts".
Yep – the body of scientific literature states that the weight of evidence is that the open net-cage technology poses serious population-levels effects in adjacent wild stocks.
WOW – that’s all 9 points in agreement.
These criteria are in standard use in epidemiology studies, e.g.:
http://www.sv40foundation.org/Bradford-Hill.html
http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstr...?pmid=17408310
Those criteria as listed are (in italics from: http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm):
1. A Temporal Relationship: Exposure always precedes the outcome. If factor "A" is believed to cause a disease, then it is clear that factor "A" must necessarily always precede the occurrence of the disease. This is the only absolutely essential criterion.
In the case of open net-cages and their effects on wild stocks – are net cages there and operating before smolts come out of the creeks. Yes they are. There has only been 1 epidemiological incidence of sea lice reported on ADULT sockeye salmon in Alberni Inlet not being associated with salmon-farming areas. This is because the water conditions were too low for the adult salmon to enter the creek to spawn, and they milled around outside at the end of Alberni Inlet long enough to elevate the levels of lice on adjacent adult salmon while waiting in the salt chuck. The lice were on ADULT salmon who were waiting to enter freshwater, spawn, and die. It is very unlikely that juvenile salmon were affected (and none were noted or found), as this is much later than when they leave the creeks. It is easy to see how open net-pen salmon farms upsets what is the normal temporal association of low contact and low sea lice transfer between outmigrating juvenile salmon at the creek mouth (April to June) with the return of adult salmon at the creek mouth from August to October.
2. Strength of Association: This is defined by the size of the association as measured by appropriate statistical tests. The stronger the association, the more likely it is that the relation is causal. For example, the more highly correlated hypertension is with a high sodium diet, the stronger is the relation between sodium and hypertension. Similarly, the higher the correlation between patrilocal residence and the practice of male circumcision, the stronger is the relation between the two social practices.
Okay, again - In the case of open net-cages and their effects on wild stocks – this effect has been appropriately demonstrated, modeled and published by both Krkosek and Ford.
3. Dose-Response Relationship: An increasing amount of exposure increases the risk. If a dose-response relationship is present, it is strong evidence for a causal relationship. However, as with specificity, the absence of a dose-response relationship does not rule out a causal relationship. A threshold may exist above which a relationship may develop. At the same time, if a specific factor is the cause of a disease, the incidence of the disease should decline when exposure to the factor is reduced or eliminated. An anthropological example of this would be the relationship between population growth and agricultural intensification. Other things being equal, as population growth increases within a given area, we should see a commensurate increase in the amount of energy and resources invested in agricultural production. Conversely, when a population decrease occurs, we should see a commensurate reduction in the investment of energy and resources per acre. The same analogy can be applied to the current debate on global warming. If increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of increasing global temperatures, then "other things being equal", we should see both a commensurate increase and a commensurate decrease in global temperatures following an increase or decrease respectively in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
This effect is very strong with effects from the open net-cage industry. Look at the results from the 2003 fallowing in BC, or any data from Ireland or Scotland.
4. Consistency: The association is consistent when results are replicated in studies in different settings using different methods. That is, if a relationship is causal, we would expect to find it consistently in different studies and in different populations. This is why numerous experiments have to be done before meaningful statements can be made about the causal relationship between two or more items. For example, it has taken thousands of highly technical studies of the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer before a definitive conclusion can be made that cigarette smoking increases the risk of (but does not cause) cancer. Similarly, it would require numerous studies of the difference between male and female performance of a specific behavior (e.g., cognitive tasks, domestic violence, nurturing activities, etc.) by a number of different researchers and under a variety of different circumstances before a conclusion could be made regarding whether a gender difference exists in the performance of such behaviors.
Again, this effect is very strong with effects from the open net-cage industry. Look at the data from Ireland or Scotland or Norway. It is very consistent that there are population-level effects associated with sea lice wherever open net-pen salmonid aquaculture interacts with wild salmon stocks. Ford’s work confirms this.
5. Plausibility: The association agrees with currently accepted understanding of pathological processes. However, studies that disagree with established understanding of biological processes may force a reevaluation of accepted beliefs. In other words, there needs to be some theoretical basis for making an association between a vector and disease, or one social phenomenon and another. One may, by chance, discover a correlation between the price of bananas and the election of dog catchers in a particular community, but there is not likely to be any logical connection between the two phenomena. On the other hand, the discovery of a correlation between population growth and the incidence of warfare among Yanomamo villages would fit well with ecological theories of conflict under conditions of increasing competition over resources.
Again – all logic says this is consistent and logical – water flows both ways bring vectors of disease and parasitic transfer.
6. Consideration of Alternate Explanations: In judging whether a reported association is causal, it is necessary to determine the extent to which researchers have taken other possible explanations into account and have effectively ruled out such alternate explanations. In other words, it is always necessary to consider multiple hypotheses before making conclusions about the causal relationship between any two items under investigation.
Okay – how about sticklebacks without any lice babies to re-infest wild smolts. Nope – debunked that one already. How about 10-50 MILLION penned salmon. Gee – never thought of that…
7. Experiment: The condition can be altered (prevented or ameliorated) by an appropriate experimental regimen.
Can you artificially infect salmon in tanks – yep. Better not give Morton her permit to transfer smolts, though. Wouldn't want to prove or admit anything. Don't repeat that 2003 fallowing experiment, either though. That worked way too well. Wouldn't want to have to explain that one...
8. Specificity: This is established when a single putative cause produces a specific effect. This is considered by some to be the weakest of all the criteria. The diseases attributed to cigarette smoking, for example, do not meet this criteria. When specificity of an association is found, it provides additional support for a causal relationship. However, absence of specificity in no way negates a causal relationship. Because outcomes (be they the spread of a disease, the incidence of a specific human social behavior or changes in global temperature) are likely to have multiple factors influencing them, it is highly unlikely that we will find a one-to-one cause-effect relationship between two phenomena. Causality is most often multiple. Therefore, it is necessary to examine specific causal relationships within a larger systemic perspective.
Do sea lice cause death and sub-lethal effects on immature salmon – yep. Bet your flippers they do...
9. Coherence: The association should be compatible with existing theory and knowledge. In other words, it is necessary to evaluate claims of causality within the context of the current state of knowledge within a given field. What do we have to sacrifice about what we currently know in a given area in order to accept a particular claim of causality. What, for example, do we have to reject of our current knowledge in geography, physics, biology and anthropology in order to accept the Creationist claim that the world was created as specified in the Bible a few thousand years ago? Similarly, how consistent are racist and sexist theories of intelligence with our current understanding of how genes work and how they are inherited from one generation to the next? However, as with the issue of plausibility, research that disagrees with established theory and knowledge are not automatically false. They may, in fact, force a reconsideration of accepted beliefs and principles. All currently accepted theories, including Evolution, Relativity and non-Malthusian population ecology, were at one time new ideas that challenged orthodoxy. Thomas Kuhn has referred to such changes in accepted theories as "Paradigm Shifts".
Yep – the body of scientific literature states that the weight of evidence is that the open net-cage technology poses serious population-levels effects in adjacent wild stocks.
WOW – that’s all 9 points in agreement.
continued...
If you used the field of epidemiology to examine this issue – you would say that sea lice from farms are the most probable cause of sea lice infection on juvenile outmigrating salmon - i.e. the observed association is a causal relationship.
That is – if you needed to explain or prove it. But who wants to do that, really. Better not tell the great unwashed about the "Bradford-Hill criteria" - they might get suspicious that we are in fact lying through our teeth and hoping nobody will notice.
Well, guess what - we did notice.
Why hasn’t DFO gone over this checklist, and filed charges against open net-cage salmon farms under HADD or release of a deleterious substance? I'll let you reading this forum come to your own conclusions about why.
Let me ask you this follow-up question, though - would you say DFO is exercising their core mandate of protecting the publics fishery resource? What if key personnel within DFO are blocking that core mandate? Wouldn't that be a criminal action?
Communicating with fish farm PR boosters is kinda like delivering a talk on natural selection to a Baptist pick-nick in the Southern States. They already have their version of what the Bible says - and thanks for not upsetting them in their comfort levels of understanding...
If you used the field of epidemiology to examine this issue – you would say that sea lice from farms are the most probable cause of sea lice infection on juvenile outmigrating salmon - i.e. the observed association is a causal relationship.
That is – if you needed to explain or prove it. But who wants to do that, really. Better not tell the great unwashed about the "Bradford-Hill criteria" - they might get suspicious that we are in fact lying through our teeth and hoping nobody will notice.
Well, guess what - we did notice.
Why hasn’t DFO gone over this checklist, and filed charges against open net-cage salmon farms under HADD or release of a deleterious substance? I'll let you reading this forum come to your own conclusions about why.
Let me ask you this follow-up question, though - would you say DFO is exercising their core mandate of protecting the publics fishery resource? What if key personnel within DFO are blocking that core mandate? Wouldn't that be a criminal action?
Communicating with fish farm PR boosters is kinda like delivering a talk on natural selection to a Baptist pick-nick in the Southern States. They already have their version of what the Bible says - and thanks for not upsetting them in their comfort levels of understanding...
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
So, CK I ask yet for the third time will you stand behind the industry you promote as sustainable and having minimal, if any negative impact on wild salmon and the surrounding environment and provide science based, peer reviewed research to show that open net salmon feedlots do NOT cause the damage and negative impacts that all the varied research and papers that GLG, Charlie, agentaqua, Englishman, et al have posted here numerous times?
Please don't bother with more 'clever' quips, persecution complaints, and silly little graphics (that is for teenagers). Instead please provide us with real data, factual scientific research to show us how we are wrong. So belly up to the bar and show us the data as the integrity of your industry is at stake here! Will you take up this challenge?
If you can't or won't maybe you should pause to reflect and think about what the salmon feedlot industry may actually be doing.
Please don't bother with more 'clever' quips, persecution complaints, and silly little graphics (that is for teenagers). Instead please provide us with real data, factual scientific research to show us how we are wrong. So belly up to the bar and show us the data as the integrity of your industry is at stake here! Will you take up this challenge?
If you can't or won't maybe you should pause to reflect and think about what the salmon feedlot industry may actually be doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
CK while your at it can you answer the question why "Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts..."
This is the original question of this thread. If that's not clear enough perhaps......
Why the heck should my tax money go to your foreign company?
Don't you have a foreign tax payer that you could ask for corporate welfare?
I hear Norway is a wash with cash right now... seems to me you could take your cap in hand and fill it there.
Adam Smith Quote
“The learned ignore the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of the ideas of their imagination.”
Principle of Ethical Responsibility - which states:
"If you fail to act against a wrong, you share responsibility for the consequences of that wrong".
This is the original question of this thread. If that's not clear enough perhaps......
Why the heck should my tax money go to your foreign company?
Don't you have a foreign tax payer that you could ask for corporate welfare?
I hear Norway is a wash with cash right now... seems to me you could take your cap in hand and fill it there.
Adam Smith Quote
“The learned ignore the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of the ideas of their imagination.”
Principle of Ethical Responsibility - which states:
"If you fail to act against a wrong, you share responsibility for the consequences of that wrong".
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.... so far nothing but the hiss of dead air from CK.....
However, I remain confident he will respond to our requests and questions posted above with science based peer reviewed facts and data because we are told by him and others in the industry that the net pen salmon feedlot industry is responsible, sustainable and a good corporate citizen and does not cause negative harm to wild salmon populations and the surrounding environment.
He will respond with scientific data, as anything else would be hypocritical and indicate a serious lack of proper management oversight and even reckless behaviour on the part of his industry. He will respond because the reputation and integrity of the industry he support depends on it. Were waiting....
However, I remain confident he will respond to our requests and questions posted above with science based peer reviewed facts and data because we are told by him and others in the industry that the net pen salmon feedlot industry is responsible, sustainable and a good corporate citizen and does not cause negative harm to wild salmon populations and the surrounding environment.
He will respond with scientific data, as anything else would be hypocritical and indicate a serious lack of proper management oversight and even reckless behaviour on the part of his industry. He will respond because the reputation and integrity of the industry he support depends on it. Were waiting....
Last edited by a moderator:
Good luck, WitW! I've been waiting for many years to get some hard questions answered by industry/DFO - instead I get the PR talking notes.
Here is some well-documented cases in which parasitic, bacterial and viral disease outbreaks occurring in wild fish stocks have been traced back to outbreaks of the same pathogens on fish farms in the same geographical area:
Bakke, T. and P.D. Harris. 1998. Diseases and parasites in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 247-266
Johnsen, B.O., and Jensen, A.J. 1994. The spread of furunculosis in salmonids in Norwegian rivers. J. Fish Biol. 45: 47-55.
Whoriskey, F. 1999. Atlantic Salmon Federation Research and Environment Department - Research Update: ASF finds Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA)in aquaculture escapees and wild Atlantic salmon
from Petition: No. 148A Office of the Auditor General of Canada:
"The situation in Norway provides a classic example. In 1988 twenty Norwegian salmon farms were closed for two years as the result of a disease called furunculosis that was accidentally introduced into that country's fish farm operations through importation in 1984 of infected salmon smolts from a fish farm in Scotland, where the disease was known to be endemic. Until then furunculosis had never been found in Norwegian waters. By 1992, 550 salmon farms in Norway were infected with the disease, a 275 percent increase in the incidence of the disease in just four years. In addition, 74 natural waterways were infected with furunculosis and the impact on the wild stocks of salmon in those streams was devastating. Once abundant wild runs of salmon and trout in these affected rivers were virtually eliminated (Johnsen and Jensen, 1994). This case alone shows the enormous potential that salmon aquaculture activities have for disease transmission."
Here is some well-documented cases in which parasitic, bacterial and viral disease outbreaks occurring in wild fish stocks have been traced back to outbreaks of the same pathogens on fish farms in the same geographical area:
Bakke, T. and P.D. Harris. 1998. Diseases and parasites in wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 247-266
Johnsen, B.O., and Jensen, A.J. 1994. The spread of furunculosis in salmonids in Norwegian rivers. J. Fish Biol. 45: 47-55.
Whoriskey, F. 1999. Atlantic Salmon Federation Research and Environment Department - Research Update: ASF finds Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA)in aquaculture escapees and wild Atlantic salmon
from Petition: No. 148A Office of the Auditor General of Canada:
"The situation in Norway provides a classic example. In 1988 twenty Norwegian salmon farms were closed for two years as the result of a disease called furunculosis that was accidentally introduced into that country's fish farm operations through importation in 1984 of infected salmon smolts from a fish farm in Scotland, where the disease was known to be endemic. Until then furunculosis had never been found in Norwegian waters. By 1992, 550 salmon farms in Norway were infected with the disease, a 275 percent increase in the incidence of the disease in just four years. In addition, 74 natural waterways were infected with furunculosis and the impact on the wild stocks of salmon in those streams was devastating. Once abundant wild runs of salmon and trout in these affected rivers were virtually eliminated (Johnsen and Jensen, 1994). This case alone shows the enormous potential that salmon aquaculture activities have for disease transmission."
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
rockdog
Well-Known Member
"When our first farm tested positive for IHN, we made the decision to remove the fish immediately without waiting for CFIA, because we wanted to eliminate any possibility of IHN spreading to other farms as time passed."
I found this a little disturbing, as I'm sure others will too. Remove the fish immediately only because it could spread to other farms. What about the wild stocks? If it wasn't for the threat of the disease spreading to other farms they would have left the diseased fish in the pens until the CFIA gives the order?
I found this a little disturbing, as I'm sure others will too. Remove the fish immediately only because it could spread to other farms. What about the wild stocks? If it wasn't for the threat of the disease spreading to other farms they would have left the diseased fish in the pens until the CFIA gives the order?
Similar threads
