The Future of Fish Farms ????

[seadna]

Also, I'll point out that fish in your chinook farm don't migrate past the fish in the atlantic fish farms while the wild salmon do.So it may be that the "closeness" of your farm to an atlantic farm isn't equivalent to the closeness of a wild salmon to the atlantic farm.

 

[Birdsnest]

Which is morton: and activist or a biologist? I do not believe papers that she signs off on have much merrit seeing how she is a anti salmon farming activist for starters.

The reality however, is that most fish farms do and there is abundant evidence of negative impact on wild salmon period.

Pehaps it is your reality but is there really an abundance of proof here in bc or is it our reality that the majority of this evidence is science signed of by morton the activist?

No, I have read the these papers before by that crew. I am not a biologist either so some of it is jiberish to myself. I'll stick to my very basic observations thanks and not ride the coat tail of activist and whole heartily believe that those are hands down facts. Much work remains to be done on pacific pathogen to better understand what really is going on.

I'd be happy to debate any aspect of either paper to which I provide a link.

You will not get much of a debate from me. I just do not think it is solid science.

BUT, and this is a big but, we don't really give a crap about whether the atlantic fish farms harm the chinook in a chinook fish farm! We do care about whether they impact wild salmon runs and THEY DO as is indicated by the data.

I understand you prefer your own data but this is just a basic observation that applies to the question at hand. I and others interested prefer to consider all possible information that is out there even mortons activist science.

Also, there is no doubt that increasing the local concentration of fish (e.g farming them), increases the risk of disease and increases the risk of increased virulence of disease.

Sure as with everything this is true but what is not know is the measurement of risk. Given some very basic observations such as my chinook farm scenario, 30 million socks returning one year, large chum returns being reported this year it kinda indicates that not all is as being reported in your paper posted.

There is also no doubt that the worst place to site a fish farm is adjacent to a site of increased concentrations of wild fish (e.g. at or near a terminal site of migration).

Again this is only true if the information in your paper is correct and the risk is proven to be hi or elevated at least. As noted from cohen much research remains to be done on this.

 

[Birdsnest]

Also, I'll point out that fish in your chinook farm don't migrate past the fish in the atlantic fish farms while the wild salmon do.So it may be that the "closeness" of your farm to an atlantic farm isn't equivalent to the closeness of a wild salmon to the atlantic farm.

So one time pathogens from salmon farms is widespread but for this scenario it isn't? This is my beef with the activist approach. They can not do it without stepping on their own toes all the time. One moment eating farm salmon causes cancer and the next moment it is ok in closed containment. Same with most of the complaints from activist. Feed sources are not good but it is ok in closed containment. Now that this new land based this is up and running even I am not interested in eating it. double stuffed tanks, growing twice as fast. Thats not natural. I think that if this is what they want they should eat it too. lol I'll take a pass on the medicated finless salmon thanks.

 

[rockdog]

Which is morton: and activist or a biologist? I do not believe papers that she signs off on have much merrit seeing how she is a anti salmon farming activist for starters.

okay, fair enough. I do not believe papers that fish farmers sign off on, or pay for. Now how about Mr. Cohen? Let me guess, you dont like his work either?

 

[Englishman]

Which is morton: and activist or a biologist? I do not believe papers that she signs off on have much merrit seeing how she is a anti salmon farming activist for starters.

Pehaps it is your reality but is there really an abundance of proof here in bc or is it our reality that the majority of this evidence is science signed of by morton the activist?

Not only are you ignorant about ecology and the environment, you are totally ignorant as to how science publication works. This paper posted by Seadna, is authored by 6 scientists (NOT just Morton) and is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. This is a prestigious, respected peer reviewed journal. The article is therefore reviewed for accuracy and correctness by other objective scientists who are not authors of this paper. Only when it has gone through this rigorous review process does it get published!!
Morton is an activist BECAUSE of the science. Not because she is able to create a conspiracy among scientists or corrupt the process with money like the feed lot owners!!
Your attempt to denigrate a respected scientist and in so doing call into question the integrity of the other 5 authors and the National Academy itself is pathetic and typical of the feed lot owners’ ethics.

No, I have read the these papers before by that crew. I am not a biologist either so some of it is jiberish to myself. I'll stick to my very basic observations thanks and not ride the coat tail of activist and whole heartily believe that those are hands down facts. Much work remains to be done on pacific pathogen to better understand what really is going on.

I rest my case. You are not a biologist but you believe you are qualified to make pronouncement and worse will, accusations. You are uneducated and cannot even understand a scientific paper, yet you are “qualified” to mess with the environment without any understanding of what you are doing. I repeat, you should be ashamed!!

You will not get much of a debate from me. I just do not think it is solid science.

Again, you are NOT qualified to decide what is solid science and what is not. Your statement is therefore meaningless and has no value whatsoever. The independent scientists who reviewed the paper determined it was solid science. Therefore it IS!

I understand you prefer your own data but this is just a basic observation that applies to the question at hand. I and others interested prefer to consider all possible information that is out there even mortons activist science.

Not true. By your own admission you do not understand science, so you are not considering “all possible information”. You ignore what you do not understand and do not wish to know about, to maintain your ridiculous position.

Sure as with everything this is true but what is not know is the measurement of risk. Given some very basic observations such as my chinook farm scenario, 30 million socks returning one year, large chum returns being reported this year it kinda indicates that not all is as being reported in your paper posted.

The Precautionary Principle means that the burden of proof that there is no harm should have rested with the feed lot owners in the first place. There is risk, and the consequences of that risk are serious harm to the ocean environment. Therefore the risk is unacceptable.
For you to keep quoting one off salmon return events, is like a global warming denier saying the science must be wrong because we have had one cooler summer or it is cooler where they live. You really do not understand science or the environment at all do you Birdsnest?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Again this is only true if the information in your paper is correct and the risk is proven to be hi or elevated at least. As noted from cohen much research remains to be done on this.

The science is already in. To keep saying we need more research, before we actually do anything is a dangerous game, putting the whole ocean ecosystem at risk. For you, no research will be enough, because you cannot understand and refuse to accept the results!!

 

[Birdsnest]

Seems like everyone seems to agree with cohen and his recommendations. His findings are no surprise to me and it is no surprise that the activist are misrepresenting the findings all the while distracting from the many other issues as posted by cohen. Shame.

 

[seadna]

Which is morton: and activist or a biologist? I do not believe papers that she signs off on have much merrit seeing how she is a anti salmon farming activist for starters.

1) Is it not possible to be both an activist AND a biologist?
2) Do we not have a long history in science in which hypotheses lead to data collection which lead to understanding and ultimately activism? If we discounted every scientist who ever took an activist position, we'd probably still be emitting CFC's into the atmosphere, smoking at much higher rates and breathing far more polluted air.
3) When a paper is published in a good scientific journal it is subjected to peer review so while YOU may not believe anything with Morton's name on it, other scientists do and you might consider that.

Pehaps it is your reality but is there really an abundance of proof here in bc or is it our reality that the majority of this evidence is science signed of by morton the activist?

The lastest paper in Ecological Applications (I linked to it in another post - it's not viewable for free) doesn't have Morton as a co-author but was written by previous co-authors of Mortons. It shows data that is extremely convincing that there's a strong link between wild salmon mortality and sea lice abundance and even shows how changes in treatment plans reduced the wild salmon mortality. However, I'm guessing that since the authors have previously co-authored with Morton you won't believe it either. Part of the problem is likely that there isn't a lot of funding for these kinds of studies so there isn't a huge number of researchers doing this kind of work. With the way the BC government has tried to suppress some of the discussions relating to potential problems from fish farming, I doubt they're funding good research.

No, I have read the these papers before by that crew. I am not a biologist either so some of it is jiberish to myself. I'll stick to my very basic observations thanks and not ride the coat tail of activist and whole heartily believe that those are hands down facts. Much work remains to be done on pacific pathogen to better understand what really is going on.

Then ask questions, I'd be happy to walk you through anything you don't understand. However, if you don't read the research or try to understand it, I'll have to call B.S. on sticking to your own admittedly "very basic" observations. You haven't collected the range of data this team has collected over such a large geographical area and range of times to see the correlations that they see.

You will not get much of a debate from me. I just do not think it is solid science.

On what basis do you make this statement? If you don't understand the work and haven't read all of it, then it's strange that you claim that it isn't solid science.

I understand you prefer your own data but this is just a basic observation that applies to the question at hand. I and others interested prefer to consider all possible information that is out there even mortons activist science.

Great! Then cite the other useful information and detailed studies that make your point of view. I'd love to see the data (not feelings) that are driving your opinions.

Sure as with everything this is true but what is not know is the measurement of risk. Given some very basic observations such as my chinook farm scenario, 30 million socks returning one year, large chum returns being reported this year it kinda indicates that not all is as being reported in your paper posted.

You can cite some occasional information from one place or another but that really doesn't make any solid point about the problems of fish farming. In fact, the most recent paper (http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/12-0519.1) very clearly shows that as the treatment protocol for the fish farms under study changed such that the reduced sea lice in the farms during the out migration of wild salmon that the mortality was reduced. So it may be that appropriate treatments in the farms can help - at least for awhile and at least with the sea lice problem. It may also be the case that we eventually create resistance sea lice. That's something that we cannot predict but it is entirely plausible (and indeed perhaps likely) given what we know about biology.

Again this is only true if the information in your paper is correct and the risk is proven to be hi or elevated at least. As noted from cohen much research remains to be done on this.

Did you read the entire Cohen report? It's free and online.

I understand the rationale behind the Government of Canada promoting the salmon-farming
industry and its products or providing funds to
assist with that sector’s competitiveness. What does
concern me, however, is that, when one government department (in this case DFO) has mandates
both to conserve wild stocks and to promote the
salmon-farming industry, there are circumstances
in which it may find itself in a conflict of interest
because of divided loyalties. For example:
• There is a risk that DFO will not proactively
examine potential threats to migrating sockeye
salmon from salmon farms, leaving it up to
other concerned parties to establish that there
is a threat.
• There is a risk that DFO will impose less onerous
fish health standards on salmon farms than it
would if its only interest were the protection of
wild fish. Farmed salmon may tolerate certain
diseases or pathogens differently from wild
salmon, such that the farmed fish would not
necessarily require treatment except for their
potential to spread disease or pathogens to
wild fish. (The treatment of sea lice is a good
example: see the discussion in Volume 1,
Chapter 9, Fish health management.)
• There is a risk that DFO will be less rigorous in
enforcing the Fisheries Act against the operators
of salmon farms.

And recommendation 3:

The Government of Canada should remove
from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’
mandate the promotion of salmon farming as
an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

 

[seadna]

So one time pathogens from salmon farms is widespread but for this scenario it isn't?

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. During fry migration, they tend to shelter near shore and may spend considerable time very near the atlantic salmon farms. Your chinook farm is separated by ? how much space ? I don't know. But I'm not sure you're making an apples-to-apples comparison.

This is my beef with the activist approach. They can not do it without stepping on their own toes all the time. One moment eating farm salmon causes cancer and the next moment it is ok in closed containment.

Now you're just grasping at straws and straying from the topic at hand.

Same with most of the complaints from activist. Feed sources are not good but it is ok in closed containment. Now that this new land based this is up and running even I am not interested in eating it. double stuffed tanks, growing twice as fast. Thats not natural. I think that if this is what they want they should eat it too. lol I'll take a pass on the medicated finless salmon thanks.

Here's something we agree on. I don't want any of those salmon either. In fact, if we can't grow salmon in conditions that are similar to the wild conditions without harming wild salmon, then I don't want any farmed salmon period. So we agree to some extent.

 

[Birdsnest]

Englishman, do not try to make me appear as I am a representative or owner of a fish farm I am not. I work on fish farms. Time for you know it alls to start posting your credentials but I can not help but notice that despite my friendly requests previously nobody here will???? So your efforts to discredit my observations and views really do not mean much, to me anyways.

 

[Birdsnest]

Here's something we agree on. I don't want any of those salmon either. In fact, if we can't grow salmon in conditions that are similar to the wild conditions without harming wild salmon, then I don't want any farmed salmon period. So we agree to some extent.

Cheers......

 

[seadna]

I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have been working in molecular biology for about 20 years. I am a faculty member a Department of Microbiology. I study human pathogens with a primary focus on bacteria. I have authored or co-authored more than 80 peer-reviewed scientific publications, 2 book chapters and one book. I've fished my entire life (50+ years) and fished for salmon for the past 15 or so years and put several hundred hours on the water each year. I've been involved in engaging the public in scientific discussion for about 20 years. I definitely don't know it all, but I do know a few things. I'd even admit that you could probably teach me a thing or two also (but not if I chose to ignore you or call you a know it all).

 

[Englishman]

Great post Seadna!! In your bigger post above, you ahave said the same thing I did in several places but you have eviscerated Birdnest's arguments and shown up his complete lack of qaulifications and understanding of the published data from science much more completely than I. And probably more politely too!!

Birdsnests is exactly like Christian a fundamentalist. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, the latter will not accept the huge weight of scientific evidence for evolution. They do not understand the scientific process and will not accept it and call into question the integrity of science and scientists.

I have a problem with people with no qualifications or background making pronouncements on something they know nothing about. As a scientist myself I find that extremely vexing!

 

[Birdsnest]

I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have been working in molecular biology for about 20 years. I am a faculty member a Department of Microbiology. I study human pathogens with a primary focus on bacteria. I have authored or co-authored more than 80 peer-reviewed scientific publications, 2 book chapters and one book. I've fished my entire life (50+ years) and fished for salmon for the past 15 or so years and put several hundred hours on the water each year. I've been involved in engaging the public in scientific discussion for about 20 years. I definitely don't know it all, but I do know a few things. I'd even admit that you could probably teach me a thing or two also (but not if I chose to ignore you or call you a know it all).

Hmm. Now you really have me wondering what you do. Who puts 300 or so hours on the water a year? That is a vary large amount of time on the water. What faculty?

So whats you opinion on ISA being in bc?
What are your thoughts on IHN?
How about this PVR/HSMI thing?

 

[seadna]

Great post Seadna!! In your bigger post above, you ahave said the same thing I did in several places but you have eviscerated Birdnest's arguments and shown up his complete lack of qaulifications and understanding of the published data from science much more completely than I. And probably more politely too!!

Birdsnests is exactly like Christian a fundamentalist. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, the latter will not accept the huge weight of scientific evidence for evolution. They do not understand the scientific process and will not accept it and call into question the integrity of science and scientists.

I have a problem with people with no qualifications or background making pronouncements on something they know nothing about. As a scientist myself I find that extremely vexing!

Not so great post - there's no need to use language like eviscerate or to compare Birdsnest to a Christian fundamentalist. We're better off making solid arguments and not insulting others' intelligence.

 

[Dave]

Not so great post - there's no need to use language like eviscerate or to compare Birdsnest to a Christian fundamentalist. We're better off making solid arguments and not insulting others' intelligence.

Thankyou for saying that.

 

[Englishman]

Not so great post - there's no need to use language like eviscerate or to compare Birdsnest to a Christian fundamentalist. We're better off making solid arguments and not insulting others' intelligence.

I stand duly chastened!!
However, my point is it will not matter what the pedigree of the scientific source papers you quote, or how well researched it is, Birdsnest cannot and will not accept it because he is incapable of understanding it!
I am not insulting his intelligence, I am pointing out very clearly his lack of qualifications and education to be making pronouncements on these papers, which is not the same thing!
I am sure there are some very intelligent fundamentalist. They are nevertheless ignorant and uneducated. What analogy would you use to characterise someone who makes broad dismissals of papers in a peer reviewed journal such as National Academy of Sciences as "not solid science"? Or who refers to qualified scientists such as yourself as "know-it-alls"?

 

[steel_dreamin]

I stand duly chastened!!
However, my point is it will not matter what the pedigree of the scientific source papers you quote, or how well researched it is, Birdsnest cannot and will not accept it because he is incapable of understanding it!
I am not insulting his intelligence, I am pointing out very clearly his lack of qualifications and education to be making pronouncements on these papers, which is not the same thing!
I am sure there are some very intelligent fundamentalist. They are nevertheless ignorant and uneducated. What would you call someone who makes broad dismissals of papers in the National Academy of Sciences as "not solid science"?

You really should have stopped while you were ahead...

 

[ziggy]

You really should have stopped while you were ahead...

Wow,no kidding.

 

[GLG]

http://www.lillooetnews.net/article...to-147-challenge-issued-to-salmon-farmers-148

May 2, 2012

To the Editor,
In an Apr. 25 letter to the editor, Elena Edwards expressed concern about the “unknown effects on human health from consuming diseased salmon.”

I am the fish pathologist mentioned in Ms. Edwards’ letter. I can assure you that viruses commonly occur in all living things, including wild salmon, but no fish viruses are known to affect humans. It would be unethical for a medical professional to suggest otherwise.
Ms. Edwards also challenged the salmon farmers “to allow Dr. Alex Morton and Dr. Kristi Miller to work alongside…Dr. Gary Marty to test salmon from your farms and to finally confirm or deny the presence of the viruses…”

Actually, some salmon farmers are already working with DFO’s Dr. Miller. Creative Salmon wanted to learn the cause of jaundice syndrome affecting some of their farmed Chinook salmon. Their veterinarian sent samples to me for validated diagnostic testing and to Dr. Miller for experimental testing. Some of the fish had piscine reovirus (PRV), but none of the fish had heart disease. We are now working together to report our results.

Alexandra Morton (who is not a veterinarian) sent supermarket samples of BC farmed Atlantic salmon to veterinary microbiologist Dr. Fred Kibenge at UPEI. His test results included an important disclaimer: “the presence of PRV sequences in the tissue samples does not imply that the subject fish had HSMI [heart and skeletal muscle inflammation].”
Contrary to Dr. Kibenge’s disclaimer, Alexandra Morton reported to the public that the “lab also reports that we had piscine reovirus, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation…”, “it’s a nasty heart virus”, and the fish “had heart and skeletal inflammation virus…” (Apr. 21 speech at U. Vic.).
To avoid misinterpretation of test results, I do not recommend that anyone—including salmon farmers—provide samples from their pets or livestock to people that are not veterinarians.

Gary Marty,

BC Ministry of Agriculture,

Abbotsford, BC

Perhaps birdsnest could give us an update as to what "Creative Salmon" is doing with their "jaundice syndrome" problem. I won't beat on this company much because the real problems are further down inlet.
GLG

 

[Englishman]

You really should have stopped while you were ahead...

Wow,no kidding.

If you guys took a look at the original post by Birdsnest to which both Seadna and myself responded in detail above you will see that Birdnest implicitly denigrates the integrity of Morton, 5 other scientists, the National Academy of Sciences and the entire scientific community of which Seadna and myself are part. And he has the effrontery to do this with zero scientific knowledge!!

And somehow I am the bad guy???