Viruses in present bc salmon farms

A qoute from Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders given in evidence at recent House of Commons Fisheries Committee hearings;

" When I started down this path of research in 2012, I was told by an upper manager, who's no longer with the department, that it was irresponsible to ask research questions that could potentially result in negative economic ramifications on an industry if we did not already know the answer. At the time, my lab was developing very powerful technology that could simultaneously quantitate 47 different pathogens—viruses, bacteria, and fungal parasites—in 96 fish at once. We had populated this platform with assays to virtually all the infectious agents that were known or suspected to be pathogenic in salmon worldwide, including many that were associated with emerging diseases in other parts of the world but that had never been assessed in Canada. The manager was concerned that by employing this technology, we would make our salmon in B.C. look dirty, and impact their economic value in the market, and that if we uncovered agents that were not known to be endemic, ENGOs and the public would immediately point to the aquaculture industry as the culprit. As such, the attitude was don't look closely, especially for things that we didn't know already were there. It took almost two years to get approval to go ahead with this technology, which we are now employing on over 26,000 wild, enhanced, and farmed salmon in B.C."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...m=FOPO&Mee=38&Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1

There are more interesting tidbits as well. Dr. Miller-Saunders testimony begins at 1645 in the link above.
Thanks for the post Cuttle. Unfortunately, not unexpected nor shocking. Been saying that there has been pressure and collusion w the industry in the Aquaculture Branch of DFO for years now. Reference the "scary scenario" posted at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/dfo-still-says-no-isa.47986/#post-581876

I would add PRv to ISAv now - as a concern.
 
A qoute from Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders given in evidence at recent House of Commons Fisheries Committee hearings;

" When I started down this path of research in 2012, I was told by an upper manager, who's no longer with the department, that it was irresponsible to ask research questions that could potentially result in negative economic ramifications on an industry if we did not already know the answer. At the time, my lab was developing very powerful technology that could simultaneously quantitate 47 different pathogens—viruses, bacteria, and fungal parasites—in 96 fish at once. We had populated this platform with assays to virtually all the infectious agents that were known or suspected to be pathogenic in salmon worldwide, including many that were associated with emerging diseases in other parts of the world but that had never been assessed in Canada. The manager was concerned that by employing this technology, we would make our salmon in B.C. look dirty, and impact their economic value in the market, and that if we uncovered agents that were not known to be endemic, ENGOs and the public would immediately point to the aquaculture industry as the culprit. As such, the attitude was don't look closely, especially for things that we didn't know already were there. It took almost two years to get approval to go ahead with this technology, which we are now employing on over 26,000 wild, enhanced, and farmed salmon in B.C."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...m=FOPO&Mee=38&Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1

There are more interesting tidbits as well. Dr. Miller-Saunders testimony begins at 1645 in the link above.

Totally disgusting. The DFO is nothing more than a paid shill for the commercial fishing and aquaculture industries. Someone needs to be held accountable for their breach of public trust and legal responsibilities to protect wild stocks and their habitat.
 
A qoute from Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders given in evidence at recent House of Commons Fisheries Committee hearings;

" When I started down this path of research in 2012, I was told by an upper manager, who's no longer with the department, that it was irresponsible to ask research questions that could potentially result in negative economic ramifications on an industry if we did not already know the answer. At the time, my lab was developing very powerful technology that could simultaneously quantitate 47 different pathogens—viruses, bacteria, and fungal parasites—in 96 fish at once. We had populated this platform with assays to virtually all the infectious agents that were known or suspected to be pathogenic in salmon worldwide, including many that were associated with emerging diseases in other parts of the world but that had never been assessed in Canada. The manager was concerned that by employing this technology, we would make our salmon in B.C. look dirty, and impact their economic value in the market, and that if we uncovered agents that were not known to be endemic, ENGOs and the public would immediately point to the aquaculture industry as the culprit. As such, the attitude was don't look closely, especially for things that we didn't know already were there. It took almost two years to get approval to go ahead with this technology, which we are now employing on over 26,000 wild, enhanced, and farmed salmon in B.C."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...m=FOPO&Mee=38&Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1

There are more interesting tidbits as well. Dr. Miller-Saunders testimony begins at 1645 in the link above.
https://www.safepassage4salmon.ca/
 
Study Confirms Deadly Disease in BC Salmon Farms
Research identifies HSMI in farmed fish, links to widespread virus.
xAndrew-Nikiforuk-Bio_square_thumb.jpg.pagespeed.ic.EOz_9g2HVS.jpg
By Andrew Nikiforuk Today | TheTyee.ca
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/02/27/BC-Salmon-Farm-Disease-Confirmed/
 
"“It may be difficult to diagnose HSMI with a high degree of confidence” with the kind of random sampling practiced by DFO, the study reported."

That pretty much says it all, eh.
Will Miller be the next to go the way of Kibengi?
 
Good question, Cuttle. The interesting thing is that Kibenge was working on ISAv - listed as a "reportable" disease under the jackboots of CFIA. PRV is not under CFIAs purview so far..see:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-91-2/page-2.html#docCont

The report concludes with the following statement;

“Hence with these data alone, we cannot comment on the spatial extent of this disease or potential impacts on other species, such as wild Pacific salmon. Future epidemiological studies need to be extended both geographically and temporally, to identify the extent of the disease, to further evaluate the relationship with PRV, and to further elucidate predisposing factors that may contribute to the development of HSMI in the field, including environmental and husbandry practices, and strain variation derived through full viral genome sequencing.”

Can anyone tell me or guess what the next step will be and if DFO and the Government Bureaucrats are interested in pursuing the science?
 
The report concludes with the following statement;

“Hence with these data alone, we cannot comment on the spatial extent of this disease or potential impacts on other species, such as wild Pacific salmon. Future epidemiological studies need to be extended both geographically and temporally, to identify the extent of the disease, to further evaluate the relationship with PRV, and to further elucidate predisposing factors that may contribute to the development of HSMI in the field, including environmental and husbandry practices, and strain variation derived through full viral genome sequencing.”

Can anyone tell me or guess what the next step will be and if DFO and the Government Bureaucrats are interested in pursuing the science?
Most likely the govt will try to marginalize or discredit the study entirely.
 
Most likely the govt will try to marginalize or discredit the study entirely.
I think you are wrong.
This is just the beginning of research being done, and the first report published by the people, well at least one, Miller-Saunders, we all wanted involved.
Will Miller -Saunders be cast aside, told to be quiet, her research squelched because of this first report and it's non conclusive impacts on Pacific salmon? Hell no. Give your heads a shake and wait for the next round of publications that are coming.
I said before ... she and Riddell will not be muzzled.

In her blog, Morton offered up M-S' email address ... perhaps ask her if she will discontinue her research if suggested she do so .... ****, M-S could make twice, or more, the money away from government if she wanted to. She is that good, and her skills in that much demand.
 
Thanks for the post Cuttle. Unfortunately, not unexpected nor shocking. Been saying that there has been pressure and collusion w the industry in the Aquaculture Branch of DFO for years now. Reference the "scary scenario" posted at:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/dfo-still-says-no-isa.47986/#post-581876

I would add PRv to ISAv now - as a concern.
Not a surprise to me.

Well I agree w Dave in that the government would be stupid to further pressure and impede Miller at this time. That scenario would backfire. I am assuming the CFIA's and DFO's communications/PR branches similarly understand this - but I believe that it would be naive to believe that behind the scenes the emails and phone calls between the industry lawyers - the DOJ lawyers - and deputy ministers are not happening as we type = and a carefully massaged media message will soon be released from someone above the Regional Director that attempts to mollify the public and downplay the implications of the reality described by Miller. More studies will be the tag line - with no real commitments attached. At least they gave up with the appeal in court. This **** will continue to break loose whether the communications departments want it to happen or not. Maybe a class action in 3-6 years...
 
I think you are wrong.
This is just the beginning of research being done, and the first report published by the people, well at least one, Miller-Saunders, we all wanted involved.
Will Miller -Saunders be cast aside, told to be quiet, her research squelched because of this first report and it's non conclusive impacts on Pacific salmon? Hell no. Give your heads a shake and wait for the next round of publications that are coming.
I said before ... she and Riddell will not be muzzled.

In her blog, Morton offered up M-S' email address ... perhaps ask her if she will discontinue her research if suggested she do so .... ****, M-S could make twice, or more, the money away from government if she wanted to. She is that good, and her skills in that much demand.
I hope you are right Dave. There's just too much of a track record with past govts that suggests otherwise. Perhaps the Liberals will do things differently, but so far I'm not seeing a big improvement. Yes some things have changed. How significant the changes will become still remains to be seen. Believe me I would love for you to be right on this one. I'm just not very hopeful that will turn out to be the case.
 
Not a surprise to me.

Well I agree w Dave in that the government would be stupid to further pressure and impede Miller at this time. That scenario would backfire. I am assuming the CFIA's and DFO's communications/PR branches similarly understand this - but I believe that it would be naive to believe that behind the scenes the emails and phone calls between the industry lawyers - the DOJ lawyers - and deputy ministers are not happening as we type = and a carefully massaged media message will soon be released from someone above the Regional Director that attempts to mollify the public and downplay the implications of the reality described by Miller. More studies will be the tag line - with no real commitments attached. At least they gave up with the appeal in court. This **** will continue to break loose whether the communications departments want it to happen or not. Maybe a class action in 3-6 years...

3 to 6 years would be in line with how long it took the courts to ban the dumping of contaminating soil near Shawnigan Lake.
Again money driven by big business. Who knows how that one will end up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ated-soil-dumping-in-shawnigan-lake-1.3950333
 
Why Is a Norwegian Disease on a BC Fish Farm Such a Big Deal?
New study highlights risks to industry, and wild fish.
By Andrew Nikiforuk Today | TheTyee.ca
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/03/04/Norwegian-Disease-BC-Fish-Farm/

I would be interested in hearing from one our 3 or 4 Fish Farm guys who post regularly, what they think about this report.
Will watch with great interest to hear the other side of the story from the Fish Farm point of view.
Thanks to Dave who posted the following earlier;

" This is just the beginning of research being done, and the first report published by the people, well at least one, Miller-Saunders, we all wanted involved.
Will Miller -Saunders be cast aside, told to be quiet, her research squelched because of this first report and it's non conclusive impacts on Pacific salmon? Hell no. Give your heads a shake and wait for the next round of publications that are coming.
I said before ... she and Riddell will not be muzzled.
In her blog, Morton offered up M-S' email address ... perhaps ask her if she will discontinue her research if suggested she do so .... ****, M-S could make twice, or more, the money away from government if she wanted to. She is that good, and her skills in that much demand.

Dave, Monday at 5:44 PM Report
"
 
I don't know if it really matters what the fish farm guys think. They are just people who work there. Naturally they will defend their job, it puts food on the table.
It's the scientists that matter. For the most part, the science is stacked heavily against the farms. They pose a threat to wild salmon and other marine mammals, therefore they should not be in the water. Its really that simple.
 
I don't know if it really matters what the fish farm guys think. They are just people who work there. Naturally they will defend their job, it puts food on the table.
It's the scientists that matter. For the most part, the science is stacked heavily against the farms. They pose a threat to wild salmon and other marine mammals, therefore they should not be in the water. Its really that simple.

Don't mean to pick on the Fish Farm guys but would like to hear from them or anyone else who is knowledgeable on the subject.
Is this report the "smoking gun" the Cohen report didn't find or just more meaningless science that can be ignored by DFO and our Government Bureaucrats?
 
I think was either WITW or GLG that said it best: "death by a thousand cuts" when referring to impacts to our wild salmon stocks - so I'm not sure this latest research would be categorized as a "smoking gun: wrt impacts to salmon.

HOWEVER - I think it does scientifically dispel some of the bald-faced lies coming out of the governments (i.e. DFO, CFIA, Marty et al.) wrt PRv and HMSI. It also focuses the dialogue onto wild/cultured disease transfer and monitoring/testing - something I and others have been saying needs attention for far too many years.

BUT - it also may be the start of developing a legal "smoking gun" wrt a court case. I would assume that the DOJ lawyers are currently busy advising certain key DFO and CFIA figures.

I would also assume the PR consultants and government communications branches will be scanning the available public responses over how to pitch things from here including trolling sports fishing forums such as this one. I think it time to demand accountability.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top