No ISA in BC CFIA

ClayoquotKid said:
Charlie,
The vast majority of Atlantic salmon eggs brought to BC for aquaculture came from Washington State.
None have come from Norway.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/egg-oeuf-eng.html

Also, Creative Salmon raises Chinook reared from local stock (Qualicum River originally, I think) in their hatchery near Duncan.
Click to expand...

The data you linked to shows:
11.7 Million eggs with a source that is labeled exclusively as Washington State
9.1 M eggs with a source that is not from Washington State and
7.6M eggs with a source that is some combination of Washington State and other locales.

For the most recent years shown (2002-2012), all the eggs (7.85M) came from Iceland.

From that data it is hard to come to the conclusion that "The vast majority of Atlantic salmon eggs brought to BC for aquaculture came from Washington State" but it is clear that none came directly from Norway. The Icelanders have been culturing salmon for quite awhile (early 1900's) so it is fairly clear that their eggs are sourced and the broodstock salmon are obtained locally.
 
seadna said:
The data you linked to shows:
11.7 Million eggs with a source that is labeled exclusively as Washington State
9.1 M eggs with a source that is not from Washington State and
7.6M eggs with a source that is some combination of Washington State and other locales.

For the most recent years shown (2002-2012), all the eggs (7.85M) came from Iceland.

From that data it is hard to come to the conclusion that "The vast majority of Atlantic salmon eggs brought to BC for aquaculture came from Washington State" but it is clear that none came directly from Norway. The Icelanders have been culturing salmon for quite awhile (early 1900's) so it is fairly clear that their eggs are sourced and the broodstock salmon are obtained locally.
Click to expand...

Ok, fine, not the VAST majority then.
My point was Charlie's Norwegian tirade completely ignored the fact that Washington State began rearing Atlantic salmon (and continues to do so) prior to BC doing it, and that much of the stock used to begin BC's breeding program originated from lines which had been bred down South for years.
When you consider the fact that each farm holds roughly 500,000 fish, you see that the direct import of eggs has made up a minor part of the production in BC - the majority of it over the years has been from eggs taken from in-house brood stock, which have been reared, tested for disease and obviously survived to maturity before being chosen as a source for future stock.
It makes sense that you would want to source eggs from somewhere that had a track record of rearing multiple generations without disease issues, and that if you were in need of additional genetics to improve on your line you would seek them from an area shown to be free of ISAv - which is what I have been told Iceland was shown to be.
So, on the one hand you have Atlantic stock that has seen many generations through to harvest with good results (free of disease), and on the other you have a Pacific stock which may have shown signs of an ISAv like signature, but no clinical signs of disease or mortality - something also found in fish samples pre-dating Atlantic culture in BC.
If you add these to the thousands of tests run within the industry, and the thousands more run on wild fish from Alaska to Washington State...
I would think you can be fairly confident that the ISA virus is not present in our local waters - specifically, that it is not present in BC waters as a result of Atlantic salmon aquaculture operations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid said:
I would think you can be fairly confident that the ISA virus is not present in our local waters - specifically, that it is not present in BC waters as a result of Atlantic salmon aquaculture operations.
Click to expand...
AAA yes - the safe response coached by FF lawyers and PR spokespersons.

In 2004, Dr. Laura Richards, Director General of DFO Science, Pacific Region, successfully petitioned on behalf of the fish farm industry to waive the Canadian Fish Health Protection Regulations to allow Atlantic salmon eggs from a hatchery that does not meet Canadian regulations (CohenCommision.ca Exhibit #1683).

In 2005 an entire shipment (import permit 05-PBS-1 Jan, 17, 2005 reports 150,000 eggs imported from Iceland that hatched and were destroyed April 19, 2005) due to viral concerns (CohenCommission.ca Exhibit #1684).

There is no record of testing the eggs that arrived in B.C. from the same hatchery the previous month (CohenCommision.ca Exhibit #1683): http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Exh-1683-NonRT.pdf

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/06/30/SockeyeVirus/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
agentaqua said:
AAA yes - the safe response coached by FF lawyers and PR spokespersons.

In 2004, Dr. Laura Richards, Director General of DFO Science, Pacific Region, successfully petitioned on behalf of the fish farm industry to waive the Canadian Fish Health Protection Regulations to allow Atlantic salmon eggs from a hatchery that does not meet Canadian regulations (CohenCommision.ca Exhibit #1683).

In 2005 an entire shipment (import permit 05-PBS-1 Jan, 17, 2005 reports 150,000 eggs imported from Iceland that hatched and were destroyed April 19, 2005) due to viral concerns (CohenCommission.ca Exhibit #1684).

There is no record of testing the eggs that arrived in B.C. from the same hatchery the previous month (CohenCommision.ca Exhibit #1683): http://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Exh-1683-NonRT.pdf

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/06/30/SockeyeVirus/
Click to expand...

Aaaand, the conspiracy theorist response.
 
Would YOU mind, answering the question I have asked several times previously... "contact your company and simply ask... how many of "YOUR" "Norwegian Atlantic farmed salmon [In Norway]" have tested positive for ISAv?

Why do you NOT answer that question?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lack of due diligence is not a "theory" - they have oodles of lawyers who sue over this stuff - I am sure you and your company lawyers are well aware of. Political interference is a reality of life, CK. Also not a "theory". Naivety appears to be also commonplace with some people. Thanks for demonstrating this phenomenon.
 
agentaqua said:
Lack of due diligence is not a "theory" - they have oodles of lawyers who sue over this stuff - I am sure you and your company lawyers are well aware of. Political interference is a reality of life, CK. Also not a "theory". Naivety appears to be also commonplace with some people. Thanks for demonstrating this phenomenon.
Click to expand...

This truly is a ridiculous discussion.

The industry in BC would bring in a virus that wiped out its own stocks? With help from the government? And then get sued? By whom?

Bringing up a scenario that played out 10 years ago showing stock of eggs destroyed for "viral concerns" (Good management IMHO) has absolutely no bearing on the THOUSANDS of tests run over multiple years showing no evidence of ISAv in any cultured or wild fish on the Pacific coast, by multiple agencies in both the U.S. and Canada - who are both able to expertly, regularly identify it on the Atlantic coast.

It simply shows that you require fodder for your theories, in order for you to rationalize your dislike for the salmon aquaculture industry.

No amount of evidence pointing in any other direction will sway your doggedly persistent view that SOMEHOW farming fish poses a threat to wild stocks, and you will employ any number of rhetological fallacies in the attempt to support your argument.

I hope this forum is truly, fully satisfying for you all, and that your time spent here really fills that gap in your life your ideologies seem to have created.

If you want to have a real conversation, become a real person and get a hold of me.

Anonymous posters have really fallen in my "Things to give a **** about" ranking.

I've got Employee Safety, Fish Health, Management Systems, Third-Party Certifications, and real relationships to focus on, so you guys have fun - You seem to have it all figured out.
 
ClayoquotKid said:
Bringing up a scenario that played out 10 years ago showing stock of eggs destroyed for "viral concerns" (Good management IMHO) has absolutely no bearing on the THOUSANDS of tests run over multiple years showing no evidence of ISAv in any cultured or wild fish on the Pacific coast, by multiple agencies in both the U.S. and Canada - who are both able to expertly, regularly identify it on the Atlantic coast.
Click to expand...
I am also pleased that they caught THAT months shipment. You do - of course - realize that viruses incubate for a while before they can be detected and subsequently cause disease or the host beats the infection? AND realize that there is a time lag from 1st contamination of a facility, until clinical signs develop? AND there is no record of testing the eggs that arrived in B.C. from the same hatchery the previous month AND this means that that same hatchery HAD A VIRUS OUTBREAK? This is where I inject "DUH!" into my response.
ClayoquotKid said:
The industry in BC would bring in a virus that wiped out its own stocks? With help from the government? And then get sued? By whom?
Click to expand...
I am quite positive that the "industry" never "planned" such a thing, CK. I have never heard nor read of anyone suggesting such an intent. However - no eggs - no grow-out - no profit. That's pretty simple. Need eggs - limited supply - expand the supply. Again - pretty realistic scenario. Apply pressure to DFO to get un-certified eggs - backed-up by evidence that this happened. Lack of due diligence was not on the industry - but DFO here. Sued? Read a newspaper. Happens all the time, CK. Your industry and DFO both employ lawyers who well understand the word "liability".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This ought to get a response from CK: <iframe width="730" height="436" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MTbxOFcvC4U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Why should CK respond to this? This video has been refuted times over... get some new stuff aqua:D
 
Not a vet but I can tell something is wrong with that fish – Jody Eriksson, Field Researcher (from Salmon Confidential)

Mr. Eriksson’s analysis of salmon carcasses was so brutally bad that I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. There is so much he said that is either incorrect or exaggerated. Apparently, a dead fish is supposed to retain its red gills or it is “suspicious”. No mention that migrating salmon undergo putrefaction and cell autolysis, and that this is accelerated once the fish is dead and is exposed to the elements. No, that would make for a boring movie....instead let’s jump right to something suspicious with nothing more than speculation. Obviously, Mr. Eriksson has not spent much time on the spawning grounds or has conducted much biosampling on Pacific Salmon. I guess it was too difficult for the producer of the film to get someone who knew what they were talking about. Bad.
 
shuswap said:
Not a vet but I can tell something is wrong with that fish – Jody Eriksson, Field Researcher (from Salmon Confidential)

Mr. Eriksson’s analysis of salmon carcasses was so brutally bad that I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. There is so much he said that is either incorrect or exaggerated. Apparently, a dead fish is supposed to retain its red gills or it is “suspicious”. No mention that migrating salmon undergo putrefaction and cell autolysis, and that this is accelerated once the fish is dead and is exposed to the elements. No, that would make for a boring movie....instead let’s jump right to something suspicious with nothing more than speculation. Obviously, Mr. Eriksson has not spent much time on the spawning grounds or has conducted much biosampling on Pacific Salmon. I guess it was too difficult for the producer of the film to get someone who knew what they were talking about. Bad.
Click to expand...
Ya - I felt the same way over that particular clip in this video, Shsuwap. I am not advocating agreeing with nor accepting with some of the assertions/claims made in this video. However, some of the political and science-based issues raised by this clip are still outstanding and unresolved. Is there anyone that can reasonably argue against having more and better information to make decisions on and carry-out the required due diligence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whole in the Water
Atlantic salmon introduce disease to native salmon
Replies
0
Views
329
Whole in the Water
Whole in the Water
Back
Top