Court quashes government PRV fish farm policy

[Birdsnest]

ITs not meaningless, their is European version of PRV out their on the east coast, West coast fish farms get their smolts from the east coast and I think that pretty stupid of them. They should of put their hatcheries that serve the west coast on the west coast and use brood from the west coast.

What you said they should do is what they do do. Thats the way it is. Not sure where you are getting the smolts come from the east coast. Thats totally not true.

 

[wildmanyeah]

What you said they should do is what they do do. Thats the way it is. Not sure where you are getting the smolts come from the east coast. Thats totally not true.

Really I read they get their smolts from some east coast hatchery.

 

[Birdsnest]

Id like to see that. Would you be so kind to post a link?

 

[agentaqua]

Been down this road quite a few times on this forum and elsewhere wrt the origins and consequences of the release of PRv on naive Pacific stocks already. I find it quite criminal how the FF boosters/pundits/PR firms seem to have collective amnesia when this topic pops-up - as the only plausible source for European/Norwegian-based PRv is from the open net-pen industry. See:

https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...se-in-chinook-salmon.70071/page-3#post-873984

A few quotes over the years for you to consider…

"It has been very difficult for scientists to do proper research on farmed fish in Canada. Fish farm records are considered confidential which means they are not available to scientists or the public. The farmed fish samples used in the Department of Wild Salmon’s research had to be taken, primarily, from supermarkets."

"the virus was imported to B.C. out of Norway, by way of the fish farming industry. Samples taken from the European virus and the B.C. virus show enough similarities to assume that they are from the same strain. Ninety-eight percent of the Pacific salmon fish farms in B.C. are Norwegian-owned."

"Dr. Kibenge from the lab for fish viruses at the Atlantic Veterinary College at the University of Prince Edward Island “have found PRV in nearly 97% of the farmed salmon tested in B.C. supermarkets.” Since these findings the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has attacked the credibility of Dr. Kibenge's research, suggesting his international certification be revoked."

"Dr. Marty, the Fish Farm vet said he never tested Fish Farm salmon for PRV because is did not exist on the Coast and then tested for it and claimed to be the first to discover PRV."

And now the Fish Farm guys want to test BC hatcheries and rivers to see if the wild salmon have PRV!!

Oh yes, then there is the Fish Farm claim PRV is harmless to Wild Salmon.

It’s kinda like Trump…who are YOU GOING TO BELIEVE

 

[Birdsnest]

Obviously atlantics had to come from the Atlantic at some time and its important to understand the long history of altantic salmon introductions to the our west coast long LONG before there were any salmon farms. https://www.cermaq.com/wps/wcm/conn...in+the+Pacific.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url

 

[agentaqua]

Here's the science - already posted last year:
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/fish-farms.68678/page-4#post-866522
Molly JT Kibenge, Tokinori Iwamoto, Yingwei Wang, Alexandra Morton, Marcos G Godoy, and Frederick SB Kibenge. 2013. Whole-genome analysis of piscine reovirus (PRV) shows PRV represents a new genus in family Reoviridae and its genome segment S1 sequences group it into two separate sub-genotypes. Virology Journal 2013, 10:230

p.10: “Chilean PRV strains had 100% amino acid sequence identity with the Norwegian strain Reovirus sp. Salmo/GP-2010/NOR, whereas the Canadian strains had ≤92.7% amino acid sequence identity with this [Norwegian] PRV strain…”

p.11: “Our analysis using BEAST simulation [32] shows the time when Canadian PRV isolates diverged from Norwegian PRV isolates was between 2006 and 2011”

 

[Birdsnest]

Chilean PRV is 100% identical to Norweagean PRV and Canadian PRV is 92.7%. Why is canadian prv not identical like the Chilean norwegian Prv. Could it be that it has been here far longer so it is now different?

Interesting agent when you come here and state that we have had this discussion before and its all settled and you confused why we are discussing it. Its not settled and that is why I suspect you make such statements.

Its not settled.

 

[fogged in]

lol!!
The long and the short of it is;
"Court quashes federal government (DFO) policy not to test baby-farmed salmon for disease"
Why, you may ask!

 

[terrin]

The court has ruled in favor of Wild Salmon hopefully the bs comes to an end. Check this out from a blog.

"Amanda Swim is the same vet that testified at our court case against the NS gov. for withholding access to information. After the government lawyer trying six ways from Sunday to try and explain the incestuous relationship between fisheries and the industry the judge would not let that pass. The judge basically said to Swim, “you work for the people of NS not Cooke Aquaculture”! The coverup for the industry is completely unacceptable and we need to do our level best to take that behaviour out of our institutions..."

Please note that the word fraud is the best word to describe what the CFIA/DFO did in BC to find a lab that would give a negative response for the PRV virus. When DFO says it operates on the basis of evidence and science, just laugh at them, and then shake your head at the waste of time and money to keep the industry nontransparent.

Here is an example of the CFIA/DFO fraud on PRV testing in BC: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/09/canadian-food-inspection-agency.html. I have done many posts on this subject.


Here is another example of DFO not following science in BC: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...he-dfos-science-advisory-process-in-question/. Stan Proboszcz.

Here is another on DFO refusing to do science with Volpe on escaped Atlantics in BC rivers: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/most-popular-posts-january-2019.html. Item 3 will take you to one post of a half dozen I did on this issue of refusal to use evidence and science.

 

[Birdsnest]

Been down this road quite a few times on this forum and elsewhere wrt the origins and consequences of the release of PRv on naive Pacific stocks already. I find it quite criminal how the FF boosters/pundits/PR firms seem to have collective amnesia when this topic pops-up - as the only plausible source for European/Norwegian-based PRv is from the open net-pen industry. See:

https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...se-in-chinook-salmon.70071/page-3#post-873984

According to this:
http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversit...itishColumbiaHistoricalRecords.html#FishFrogs (half way down the article)

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.)

Atlantic Salmon were first introduced into British Columbia in 1905, when 90,000 fry were released into Coquitlam River, Lillooet River, and Harrison Lake on the mainland, and into Campbell River, Comox Lake, Horne Lake, Nanaimo Lake, Cowichanw lake, and Koksilah River on Vancouver Island. in subsequent years more plantings were made in other bodies of water, particularly into the Cowichan system, which was judged to be the most suitable for this species. For these introductions, which were continued until 1933, eggs were imported from the Canadian Atlantic coast as well as direct from Scotland. There appear to be only three authentic records of Atlantic Salmon being taken by anglers, all small fish, and none since 1926. The introductions have obviously been failures (See Carl and Clemens, 1953; Dymond, 1955).

So, Scotland is only 445 km from Norway so Im not sure how one could expect that Norweagean PRV would not be found historically in Scotland. As agent points out Chile's Norweagen PRV is 100% identical yet the supposed Canadian "Norweagean" PRV has some variance. 7.3% apparently which can be large difference when it comes to genetics. This genetic variance in Canadas PRV suggests it has had time to alter its genetic make up.

Don't accuse me of being off topic I am simply responding to related topics regurgitated repeatedly by another poster which I see as misleading and likely not true. The urgency to tie this PRV to industry by individuals here and activist groups elsewhere is clear. It s more about controlling a narrative and falls short of applying facts to the issue.

 

[wildmanyeah]

https://jvi.asm.org/content/73/10/8851

 

[agentaqua]

The discussion on the effects of Prv eerily and stupidly seems to follow the same PR script that was developed for the ISAv controversy, IMHO. The reason the industry wasn't concerned about Prv until this court case was because it didn't seem to be a production issue up until this court case – since ISAv (unlike Prv) is a “reportable disease” under the Health of Animals Act administered by CFIA:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals...portable/2018/eng/1339174937153/1339175227861

The industry would not be allowed to ship fresh product from a “declared” zone to a “declared free” zone – they might loose markets if CFIA admitted ISAv was in BC: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals.../declarations/eng/1450126558469/1450126559315

http://www.aquaculturepei.com/pdf/DrWoleOguntona.pdf

Now Prv becomes a production issue – and the same tactic is again used:

1/ Deny
2/ Deny
3/ Deny
4/ Claim it doesn't hurt wild stocks
5/ Claim it came from elsewhere
6/ Lie

Now waiting for #6. Likely to find that on the BCSFA website where others whom wish to ignore yet another inconvenient truth get their info from.

 

[Dave]

Agent,do you think broodstock from federal hatcheries should be included in these tests for Prv?

 

[Birdsnest]

The discussion on the effects of Prv eerily and stupidly seems to follow the same PR script that was developed for the ISAv controversy, IMHO. The reason the industry wasn't concerned about Prv until this court case was because it didn't seem to be a production issue up until this court case – since ISAv (unlike Prv) is a “reportable disease” under the Health of Animals Act administered by CFIA:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals...portable/2018/eng/1339174937153/1339175227861

The industry would not be allowed to ship fresh product from a “declared” zone to a “declared free” zone – they might loose markets if CFIA admitted ISAv was in BC: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals.../declarations/eng/1450126558469/1450126559315

http://www.aquaculturepei.com/pdf/DrWoleOguntona.pdf

Now Prv becomes a production issue – and the same tactic is again used:

1/ Deny
2/ Deny
3/ Deny
4/ Claim it doesn't hurt wild stocks
5/ Claim it came from elsewhere
6/ Lie

Now waiting for #6. Likely to find that on the BCSFA website where others whom wish to ignore yet another inconvenient truth get their info from.

Thank you kindly for addressing my previous post clearly by not addressing it at all opening up another whole ball of wax and clouding to topic with hours of reading. Well done. Nice deflection.

Good question Dave. Agent???

 

[patbay]

Don't accuse me of being off topic I am simply responding to related topics regurgitated repeatedly by another poster which I see as misleading and likely not true. The urgency to tie this PRV to industry by individuals here and activist groups elsewhere is clear. It s more about controlling a narrative and falls short of applying facts to the issue.

Lol? Is this statement for real?? They provide you a boat load of facts and this is the reply? Obviously the Judge in this case sees things very differently than you do.
Are you tied to the industry somehow?

 

[Buckethead905]

Thank you kindly for addressing my previous post clearly by not addressing it at all opening up another whole ball of wax and clouding to topic with hours of reading. Well done. Nice deflection.

Good question Dave. Agent???

What fish farm are you invested in? Sounds like you’ve got some skin in the farming game.

 

[Dave]

Does it matter if Birdnest has or hasn't a financial interest in fish farming? It's a valid question that will be funded by taxpayers if deemed necessary. Perhaps you can answer the question Buckethead905 .. should hatchery broodstock be tested for Prv?
Just so you know, I have no "skin" in this.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Of course it matters if someone has a financial interest in an industry and they actively promote that industry, despite information about it having negative impacts!

It can and frequently does lead to bias for personal gain at the very least and corruption and collusion at the worst. History is replete with examples of this, especially with corporations and in politics.

I am not accusing anyone of corruption here, but to say that it doesn't matter when one has a direct financial interest in an industry that is being called into question and their motives shouldn't be questioned is IMO being naïve to say the least.

 

[Birdsnest]

Of course it matters if someone has a financial interest in an industry and they actively promote that industry, despite information about it having negative impacts!

It can and frequently does lead to bias for personal gain at the very least and corruption and collusion at the worst. History is replete with examples of this, especially with corporations and in politics.

I am not accusing anyone of corruption here, but to say that it doesn't matter when one has a direct financial interest in an industry that is being called into question and their motives shouldn't be questioned is IMO being naïve to say the least.

Of course it matters if someone has a financial interest in an NGO Group and they actively promote that Groups Direction, despite apposing information about industry having negative impacts!

It can and frequently does lead to bias for personal gain at the very least and corruption and collusion at the worst. History is replete with examples of this, especially with corporations and in politics.

I am not accusing anyone of corruption here, but to say that it doesn't matter when one has a direct financial interest in an NGO group that is being called into question and their motives shouldn't be questioned is IMO being naïve to say the least.

That was fun albeit pretty obvious to most.

We all have a bias, get over it. It doesn't change the ideas, items, or facts brought forward in this discussion by either side.
Those who have read through this thread will know that I provided information that strongly argues against the idea that PRV was introduced to BC via the salmon farming companies as fogged in reminded everyone how important it is to remember tho the idea IMO is not true. It is only my idea, my words. I apologize that I do not back my stuff up with endless hours of reading. I am guilty of this.

 

[fogged in]

Interesting Birdsnest posted the following;
“The science on prv at the very worst is only tagged as a "maybe there is a risk" and this only applies to spring salmon all of the other species seem to be unaffected”
He also created the thread “Lets not forget the topic of this thread, PRV_minimal risk to fraser river socks.”
He also chooses to ignore (at least according the Dr. Marty, the Fish Farm scientist who originally said this virus does not exist on the West Coast), that Fish Farms brought their virus to our waters.
Birdsnest also asks…
“what makes hatchery production and sport fishing immune to the same protocols?”
Is he suggesting that the Fish Farm virus has spread to the wild population causing death and poor survival in Western Canada and the USA?
If so should both countries shut down all hatcheries? (Don't forget Washington State are shutting their Fish Farms and increasing their hatchery production..why?)
Birdsnest also said “DC Ried the writer. Not a scientist or even a lawyer but more than willing to bend the facts.”
But ignore the fact that the same could be said of Fish Farm supporters Rob Fletcher and Fabian Dawson?
Round and round we go and back to topic of Birdsnest's thread…
“Peer Review concludes PRV transfer from Atlantic salmon farms poses minimal risk to Fraser River Sockeye.”
Which was his response to this earlier post by another member;
“Court quashes government PRV fish farm policy”
https://vancouversun.com/news/local...cy-not-to-test-baby-farmed-salmon-for-disease
Birdsnest, I have the greatest respect for you and understand most of your posts and your passion for defending Fish Farms, but I find your posts are some times inconsistent and questionable.
In the opinion of most, Fish Farms worldwide have a proven history of adversely impacting wild stocks.
I am of the opinion the only answer it put Fish Farms on dry land and hope the damage they have done will somehow pass over a period of time!