Aquaculture; improving????

Abstract
Many Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) populations are declining due to the action of multiple stressors, possibly including microparasites such as piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), whose host range and infection dynamics in natural systems are poorly understood.
 
Exactly the point OBD. I don't consider blind belief nor ignorance an appropriate nor a responsible management strategy or regime. p.7:
rivers.jpg
 
Last edited:
Birdsnest said:
AA, we've been asked not to repeat old stuff and you're continually doing so yet you fail to respond to the rebuttals to your post or links. One more boring time for anyone who follows this:
"ya - the Norwegian strain of PRv is common, NOW - on the Pacific Coast. gee - I wonder how that happened? What is the most plausible source? hmmm....
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141475"

From the discussion in the study

If PRV was endemic to western North America, it is equally probable that movement of infected Pacific salmon or trout eggs could have concomitantly spread PRV in Europe. There have been no published retrospective studies of archived samples conducted in Norway to determine how long the virus has been present in that country. However, Atlantic salmon tissues from Norway collected in 1988 tested positive for PRV RNA (Rimstad pers. comm.) suggesting that the virus was present at least a decade prior to the first reports of HSMI. There has been little surveillance for this virus outside Norway and Western North America. Thus, it is premature to speculate about transmission pathways given the lack of understanding of the global distribution of PRV.

You are posting a study again to support your claim that European fish farms brought european prv to bc but it is clear in the study this is not the case.
Click to expand...
From a recent SFU thesis. An adult Rivers Inlet sockeye salmon testing positive for PRV in 2014 yielded a sequence for genome segment S1 which was a 99% sequence match to GenBank sequence KC473452 (E = 0) isolated from an Atlantic salmon from BC’s Discovery Islands, indicating an epidemiological link to PRV outside this system
 
My scary scenario for a few years now, Terrin. Are others on this forum getting it?
 
agentaqua said:
Blind belief works for churches and people who just wanna believe. As I mentioned - in today's world - ignorance is only a choice. Read this: http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/18614/etd19862.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting thesis you posted agent. When I go through this stuff I like to look at the start and the conclusions. What really sparked my attention in this one was the acknowledgements. Something about it really struck me as odd in the acknowledgements. I just seemed unprofessional or the student just could barely handle it. And yes I mean student.
There are however some things that primarily stood out to me. First off this is from SFU who has a strong relations ship with AM and often makes papers with the use of their statistics specialist R Routleadge that go against aquaculture, always have always will. And the single funding source are Tony Allard. A simple search of them suggest what that is about.
Anyway after reading the acknowledgements I was so curious as to what that was all about I started reading the paper. It is riddled with miss information and so after a short while I started researching the paper for I had become convinced that there was no way this paper could be peer reviewed. I had never seen anything like it and with the errors contained within it I had to find out.
Sure enough this paper is not peer reviewed.

Any time i read a paper which takes advantage of the reader by adding in indirectly related info against salmon farming like this paper has but with obvious errors, i get suspicious. If this paper is peer reviewed and published some where then I suspect there are some major edits.

Its Ironic that aa posts the comment "Blind belief works for churches and people who just wanna believe. As I mentioned - in today's world - ignorance is only a choice." with this paper for there is not much else other than Blind belief that would make the content seem factual.
 
Last edited:
It appears you are unfamiliar w post-secondary accreditation processes, BN. Thesis do go through peer-review - but not as a published science article. If you have information - other than sharing your biases against individuals - like opposing & credible information like stocks in River's have NOT been impacted by ISAv and PRv - by all means - post it.

I'm not seeing when DNA analysis for a sequence for genome segment S1 which was a 99% sequence match to GenBank sequence KC473452 (E = 0) is invalidated by your simple biases - but I can see where the match to Atlantic salmon from BC’s Discovery Islands indicating an epidemiological link to PRV outside this system would be part of evidence in a future class action suit some year - which is something I can see why FFrs and their lawyers would wish to invalidate - if they could.

I'll accept actual lab results and a report from a University over any opinion posted on a forum that attempts to state: "Nothing to see here folks, move along". Pretty irresponsible to ignore these findings.
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
It appears you are unfamiliar w post-secondary accreditation processes, BN. Thesis do go through peer-review - but not as a published science article. If you have information - other than sharing your biases against individuals - like opposing & credible information like stocks in River's have NOT been impacted by ISAv and PRv - by all means - post it.
Click to expand...

SFU clearly states its not peer reviewed despite your "beliefs".
https://summit.sfu.ca/item/18614
 
agentaqua said:
My scary scenario for a few years now, Terrin. Are others on this forum getting it?
Click to expand...
My observation is the whole thing is just like the Impeachment Debate.
We all know he is guilty as hell but feel in the end nothing will be done about it.
To answer your question. I and my family, friends and other fishermen I know, do get it and are apposed to Fish Farms.
Out of that group of about 50 people, I am the only one who follows the subject on this forum.
The other 49 or so have formed their own conclusions from other sources.
Thanks for keeping me well informed agentaqua.
 
Doesn't seem to add up to what is being said by some members
 

Attachments

  • prv_in_wastewater_bc_cahs.pdf
    1,005.9 KB · Views: 11
gone fishin said:
My observation is the whole thing is just like the Impeachment Debate.
We all know he is guilty as hell but feel in the end nothing will be done about it.
To answer your question. I and my family, friends and other fishermen I know, do get it and are apposed to Fish Farms.
Out of that group of about 50 people, I am the only one who follows the subject on this forum.
The other 49 or so have formed their own conclusions from other sources.
Thanks for keeping me well informed agentaqua.
Click to expand...
To be honest, this is what intrigues me about the debate. You have assumed that those "who get it" can't support FF's. Why? The Cohen report didn't' get it? Tons on scientists don't get it. Is it that we can't read the same information that proves the point? Or is it that from what I have read, and what is overwhelmingly in the literature, FF's have an effect on wild salmon, just not a big one. Guess what, fishermen have an effect and so do FN's. If you were shown that sport fisheries have a greater impact on wild salmon than FF's would you and your family support a total ban?

It is very clear from all the new studies that ranching is decimating our fishing stocks way more than FF's, including in peer reviewed studies. Surprisingly, on this very thread, the ban the FF's contingent support ranching? So what is this really all about? Protecting salmon or shutting down an industry. If you look back through my posts, I have repeatedly asked if anyone can tell me what impact the closure of salmon farms will have. Tumbleweeds. Not one answer.

Happy to switch sides but "blind faith" is blind. Give me something concrete and credible and I can change my mind.

PS: trump is guilty of being a buffooon, but that is about it. Maybe we should fire Trudeau first - committed way more criminal activities.
 
Lots and lots of option in that article. Wierd how the pinks moved down the west coast to avoid fish farms and yet all the pinks I caught were loaded with lice.
 
Those sectors can defend themselves on their impacts themselves BN - separate discussion - kinda the point I am making.

Those impacts are separate from FF impacts.

I think the word you are struggling for is :"Accountability".
 
Agent, are you happy with any Canadian resource based industries? Do you have anything positive to say about any?
 
agentaqua said:
Those sectors can defend themselves on their impacts themselves BN - separate discussion - kinda the point I am making.

Those impacts are separate from FF impacts.

I think the word you are struggling for is :"Accountability".
Click to expand...

Ok so when the sport fishing sector had unscientifically proven restrictions put on them last summer they should not point out other issues that would improve the well-being of the SRKW's. Just wondering why you would apply accountability to FF's but state that with other sectors, oh that's different. Just looks like you're moving the goal post again.
Sport fishing will fall to your precautionary principle. Im starting to wonder which will fall first. Sport fishing or FF's due your totalitarian demands on industry supported by the urban population.
 
Birdsnest said:
Ok so when the sport fishing sector had unscientifically proven restrictions put on them last summer they should not point out other issues that would improve the well-being of the SRKW's. Just wondering why you would apply accountability to FF's but state that with other sectors, oh that's different. Just looks like you're moving the goal post again.
Sport fishing will fall to your precautionary principle. Im starting to wonder which will fall first. Sport fishing or FF's due your totalitarian demands on industry supported by the urban population.
Click to expand...

Bingo! We are all wondering what falls first. Ban everything and hope it works, kinda of like the old phrase "Shoot them all and let God sort it out". It is the new world order - people who disagree are uninformed, ignorant, uneducated...I sure many other phrases have been used over the past few pages of posts. Next, the left will label us all as climate deniers (oops, already has happened) and racists. Ask a simple question, when the answer doesn't support the anti-FF agenda, a link to some puff piece editorializing the inhumanity of FF's and passed off as peer reviewed or balanced. Mark my words, this thread will repeat but instead it will be on all the necessary banning of sport fishing - followed by shutting down the First Nations for harvesting salmon (after all, we can all go to Costco and buy "Wild Caught" salmon processed in china but caught in Alaskan waters). But lets keep up the good work of supporting the unsustainable ranching up north. Quite shocking that the same group of posters can't simply come clean and say - "Salmon ranching is absolutely having an impact on our wild salmon stocks and if unchecked, could lead to a destruction of our wild salmon runs".

My rant is about to be buried under a steam of links and deflections.....As the greatest president ever would say "Sad". (PS: tongue is in cheek...)
 
Personally, I think I'd like to ban lies & corruption and encourage good governance, accountability, transparency, and democracy. I expect most posters feel the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IronNoggin
CPAWS
Replies
24
Views
1K
Hardy Guy
H
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
2K
Fishing?
F
searun
Economic, Social, Cultural value of Tidal Recreational Fishing
Replies
2
Views
775
searun
searun
searun
New Pinniped Study - harbour seals consume 46−59% of juvenile Coho Salmon
Replies
9
Views
1K
trophywife
trophywife
kaelc
Insurance or regs violation for accepting gas money
Replies
10
Views
1K
ab1752
ab1752
Back
Top