Canadian Tax Dollars going to good use...fish farm bailouts...

[GLG]

Originally Posted by ClayoquotKid


Unfortunately for opponents of aquaculture, all signs point towards the actual figure being very small given the difficulty people have had to date (using all historical data and statistical tools available) to show a trend between the presence of aquaculture and a consistent decline in wild stocks statistically different to areas without farms.

That is all I am saying, no peer reviewed rebuttals needed IMHO - nature does it for me every fall.

Can you show us your "all signs point towards the actual figure being very small" for Clayoquo Sound.
I would be very interested in your Chinook numbers to back up you statement. Since you and your fellow workers have been active in bringing back wild salmon you should be able to prove the statement. If not are you just blowing smoke.."nature does it for me every fall."

Still waiting for my answer..... ClayoquotKid hello... you still out there?

 

[soxy]

It's worse than that, Cuttle. Mary-Ellen's PR team included a number of intentional, glaring and obvious omissions and errors in this document, the least of which are:are depressed, 2/ farm siting criteria are arbitary and not based in science and no full environmental assessments are done, 3/ farm salmon have elevated levels of PCBs and other contaminents, 4/ about 4.5 lbs of wild forage fish are used to make 1lb of salmon feed, 5/ salmon farms hide their fish health data, 6/ ISA has been found but not confirmed using CFIAs restrictive testing process, 7/ many sea lice have now developed resistance to slice, 8/ reporting of escapees is "voluntary", and 9/ most First Nations oppose open net-pen salmon aquaculture.

Cuttles link does not work anymore aqua....lol...I wonder why.
Do you have any reliable links to: 1/ juvenile Atlantic salmon have been found in many rivers in BC, particularly if steelhead populations are depressed.
6/ ISA has been found but not confirmed using CFIAs restrictive testing process? You mean ISA the disease, correct?
Thanks, soxy.

 

[soxy]

Re: More Problems At Fish Farms

« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2013, 03:20:07 PM »

Moosebreath,(soxy) you might want to look for a new source of information. Better yet, read the actual Cohen Final Report and related transcripts with exhibits for yourself. Somehow Dr. Miller does not seem to agree with your source – neither does the data collected to date. Here is some more information on Creative farmed Chinook.

DR. MILLER: And so I don't think that there's -- and there's no indication that what we're picking up as ISAV positives has any correlation with their jaundiced syndrome. There's no indication that it's causing disease, necessarily, in those fish, but we basically picked up a similar prevalence level and CT values that we see in wild migrating sockeye. Cohen Transcript Dec 15, 2011 page 53

MS. CALLAN:
26 Q: Now, your results were interesting because you didn't only have unhealthy fish testing positive for ISAV?

DR. MILLER: Yes, and I never suggested that ISAV was anything to do with this jaundice disease.

Q: Okay. And in fact, if we turn to provincial Tab 22, you'd agree that the positive ISAV PCR test results are as common in healthy fish as they are in sick fish?

DR. MILLER: Yes, I only saw this morning, but yes, again, I never came forward and suggested there was any relationship. Cohen Transcript Dec 15, 2011 page 96

 

[Charlie]

Re: More Problems At Fish Farms

« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2013, 03:20:07 PM »

Moosebreath,(soxy) you might want to look for a new source of information. Better yet, read the actual Cohen Final Report and related transcripts with exhibits for yourself. Somehow Dr. Miller does not seem to agree with your source – neither does the data collected to date. Here is some more information on Creative farmed Chinook.

Well, how about this… actually Dr. Miller stated the studies started by Dr. Kent on SLV where never completed and she didn’t even know what SLV and the disease was. She didn’t agree or disagreed with anything only stated what she had found and there has been very little data collected and it is INCOMPLETE!

DR. MILLER: And so I don't think that there's -- and there's no indication that what we're picking up as ISAV positives has any correlation with their jaundiced syndrome.

And, I believe there is! So, let’s do some testing and figure it out?

There's no indication that it's causing disease, necessarily, in those fish,

There is no indication that any HPR0 or HPR00 EVER causing any disease. Well… That is until it mutates!

but we basically picked up a similar prevalence level and CT values that we see in wild migrating sockeye. Cohen Transcript Dec 15, 2011 page 53

Hmmm… you do understand she is referring to the Norwegian strain of ISAv here, right?

MS. CALLAN:
26 Q: Now, your results were interesting because you didn't only have unhealthy fish testing positive for ISAV?

DR. MILLER: Yes, and I never suggested that ISAV was anything to do with this jaundice disease.

HPR0 and HPR00 have NEVER been shown to cause any disease in any fish, including Atlantic salmon or jaundice disease - YET. So, you believe Dr Miller would suggest anything, without completing any studies????

Q: Okay. And in fact, if we turn to provincial Tab 22, you'd agree that the positive ISAV PCR test results are as common in healthy fish as they are in sick fish?

DR. MILLER: Yes, I only saw this morning, but yes, again, I never came forward and suggested there was any relationship. Cohen Transcript Dec 15, 2011 page 96

Yep! She set there in court listening to the other ISA experts on how they tested their samples. Actuallywent back to her lab that morning and re-tested her samples and wella - found the the Norwegian strain of ISAV. What would you expect her to testify to under oath as at that point she had just found it and NEVER completed her testing! I would suggest one simply just ask Dr. Miller what she now believes? BTW… during the Cohen inquiry Dr. Miller was NOT even considered an expert witness for ISA disease or ISAv.

I will leave one with this… THERE IS NO INDICATION. AS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY STUDIES DONE!

Soxy, it is actually laughable that one wants to argue with the following statement:

so my contention is “jaundice” certainly might be secondary to ISAv?

I will start with giving some definitions from Merriam-Webster:

con·ten·tion noun \kən-ˈten(t)-shən\
: something (such as a belief, opinion, or idea) that is argued or stated
: anger and disagreement
: a situation in which you have a chance to win something that you are trying to win

Full Definition of CONTENTION
1: an act or instance of contending
2: a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument
3: rivalry, competition


Might verbal auxiliary \ˈmīt\

Definition of MIGHT
past of may
—used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past <the president="" <em="">might do nothing without the board's consent> or a present condition contrary to fact <if you="" older="" were="" <em="">might understand> or less probability or possibility than may <might get there before it rains> or as a polite alternative to may <might I ask who is calling> or to ought or should <you <em="">might at least apologize>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

It is an OPINION and actually really don’t care what one has to say about my contention [belief, opinion, or idea] that jaundice certainly might [probability, possibility] be secondary [caused by or coming from something else] to ISAv. I will be happy to clarify that farther… stating that is “my opinion”! I will even add this definition, as it might [possibility] be applicable [relevant]:

mo·ron noun \ˈmȯr-ˌän\
: a very stupid or foolish person

Full Definition of MORON
1 usually offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation
2 : a very stupid person

Have a great day and - GOOD LUCK!</you></if></the>

 

[soxy]

Thanks for the response Charlie. That last quote from me was another of shuswapsteves. I don't know why he chooses not to reply here any longer. Perhaps its a little too warm? As I've said, I'm banned from Rods so I cannot reply to his hair splitting responses. Same as his sycophant, Dave the tax evader. Thanks for your informative replies.

 

[cuttlefish]

Over 80 sites listed as operational in any given year, yet "approximately 70 are in operation at one time".

'Cause, you know, they are empty at some time during the year before they are stocked or after they are harvested out.

That's fine though, if you don't want to do any of the heavy mental lifting and are looking to find anything you can to rationalize your dismissal of any industry provided information, you can bail out any time you like.

Thanks for the clarification. Your team could have stated things that way initially to avoid any confusion by mental lightweights like me. And I'm glad you're fine with with me dismissing you as you have so eloquently done to me....Mr. Heavy Mental Lifter. BTW, are you ever going to get around to the heavy mental lifting and provide the science others are asking for or do you plan to just continue with the juvenile responses?

 

[Whole in the Water]

Thanks for the clarification. Your team could have stated things that way initially to avoid any confusion by mental lightweights like me. And I'm glad you're fine with with me dismissing you as you have so eloquently done to me....Mr. Heavy Mental Lifter. BTW, are you ever going to get around to the heavy mental lifting and provide the science others are asking for or do you plan to just continue with the juvenile responses?

So CK will you reply to the many questions we have raised here? I and many and others on this forum are starting to think that you can't and that your industry is both scientifically and morally bankrupt when it comes to disproving the growing amount of peer reviewed, scientific research from around the globe that indicates that net pen salmon feedlots have negative impacts to wild fish and the surrounding environment.

I challenge you to prove us wrong - if you can. Will you defend your "sustainable, low impact industry" and rise to this challenge? How many times must we ask you this?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Thanks for the clarification. Your team could have stated things that way initially to avoid any confusion by mental lightweights like me. And I'm glad you're fine with with me dismissing you as you have so eloquently done to me....Mr. Heavy Mental Lifter. BTW, are you ever going to get around to the heavy mental lifting and provide the science others are asking for or do you plan to just continue with the juvenile responses?

It was stated on every map.



Happy Holidays!

 

[ClayoquotKid]

So CK will you reply to the many questions we have raised here? I and many and others on this forum are starting to think that you can't and that your industry is both scientifically and morally bankrupt when it comes to disproving the growing amount of peer reviewed, scientific research from around the globe that indicates that net pen salmon feedlots have negative impacts to wild fish and the surrounding environment.

I challenge you to prove us wrong - if you can. Will you defend your "sustainable, low impact industry" and rise to this challenge? How many times must we ask you this?

Hello "Whole",

While the amount of research going into quanitfying the hypothesised impacts of aquaculture on wild salmon populations has risen, their actual findings and dependence on assumptions has not changed.

The simple fact remains that there is no evidence available today which shows that areas with salmon farms have wild salmon populations which perform any differently than those in areas without.

No amount of bold type or inreased font size is going to change the simple truth that the papers do not align with what wild salmon populations actually do.

Think about this: Do the hatchery folks working in areas with aquaculture present get consistently lower survival than those in other areas?

Not that I know of - Anyone have any different info?

That would be a pretty easy way to tell if there was anything different going on with farms present.

For instance, look at the 2014 Outlook summary from DFO: http://www.sportfishing.bc.ca/docs/preliminary_2014_salmon_outlook_-_dfo.pdf

Some up, some down, but overall better than last year.

I don't have to match paper with paper because it doesn't PROVE anything - it simply means that flaws in one argument are pointed out and different ideas are put forward.

In instances where I have done so, the rebuttals are dismissed as being industry funded - so there really doesn't seem to be any value in it in this context.

You can keep banging the table and passing judgement on morals all you like, I guess this forum is designed for just such activity - but the scientific debate about impacts on wild salmon from aquaculture operations will certainly not be closed here in favour of either side.

My tone and occasional quips may lean a little to the snarky side, but given the accusations, name calling and outright hostility seen from the anonymous posters on the other side of the debate here - I would say it's all part of the game.

Happy Holidays!

 

[absolon]

Will have to cut and paste, aqua, Dave had me banned from Rods (moosebreath)

Dave didn't get you banned........You got yourself banned.

Actually, you were already banned for some racist comments you made in the past but managed to get re-registered under a new pseudonym. Might of worked except you came in in full attack on Dave due to your personal vendetta against him and managed to violate enough rules that you drew the attention of the moderators and got yourself booted again.

Time to man up and take a little personal responsibility for your own actions.

 

[soxy]

Seems to me you are butt hurt about something as well as Dave. Full attack you say? Can you give me an example of this " full attack"...lol...and supposed racism statements? And I don't think the mods here would appreciate your accusing me of "attacking" poor Dave on another board. Does Dave all of a sudden have lock jaw? The games you two are playing are usually reserved for school girls and The Canterbury Tales .

Now, time to man up and take a little personal responsibility for your OWN actions and

 

[agentaqua]

......The simple fact remains that there is no evidence available today which shows that areas with salmon farms have wild salmon populations which perform any differently than those in areas without....

We have been through this add nauseum CK. Just on sea lice alone there are over 33 peer-reviewed papers. Once you take out the modelling component which you are so unnecessarily condemning (don't forget your industry operates on modelling - and IF you don't want to present valid science-based reasons why you dismiss all the modelling - you will also need to dismiss your operations entirely) - there are still some dozen or so papers (which I bolded-out the easy to read quotes for you) - that reference field-based studies and impacts which you seem to have suddenly and entirely forgotten. That's just sea-lice impacts - not including benthic impacts, or sea lice treatment impacts, or disease impacts, or forage fish impacts from the associated feed industry, or marine mammal impacts, etc. I don't know if you realize how foolish your denials are to everyone on this forum following the conversation.

......Think about this: Do the hatchery folks working in areas with aquaculture present get consistently lower survival than those in other areas?....

I don't know if the folks working in the hatchery get lower survival. Maybe WCB would be interested in these data.

Maybe try rewording your question (i.e. using your big science words) to something like - can you tell what the population-level impacts from open net-pens are on ocean survival rates of adjacent wild salmonids stocks given the variability and inaccuracy inherent in the ocean and the escapement data?

Also your experience is limited to one area, CK. Your interest in admitting that there is evidence from other areas on the globe appears to be non-existent.

Do you have any reliable links to: 1/ juvenile Atlantic salmon have been found in many rivers in BC, particularly if steelhead populations are depressed..

John Volpe's work:
Competition among juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): relevance to invasion potential in British Columbia. John P. Volpe, Bradley R. Anholt, and Barry W. Glickman. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 197–207 (2001)

Abstract: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) are routinely captured in both freshwater and marine environments of coastal British Columbia (Canada). Recent evidence suggests that this species is now naturally reproducing in Vancouver Island rivers. Our objective was to quantify the performance of each species in intra- and inter-specific competition by assessing the competitive ability of Atlantic salmon sympatric with native niche equivalent steelhead – rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Significant behavioural differences, particularly with respect to agonism, were observed between species; however, the status of an individual as resident or challenger was the best predictor of performance. Resident fish always outperformed challengers, regardless of species. Thus, we suggest that Atlantic salmon may be capable of colonizing and persisting in coastal British Columbia river systems that are underutilized by native species, such as the steelhead.

AND some I cannot cut and paste from, such as
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...HlPxQzi4BNNiodGcYCCcUsQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...RKK_3S5djZaXgLuJu-97D4g&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...tpSP0y71vU2Kzfr3QeKhFlQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU

6/ ISA has been found but not confirmed using CFIAs restrictive testing process? You mean ISA the disease, correct?
Thanks, soxy.[/QUOTE]No the virus - or parts of it. The lab report is on the Cohen Commission website.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"you will also need to dismiss your operations entirely" Haha, good one "Aqua"- but there are some things that can actually be modelled and measured afterwards.

Maybe you can show me where all that paper equates to measurable numbers, as far as declines in wild fish, in areas where aquaculture is present?

Or, maybe, explain why you seem to think that the same variability you mention does not apply to the speculative %'s your papers propose? (Instead of doing that thing that you did...)

Or, maybe, let me know how Volpe's work has turned out after 12 years?

Was he right? 'Cause I'm pretty sure people have been out there looking...

I've got no more time for anonymous posters tonight - adios.

 

[GLG]

Maybe you can show me where all that paper equates to measurable numbers, as far as declines in wild fish, in areas where aquaculture is present?

So what are the returning Chinook numbers like this year in Clayoquot sound?
There are a lot of fish farms there and by going with your logic we should see thousands of wild returns.
After all your industry has been involved in bringing back the wild Chinooks for many years.
Your industry should be proud of all the good work you have done there.
Why aren't you jumping at the chance to let us know your results?
Lets see the numbers and lets put your record on public display.
Give us numbers for the last ten years so we can see the trend.
You seem to think it's up to us to prove harm well I'm asking you to prove your claim of no harm.
Are you going to man up or just ignore me again?
GLG

 

[agentaqua]

"you will also need to dismiss your operations entirely" Haha, good one "Aqua"- but there are some things that can actually be modelled and measured afterwards..

Ya - like sea lice numbers you mean. you will also need to say DUH! as they say. JUST LIKE benthic impacts from faeces and feed which is fed into a model named DECAMOD which is used to look at maximum feed and biomass calculations which is used by DFO to regulate your industry looking at variables like redox. Your whole industry is regulated and sighted using this modelling. You seem to be okay with this modelling because it aids you, but then when someone models sea lice - suddenly you don't like modeling anymore - or the person who created the model. Your approach is quite transparent and immature. A little bizarre, really.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

So what are the returning Chinook numbers like this year in Clayoquot sound?
There are a lot of fish farms there and by going with your logic we should see thousands of wild returns.
After all your industry has been involved in bringing back the wild Chinooks for many years.
Your industry should be proud of all the good work you have done there.
Why aren't you jumping at the chance to let us know your results?
Lets see the numbers and lets put your record on public display.
Give us numbers for the last ten years so we can see the trend.
You seem to think it's up to us to prove harm well I'm asking you to prove your claim of no harm.
Are you going to man up or just ignore me again?
GLG

Here's Chinook in Clayoquot from '47 to '07 (Numbers after that haven't all been graphed yet, but they are certainly higher than the two decades prior to salmon aquaculture being present)

When I have time I am going to get everything together from DFO, Ahousaht Fisheries and our local hatchery guys who we have been working with to do enumeration over the last few years.

DFO droppped a lot of systems and we have been trying to pick up the slack in recent times as far as data collection.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Ya - like sea lice numbers you mean. you will also need to say DUH! as they say. JUST LIKE benthic impacts from faeces and feed which is fed into a model named DECAMOD which is used to look at maximum feed and biomass calculations which is used by DFO to regulate your industry looking at variables like redox. Your whole industry is regulated and sighted using this modelling. You seem to be okay with this modelling because it aids you, but then when someone models sea lice - suddenly you don't like modeling anymore - or the person who created the model. Your approach is quite transparent and immature. A little bizarre, really.

It's called "Depomod" and it is one element of regulating aquaculture through modelling deposition areas and sampling of material deposited under the farms - make a model using inputs and currents, take samples to see if it is working.

Repeatable and testable.

Completely different than sea lice modelling.

 

[agentaqua]

It's called "Depomod" and it is one element of regulating aquaculture through modelling deposition areas and sampling of material deposited under the farms - make a model using inputs and currents, take samples to see if it is working.

Repeatable and testable.

Completely different than sea lice modelling.

so is sea lice modelling CK - but you don't "like" it because Marty Krkosek instituted it to look at impacts from your industry. They do this in Norway using actual sea lice numbers from farms because they force the farms to report it to the regulators in a farm-by-farm format. You're so transparent CK.

 

[agentaqua]

try this one: "Wild spawner populations in Area 24 (Clayoquot Sound) have declined an average of 53% over the last three generations despite relatively pristine freshwater habitat and harvest reductions (DFO 2010: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_032-eng.html).

 

[ClayoquotKid]

so is sea lice modelling CK - but you don't "like" it because Marty Krkosek instituted it to look at impacts from your industry. They do this in Norway using actual sea lice numbers from farms because they force the farms to report it to the regulators in a farm-by-farm format. You're so transparent CK.

Actual Sea lice numbers?

Like these?

http://www.mainstream-group.com/por...tream-canada/aquaculture/sea-lice-monitoring/

Let me ask you something: How do Krkosek's models account for predation? Detrius feeders on the nets? Filter feeders off the system? Lice eaten by the very same smolts they sometimes attach to?

Seems to me that you start with an average based calculation on one end, factor in currents and then try to explain the counts you get on wild smolts in the area.

Everything in the middle falls apart.

It's not that I don't "like" it, it's just not really very sound science.