Court quashes government PRV fish farm policy

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?)
It's the activists who are saying the risk to wild fish is unacceptable, not pro fish farmers. If the European strain of this virus is as virulent as some think, common sense says wild fish will have it. Does it not make sense to test these fish as well?
It's a simple question you and others don't want to answer - should wild or hatchery broodstock be tested so they don't pass this on to future generations?
 
It's the activists who are saying the risk to wild fish is unacceptable, not pro fish farmers. If the European strain of this virus is as virulent as some think, common sense says wild fish will have it. Does it not make sense to test these fish as well?
It's a simple question you and others don't want to answer - should wild or hatchery broodstock be tested so they don't pass this on to future generations?

If PRV is a problem then hatcheys will have to deal with it

upload_2019-2-11_11-47-30.png

upload_2019-2-11_11-51-1.png

upload_2019-2-11_12-3-50.png
 
Last edited:
It's the Courts of Canada who are saying the risk to wild fish is unacceptable. It is enlightening that that the pro-FF lobby would prefer if the public instead sees this only as a activist perspective so that they can mitigate the negative PR instead of protecting wild salmon:

Lawyers say fisheries decision important victory for precautionary principle in resource management

Tuesday, February 12, 2019 @ 9:21 AM | By Ian Burns
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/arti...recautionary-principle-in-resource-management
 
Last edited:
Ya the precautionary principle. ITs a slight of hand weapon that that enviromental groups and individuals concerned people use to sell seal the deal. What frightening about it is once empowered in has no limits.

http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html

In itself the precautionary principle sounds harmless enough. We all have the right to be protected against unscrupulous applications of late twentieth century scientific advances – especially those which threaten our environment and our lives. But the principle goes much further than seeking to protect us from known or suspected risks. It argues that we should also refrain from developments which have no demonstrable risks, or which have risks that are so small that they are outweighed, empirically, by the potential benefits that would result. In the most recent application of the doctrine it is proposed that innovation should be prevented even when there is just a perception of a risk among some unspecified people.
 
It's actually an international agreement/treaty first endorsed in 1982 when the World Charter for Nature was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, while its first international implementation was in 1987 through the Montreal Protocol. Soon after, the principle integrated with many other legally binding international treaties such as the Rio Declaration and Kyoto Protocol.
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
In Canada:
https://www.dragun.ca/precautionary-principle-and-canadian-environmental-law
http://www.cela.ca/collections/pollution/precautionary-principle
 
For those whom are either unfamiliar or doubtful on how political interference in Canada can and sometimes does obstruct proper regulation and enforcement of how companies/corporations and/or individuals operate in Canada - see following recent news articles:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...s-lawyer-says-crown-should-not-talk-strategy/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4952236/jody-wilson-raybould-resigns-snc-lavalin-affair/

It's been going on for years - where lobbyists & companion lawyers have direct and exclusive access to both politicians, top bureaucrats, and lawyers in the DoJ - and use their influence and fear to subvert the system of checks and balances, including enforcement and prosecution.

This obviously includes the open net-cage industry. There is a reason why Vivian Krause & meetings with her were found on Mike Duffy's rolladex - that came out in his investigation by the RCMP.
 
For those whom are either unfamiliar or doubtful on how political interference in Canada can and sometimes does obstruct proper regulation and enforcement of how companies/corporations and/or individuals operate in Canada - see following recent news articles:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...s-lawyer-says-crown-should-not-talk-strategy/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4952236/jody-wilson-raybould-resigns-snc-lavalin-affair/

It's been going on for years - where lobbyists & companion lawyers have direct and exclusive access to both politicians, top bureaucrats, and lawyers in the DoJ - and use their influence and fear to subvert the system of checks and balances, including enforcement and prosecution.

This obviously includes the open net-cage industry. There is a reason why Vivian Krause & meetings with her were found on Mike Duffy's rolladex - that came out in his investigation by the RCMP.

I guess you would be onto something if you could show what Vivian is saying is false however you cant. I dont know anyone in their right mind who doesn't question large corporations. Ya just cant paint them all with the same brush however.

Your presence here is somewhat questionable isn't it or any poster for that mater. On one hand its a forum where members can be anonymous and thats fine but when an individual poster is on here that doesn't really post about actual sport fishing and poo poo's everything canadian economy/industry then its equally fair game to be suspicious of the objectives or how that poster presents content. Your idea of corruption goes both ways agent. Your secret identity here is by forum standards totally fine however it certainly raises questions. Fair Questions lol. By no means am I asking you to reveal yourself Im just pointing out the obvious in relation to your post above. On of the primary issues with the internet is it is difficult to differentiate between legitimate profiles and those who intent or purpose is more than just an individual guy or gal sharing their opinion.
 
New paper Feb 2019 (spoiler alert: archive samples find no PRV).

Abstract
In response to concerns that novel infectious agents were introduced through the movement of eggs as Atlantic salmon aquaculture developed in British Columbia (BC), Canada, we estimated the prevalence of infectious agents in archived return‐migrating Sockeye salmon, from before and during aquaculture expansion in BC (1985–94). Of 45 infectious agents assessed through molecular assays in 652 samples, 23 (7 bacterial, 2 viral and 14 parasitic) were detected in liver tissue from six regions in BC. Prevalence ranged from 0.005 to 0.83 and varied significantly by region and year. Agent diversity ranged from 0 to 12 per fish (median 4), with the lowest diversity observed in fish from the Trans‐Boundary and Central Coast regions. Agents known to be endemic in Sockeye salmon in BC, including Flavobacterium psychrophilum, Infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus, Ceratonova shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis, were commonly observed. Others, such as Kudoa thyrsites and Piscirikettsia salmonis, were also detected. Surprisingly, infectious agents described only recently in BC salmon, Ca. Branchiomonas cysticola,Parvicapsula pseudobranchicola and Paranucleospora theridion, were also detected, indicating their potential presence prior to the expansion of the aquaculture industry. In general, our data suggest that agent distributions may not have substantially changed because of the salmon aquaculture industry.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jfd.12951
 
Interesting indeed, bad news for the atlantic farmers

We applied high‐throughput qRT‐PCR to simultaneously test for 45 salmonid infectious agents in archived liver samples from return‐migrating adult Sockeye salmon collected from 1985 to 1994 from natal spawning grounds throughout BC, Canada. Twenty‐three infectious agents were detected at varying degrees of prevalence in the 652 archived samples tested. For most of the detected agents, prevalence varied across the six defined regions of the BC coast, with prevalence and diversity generally lower for fish from the Central Coast and Trans‐Boundary regions and higher for fish from the Thompson region. We observed variation in prevalence and load of the well‐studied endemic virus, IHNV, which was consistent with data from long‐term monitoring programs (Kurath & Breyta, 2013), providing support for the quality of information derived from our analyses of archived samples. Importantly, we showed that most infective agents only recently discovered in BC salmon, and some associated with emerging diseases in Norwegian aquaculture (e.g., P. pseudobranchicola and P. theridion), have actually been in BC for at least 30 years. Other agents that have an impact in BC salmon aquaculture, such as P. salmonis, were also highly prevalent in wild salmon dating back to at least 1985, before the Atlantic salmon industry expanded into BC. While one virus only recently discovered in BC (PSPV) was detected in samples taken 33 years ago, another virus (Piscine orthoreovirus, PRV) associated with the emerging disease heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in Atlantic salmon aquaculture, including in BC (Di Cicco et al., 2017), was not detected in the archived samples. To our knowledge, our study represents the only comprehensive description of microparasite distributions in Sockeye salmon in BC before and during the early years of Sockeye salmon decline and demonstrates the benefit of properly archiving and maintaining historic samples to provide valuable insights into and comparisons with the past.
 
Last edited:
" In general, our data suggest that agent distributions may not have substantially changed because of the salmon aquaculture industry."

good news for the chinook,halibut and sable farmers.
 
If salmon farming in BC was a major disease harbouring and transmitting medium that NGO's/ Concerned citizens on this forum and elsewhere claim they certainly would not have included this in the final words of the study.

However, our study offers no evidence that the range of agents carried by return‐migrating adult Sockeye salmon has changed substantially since the introduction of Atlantic salmon aquaculture.

and

These findings likely suggest that agent distributions have not substantially changed as a result of the salmon aquaculture industry. In addition, we also observed that most of the agents’ distribution and their diversity varied across the six Sockeye salmon regions in BC.



 
Some seem to miss the point that the PRV virus showed up in wild stock after atlantic salmon fish farms became the norm here in BC. Now how do you think that could have happened?

Anyone see a trend in this data that matches the years that this paper seems to suggest?

DyRA8R3VAAAT-3o
 
More caution needed with salmon farming on West Coast, federal fisheries minister says
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 18, 2019
UPDATED FEBRUARY 20, 2019

With scientists deadlocked about the potential risks of aquaculture, B.C.’s salmon farming industry should be shifted out of sensitive wild salmon migration pathways, federal fisheries minister Jonathan Wilkinson says.

The minister for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is signalling a policy shift, for the whole West Coast, toward the model developed by the B.C. government that resolved a decades-long conflict over fish farming in the Broughton Archipelago.

His department’s scientists cannot agree whether open-net farms of Atlantic salmon pose health risks to wild Pacific salmon. With some wild stocks in decline – particularly that of the chinook salmon – Mr. Wilkinson said he will err on the side of caution.

That will put the federal government in compliance with a Federal Court decision that quashed a Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) policy allowing fish farms to transfer salmon to open-net fish farms without testing for piscine orthoreovirus, an infectious virus found in both farmed and wild salmon in B.C.

In her Feb. 4 decision, Justice Cecily Strickland said the transfer of fish known to have diseases that can severely affect fisheries is inconsistent with federal regulations and “represents a risk of serious or irreversible harm that … is contrary to the precautionary approach.”

The ruling gave the government four months to revise its policy.
Mr. Wilkinson said his approach is to accept the possibility that risk does exist, because there is no clear consensus on the science.
“We’re not convincing people anymore, there are just these two camps,” he said in an interview.
“So we need a different approach, one that more fulsomely implements the precautionary principle,” he said. "We need to move to area-based management, which means we are actually thinking about siting of these facilities in areas where you don’t run into issues around migration pathways, areas where communities are actually interested in the economic development that comes through [fish farming] rather than in areas where those communities are very much opposed.”

That’s the model that ended up resolving a 30-year-long battle over wild Pacific salmon last December. Indigenous opponents of open-net fish farms negotiated a pact with the B.C. government, which will shut down at least 10 farms over the span of four years in the Broughton Archipelago off the north coast of Vancouver Island.

At the time, Mr. Wilkinson joined B.C. Premier John Horgan, Indigenous leaders and representatives of the aquaculture industry, in endorsing the deal.

The Broughton Archipelago is home to roughly one-third of the fish-farming activities in B.C., and the pact means that more than half of the current production from that region will be shut down by 2023. Unless consent of the local Indigenous communities is granted, the remaining seven farms will be closed in 2023, giving the industry a four-year window to overcome long-standing opposition by allowing the local First Nations to take part in monitoring their operations.

Mr. Wilkinson said that’s a model that could resolve the conflict over the remaining open-net farms in B.C. He also intends to move ahead with a study of closed-containment farming, to determine what gaps need to be closed in order to move salmon farming on shore.
Lana Popham, B.C.'s minister responsible for fisheries, welcomed the new direction from her federal counterpart.

“There are a lot of things affecting salmon stocks and rather than getting stuck on a science-against-science debate, and not moving forward until it’s solved, we have started to take action,” she said. Expanding on the Broughton model is “absolutely do-able,” she added.

The appointment of Mr. Wilkinson, the MP for North Vancouver, to the fisheries portfolio last summer has reduced the friction between Ottawa and the B.C. government over the issue of fish farms. Ms. Popham had been sharply critical of the DFO’s lack of capacity to manage wild-salmon protection, but said having a fisheries minister who represents a B.C. riding has created a more productive relationship.
Mr. Wilkinson has said the aquaculture industry plays an important economic role in Canada, but acknowledged his department needs to restore confidence in aquaculture environmental safety. Canada’s chief science adviser, Mona Nemer, issued a damning report in December on the need for stronger aquaculture science. But the DFO released a report earlier this month that concluded that Fraser River sockeye salmon are at minimal risk of picking up a virus from farmed Atlantic salmon as they pass through the Discovery Islands area of B.C.

The industry says salmon farming supports thousands of jobs and generates $1.5-billion in annual economic benefits for the province. However, it embraced the Broughton settlement, saying it provides a means to earn the consent of Indigenous communities to operate in their traditional territories.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ed-with-salmon-farming-on-west-coast-federal/
 
Some seem to miss the point that the PRV virus showed up in wild stock after atlantic salmon fish farms became the norm here in BC. Now how do you think that could have happened?

Anyone see a trend in this data that matches the years that this paper seems to suggest?

DyRA8R3VAAAT-3o



Thats a good graph. While it does not reflect are actual returns. It does show for almost 10 years the catch totals are almost double what would be the average catch total over all before that high catch period, followed immediately with a major major crash of every species. Every species being the key point here because the decline matches the heavy fishing in all species as shown in the graph. The idea that PRV caused this is a large shot in the dark for as with most viruses each on its own effects different species differently. The graph does not reflect this. The only correlation the graph shows is the over all over fishing of all species over a 10 year period followed by an over all crash of the catch numbers which is clearly uniform and related to the over fishing period.

PRV has not been found in Pink salmon so how is it that the graph above such a sharp/devastating decline for pink salmon? Kinda makes your theory That PRV caused a devastating decline in catch numbers moot dont you think?
 
Another similar but different graph where instead of overall catch records are shown this is overall hatchery production which the majority of would be Alaska salmon ranching.
Figure-6_Hatchery-releases-number-by-species-1.png
And here's on with related to Fraser river socks:
alaskareleasecomparison1.jpg
 
It's simple .... get the farms off the migration routes. Chinook and coho have little time for your arguments Birdsnest and it would seem that both Provincial and Federal governments agree with me.
 
It's simple .... get the farms off the migration routes. Chinook and coho have little time for your arguments Birdsnest and it would seem that both Provincial and Federal governments agree with me.

I made my points. You challenged none of them. Seems to me they don't echo your narrative. Which government? The green/ndp? Im sure they do but most of what i see the government saying now if pre election lip service. The pipeline is coming and fish farms are staying. The benefits out weigh the risk. Suck it up.
 
I made my points. You challenged none of them. Seems to me they don't echo your narrative. Which government? The green/ndp? Im sure they do but most of what i see the government saying now if pre election lip service. The pipeline is coming and fish farms are staying. The benefits out weigh the risk. Suck it up.

Perhaps read post #53 slowly and repeatedly until it sinks in. I'm tired of this never ending assault on our wild salmon and your latest finger pointing that it's overfishing of Chinook and coho as the reason for the decline here in BC. The facts is your side lost this debate and the courts have spoken. Get to work and you just might find that there are many of us that will support your industry in getting off the migration routes and/or onto land. That's the path forward as post #53 points out.

added: Is see your using your other hand to point to Alaska. It's their fault. It seems it's always someone else's fault, never look at what your doing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top