SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I get so sick of though pissing matches with where people graduate from. Seems to be the norm for anyone who has an issue with something. You attack where they went too school.
DFO Taking Morton to Court for Protecting Wild Salmon
- Thread starter Whole in the Water
- Start date
I get so sick of though pissing matches with where people graduate from. Seems to be the norm for anyone who has an issue with something. You attack where they went too school.
From my point of view it seems like staunch opponents of net pen aquaculture here are the ones doing the distracting here. I for one am not suggesting that viruses are not big deal. But some of us are saying that:
1. You cannot use virus and disease interchangeably. Both are different.
2. Just because a host is infected by a virus does not necessarily mean that it will develop a disease because of it.
3. The development of a disease in a host can be dependent on many factors and how they interact with each other.
Don't take my word for this. Ask an expert like Dr. Kyle Garver and he will tell you.
It is difficult to have a conversation about "disease risk" when many fish farm critics do not understand the 3 points above.
What evidence do you have to say that those transferred farmed fish in question were indeed diseased? Please do not tell me, "The onus is not on me or farm critics for proof - it's on Marine Harvest for showing that they are disease-free." If people like Ms Morton are going to call something diseased in their correspondence and this court case then they should show where they are getting that from.
There is recent literature (from the time of the original court date to now) on PRV that I brought up with Ms Morton in the other thread which she failed to address (amongst other things) Why are you not showing recent literature also or have you not seen it yet?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146229
Where did it start from in this thread?
OTTAWA — The Trudeau government, now helping B.C.’s controversial aquaculture sector expand, would welcome an outside auditor to assess its efforts to ensure fish farms don’t harm wild salmon, Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo said Monday.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/fisheries-minister-open-to-audit
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/fisheries-minister-open-to-audit
Sadly it's not just the Salmon they are harming ....... It's a shellfish wasteland.
Prawns Gone! Crab Gone! Oh but it's ok for the environment.
All should be LAND BASED . End of story. I'd love to see Tootoo put these sea based operations in his backyard. Not likely.
Prawns Gone! Crab Gone! Oh but it's ok for the environment.
All should be LAND BASED . End of story. I'd love to see Tootoo put these sea based operations in his backyard. Not likely.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Sadly it's not just the Salmon they are harming ....... It's a shellfish wasteland.
Prawns Gone! Crab Gone! Oh but it's ok for the environment.
All should be LAND BASED . End of story. I'd love to see Tootoo put these sea based operations in his backyard. Not likely
___________________________________________________________________________________________
I dunno high tide, the salmon farm supporters say that there is no evidence to show that net pen fish farms cause any harm to the environment so you must be imagining the loss in shellfish.
Their argument is weak and flawed as like many other corporate stances like this. They say show us the proof of harm, then when it is provided they try to poke any holes in it as they can, then years later when it is too obvious to ignore, or cover up they finally admit to harm. Meantime, the damage is done and the environment and the general public are the losers, most times left with the bill to fix it, if it can be fixed.
Happens over and over whenever corporate profits are put ahead of the environment. E.G. DDT, tobacco, thalidomide, oil pipelines, acid mine drainage, acid rain, lead in gasoline, clear cutting fish habitat, over fishing, mercury poison in in Japan, Love Canal, you name it, the list goes on and on - all vehemently denied by the corporations until concerned scientists and citizens diligently pointed out the problems and the corporations were forced to change or stop. Unfortunately, I don't think we can expect the fish farm supporters to be any different here.
That is why we will continue to work hard to get them out of the water and onto the land were their negative impacts can be better managed.
Prawns Gone! Crab Gone! Oh but it's ok for the environment.
All should be LAND BASED . End of story. I'd love to see Tootoo put these sea based operations in his backyard. Not likely
___________________________________________________________________________________________
I dunno high tide, the salmon farm supporters say that there is no evidence to show that net pen fish farms cause any harm to the environment so you must be imagining the loss in shellfish.
Their argument is weak and flawed as like many other corporate stances like this. They say show us the proof of harm, then when it is provided they try to poke any holes in it as they can, then years later when it is too obvious to ignore, or cover up they finally admit to harm. Meantime, the damage is done and the environment and the general public are the losers, most times left with the bill to fix it, if it can be fixed.
Happens over and over whenever corporate profits are put ahead of the environment. E.G. DDT, tobacco, thalidomide, oil pipelines, acid mine drainage, acid rain, lead in gasoline, clear cutting fish habitat, over fishing, mercury poison in in Japan, Love Canal, you name it, the list goes on and on - all vehemently denied by the corporations until concerned scientists and citizens diligently pointed out the problems and the corporations were forced to change or stop. Unfortunately, I don't think we can expect the fish farm supporters to be any different here.
That is why we will continue to work hard to get them out of the water and onto the land were their negative impacts can be better managed.
In addition to what I just posted before, here is some recent scientific literature that was released near the time of the first trial but was not admissible because it too late to be submitted in time for the case. The last one is more of a review of the literature on PRV risk to Pacific salmonids from the Washington St. Department of Fish and Wildlife website. If you go to Ms Morton website or Facebook page you won't find any of this. You can draw your own conclusion why not. This is not meant to make you love fish farming. If you say afterwards, "Screw it I will sign the petition" that's fine. If you want to continue to criticize the Minister over this that's fine also. This is meant to make you aware of what else is out there in terms of the literature (recent), some of which is not being brought to your attention by the proponent of this petition.
Piscine reovirus, but not Jaundice Syndrome, was transmissible to Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), Sockeye Salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum), and Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L.
The results from this study demonstrate that the Jaundice Syndrome was not transmissible by injection of material from infected fish and that PRV was not the sole aetiological factor for the condition. Additionally, these findings showed the Pacific coast strain of PRV, while transmissible, was of low pathogenicity for Atlantic Salmon, Chinook Salmon and Sockeye Salmon.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfd.12329/full
Piscine reovirus in wild and farmed salmonids in British Columbia, Canada: 1974–2013
PRV was common among wild and farmed salmonids, British Columbia, western Canada, from 1987 to 2013.
http://bcsalmonfarmers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PRV_Study_2014JFDarchival.pdf
Piscine Reovirus (PRV) Appears To Be Of Low Risk To Wild Pacific Salmonids
Summary: The ubiquitous nature of piscine reovirus (PRV), its apparent long time presence in wild Pacific salmonid stocks and the lack of clear association with disease suggest the virus poses a low risk to wild species of Pacific salmonids.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/pnfhpc/pubs/ireports/Piscine_Orthoreovirus_PNFHPC_Whitepaper.pdf
yet but another example of the hubris, arrogance and lack of responsibility of industry pundits assumptions about introducing alien species - and those interactions with wild stocks: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/green-crab-parasites-raising-concerns-1.3318635
ALWAYS - it is industry's responsibility to prove that they are not adversely affecting wild stocks - the whole basis of environmental assessments.
ALWAYS - it is industry's responsibility to prove that they are not adversely affecting wild stocks - the whole basis of environmental assessments.
Piscine Reovirus: Genomic and Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis from Farmed and Wild Salmonids Collected on the Canada/US Pacific Coast
"The high genetic homogeneity of PRV S1 sequences in western Canada led Kibenge et al (2013) to conclude that PRV was recently introduced into B.C. waters and dated the divergence from Norwegian sequence types between 2006 and 2008 using molecular clock analysis. However, there is little supporting epidemiological evidence for this hypothesis as there were no documented direct imports of fish eggs into western North America from Norway in that time frame."
" In the present study, we analyzed PRV sequences obtained from samples of wild and farmed salmonids collected across an expanded geographic range from Alaska to Washington State over 13 year period. The phylogenetic analysis of partial PRV S1 sequences from western North America Pacific Region indicated high genetic homogeneity and they form a subgroup within Group II. Little genetic differentiation was observed among sequence types since 2001. This suggests that the circulating virus sequence types are relatively stable in western North American Pacific waters and rules out a recent introduction of PRV into the western North Pacific as suggested by Kibenge et al (2013). However, the mechanisms by which the virus is globally distributed, as well as transmission pathways remain to be elucidated."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141475
"The high genetic homogeneity of PRV S1 sequences in western Canada led Kibenge et al (2013) to conclude that PRV was recently introduced into B.C. waters and dated the divergence from Norwegian sequence types between 2006 and 2008 using molecular clock analysis. However, there is little supporting epidemiological evidence for this hypothesis as there were no documented direct imports of fish eggs into western North America from Norway in that time frame."
" In the present study, we analyzed PRV sequences obtained from samples of wild and farmed salmonids collected across an expanded geographic range from Alaska to Washington State over 13 year period. The phylogenetic analysis of partial PRV S1 sequences from western North America Pacific Region indicated high genetic homogeneity and they form a subgroup within Group II. Little genetic differentiation was observed among sequence types since 2001. This suggests that the circulating virus sequence types are relatively stable in western North American Pacific waters and rules out a recent introduction of PRV into the western North Pacific as suggested by Kibenge et al (2013). However, the mechanisms by which the virus is globally distributed, as well as transmission pathways remain to be elucidated."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141475
GLG
Well-Known Member
So that's the argument, no eggs from Norway therefore no Norwegian virus? I'm surprised that a peer reviewed science paper would make such a statement. Perhaps they were not familiar with the DFO website that shows the history of salmon egg imports into BC.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/egg-oeuf-eng.html
Year Maximum number of eggs authorized for import Area of origin
1985 130,000 Scotland
1986 1,144,000 Scotland
1987 1,281,000 Scotland; Washington State
1988 2,700,000 Scotland; Washington
1989 500,000 Washington State
1990 0
1991 735,000 New Brunswick; Ireland; Washington State
1992 640,000 New Brunswick; Washington State
1993 1,447,000 New Brunswick; Ireland; Washington State
1994 750,000 Washington State
1995 775,000 Washington State; Ireland
1996 1,500,000 Washington State
1997 1,600,000 Washington State
1998 2,400,000 Washington State
1999 2,400,000 Washington State
2000 2,500,000 Washington State
2001 800,000 Washington State
2002 0
2003 0
2004 4,700,000 Iceland
2005 80,000* Iceland
2006 0
2007 1,750,000 Iceland
2008 800,000 Iceland
2009 600,000 Iceland
2010 0
2011 0
2012 0
*Although these eggs were viable and free of disease, the importing company made the decision not to cultivate them based on operational priorities. After receiving authorization from DFO, the eggs were destroyed.
I'll go one better then the author......
There has never been a case of importing salmon eggs from Norway so therefore any virus with the name Norway in it can not be found in Canada. Now move a long nothing to see here.
For others that might be interested here is a link that give a little history of egg imports. I find the 2005 egg imports to be troubling.
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/...salmon-egg-imports-into-british-columbia.html
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Kind find GLG!
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
seems like a rather lame excuse seeing there does seem to be documented direct imports of fish eggs from overseas. where did this "peer reviewed paper" think they came from? they certainly didn't come from our side of the pond... what does Marine Harvests documents say as to where they came from? seeing they provided the generous funding for this report...
GLG
Well-Known Member
I would not be to harsh on this study as it does point out a few valid points on this virus. That said your question is a good one ... where did the virus come from and that's something that should be researched. Here is what the paper said as a possibility.
Would you be equally surprised that this particular paper made the same claim:
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
"It is not known how the virus could have been transmitted from Norway to Canada since there have never been any authorized direct imports of Atlantic salmon eggs from Norway since 1985;" Pages 11-12
http://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-10-230
They also reference the same DFO website.
Last edited:
Not a lame excuse at all - it's a fact. Not to mention that PRV has been found here much longer than that. If you look at the studies I posted you will see that PRV was found in sampled fish in Alaska and Washington State. It has been found in asymptomatic fish. As the authors stated there has been extensive transplantations the other direction also, but many would like to deny that ever happened (Move along nothing to see here either....lol). Contrary to what some activists believe the global transmission pathway of this remains to be discovered. How would you know what the transmission pathways are if the individuals studying this do not know? If you want to see something that is lame why don't you ask Ms Morton why her supermarket and wild samples (sample size = 14) were tested for PRV, but never examined for disease, such as HSMI, yet she makes the claim that these fish are diseased. Equally lame is having a MP (Fin Donnally) stand up in the House of Commons and make the same claim of diseased fish with no evidence.
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
I was basically thinking the same thing... only thinking what broodstock did the scottish and irish use... I doubt there is much difference in genomes of the norweigan and scottish fish. and doubt the scottish fish have any more resistance to disease than the fish from norway do... it's still at minimum recklessly (and imo probably unlawfully) introducing a species that isn't native to our coastal environment....
Last edited:
Similar threads
