Fish Farms

[agentaqua]

I can understand why it is a safer and less worrisome response to assume that our government is always looking out for our best interests - even though it is very naive. The Mulroney-Schriber affair was only 1 example of how business is actually done in Ottawa. Mike Duffy's rolladex is yet but another. Maybe even the history of colonialism...

But - if that makes a person feel better to believe in the infallibility and good intentions of the bunch in Ottawa and not get involved in demanding accountability in our government - carry on.

Here's an example of the types of impacts invasive species can have when introduced in a watershed:
Amplification and transport of an endemic fish disease by an introduced species
Abstract

The introduction of American shad from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast of North America in the late 1800’s and the subsequent population expansion in the 1980’s resulted in the amplification of Ichthyophonus sp., a Mesomycetozoean parasite of wild marine fishes. Sequence analysis of the ribosomal DNA gene complex (small subunit and internal transcribed spacer regions) and Ichthyophonus epidemiological characteristics indicate a low probability that Ichthyophonus was co-introduced with American shad from the Atlantic; rather, Ichthyophonus was likely endemic to marine areas of the Pacific region and amplified by the expanding population of a highly susceptible host species. The migratory life history of shad resulted in the transport of amplified Ichthyophonus from its endemic region in the NE Pacific to the Columbia River watershed. An Ichthyophonus epizootic occurred among American shad in the Columbia River during 2007, when infection prevalence was 72%, and 57% of the infections were scored as moderate or heavy intensities. The epizootic occurred near the record peak of shad biomass in the Columbia River, and corresponded to an influx of 1,595 mt of infected shad tissues into the Columbia River. A high potential for parasite spillback and the establishment of a freshwater Ichthyophonus life cycle in the Columbia River results from currently elevated infection pressures, broad host range, plasticity in Ichthyophonus life history stages, and precedents for establishment of the parasite in other freshwater systems. The results raise questions regarding the risk for sympatric salmonids and the role of Ichthyophonus as a population-limiting factor affecting American shad in the Columbia River.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-010-9760-5

 

[wildmanyeah]

They also would be sued as part of any class action law suit over the impacts of releasing a novel disease onto naive stocks. DFO and CFIA both use Justice Canada lawyers who well understand legal liability and are in contact w industry lawyers as well.

swine flu,mad cow,avian flu, Im sure they are worried more about the public hysteria and the industry ramifications from over blown social media campains then being sued.

She also talks about the difference with PRv - being more of a chronic disease

It is a virus tho just like the common cold or the flu. While it can be chronic recurring over and over again that does not magically make it a disease.

Fish with PRV may be more susceptible to a wide range of diseases that does seem apparent from KM studies. Yes there does seem to be many strains of it all over the world and just like stated in many papers they expect to find more strains of it.

Also Fish farm from a virus and a disease perspective does seem to be a concern in high density areas like the broughton archipelago.

But why not call for reforms rather than the abolishment of an industry?

 

[agentaqua]

Ok so she and her team tested 14000 fish up and down the coast for ISAv and you have selected from a group that she has not tested. Well THATS convenient for your narrative. But isn't it a flip flop for you to look at it this differently now. How many years have we been on here and you and your believers have always stated ISA was a huge deal and found everywhere but now its just a tiny bit here and maybe a teeny bit there you say.

Actually what I am saying is that ISAv was found in River's Inlet sockeye stocks and that this population had and is still recovering from a severe population drop. Stop and think about that for a minute...

 

[agentaqua]

It is a virus tho just like the common cold or the flu. While it can be chronic recurring over and over again that does not magically make it a disease.

try running away from a tiger when you have the flu, WMY. You might not run quite as fast....

 

[Birdsnest]

Actually what I am saying is that ISAv was found in River's Inlet sockeye stocks and that this population had and is still recovering from a severe population drop. Stop and think about that for a minute...

Wait. If that was the case then why did Kristy Millar Saunders clearly ISAv state it was not found?

 

[Birdsnest]

swine flu,mad cow,avian flu, Im sure they are worried more about the public hysteria and the industry ramifications from over blown social media campains then being sued.



It is a virus tho just like the common cold or the flu. While it can be chronic recurring over and over again that does not magically make it a disease.

Fish with PRV may be more susceptible to a wide range of diseases that does seem apparent from KM studies. Yes there does seem to be many strains of it all over the world and just like stated in many papers they expect to find more strains of it.

Also Fish farm from a virus and a disease perspective does seem to be a concern in high density areas like the broughton archipelago.

But why not call for reforms rather than the abolishment of an industry?

Why would kristy millar state that she doesn't personally think that fish farms are causing declines if that was true WMY?

 

[wildmanyeah]

try running away from a tiger when you have the flu, WMY. You might not run quite as fast....

No I get you point Fish farms make disease and virus more prevalent than they would otherwise be in the wild. I see you point there is definitely a wild salmon mortality associate with that.

Why would kristy millar state that she doesn't personally think that fish farms are causing declines if that was true WMY?

Because i'm sure she recognizes that disease and virus is not causing the declines from Alaska to California. That other factors are at play.

Edit: one may also have to recognize that hatchery and net pen projects also increase the rate of virus’s and diseases in wild salmon.

 

[Birdsnest]

The media is currently doing a lot of coverage on the use of social media as platforms for groups, all kinds of groups, as a means to sway public opinion where truth is not a priority.

 

[Birdsnest]

No I get you point Fish farms make disease and virus more prevalent than they would otherwise be in the wild. I see you point there is definitely a wild salmon mortality associate with that.



Because i'm sure she recognizes that disease and virus is not causing the declines from Alaska to California. That other factors are at play.

What she says is there are far to many declines up and down the coast where there are no salmon farms to suggest that salmon farms are causing major mortality.

 

[bones]

try running away from a tiger when you have the flu, WMY. You might not run quite as fast....

Lol......ahhhhh

Is this peer reviewed? What ever happen to standing behind science? Lol

 

[Birdsnest]

try running away from a tiger when you have the flu, WMY. You might not run quite as fast....

Keep in mind that having a virus does not mean you are sick or not at performance levels. We as humans have many viruses. Gold medal olympians have many viruses and they still perform obviously well.

 

[wildmanyeah]

http://www.tampabay.com/things-to-d...ith-its-super-premium-farmed-salmon_166229529

Clearwater’s Sixty South Salmon aims to change the world with its super-premium farmed salmon

 

[wildmanyeah]

http://marineharvest.ca/about/news-and-media/2018/namgis-first-nation-application/

Marine Harvest responds to ‘Namgis First Nation application for judicial review and injunction

Key Facts:

• Swanson Island salmon farm tenure and aquaculture licence were issued in 1990, and the farm operates with licenses granted by the Province of B.C. and Canada.
• The current Provincial tenure licence for Swanson was granted in 2013, after five years of Crown consultation with the ‘Namgis First Nation.
• Over the past decade, Marine Harvest has collaborated with the ‘Namgis First Nation on science projects, has supplied juvenile salmon to the Nation-owned land-based salmon farm, and continues to seek regular dialogue.
• In a recent correspondence (January 2017), Marine Harvest requested a meeting to discuss potential research collaboration and observation of work activities. ‘Namgis responded with interest, but noted they were “severely understaffed” and lacked the capacity to participate at the time.
• DFO issues the Introduction and Transfer Licence under Section 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations to authorize the transfer and release of live aquatic organisms into fish-bearing waters or fish-rearing facilities in British Columbia.
• Considerations by DFO for fish introduction or transfer include whether the fish have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish. The ‘Namgis application claims that the naturally occurring piscine reovirus (PRV) causes disease. However, DFO reportshttp://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aah-saa/species-especes/aq-health-sante/prv-rp-eng.html that all experimental exposures of the B.C. strain of PRV to Pacific and Atlantic salmon in B.C. have failed to induce disease or mortality and does not impair a fish’s performance.
  [*]A ‘Namgis press release (March 13) incorrectly states that a court ruling “confirmed the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean is prohibited from issuing licenses to transfer fish infected with PRV”. The 2015 Federal Court Order (Morton V. Canada)[ii] did not make this ruling. The Court chose not to rule as to whether fish that are PRV positive should be transferred and did not arbitrate on the PRV/HSMI debate.
  

 

[wildmanyeah]

Some of the problems wrt current testing by CFIA/DFO - I previously outlined at posts at:
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...sent-bc-salmon-farms.64482/page-4#post-821997
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...sent-bc-salmon-farms.64482/page-7#post-853839

I think Kristi Miller-Saunders genomics testing gets around most of those issues.....

C. The precautionary principle

[40] The Minister contends that licence conditions 3.1(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) are reasonable and “take into account the reality of the current limitations of scientific knowledge and reflects a precautionary approach to fish transfers.” That is, the conditions are intended, in the face of scientific uncertainty, to prevent transfers that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish. The Minister stresses that the licence conditions are so broad and in line with the precautionary principle that they result in healthy fish being held back from transfers. Notably, the Minister did not argue that licence condition (iv) was consistent with the precautionary principle; Memoranda of the Minister at paras 4, 58, 100-103.

[41] In light of this argument it is useful to consider the exact meaning of the precautionary principle and its application in a legal context. In 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 (CanLII), Justice L’Heureux-Dubé adopted the precautionary principle and applied it as an element of statutory interpretation, noting at para 31:

The interpretation of By-law 270 contained in these reasons respects international law's "precautionary principle", which is defined as follows at para. 7 of the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development (1990):

In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Canada "advocated inclusion of the precautionary principle" during the Bergen Conference negotiations (D. VanderZwaag, CEPA Issue Elaboration Paper No. 18, CEPA and the Precautionary Principle/Approach (1995), at p. 8). The principle is codified in several items of domestic legislation: see for example the Oceans Act, S.C. 1996, c. 31, Preamble (para. 6); Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 2(1)(a); Endangered Species Act, S.N.S. 1998, c. 11, ss. 2(1)(h) and 11(1).

[42] More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the interface between the precautionary principle and an environmental regulatory scheme in Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v Ontario (Environment), 2013 SCC 52 (CanLII), at para 20. The Court referred to the principle as an emerging principle of international law, which informed the scope and application of the legislative provision in question.

[43] The precautionary principal recognizes, that as a matter of sound public policy the lack of complete scientific certainty should not be used as a basis for avoiding or postponing measures to protect the environment, as there are inherent limits in being able to predict environmental harm. Moving from the realm public policy to the law, the precautionary principle is at a minimum, an established aspect of statutory interpretation, and arguably, has crystallized into a norm of customary international law and substantive domestic law: Spraytech at paras 30-31. However, except as discussed in Part VII, the legal contours of the principle need not be determined here, as this decision does not rest or depend on the application of the principle.

[44] Invoking the precautionary principle, the respondents submit that the licence conditions are intended, in the face of scientific uncertainty, to prevent transfers that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish. However, they also contend that that same scientific uncertainty with respect to whether PRV is the agent of HSMI justifies the transfer of PRV infected smolts. A lack of full scientific certainty is the very situation addressed by the precautionary principle. The respondents’ arguments with respect to the precautionary principle are inconsistent, contradictory and, in any event, fail in light of the evidence.

[45] The evidence before the Court demonstrates that there is a body of credible scientific study, conducted by respected scientists in different countries, establishing a causal relationship between PRV and HSMI. The evidence also indicates that there are scientists who question the link – but concede that no other disease agent has been identified as the culprit for HSMI. As noted previously, HSMI was first identified in Norway in 1999 and is now prevalent throughout Norwegian salmon farming operations. It has subsequently been found in Iceland, and more recently Chile. Extensive research in Norway designed to identify viruses, other than PRV, which may be responsible for HSMI, have not identified any other agent. Thus, although there is a healthy debate between respected scientists on the issue, the evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, and therefore a “lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”: Spraytech at para 31.

[46] In sum, it is not, on the face of the evidence, open to the respondents to assert that the licence conditions permitting a transfer of PRV infected smolts reflect the precautionary principle. The Minister is not, based on the evidence, erring on the side of caution.

[47] In making these observations about the precautionary principle, the Court is not arbitrating on the PRV/HSMI debate. Rather, the argument having been raised, and the assertion made that the conditions reflect a precautionary approach to aquaculture, the issue had to be considered. To conclude, based on the evidence before me, the Minister cannot, in support of the reasonableness of the licence conditions and their nexus to the requirements of section 56, contend that they reflect a precautionary approach. I will return briefly to the precautionary principle as an aspect of the interpretation of subsection 56(b) of the FGRs later in these reasons.

[48] With these three preliminary observations made (the record, the scientific context and the precautionary principle) I turn to the question whether the licence conditions meet the threshold regulatory requirements. Before doing so, I reiterate that the standard of review is reasonableness, or, put otherwise, whether the conditions are a reasonable articulation of the regulatory preconditions. The answer to this question turns, not on whether PRV is, as a matter of scientific certainty, the viral agent of HSMI, nor whether fish that are PRV positive should be transferred; rather, the answer turns on the application of orthodox principles governing the interpretation of subordinate legislation.

 

[wildmanyeah]

I am actually surprised Almo is not going to court again to fight this. Kristy Millers find of HSMI in a fish may actually reverse this decision. what do you guys think?

however...

"Erenst added that despite scientific findings that the PRV virus is ubiquitous and occurs naturally in many ocean fish, out of caution the company did test the smolts it is transferring for PRV, and found they do not have the virus. PRV is not listed by DFO as a disease or pathogen of regional, national, or international concern. As required by the transfer licence, the salmon destined for Swanson farm have recently been screened for health by third-party laboratories and confirmed disease-free and healthy."

One does wonder tho did they do it out of caution or did they do it to protect their asses from the precautionary principle?

That also brings up the question if PRV does cause diseases should hatcheries and net pens be required to test for it?

 

[fogged in]

You guys above can debate until the cows come home
but there is action to remove these disease riddled Open Net Pen Atlantic Fish Farms on the horizon.

“Washington tribes on Monday joined with First Nations peoples in Canada in a declaration calling for a shutdown of Atlantic salmon net-pen farming along the West Coast of North America.”
“Washington tribes on Monday joined with First Nations peoples in Canada in a declaration calling for a shutdown of Atlantic salmon net-pen farming along the West Coast of North America.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-salmon-net-pen-fish-farms-across-west-coast/

B.C. is About to Become Last Place on West Coast to Allow Open-Net Fish Farms
https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/03/16/BC-Outlier-On-Open-Net-Salmon-Farms/

 

[wildmanyeah]

I think it’s pretty obvious to all that reconciliation will definitely result is some fish farms being closed or moved or not renewed.

Just like reconciliation will definitely results in some recreational fishing areas/fisheries being closed.

The question is are we happy with decisions being made this way?

 

[bones]

Lol..... What diseases do fish farms carry again?

 

[fogged in]

Lol..... What diseases do fish farms carry again?

LOL...that's too easy....just one example
will leave to others to help you with your memory laps and post the other diseases and parasites!
From DFO…"Clinically the disease is presented with fish exhibiting yellow plaques around the palate and teeth including the vomer. The extent of the lesions may range from single foci to multiple ulcerations on both the upper and lower jaws. The development of gross lesions and mortality due to this disease typically occur within the first 2 to 3 weeks following smolt entry into the seawater. However, once established this disease may re-occur in populations for a period of several months. Therapeutant treatments using sulpha antibiotics have been found to be useful in controlling this disease; however, multiple treatments are often required before the disease disappears."

 

[Dave]

So, what disease is this? more info please