Time
Well-Known Member
Thanks Charlie
Do you subscribe to Science Weekly?
Couldn't pull this up myself.
Too bad it's been many, many, years since I did Biology and Stats at SFU (both were and still are mysteries to me), but the gist I get is that some sockeye are genetically predisposed to be subsceptible to viral infection, either the 'lukemia' or the 'Salmon Aids', whichever name you choose, and the fear is that the fish farms may be contributing to the transference to the wild population (as youngsters) of the infection.
If that is the case, then it's either good-bye salmon farms or good bye to the portion of the sockeye population that is genetically subsceptible.
The problem may not be the sea lice, but the virus.
More research is called for in the paper, and I agree. Too late to boot out the farms without valid, provable, scientific support that even the slugs in government cannot ignore.
They have the power, we are only ranters.
Do you subscribe to Science Weekly?
Couldn't pull this up myself.
Too bad it's been many, many, years since I did Biology and Stats at SFU (both were and still are mysteries to me), but the gist I get is that some sockeye are genetically predisposed to be subsceptible to viral infection, either the 'lukemia' or the 'Salmon Aids', whichever name you choose, and the fear is that the fish farms may be contributing to the transference to the wild population (as youngsters) of the infection.
If that is the case, then it's either good-bye salmon farms or good bye to the portion of the sockeye population that is genetically subsceptible.
The problem may not be the sea lice, but the virus.
More research is called for in the paper, and I agree. Too late to boot out the farms without valid, provable, scientific support that even the slugs in government cannot ignore.
They have the power, we are only ranters.
Last edited by a moderator: