indigenous-meeting-declares-salmon-emergency
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
searun
Well-Known Member
Or one could say that chinook populations in the Salish Sea have stabilized since the 1990's in response to shifting ocean productivity. The chart in their article is quite misleading....I could easily draw a stable straight line in Chinook abundance since 1990.
There's been a large shift in ocean productivity inside the Salish Sea, and pre-1990's we had high periods of productivity, including significant population of eulachons - a major prey source for Chinook and other salmon. They are now almost all gone, making other prey species such as herring and krill even more important. Coho almost completely disappeared inside the Salish Sea after 1992, in response to changes within ocean conditions.
Abundance of herring in the Salish Sea increased remarkably in most recent times, and in 2019 we noticed a marked increase in Salish Sea Chinook populations. Not too surprising, given prey abundance for Chinook. Unfortunately, it appears herring are now on the decrease...hoping that isn't going to impact salmon abundance.,
There's been a large shift in ocean productivity inside the Salish Sea, and pre-1990's we had high periods of productivity, including significant population of eulachons - a major prey source for Chinook and other salmon. They are now almost all gone, making other prey species such as herring and krill even more important. Coho almost completely disappeared inside the Salish Sea after 1992, in response to changes within ocean conditions.
Abundance of herring in the Salish Sea increased remarkably in most recent times, and in 2019 we noticed a marked increase in Salish Sea Chinook populations. Not too surprising, given prey abundance for Chinook. Unfortunately, it appears herring are now on the decrease...hoping that isn't going to impact salmon abundance.,
One other thing that came along in the 1990's that you forgot to mention.
Been down this road a few times, Rico - and due the legal implications of admitting that the industry released new, novel diseases (of European/Norwegian origin) onto naive, wild stocks - industry and it's supporters always try to deny the lab results even tho the onus on providing evidence of "no effect" of any industry - is the responsibility of that industry. Please reference:
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...uaculture-improving.76888/page-12#post-955776
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793#sec015
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...uaculture-improving.76888/page-12#post-955776
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793#sec015
Press Release by Mainstream Canada: “Thousands of tests have shown that there is no ISA virus in B.C. salmon, farmed or wild… “As the chief veterinarian of B.C. said today, it defies logic and common sense to assume that a few samples taken at random from the coast would indicate the presence of ISA when thousands of controlled tests of good-quality samples indicate no such thing,” said Dr. Peter McKenzie, Mainstream Canada’s fish health manager and professional veterinarian.
Since 2003, farmed salmon in B.C. have been tested by regulators for the ISA virus. Nearly 5,000 farmed salmon have been tested, and all were negative for the virus. Wild fish are also tested for the virus. In 2011 alone, nearly 1,200 samples of farmed and wild fish have been tested for the virus and have all come back negative. As well, in reaction to recent speculation that ISA might be in B.C. these 1,200 samples were retested by the B.C. Animal Health Centre and again showed no sign of the virus.
However, for weeks, while the CFIA conducted its investigation, the world was whipped into a frenzy through the malicious activities of a small group of anti-salmon farming activists, the same group who submitted the samples for testing. These activists have made it clear their mission is to shut down the B.C. salmon farming industry, at any cost. The activists’ approach was emotional, fear-driven and ignored any good science which disagreed with their pre-conceived conclusions.”. Mainstream Canada press release 2011-11-08
Since 2003, farmed salmon in B.C. have been tested by regulators for the ISA virus. Nearly 5,000 farmed salmon have been tested, and all were negative for the virus. Wild fish are also tested for the virus. In 2011 alone, nearly 1,200 samples of farmed and wild fish have been tested for the virus and have all come back negative. As well, in reaction to recent speculation that ISA might be in B.C. these 1,200 samples were retested by the B.C. Animal Health Centre and again showed no sign of the virus.
However, for weeks, while the CFIA conducted its investigation, the world was whipped into a frenzy through the malicious activities of a small group of anti-salmon farming activists, the same group who submitted the samples for testing. These activists have made it clear their mission is to shut down the B.C. salmon farming industry, at any cost. The activists’ approach was emotional, fear-driven and ignored any good science which disagreed with their pre-conceived conclusions.”. Mainstream Canada press release 2011-11-08
G
gone fishin
Guest
Are you 100% sure that "there is no ISA virus in B.C. salmon, farmed or wild…" as stated in your post?
And are you 100% sure Dave that these diseases released onto wild stocks are having no effects? I'd like to see that data from a credible science source verses the BCSFA or industry new releases. They have a rather obvious conflict of interest in having this headache go far, far away...
What diseases aa?
all of them Dave - esp. Prv and ISAv. Happy that you are "100% convinced, Rico". Good thing that due diligence, good governance, fiduciary duty and responsible management really doesn't rely on whether or not any industry pundit is convinced by misleading and inaccurate self-serving BCSFA new releases.
We can also argue about the misleading PRv CSAS report that DFO put out - but in any event - debate does preclude, nullify and/or abrogate our responsibility to act under the Precautionary Approach/Principle:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/
https://www.willmsshier.com/docs/de...ple---cjb-jd-ja-and-rj---december-22-2017.pdf
https://cela.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/419precautionary.pdf
https://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/consultations/farm-cgra/pa-ap-eng.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...ramework-for-aquaculture-risk-management.html
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...1b8d93f46e3dc2e5e9d129a53944124ee54f1fd3671c2
We can also argue about the misleading PRv CSAS report that DFO put out - but in any event - debate does preclude, nullify and/or abrogate our responsibility to act under the Precautionary Approach/Principle:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/
https://www.willmsshier.com/docs/de...ple---cjb-jd-ja-and-rj---december-22-2017.pdf
https://cela.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/419precautionary.pdf
https://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/consultations/farm-cgra/pa-ap-eng.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...ramework-for-aquaculture-risk-management.html
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...1b8d93f46e3dc2e5e9d129a53944124ee54f1fd3671c2
Last edited:
"There were documents released by the Cohen Commission reporting ISAv has not been found in BC."
Remember the cohen report??? You seem to live by what was said in that report and you seem to remind everyone about it alot.
Agent, do you need to be reminded again that finding a virus does not necessarily indicate presence of disease? An example of this are Fraser sockeye, known carriers of IHNv.
The thing is you do know this, yet you throw it there, much like Almo does.
Your'e no better than her.
The thing is you do know this, yet you throw it there, much like Almo does.
Your'e no better than her.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
It's a common tactic employed by the anti industry and ENGO supporters. There donors pay big money for this.
Last edited:
ya - you are correct Dave - finding a virus does not necessarily indicate presence of disease and the other correct and oft-cited response - correlation does not mean causality.
As technically correct as these 2 responses are - they miss the mark - and are specifically used (IMHO) to deflect and deny the implications and potential seriousness of introducing new & novel (European & Norwegian disease vectors from the Norwegian/European farming industry) onto naive Pacific stocks.
The responsible management action would be to retest the stocks using the newest methodology (e.g. Di Cicco et al./Miller genomics) and use the precautionary approach & disease risk management like the Foreman IHN agent-based model.
Another technically correct - but NOT as oft-cited response by the pro-farm lobby - is that the low prevalences found in the wild stocks are AFTER they contacted the disease vector (AKA survivor bias) - while during 1st contact and/or during a FF outbreak - the prevalence could be much higher and the mortalities as well.
Yet ANOTHER technically correct - but NOT as oft-cited response by the pro-farm lobby - is that the low virulent strains of viruses can become high virulence strains especially due to the effects of fish farming - like HPR0 ISAv.
and finally...
Yet ANOTHER technically correct - but NOT as oft-cited response by the pro-farm lobby - is that the presence of a disease vector might actually be the presence of a disease.
One needs to test the right organs @ the right time - instead of denying it - like the PRv/HMSI controversy initiated by DFO/industry and sorted out in the longitudinal study by Di Cicco et al. 2017:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471
As technically correct as these 2 responses are - they miss the mark - and are specifically used (IMHO) to deflect and deny the implications and potential seriousness of introducing new & novel (European & Norwegian disease vectors from the Norwegian/European farming industry) onto naive Pacific stocks.
The responsible management action would be to retest the stocks using the newest methodology (e.g. Di Cicco et al./Miller genomics) and use the precautionary approach & disease risk management like the Foreman IHN agent-based model.
Another technically correct - but NOT as oft-cited response by the pro-farm lobby - is that the low prevalences found in the wild stocks are AFTER they contacted the disease vector (AKA survivor bias) - while during 1st contact and/or during a FF outbreak - the prevalence could be much higher and the mortalities as well.
Yet ANOTHER technically correct - but NOT as oft-cited response by the pro-farm lobby - is that the low virulent strains of viruses can become high virulence strains especially due to the effects of fish farming - like HPR0 ISAv.
and finally...
Yet ANOTHER technically correct - but NOT as oft-cited response by the pro-farm lobby - is that the presence of a disease vector might actually be the presence of a disease.
One needs to test the right organs @ the right time - instead of denying it - like the PRv/HMSI controversy initiated by DFO/industry and sorted out in the longitudinal study by Di Cicco et al. 2017:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471
Similar threads
