Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Scientists Concerned  (Read 9362 times)

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2013, 11:23:03 AM »

Get Jesse Ventura on this case right now.

http://www.oln.ca/shows/conspiracy-theory/
Logged

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2364
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2013, 12:32:23 PM »

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Scientists+concerned+over+chill+reporting+salmon+virus+after/8626743/story.html

Rumor has it that new rules are in effect; in order for an independent lab  to get any virus testing contracts from the feedlot industry or CFIA/DFO, they first need to sign an agreement not to find ISAv.....

The existing governments labs have probably had those instructions in place for a long time.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13881
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2013, 02:23:14 PM »

Get Jesse Ventura on this case right now.

http://www.oln.ca/shows/conspiracy-theory/
Now grasping at straws. ;D ;D

bigblockfox

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 788
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2013, 09:32:19 AM »

salmon confidential predicted this would happen. not saying the rest is right but dfo and cfia is doing exactly what they said they would do. if special interest are going to be the fate of our wild salmon than someone needs to be taken outback and shot in the nicest possible way. this issue is just like the pipelines, locals take all the risk while people in the country's make all the profit.
Logged

bigblockfox

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 788
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2013, 09:36:48 AM »

question for any other members that might know, is their a reason why only Atlantic salmon are used. couldn't the farms use pacific salmon species so we wouldn't have to worry about all of the foreign disease that go with them? i know the best outcome would be for the lots to be on land contained so it could be sustainable but cant see that happening anytime soon.
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2013, 02:52:47 PM »

The makers of Salmon Confidential coincidentally are directly associated with those who are suggesting that the loss of certification due to failing procedure audits is really a punishment for going against the government line so it isn't much of a surprise they predicted it; you might say it's a case of declaring innocence just before charges are laid.

You might also note that the "scientists" quoted  in the article referred to in the link-and-run are actually just one person, a statistician named Rick Routledge who again, coincidentally of course, just happens to be directly associated with Morton and the submission of the samples that are at the root of the controversy. In actual fact, the only mention of this conspiracy comes from those who are opposed to farms and there has been absolutely no factual evidence produced to support their claims. In spite of claims of rumors circulating about the controversy, what you really have are some jokers trying to start one.

Atlantic Salmon are used for several reasons. One is that there were domesticated strains available that do much better than wild Pacifics in a farm environment. Pacifics could have eventually been domesticated but there are a few issues arising from doing that. Atlantics and Pacifics belong to different Genera and have some different characteristics, one of which is disease susceptibility and another is ability to interbreed.

If farmed and wild fish have different disease susceptibility there is some reduction of potential for diseases being spread from wild to farm and from farm to wild and less likelihood that one population will become a disease reservoir affecting the other. In spite of the rhetoric, there is an elaborate screening and quarantine process that applied to the importation of all the Atlantic eggs from which farm stocks come and the likelihood of a disease slipping through that process, again in spite of the rhetoric, is very small.

Because the two don't interbreed, the risk of contaminating the wild gene pool with genes selected for hatchery and pen environments is negligible, not the case if large quantities of Pacifics were farmed because some escapes will occur. The other consideration is that in spite of the many attempts over more than 100 years to establish Atlantic populations in B.C. to service the sport and commercial fisheries, none have been successful at establishing breeding populations. The likelihood of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon establishing successful populations to compete with Pacifics has been proven to be very low.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 12:10:39 AM by absolon »
Logged

bigblockfox

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 788
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2013, 04:33:28 PM »

well i hope your right because their is no room for error. personally i believe nothing of what the government tells me or its branchs like dfo and cfia. i am not sure i even believe you in saying their is no factual evidence about the issue. I think there are a bunch of issues that need to be answered. i dont think they belong where they are and the only reason they do is because the average person will never see one. kinda like out of sight out of mind sort of thing, but again i hope you are right.
Logged

bigblockfox

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 788
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2013, 04:34:12 PM »

but thank you for answering the second part of my question about the reason they use atlantic.
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2013, 05:15:27 PM »

What you choose to believe is entirely up to you as is the standard of evidence you require in support of those beliefs. One thing is for certain and that is the greater your knowledge and understanding about the issue, the better your choices about what to believe will be and the more credible your disagreement or agreement becomes. A good test of the validity of your beliefs is to be able to justify them with actual facts that you have confirmed. If you can do that, the chances are pretty good you're on the right track; if you can't, the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.
Logged

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2013, 05:56:40 PM »

the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.


That's the most truthful statement I've heard from the feedlot tools. ;D
(This was a joke.)
Logged
http://

gilbey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2013, 08:09:06 PM »

the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.


That's the most truthful statement I've heard from the feedlot tools. ;D
(This was a joke.)
Absolon, your the tool as well...... ;D
Logged

bigblockfox

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 788
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2013, 09:54:41 PM »

i made it through half that thread, hopefully finish the other half tomorrow. if you could some it up in a few sentences absolon, why are you for it? sorry if i am puting you on the spot just curious.
Logged

bigblockfox

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 788
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2013, 09:55:18 PM »

What you choose to believe is entirely up to you as is the standard of evidence you require in support of those beliefs. One thing is for certain and that is the greater your knowledge and understanding about the issue, the better your choices about what to believe will be and the more credible your disagreement or agreement becomes. A good test of the validity of your beliefs is to be able to justify them with actual facts that you have confirmed. If you can do that, the chances are pretty good you're on the right track; if you can't, the chances are pretty good you're being used as a tool in service of someone else's agenda.

sorry should have quoted. read above post.
Logged

absolon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 557
Re: Scientists Concerned
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2013, 12:05:47 AM »

No need to apologize, I'm not shy about explaining my views. I've had education directly related to the subject and broad first hand experience in the sector in the past so I'm basing my views on information I know to be factual, I'm well aware of the real issues and I have some tools to assist my understanding of them.

Because of that, I'm a lot less susceptible to the misleading critical rhetoric about the industry and the people who run and regulate it than I would be if I'd never seen a real salmon farm or studied the associated biology, a condition that commonly afflicts those who are the most vocal critics of the industry. 

Logged