Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on August 12, 2012, 09:50:30 AM

Title: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 12, 2012, 09:50:30 AM
With the recent IHN outbreaks in BC feedlots, the industry has been quick to get the message out that IHN is only lethal to Atlantics, not wild salmon. But is this fact or just another line of fiction from an industry determined to grow it's product in our oceans no matter the cost.

Science has determined that wild salmon has developed immunity to the virus however it is a carrier of the virus. Feedlots take this bit of science and blame the wild salmon for the outbreaks in their feedlots. They try to portray that feedlots are the victims rather than the perpetrators of this disease.

A topic that we don't hear a lot about is how the IHN virus is lethal to salmon fry in fresh water. "The IHN virus is well recognized as a lethal pathogen to fry sockeye salmon in freshwater." http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-ExecutiveSummary.pdf (http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project1-ExecutiveSummary.pdf)

Here's the problem.....  The feedlots that are currently being culled as a result of an IHN outbreak have been spewing IHN viruses at a rate of millions of virus per second, as they replicate very quickly. The feedlots want you to believe that they are pro-active when an outbreak occurs by disinfecting their equipment and "isolating" the pens...  Apparently they are unaware that the virus is generated in the water and is impossible to contain!

While this is going on, millions of salmon are swimming past these IHN cesspools. Naturally the wild salmon are being infected and while they may not die from the virus, they become carriers. Swimming up the fresh water streams they in turn infect other wild salmon. Unlike sea lice which dies within days of being in contact with fresh water, IHN can survive for up to 7 weeks. "The IHN virus has been demonstrated to survive in fresh water at 10 "C for 7 wk (Wedemeyer et al. 1978). " http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/16/d016p111.pdf (http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/16/d016p111.pdf)

While most salmon fry have left their fresh water streams and are in the ocean, last years sockeye fry are still swimming in a fresh water lake downstream of the river they were born in. As the returning salmon mingle with the sockeye fry they are transferring the virus to the fry ensuring certain death for the fry before they even reach the ocean.

Is this another dirty little secret that the feedlots and government haven't revealed and is the cause of our low sockeye returns??  Has a study been done correlating the IHN infections in the feedlots, to the demise of our sockeye runs? Why not?
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 12, 2012, 10:45:35 AM
The industry has pointed out that the disease was transferred to farms from the wild fish swimming by the pens. Those infected wild fish are already delivering the virus to fresh water without any assistance from farm fish.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: aquapaloosa on August 12, 2012, 10:54:09 AM
Sorry for the double post but this is an ideal location for the article.

http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/08/03/viruses-from-salmon-farms-are-low-risk-to-wild-fish/
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 12, 2012, 12:50:05 PM
Sorry for the double post but this is an ideal location for the article.

http://salmonfarmscience.com/2012/08/03/viruses-from-salmon-farms-are-low-risk-to-wild-fish/

Like your pro-feedlot buddy, you are trying to refocus the blame on the wild fish.

While wild fish are carriers they do not live in the close confines of a feedlot so the IHN virus is not as easily transferred between wild fish as it is in the feedlot fish. Take the example of a kid with a cold...... sneezing and infecting some of his class mates. Imagine a class room packed with kids who all have a cold..... and are sneezing......  The chances of a passerby being infected, go up substantially.

The recently announced infected feedlots, have been spewing 100's of millions of the IHN viruses, infecting every wild fish swimming by. Even after the infected feedlot is "isolated", the viruses it has been spewing, continue to live and infect wild salmon for up to 3 weeks in the salt water. This in the midst of 100's of 1,000's of migrating salmon.

Not a problem for the wild fish as absolon suggests.....   however once these infected wild salmon reach a fresh water lake and mingle with the sockeye smolts still living there, they become killing machines. Add to that the fact the virus lives for up to 7 weeks in fresh water, they can potentially kill an entire years worth of sockeye.

Is this really the fault of the wild fish?   ???
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 12, 2012, 12:56:14 PM
Like your pro-feedlot buddy, you are trying to refocus the blame on the wild fish.

While wild fish are carriers they do not live in the close confines of a feedlot so the IHN virus is not as easily transferred between wild fish as it is in the feedlot fish. Take the example of a kid with a cold...... sneezing and infecting some of his class mates. Imagine a class room packed with kids who all have a cold..... and are sneezing......  The chances of a passerby being infected, go up substantially.

The recently announced infected feedlots, have been spewing 100's of millions of the IHN viruses, infecting every wild fish swimming by. Even after the infected feedlot is "isolated", the viruses it has been spewing, continue to live and infect wild salmon for up to 3 weeks in the salt water. This in the midst of 100's of 1,000's of migrating salmon.

Not a problem for the wild fish as absolon suggests.....   however once these infected wild salmon reach a fresh water lake and mingle with the sockeye smolts still living there, they become killing machines. Add to that the fact the virus lives for up to 7 weeks in fresh water, they can potentially kill an entire years worth of sockeye.

Is this really the fault of the wild fish?   ???



yup
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 12, 2012, 02:55:20 PM
How long did it take you to come up with this cock and bull theory.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: aquapaloosa on August 12, 2012, 03:43:05 PM
Quote
While wild fish are carriers they do not live in the close confines of a feedlot so the IHN virus is not as easily transferred between wild fish as it is in the feedlot fish. Take the example of a kid with a cold...... sneezing and infecting some of his class mates. Imagine a class room packed with kids who all have a cold..... and are sneezing......  The chances of a passerby being infected, go up substantially.

Not if they have already had it and have been exposed to it for generations for thousands of years and have built up an immunity unlike the kids in the classroom who have never been exposed to it ever.

AGAIN, YOU AF are the only one using the phrase "BLAME in on the wild fish".  Thats just sounds like another one of your catch phrases.  If it did not come from the wild fish then where did it come from???
It is what it is bud.  If the atlanics had it all along they would have died in their hatchery.  They would have never made it to salt water.  Unless I am wrong.  If it did not come from the wild, naturally, then where did it come from?  Just wondering because you seem to have it all figured out.

And you fail to recognize the quick removal of these fish from the ocean.  I might add that these removals are happening 100 even 1000 times faster than when the last round of IHN had went around.  They are happening before the population even starts to die of in significant numbers and in a matter of days.  Pretty impressive I say.  Remember I have been doing this a long time.

When was that other IHN out break 2004-2006? 
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 12, 2012, 08:49:09 PM

And you fail to recognize the quick removal of these fish from the ocean.  I might add that these removals are happening 100 even 1000 times faster than when the last round of IHN had went around.  They are happening before the population even starts to die of in significant numbers and in a matter of days. 


Are you serious??

From the article you posted: "IHN is an RNA virus, which replicate themselves very quickly. In fact, RNA viruses replicate so quickly that a single infectious particle can reproduce itself three times a second!"

I'm supposed to believe that the feedlots are fast at cleaning up their mess  ???  Give me a break!  They may be 1000 times faster than last outbreak, but at 3 replications a second the viruses have spewed out trillions of new viruses before CFIA even gets around to ordering a cull!

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: aquapaloosa on August 12, 2012, 09:37:10 PM
Quote
I'm supposed to believe that the feedlots are fast at cleaning up their mess  Huh  Give me a break!  They may be 1000 times faster than last outbreak, but at 3 replications a second the viruses have spewed out trillions of new viruses before CFIA even gets around to ordering a cull!
 

My point is the last time all this went down it was really bad and wasn't managed like it is being managed now.   If this situation is as bad as you perceive now than there should be no salmon anywhere from the last out break right? Why do we still see salmon in the Fraser.  Heck 30 million made it back after the last out break of IHN.  Can u explain that to me. how can it be.  The damage should be evident.  I suspect you will point out the 2009 sock run to accompany your view but the fact is that:  Salmon runs fluctuate dramatically.  We have to learn why.

When was the last out break? 2004? 2006?  I am not sure. 

Your a banker.  One virus is not like one dollar.  Its not even like a penny.  How can I help you relate to this??? One minute "we" are a bunch of lying misleading spinning propagandists,  the next you are holding "our" word up high as it is the all time truth.  Find a happy medium bud so that you do not come across the way you do.

Handpicked seines Hand picked data.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: aquapaloosa on August 12, 2012, 09:45:11 PM
Quote
From the article you posted: "IHN is an RNA virus, which replicate themselves very quickly. In fact, RNA viruses replicate so quickly that a single infectious particle can reproduce itself three times a second!"

Your just buzz wording again.  If you, or I for that matter, were virologists perhaps we could really grasp what the above really means with all the other factors included.  I actually do not understand it because I am not a biologist and honestly when I read it to me it reads a bit scary too but I certainly am not going to jump to conclusions about it.  Especially with all the other information I have already attained.  Stay calm AF.  Maybe there is something for both of us to learn here.  Although I am certain your mind is already made up and you are so far beyond trying to learn anything.  If I am wrong do tell.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 12, 2012, 09:58:20 PM
Is this the best you can do, AF?  For one thing, the industry or government never said that IHN is not lethal to wild salmon.  To recap once again, IHN has been shown to be more lethal to wild salmonids, particularly Sockeye, when they are in the alevin or fry stage.  However, adult wild salmon have been shown to be much more resistant – able to carry the virus without developing the disease.  They are seen as carriers of the virus.  Secondly, IHN has been present in wild salmon for a long, long, long time.....long before fish farms were ever put on the coast of BC.  As aquapaloosa states correctly, wild salmon have been exposed to the virus for generations.....likely many centuries and have built up immunity.  When Atlantics are put into salt water by the farms they do not carry the virus because they would be dead if they did.  The reason is that Atlantic Salmon have not built up the immunity that wild salmon have done over a long period of time.

You are correct when you say that adult wild salmon can carry this virus during migration to natal habitats in freshwater, but then you seem to imply that adult wild salmon are getting infected with IHN from fish farms while neglecting to consider the fact that adult wild salmon have this virus already (see first paragraph).  You also need to remember that IHN does not last forever in the water without a host.  Viral particles die rapidly in sunlight.  If you strongly feel that fish farms are storing and amplifying IHN, an already naturally occurring virus in Pacific Salmonids, and negatively impacting wild salmon then please provide some information to back up this claim.

Farms are very proactive in testing their fish for viruses and diseases like IHN because it is very lethal.  More importantly, IHN is a federally reportable disease, so there are some pretty strict guidelines that have to be followed.  Farms act quickly to remove the fish and have strict protocols to follow which you do not seem to mention much of or understand even though it has been explained to you.  Aquapaloosa does this for a living, AF.  If you believe he is not forthcoming or incorrect then please provide some actual information to back up your claims.  At the moment, I am more inclined to believe someone that actually does the job than someone that keeps repeating more unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I find it very funny when you say “here’s the problem”….because the “problem” is and continues to be that you are not reading and understanding the facts about IHN.  Here is a brief sample of the material you should have been looking at……which is easily obtainable on the internet.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/diseases/reportable/ihn/fact-sheet/eng/1330124360826/1330124556262
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf
http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/2012-05-29%20IHN%20fact%20sheet%202%20FINAL.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3027/
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/rd2007/rdsalmon-saumon_35-eng.htm
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2006/72/d072p213.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/diseases/docs/ihnv_fact_sheet.pdf
http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/2012-05-23%20IHN%20virus%20facts%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/ihn_corrections.pdf
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 13, 2012, 07:24:59 AM
By applying only a little logic, it's easy to conclude that the IHN infected feedlots are amplifying the transmission of the disease. This results in increased numbers of infected wild fish transmitting the disease to salmonoids in fresh water which is lethal to them.

Suggesting that the farms are able to cleanup an infected pen quickly, thereby minimizing the amplification of the virus effect is illogical. That's the equivalent of closing the barn door after all the livestock has escaped. The only solution is to get the pens out of the ocean.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 13, 2012, 09:17:51 PM
Quote
By applying only a little logic, it's easy to conclude that the IHN infected feedlots are amplifying the transmission of the disease. This results in increased numbers of infected wild fish transmitting the disease to salmonoids in fresh water which is lethal to them.

Suggesting that the farms are able to cleanup an infected pen quickly, thereby minimizing the amplification of the virus effect is illogical. That's the equivalent of closing the barn door after all the livestock has escaped. The only solution is to get the pens out of the ocean.

I have no doubt it is easy for you....Speculation is a relatively easy exercise.  How about applying a little evidence and fact?

Thanks for keeping me entertained.  :D
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 14, 2012, 10:08:17 AM
I have no doubt it is easy for you....Speculation is a relatively easy exercise.  How about applying a little evidence and fact?

Thanks for keeping me entertained.  :D

Evidence and fact goes both ways.....   While taking your word that the feedlots are not amplifying the diseases is something you continue to ask us to do, a little science proving that, would be considerably more assuring....

As far as entertainment, I don't find anything entertaining about how you as spokesman for the feedlots, continue to minimize not only the risk, but the scourge the feedlots are inflicting on the wild salmon.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 14, 2012, 10:36:41 AM
From CFIA's website: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/diseases/reportable/ihn/fact-sheet/eng/1330124360826/1330124556262 (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/diseases/reportable/ihn/fact-sheet/eng/1330124360826/1330124556262)

Species susceptible to infectious haematopoietic necrosis that exist in the natural environment in Canada include:

    Acipenser transmontanus (white sturgeon)
    Aulorhynchus flavidus (tube snout)
    Clupea pallasii (Pacific herring)
    Cymatogaster aggregata (shiner perch)
    Esox lucius (northern pike)
    Gadus morhua* (Atlantic cod*)
    Lota lota* (burbot*)
    Oncorhynchus clarkii (cutthroat trout)
    Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (pink salmon)
    Oncorhynchus keta (chum salmon)
    Oncorhynchus kisutch (coho salmon)
    Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout)
    Oncorhynchus nerka (sockeye salmon)
    Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (chinook salmon)
    Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon)
    Salmo trutta (brown trout)
    Salvelinus alpinus (arctic char)
    Salvelinus fontinalis (brook trout)
    Salvelinus namaycush (lake trout)
    Thymallus arcticus* (arctic grayling*)



"Infectious haematopoietic necrosis is a cause of death in:
    young finfish raised in freshwater hatcheries
    young juveniles recently introduced into seawater (death rates reach 100 percent over a short period of time)
    older finfish raised in seawater (death rates range from 20 percent to 100 percent over an extended period of time)"


Still believe that IHN is not lethal to wild fish????  How many young salmonoids have died through contact with the recent virus outbreaks in the feedlots?


Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 14, 2012, 10:46:44 AM
From the same website:  "How is infectious haematopoietic necrosis treated?

There are no treatments currently available for infectious haematopoietic necrosis. However, vaccines are available to prevent the disease."



Why are they not vaccinating their product against this virus? Have they done a cost analysis and determined it is cheaper to cull a feedlot pen rather than vaccinate every single atlantic? Obviously they are not being held accountable for the cost of all the wild fish they are killing.....
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 14, 2012, 11:05:31 AM
CFIA fact sheet (continued):

"Infected finfish held in seawater may exhibit any of the following:
    behaviour    - abnormal swimming patterns (slow swimming at the surface)
    appearance - dark skin colouration
                      - pale or brown gills
                      - fluid present in the belly
                      - areas of pinpoint bleeding in muscle tissues and in tissues surrounding internal organs"

How is infectious haematopoietic necrosis diagnosed?
Diagnosing infectious haematopoietic necrosis requires laboratory testing. Not all infected finfish show signs of disease."



Are all the feedlots doing laboratory testing for IHN, or are they just waiting till they see fish exhibiting signs of IHN?

How long were the feedlots spewing out viruses at the rate of 3 replications a second, before somebody decided to do a lab test on a fish or waited till he saw a fish exhibiting signs of IHN?

This is not a case of a simple virus that is not harmful to humans and is only lethal to atlantics. This is a case of feedlots spewing out this lethal virus that can kill many different species of wild fish including salmon, for perhaps months on end before someone even realized that the disease existed!
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 15, 2012, 03:34:21 PM
By applying only a little logic, it's easy to conclude that the IHN infected feedlots are amplifying the transmission of the disease. This results in increased numbers of infected wild fish transmitting the disease to salmonoids in fresh water which is lethal to them.

Suggesting that the farms are able to cleanup an infected pen quickly, thereby minimizing the amplification of the virus effect is illogical. That's the equivalent of closing the barn door after all the livestock has escaped. The only solution is to get the pens out of the ocean.

Your conclusion definitely uses only "a little logic" ;)

If a salmon farm has an IHN outbreak, the longer this outbreak occurs will increase the transmission of the virus into adjoining waters. This is also true for sockeye salmon stocks in the wild, in which IHN is endemic. In hot years, where over 50% of returning adults can be hot for IHN, these fish swim side by side in close proximity with other stocks, some of which have never had a returning adult test positive for IHN. Why it is that some stocks are hot, and others not, we don't know. They all swim by the same feedlots, they all swim next to each other.

It is in the salmon farms best interests to test for IHN prior to fish exhibiting symptoms. All sockeye salmon culture at hatcheries in Alaska and BC employs this protocol, where all females are tested, and eggs from any females testing positive for IHN are destroyed.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 15, 2012, 10:37:13 PM
Evidence and fact goes both ways.....   While taking your word that the feedlots are not amplifying the diseases is something you continue to ask us to do, a little science proving that, would be considerably more assuring....

As far as entertainment, I don't find anything entertaining about how you as spokesman for the feedlots, continue to minimize not only the risk, but the scourge the feedlots are inflicting on the wild salmon.

Evidence does goes both ways.  I have provided mine, but I am still waiting for yours.  You are the one making unsubstantiated claims.  Keep spinning.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 16, 2012, 07:43:54 AM
Evidence does goes both ways.  I have provided mine, but I am still waiting for yours.  You are the one making unsubstantiated claims.  Keep spinning.

As I've stated before, I have no aspirations to convince a pro-feedlot person such as yourself that these feedlots are cesspools of disease and virus, which must be removed from our oceans. I just want to see the wild salmon survive so my grand children can fish for them the way I can.

I am angry when I see a Mainstream news release that assures me that IHN is not harmful to wild fish, while CFIA on their website say exactly the opposite! Most of us in the real world don't need to see floating dead wild fish before we conclude that a cesspool of IHN generating atlantics will be infecting anything that swims near that feedlot.....

Apparently you pro-feedlot folks interpret the scientific data differently than the national government agency that is the final authority on diseases, etc in Canada.....

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 16, 2012, 07:53:02 AM
Your conclusion definitely uses only "a little logic" ;)

If a salmon farm has an IHN outbreak, the longer this outbreak occurs will increase the transmission of the virus into adjoining waters. This is also true for sockeye salmon stocks in the wild, in which IHN is endemic. In hot years, where over 50% of returning adults can be hot for IHN, these fish swim side by side in close proximity with other stocks, some of which have never had a returning adult test positive for IHN. Why it is that some stocks are hot, and others not, we don't know. They all swim by the same feedlots, they all swim next to each other.

It is in the salmon farms best interests to test for IHN prior to fish exhibiting symptoms. All sockeye salmon culture at hatcheries in Alaska and BC employs this protocol, where all females are tested, and eggs from any females testing positive for IHN are destroyed.

I agree that the feedlots should be required to make more effort to detect IHN before it spews vast amounts of the virus into the surrounding environment.

Listening to arguments that the feedlot do not amplify this virus is ridiculous as is evidenced by how everyone in the feedlot business makes every effort to communicate that the infected feedlots are being culled quicker than ever....  they are putting that info in their news releases because they realize the harm an IHN infected pen is inflicting on the surrounding environment, especially at a time that wild salmon are migrating back to their fresh water destinations.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 16, 2012, 05:03:02 PM
As I've stated before, I have no aspirations to convince a pro-feedlot person such as yourself that these feedlots are cesspools of disease and virus, which must be removed from our oceans. I just want to see the wild salmon survive so my grand children can fish for them the way I can.

I am angry when I see a Mainstream news release that assures me that IHN is not harmful to wild fish, while CFIA on their website say exactly the opposite! Most of us in the real world don't need to see floating dead wild fish before we conclude that a cesspool of IHN generating atlantics will be infecting anything that swims near that feedlot.....

Apparently you pro-feedlot folks interpret the scientific data differently than the national government agency that is the final authority on diseases, etc in Canada.....


Actually you are the one interpreting the scientific data differently than the government and other sources I posted.   Keep spinning.....
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 16, 2012, 05:19:31 PM
Actually you are the one interpreting the scientific data differently than the government and other sources I posted.   Keep spinning.....

Are you reading the same CFIA website link I provided?  Rather than just telling me I'm interpreting the data differently, perhaps you could tell me how you interpret the fact sheet from the final authority on IHN. CFIA is an agency of the government.

If I am reading the final authority's source document and it conflicts with sources you posted.......    are you suggesting I should disregard the the final authority and accept your sources?    ::)
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 17, 2012, 11:20:05 PM
From CFIA's website: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/diseases/reportable/ihn/fact-sheet/eng/1330124360826/1330124556262 (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/aquatic-animals/diseases/reportable/ihn/fact-sheet/eng/1330124360826/1330124556262)

"Infectious haematopoietic necrosis is a cause of death in:
    young finfish raised in freshwater hatcheries
    young juveniles recently introduced into seawater (death rates reach 100 percent over a short period of time)
    older finfish raised in seawater (death rates range from 20 percent to 100 percent over an extended period of time)"


Still believe that IHN is not lethal to wild fish????  How many young salmonoids have died through contact with the recent virus outbreaks in the feedlots?

Misinterpretation #1:

Where is IHN most prevalent?  What lifestage is most vulnerable?  How large are Sockeye generally once they enter saltwater?  Is IHN a naturally occurring virus in wild Pacific Salmon – like Sockeye?  We have already covered this a million times, but you chose to quote something from the CFIA site and make it seem like young salmon are at great risk IHN outbreaks from salmon farms.  However, you still refuse to back up your claims.  Lastly, you also left out some other items from that site which provides some context around that bolded text you chose.  If you are going to interpret do it properly.  Good spin job!
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 17, 2012, 11:22:43 PM
CFIA fact sheet (continued):

"Infected finfish held in seawater may exhibit any of the following:
    behaviour    - abnormal swimming patterns (slow swimming at the surface)
    appearance - dark skin colouration
                      - pale or brown gills
                      - fluid present in the belly
                      - areas of pinpoint bleeding in muscle tissues and in tissues surrounding internal organs"

How is infectious haematopoietic necrosis diagnosed?
Diagnosing infectious haematopoietic necrosis requires laboratory testing. Not all infected finfish show signs of disease."



Are all the feedlots doing laboratory testing for IHN, or are they just waiting till they see fish exhibiting signs of IHN?

How long were the feedlots spewing out viruses at the rate of 3 replications a second, before somebody decided to do a lab test on a fish or waited till he saw a fish exhibiting signs of IHN?

This is not a case of a simple virus that is not harmful to humans and is only lethal to atlantics. This is a case of feedlots spewing out this lethal virus that can kill many different species of wild fish including salmon, for perhaps months on end before someone even realized that the disease existed!


Misinterpretation #2:

Not all infected finfish show signs of disease because a fish that has a virus does not necessarily develop the disease commonly associated with it.  This is true for wild Pacific Salmon like Sockeye.  This is true for wild adult Sockeye that naturally have the IHN virus.  This has been covered a many, many times already.  Farms test regularly for viruses like IHN because it is in their best interests….because IHN is lethal to Atlantic Salmon.  They do not start testing for the virus when their fish start showing signs.  This was already explained to you by dnibbles.

You also have to realize that fish farms and enhancement facilities like salmon hatcheries regularly employ preventative biosecurity measures – not just biosecurity measures after the fact.  This was already covered at length at the Cohen Commission and can be found on the Mainstream website if you check it out.
As for your last paragraph, I am still waiting for you to back up this claim.  The fact is that farms routinely test for viruses like IHN – not just when the fish start showing signs of the virus.  You basically quoted certain text from the CFIA site and then decide to speculate from that point forward.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 17, 2012, 11:24:49 PM
I am angry when I see a Mainstream news release that assures me that IHN is not harmful to wild fish, while CFIA on their website say exactly the opposite! Most of us in the real world don't need to see floating dead wild fish before we conclude that a cesspool of IHN generating atlantics will be infecting anything that swims near that feedlot.....

Misinterpretation #3:
Show me the news release you are referring to because Mainstream says on their IHN fact sheets (which I posted for you) says something completely different.

http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/2012-05-23%20IHN%20virus%20facts%20FINAL.pdf
http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/2012-05-29%20IHN%20fact%20sheet%202%20FINAL.pdf

Here is a Mainstream press release.  Does it say that IHN is not harmful to wild fish?

http://www.mainstreamcanada.ca/mainstream-canada-farm-north-tofino-tests-positive-ihn-virus-0

Show me where Mainstream says that IHN is not harmful to wild fish (i.e Pacific Salmon).  The fact is they mention that IHN sometimes causes mortality in Pacific Salmon and Trout – mainly when they are very young (i.e. freshly hatched and growing in freshwater).

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 18, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
Misinterpretation #1:

Where is IHN most prevalent?  What lifestage is most vulnerable?  How large are Sockeye generally once they enter saltwater?  Is IHN a naturally occurring virus in wild Pacific Salmon – like Sockeye?  We have already covered this a million times, but you chose to quote something from the CFIA site and make it seem like young salmon are at great risk IHN outbreaks from salmon farms.  However, you still refuse to back up your claims.  Lastly, you also left out some other items from that site which provides some context around that bolded text you chose.  If you are going to interpret do it properly.  Good spin job!


The more you post, the more obvious it becomes that you don't understand much about wild salmon. But why would you? The wild salmon are the one thing that is slowing the expansion of these diseased cesspools.

If you did a little research on the sockeye salmons life cycle you would know that a sockeye hatches in a river upstream of a fresh water lake. Once hatched it will spend a year of it's life in the fresh water lake. When the infected adult sockeye return and swim through that lake they drop the virus, infecting the young sockeye fry. IHN can survive in fresh water for up to seven weeks. Even while the adult sockeye are spawning and after they die they are releasing the IHN virus and the stream flow is carrying the virus down into the lake, where the sockeye fry are waiting to eat the decomposing particles. The sockeye fry have no chance of survival.

Of course wild salmon are natural carries of the disease. However they are not all infected......   until they swim past one of the infected feedlot cesspools. That's why we hear the spin as to how fast the feedlot was cleaned up. The feedlot salmon are already destined to die, however the industry knows these cesspools are major killers of wild salmon and that is the reason they are required to be cleaned up so quickly.

Unfortunately there are a couple of problems, first the IHN infected salmon don't usually show any physical symptoms of the disease. Second the feedlots for whatever reason don't do regular sampling and if they do the lab results can take weeks before they are completed. For weeks and likely months, the feedlots are spewing the virus infecting every wild salmon passing by.

The worst part of the last outbreak of IHN is..........   it's happened in the middle of the wild salmon migration.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 18, 2012, 07:45:26 AM
Apparently you've been so focused on your own wonderfulness that you haven't paid any attention to the credentials of the people you are arguing with. As a consequence, you are obviously oblivious to this fundamental fact:

You, as a mutual fund salesman, really aren't in a position to be lecturing educated and accredited Fisheries biologists who are working with wild salmon about the life history and disease susceptibility of wild salmon.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: EZ_Rolling on August 18, 2012, 08:01:07 AM
It always gets personal when you run out of spin doesn't it Absalon.

why not stick to the facts instead of the personal attacks
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 18, 2012, 08:26:26 AM
Those are the facts.

Shuswapsteve and dnibbles are both fisheries biologists working with wild salmon. AF is a mutual fund salesman with no background in biology who is trying to lecture them on fish biology.

Indeed, I am just answering alwaysfishn's question:

Quote
The more you post, the more obvious it becomes that you don't understand much about wild salmon. But why would you?


Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 18, 2012, 08:50:20 AM
Apparently you've been so focused on your own wonderfulness that you haven't paid any attention to the credentials of the people you are arguing with. As a consequence, you are obviously oblivious to this fundamental fact:

You, as a mutual fund salesman, really aren't in a position to be lecturing educated and accredited Fisheries biologists who are working with wild salmon about the life history and disease susceptibility of wild salmon.

Education only happens when someone wants to learn..... in fact having credentials sometimes gets in the way of learning. Obviously shuswapsteve either knows little about the life cycle of a sockeye salmon or he is purposely trying to leave out the facts, otherwise he wouldn't have made the naive statements about the spread of IHN in sockeye.

As far as your derogatory comment on my current vocation as a Financial Planner, it only belittles yourself. You likely have no idea of what I did in my previous career.

The problem with a person who has a particular type of training, is they end up being employed by an industry or agency that uses them to achieve their corporate or government objectives. At least with folks like Morton, who have nothing to gain by promoting the feedlot business, the public is getting an unbiased picture of the industry.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 18, 2012, 08:53:54 AM
The more you post, the more obvious it becomes that you don't understand much about wild salmon. But why would you? The wild salmon are the one thing that is slowing the expansion of these diseased cesspools.

If you did a little research on the sockeye salmons life cycle you would know that a sockeye hatches in a river upstream of a fresh water lake. Once hatched it will spend a year of it's life in the fresh water lake. When the infected adult sockeye return and swim through that lake they drop the virus, infecting the young sockeye fry. IHN can survive in fresh water for up to seven weeks. Even while the adult sockeye are spawning and after they die they are releasing the IHN virus and the stream flow is carrying the virus down into the lake, where the sockeye fry are waiting to eat the decomposing particles. The sockeye fry have no chance of survival.


Hmmm, research on the sockeye life cycle. This is good advice, please post links where we (who have no clue about sockeye life histories, life cycles, and have spent very little time working with them in the wild all across BC and Alaska) can learn more. Also, while you're at it, learn the difference between a virus and a disease.

Even while the adult sockeye are spawning and after they die they are releasing the IHN virus and the stream flow is carrying the virus down into the lake, where the sockeye fry are waiting to eat the decomposing particles. The sockeye fry have no chance of survival.


This last part of this statement is completely untrue. If it were true, wild sockeye in BC would have wiped themselves out long before the first fish farm showed up on the coast. Once again, IHN can be very prevalent in stocks in the wild, even ones that never swim past a fish farm. In BC for example, IHN has NEVER been detected in a returning sockeye to the Cultus Lake hatchery program (these fish swim through Johnstone Strait as juveniles, and then again as returning adults), and yet can be highly prevalent in some years in Stikine and Skeena River sockeye stocks. On the off chance you research this, read up on the Cultus sockeye life cycle too. It may enlighten you in the variability that exists in the freshwater phases of the sockeye salmon life cycle.

 


Of course wild salmon are natural carries of the disease. However they are not all infected......   until they swim past one of the infected feedlot cesspools.

This is nonsensical. They are carriers of the virus (sometimes), but not exhibiting disease. I think this is what you are trying to say, however part two of your sentence confuses me. They already have the disease prior to passing the farm, but then become "double" infected after swimming by? Huh?


It always gets personal when you run out of spin doesn't it Absalon.

why not stick to the facts instead of the personal attacks

When those of us who work with wild salmon for a living, and have done so for many years are told that we don't understand the basics of the life cycles, physiologies etc (things I had to know as a co-op student getting my first job lol), we may take that a little personally. No one is criticizing af's selection of lending products, choice of fixed vs variable, etc. In fact, I would assume that he knows his stuff in this field, and probably wouldn't pretend that I do know more than him. After all, I'm just a simple salmon biologist ::)
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 18, 2012, 09:31:21 AM
Education only happens when someone wants to learn..... in fact having credentials sometimes gets in the way of learning. Obviously shuswapsteve either knows little about the life cycle of a sockeye salmon or he is purposely trying to leave out the facts, otherwise he wouldn't have made the naive statements about the spread of IHN in sockeye.

As far as your derogatory comment on my current vocation as a Financial Planner, it only belittles yourself. You likely have no idea of what I did in my previous career.

The problem with a person who has a particular type of training, is they end up being employed by an industry or agency that uses them to achieve their corporate or government objectives. At least with folks like Morton, who have nothing to gain by promoting the feedlot business, the public is getting an unbiased picture of the industry.

My comments on your chosen career aren't derogatory; they highlight the fact that you have absolutely no expertise with respect to wild salmon and because of that, aren't in any position to lecture to biologists who in the pursuit of their vocation are involved with wild salmon. Nor are you in a position to accuse them of knowing little about the subject that is the main focus of their working careers or to accuse them of compromising their integrity simply because they disagree with your uninformed pronouncements. Your approach is both ignorant and offensive.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: troutbreath on August 18, 2012, 08:02:24 PM
'
"Your approach is both ignorant and offensive."

The rasor suggests otherwise. But go on making those grandiose statements. :)
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 18, 2012, 08:42:26 PM
you see TB thats why I believe the experts the ones with the degrees not the wannabes like Morton AF and yourself.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 18, 2012, 08:59:53 PM
When those of us who work with wild salmon for a living, and have done so for many years are told that we don't understand the basics of the life cycles, physiologies etc (things I had to know as a co-op student getting my first job lol), we may take that a little personally. No one is criticizing af's selection of lending products, choice of fixed vs variable, etc. In fact, I would assume that he knows his stuff in this field, and probably wouldn't pretend that I do know more than him. After all, I'm just a simple salmon biologist ::)

That's perhaps part of the problem....  you have worked so long in the field and had so many people tell you what you can and cannot say, that you lose your ability to look outside the box. It happens in the world of finance as well...

While I appreciate your long response it in no way answers of refutes any of the information I have provided about IHN. Most people by using a little logic will agree where there is smoke there is fire....   What I hear from "experts" such as yourself is where there is smoke, you need to prove there is fire before we will agree there is fire. Unfortunately that is usually too late.

Let's get the feedlots out of the ocean, and when we determine (through science) that they are not creating a risk to our wild salmon, then we can put them back!
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 18, 2012, 09:03:14 PM
My comments on your chosen career aren't derogatory; they highlight the fact that you have absolutely no expertise with respect to wild salmon and because of that, aren't in any position to lecture to biologists who in the pursuit of their vocation are involved with wild salmon. Nor are you in a position to accuse them of knowing little about the subject that is the main focus of their working careers or to accuse them of compromising their integrity simply because they disagree with your uninformed pronouncements. Your approach is both ignorant and offensive.

That's the great thing about a forum, each one of us is entitled to their opinion. If you find my posts offensive, stop reading them....
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 18, 2012, 11:36:53 PM
Keep it up AF pretty soon even the Morton is gonna tell ya to shut that pie hole....youre starting to give her a bad name... :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 19, 2012, 07:40:24 AM
That's the great thing about a forum, each one of us is entitled to their opinion. If you find my posts offensive, stop reading them....

We're all entitled to an opinion but most people understand that there is no need to be ignorant or offensive in presenting them.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 19, 2012, 07:46:00 AM
We're all entitled to an opinion but most people understand that there is no need to be ignorant or offensive in presenting them.

Apparently you are more sensitive than anyone else, as you are the only one being offended. Perhaps you should stick to reading your science journals....
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 19, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Right..............The support you're getting is clearly overwhelming and a strong indicator that being ignorant and offensive is a positive contribution to the discussion.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 19, 2012, 10:59:37 AM

That's perhaps part of the problem....  you have worked so long in the field and had so many people tell you what you can and cannot say, that you lose your ability to look outside the box. It happens in the world of finance as well...

Perhaps. Or perhaps I have actually never been told what I can and cannot say. As long as I make my public communications based on fact, and not opinion, conjecture and speculation, I have yet to have an issue.


While I appreciate your long response it in no way answers of refutes any of the information I have provided about IHN. Most people by using a little logic will agree where there is smoke there is fire....   What I hear from "experts" such as yourself is where there is smoke, you need to prove there is fire before we will agree there is fire. Unfortunately that is usually too late.


Actually, it did refute some of the info you provided. Your response was a sidestep. What you are hearing from us "experts" is not what we are saying. There is not agreement that there is actually any smoke, let alone fire. Evapotranspiration perhaps?
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 19, 2012, 03:10:16 PM

Actually, it did refute some of the info you provided. Your response was a sidestep. What you are hearing from us "experts" is not what we are saying. There is not agreement that there is actually any smoke, let alone fire. Evapotranspiration perhaps?

All you've done is said that you are right and I am wrong, without providing any links or evidence to support your opinion. At least shuswapsteve provided links that he said superseded anything that was on the CFIA website. However that was his opinion and when I suggested that he was either unaware or ignoring the facts about IHN, absolon was quick to follow up with some personal insults.....  a tact he seems to take when he realizes he has been caught twisting the facts.

The fact is IHN is amplified by the feedlots, then transmitted to healthy wild salmon, who carry it to the spawning grounds, potentially killing the sockeye fry. The fiction is that IHN is not lethal to wild fish....

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 19, 2012, 10:46:10 PM
AF, I kind of expected that at some point you would get frustrated and start to lash out.  For the past week I have only been repeatedly challenging you to back up your unsubstantiated rhetoric and at some point you were bound to feel back into a corner.  You keep getting constantly called out on you BS theories; however, you are basically the author of your own misfortune.  As a result, you keep shooting yourself in the foot (as you did in the other thread where Annie replied back to you).  Here is another example:

Quote
Even while the adult sockeye are spawning and after they die they are releasing the IHN virus and the stream flow is carrying the virus down into the lake, where the sockeye fry are waiting to eat the decomposing particles. The sockeye fry have no chance of survival.

The more you post the further you fall into the hole, AF.  For someone that has made a bold statement about my knowledge on Sockeye I would have expected a little more discretion and wisdom.  Instead, you left yourself wide open again and made another ignorant statement that you cannot defend.  The fact is that you still do not understand the subject and it is very plain to see.  Thanks to nibbles for showing you the errors of your ways.  Seem like many of us are constantly correcting you.  It does not have to be that way if you used this opportunity to learn something.

Quote
If you did a little research on the sockeye salmons life cycle you would know that a sockeye hatches in a river upstream of a fresh water lake. Once hatched it will spend a year of it's life in the fresh water lake. When the infected adult sockeye return and swim through that lake they drop the virus, infecting the young sockeye fry. IHN can survive in fresh water for up to seven weeks.

Actually Sockeye Salmon have a much more complex life history.  Conventional wisdom and research has told people exactly what you have said (i.e. Sockeye hatches in a river upstream of a freshwater lake….yada..yada).  This is not incorrect, but it is only part of the story.  Fraser Sockeye can spawn downstream of their nursery lake (i.e. Chilko), spawn in habitats that are influenced by tidal movements (i.e. Widgeon Slough), spawn very far from their nursery lake and use off-channel river habitats enroute (i.e. Raft and Clearwater) and can also spawn within the nursery lake itself – beach spawning and deep water (i.e. Chilko, Quesnel and Chilliwack lakes).  Harrison Sockeye juveniles do not spend much time in freshwater, opting to travel immediately to the ocean.  The real kicker is that I did not have to google this information.  I have been to these places and have been actively involved in fieldwork working with these fish.  That’s how much I do not understand about wild Salmon like Sockeye…lol.  I agree with you that research on this is a good idea – you may want to do that tonight instead of putting your foot in your mouth.

I already stated and agreed with you that wild salmon can carry this virus during migration to their natal habitat.  However, what you keep failing to understand is where IHN outbreaks are most prevalent.  These locations are fish farms, salmon hatcheries and spawning channels.  What do these locations have in common, AF?  These are the locations where these IHN outbreaks have been scientifically documented.  I will defer some of this to nibbles as he is more in touch with enhancement and can speak more about this prevalence and possible exceptions.  As nibbles said using your “logic” wild Sockeye would have been wiped out a long time ago before farms even existed on the BC coast.  Your argument in this regard is silly.

Quote
Education only happens when someone wants to learn..... in fact having credentials sometimes gets in the way of learning. Obviously shuswapsteve either knows little about the life cycle of a sockeye salmon or he is purposely trying to leave out the facts, otherwise he wouldn't have made the naive statements about the spread of IHN in sockeye.

You only have part of this statement correct.  Part of it is the willingness to learn, but another part of it is also facilitated by those that can provide insight.  Sometimes we need to know our limitations because we do not know everything.  I am always willing to learn and still do it.  If there is something I am unfamiliar with I either ask those that have expertise in that field or I will do my best to research the information through literature searches.  However, education is only part of it.  As I stated already, I have been doing this type of work for 20 years now.  I have worked for private consultants, conservation groups and government.  Some of my first jobs in this field were in salmon hatcheries where I was first introduced to what IHN is.

The problem is that you are not willing to learn, AF.  What is worse is that you are trying to BS your way through this and are getting caught every time.  Then you lash out when people call you on it.  Again, you are the author of your own misfortune.  You do not try to do any research on the topic on your own and provide any reports that directly support your theories.  Unfortunately, you have let your dislike of fish farms, stubbornness, paranoia and now arrogance to get in the way of a meaningful discussion on IHN.

I have not left out any facts about IHN.  Along with some others, we have outlined them to you with the reports and references to back them up.  On the other hand, you have provided absolutely nothing to back up your claims.  You are frustrated (and rightfully so) because you are having a hard time twisting the facts to fit your theories.  I can be convinced with a good argument provided you have your ducks in order and can back up your claims.  It also helps if you know something about Sockeye.  Guys like nibbles and I can tell right away if you are legit or not on these topics.  If you are going to start making these unsubstantiated claims you will get called on it so get used to it.  Logic only works if you can provide some defensible evidence to back it up.  I gave you that opportunity to show off this logic and your reply was that you had no aspirations to convince a pro-feedlot person like me.  If you are not going to try to provide a convincing argument with facts to back it up then this says more about your lack of credibility than mine.

Quote
All you've done is said that you are right and I am wrong, without providing any links or evidence to support your opinion. At least shuswapsteve provided links that he said superseded anything that was on the CFIA website. However that was his opinion and when I suggested that he was either unaware or ignoring the facts about IHN, absolon was quick to follow up with some personal insults.....  a tact he seems to take when he realizes he has been caught twisting the facts.

The fact is IHN is amplified by the feedlots, then transmitted to healthy wild salmon, who carry it to the spawning grounds, potentially killing the sockeye fry. The fiction is that IHN is not lethal to wild fish....

AF, you are wrong (a common theme now).  I can tell you right now Nibbles is not going to waste his time gathering links for you because you cannot seem to handle the truth very well.  I have already done that for you and you keep trying to spin them to bolster your unsubstantiated claims.  I see you are still doing it.  Perhaps you can show me where I said that the other links I provided superseded the CFIA information.  Meanwhile, how is the hunt for the Mainstream quote going?  I guess I can also ask you once again to provide the fact that IHN is being amplified by fish farms, but I am pretty sure you will just keep being evasive.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 20, 2012, 07:40:51 AM


AF, you are wrong (a common theme now).  I can tell you right now Nibbles is not going to waste his time gathering links for you because you cannot seem to handle the truth very well.  I have already done that for you and you keep trying to spin them to bolster your unsubstantiated claims.  I see you are still doing it.  Perhaps you can show me where I said that the other links I provided superseded the CFIA information.  Meanwhile, how is the hunt for the Mainstream quote going?  I guess I can also ask you once again to provide the fact that IHN is being amplified by fish farms, but I am pretty sure you will just keep being evasive.


This is true. I will not be doing your research for you. I do enough of my own already. If you want to learn more about sockeye life histories in the north Pacific, order Groot (I've read it cover to cover). IHN management in fish culture? The Alaskan sockeye salmon culture protocols.

And please, stop saying that IHN not being lethal to wild fish is a fiction. We all agree with you on this one! Yes, it can kill wild fish! IT does, and has done so for thousands of years!

Do the farms amplify? TBD. Unlikely.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 20, 2012, 07:51:37 AM
Today you seem to have taken on the role of Psychologist.... 

Your approach is similar to the approach many folks take in order to try achieve a level of credibility......  while they are plotting to rob you.

I'll use the financial services business as an analogy.....  Lehman brothers as you probably heard, went out of business. What happened was that they used their knowledge and expertise, as well as their position in the financial services business to create trading strategies that were highly risky and were doomed to fail given time. They convinced the public that they knew what they were doing and investors bought in....  The SEC was in their offices doing audits while this was going on yet they couldn't figure out what they were doing.... because the experts at Lehman Brothers were that good at spinning the truth. Of course the reason they were doing this was because their livelihood and big paychecks were at stake. The unfortunate investors who had bought their spin....... lost their retirement funds, savings and estates. The current financial mess was born and is no where near being solved.

The similarity to the feedlot business is striking! Experts such as yourself come onto various internet sites to not only spin the truth of the feedlot business, but they use techniques such as belittling and name calling to attempt to discredit others. The feedlot companies along with government are promoting the business because it means jobs, tax revenue and profits for these parties. Information about sustainability, disease, impurities in the product, pollution and the risks to wild salmon are spun and minimized in an attempt to convince the public that this is a viable industry. While the carnage to the environment is happening, the industry is padding their pocket books. While the feedlot business is not robbing retirees and investors, the story hasn't been written yet on how they are robbing us of our wild salmon.

While folks like Aquapaloosa seem like sincere, hard working folks who go to work each day so that they can feed their families, folks like you and absolon take the discussion to the next level by belittling and name calling. There is no question that you have more knowledge in the industry than people like myself. However like in the Lehman Brothers disaster, people in the feedlot business are using their knowledge and credentials to twist the truth, minimize risks and leave out facts in order to deceive the public. The theme is always the same "We are the experts, trust us."

I find that every time I ask the tough questions and you folks don't have an answer, you wave your credentials and resort to discrediting me. However, I expect that sort of reaction because the stakes are high. If we can get the pens out of the ocean, all the benefits that industry supporters are getting could be lost. On the other hand if we allow the feedlots to continue to exist in our ocean, our wild salmon populations may continue to decline and we as the public could lose our wild salmon.

You can continue to resort to belittling and name calling or just discuss the issue .....   either way I will still be around, trying to ensure that the feedlot business doesn't continue to rob me and my grandchildren of my right to enjoy the wild salmon.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 20, 2012, 08:06:42 AM
This is true. I will not be doing your research for you. I do enough of my own already. If you want to learn more about sockeye life histories in the north Pacific, order Groot (I've read it cover to cover). IHN management in fish culture? The Alaskan sockeye salmon culture protocols.

And please, stop saying that IHN not being lethal to wild fish is a fiction. We all agree with you on this one! Yes, it can kill wild fish! IT does, and has done so for thousands of years!

Do the farms amplify? TBD. Unlikely.

I don't believe I ever requested that you do my research for me. Like others on this thread, you decided to make me aware of your expertise and "offered" to provide some raw data which only an expert could decipher. It was recognized for the belittling tact that it was.....

I appreciate your posts though, while the other experts spin the truth and avoid the obvious facts, you spare us from that.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 20, 2012, 09:23:38 AM
Today you seem to have taken on the role of Psychologist.... 

Your approach is similar to the approach many folks take in order to try achieve a level of credibility......  while they are plotting to rob you.

I'll use the financial services business as an analogy.....  Lehman brothers as you probably heard, went out of business. What happened was that they used their knowledge and expertise, as well as their position in the financial services business to create trading strategies that were highly risky and were doomed to fail given time. They convinced the public that they knew what they were doing and investors bought in....  The SEC was in their offices doing audits while this was going on yet they couldn't figure out what they were doing.... because the experts at Lehman Brothers were that good at spinning the truth. Of course the reason they were doing this was because their livelihood and big paychecks were at stake. The unfortunate investors who had bought their spin....... lost their retirement funds, savings and estates. The current financial mess was born and is no where near being solved.

The similarity to the feedlot business is striking! Experts such as yourself come onto various internet sites to not only spin the truth of the feedlot business, but they use techniques such as belittling and name calling to attempt to discredit others. The feedlot companies along with government are promoting the business because it means jobs, tax revenue and profits for these parties. Information about sustainability, disease, impurities in the product, pollution and the risks to wild salmon are spun and minimized in an attempt to convince the public that this is a viable industry. While the carnage to the environment is happening, the industry is padding their pocket books. While the feedlot business is not robbing retirees and investors, the story hasn't been written yet on how they are robbing us of our wild salmon.

While folks like Aquapaloosa seem like sincere, hard working folks who go to work each day so that they can feed their families, folks like you and absolon take the discussion to the next level by belittling and name calling. There is no question that you have more knowledge in the industry than people like myself. However like in the Lehman Brothers disaster, people in the feedlot business are using their knowledge and credentials to twist the truth, minimize risks and leave out facts in order to deceive the public. The theme is always the same "We are the experts, trust us."

I find that every time I ask the tough questions and you folks don't have an answer, you wave your credentials and resort to discrediting me. However, I expect that sort of reaction because the stakes are high. If we can get the pens out of the ocean, all the benefits that industry supporters are getting could be lost. On the other hand if we allow the feedlots to continue to exist in our ocean, our wild salmon populations may continue to decline and we as the public could lose our wild salmon.

You can continue to resort to belittling and name calling or just discuss the issue .....   either way I will still be around, trying to ensure that the feedlot business doesn't continue to rob me and my grandchildren of my right to enjoy the wild salmon.



A ten minute segment about Lehman Brothers on 60 Minutes on television last night is not sufficient to explain the financial crisis. Lehman was a symptom of the problem, not the cause. To begin to grasp what went wrong one needs to actually look at the facts. To even get a sense of the problem I'd suggest you start with Stiglitz's Freefall, Krugman's Depression Economics, Wolin's Managed Democracy and Klien's Shock Doctrine. Those will give you a sense of where to look next and eventually, you will begin to get a sense of what went wrong. That, however, does require a desire to learn and the discipline to pursue it.

By the same token, an understanding of salmon biology isn't going to be obtained from light reading on the internet and a devotion to Morton's doctrine. Anyone who believes they can gain sufficient understanding of the subject by that method to legitimately contradict people who really do understand the subject because of a lifetime of study and experience is really doing nothing more than displaying their own lack of understanding. That lack of understanding is only countered by that same desire to learn and that same discipline to pursue it.

That lack of understanding isn't overcome by endless repetition of unsupported declarations of self-determined facts, unsubstantiated accusations of ethical lapses and incompetence, and snide personal comments. What you practice resembles more than anything else a Rovian style of political campaigning where facts are buried underneath a flood of misinformation and misdirection and by personal attacks on experts; an attempt to make quantity, volume and vehemence a substitute for quality.

Though you complain frequently that you personally are being belittled you have no problem with belittling and insulting those who disagree with you. Though you endlessly demand supporting information from those who contradict you, you have a substantial problem with providing support for those claims and contradictions of experts that you make. It is clear that you are not interested in examining the facts underlying the issue but instead are here to promote your personal perspective whether or not it agrees with the facts. It is that approach that earns you the response you get and it is that approach that is causing all the others who might support your ideas if they were presented in a more adult manner to back away from proximity to you.

You can stick around as long as you like. Indeed, your arguments and approach are probably causing the anti-farm reactionaries to lose rather than gain support.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 20, 2012, 10:28:54 AM

A ten minute segment about Lehman Brothers on 60 Minutes on television last night is not sufficient to explain the financial crisis. Lehman was a symptom of the problem, not the cause. To begin to grasp what went wrong one needs to actually look at the facts. To even get a sense of the problem I'd suggest you start with Stiglitz's Freefall, Krugman's Depression Economics, Wolin's Managed Democracy and Klien's Shock Doctrine. Those will give you a sense of where to look next and eventually, you will begin to get a sense of what went wrong. That, however, does require a desire to learn and the discipline to pursue it.

By the same token, an understanding of salmon biology isn't going to be obtained from light reading on the internet and a devotion to Morton's doctrine. Anyone who believes they can gain sufficient understanding of the subject by that method to legitimately contradict people who really do understand the subject because of a lifetime of study and experience is really doing nothing more than displaying their own lack of understanding. That lack of understanding is only countered by that same desire to learn and that same discipline to pursue it.

That lack of understanding isn't overcome by endless repetition of unsupported declarations of self-determined facts, unsubstantiated accusations of ethical lapses and incompetence, and snide personal comments. What you practice resembles more than anything else a Rovian style of political campaigning where facts are buried underneath a flood of misinformation and misdirection and by personal attacks on experts; an attempt to make quantity, volume and vehemence a substitute for quality.

Though you complain frequently that you personally are being belittled you have no problem with belittling and insulting those who disagree with you. Though you endlessly demand supporting information from those who contradict you, you have a substantial problem with providing support for those claims and contradictions of experts that you make. It is clear that you are not interested in examining the facts underlying the issue but instead are here to promote your personal perspective whether or not it agrees with the facts. It is that approach that earns you the response you get and it is that approach that is causing all the others who might support your ideas if they were presented in a more adult manner to back away from proximity to you.

You can stick around as long as you like. Indeed, your arguments and approach are probably causing the anti-farm reactionaries to lose rather than gain support.

.....  apparently you are still reading my posts after I've given you numerous opportunities to ignore them.  Why is that?

You are consistently proclaiming yourself as an expert in aquaculture and put down anyone who you disagree with, now you are carry that through to the area of financial services. Is there any area that you are not an expert in?

The analogy of Lehman Brothers and the feedlot business is valid. Financial experts at Lehman pulled the wool over investors eyes, all the while benefiting personally, while the financial environment was badly damaged. The feedlot business is doing the same thing, risking the future of our ocean environment under the dubious premise that they are helping to feed the masses.

The future of the feedlot business won't be determined in this forum, and priding yourself on the idea you are "winning" is quite naive.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 20, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
Thanks AF, you make my case for me. When it becomes obvious that someone has exercised the desire to learn and the discipline to do so your first response is to make personal comments denigrating those efforts and your second is to repeat your original simplistic and inaccurate pronouncement.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 20, 2012, 11:38:20 AM
Thanks AF, you make my case for me. When it becomes obvious that someone has exercised the desire to learn and the discipline to do so your first response is to make personal comments denigrating those efforts and your second is to repeat your original simplistic and inaccurate pronouncement.


Still can't stop reading my posts, even though you find them offensive??
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: EZ_Rolling on August 20, 2012, 03:03:39 PM
Where did all these non fisher biology experts even come from ?
Why are you even coming every what seems hour to this and every other fishing websites?

Are you being paid to come here ?

You only seem to be here for your own personal agenda ...I have enjoyed Af 's fishing reports yet I have not seen any of the "experts" providing any "fishing" information,Report tip or suggestion or in anyway providing usefull "fishing" content
Do you read any of the fishing tips and tutorial sections or do you only look to spew your agenda which in the end makes you money ?

Really your life's must be miserable defending your position all the time,so you belittle people who chose not to go to the same classes as you in school.

I come here for reading about other people story's about their love of fishing not to hear all these agendas.
This is not a salmon farming website....

So again why are you here?



Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Easywater on August 20, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
So again why are you here?
There is a 50% profit in fish farming - for every $1000 they spend, they get $1500 back.

They are here to protect their massive profits...
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 20, 2012, 04:10:20 PM
Where did all these non fisher biology experts even come from ?
Why are you even coming every what seems hour to this and every other fishing websites?

Are you being paid to come here ?

You only seem to be here for your own personal agenda ...I have enjoyed Af 's fishing reports yet I have not seen any of the "experts" providing any "fishing" information,Report tip or suggestion or in anyway providing usefull "fishing" content
Do you read any of the fishing tips and tutorial sections or do you only look to spew your agenda which in the end makes you money ?

Really your life's must be miserable defending your position all the time,so you belittle people who chose not to go to the same classes as you in school.

I come here for reading about other people story's about their love of fishing not to hear all these agendas.
This is not a salmon farming website....

So again why are you here?





Can you read???...If so what is the title of this forum??...There ya go....then please stick to the other forums thank you. Again read before posting.And I appreciate them being here, just to help dispell some of doodoo that comes out of AFs yap.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: curious on August 20, 2012, 04:15:12 PM
The analogy to Lehman Bros. is interesting . Also the role the Securities Exchange Commision played could be compared to the salmon farm regulators here,  it seems.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: curious on August 20, 2012, 04:24:09 PM
Where did all these non fisher biology experts even come from ?
Why are you even coming every what seems hour to this and every other fishing websites?

So again why are you here?


As Easywater said, and it appears that they are just trying to manage public perception to favor salmon feedlots , poorly I might add.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 20, 2012, 04:28:09 PM
It appears that they are just trying to manage public perception, poorly I might add.

Actually for a non scientist like me I quite appreciate them.
Oh Oh Rod another one trying tro get his posts up, to access fishing reports... ;D ;D
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: curious on August 20, 2012, 04:34:23 PM
No, I don't need the fishing reports, but really appreciate "The Fish Kitchen".
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 20, 2012, 08:50:43 PM

The similarity to the feedlot business is striking! Experts such as yourself come onto various internet sites to not only spin the truth of the feedlot business, but they use techniques such as belittling and name calling to attempt to discredit others. The feedlot companies along with government are promoting the business because it means jobs, tax revenue and profits for these parties. Information about sustainability, disease, impurities in the product, pollution and the risks to wild salmon are spun and minimized in an attempt to convince the public that this is a viable industry. While the carnage to the environment is happening, the industry is padding their pocket books. While the feedlot business is not robbing retirees and investors, the story hasn't been written yet on how they are robbing us of our wild salmon.

While folks like Aquapaloosa seem like sincere, hard working folks who go to work each day so that they can feed their families, folks like you and absolon take the discussion to the next level by belittling and name calling. There is no question that you have more knowledge in the industry than people like myself. However like in the Lehman Brothers disaster, people in the feedlot business are using their knowledge and credentials to twist the truth, minimize risks and leave out facts in order to deceive the public. The theme is always the same "We are the experts, trust us."

I find that every time I ask the tough questions and you folks don't have an answer, you wave your credentials and resort to discrediting me. However, I expect that sort of reaction because the stakes are high. If we can get the pens out of the ocean, all the benefits that industry supporters are getting could be lost. On the other hand if we allow the feedlots to continue to exist in our ocean, our wild salmon populations may continue to decline and we as the public could lose our wild salmon.

You can continue to resort to belittling and name calling or just discuss the issue .....   either way I will still be around, trying to ensure that the feedlot business doesn't continue to rob me and my grandchildren of my right to enjoy the wild salmon.
If you feel so strongly that I am not being forthcoming about IHN then feel free to find out information on IHN yourself, AF.  I do not have a problem with that at all.  The fact is that you have not even tried.  As for credentials it was you that decided to go down that road with me in your previous post (i.e. Sockeye life cycle and not being forthcoming about IHN).  You basically did a little belittling yourself.  If you are going to challenge someone like that you should be prepared for a response and don’t complain afterwards when things do not go the way you planned.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Brian the fisherman on August 20, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
Put fish farms on land. problem solved.

sanitize the water going out of the farm.

wild ANYTHING will not pass by this infectious virus.


Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 20, 2012, 10:21:53 PM
Put fish farms on land. problem solved.

sanitize the water going out of the farm.

wild ANYTHING will not pass by this infectious virus.




Sanitize the water? Well, it worked for Britannia Creek lol. No viruses in that system for many years.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bassonator on August 20, 2012, 10:37:54 PM
Put fish farms on land. problem solved.

sanitize the water going out of the farm.

wild ANYTHING will not pass by this infectious virus.




Have you read any of this post?? Judging by your response I guess not.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 22, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
The question has been asked before.....  and sidestepped by the "experts".    A vaccine is available for feedlot salmon to protect them against IHN. Why wasn't it applied?

I understand it is expensive to apply. Is this another cost cutting strategy used by a supposedly responsible organization? Is it because they know that the government will cover their costs in the case where an outbreak occurs and the feedlot needs to be culled? Is it because they know it is difficult to prove that they are killing wild fish and just don't care?
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Easywater on August 22, 2012, 05:14:23 PM
The question has been asked before.....  and sidestepped by the "experts".    A vaccine is available for feedlot salmon to protect them against IHN. Why wasn't it applied?

I understand it is expensive to apply. Is this another cost cutting strategy used by a supposedly responsible organization? Is it because they know that the government will cover their costs in the case where an outbreak occurs and the feedlot needs to be culled? Is it because they know it is difficult to prove that they are killing wild fish and just don't care?

It's like free insurance for the industry paid for by the government.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 22, 2012, 08:19:25 PM
The question has been asked before.....  and sidestepped by the "experts".    A vaccine is available for feedlot salmon to protect them against IHN. Why wasn't it applied?

I understand it is expensive to apply. Is this another cost cutting strategy used by a supposedly responsible organization? Is it because they know that the government will cover their costs in the case where an outbreak occurs and the feedlot needs to be culled? Is it because they know it is difficult to prove that they are killing wild fish and just don't care?

Sidestepped? You answer the question yourself. Cost. It's that simple. Cost-benefit analysis. It's not cost effective for them to vaccinate that many fish.

This is my assumption. I don't know the actual cost of vaccinating for IHN, but given what I know of vaccinations for other diseases (vibrio, oxytet injections for BKD) it would be prohibitively expensive.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 22, 2012, 08:27:56 PM
Sidestepped? You answer the question yourself. Cost. It's that simple. Cost-benefit analysis. It's not cost effective for them to vaccinate that many fish.

This is my assumption. I don't know the actual cost of vaccinating for IHN, but given what I know of vaccinations for other diseases (vibrio, oxytet injections for BKD) it would be prohibitively expensive.

Thanks for your honesty...  Just another reason why the feedlots need to be tossed out of the ocean.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: dnibbles on August 22, 2012, 08:50:22 PM
Well, that alone isn't reason to automatically disqualify them. We all conduct cost-benefit analyses in our own lives every day, and it doesn't mean that accepting some risk to reduce cost is necessarily the end of the world. It all comes down to a simple 2x2 risk assessment matrix: likelihood of potential negative effect, and potential impact of negative. You're a rational person (relatively lol), so I don't think even you would suggest that an activity that is deemed to have low likelihood and low potential impact should still be banned in order to remove all possible risk. This would mean you would never let your kids leave the house, go to school play sports, ride in a car etc.

This whole debate boils down to where we see this issue on the risk assessment continuum. In my opinion, the likelihood of IHN  being transmitted on a large scale from salmon farms to wild fish is relatively low. As for the potential impact, I don't think that, if some transmission occurs, it will result in wiping out all wild salmon stocks on the west coast is very low. They're been exposed to it for thousands of years already. You obviously feel differently, that it's only a matter of time before IHN suddenly runs rampant through wild stocks, decimating them completely.

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 22, 2012, 10:01:12 PM
The risk of IHN being amplified and causing higher mortality in wild stocks is not the only reason the feedlots should be moved out of our oceans. In your opinion the risk of IHN may be low, but all evidence I have seen puts it high. Even if it decimates a fractional higher amount of wild fry and smolts, that is too many. Why else would such efforts be made to cull an infected feedlot quickly and thoroughly sanitize the equipment if the "risk is very low"?

Besides IHN the feedlots present many other risks to wild salmon.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 23, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Q Dr. Garver, these questions are for you, and they relate to IHN. My question, in a general sense, is there any evidence that the prevalence of IHN stocks in B.C. sockeye salmon have changed since the 1990s?

DR. GARVER: So a predecessor of mine, Garth Traxler, began a surveillance program for IHNV in various sockeye salmon stocks, and so we have -- it's actually one of the few diseases or pathogens that we have a very long-term monitoring program for, and he started this back in 1986. And what we found is that the prevalence values vary considerably from year to year and between stocks, and since that monitoring period there were a few outbreaks in salmon farms. And when we compare those times during the outbreaks to the stocks that we are looking at for IHN prevalence, it didn't appear to change the prevalence in the wild stocks. In other words, it wasn't a driving factor for the occurrence IHNV in the wild stocks.

 Q And in that work, sir, did you find whether there was any correlation in the IHNV prevalence as between adults and its occurrence in fry?

 DR. GARVER: No.


Cohen Commision transcript for August 24, 2012, page 85
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 23, 2012, 10:26:14 AM
Q: Dr Garver these questions are also for you: Who signs your paycheck and funds your retirement program?

Dr Garver (He didn't really provide the answer, google did):  DFO.

Q: Who is responsible for growing the aquaculture business in Canada?

Dr Garver (He didn't really provide the answer, google did):  DFO.

Q: Would you ever say something that might jeopardize your employment or cause your employer to muzzle you, like DFO muzzled other scientists like Dr. Kristi Miller?
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-muzzling-scientists-panel-tells-global-research-community/article4092468/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-muzzling-scientists-panel-tells-global-research-community/article4092468/)

Silence......    Dr Garver, could you please answer the question?   Silence.......      Dr Garver?   ???   ::)
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: aquapaloosa on August 23, 2012, 11:25:29 AM
Reality:

Quote
Insert Quote
Q Dr. Garver, these questions are for you, and they relate to IHN. My question, in a general sense, is there any evidence that the prevalence of IHN stocks in B.C. sockeye salmon have changed since the 1990s?

DR. GARVER: So a predecessor of mine, Garth Traxler, began a surveillance program for IHNV in various sockeye salmon stocks, and so we have -- it's actually one of the few diseases or pathogens that we have a very long-term monitoring program for, and he started this back in 1986. And what we found is that the prevalence values vary considerably from year to year and between stocks, and since that monitoring period there were a few outbreaks in salmon farms. And when we compare those times during the outbreaks to the stocks that we are looking at for IHN prevalence, it didn't appear to change the prevalence in the wild stocks. In other words, it wasn't a driving factor for the occurrence IHNV in the wild stocks.

 Q And in that work, sir, did you find whether there was any correlation in the IHNV prevalence as between adults and its occurrence in fry?

 DR. GARVER: No.


Cohen Commision transcript for August 24, 2012, page 85

Fiction:

Quote
Q: Dr Garver these questions are also for you: Who signs your paycheck and funds your retirement program?

Dr Garver (He didn't really provide the answer, google did):  DFO.

Q: Who is responsible for growing the aquaculture business in Canada?

Dr Garver (He didn't really provide the answer, google did):  DFO.

Q: Would you ever say something that might jeopardize your employment or cause your employer to muzzle you, like DFO muzzled other scientists like Dr. Kristi Miller?
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-muzzling-scientists-panel-tells-global-research-community/article4092468/

Silence......    Dr Garver, could you please answer the question?   Silence.......      Dr Garver?   Huh   Roll Eyes

Nuf said.



Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 23, 2012, 12:22:28 PM
Q: Dr Garver these questions are also for you: Who signs your paycheck and funds your retirement program?

Dr Garver (He didn't really provide the answer, google did):  DFO.

Q: Who is responsible for growing the aquaculture business in Canada?

Dr Garver (He didn't really provide the answer, google did):  DFO.

Q: Would you ever say something that might jeopardize your employment or cause your employer to muzzle you, like DFO muzzled other scientists like Dr. Kristi Miller?
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-muzzling-scientists-panel-tells-global-research-community/article4092468/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-muzzling-scientists-panel-tells-global-research-community/article4092468/)

Silence......    Dr Garver, could you please answer the question?   Silence.......      Dr Garver?   ???   ::)


Date and page reference?
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 23, 2012, 12:30:55 PM
Let's try and connect some of the dots:

- At the Cohen commission Dr. Kyle Garver testified that a single salmon farm can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour.
- We know that the farmed salmon likely contracted IHN from a wild salmon that swam by the pens, so we can conclude the virus is easily transferred.
- Not all wild fish are infected, however healthy wild salmon are likely to get infected as they pass by the infected feedlots (transferable means both ways).
- These wild fish return to the spawning grounds where they are infecting salmon fry, causing virtually 100% mortality. See Weaver Creek 1987 http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf (http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf)

Playing hear no evil, see no evil is childish. At 650 billion IHN particles being spewed out by a feedlot each hour, the infected feedlot is likely infecting every wild salmon that passes by. The salmon will return to their spawning beds and like in the Weaver Creek incident more than 50% of the fry will die.

Too bad there wasn't a requirement for the feedlots to report diseases.....  At least we could have looked back to see if an IHN outbreak in a feedlot at that time correlated with the demise of the Weaver Creek fry. ......... or does DFO have that information and are withholding it?




Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 23, 2012, 02:10:16 PM
I didn't ask for your opinion on the subject. I asked for some evidence you weren't misrepresenting that opinion as testimony given at the Cohen Inquiry.

Are you able to provide that or not?
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 23, 2012, 02:42:58 PM
I didn't ask for your opinion on the subject. I asked for some evidence you weren't misrepresenting that opinion as testimony given at the Cohen Inquiry.


You were the one that copied stuff from the Cohen commission......  where in my post did you get the idea I did the same?  Are you suggesting we can only use quotes from the Cohen commission to support our discussions?
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: Bently on August 23, 2012, 02:54:22 PM
I didn't ask for your opinion on the subject. I asked for some evidence you weren't misrepresenting that opinion as testimony given at the Cohen Inquiry.

Are you able to provide that or not?

Of course he can't, he's just blowing smoke as usual. ::) ;D

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 23, 2012, 04:58:38 PM
You were the one that copied stuff from the Cohen commission......  where in my post did you get the idea I did the same?  Are you suggesting we can only use quotes from the Cohen commission to support our discussions?


Yes, I did quote testimony from the Cohen Commission that suggested there is a database that has established that your arguments about amplification are pure and simple nonsense. Perhaps you should have your "experts" look at it.

In replying, rather than prefacing your opinion with "In my opinion.......", you precisely duplicated the format of the testimony I quoted; the obvious inference being that you were quoting testimony. Unfortunately, rather than a quote of actual testimony, it was , surprise, surprise, "testimony" you manufactured and now, surprise, surprise, you're suggesting that wasn't your intent. The applicable description of such an approach would be intellectual dishonesty. And best of all, it was exercised in the process of attempting to brand a scientist who reached informed conclusions that you disagree with as intellectually dishonest and ethically challenged. If the shoe fits...........
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 23, 2012, 05:26:19 PM
The applicable description of such an approach would be intellectual dishonesty. And best of all, it was exercised in the process of attempting to brand a scientist who reached informed conclusions that you disagree with as intellectually dishonest and ethically challenged.

Are you suggesting Dr Garver would have given different answers than suggested in my little interview example?

From the news article link I provided: “It’s pretty clear that for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk, what they can talk about and when they can say it,” senior science journalist Margaret Munro, with Postmedia News, told a group gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with Dr Garver other than in order to save his job and pension he may have said what DFO wanted him to say rather than what the science indicated he should have said. He works for a closed shop that does the science and promotes the industry. I don't believe any third party scientists are over seeing their work. What we hear is exactly what they want us to hear.... 
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 23, 2012, 05:43:04 PM
By branding Dr. Garver as basically dishonest is kind of cheap and dirty way to argue your point, AF.  It is a common tactic by anti-fish farm opponents to basically label government scientists as dishonest and even corrupt without even talking about the actual data itself.  It is a deflection by opponents to avoid what the data is saying.  Dr. Garver comes to these conclusions based on defensible data collected.  He has to defend this data amongst his peers.  As you can see, he was called to testify about his work at the Cohen Commission judicial inquiry.  If you want to be critical of Dr. Garver you should focus more on his findings and back up your own critique of him with some actual data of your own.  However, as we have come to find out now, you are unable to do this.

What is even more hilarious is that you seem to accept parts of Dr. Garver's work which you believe aligns with your claims, but then discount his other testimony at the inquiry that Absolon posted.  It seems like he is dishonest when he starts saying something you do not agree with.  Do you actually read what you post?

IHN is a reportable disease in Canada.  Farms are required to report this.  It is on the CFIA website that I posted.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 23, 2012, 06:21:42 PM
By branding Dr. Garver as basically dishonest is kind of cheap and dirty way to argue your point, AF.  It is a common tactic by anti-fish farm opponents to basically label government scientists as dishonest and even corrupt without even talking about the actual data itself.  It is a deflection by opponents to avoid what the data is saying.  Dr. Garver comes to these conclusions based on defensible data collected.  He has to defend this data amongst his peers.  As you can see, he was called to testify about his work at the Cohen Commission judicial inquiry.  If you want to be critical of Dr. Garver you should focus more on his findings and back up your own critique of him with some actual data of your own.  However, as we have come to find out now, you are unable to do this.

What is even more hilarious is that you seem to accept parts of Dr. Garver's work which you believe aligns with your claims, but then discount his other testimony at the inquiry that Absolon posted.  It seems like he is dishonest when he starts saying something you do not agree with.  Do you actually read what you post?

IHN is a reportable disease in Canada.  Farms are required to report this.  It is on the CFIA website that I posted.

Like absolon you are attempting to twist my words.....  at no time have I suggested he was "basically dishonest".

However it becomes rather laughable when absolon says that feedlots don't amplify IHN, when Dr. Garver says an infected feedlot can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour. The virus (like most virus's) is transferable right??

It's also curious that Dr Garver would say, there was no correlation in the IHNV prevalence as between adults and its occurrence in fry, while as far back as 1987 a report showed that more than 50% of the sockeye fry in Weaver Creek died from IHN virus. [url]http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf[url] If the adults didn't bring IHN to the spawning beds who did?

And why haven't any of you experts answered the question as to why, if the feedlots have access to an IHN vaccine, why aren't they using it?!
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 23, 2012, 09:27:26 PM
Quote
I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with Dr Garver other than in order to save his job and pension he may have said what DFO wanted him to say rather than what the science indicated he should have said. He works for a closed shop that does the science and promotes the industry. I don't believe any third party scientists are over seeing their work. What we hear is exactly what they want us to hear.

You can spin it anyway you want to, but you are basically saying that Dr. Garver is being dishonest – in this case to save his job.  Making assumptions still does not make it true.  If the science was supposed to say something else then state what it should have said by providing some evidence of your own.  Where can we find this, AF?  In addition, Dr. Miller provided testimony during the Cohen Commission in regards to genomic research with this suspected parovirus.  Fish farm opponents rallied behind this testimony claiming that it justified their opposition to net pen aquaculture.  They even called her Scientist of the Year.  Was she being dishonest along with Dr. Garver during testimony?

Studies done by the department, including Dr. Miller’s, are peer-reviewed and published.  How is that a closed shop?  This means that people like you can access them.  This means that scientists other than those in the department are looking at them.  The issue is that people (media, fish farm opponents) feel that government scientists are being prevented from talking to the media about this already published work.  In this case it is not really the department that is to blame, but rather the Privy Council that should be shouldering most of the criticism.  However, then you have communications personnel in government that drop the ball making things even worse.  You might be interested to know that people that normally disagree with you on many issues regarding fish farming might agree with you here.

Quote
However it becomes rather laughable when absolon says that feedlots don't amplify IHN, when Dr. Garver says an infected feedlot can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour. The virus (like most virus's) is transferable right??

It's also curious that Dr Garver would say, there was no correlation in the IHNV prevalence as between adults and its occurrence in fry, while as far back as 1987 a report showed that more than 50% of the sockeye fry in Weaver Creek died from IHN virus. [url]http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf[url] If the adults didn't bring IHN to the spawning beds who did?

And why haven't any of you experts answered the question as to why, if the feedlots have access to an IHN vaccine, why aren't they using it?!

Of course adult salmon bring IHN to the spawning beds, but you do not understand Dr. Garver or how it relates to Weaver Creek.  You need to read more of Dr. Garver’s testimony where he makes reference to Weaver Creek.

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/Schedule/Transcripts/CohenCommission-HearingTranscript-2011-08-24.pdf#zoom=100 (page 85 and 86)

As for the vaccine, I agree with nibbles that cost vs risk could be the reason.  However, according to Marine Harvest (the largest fish farm company off our coast), they have been vaccinating for IHN since 2007.  The last major outbreak in BC fish farms was 2003, so perhaps other companies have adopted a different strategy to combat this which includes good fish husbandry and routine monitoring of their fish.  You should really contact a company like Mainstream and find out from them.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 24, 2012, 08:57:40 AM
Are you suggesting Dr Garver would have given different answers than suggested in my little interview example?

From the news article link I provided: “It’s pretty clear that for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk, what they can talk about and when they can say it,” senior science journalist Margaret Munro, with Postmedia News, told a group gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with Dr Garver other than in order to save his job and pension he may have said what DFO wanted him to say rather than what the science indicated he should have said. He works for a closed shop that does the science and promotes the industry. I don't believe any third party scientists are over seeing their work. What we hear is exactly what they want us to hear.... 

You are putting words in Dr. Garver's mouth with those fabricated answers. They are a reflection of your agenda rather than any truth and as such, are entirely irrelevant and more than a little dishonest. So is this statement you made:

Quote
However it becomes rather laughable when absolon says that feedlots don't amplify IHN, when Dr. Garver says an infected feedlot can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour

I didn't make that statement and you are clearly aware of that. I quoted Dr. Garver's testimony that the database shows that outbreaks on farms are not reflected in outbreaks in wild stocks and that no correlation shows between prevalence in wild juvenile fish and prevalence in wild adult fish. This isn't me arguing with you. This is the results of real research refuting your claim that farm infections amplify the prevalence of IHN in wild stocks. Attempting to discredit Garver does nothing to refute that claim; all it shows is that you are unable to refute the observations any other way.

Individual statistics isolated from context are meaningless and arguments developed from those isolated statistics are also meaningless. An infected feedlot may indeed shed that many particles but there is a difference in the production of viral particles between a infected population dealing with an active outbreak of the disease and a population not showing clinical symptoms but culled before an outbreak of the disease because the virus was isolated in that population. The lifespan of the particles is also relevant as is the distribution. Ignoring the context might support your agenda just as manufacturing that "testimony" did but it is equally dishonest and equally irrelevant.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 24, 2012, 09:54:20 AM
They are a reflection of your agenda rather than any truth and as such, are entirely irrelevant and more than a little dishonest.

That's amusing considering everything you post supports your agenda. While the rest of your statement is untrue, maybe I should be taking it as a complement that you think I am using the same approach you are.


......... An infected feedlot may indeed shed that many particles .........

Well at least you are admitting half the truth....   

Once the feedlot fish show signs of IHN, they are already transmitting the virus. It also appears that none of the feedlots test for IHN unless their fish show signs of the disease due to the cost of the tests. So by suggesting that the feedlots may have culled the Atlantics before they began transmitting the virus is deceptive, because you don't know that, and the facts suggest they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics.

And because there isn't a scientific study showing that the feedlots amplify IHN, just like they amplify sea lice, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By using a little logic most people can take the facts and conclude that IHN is amplified by diseased feedlots, which will result in higher mortality of salmon fry and smolts.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: AnnieP on August 24, 2012, 10:02:15 AM
Like your pro-feedlot buddy, you are trying to refocus the blame on the wild fish.

While wild fish are carriers they do not live in the close confines of a feedlot so the IHN virus is not as easily transferred between wild fish as it is in the feedlot fish. Take the example of a kid with a cold...... sneezing and infecting some of his class mates. Imagine a class room packed with kids who all have a cold..... and are sneezing......  The chances of a passerby being infected, go up substantially.

The recently announced infected feedlots, have been spewing 100's of millions of the IHN viruses, infecting every wild fish swimming by. Even after the infected feedlot is "isolated", the viruses it has been spewing, continue to live and infect wild salmon for up to 3 weeks in the salt water. This in the midst of 100's of 1,000's of migrating salmon.

Not a problem for the wild fish as absolon suggests.....   however once these infected wild salmon reach a fresh water lake and mingle with the sockeye smolts still living there, they become killing machines. Add to that the fact the virus lives for up to 7 weeks in fresh water, they can potentially kill an entire years worth of sockeye.

Is this really the fault of the wild fish?   ???











 




Claims about salmon viruses simply incorrect






August 24, 2012
 
Claims about salmon viruses simply incorrect
 Gary Marty, Nanaimo Daily News, August 24, 2012

Re: ‘Government testing of salmon a flawed process’ ( Your Letters, Aug. 21)
 
As the fish pathologist for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, I am disappointed to see Alexandra Morton continue to mislead readers with inaccurate statements about salmon diseases in British Columbia.
 
She says that the farmed Atlantic salmon virus “infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) is one of these farm animal influenzas and it has spread everywhere large numbers of Atlantic salmon are raised in ocean pens.” This statement has two errors.
 
First, ISAV is not an influenza virus; instead, it is an isavirus. And second, B.C. has millions of Atlantic salmon raised in ocean pens but no confirmed evidence of ISAV. This conclusion is supported by thousands of tests, including all results reported by Alexandra Morton.
 
Morton said that “I found (ISAV) in B.C.”
 
This is not correct. It has now been 10 months since Morton first reported positive PCR test results for ISAV in fish that had no evidence of the disease ISA, but her test results have not confirmed either the ISA virus or the ISA disease.
 
Unconfirmed PCR test results that are not related to disease are usually false positives. False positive test results are not a threat to either wild or farm salmon.
 
Morton also said that “during the (Cohen) inquiry we learned DFO found 100% of the Cultus Lake sockeye . . . had tested positive for this virus.”
 
This is not correct. Researcher Molly Kibenge sequenced her PCR product and reported that “The sockeye clones do not resemble any ISAV isolate” and, they “show homology to short sequences of human, mouse, rat and zebrafish clones” (Cohen Commission Exhibit 2140).
 
These results are called “nonspecific amplification.” It means that the test did not work properly and needs to be redone. Tests that do not work properly are not a threat to wild or farm salmon.
 
Finally, Morton says that “CFIA will not be testing the millions of farm salmon being raised among the wild salmon” and, “The status of these viruses in salmon farms will be left to the industry to report.” The first statement is misleading; the second is not correct.
 
DFO’s website “Fish Health Management in the Pacific Region” clearly describes their extensive fish health program that tests for ISAV in fish that die on the farms. CFIA sees these results, and the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture runs these tests for DFO. So far this year, ISAV test results on all 341 farm salmon analysed as part of this program have been negative — no virus.
 
For early detection of disease, I estimate that testing fish that die on the farms is 400 times more sensitive than random testing of live fish or harvested fish. This means that this year, DFO has tested the equivalent of 136,400 of the supermarket fish tested by Morton.
 
Alexandra Morton is a great story teller, but much of what she says is just that: a story.
 
For the best information about salmon diseases and their control, I depend on CFIA, DFO, and the fish farm veterinarians.

Gary Marty B.C. Ministry of Agriculture
































 



.
















.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 24, 2012, 10:13:26 AM
Nice hyjack Annie......    This thread is actually about IHN.   ???
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 24, 2012, 11:19:19 AM
That's amusing considering everything you post supports your agenda. While the rest of your statement is untrue, maybe I should be taking it as a complement that you think I am using the same approach you are.

Well at least you are admitting half the truth....   

Once the feedlot fish show signs of IHN, they are already transmitting the virus. It also appears that none of the feedlots test for IHN unless their fish show signs of the disease due to the cost of the tests. So by suggesting that the feedlots may have culled the Atlantics before they began transmitting the virus is deceptive, because you don't know that, and the facts suggest they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics.

And because there isn't a scientific study showing that the feedlots amplify IHN, just like they amplify sea lice, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By using a little logic most people can take the facts and conclude that IHN is amplified by diseased feedlots, which will result in higher mortality of salmon fry and smolts.


The difference in our approaches is that mine depends on established evidence and yours depends on evidence you manufacture. There is also a difference in our agendas. You are trying to shut down the farms and I am trying to shut down the flow of misinformation.

The farms are subject to regular, required monitoring and it is that monitoring that discovered the presence of the virus, not a clinical outbreak of the disease. As has been reported, the fish were not showing clinical signs of the disease. There are no facts that suggest the fish were already transmitting the virus; that again is another product of your overworked imagination.

By your own reasoning, the fact that there isn't a study eliminating farms infection as the cause of wild infections doesn't mean that isn't the case. There is, however, a long data series that does indeed suggest the feedlots don't amplify the disease and that there is no correlation between juvenile and adult sockeye carrying the disease. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean that information should be discarded or ignored and more importantly, it is one of the few sources of experimental data that speaks to the issue so it should be considered important, and certainly more important than the uninformed machinations of an overactive, agenda driven imagination.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 24, 2012, 12:22:58 PM
The difference in our approaches is that mine depends on established evidence and yours depends on evidence you manufacture. There is also a difference in our agendas. You are trying to shut down the farms and I am trying to shut down the flow of misinformation.

You must have a sore shoulder from patting yourself on the back. What you are doing is attempting to use the idea that you are more knowledgeable than anyone else in the field of aquaculture and because of that we should take your word for whatever you say. At least sushwapsteve provides some backup for his statements and doesn't have the haughty attitude that you use in your posts. At the end of the day both of you are tied closely the the feedlot business and therefore anything you post is suspect with respect to the survival of wild salmon....

The farms are subject to regular, required monitoring and it is that monitoring that discovered the presence of the virus, not a clinical outbreak of the disease. As has been reported, the fish were not showing clinical signs of the disease. There are no facts that suggest the fish were already transmitting the virus; that again is another product of your overworked imagination.

Nice try .......  taken right out of the feedlot public relations manual.

By your own reasoning, the fact that there isn't a study eliminating farms infection as the cause of wild infections doesn't mean that isn't the case.

Usually I have an idea of what you are trying to say......   in this case you are not making any sense.

There is, however, a long data series that does indeed suggest the feedlots don't amplify the disease and that there is no correlation between juvenile and adult sockeye carrying the disease.

Ya, I'm gonna take your word for that because your handle is absolon.....  if there is no correlation how are you suggesting the juveniles are infected?? The Weaver Creek report suggests the opposite of what you are.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: absolon on August 24, 2012, 01:08:29 PM
Bottom line is that having been educated in the relevant subjects and having broad experience in the field I do know more about salmon farming than most. It is because of that I have some ability to distinguish between the nonsense and the valid and because of that I have no tolerance for the fools who propagate misinformation about it. The conclusions about salmon farms should be based on scientific evidence and consideration of the practical realities, not on the misleading rhetoric of an agenda driven group with a pre-established conclusion. Further, I pointed out to someone a while back that in any discussion with me, I'll turn back at you the attitude you give me. Respectful begets respectful, a point that you seem to have missed in your complaining about my attitude. I could care less what you believe, I do care about the intentional dissemination of misinformation.

If you don't understand the basis of Dr. Garver's observations you would be well advised to contact him and ask. Deciding on your own what they really mean is a fool's errand, particularly for someone who lacks even the most rudimentary toolset to apply to the problem. Choosing instead to denigrate his integrity in order to cast doubt on his results is a suitable tactic for a Conservative election campaign, but not for a discussion about a scientific issue.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 24, 2012, 08:42:34 PM
Are you done???

The topic is actually about IHN......  not how wonderful, intelligent , educated and obnoxious you can be...   ;D
 
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 26, 2012, 10:33:17 PM
Quote
It also appears that none of the feedlots test for IHN unless their fish show signs of the disease due to the cost of the tests.
This is false.  This was shown to be false the first time you said it, the second time you said and every other time you mentioned it.

Quote
So by suggesting that the feedlots may have culled the Atlantics before they began transmitting the virus is deceptive, because you don't know that, and the facts suggest they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics.
And the facts are?  Please go ahead.

Quote
And because there isn't a scientific study showing that the feedlots amplify IHN, just like they amplify sea lice, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By using a little logic most people can take the facts and conclude that IHN is amplified by diseased feedlots, which will result in higher mortality of salmon fry and smolts.
This is a classic.  So, in the previous quote you say, “the facts suggest that they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics”.  However, in this next quote you suggest that there isn’t a scientific study showing that the fish farms amply IHN, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.  This seems to imply that facts are now irrelevant, but they were relevant before.  Then you miraculously switch back and use your “logic” to suggest that most people can take the facts and make the conclusion.  Ok…and the facts are??  Data??  References??  Authors??

Quote
Nice hyjack Annie......    This thread is actually about IHN.
Annie’s posting of Dr. Marty’s letter is totally relevant to this discussion of IHN.  However, I can understand why you feel threatened by it because it gets tough to keep finding more unsubstantiated rhetoric and then having to find out that you contradict yourself further into the discussion – even in the very next sentence.  Dr. Marty’s letter is relevant because he discusses the extensive routine testing that goes on at fish farms.  ISAV along with IHNV are some of those viruses that are routinely tested for.  Secondly, the letter shows how people like Ms Morton have been misinterpreting the facts – sort of what you are doing with IHN.

Quote
Nice try .......  taken right out of the feedlot public relations manual.
Which public relations manual, AF?  Under the new federal regulations, farms are required to have a Health Management Plan.  One of the key components of the plan is that farms must be able to characterize the health status of the population.  I already posted the link on this information in another thread, so I am not going to repeat it.  Do your own research for a change…Please.  Secondly, it is in the farms best interests to routinely test for viruses like IHNV and ISAV because these viruses have demonstrated to inflict a great deal of damage on Atlantic Salmon.  It would make no sense not be diligent before the fact due to the investment involved as well as the legal responsibilities required (i.e. IHN is a reportable disease in Canada).

Quote
At the end of the day both of you are tied closely the the feedlot business and therefore anything you post is suspect with respect to the survival of wild salmon....
Would it really matter if I said I was or was not tied closely to the fish farm business?  You were so convinced long ago that I was that you have not taken the time to read what I have posted (even recently) which might give you some indication what I might do.  In reality it would not change a thing because fish farm opponents such as you seem to always find another excuse to link people like me to fish farming.  Funny thing is that I never called you a paid anti-fish farm propagandist or suggested that you were involved with the Pew Foundation or the David Suzuki Foundation; however, in order to make your point, you conveniently believe that I am closely linked to the fish farm business to make it seem like I have a financially vested interest in them and therefore cannot be trusted.  Like your assault on Dr. Garver recently, it is cheap and dirty way to argue your point which basically deflects away from the issue – instead focusing on the messenger rather than the information provided by that person.  For that reason, there is no motivation from me to provide any information or disclaimer about my involvement or lack of involvement with fish farms.  Actually, I think it is kind of funny how some of you keep assuming.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 27, 2012, 09:21:11 AM
It must be nice getting paid to post on these forums....

As usual your wordy responses repeat the same things over and over. You and Absolon have this theme that if there is no science available to prove that feedlots are killing the wild salmon then it just isn't happening. If those comments were coming from an uninformed person we could say that they are just naive, however coming from connected individuals such as yourselves those statements are just pure deception.

The fact that there isn't a lot of science showing the risk of feedlots to wild salmon only proves that the people responsible for doing the science (DFO, CFIA and the industry) are either not doing it or withholding the results of science they have done. Examples are the muzzling of their own scientists, and withholding disease records from the Cohen commission.

Until the industry and DFO becomes absolutely transparent with the information they have no amount of science will convince the general public that the feedlots are safe. Their credibility is the major hurdle they need to overcome.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on August 27, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Quote
It must be nice getting paid to post on these forums....
Actually I should be getting overtime pay to respond to you...lol.  I had to pass up on another paper route just to keep up with your posts…lol.

Quote
As usual your wordy responses repeat the same things over and over. You and Absolon have this theme that if there is no science available to prove that feedlots are killing the wild salmon then it just isn't happening. If those comments were coming from an uninformed person we could say that they are just naive, however coming from connected individuals such as yourselves those statements are just pure deception.
You seem to have this theme where fictional stories are much better than the facts.  With this particular topic I have outlined the facts about IHN.  I never suggested that that your theories were impossible, but were highly unlikely given the weight of the data we already have on IHN as well as what the industry currently does already (i.e. monitoring).  You basically make a bunch of theories, but refuse to back them with any defensible information.  What do you expect?  You expect me to embrace statements that have no factual basis behind them?  If you were a defending a Master’s or PhD thesis with these theories you would get laughed out of the building.  I am actually being nice….lol.  If my statements are deceptive please show how they are.  The information I have provided to support them is fully cited with references.  They are from industry, government (here and in the US), and other non-governmental scientists.  I have laid it all out in front of you and done all of the research you should have done.  On the other hand, you have continually dodged my requests for you to back up your claims.  Who is really being deceptive?

Quote
The fact that there isn't a lot of science showing the risk of feedlots to wild salmon only proves that the people responsible for doing the science (DFO, CFIA and the industry) are either not doing it or withholding the results of science they have done. Examples are the muzzling of their own scientists, and withholding disease records from the Cohen commission.
The fact is that you are frustrated that there is no information to support your unsubstantiated claims and you are tired of trying to twist the facts so DFO, the CFIA, and the fish farm industry must be to blame for this.  Once again, the research from DFO scientists like Dr. Miller and Dr. Garver is published.  The results and the conclusions are there for everyone to see.   These were not withheld as you seem to suggest.  They are even referenced on the commission website.  Similarly, the province produced annual reports from the industry which were put on their website.  The raw data that went into these reports was made available during the Cohen Commission.  I wouldn’t have to repeat this if you would have read it the first time instead of turning a blind eye.

Quote
Until the industry and DFO becomes absolutely transparent with the information they have no amount of science will convince the general public that the feedlots are safe. Their credibility is the major hurdle they need to overcome.
They will never have enough information to convince you otherwise.  Your mind is already made up.  Unfortunately, many people like their information packaged up neatly for them so that it follows along like a nice story.  So from that standpoint, it is difficult for generally reactive government communication personnel to compete with someone like Morton who can say whatever they want, whenever they want.  Whether it is factual or not is not a prerequisite for her.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 28, 2012, 07:52:27 AM
As usual..... nicely put together response.

Perhaps you can help dispel a few more of my "conspiracy" theories. If the feedlots and DFO are being so forthcoming, why don't they release the feedlot disease records? And don't tell me they have released all of them because that is just not true. Why don't they let us know the particular strain of IHN that was found so that it could potentially be traced in wild fish. Why has testing (monitoring) of the fish been turned over to the feedlots rather than an independent agency or even a scientist like Dr Miller? Is it because Dr Miller has found ISAV and they don't want her to find it in the feedlot fish?

I don't need to convince you or anyone else that my observations are correct. The public just needs to hear the information and using a little logic are able to add up 1+1 and get 2. With the secrecy, closed shop testing, selective analysis and continual bashing of anyone that questions their integrity, they are a long way from achieving any sort of credibility......  especially here in BC.

Coming on this forum with the single purpose of trying to try discredit anyone who suggests the farms are a scourge to our oceans and need to be removed is in itself revealing.

Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: work2fish on August 28, 2012, 09:56:11 AM
Speaking of Dr. Miller and her studies, has there been any follow up work on her last major paper showing a link between the pre-spawn mortality in Sockeye and a genetic signature showing some type of infection in those pre-spawn mort fish?

I seem to recall some concern that the government would not be giving her the funding, or would be limiting her funding to continue that line of research.

You'd think that finishing that work would be on the top of the fishfarms, CFIA, DFO and Morton's list of priorities, as solving that puzzle would give you the "smoking gun" at least in regards to Sockeye.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 28, 2012, 10:42:40 AM
My understanding is that Dr Miller is not allowed access to any feedlot fish, therefore it will be impossible for her to find any links. The only person allowed to test farmed fish is Dr Marty (government scientist and spokesperson) and it is becoming quite clear that he lacks either the willingness or the ability to offer any objective science.

If the feedlots and DFO were really concerned about wild fish, wouldn't they be making every effort to study the possibility of these links?

Morton has realized that the industry is not going to do any of these tests (or if they are, they are not willing to release the results) so she at her own expense is testing as many wild fish as she can. It is expensive, at more than $200 per test/fish and in the end unless the feedlots allow testing of their fish by someone independent, it may still be impossible to make any links. However, hopefully it may force the industry to be more transparent.

We must remember that DFO has a mandate to grow aquaculture. Any negative news, particularly if it is revealed that ISAV is found in the feedlot fish, BC would be required to stop exporting any feedlot fish. This would devastate the industry.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: shuswapsteve on September 01, 2012, 09:27:12 AM
As usual..... nicely put together response.

Perhaps you can help dispel a few more of my "conspiracy" theories. If the feedlots and DFO are being so forthcoming, why don't they release the feedlot disease records? And don't tell me they have released all of them because that is just not true. Why don't they let us know the particular strain of IHN that was found so that it could potentially be traced in wild fish. Why has testing (monitoring) of the fish been turned over to the feedlots rather than an independent agency or even a scientist like Dr Miller? Is it because Dr Miller has found ISAV and they don't want her to find it in the feedlot fish?

I don't need to convince you or anyone else that my observations are correct. The public just needs to hear the information and using a little logic are able to add up 1+1 and get 2. With the secrecy, closed shop testing, selective analysis and continual bashing of anyone that questions their integrity, they are a long way from achieving any sort of credibility......  especially here in BC.

Coming on this forum with the single purpose of trying to try discredit anyone who suggests the farms are a scourge to our oceans and need to be removed is in itself revealing.

I dispelled your little conspiracy about disease records a little while ago, but once again you do not read too well.  If you are suggesting that the testing of diseases at BC fish farms is improper then you can always ask Dr. Marty and see what he says.  Before you do that you might want to see what is currently done to save yourself further embarrassment – something like you have experienced here on this thread.  As for Dr. Miller, she works for DFO so I don’t think that is “independent” enough for you.  While you have a spare moment you might want to check out some of Dr. Miller’s testimony in December about her findings of ISAV signatures in the fish she re-tested.  You might want to do that before you jump on her bandwagon.

You can call it “discrediting” all you want.  I am not particularly thrilled about the misinformation and propaganda being spread by people such as yourself.  What’s worse is that people such as yourself make unsubstantiated claims then run back and hide behind the notion that you do not need to convince me or anyone else.  Very hilarious actually.
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: EZ_Rolling on September 01, 2012, 10:26:11 AM
The preceding announcement was paid for by ............
Title: Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
Post by: alwaysfishn on September 01, 2012, 08:20:43 PM
I dispelled your little conspiracy about disease records a little while ago, but once again you do not read too well.  If you are suggesting that the testing of diseases at BC fish farms is improper then you can always ask Dr. Marty and see what he says.  Before you do that you might want to see what is currently done to save yourself further embarrassment – something like you have experienced here on this thread.  As for Dr. Miller, she works for DFO so I don’t think that is “independent” enough for you.  While you have a spare moment you might want to check out some of Dr. Miller’s testimony in December about her findings of ISAV signatures in the fish she re-tested.  You might want to do that before you jump on her bandwagon.

You haven't dispelled anything......   

There are many questions that need to be answered and either you belittle anyone who asks them, or you don't have the answers.

Dr Marty as an employee of the Provincial Dept of Agriculture is a closed shop. By that I mean no one is apparently cross checking his work. He tests fish that the feedlots ask him to test, he states that he has found indications of serious diseases, but then goes on to say that none of the diseases have been found in BC. This begs the question whether he knows what he is doing or is he hiding something. Maybe he's just saying what the supporters of the industry want him to say.

Dr Miller the DFO scientist has responsibility for wild salmon. She has found serious diseases in wild fish but is not allowed to test  the feedlot fish to determine if there is a connection. Is this because the industry knows there is a connection but doesn't want any scientists confirming it?

Why are the feedlots refusing access to their fish for testing purposes? What do they have to hide?

When DFO speaks about feedlots you never know if they are just marketing and promoting feedlots or talking about what is actually happening.


You can call it “discrediting” all you want.  I am not particularly thrilled about the misinformation and propaganda being spread by people such as yourself.  What’s worse is that people such as yourself make unsubstantiated claims then run back and hide behind the notion that you do not need to convince me or anyone else.  Very hilarious actually.


Whether you are thrilled about what you read here shouldn't be our concern. Calling what you read misinformation and propaganda is presumptuous and arrogant, but reflects well the approach the feedlot industry seems to use.