Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??  (Read 3329 times)

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #90 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.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #91 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.
Logged

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #92 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.

Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

work2fish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #93 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.
Logged

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #94 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.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #95 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.
Logged

EZ_Rolling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 358
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #96 on: September 01, 2012, 10:26:11 AM »

The preceding announcement was paid for by ............
Logged

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Re: IHN is not lethal to wild fish ..... fact or fiction??
« Reply #97 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.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[