Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alwaysfishn]

Apparently you aren't aware of how much Marine Harvest Canada actually does to contribute to enhancement of wild salmon and provide assistance to local hatcheries . MHI regularly donates used hatchery equipment to local small hatcheries, they donated a dock for Roberts Lake and have beach clean up I believe twice a year. To claim they want wild salmon out of the ocean is just plain wrong. They also regularly have BBQ's with the funds raised going to local causes and salmon enhancement groups.

Tobacco companies also have long lists of organizations that they contribute to......  edited to add: http://www.ansrmn.org/fckfiles/Tab1-FINAL.pdf

Unfortunately it doesn't mean that they care about or are planning on doing anything different to prevent their product from causing cancer in the people that use it.

http://www.cqct.qc.ca/Documents_docs/DOCU_2003/DOCU_03_05_00_DonsENG.PDF

[alwaysfishn]

There isn't a pressing consistent disease issue overall so the need to get rid of them is not there.

Have you been hearing news about a virus in Cultus Lake wild salmon?.. A fact sheet has been posted on the BCSFA Hot Topics page for everyone’s reference.
PISCINE REovaRus (PRV) AND HSMI
Key Points:
·         Fish on BC’s salmon farms are healthy and there are no unexplained or unusual mortalities occurring on our sites.
·         While viruses are extremely common in the marine environment, the vast majority of them does not cause any disease or harm to fish. PRV has been detected in healthy fish in healthy populations: showing that its presence does not mean disease occurs.
PAA Note: read more key points at link below.
…Statements made connecting PRV in Cultus Lake trout with our salmon farms, or suggesting a level of effect of PRV in these populations far overreach current knowledge and are making assumptions and drawing unsupported conclusions — as did claims in April this year by anti-salmon farm activist Alexandra Morton.

http://www.salmonfarmers.org./sites/default/files/hot-topics/prv_hsmi_2_1.pdf

http://www.salmonfarmers.org./hot-topics

Unfortunately, because the feedlots will not voluntarily provide disease records, we are expected to take their word for it. That is like asking the tobacco companies to provide us with medical evidence on the effect of their product use on a person's health..... 

[aquapaloosa]

Unfortunately, because the feedlots will not voluntarily provide disease records, we are expected to take their word for it.

Another item you are just making up.  Or did I read it wrong and stand to be corrected.

[AnnieP]

Unfortunately, because the feedlots will not voluntarily provide disease records, we are expected to take their word for it. That is like asking the tobacco companies to provide us with medical evidence on the effect of their product use on a person's health..... 

You have  been reading too much Morton nonsense. The disease records are available online. Salmon farm fish are tested constantly to ensure the fish are healthy.  The claim farm companies refuse to  provide disease records is another very old & outdated  Morton claim. As for your reference to tobacco companies it is irrelevent to salmon farming. Any fool sucking 800 plus poisonous chemicals into their lungs voluntarily over a prolonged period of time shouldn't need anyone to tell them it's going to kill them. People who smoke do so willingly and in spite of doctors warnings they die every day as a result.  

[AnnieP]

Tobacco companies also have long lists of organizations that they contribute to......  edited to add: http://www.ansrmn.org/fckfiles/Tab1-FINAL.pdf

Unfortunately it doesn't mean that they care about or are planning on doing anything different to prevent their product from causing cancer in the people that use it.

http://www.cqct.qc.ca/Documents_docs/DOCU_2003/DOCU_03_05_00_DonsENG.PDF

Can tobacco companies physically prevent millions of people from lighting up their cancer sticks ? I think not.  I assume you got this from Don Staniford ? It's his favourite ploy.

[alwaysfishn]

Unfortunately, because the feedlots will not voluntarily provide disease records, we are expected to take their word for it. That is like asking the tobacco companies to provide us with medical evidence on the effect of their product use on a person's health..... 

Another item you are just making up.  Or did I read it wrong and stand to be corrected.

Not making it up....  here's the government's own report.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/BCSFA/BCSFA_Fish_Health_Quarterly_Report_Review.pdf

"There are currently 13 companies operating private aquaculture facilities in British Columbia. Eight of these (or 62%) are providing data to the database.

The public sector facilities have agreed to also provide data to the database. As of October 2003, information has been provided from eleven Salmon Enhancement facilities operated by DFO and two FwFS hatcheries. While this does not represent all public facilities, it does provide a sampling of the fish health concerns facing the public sector operations.

It should be noted that in each quarter, the number of facilities providing data (i.e. thesample size) does vary, causing some variation in the calculations and results provided."

[alwaysfishn]

You have  been reading too much Morton nonsense. The disease records are available online. Salmon farm fish are tested constantly to ensure the fish are healthy.  The claim farm companies refuse to  provide disease records is another very old & outdated  Morton claim. As for your reference to tobacco companies it is irrelevent to salmon farming. Any fool sucking 800 plus poisonous chemicals into their lungs voluntarily over a prolonged period of time shouldn't need anyone to tell them it's going to kill them. People who smoke do so willingly and in spite of doctors warnings they die every day as a result. 

No, the information I got online was from the government report. While all farms probably track their diseases, under a voluntary reporting program, why would a farm shed bad light on it's operation by reporting all it's diseases?

Probably could use a tobacco analogy here, but I'm sure you get the point.

[aquapaloosa]

Your post suggest that none of the farms report.  Now your flying the flag that some don't...typical AF.  Convenient that after one of your post 3 or so more of your post have to go by to clearly understand what you attempt to misrepresent.  You are a true campaigner!!

This is a key note in your last post.  Thanks for that.

While this does not represent all public facilities, it does provide a sampling of the fish health concerns facing the public sector operations.

[alwaysfishn]

Your post suggest that none of the farms report.  Now your flying the flag that some don't...typical AF.  Convenient that after one of your post 3 or so more of your post have to go buy to clearly understand what you attempt to misrepresent.  You are a true campaigner!!

This is a key note in your last post.  Thanks for that.

I'd feel more confident in the farm report, if 100% of the feedlots were required to report their diseases rather than having to settle with voluntary reporting from 62% of them....  Are the ones not reporting, hiding something?

[aquapaloosa]

If Morton was not doing what she does ie, misrepresenting every tidbit of information she can, then you would see 100% reporting.  Never the less the farms that do report are always reporting regardless.  Individual farms are not selectively reporting, they report everything.  On top of this federal veterinarians are regularly looking at all the sites anyways.  But that not good enough for you I am certain of that.

[alwaysfishn]

If Morton was not doing what she does ie, misrepresenting every tidbit of information she can, then you would see 100% reporting.  Never the less the farms that do report are always reporting regardless.  Individual farms are not selectively reporting, they report everything.  On top of this federal veterinarians are regularly looking at all the sites anyways.  But that not good enough for you I am certain of that.

You seem like a trustworthy fella, even for a fish farmer.....   

However I would still feel more comfortable with 100% mandatory reporting as opposed to just taking your word for it. 

[AnnieP]

Not making it up....  here's the government's own report.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/BCSFA/BCSFA_Fish_Health_Quarterly_Report_Review.pdf

"There are currently 13 companies operating private aquaculture facilities in British Columbia. Eight of these (or 62%) are providing data to the database.

The public sector facilities have agreed to also provide data to the database. As of October 2003, information has been provided from eleven Salmon Enhancement facilities operated by DFO and two FwFS hatcheries. While this does not represent all public facilities, it does provide a sampling of the fish health concerns facing the public sector operations.

It should be noted that in each quarter, the number of facilities providing data (i.e. thesample size) does vary, causing some variation in the calculations and results provided."

Where does it say the companies are "refusing " to provide data ? as you claim

[aquapaloosa]

I want you to feel good indeed.  So if the lower mainland divides itself into 100 sections and only 62 percent of them report, flues and colds,  don't you think that those results will reasonably reflect the stats of the remaining 38%?  I agree that all companies should report but if you are wondering why they don't.  Is because of the morton types.  Another di-service she is doing for you.

[AnnieP]

Let's agree on one thing, that the wild fish were in the ocean first. I get tired of hearing that the wild salmon are responsible for the diseases in the feedlots. I don't hear land based farmers complaining about how naturally occurring wild life is making their farm animals sick.

If the feedlots are convinced that wild salmon are making their feedlots sick, get the pens out of the ocean and on dry land! If we are to believe the feedlots, the only solution they are offering to disease control in their pens is to get rid of the wild salmon.....

Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical of the feedlots to complain when they feel a "quarantine zone" is breached, yet they offer no assurance that their diseases are being quarantined?    


BC Ministry of Agriculture
Farms affected by diseases of concern such as IHN must immediately implement isolation measures to reduce the impact of the disease. Some measures include:
•Enforcing strict disinfection procedures
•Limiting the movement of all personnel, equipment and boats
•Using separate dive teams to survey sites at each farm
•Special procedures for removal and disposal of dead fish
•Special precautions for harvesting to prevent spread of the disease

[AnnieP]

No, the information I got online was from the government report. While all farms probably track their diseases, under a voluntary reporting program, why would a farm shed bad light on it's operation by reporting all it's diseases?

Probably could use a tobacco analogy here, but I'm sure you get the point.

Why would a farm try and hide a disease that would spread and infect other farms knowingly ?  Considering the nearest farms also probably belong to that company why would they place their own fish at risk. Sorry doesn't fly.