Print

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

[alwaysfishn]

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.....

[alwaysfishn]

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!

[dnibbles]

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.

[shuswapsteve]

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.

[alwaysfishn]

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.....

[alwaysfishn]

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.

[shuswapsteve]

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.....

[alwaysfishn]

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?   

[shuswapsteve]

From CFIA's website: 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!

[shuswapsteve]

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.

[shuswapsteve]

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).

[alwaysfishn]

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.

[absolon]

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.

[EZ_Rolling]

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

[absolon]

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:

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