Print

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

[alwaysfishn]

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.

[dnibbles]

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

[absolon]

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.

[troutbreath]

'
"Your approach is both ignorant and offensive."

The rasor suggests otherwise. But go on making those grandiose statements.

[Bassonator]

you see TB thats why I believe the experts the ones with the degrees not the wannabes like Morton AF and yourself.

[alwaysfishn]

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!

[alwaysfishn]

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....

[Bassonator]

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...

[absolon]

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.

[alwaysfishn]

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....

[absolon]

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.

[dnibbles]

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?

[alwaysfishn]

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....

[shuswapsteve]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dnibbles]

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.