Print

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

[dnibbles]

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.

[Bassonator]

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.

[alwaysfishn]

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?

[Easywater]

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.

[dnibbles]

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.

[alwaysfishn]

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.

[dnibbles]

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.

[alwaysfishn]

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.

[absolon]

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

[alwaysfishn]

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?      

[aquapaloosa]

Reality:

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:

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.

[absolon]

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?      

Date and page reference?

[alwaysfishn]

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

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?

[absolon]

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?

[alwaysfishn]

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?