Print

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

[absolon]

Good to see at least one person is reading my responses.....

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah......................

[Bill]

I'm curious Bill. Which of the salmon farms or hatcheries is infected with ISA?

I don,t recall mentioning anything about hatcheries or fish farms in my original post.

[troutbreath]

If you had stocks in fishfarms the last thing you want to see is dem go down. Which leads to why some folk like da farm.

I would invest in a treatment for ISA.

[absolon]

I'm curious Bill. Which of the salmon farms or hatcheries is infected with ISA?

I don,t recall mentioning anything about hatcheries or fish farms in my original post.

Let me walk you through the logic behind my question.

Where do you suppose all the Atlantic Salmon in BC come from? If the virus is indeed in the eggs, it must come from the fish carrying the eggs. Therefore, if the virus is in the fish it must come from the farms or the hatcheries. The only circumstance where that would not be true is where the virus is endemic to the region in which case, wild fish are already constantly exposed to it. The problem with that theory is that it would result in all farmed Atlantics being exposed to it as well, and with the greater susceptibility of Atlantics to the virus, would result in constant and frequent ISA outbreaks on the farms.

Since ISA testing is mandatory on the farms and hatcheries as well as in the best interests of the farms, and since positive results are legally reportable, the presence of the virus on the farms and in the hatcheries will be known and reported and that record must exist if the eggs are indeed infected.

You are claiming the Atlantic eggs are carrying the virus. I am asking you if you can support your claim that Atlantic eggs carry the virus by showing the record of infected farms or hatcheries, a record that must exist if the eggs are indeed carrying the virus, or whether you are saying that like the birth of Christ, the presence of ISA in the eggs is a case of immaculate conception.

[Bill]

 Now from what I have been reading the virus is in the roe, is there a chance this virus can survive right up to the point were it is used for fishing, I found this very odd that this roe is allowed in our system.

You are claiming the Atlantic eggs are carrying the virus. I am asking you if you can support your claim that Atlantic eggs carry the virus by showing the record of infected farms or hatcheries, a record that must exist if the eggs are indeed carrying the virus, or whether you are saying that like the birth of Christ, the presence of ISA in the eggs is a case of immaculate conception

I m not claiming any such thing if I am guilty for browsing through this form and others so be it I asked a simple question and got a reply from (silver ghost) thank you. Like I said I was at my tackle shop and this topic was brought up pretty simple.     

[absolon]

There are two equally important preconditions required for Atlantic roe to be able to pass on the virus to wild stocks. One is that the virus could survive up to the point where the roe is used for fishing. The other is that the virus actually be present in the roe in the first place. An answer to the question you asked dealing with the first precondition doesn't provide any information about potential risks to wild stocks from fishing with the roe without an answer to the second question about whether the virus is actually present in the eggs and therefore on it's own doesn't address your concern about infecting wild stocks.

Despite what you read on the internet, a little critical thinking can usually clear up any question.

[alwaysfishn]

Let me walk you through the logic behind my question.

Where do you suppose all the Atlantic Salmon in BC come from? If the virus is indeed in the eggs, it must come from the fish carrying the eggs. Therefore, if the virus is in the fish it must come from the farms or the hatcheries. The only circumstance where that would not be true is where the virus is endemic to the region in which case, wild fish are already constantly exposed to it. The problem with that theory is that it would result in all farmed Atlantics being exposed to it as well, and with the greater susceptibility of Atlantics to the virus, would result in constant and frequent ISA outbreaks on the farms.

Since ISA testing is mandatory on the farms and hatcheries as well as in the best interests of the farms, and since positive results are legally reportable, the presence of the virus on the farms and in the hatcheries will be known and reported and that record must exist if the eggs are indeed infected.

You are claiming the Atlantic eggs are carrying the virus. I am asking you if you can support your claim that Atlantic eggs carry the virus by showing the record of infected farms or hatcheries, a record that must exist if the eggs are indeed carrying the virus, or whether you are saying that like the birth of Christ, the presence of ISA in the eggs is a case of immaculate conception.

There are two equally important preconditions required for Atlantic roe to be able to pass on the virus to wild stocks. One is that the virus could survive up to the point where the roe is used for fishing. The other is that the virus actually be present in the roe in the first place. An answer to the question you asked dealing with the first precondition doesn't provide any information about potential risks to wild stocks from fishing with the roe without an answer to the second question about whether the virus is actually present in the eggs and therefore on it's own doesn't address your concern about infecting wild stocks.

Despite what you read on the internet, a little critical thinking can usually clear up any question.

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah......................

 

[shuswapsteve]

You need to put away your Cohen history book already..... that's old news.

Show me some disease reports from specific feedlot locations that have been recorded since Cohen forced the feedlot industry to provide them for his review....

Funny how fish farm critics wanted the Cohen Inquiry but don't really like what it says.  Facts just get in the way of good old fashion speculation, huh?  What a drag. 

In the future, fish health data gathered through DFO’s Fish Health Program will be made available on this website.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/health-sante-eng.htm

I thought it was already mentioned a bunch of times that diseases like IHN and ISA are federally reportable diseases.

[troutbreath]

I hope your not trying to say that fish farmers are consistantly verifiying that those diseases are not present, and are manditorly being reported. Why the h,e, doulble hockey sticks are they getting 60 million to get there poop in a pile then jacko?

[adriaticum]

I would add my 2 cents, but I'm broke...

[alwaysfishn]

Funny how fish farm critics wanted the Cohen Inquiry but don't really like what it says. 

However "fish farm critics" believe that to ensure good health it's important to get a checkup on a regular basis rather than just once in your lifetime....

Apparently feedlot proponents think since the feedlots released their disease records one time, the public should be satisfied that they are disease free forever?!?

[absolon]

Apparently facts and logic don't fit in the small box.

[skaha]

-- I don't get the side track... I think the question is legit...before buying I would want to know where it came from.
-- There seems to be a huge protocol for import of eggs due to the fear of disease transfer so I think reasonable to ask where these came from and that they are from a legal supply.

[absolon]

The question of origin may be legitimate but the assumption that the eggs are infected with the ISA virus is not. The assumptions that domestic eggs in a farm hatchery are not screened or that they come from brood fish that are not tested are also not legitimate. The sidetrack addressed those assumptions until the sidetrack got sidetracked.

[shuswapsteve]

However "fish farm critics" believe that to ensure good health it's important to get a checkup on a regular basis rather than just once in your lifetime....

Apparently feedlot proponents think since the feedlots released their disease records one time, the public should be satisfied that they are disease free forever?!?

Big mystery....you didn't read the link.  Correction...However "fish farm critics" do not like the facts so they ignore them even when they are shown them.