Print

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

[Novabonker]

The writing is on the wall.....HOORAY! Cooke has one of, if not the worst records in the faux fish business.


https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/state-says-decision-to-terminate-port-angeles-atlantic-salmon-farm-is-final/

[Easywater]

Another dirty fish farm article: https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/01/10/DFO-Deadly-Farmed-Salmon-Disease-Downplay/

Interesting that Morty's lab gets direct donations from the fish farm industry:
$176,000 from three salmon aquaculture companies

No conflict there, right?

Morty and the industry are playing the semantics game.
His definition of a disease diagnosis requires "clinical signs" whereas Millar uses pathology (international standard).
It's like saying there is no cancer until you see signs of cancer, which is usually too late.

As a federal employee, I am ashamed of the behaviour of DFO as outlined in the article.

[shuswapsteve]

Another dirty fish farm article: https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/01/10/DFO-Deadly-Farmed-Salmon-Disease-Downplay/

Interesting that Morty's lab gets direct donations from the fish farm industry:
$176,000 from three salmon aquaculture companies

No conflict there, right?

Morty and the industry are playing the semantics game.
His definition of a disease diagnosis requires "clinical signs" whereas Millar uses pathology (international standard).
It's like saying there is no cancer until you see signs of cancer, which is usually too late.

As a federal employee, I am ashamed of the behaviour of DFO as outlined in the article.

Perhaps you shouid understand what Dr. Marty and Dr. Miller-Saunders both specialize in first before being ashamed.  One is a fish pathologist while the other is a molecular geneticist. The each look at these issues differently. A fish pathologist looks at the tissue level with microscopes while a molecular geneticist looks at the molecular level beyond what the eye can see - the genes, using technologies that are beyond most folks here including myself.

The study Miller was involved in followed one farm for a whole year and looked at live and dead farmed fish at different stages while the Abbotsford lab looked at fresh dead from more than one farm but not throughout the whole growing cycle. The Miller study had a much larger sample size from one farm. Using more novel techniques than traditional methods as well as a larger sample size from one farm over a whole year, Miller was able to find that the pathology was diagnostic of HSMI. Under traditional technology by looking at just fresh dead at a point in time it wasn’t so obvious, especially when most farmed fish were surviving to market size. What this research did theorize was that fish husbandry and the reduction of stress could be influencing the development of HSMI. It’s probably one reason why it wasn’t so obvious because there wasn’t the 20% loss seen elsewhere. It’s especially not very obvious when PRV is ubiquitous in farmed Atlantic salmon, but these fish do not necessarily develop HSMI just because they have PRV. Just because you have a virus doesn’t mean you develop a disease. Hear what Dr. Miller-Saunders says about that in the videos below.

Is the $176K “donations” from aquaculture companies?  According to the article that seems to be your own interpretation, but Damien Gillis provides no clarification what that money was for. For all we know that could have been for diagnositic and testing services because the Animal Health Centre does testing for various clients throughout Canada. But I understand the angle crafted here by fish farm opponents because it makes it appear that the lab and its employees are engaged in corrupt and unethical activities. This ignores the fact that most if not all the employees there are members of professional organizations which can have strict standards on professional conduct - much different from some “independent biologists” or journalists/activists like Damien Gillis who can say whatever they want.

Damien Gillis likes to connect dots but he, like most activists, he selects the ones that make his case. Using the latest Morton and Routledge study as evidence is laughable because the data doesn’t show that PRV may reduce a wild salmon’s ability to undergo a “challenging upriver migration”. They could only hypothesize it, but if you look at the many adult Fraser Sockeye returns for 2012 and especially 2013 they don’t corroborate with major migratory difficulty across the board. They didn’t look at actual Fraser River conditions at the time and what fish they designated as “challenged” is highly questionable. Just because you catch a wild salmon in the ocean doesn’t mean that it’s final destination was where you captured it. Statisticians are not fisheries biologists.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=3557s&v=qfIGzDrTtJA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mm5EPsyEuKU

[wildmanyeah]

I guess almo gets her funding from people that don’T have a vested interest in seing fish farms go.

Iyayyay

[chris gadsden]

In 2015, I was asked to be on a government science steering committee examining Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (or IHNV for short) from salmon farms and its risk to wild salmon.

Of course, I had concerns about being on a government-led committee, especially after the Cohen Inquiry into the Decline of Fraser Sockeye Salmon concluded that DFO may have a pro-salmon farming bias. Despite my reservations, I accepted the role, and the confidentiality of the position.

Now that the steering committee has published their final report, I’m free to tell you about my experiences.

The report concluded that the risk of IHNV from salmon farms was minimal, based on the industry’s virus management practices. Here’s the kicker. The details of the industry’s management practices that substantiate the conclusions were confidential, so we couldn’t review this information. When I asked to see the documents, a DFO scientist denied me access. This is contradictory to what a scientific peer-review should be.

That’s not all. At the peer-review meeting, on three separate occasions, I witnessed scientists who appeared uncomfortable in sharing their views on salmon farming issues and refrained. What kind of scientific peer-review is DFO running? One where secret industry information is used to support pro-industry conclusions? And where scientists don’t feel safe to speak freely and honestly about salmon farms?

After seeing firsthand how DFO produces its science, I have much skepticism about this report’s benign conclusions about IHNV. We don't know whether IHNV from salmon farms is harming wild fish, in part because the information can’t be reviewed.

This will all come to a head soon. DFO is proceeding with more of these flawed science reviews on other pathogens, despite my criticisms in the peer-review sessions and on CFAX radio and in the Times Colonist.

We need precautionary action from our government, not biased science that protects industry secrets. Wild salmon need to be defended from the diseases and parasites of fish farms.

You’ve already signed our Safe Passage petition, calling for the removal of fish farms from wild salmon migration routes, but can you help us get to 10,000 signatures by the end of January by sharing it with friends, family and co-workers?

We’ve heard rumours that DFO may begin consultations for new aquaculture legislation sometime early this year. We need to be ready with loads of engaged citizens, collectively calling for the protection of our wild salmon.

Can you share our Safe Passage petition with 10 friends and ask them to sign? Help us reach 10,000 signatures and together we’ll make big waves in 2018!

In solidarity,
Stan Proboszcz
 

PS. Click here to share the petition on Facebook and Twitter

[chris gadsden]

In 2015, I was asked to be on a government science steering committee examining Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (or IHNV for short) from salmon farms and its risk to wild salmon.

Of course, I had concerns about being on a government-led committee, especially after the Cohen Inquiry into the Decline of Fraser Sockeye Salmon concluded that DFO may have a pro-salmon farming bias. Despite my reservations, I accepted the role, and the confidentiality of the position.

Now that the steering committee has published their final report, I’m free to tell you about my experiences.

The report concluded that the risk of IHNV from salmon farms was minimal, based on the industry’s virus management practices. Here’s the kicker. The details of the industry’s management practices that substantiate the conclusions were confidential, so we couldn’t review this information. When I asked to see the documents, a DFO scientist denied me access. This is contradictory to what a scientific peer-review should be.

That’s not all. At the peer-review meeting, on three separate occasions, I witnessed scientists who appeared uncomfortable in sharing their views on salmon farming issues and refrained. What kind of scientific peer-review is DFO running? One where secret industry information is used to support pro-industry conclusions? And where scientists don’t feel safe to speak freely and honestly about salmon farms?

After seeing firsthand how DFO produces its science, I have much skepticism about this report’s benign conclusions about IHNV. We don't know whether IHNV from salmon farms is harming wild fish, in part because the information can’t be reviewed.

This will all come to a head soon. DFO is proceeding with more of these flawed science reviews on other pathogens, despite my criticisms in the peer-review sessions and on CFAX radio and in the Times Colonist.

We need precautionary action from our government, not biased science that protects industry secrets. Wild salmon need to be defended from the diseases and parasites of fish farms.

You’ve already signed our Safe Passage petition, calling for the removal of fish farms from wild salmon migration routes, but can you help us get to 10,000 signatures by the end of January by sharing it with friends, family and co-workers?

We’ve heard rumours that DFO may begin consultations for new aquaculture legislation sometime early this year. We need to be ready with loads of engaged citizens, collectively calling for the protection of our wild salmon.

Can you share our Safe Passage petition with 10 friends and ask them to sign? Help us reach 10,000 signatures and together we’ll make big waves in 2018!

In solidarity,
Stan Proboszcz
 

PS. Click here to share the petition on Facebook and Twitter

[shuswapsteve]

In 2015, I was asked to be on a government science steering committee examining Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (or IHNV for short) from salmon farms and its risk to wild salmon.

Of course, I had concerns about being on a government-led committee, especially after the Cohen Inquiry into the Decline of Fraser Sockeye Salmon concluded that DFO may have a pro-salmon farming bias. Despite my reservations, I accepted the role, and the confidentiality of the position.

Now that the steering committee has published their final report, I’m free to tell you about my experiences.

The report concluded that the risk of IHNV from salmon farms was minimal, based on the industry’s virus management practices. Here’s the kicker. The details of the industry’s management practices that substantiate the conclusions were confidential, so we couldn’t review this information. When I asked to see the documents, a DFO scientist denied me access. This is contradictory to what a scientific peer-review should be.

That’s not all. At the peer-review meeting, on three separate occasions, I witnessed scientists who appeared uncomfortable in sharing their views on salmon farming issues and refrained. What kind of scientific peer-review is DFO running? One where secret industry information is used to support pro-industry conclusions? And where scientists don’t feel safe to speak freely and honestly about salmon farms?

After seeing firsthand how DFO produces its science, I have much skepticism about this report’s benign conclusions about IHNV. We don't know whether IHNV from salmon farms is harming wild fish, in part because the information can’t be reviewed.

This will all come to a head soon. DFO is proceeding with more of these flawed science reviews on other pathogens, despite my criticisms in the peer-review sessions and on CFAX radio and in the Times Colonist.

We need precautionary action from our government, not biased science that protects industry secrets. Wild salmon need to be defended from the diseases and parasites of fish farms.

You’ve already signed our Safe Passage petition, calling for the removal of fish farms from wild salmon migration routes, but can you help us get to 10,000 signatures by the end of January by sharing it with friends, family and co-workers?

We’ve heard rumours that DFO may begin consultations for new aquaculture legislation sometime early this year. We need to be ready with loads of engaged citizens, collectively calling for the protection of our wild salmon.

Can you share our Safe Passage petition with 10 friends and ask them to sign? Help us reach 10,000 signatures and together we’ll make big waves in 2018!

In solidarity,
Stan Proboszcz
 

PS. Click here to share the petition on Facebook and Twitter

Well Mr. Proboszcz says he’s all about peer-reviewed science but fails to include all relevant information like the following...just for starters:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2017/2017_048-eng.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2017/2017_072-eng.pdf

No big secrets. No big conspiracies. If you actually read the Health management plan document it says that the each company considers its standard operating procedures proprietary which could mean many things and not necessarily that they are keeping secrets because if you take time to read the document you will see that companies require a Salmonid Health Management Plan along with SOPs and are subjected to regular audits by DFO. The plans have required elements that each company must address in their plans. This doesn’t include the 3rd party certification that the companies are engaged in which are in addition to the required regulations - something Mr. Proboszcz doesn’t mention. Come to think of it Mr. Proboszcz fails to mention a lot of things. Strange considering he was invited to this government-led committee.

He doesn’t mention that the review covered much more than industry management practices. He also didn’t mention that all the companies here voluntarily vaccinate for pathogens like IHNv despite not being a requirement. As someone so dedicated to objective science, I’m surprised that Mr. Proboszcz didn’t take the opportunity to talk about these other very relevant aspects to the review, such as: oceanographic and environmental conditions; characterization of IHNV; the biology of Fraser Sockeye; and IHNv transfer risk assessment. Instead, he could help but put on the activist hat and slam the process and the department. He’s now free it seems to push for petitions to further his society’s agenda rather than a greater understanding of ALL aspects to this. He’s all for transparency apparently and loves to point fingers at the government and industry for not, but figures folks that sign the petition don’t need to know all the details.

Lastly, his observations of scientists being uncomfortable are purely his own opinion which can have his own biases considering who pays his salary and their objectives, so the bias game goes both ways.

[Novabonker]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/colwell-aquaculture-aquaculture-fish-farming-cooke-minister-colwell-1.4494969

[Fisherbob]

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf

[Fisherbob]

https://seawestnews.com/should-we-be-able-to-see-what-is-being-caught-in-our-oceans/

[Fisherbob]

https://seawestnews.com/first-nations-author-warns-of-paid-puppets-and-props-used-to-plug-resource-projects-in-canada/

[Novabonker]

Cooke - AGAIN!


https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/state-investigators-focus-on-nets-plugged-with-mussels-in-atlantic-salmon-net-pen-failure/

[chris gadsden]

https://www.facebook.com/alexandra.morton.1671/videos/2143994512495765/

[Morty]

Interesting that Morty's lab gets direct donations from the fish farm industry:
$176,000 from three salmon aquaculture companies
.......

Morty and the industry are playing the semantics game.
His definition of a disease diagnosis requires "clinical signs" whereas Millar uses pathology (international standard).
It's like saying there is no cancer until you see signs of cancer, which is usually too late.

As a federal employee, I am ashamed of the behaviour of DFO as outlined in the article.

Hey EASYWATER,
I don't appreciate being implicated in accusations on this issue !!!
   - I have not diagnosed any disease, nor have I commented on this thread for a long time.
As a "federal employee" I expect that you would take a lot more care in writing your replies.

[chris gadsden]

https://www.northislandgazette.com/news/kwakiutl-first-nation-host-fish-farm-dialogue/