So, I ain't holding my breath, but it is nice to hear the Pacific Salmon Foundation come out so quick in support: (The 'headline' news is the CBC innocent reporting noted at the bottom of this post.)
|
Showing posts with label Stan Proboszcz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stan Proboszcz. Show all posts
Friday, 7 June 2019
DFO Will/Won't Test for PRV
After I picked myself off the floor at DFO's announcing it would test for PRV in farmed fish yesterday, after refusing to test for it, even after losing twice in court on the issue, and then coming back to the well to have the final final final date put off into October, 2019, I don't really believe DFO, but am hoping this isn't just another ruse designed to keep fish farms in the water and kill off salmon, and killer whales along with them, forever, just like east coast cod.
So, I ain't holding my breath, but it is nice to hear the Pacific Salmon Foundation come out so quick in support: (The 'headline' news is the CBC innocent reporting noted at the bottom of this post.)
So, I ain't holding my breath, but it is nice to hear the Pacific Salmon Foundation come out so quick in support: (The 'headline' news is the CBC innocent reporting noted at the bottom of this post.)
Thursday, 3 May 2018
Conflict of Interest - Will DFO Ever Stand By Wild Salmon?
Go read this article by Stan Proboszcz of Watershed Watch: https://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/12/government-should-stop-pretending-there-s-scientific-debate-about-salmon-farming.
The point he is making is that government and fish farms are on one side arguing that fish farms are wonderful, while NGOS and academia are on the other saying that ain't so. Here are two issues: DFO should not be on the side of fish farms; this is a conflict of interest, and sides against wild salmon. Secondly, this creates a false controversy, as though there is legitimate debate on the issues, just like Big Tobacco did. Sea lice for example.
The main issue is: "Does Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFOs) science advisory process have integrity when tasked with answering questions on salmon farming? If there is any hope of changing the trajectory of many iconic but endangered wild salmon stocks, there must be a resolution to political and industrial interference that continues to influence fisheries science advice at the federal level."
You will recall that Stan P was on the science committee that 'found' wild sockeye salmon can not catch IHN from IHN vaccinated farmed salmon, but, and it's a big but, DFO would not let them - its own committee - see the research from the fish farms to make this conclusion. See: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2018/01/sockeye-cant-catch-fish-farm-viruses.html.
One of the fish farm spin techniques, is to move into a new area and start at square 1 in the battle to stay in the water. BC fish farms say there is no lice science to prove there is a problem here. Meanwhile Marine Harvest in Norway says lice are the worst problem for fish farms, and in fact CEO Aarskog says he has 90 studies on sea lice on the go: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/05/marine-harvest-lice-are-our-worst.html.
But in BC, his own employees are arguing that fish farms don't cause a lice problem. This is contradictory, but happens in every area that fish farms move into. Here is how such an argument works. The people say, the Earth rotates around the sun. Fish farm lawyers say: what gives you that idea? You say: Galileo proved that centuries ago. The fish farm lawyers say: was Galileo from BC? You say: Well, no. Fish farm lawyers answer: So, it is not proven that the Earth travels around the sun in BC. I was married to a lawyer, so I understand your squirming at such a vice grip of logic.
Here is a link to 30 lice studies in BC: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/02/lice-numbers-dont-match-up-in-bc-and.html. The post includes just 2 from Marine Harvest. And DFO's numbers from 2015 show that Quatsino farmed salmon had 300 - to 800-% more lice over the limit of 3 lice per fish.
Here is a link to 800 lice studies in the world: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24042912_The_global_economic_cost_of_sea_lice_to_the_salmonid_farming_industry. "Despite
Stan comments: "It is well established that manufacturing a scientific debate on the impacts of smoking and climate change benefits tobacco and petroleum companies. Some believe the salmon-farming debate is not very different."
The phrase 'precautionary principle' is no doubt on your lips. The Cohen Commission told the government to take the promotion from DFO and for it to get on with the Wild Salmon Policy. In addition, it told DFO to favour caution and get fish farms out of the Discovery Islands by 2020 if it cannot prove there is no problem.
"An expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada reached a similar conclusion." meaning conflict of interest.
Stan cites three examples about disease in BC:
"Within the context of SCAMs, we can compare three conclusions from DFO’s 2015 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat report on PRV with more recent published conclusions from academics, NGO scientists and Kristi Miller’s lab.
Hmm. I should add that PRV came from Norway, where it was shown to cause HSMI. Why is DFO against wild salmon? Good question.
But there is more: " The 2015 DFO report ends with unsubstantiated platitudes about B.C.’s “robust” disease surveillance program that purportedly minimizes the threat of diseases spreading from farms to wild fish. It appears DFO’s premier peer-review science advisory process, CSAS, produced premature conclusions that coincidently aligned with industry conclusions, but that are now in question."
This is important because DFO and fish farms commonly use in the press that they operate under the strictest laws in the world. Fish farms say this every year in many countries, clearly this is not possible because no two countries have the same laws. In Canada, no two provinces do things the same.
CSAS is the federal committee charged with overseeing science: "The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, established in the early 2000s, is headquartered in DFO and coordinates science review processes throughout the country with the goal of providing high-quality scientific advice to the minister of fisheries and oceans, managers and other interested parties."
Stan makes some pungent suggestions:
1. Separate CSAS from DFO. DFO scientists don't feel comfortable, their jobs being on the line if they go against the party line. And there is that MOU among fish farms that CSAS used to show there was no disease, something that is fallacious.
2. Make potential conflict of interest disclosure explicit and mandatory. Good idea, but who has any confidence in the government, that backs fish farms, actually eliminating its conflict. Of course, this means against wild salmon and the residents of BC. OH, and CSAS has no conflict rules.
You may have heard about the government putting together a 'stellar' group of scientists regarding fish farm issues.The problem is that CSAS has a conflict of interest problem. In other words, DFO's being against wild Pacific salmon, and managing them into extinction just goes on and on.
Take a look at this image from the 60s and ask yourself if you think DFO has done a good job of maintaining salmon runs. This is from the Nahmint River, taken on Mouse Beach, from a morning's fishing.
I leave the end to Stan: "In February 2018, it was announced that Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan has asked Canada’s chief science adviser, Mona Nemer, to lead an independent expert panel on the appropriate use of scientific evidence in decision-making around protecting the marine environment, as it relates to salmon farming. More recently it was revealed that the “independent” panel will be substantially supported by DFO staff." HMM, those conflicted staff? Why, yes, why would you expect anything different? Now look at the morning's catch photo once again.
Will DFO Ever Stand By Wild Salmon?
***
Even more finally, if you want to read graphic, actual accounts of DFO conflict of interest with fish farms and allowing sewage, lice, disease, rotting fish dumped in the ocean, endless reorganization, damaged habitat, read the Otto Langer chapter in A Stain Upon The Sea. He was a DFO scientist and so has inside knowledge that cannot be come by unless the insider reveals what he knows. This includes the 1990s and 2000s. See: https://www.amazon.ca/Stain-Upon-Sea-Salmon-Farming/dp/1550173170.
The point he is making is that government and fish farms are on one side arguing that fish farms are wonderful, while NGOS and academia are on the other saying that ain't so. Here are two issues: DFO should not be on the side of fish farms; this is a conflict of interest, and sides against wild salmon. Secondly, this creates a false controversy, as though there is legitimate debate on the issues, just like Big Tobacco did. Sea lice for example.
The main issue is: "Does Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFOs) science advisory process have integrity when tasked with answering questions on salmon farming? If there is any hope of changing the trajectory of many iconic but endangered wild salmon stocks, there must be a resolution to political and industrial interference that continues to influence fisheries science advice at the federal level."
You will recall that Stan P was on the science committee that 'found' wild sockeye salmon can not catch IHN from IHN vaccinated farmed salmon, but, and it's a big but, DFO would not let them - its own committee - see the research from the fish farms to make this conclusion. See: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2018/01/sockeye-cant-catch-fish-farm-viruses.html.
One of the fish farm spin techniques, is to move into a new area and start at square 1 in the battle to stay in the water. BC fish farms say there is no lice science to prove there is a problem here. Meanwhile Marine Harvest in Norway says lice are the worst problem for fish farms, and in fact CEO Aarskog says he has 90 studies on sea lice on the go: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/05/marine-harvest-lice-are-our-worst.html.
But in BC, his own employees are arguing that fish farms don't cause a lice problem. This is contradictory, but happens in every area that fish farms move into. Here is how such an argument works. The people say, the Earth rotates around the sun. Fish farm lawyers say: what gives you that idea? You say: Galileo proved that centuries ago. The fish farm lawyers say: was Galileo from BC? You say: Well, no. Fish farm lawyers answer: So, it is not proven that the Earth travels around the sun in BC. I was married to a lawyer, so I understand your squirming at such a vice grip of logic.
Here is a link to 30 lice studies in BC: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/02/lice-numbers-dont-match-up-in-bc-and.html. The post includes just 2 from Marine Harvest. And DFO's numbers from 2015 show that Quatsino farmed salmon had 300 - to 800-% more lice over the limit of 3 lice per fish.
Here is a link to 800 lice studies in the world: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24042912_The_global_economic_cost_of_sea_lice_to_the_salmonid_farming_industry. "Despite
major research efforts over 30 years, as evident from over 800 research publications, they [lice] remain apersistent problem."
Stan comments: "It is well established that manufacturing a scientific debate on the impacts of smoking and climate change benefits tobacco and petroleum companies. Some believe the salmon-farming debate is not very different."
The phrase 'precautionary principle' is no doubt on your lips. The Cohen Commission told the government to take the promotion from DFO and for it to get on with the Wild Salmon Policy. In addition, it told DFO to favour caution and get fish farms out of the Discovery Islands by 2020 if it cannot prove there is no problem.
"An expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada reached a similar conclusion." meaning conflict of interest.
Stan cites three examples about disease in BC:
"Within the context of SCAMs, we can compare three conclusions from DFO’s 2015 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat report on PRV with more recent published conclusions from academics, NGO scientists and Kristi Miller’s lab.
- 2015 DFO conclusion 1: “There is no evidence from laboratory studies in British Columbia and Washington State that PRV infection is associated with any disease state, including HSMI [heart and skeletal muscle inflammation]”
- 2017 Wessel et al.: PRV can cause heart and skeletal muscle inflammation
- 2015 DFO conclusion 2: “HSMI has not been reported on B.C. salmon farms”
- 2017 Kristy Miller’s lab: HSMI was reported on B.C. salmon farms in 2017
- 2015 DFO conclusion 3: The information suggests “a low likelihood that the presence of this virus in any life stage of farmed Atlantic and Pacific Salmon would have a significant impact on wild Pacific Salmon populations.”
- 2017 Morton et al.: Salmon farms may spread PRV to wild salmon and impede their ability to migrate upstream and spawn."
Hmm. I should add that PRV came from Norway, where it was shown to cause HSMI. Why is DFO against wild salmon? Good question.
But there is more: " The 2015 DFO report ends with unsubstantiated platitudes about B.C.’s “robust” disease surveillance program that purportedly minimizes the threat of diseases spreading from farms to wild fish. It appears DFO’s premier peer-review science advisory process, CSAS, produced premature conclusions that coincidently aligned with industry conclusions, but that are now in question."
This is important because DFO and fish farms commonly use in the press that they operate under the strictest laws in the world. Fish farms say this every year in many countries, clearly this is not possible because no two countries have the same laws. In Canada, no two provinces do things the same.
CSAS is the federal committee charged with overseeing science: "The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, established in the early 2000s, is headquartered in DFO and coordinates science review processes throughout the country with the goal of providing high-quality scientific advice to the minister of fisheries and oceans, managers and other interested parties."
Stan makes some pungent suggestions:
1. Separate CSAS from DFO. DFO scientists don't feel comfortable, their jobs being on the line if they go against the party line. And there is that MOU among fish farms that CSAS used to show there was no disease, something that is fallacious.
2. Make potential conflict of interest disclosure explicit and mandatory. Good idea, but who has any confidence in the government, that backs fish farms, actually eliminating its conflict. Of course, this means against wild salmon and the residents of BC. OH, and CSAS has no conflict rules.
You may have heard about the government putting together a 'stellar' group of scientists regarding fish farm issues.The problem is that CSAS has a conflict of interest problem. In other words, DFO's being against wild Pacific salmon, and managing them into extinction just goes on and on.
Take a look at this image from the 60s and ask yourself if you think DFO has done a good job of maintaining salmon runs. This is from the Nahmint River, taken on Mouse Beach, from a morning's fishing.
I leave the end to Stan: "In February 2018, it was announced that Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan has asked Canada’s chief science adviser, Mona Nemer, to lead an independent expert panel on the appropriate use of scientific evidence in decision-making around protecting the marine environment, as it relates to salmon farming. More recently it was revealed that the “independent” panel will be substantially supported by DFO staff." HMM, those conflicted staff? Why, yes, why would you expect anything different? Now look at the morning's catch photo once again.
Will DFO Ever Stand By Wild Salmon?
***
Even more finally, if you want to read graphic, actual accounts of DFO conflict of interest with fish farms and allowing sewage, lice, disease, rotting fish dumped in the ocean, endless reorganization, damaged habitat, read the Otto Langer chapter in A Stain Upon The Sea. He was a DFO scientist and so has inside knowledge that cannot be come by unless the insider reveals what he knows. This includes the 1990s and 2000s. See: https://www.amazon.ca/Stain-Upon-Sea-Salmon-Farming/dp/1550173170.
Thursday, 12 April 2018
DFO Conflict of Interest and SCAMS
The article by Stan Proboszcz of Watershed Watch about conflict of interest in DFO's science processes regarding fish farms should be standard reading for anyone with an interest in putting fish farms on land, raising a herbivore.
See: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2018/integrity-of-the-dfos-science-advisory-process-in-question/.
The question is: "Does Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFOs) science advisory process have integrity when tasked with answering questions on salmon farming? If there is any hope of changing the trajectory of many iconic but endangered wild salmon stocks, there must be a resolution to political and industrial interference that continues to influence fisheries science advice at the federal level."
Stan goes on at length detailing problems with DFO. What is really needed is to take DFO out of the situation entirely, but this seems an unlikely outcome, even though it is needed to end the conflict of interest, and political science from this taxpayer funded group on the side of global multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations.
And it is independent scientists and citizens on one side and DFO/fish farms on the other side. It should not be this way:
"Since 2001, a scientific debate has been active in British Columbia around parasitic salmon lice from open-net salmon farms and their impacts on wild fish. Two “camps” of scientific opinion have been obvious. On one side, academics and NGO scientists have published articles in peer-reviewed journals detailing the negative effects parasites from salmon farms can have on migrating wild salmon. On the other, government and industry-supported scientists have published papers that cast doubt on these conclusions, thereby fuelling the debate and encouraging the continued operation of salmon farms on wild fish migration routes."
It just shouldn't be this way. Trudeau et al are in deep trouble in BC over Kinder Morgan, and also fish farms, but being from Ottawa where there are no fish farms, it is easy ignore the problems. My suggestion is putting a fish farms in the Rideau Canal and below the Parliament buildings in the Ottawa River. In no time flat, the smell would make DFO and everyone else hate fish farms as much as citizens who have to live with them.
" The DFO is the regulator of the salmon-farming industry, but it also promotes the industry and their products. These dual roles were identified by the 2012 federal Cohen Commission on the decline of BC salmon stocks as a potential conflict of interest that may impede DFO’s ability to protect wild fish stocks. Justice Cohen recommended that the federal government remove industry promotion from DFO. An expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada reached a similar conclusion — that DFO’s conservation of biodiversity may be impeded by its relationship with industry. More recently, DFO scientist Kristi Miller broke ranks and testified to a parliamentary committee, raising concern the agency’s science may be influenced by the industry. Despite this, and a commitment by the prime minister to implement all of Justice Cohen’s recommendations, no known action has been taken to remove the salmon-farming promotional mandate from DFO."
Stan goes on: "DFO’s scientific stance seems to diminish the relevance of a particularly worrisome virus — piscine reovirus (known as PRV) — as a risk to wild salmon. As in the salmon lice debate, DFO appears to favour Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs). Environmental sociologist William Freudenburg, who coined the term SCAMs and studied their use in the climate change debate, wrote:
See: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2018/integrity-of-the-dfos-science-advisory-process-in-question/.
The question is: "Does Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFOs) science advisory process have integrity when tasked with answering questions on salmon farming? If there is any hope of changing the trajectory of many iconic but endangered wild salmon stocks, there must be a resolution to political and industrial interference that continues to influence fisheries science advice at the federal level."
Stan goes on at length detailing problems with DFO. What is really needed is to take DFO out of the situation entirely, but this seems an unlikely outcome, even though it is needed to end the conflict of interest, and political science from this taxpayer funded group on the side of global multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations.
And it is independent scientists and citizens on one side and DFO/fish farms on the other side. It should not be this way:
"Since 2001, a scientific debate has been active in British Columbia around parasitic salmon lice from open-net salmon farms and their impacts on wild fish. Two “camps” of scientific opinion have been obvious. On one side, academics and NGO scientists have published articles in peer-reviewed journals detailing the negative effects parasites from salmon farms can have on migrating wild salmon. On the other, government and industry-supported scientists have published papers that cast doubt on these conclusions, thereby fuelling the debate and encouraging the continued operation of salmon farms on wild fish migration routes."
It just shouldn't be this way. Trudeau et al are in deep trouble in BC over Kinder Morgan, and also fish farms, but being from Ottawa where there are no fish farms, it is easy ignore the problems. My suggestion is putting a fish farms in the Rideau Canal and below the Parliament buildings in the Ottawa River. In no time flat, the smell would make DFO and everyone else hate fish farms as much as citizens who have to live with them.
" The DFO is the regulator of the salmon-farming industry, but it also promotes the industry and their products. These dual roles were identified by the 2012 federal Cohen Commission on the decline of BC salmon stocks as a potential conflict of interest that may impede DFO’s ability to protect wild fish stocks. Justice Cohen recommended that the federal government remove industry promotion from DFO. An expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada reached a similar conclusion — that DFO’s conservation of biodiversity may be impeded by its relationship with industry. More recently, DFO scientist Kristi Miller broke ranks and testified to a parliamentary committee, raising concern the agency’s science may be influenced by the industry. Despite this, and a commitment by the prime minister to implement all of Justice Cohen’s recommendations, no known action has been taken to remove the salmon-farming promotional mandate from DFO."
Stan goes on: "DFO’s scientific stance seems to diminish the relevance of a particularly worrisome virus — piscine reovirus (known as PRV) — as a risk to wild salmon. As in the salmon lice debate, DFO appears to favour Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs). Environmental sociologist William Freudenburg, who coined the term SCAMs and studied their use in the climate change debate, wrote:
Given that most scientific findings are
inherently probabilistic and ambiguous, if agencies can be prevented
from imposing any regulations until they are unambiguously “justified,”
most regulations can be defeated or postponed, often for decades,
allowing profitable but potentially risky activities to continue
unabated."
This sounds a lot like what happens in fish farms around the world. After all, in BC, the PR people are Hill and Knowlton, the very company that big tobacco hired to tell them they did not know cigarettes caused cancer for decades after everone else in the world knew.
"Within the context of SCAMs, we can compare three conclusions from DFO’s 2015 CSAS report on PRV with more recent published conclusions from academics, NGO scientists and Kristi Miller’s lab.This sounds a lot like what happens in fish farms around the world. After all, in BC, the PR people are Hill and Knowlton, the very company that big tobacco hired to tell them they did not know cigarettes caused cancer for decades after everone else in the world knew.
- 2015 DFO conclusion 1: “There is no evidence from
laboratory studies in British Columbia and Washington State that PRV
infection is associated with any disease state, including HSMI [heart
and skeletal muscle inflammation]”
Wessel et al. 2017: PRV can cause heart and skeletal muscle inflammation - 2015 DFO conclusion 2: “HSMI has not been reported on BC salmon farms”
Kristy Miller’s lab 2017: HSMI was reported on BC salmon farms in 2017 - 2015 DFO conclusion 3: The information suggests “a
low likelihood that the presence of this virus in any life stage of
farmed Atlantic and Pacific Salmon would have a significant impact on
wild Pacific Salmon populations.”
Morton et al. 2017 Salmon farms may spread PRV to wild salmon and impede their ability to migrate upstream and spawn."
Saturday, 13 January 2018
Sockeye Can't Catch Fish Farm Viruses? - Well, NO
DFO has been spreading untrue info, or at least, the press has
reported DFO spreading untrue information. What has been said is that
sockeye can't catch fish farm viruses. So, no problem right? Well, no.
the real story is that DFO has come out with text that says sockeye
can't catch IHN from farmed salmon that have been vaccinated against IHN. That is quite a different thing.
Fish are not vaccinated as we are with a shot to the arm, er, fin of every human/fish. It can be injected, which is costly, as it is for IHN, but the vaccine can be put in their feed, or an immersion bath and that is a far cry from vaccination as we do it in humans. And all that DFO can mean is that a vaccinated fish can't get the disease. But what it doesn't add is the obvious thing that makes the intention of this announcement simply for its spin value: the fish can pass the same virus on to other fish even when it doesn't get sick itself.
Furthermore, there are several dozen fish farm viruses, bacteria, parasites, lice, etc. that wild fish can catch from fish farm fish, so the story should not have been released and made to sound like the problem with fish farms is all over. The announcement should not have been made and should not have been reported on.
An example is the Jan 10, 2018 article in the TC newspaper, which is a follow up piece to the original news that made the rounds a week earlier. The article is: Scientist pans fish disease review, by Amy Smart. It's enough to make someone cynical. Listen up:
Stan Proboszcz, science adviser for Watershed Watch says the process lacked transparency, and scientists were not allowed to read a fish farm company fish management report that DFO used to make this announcement.
"That's contradictory to the peer review process," he said and is a complete lack of transparency. And, you should know that Stan was on the DFO steering committee that gives scientific advice to DFO; however, if you can believe it, were not given the report to read, only a summary of the agreement, that companies would allow their fish to be tested. That is quite a different thing from the actual research document. The agreement is not about science, only giving permission to use fish.
Yes, DFO puffed up its chest and said it is only one 'robust' investigation underway (of 10, or so it says) to prove that fish farm diseases are harmless to wild salmon. Is it just me that thinks they have this backward? Doesn't it just continue what Cohen told them not to do, and make sure to take out fish farm cheer leading from DFO entirely, as it is incompatible with its primary role under the Wild Salmon Policy?
Calling it robust is silly. That is spin. It's obvious that vaccinating someone's fish would mean most shouldn't get disease and the farm would not be leaking 56 billion viral particles per hour, but noting that the fish were vaccinated is a million miles away from doing robust science.
What about all the research, by DFO, for instance, that Fraser sockeye are dying from pre-spawn mortality, have PRV, and that DFO scientist Kristi Miller showed that PRV causes HSMI, something that fish farms, BCMAL, the testing system, and DFO continue to deny? That's the real story here, that DFO is in a conflict of interest.
Smart's article notes one of the typical non-transparencies in fish farm issues - one should always assume that where a fish farm says it is transparent, that you should add the 'non' in front of the word. The Cohen requirement for the disease tables in his Commission is an example: he asked for disease tables, fish farms sent in lawyers (standard practice) to argue he should not get them, he required them anyway, and fish farms trumpeted how transparent they were, then Cohen required individual disease sheets, not simply summary documents and they sent in the lawyers again, saying he did not have authority to require them. He required them anyway and that led off the explosive third disease section of the proceedings.
During that session the best scientists, Miller, Nylund and Kibenge, noted how bad the DFO and CFIA labs were, including the Winnipeg, Gagne lab. And poor Kim Klottins from the CFIA got cornered into saying it didn't want to find disease because that would affect the exportability of the fish, to the USA for instance. Another riveting moment was when Miller said that fish farms could be 'the smoking gun'. The look on her face when she realized what she had just said was worth the price tag of the $36 Million commission.
Now, back to the current story. So, what did DFO say about releasing the report supporting the agreement? It said: 'because it's considered a confidential business document, government staff are prohibited from releasing it.' Is it just me who notes this is non- and even un-transparent? It's the old 'proprietary' information spin that is used all around the world to avoid being transparent.
So, even the DFO committee could not look at the DFO report. Hmm. And you can only get on this committee if you are invited by DFO to be on it. Hmm. And the neat DFO quote on the non-transparency is: "A key element of our science peer review is [wait for it] transparency. DFO provides all science advice and supporting document from its peer reviews on its website." Hmm.
So, what this means is DFO won't give the 'robust' research to their own committee, but DFO is transparent because the 'consensus' document that comes out of that committee that can't look at the 'robust' science is on its website. Hmm.
Oh, and DFO went on to say that Proboszcz could request the original 'robust' material directly from the companies that signed it. Is that hilarious or what? Too bad we don't have Cohen to 'require' the material and so the companies, Marine Harvest, Cermaq, and Grieg Seafood can decline to send it forward. Hmm.
*
One more thing, Living Oceans has done a news release on this issue, too: https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Federal_Science_Mired-media_release-Jan8_2018.pdf.
*
One more thing: here is the letter from Stan P. from Watershed Watch after the TC article, saying he can now speak freely In other words, DFO is still in a big conflict of interest with fish farms. Please sign the petition. Stan is not pleased:
Fish are not vaccinated as we are with a shot to the arm, er, fin of every human/fish. It can be injected, which is costly, as it is for IHN, but the vaccine can be put in their feed, or an immersion bath and that is a far cry from vaccination as we do it in humans. And all that DFO can mean is that a vaccinated fish can't get the disease. But what it doesn't add is the obvious thing that makes the intention of this announcement simply for its spin value: the fish can pass the same virus on to other fish even when it doesn't get sick itself.
Furthermore, there are several dozen fish farm viruses, bacteria, parasites, lice, etc. that wild fish can catch from fish farm fish, so the story should not have been released and made to sound like the problem with fish farms is all over. The announcement should not have been made and should not have been reported on.
An example is the Jan 10, 2018 article in the TC newspaper, which is a follow up piece to the original news that made the rounds a week earlier. The article is: Scientist pans fish disease review, by Amy Smart. It's enough to make someone cynical. Listen up:
Stan Proboszcz, science adviser for Watershed Watch says the process lacked transparency, and scientists were not allowed to read a fish farm company fish management report that DFO used to make this announcement.
"That's contradictory to the peer review process," he said and is a complete lack of transparency. And, you should know that Stan was on the DFO steering committee that gives scientific advice to DFO; however, if you can believe it, were not given the report to read, only a summary of the agreement, that companies would allow their fish to be tested. That is quite a different thing from the actual research document. The agreement is not about science, only giving permission to use fish.
Yes, DFO puffed up its chest and said it is only one 'robust' investigation underway (of 10, or so it says) to prove that fish farm diseases are harmless to wild salmon. Is it just me that thinks they have this backward? Doesn't it just continue what Cohen told them not to do, and make sure to take out fish farm cheer leading from DFO entirely, as it is incompatible with its primary role under the Wild Salmon Policy?
Calling it robust is silly. That is spin. It's obvious that vaccinating someone's fish would mean most shouldn't get disease and the farm would not be leaking 56 billion viral particles per hour, but noting that the fish were vaccinated is a million miles away from doing robust science.
What about all the research, by DFO, for instance, that Fraser sockeye are dying from pre-spawn mortality, have PRV, and that DFO scientist Kristi Miller showed that PRV causes HSMI, something that fish farms, BCMAL, the testing system, and DFO continue to deny? That's the real story here, that DFO is in a conflict of interest.
Smart's article notes one of the typical non-transparencies in fish farm issues - one should always assume that where a fish farm says it is transparent, that you should add the 'non' in front of the word. The Cohen requirement for the disease tables in his Commission is an example: he asked for disease tables, fish farms sent in lawyers (standard practice) to argue he should not get them, he required them anyway, and fish farms trumpeted how transparent they were, then Cohen required individual disease sheets, not simply summary documents and they sent in the lawyers again, saying he did not have authority to require them. He required them anyway and that led off the explosive third disease section of the proceedings.
During that session the best scientists, Miller, Nylund and Kibenge, noted how bad the DFO and CFIA labs were, including the Winnipeg, Gagne lab. And poor Kim Klottins from the CFIA got cornered into saying it didn't want to find disease because that would affect the exportability of the fish, to the USA for instance. Another riveting moment was when Miller said that fish farms could be 'the smoking gun'. The look on her face when she realized what she had just said was worth the price tag of the $36 Million commission.
Now, back to the current story. So, what did DFO say about releasing the report supporting the agreement? It said: 'because it's considered a confidential business document, government staff are prohibited from releasing it.' Is it just me who notes this is non- and even un-transparent? It's the old 'proprietary' information spin that is used all around the world to avoid being transparent.
So, even the DFO committee could not look at the DFO report. Hmm. And you can only get on this committee if you are invited by DFO to be on it. Hmm. And the neat DFO quote on the non-transparency is: "A key element of our science peer review is [wait for it] transparency. DFO provides all science advice and supporting document from its peer reviews on its website." Hmm.
So, what this means is DFO won't give the 'robust' research to their own committee, but DFO is transparent because the 'consensus' document that comes out of that committee that can't look at the 'robust' science is on its website. Hmm.
Oh, and DFO went on to say that Proboszcz could request the original 'robust' material directly from the companies that signed it. Is that hilarious or what? Too bad we don't have Cohen to 'require' the material and so the companies, Marine Harvest, Cermaq, and Grieg Seafood can decline to send it forward. Hmm.
*
One more thing, Living Oceans has done a news release on this issue, too: https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Federal_Science_Mired-media_release-Jan8_2018.pdf.
*
One more thing: here is the letter from Stan P. from Watershed Watch after the TC article, saying he can now speak freely In other words, DFO is still in a big conflict of interest with fish farms. Please sign the petition. Stan is not pleased:
|
Wednesday, 10 January 2018
Sockeye Can't Catch Fish Farm Viruses? - Well, NO
DFO has been spreading untrue info, or at least, the press has reported DFO spreading untrue information. What has been said is that sockeye can't catch fish farm viruses. So, no problem right? Well, no. the real story is that DFO has come out with text that says sockeye can't catch IHN from farmed salmon that have been vaccinated against IHN. That is quite a different thing.
Fish are not vaccinated as we are with a shot to the arm, er, fin of every human/fish. It can be injected, which is costly, as it is for IHN, but the vaccine can be put in their feed, or an immersion bath and that is a far cry from vaccination as we do it in humans. And all that DFO can mean is that a vaccinated fish can't get the disease. But what it doesn't add is the obvious thing that makes the intention of this announcement simply for its spin value: the fish can pass the same virus on to other fish even when it doesn't get sick itself.
Furthermore, there are several dozen fish farm viruses, bacteria, parasites, lice, etc. that wild fish can catch from fish farm fish, so the story should not have been released and made to sound like the problem with fish farms is all over. The announcement should not have been made and should not have been reported on.
An example is the Jan 10, 2018 article in the TC newspaper, which is a follow up piece to the original news that made the rounds a week earlier. The article is: Scientist pans fish disease review, by Amy Smart. It's enough to make someone cynical. Listen up:
Stan Proboszcz, science adviser for Watershed Watch says the process lacked transparency, and scientists were not allowed to read a fish farm company fish management report that DFO used to make this announcement.
"That's contradictory to the peer review process," he said and is a complete lack of transparency. And, you should know that Stan was on the DFO steering committee that gives scientific advice to DFO; however, if you can believe it, were not given the report to read, only a summary of the agreement, that companies would allow their fish to be tested. That is quite a different thing from the actual research document. The agreement is not about science, only giving permission to use fish.
Yes, DFO puffed up its chest and said it is only one 'robust' investigation underway (of 10, or so it says) to prove that fish farm diseases are harmless to wild salmon. Is it just me that thinks they have this backward? Doesn't it just continue what Cohen told them not to do, and make sure to take out fish farm cheer leading from DFO entirely, as it is incompatible with its primary role under the Wild Salmon Policy?
Calling it robust is silly. That is spin. It's obvious that vaccinating someone's fish would mean most shouldn't get disease and the farm would not be leaking 56 billion viral particles per hour, but noting that the fish were vaccinated is a million miles away from doing robust science.
What about all the research, by DFO, for instance, that Fraser sockeye are dying from pre-spawn mortality, have PRV, and that DFO scientist Kristi Miller showed that PRV causes HSMI, something that fish farms, BCMAL, the testing system, and DFO continue to deny? That's the real story here, that DFO is in a conflict of interest.
Smart's article notes one of the typical non-transparencies in fish farm issues - one should always assume that where a fish farm says it is transparent, that you should add the 'non' in front of the word. The Cohen requirement for the disease tables in his Commission is an example: he asked for disease tables, fish farms sent in lawyers (standard practice) to argue he should not get them, he required them anyway, and fish farms trumpeted how transparent they were, then Cohen required individual disease sheets, not simply summary documents and they sent in the lawyers again, saying he did not have authority to require them. He required them anyway and that led off the explosive third disease section of the proceedings.
During that session the best scientists, Miller, Nylund and Kibenge, noted how bad the DFO and CFIA labs were, including the Winnipeg, Gagne lab. And poor Kim Klottins from the CFIA got cornered into saying it didn't want to find disease because that would affect the exportability of the fish, to the USA for instance. Another riveting moment was when Miller said that fish farms could be 'the smoking gun'. The look on her face when she realized what she had just said was worth the price tag of the $36 Million commission.
Now, back to the current story. So, what did DFO say about releasing the report supporting the agreement? It said: 'because it's considered a confidential business document, government staff are prohibited from releasing it.' Is it just me who notes this is non- and even un-transparent? It's the old 'proprietary' information spin that is used all around the world to avoid being transparent.
So, even the DFO committee could not look at the DFO report. Hmm. And you can only get on this committee if you are invited by DFO to be on it. Hmm. And the neat DFO quote on the non-transparency is: "A key element of our science peer review is [wait for it] transparency. DFO provides all science advice and supporting document from its peer reviews on its website." Hmm.
So, what this means is DFO won't give the 'robust' research to their own committee, but DFO is transparent because the 'consensus' document that comes out of that committee that can't look at the 'robust' science is on its website. Hmm.
Oh, and DFO went on to say that Proboszcz could request the original 'robust' material directly from the companies that signed it. Is that hilarious or what? Too bad we don't have Cohen to 'require' the material and so the companies, Marine Harvest, Cermaq, and Grieg Seafood can decline to send it forward. Hmm.
*
One more thing, Living Oceans has done a news release on this issue, too: https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Federal_Science_Mired-media_release-Jan8_2018.pdf.
*
One more thing: here is the letter from Stan P. from Watershed Watch after the TC article, saying he can now speak freely In other words, DFO is still in a big conflict of interest with fish farms. Please sign the petition. Stan is not pleased. Please note that DFO should be considered the enemy of Wild Pacific salmon in BC. I am reluctant to say that but it is true.
Fish are not vaccinated as we are with a shot to the arm, er, fin of every human/fish. It can be injected, which is costly, as it is for IHN, but the vaccine can be put in their feed, or an immersion bath and that is a far cry from vaccination as we do it in humans. And all that DFO can mean is that a vaccinated fish can't get the disease. But what it doesn't add is the obvious thing that makes the intention of this announcement simply for its spin value: the fish can pass the same virus on to other fish even when it doesn't get sick itself.
Furthermore, there are several dozen fish farm viruses, bacteria, parasites, lice, etc. that wild fish can catch from fish farm fish, so the story should not have been released and made to sound like the problem with fish farms is all over. The announcement should not have been made and should not have been reported on.
An example is the Jan 10, 2018 article in the TC newspaper, which is a follow up piece to the original news that made the rounds a week earlier. The article is: Scientist pans fish disease review, by Amy Smart. It's enough to make someone cynical. Listen up:
Stan Proboszcz, science adviser for Watershed Watch says the process lacked transparency, and scientists were not allowed to read a fish farm company fish management report that DFO used to make this announcement.
"That's contradictory to the peer review process," he said and is a complete lack of transparency. And, you should know that Stan was on the DFO steering committee that gives scientific advice to DFO; however, if you can believe it, were not given the report to read, only a summary of the agreement, that companies would allow their fish to be tested. That is quite a different thing from the actual research document. The agreement is not about science, only giving permission to use fish.
Yes, DFO puffed up its chest and said it is only one 'robust' investigation underway (of 10, or so it says) to prove that fish farm diseases are harmless to wild salmon. Is it just me that thinks they have this backward? Doesn't it just continue what Cohen told them not to do, and make sure to take out fish farm cheer leading from DFO entirely, as it is incompatible with its primary role under the Wild Salmon Policy?
Calling it robust is silly. That is spin. It's obvious that vaccinating someone's fish would mean most shouldn't get disease and the farm would not be leaking 56 billion viral particles per hour, but noting that the fish were vaccinated is a million miles away from doing robust science.
What about all the research, by DFO, for instance, that Fraser sockeye are dying from pre-spawn mortality, have PRV, and that DFO scientist Kristi Miller showed that PRV causes HSMI, something that fish farms, BCMAL, the testing system, and DFO continue to deny? That's the real story here, that DFO is in a conflict of interest.
Smart's article notes one of the typical non-transparencies in fish farm issues - one should always assume that where a fish farm says it is transparent, that you should add the 'non' in front of the word. The Cohen requirement for the disease tables in his Commission is an example: he asked for disease tables, fish farms sent in lawyers (standard practice) to argue he should not get them, he required them anyway, and fish farms trumpeted how transparent they were, then Cohen required individual disease sheets, not simply summary documents and they sent in the lawyers again, saying he did not have authority to require them. He required them anyway and that led off the explosive third disease section of the proceedings.
During that session the best scientists, Miller, Nylund and Kibenge, noted how bad the DFO and CFIA labs were, including the Winnipeg, Gagne lab. And poor Kim Klottins from the CFIA got cornered into saying it didn't want to find disease because that would affect the exportability of the fish, to the USA for instance. Another riveting moment was when Miller said that fish farms could be 'the smoking gun'. The look on her face when she realized what she had just said was worth the price tag of the $36 Million commission.
Now, back to the current story. So, what did DFO say about releasing the report supporting the agreement? It said: 'because it's considered a confidential business document, government staff are prohibited from releasing it.' Is it just me who notes this is non- and even un-transparent? It's the old 'proprietary' information spin that is used all around the world to avoid being transparent.
So, even the DFO committee could not look at the DFO report. Hmm. And you can only get on this committee if you are invited by DFO to be on it. Hmm. And the neat DFO quote on the non-transparency is: "A key element of our science peer review is [wait for it] transparency. DFO provides all science advice and supporting document from its peer reviews on its website." Hmm.
So, what this means is DFO won't give the 'robust' research to their own committee, but DFO is transparent because the 'consensus' document that comes out of that committee that can't look at the 'robust' science is on its website. Hmm.
Oh, and DFO went on to say that Proboszcz could request the original 'robust' material directly from the companies that signed it. Is that hilarious or what? Too bad we don't have Cohen to 'require' the material and so the companies, Marine Harvest, Cermaq, and Grieg Seafood can decline to send it forward. Hmm.
*
One more thing, Living Oceans has done a news release on this issue, too: https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Federal_Science_Mired-media_release-Jan8_2018.pdf.
*
One more thing: here is the letter from Stan P. from Watershed Watch after the TC article, saying he can now speak freely In other words, DFO is still in a big conflict of interest with fish farms. Please sign the petition. Stan is not pleased. Please note that DFO should be considered the enemy of Wild Pacific salmon in BC. I am reluctant to say that but it is true.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)