BAP Awards Not Awards - Updated July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012. One day after Marine Harvest took credit, as below, for BAP certification in BC, CTV has reported on fish farm diseases: Marine Harvest alone spent $12 million last year to clear out infected fish [Kudoa] and provide refunds for tainted products, and there are estimates that Kudoa affects 20 to 50 per cent of all salmon farmed in the province.


Read this:http://bc.ctvnews.ca/parasite-ridden-salmon-sold-in-b-c-stores-1.864202.


So, what is it that BAP awards mean? Not much.


Now, read my July 4 post on the BAPs

Read this:  http://www.canada.com/Marine+Harvest+gets+certification/6880995/story.html.

Marine Harvest et al have been trumpeting the past couple of weeks around the globe in news reports about receiving the really worthwhile BAP awards. The problem is that the BAPs are not awards at all.

The industry got together and made the organization then they all put money into it. And they now get the BAP certification from themselves. Don't be fooled. Nothing has changed. Fish farms only want to be in the ocean to use it as a free, open sewer.They should be on land.

You may recall it is only a couple of weeks since 7 fish farms in BC and Washington tested positive for viral diseases. And remember that at the recent Cohen Commission in December, 2011 testimony showed that 25% of Clayoquot farmed chinook tested positive for HSMI and ISA. (This is a huge problem for wild fish, and my bet is that the Clayoquot Sound chinook and Kennedy Lake sockeye are in trouble because of billions of viruses in the non-flushing Sound).

In truth, Marine Harvest Canada is in trouble. It lost money in Q1, of 2012, -.6%, its only major operation around the world to post a loss. And they let go 60 employees at Christmas time. And are reducing orders for smolts.

And, by the way, the CEO of Marine Harvest, Alf Helge, in Norway has just complained about fish farms refusal to bring forth sea lice data. See: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/84be8a79#/84be8a79/16.

You see, 40% of farms don't report lice and the government doesn't follow up. Meanwhile, here in BC Canada, Marine Harvest has just pulled out of a joint study with environmental groups studying, wait for it, ... that sea lice do not cause problems with wild fish or transfer diseases. Same fish farm company, completely different response.

What Marine Harvest did get out of the five year agreement with the Suzuki Foundation and so on in BC is not being criticized in the press. I would say that lucky outcome has ended.

Oh, and you will remember that Marine Harvest plead guilty in December of 2011 of having wild salmon and herring in its nets in BC - having for almost two years previous, protested its innocence. And in Ireland, Scotland and Norway, in the past year nearly 500,000 farmed salmon escaped from fish farms. Hmm.

The BAPs don't mean much.

"Red Alert' - Elena Edwards Note to DFO - July 3, 2012

I have been asked to publish the letter below, sent to Brenda McCorquodale at DFO. A letter from McCorquodale to Elena Edwards and her response prompted my note. Elena's note to McCorquodale is below.

Hi Brenda McCorquodale

I have just read your response to Elena Edwards note to you and have some comments.

But first, you have to realize there is no way forward for old tech, polluting Norwegian fish farms in BC other than on land in closed containers. By their own admission there are only 820 actual jobs in aquaculture. I estimate there are 100 million wild salmon in BC. It simply makes no sense to threaten them anymore.

1. Treating wild fish for pathogens.

The point is that we don't want anymore 'scientific' fixes. We want fish farms on land. I have a list of 51 different on-land closed systems comprising some 8055 actual, on land fish farms around the world. See:http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/01/key-document-34-mostly-on-land-closed.html. The only reason fish farms want to be in our pristine ocean is to use it as a free open sewer.

Not to mention that treating wild fish for pathogens isn't possible, for example, a million wild sockeye in the Fraser. How do you catch every one? And what mortality would there be in catching the few you do catch?

Not to mention that 7 farms/hatcheries have been found to have viral pathogens in the past month in BC and Washington.

2. The CFIA and their biosecurity protocols.

The December Cohen testimony pointed out the conflicts of interest of the CFIA, DFO and the BC testing system and that the Moncton lab was not able to find ISA.

We don't want the CFIA to do anything because they are not trustworthy. What is needed is an international panel reporting to the public of all the nations on the Pacific Ocean with salmon. Kibenge, Nylund and Miller should be on it.

I have critiqued the CFIA plan here: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/02/key-document-cfia-testing-of-isa-in-bc.html.

3. Plover Point

You fail to note that all sites in Clayoquot Sound are in channels that don't flush as they have one closed end. They shouldn't be there and no one should have let fish farms in a UN Biosphere.

I think the science will show that the Kennedy lake sockeye and the Sound wild chinook have been wiped out by the non-flushing nature of the Sound. The water column will be filled with billions of viruses for a good ten miles from every fish farm as a sound does not flush.

4. Salmon Aquaculture is a major business.

No it is not. With only 820 actual jobs (and MH losing money) aquaculture is tiny - logging is large, with 87,000 jobs.

Aquaculture will never contribute in a meaningful way to the BC economy, but we lose all species of wild salmon. And in any event, fish farms, no matter what their employment is, need to be on land.

Sport fishing is far larger than aquaculture, at $1 billion and 15,000 jobs. It makes no sense to destroy a billion dollar industry to put money in Norwegian pockets.

5. Fallowing results in clean bottoms.

There are easily a dozen videos on youtube showing that this is not true. The bottom is full of sewage. In Norway, the problem is so bad that in some fjords they have had to dredge out several km of polluted bottom sediment.

6. POPs shouldn't be in the environment.

True. And fish farms on land would never put POPs into the water. The most recent paper, in 2012, says that the amount of PCBs in one meal of farmed salmon will take 50 to 75 years to clear your body. Who wants to eat such fish?

And the new feeds have chicken feathers in them, ones laced with a dozen different pharmaceuticals including flouroquinolones. Some new feed uses chicken feces and animal feces. Then genetically modified plant oils, for example, soy and canola, are being used in feeds. Further, they are fishing the low end of the food chain, krill, in the last pristine ocean, the Antarctic.

7. Dialogue

You are not hearing what BC residents, including First Nations have been saying to DFO for years: all of us want fish farms on land. But if they are unwilling and you can't hear what we are saying, then they need to go back to Norway.

DC Reid

Here is Elena's Letter:

Greetings Brenda,

Thank you for your last thorough response.

Almost one year later since our last correspondence there have been a great deal of additional concerns raised regarding the practice of salmon farming in B.C. waters. 

Given your role in Senior Aquaculture Management for DFO, you will be aware of the Cohen Commission proceedings on the topic of Aquaculture as well as the Cohen Commission reopening for three days examining the positive ISAv findings in wild and farmed salmon. I trust you are very familiar with the proceeding of those days and the significant concerns that arose through the evidence and testimony presented.

You will also be aware that Justice Cohen's final report has been postponed until Sept 30th. As I understand from your response, it will be business as usual for the aquaculture industry in spite of the alarming evidence of European viral strains being present in both farmed and wild salmon, of which DFO has failed to acknowledge aside from Dr. Kristi Miller's testimony during the Cohen Commission.

Now I see on the DFO website that regulations are being proposed to treat wild fish populations to control pathogens. 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/consultations/2012/faq-eng.htm

"Under some circumstances, under the Health of Animals Act, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency may need to treat wild fish populations to control fish pathogens that may have been introduced into Canadian waters."

This raises even more serious concerns as DFO and the salmon farming industry have been completely quiet about the presence of introduced pathogens that pass between farmed and wild salmon. For the government to take such drastic actions is not only indicative that there has been a serious breach in security regarding protecting wild fish from foreign pathogens, but that rather than address the source of these introduced pathogens the government is now seeking to treat a wild species with something that is completely unnatural to wild fish stocks with the effects of such treatment being unknown. 

Can you please elaborate what this means and why DFO is considering treating wild salmon for an introduced pathogen and what these introduced pathogens are?

Regarding the comment that;

"DFO is consulting directly with First Nations with respect to their issues and concerns." 

I question the extent to which First Nations are able to come forward with their concerns when they are not even made aware of what the concerns are. For example, to what extent has DFO informed First Nations along the Fraser River of the introduced pathogens that are a threat to Indigenous wild salmon? Are they being informed that the CFIA and DFO are considering treating their wild fish for these pathogens? Should they not have a say in the matter? Does DFO only consult with First Nations who have salmon farms in their territory? If such is the case then there is a case of grave negligence in recognizing that so long as open-net farms are in waters where migrating wild salmon swim by then it is a concern for all First Nations whose wild salmon might be infected.

You also note that;

"A number of measures are in place both with CFIA and DFO in order to ensure that any possible risks with respect to fish health are minimized.        As a Condition of Licence, a Fish Health Management Plan is required for each facility, which includes the development of biosecurity protocols."

Is the presence of introduced pathogens not evidence that biosecurity protocols have failed? 

While the 6th question of my previous email may seem of a more ethical nature than scientific, I would still appreciate a response as it falls to the core of allowing the salmon farming industry to have become a seemingly permanent fixture in the marine environment that wild salmon must survive in. I am re-posting that question in the hopes that someone might be able to offer a valid response, especially given the recent outbreaks of diseases in the salmon farms and highly contagious viruses being found in farmed and wild salmon;

6.) Given the knowledge that it IS possible for such a virus to spread beyond the veterinarians ability to monitor or control it, how is it acceptable for DFO/ the government, to allow such a risk to be placed in the oceans when wild salmon populations already have numerous factors threatening their survival into the future? How is this considered using the precautionary principle? 

Regarding the Plover Point application;

When you note that;

"The Plover Point application, to which you have specifically referred, is considered to be a potential replacement site which is currently being assessed to determine if it could improve upon the environmental performance of an existing aquaculture licence. Plover Point is being considered as a replacement for the Cormorant Island site. Once a new, more appropriate location for a farm is approved, the Cormorant Island licence will be rescinded."

What this implies is that the Cormorant Island site has had a negative environmental impact where it is located and now a Unesco Biosphere is being considered as an alternative site location. It goes without saying that the reasons for the transfer indicate that the Plover Point site will suffer the same environmental problems that are requiring the Cormorant Island licence to be rescinded. The logic in this site transfer completely fails in exercising the precautionary principle.

In the DFO report on contaminants which you participated in (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/278588.pdf) it is noted; 

"Salmon Aquaculture:  is a major industry in the central coast as the majority of all BC salmon 

farms operate in this region. Chemicals are used in many aspects of salmon aquaculture including 

intentional use of pesticides to control sea lice, chemical additives in food, antifouling chemicals, as 

well as inadvertent chemicals found in feed and building materials. Organic enrichment from fish 

wastes and excess food can result in sediment contamination and changes in the ecological 

community below salmon net pens.  

Most chemical contamination impacts from salmon farms appear to be localized in nature and are 

relatively short-lived. For instance, ecological communities below net pens often largely recover after 

a 6-month fallowing period. However, it is uncertain how ecological communities are affected by 

pesticides, antibiotics, and organic enrichment. In addition, cumulative impacts of multiple farms or 

net pens is an important issue that must be resolved in order to determine the number of farms that 

should be located in any given area. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) found in some salmon feed 

presents a source of harmful contaminants to the marine environment that should be eliminated. "

Given that every problem that has ever existed within salmon farming still remains along with additional problems, it can only be seen that there is no appropriate location for the Plover Point farm and that the only precautionary action at this point would be to fallow all farms and move this risky practice into closed containment. 

Regarding your comment that;

"The department is committed to developing advisory processes and a management approach which encourages dialogue between First Nations, industry, and stakeholders, and we look forward to recommendations from all parties relating to siting requirements for aquaculture."

Does such dialogue only allow for those of who accept the placement of additional salmon farms in the marine environment or does it allow for the presence of those presenting the case that salmon farms should be sited away from wild salmon completely?

In the past year the threats to wild salmon have only increased and with bill C-38 being proposed to strip protection of fish habitat, millions of dollars being put toward aquaculture expansion, and another another bleak run of the Fraser River Sockeye salmon, the Cohen Commission is being made a complete mockery and waste of $26 million if such decisions are being made prior to Justice Cohen submitting his final recommendations.

I hope you are able to respond to these concerns as it is becoming increasingly challenging to get straight forward answers in a time when they are much needed.

Thank you for taking the time.

Sincerely,

Elena Edwards

Key Document: BC Conservative Members Who Voted Against Wild BC Salmon

Here are the federal Conservative members elected in BC to take our views to Ottawa: Don Albas, John Duncan, Nina Grewal, Richard Harris, Russ Heibert, Randy Kamp, James Lunney, Colin Mayes, Cathy McLeod, James Moore, Andrew Saxton, Mark Strahl, Mark Warawa, John Weston, David Wilks, Alice Wong, Wai Young, and Bob Zimmer.

You want to remember these names for the next election. It is unlikely that many of them will be re-elected because of the environmental damage that the Omnibus Budget Bill, some 420 pages, will cause with their votes.

Stephen Harper's government has gutted the Fisheries Act of its salmon habitat protection clauses, 36 and 38. The Environmental Assessment Act has been rendered impotent. See a previous post to read what the Royal Society said in their report earlier this year on the government's handling of the environment on our three ocean borders.. It was, as the expression goes, a stinging indictment of environmental policy of Harper's Conservative government. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/02/key-document-royal-society-of-canada.html.


Gutting the Fisheries Act also favours farmed salmon that BC residents overwhelmingly want on land in closed containers. You simply have to Google: fish farm diseases, to read for days. And Google: fish farm environmental damage, and read for days on damage to the environment.


And, there is the Enbridge pipeline, Run of River Power that no one in BC wants, and so on.

GAPI Report - Aquaculture Awards Not Environmentally Justifyable - June 2, 2012

Go look at this report that shows that farmed salmon, and rating systems, do not merit green environmental ratings: http://web.uvic.ca/~serg/papers/GAPI_Benchmarking_Report_2011.pdf.

There are a proliferation of environmental awards and so on for fish farms these days, many of which are industry supported, and thus conflicted, for example, the BAPs are funded through fish farms themselves.

However, the WWF and other, apparently reasonable environmental awards, have unusually low standards. When I contacted the WWF last year, for instance, I was told, well, we know this is not as good as we would like, but it is a place to start.

Recently, the Canadian government came out with an environmental 'award'. What was not mentioned was that the board was stacked with DFO (DFO is conflicted in that it has a responsibility to advance aquaculture while at the same time protecting wild Paficic salmon)and fish farm members. The organic labeling passed with 50% plus one vote - there being only 2 environmental organizations given seats among the voters. Not much of an endorsement.

Here in BC, in the past week CAAR (Coastal Alliance for Aquculture Reform, David Suzuki F. T Buck Suzuki org, Georia Strait Association and Living Oceans) dropped from the study with Marine Harvest - most other environmental groups had already dropped off over the years. The point was that fish farms, confirmed through Clare Blackman from MH, have no intention of moving from the ocean. Part of the bargain was that environmental organizations would not protest against fish farms during the agreement period.

"Essentially, all of the work that we had negotiated to do together, was going nowhere," Ruby Berry, of the Georgia Strait Alliance, told the Courier-Islander Monday. "For awhile it looked like (working together) was going to be possible, but the company's dragging its heals, they're backing out of anything substantial. There's really no significant change."

 

CAAR said a benefit-cost analysis comparing net-pen salmon farming to closed containment systems was cancelled by Marine Harvest, as was design of a land-based closed containment pilot system.

A Care2 informal poll shows 95% of respondents believe fish farms harm wild salmon. The likely outcome here is environmental groups stepping up their protests once again. This comes at a time when 7 fish farm facilities in BC and Washington have tested positive for disease, and that at least one on Bainbridge Island, WA, is slaughtering fish to sell them to the public in mainstream food retailers. Would you buy one?

See:  http://www.care2.com/causes/lethal-virus-found-in-farmed-salmon.html.

IHN in BC Salmon Farms, Updated May 27, 2012

Fund for Salmon Testing

It is testimony to how concerned BC residents are about wild salmon in a time when fish farms are not yet on land, and belief in government and government agencies is low, that we have so far given $27,000 to have Alexandra Morton test wild and retail farmed salmon at the OIE testing labs in PEI and Norway. I have given several times, including the money portion of my recent Art Downs Award for sustained environmental writing on fish farm issues. If you wish to donate, send a cheque to: Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society or PCWSS, Box 399, Sointula, BC V0N 3E0

IHN in Farmed Salmon

IHN, a lethal Pacific salmon disease – that fish farms have also taken to the Atlantic Ocean – has been found in the UN Biosphere Reserve in Clayoquot Sound. It has been erroneously reported by fish farms and news, for example, CBC, CHEK and the Vancouver Sun that Pacific salmon are immune to IHN. Not so.

Claims in news releases from government, fish farms and conflicted academics need to be verified. Just Google: IHN in Pacific Salmon – you will be reading for days.

All Pacific salmon species and especially rainbows, meaning steelhead, are killed by IHN. The reason fish farms get more of it is the density of the fish. They are so close together they infect one another.

This disease is cyclical with 12 million farmed salmon at 36 farms dying in the 2001 – 2003 infection. The previous lethal cycle was 1992 – 1996. I can’t help wondering whether there is a connection between farmed IHN and Clayoquot Chinook and Kennedy sockeye that are in trouble. Megin steelhead?

Here is the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) summary info. It is fair on both sides of the issue: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/idaad/disease.aspx?id=55. 

Please don’t use my tax dollars to compensate billion dollar Norwegian derivative companies – their diseases come back and come back. Fish farms must be on land.

Don McRae and Fish Farm Disease

Our Minister of Agriculture is making changes to keep diseases from the public: to protect us and because the info is proprietary. And it will become illegal to talk about them. Don is setting transparency in fish diseases back twenty years. I don’t think disease is a patentable thing, and is not like those seven different herbs and spices Kentucky Fried Chicken likes to keep to itself. McRae is doing this at a time when 560,000 farmed fish are being destroyed for IHN, a second Clayoquot fish farm is testing positive and a Sechelt coho farm is testing 'weakly' positive. And, of course HSMI and ISA have also been found in Clayoquot farmed fish by Kristi Miller. At 25% that’s more than 100,000 fish per farm with those viruses. We need transparency. Wild salmon need transparency. Judging by all the emails I have read of intergovernmental sources for the early and later nineties, I’ll bet McRae’s staff is not very happy.

dcreid@catchsalmnobc.com

References:

1. T Buck Suzuki Foundation: Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHN) is a virus that affects both wild and farmed salmon. Sockeye, chinook, coho, rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon can all contract the virus, but Atlantic salmon are particularly susceptible. IHN is a virus and not a bacterial infection and infected fish are not treated with antibiotics.

2. This is the OIE summary info on IHN: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/idaad/disease.aspx?id=55.

3. This article says that 80% of Chinook die while 40% of Atlantic salmon die from IHN. Up to 100% in juvenile rainbow trout, aka steelhead, die. No known treatment. http://www.invasivespeciesscotland.org.uk/FileLibrary/Management/Notifiable_Disease_Leaflets_Cefas.pdf.

This Pacific disease was spread to the Atlantic by fish farms taking Pacific eggs there.

4. My summary: Atlantics die more than Pacific salmon because of the high density in the net – a practice that also spawns mutations of viruses. Not that wild salmon are immune to it. For example, wild Chinook, when raised in net pens at their higher densities also die from IHN.

5. News on IHN immunity in wild salmon.

*CBC: Marty concludes the farmed fish were infected by wild salmon which carry IHN, but have developed resistance to the virus.

*CTV: not a problem for wild salmon as they have built up an immunity.

IHN has been present in the waters of B.C. for hundreds of years and wild salmon have developed a resistance to it, though young salmon and sockeye can be vulnerable to it, according to fish virologist James Winton.

*Vancouver Sun (same quote as CTV): http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Fatal+virus+detected+Atlantic+farmed+salmon+first+time+since+2003/6627628/story.html#ixzz1vQ37IRa1

IHN has been present in the waters of B.C. for hundreds of years and wild salmon have developed a resistance to it, though young salmon and sockeye can be vulnerable to it, according to fish virologist James Winton.

*Van Isle Daily:  [IHN] is naturally carried by Pacific salmon, trout and herring, which have developed a natural immunity, but can cause high mortality among Atlantic salmon.

 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Island+salmon+farm+culling+fish+after+virus+confirmed/6627309/story.html#ixzz1vQ5ZxHie

*Global News: http://www.globaltvbc.com/group+reports+outbreak+of+ihn+virus+on+salmon+farm+in+clayoquot+sound/6442642910/story.html.

Mainstream Canada says that IHN is endemic to wild Pacific fish, and does not affect them in low concentrations.

*CHEK: Laura Jensen says that IHN is a Pacific virus that doesn’t affect local salmon, but Atlantics are highly affected.

http://video.cheknews.ca/services/player/bcpid1011606683001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAA4mHNTzE~,ejlzBnGUUKY1gXVPwEwEepl35Y795rND&bclid=975107450001&bctid=1646581186001.

*Mainstream Canada: http://www.mainstreamcanada.ca/mainstream-canada-farm-north-tofino-tests-positive-ihn-virus-0.

The IHN virus is naturally carried by Pacific salmon, trout and herring. Studies show wild Pacific salmon have a natural resistance to the virus and very rarely suffer ill effects from it….. Since Atlantic salmon are not native to the Pacific coast, they have not had hundreds of years to develop a natural immunity to the virus, like their Pacific cousins.

6. IHN 2001 outbreak: http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2006/72/d072p213.pdf. And they found two different isolates of IHN, meaning mutation occurred.

And the previous cyclical infection was in 1992 – 1996.

7. Don McRae making fish farm diseases unreportable. http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2012/05/15/BC-Disease-Outbreaks/. 

8. Miller on ISA in Clayoquot: The direct reference in the Cohen Commission transcripts from Dec 15, 2011 are: Page 112, lines 34 - 47. Line 39: Miller: "It was 25 percent." http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/Schedule/Transcripts/CohenCommission-HearingTranscript-2011-12-15.pdf#zoom=100

9. Miller on HSMI in Clayoquot: The direct reference in the Cohen Commission transcripts from Dec 15, 2011 are: Page 113, lines 6 – 9, Miller: “We did find fish positive for the 8 pasendrial (phonetic) virus, which is thought to be causing HSMI.”

Then Are Nylund goes on about how lethal HSMI has been in Norway.

 ***

 

End notes. Not part of article:

"This is code red," said Laurie Jensen representing the Norwegian-owned company Cermaq (owners of Mainstream Canada). "So we are just going to depopulate. We will lose money. It's in the millions."

This is another saving of on-land systems: no disease losses in the millions, and diseases are cyclical, meaning they come back over and over.

The last infection: “Between August 2001 and June 2003, 36 Atlantic salmon farms in BC contracted IHNV," stated the paper.  "This constituted over 50% of all Atlantic salmon seawater farms in the province. Over 12 million farmed Atlantic salmon died or were culled as a result of the epidemic.”

Mainstream Canada spokesperson Laurie Jensen says the company is expecting the blow-back. [getting nets out of water]

"I’m sure some of our critics will try and make this an issue and they will try and use any kind of unusual activity to create confusion and a food safety issue," Jensen says. "But it’s just not an issue."

I sure wouldn't buy a farmed fish - for many reasons - but one with viruses. I think not.

And this really is an issue as the issue is always wild Pacific salmon. It may already be too late to save all the salmonids in the Pacific ocean. I sure hope not.

KEY LINKS - Fish Farm Share Prices and Financial Information, Updated May 25 2012

 This post will up date fish farm share prices and financial information from the original post. Go to the original post for share price links and so on: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2011/10/key-links-fish-farm-share-prices-and.html.

Fish Farm industry Stats 2011-2012: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/17232/chiles-salmon-industry-makes-a-comeback.

Fish Farms Infect Wild BC Salmon, May 13, 2012

Grant Warkentin, info officer for Mainstream Canada, recently wrote a letter to the Times Colonist newspaper. He said it is pure speculation without any scientific evidence that fish farm salmon diseases affect wild salmon, and that on-land, closed-pen fish farms are not technically feasible.

Here is my answer. You will note the references below the rebuttal:

Fish Farm Diseases

The letter to the editor from Grant Warkentin, Mainstream Canada says there is no evidence fish farm viruses are affecting wild salmon and the sockeye from the Fraser River – the Cohen Commission salmon.

I’d say there is lots of evidence. ISA, for instance, is an Atlantic Ocean virus of two strains that became a third and potent salmon killer when Norwegian fish farms developed it. Evidence of ISA – not a Pacific Ocean virus - has been discovered in BC by Kristi Miller, Fred Kibenge and Are Nylund. Miller, for instance, showed that 25% of Clayoquot farmed Chinook salmon have HSMI and ISA – Cohen testimony. Kibenge and Nylund, have found ISA in wild salmon, including salmon from the Fraser River.

Miller has the best equipment and Kibenge and Nylund are the two, and only two, world reference labs for ISA and fish farm diseases. Kibenge says this: Aquatic animal disease is part and parcel of aquaculture. His document [below] says one third to one half of all aquaculture product in the world is lost to recurring disease annually.

The BC fish farm disease tables, Exhibits 1497 to 1507, are on the Cohen record, August 23, 2011. You can read the occurrence of many of the dozens of viral, fungal and bacterial diseases in wild/farmed salmon. The records show 28 million farmed fish have died in the period 2002 to 2010 – from all causes. That’s a lot of dead fish.

‘Evidence’ is not the same word as ‘proof’. And this semantic difference is where fish farms often hang their hat. Proof of ISA comes when 100% of the sample’s genetic code is confirmed as, in this case, east Atlantic (presently about 90%) and when a viral sample is isolated. Miller’s viral signature work in Fraser sockeye shows the evidence of infection, including up to 90% die swimming up-river. Again, more work for ‘proof’.

Another wrinkle is that viral isolates are hard to establish. So there can be over whelming ‘evidence’ of disease in PCR and other tests, but no isolate, which is an OIE requirement. A third wrinkle is that, while not mentioned, DFO uses the Moncton lab under Gagne, to prove things. They have old equipment and December Cohen testimony said that Moncton methods were not good at finding ISA.

And there are those pesky 45 farmed salmon tested recently by Kibenge and Nylund, both finding HSMI in 44 of them. So there is lots of evidence. The remaining question is: were the retailed farmed fish grown in BC? Proof will come when the HSMI virus is coded and compared with Norwegian HSMI. And the public is so concerned we have donated $27,000 for testing wild salmon so far. I will give more: the cash portion of my Art Downs Award for sustained writing about fish farm issues. Cheques to: Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society or PCWSS, Box 399, Sointula, BC V0N 3E0

Now, the comment that in-ocean, open-net farmed salmon will be necessary for long-term sustainable business in BC. Not really. Some fish farms, like those in BC, like to externalize their costs by using the ocean as a free, open sewer. Others don’t. I have a list of 46 different, mostly-closed, on-land fish farm systems comprising more than 8,052 actual farms around the world on land. So BC farms should be on land. This is like air bags in cars. Car manufacturers said it could not be done. But with a little legislation, all cars now have air bags.

582 Words

dcreid@catchsalmonbc.com

References:

1. The Kibenge document: http://www.oie.int/eng/A_aquatic/Docs/Presentations/1.11Kibenge.ppt.

2. A current summary of fish farm and wild salmon disease in BC:

http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/Salmon%20farm%20viruses%20spilling%20into%20Pacific%20Ocean.pdf.

3. Cohen Commission hearings schedule: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/Schedule/.

4. HSMI:  http://www.huffstrategy.com/MediaManager/release/Salmon-are-Sacred/24-4-12/Application-made-to-reopen-Cohen-Commission-into-the-decline-of-F/2509.html

In a televised interview (April 20, 2012) Dr. Gary Marty, the Provincial farm salmon veterinarian and Cohen Commission witness confirmed he found the virus [HSMI] in 75% of BC farm salmon he tested [in 2010].

5. Fish farms won’t be tested by Miller: Link to Miller Dec 15 Cohen comments that say BC fish farms backed out of having her test farmed salmon for ISA at the last minute.

So how can Mary Ellen Walling claim she is confident that the DFO/Provincial testing has confirmed BC farmed salmon have no ISA?

http://www.salmonguy.org/?p=4691&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=government-cover-up-coming-to-light-at-cohen-commission-today

6. Week 1 Review of Cohen Commission [2011]:

http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/blog/week-1-review-skeletons-rattling-cohen%E2%80%99s-closet

*Disease and mortality data detailing specific sites and companies made publicly available for the first time ever for the years 2002 to 2010 (including 28 million dead farmed salmon and the diseases: Renibacterium salmoninarum Infection, Lepeophtheirus Infection, Vibrio (Listonella) Infection, Piscirickettsia salmonis Infection, Viral Haemorrhagic Septicemia Virus Infection, Aeromonas salmonicida Infection and Myxobacterial Infection)

*Genomic data collected by DFO’s Dr. Kristi Miller indicate that a potentially novel disease, possibly viral in origin “could account for the loss of 27 million salmon” [This means sockeye from the Fraser River].

7. ISA/HSMI in Clayoquot Sound: http://www.thecanadian.org/k2/item/1222-kristi-miller-cohen-commission-salmon-virus.

Back to Clayoquot Sound and this new virus Miller discovered there. When she was invited to test Creative Salmon’s farmed Chinook salmon, Miller came up with two shocking findings: 1. A full 25% of these fish tested positive for ISAv (so there you have it – farmed fish in BC with ISAv, contrary to the claims of the Province’s fish health audit office and industry that after thousands of test over the years, they’re just sure it isn’t in their fish!); 2. A second virus known as piscine rheovirus – the cause of a deadly disease called HSMI (Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation). [this was the real shocker].

8. Miller on ISA in Clayoquot: The direct reference in the Cohen Commission transcripts from Dec 15, 2011 are: Page 112, lines 34 - 47. Line 39: Miller: "It was 25 percent."

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/Schedule/Transcripts/CohenCommission-HearingTranscript-2011-12-15.pdf#zoom=100.

9. Miller on HSMI in Clayoquot: The direct reference in the Cohen Commission transcripts from Dec 15, 2011 are: Page 113, lines 6 – 9, Miller: “We did find fish positive for the 8 pasendrial (phonetic) virus, which is thought to be causing HSMI.” Then Are Nylund goes on about how lethal HSMI has been in Norway.

10. Kristi Miller Power Point Presentation on Fraser Sockeye Viral Signature: http://www.cohencommission.ca/DownloadExhibit.php?ExhibitID=688.

11. One Miller table on ISA in Clayoquot Sound farmed salmon:  Download Exh 2053 - 136a. Creative Salmon ISA Test Results.xls (39.5K). See columns AE, AF, AG. 25.53% ISAV. ISAV-P7 confirmed with sequencing.

12. Here is a list of the several dozen diseases that salmon get: http://www.gaaia.org/farmageddon.