Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#985588 - 02/16/18 02:05 PM Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus
satsop_connoisseur Offline
Eyed Egg

Registered: 10/28/14
Posts: 5
Loc: Satsop River, WA

Top
#985591 - 02/16/18 03:29 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Jake Dogfish Offline
Spawner

Registered: 06/24/00
Posts: 509
Loc: Des Moines
The House and Senate voted to get rid of them. But they still have 4-7 years to experiment.
This was never about the short term gain of fish farming. There is a reason they want the farms here, its the closest state to Alaska. These giant fish farm companies are solely focused on market share and eliminating Pacific Salmon.

Top
#985594 - 02/16/18 04:07 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Also, on the world market, Atlantics are preferred to Pacifics. My understanding is that Europeans prefer a farmed Atlantic to a wild Pacific.

Different strokes for different folks.

Top
#985694 - 02/17/18 09:52 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: Carcassman]
Larry B Offline
Carcass

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 2496
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Also, on the world market, Atlantics are preferred to Pacifics. My understanding is that Europeans prefer a farmed Atlantic to a wild Pacific.

Different strokes for different folks.


World market? Don't have to go that far. Fairly recently I was watching a Seattle TV station's locally produced show with a section featuring a cooking/taste test between wild Pacific Chinook and farmed Atlantics. The preference was for the Atlantics! Go figure; different strokes. But there is certainly both a price point AND texture/taste preference for Atlantics by a sizable group of consumers.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#985695 - 02/17/18 10:18 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12358
The typical salmon-eating demographic is such that the vast majority prefer the farmed product strictly out of familiarity. Statistically, most folks' first taste of salmon is farmed Atlantics. If they find it pleasing to their palate, that's what they reach for at the time of next purchase. The choice is even more strongly reinforced if it's attainable at a lower price point. It's what they like because it's what they know. When presented with the opportunity to finally try the alternative, the unique taste/texture of the wild product is so different, it's considered "abnormal" for lots of these folks.... therefore deemed inferior.

I think it works just the same way (only in reverse) for those of us who grew up eating wild-caught salmon.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#985696 - 02/17/18 10:53 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
snit Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 1547
Loc: Wenatchee, WA
layman's terms...hotdog vs venison
_________________________
..."the clock looked at me just like the devil in disguise"...

Top
#985697 - 02/18/18 12:09 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: snit]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12358
Originally Posted By: snit
layman's terms...hotdog vs venison
GREAT analogy from a ROAD Scholar!
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#985700 - 02/18/18 07:51 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2729
Loc: Marysville
It should be no mystery why many folks prefer farmed Atlantic salmon. They are a milder tasting fish than say Chinook. In addition fresh salmon at a convent size with consistent quality is more readily available for the average consumer at a more affordable price.

I like venison reference; we as a society made the move from relying on venison and turkeys to preferring beef, pork and chicken. If we as a society are going to insistent on eating salmon the rate at which we are destroying the habitat those species require it will have to be largely a farmed product. Have no problem eliminating the net pens but where is the commitment to meaningful habitat protection and restoration to make more wild salmon available?

Curt

Top
#985702 - 02/18/18 08:10 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Even if we restore the habitat and the wold fish the simple mathematics of management produce fewer consumable fish. Or game. Broodstock requirements for the farmed products are significantly smaller than for wild. And, if we preserve/restore the wild salmon, where are we going to put the people?

Undam the Columbia and tribs and we get back the wild fish. Where will the power and irrigation water come from? King Coal? Maybe DT is right. Remove the dams and bring back coal.

Restore the Ssacramento and San Juaquin for wild salmon. Again, where does the drinking and irrigation water plus power now come from. And, where do all the people in the floodplain (most of the whole Central Valley) get moved to?

The problem is people.

Top
#985703 - 02/18/18 08:36 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Used to work in Fish Health. Very familiar with virus as we had a few nice blow-ups to deal with.

The AS were carrying the virus. Just like we all carry E. coli. All that means is that the bug was in the fish.

The AS were not "diseased", at least not caused by the virus. It was just there.

The virus has not yet been found in wild Pacifics, except that maybe the rare individual.

The virus has not, to my knowledge, been shown to cause actual disease in Pacifics.

This last is important. Back in the late 80s we had some isolations of the VHS virus. Known to be very lethal to Pacifics and believed (note closely that word) to have been carried in by cultured Atlantics. The VHSV that AS normally had, in the Atlantic, was really bad for Pacifics. So, we went about killing whole hatcheries, disinfecting them, and so on. But, we also continued to look at the bugs. Turns out, the VHSV here was native, was found primarily in cod and herring, and was fairly benign to Pacifics. Didn't stop the anti-AS crowd, even after the information was published in peer-reviewed journals.

My point is that words used in the statements have to be looked at very closely for their specific definitions. And, we need to find out just what the bug can actually do to local fish.

Top
#985704 - 02/18/18 09:41 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 180
Loc: Skagit
There's a comment that keeps cropping up over and over; "peer-reviewed"
Who selects the peers that do the reviewing? Are all the "reviews" included in the published document?
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#985710 - 02/18/18 11:02 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
There are issues with "peer-review". For a journal, they ask professionals in the field to review the manuscript. I have done quite a few. I have also edited books where I solicited reviewers and it was interesting to me that state and tribal bios with expertise in the subject at hand would not review.

There is also what the state and feds use for "peer review" of internal documents. That, in my experience, is more of having the choir review it. More for political/policy concordance.

If something is peer reviewed in a journal there is often responses solicited and a subsequent discussion as to why the conclusions were reached.

From experience, I know the system is not perfect but is is a damnsight better than a News Release.

Top
#985729 - 02/19/18 05:19 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 180
Loc: Skagit
"For a journal, they ask professionals in the field to review the manuscript."
I'm assuming that "they" is the writer?

From my perspective it looks like there is a lot of 'choir review' that goes on in the private sector of conservation organizations and such. When one follows the names, and there seems to be a lot of the same ones that keep cropping up, the whole thing smacks of cronyism. Mercenary biology?

Then, once these things that may have agenda driven cherry picking of data type of science get published, they then get quoted in the next paper as if accepted as hard fact.

How far back does it go? What kind of foundation is this house built on?
Can we trust any of it? Private or government?
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#985730 - 02/19/18 07:02 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The journal does the reviewing. The author(s) submit the paper and journal editor(s) are the responsible for the review. Generally, the reviews are anonymous. The editor knows but not the authors. Plus, you have to generally pay for publication.

Before you submit a manuscript one generally sends it out to friends and colleagues (maybe even supervisors) for their comments.

Are you seeing the "same names" as authors? One of the reasons for that is that publication is difficult, time consuming, and more effort than many in the field are willing to invest. If you are an academic (professor) there is a system in place to reward publication. If not, the rewards may be only personal as the job/work makes no recognition.

Peer-reviewed publication is the foundation of science and goes back centuries.

Top
#985736 - 02/19/18 10:23 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Fishinnut Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 09/23/02
Posts: 1215
Loc: Monroe, Washington
Here is WDFWs rebuttal on WFC publication. Its long. I wanted everyone to see what the follow up was from WDFW

WDFW review of Wild Fish Conservancy’s Feb. 15 news release on presence of virus in escaped Atlantic salmon
February 16, 2018
Summary of key points
The following points are fully elaborated in the material below, prepared by Dr. Kenneth Warheit, fish health and genetic specialist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
• The Wild Fish Conservancy’s news release confuses the virus (PRV) with the disease (HSMI), misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate risks to native salmon, and fails to find a single study to support the claim that PRV from open-water pens will harm wild fish.
• The Conservancy asserts – without evidence – that HSMI will harm wild salmon. However, HSMI has never been detected in our native salmon or any other fish except farmed Atlantic salmon.
• PRV occurs naturally and was first confirmed in the Salish Sea from fish samples taken in 1987. The Conservancy provides no data or scientific research to support its claim that the PRV found in escaped fish originated in Norway.
• WDFW methodically and objectively investigates PRV and other fish health issues. We are increasing surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and in our hatcheries. At present, PRV is not recognized as a pathogen of concern by the World Organization for Animal Health.
Review of Wild Fish Conservancy news release
The press release is dated February 15, 2015. The following are general comments about the document (bullets), followed by specific responses to statements made in the press release. The numbered comments below correspond to annotations made in a copy of the press release included with this document.
• Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) appears to be confused by the difference between the virus PRV (Piscine Orthoreovirus) and the associated disease HSMI. WFC exaggerates the risk associated with the presence of PRV, based on current scientific knowledge; and WFC fails to recognize that the presence of PRV does not equal the presence of disease, that most fish with PRV do not exhibit clinical or microscopic signs of disease, and that both farmed Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon have PRV but only farmed Atlantic salmon get clinical signs of HSMI.
• WFC repeatedly makes statements that appear to be based on science by citing published scientific papers in defense of their statements; but in many, perhaps most cases the published papers do not support their statements. These published papers either do not address their statements, or provide information that is counter to their statements. Where the published papers are consistent with WFC’s statements, the statements generally overstate the conclusions in the published papers.
• Without evidence, WFC states that PRV itself originated in Norway, and they imply, also without evidence, that the strain of PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought to Washington from Norway.
• WFC misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate the risk that the August 2017 Cypress #2 accident will harm native salmon with a disease (HSMI) that has never been detected in our native Pacific salmon or any fish other than farmed Atlantic salmon.
1. WDFW never claimed that PRV was not present in escaped Atlantic salmon. In fact, in the State’s report investigating the Cypress #2 accident, WDFW was the first to report the presence of PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. Ms. Amy Windrope’s quote that appeared in WFC’s press release was accurate and subsequent statements at the press briefing specifically dealt with the presence of PRV and stated that WDFW found PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. None of the escaped Atlantic salmon with PRV examined by WDFW had HSMI.
2. PRV is a virus that is present in both captive Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon. In most cases, fish with PRV are healthy, and show no signs of disease. The syndrome HSMI has been associated with PRV in Atlantic salmon aquaculture only. HSMI affects only a small subset of captive Atlantic salmon with PRV and in most cases HSMI is not fatal. See attached White Paper.
3. WFC claims that PRV is “highly contagious and debilitating,” and cites the scientific publication Wessel et al. as the source for their statement. But, the results from Wessel et al. do not support WFC’s claim; however, Wessel et al. do state “PRV is ubiquitous in farmed Atlantic salmon and thus present also in apparently healthy individuals.” The published paper indicates that in the laboratory, PRV produced microscopic signs that are consistent with HSMI, but in this study none of the fish developed a debilitating disease, and none of the fish died as a result of infection.
4. Neither the Wessel et al. nor the DiCicco et al. papers state that there are “significant mortalities from HSMI,” as WFC claims. Wessel et al. state that “[h]istopathological lesions in the heart can be found in most fish in an affected sea cage while the cumulative mortality [in Norway] ranges from insignificant to 20%.” DiCicco et al. state “[t]he disease [HSMI] has been reported also in Scotland . . . and Chile.” The data presented by DiCicco et al. for the BC farm indicates that about 0.2% of the affected fish died from HSMI.
5. WFC states that the “spread of PRV from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon has been well documented,” and cites Garver et al. as that documentation. Garver et al. describes a laboratory study where through injections and forced cohabitation the investigators demonstrate that PRV can be highly infectious. Therefore, this research does not state that PRV spreads from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon. However, it is likely that wild salmon can be infected with PRV from farmed salmon, and likewise, farmed salmon can be infected by wild salmon. Furthermore, in addition to WFC’s misuse of the Garver et al. research, they omitted another finding of Garver et al.: even with the high infectivity of PRV, none of the test fish showed any clinical or microscopic signs of disease.
6. This paragraph is entirely speculative and not based on any “peer-reviewed science,” as claimed by WFC. WFC states that “the virus may reduce the amount of oxygen cells can transport to the fish’s muscles,” and cites another paper published by Wessel et al. However, the cited paper does not support WFC’s statement: “[a]lthough the present study suggests salmon RBC [red blood cells] can tolerate high amounts of PRV, it is not known how it affects other important erythrocyte functions, such as oxygen transport.”
7. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope was based on clinical examination, by a licensed veterinarian, of escaped Atlantic salmon re-captured soon after the spill. The veterinarian determined that these fish were indeed healthy, that is, free from disease. These fish were tested for regulated pathogens, not for PRV, which is not a regulated pathogen nor is it recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as a pathogen of concern. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope is accurate. WFC continues to inaccurately state the difference between a virus (PRV) and a disease (HSMI).
8. WFC is disingenuous when they label PRV as a “Norwegian virus” and WFC is implying that the PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought here from Norway. PRV has been present in Salish Sea waters since at least 1987. There is a scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature as to the origin of the PRV (eastern Pacific v Atlantic). This debate centers on viral genetics since there is little direct epidemiological evidence as to the origin of PRV. An objective evaluation, based on current information and analyses, would indicate that the origin of PRV is not known. Nevertheless and more importantly, it is unknown as to where the escaped Atlantic salmon contracted PRV. It is conceivable that the fish contracted the virus in Cooke Aquaculture’s Rochester hatchery, which if true would suggest that all the Atlantic salmon in the net pens have PRV. This would be consistent with what is known about the prevalence of PRV in Atlantic salmon net pens in British Columbia, and not a surprising result here in Washington. Alternatively, it is also conceivable that the fish entered the net pens free of PRV and contracted the virus from wild fish—a scenario that is also common in British Columbia.
9. WFC provided no data or citations that support their claim that the PRV present in the escaped fish are of Norwegian origin. See comment #8 above. In addition, although PRV genetic sequences from eastern Pacific closely resemble that from Norway, there are differences between these sets of sequences, and it would have been more informative if WFC provided information about the sequences, rather than speculating about the origin of the PRV found in the escaped Atlantic salmon.
10. Despite WFC’s claim that there is a “multitude of scientific studies,” they failed to cite a single scientific study “that demonstrate[s] PRV from open-water pens will likely spread to and harm wild fish.” WFC also failed to state that PRV is present in native Pacific salmonids from Alaska to at least Washington, and in all cases these native fish showed no clinical or microscopic signs of HSMI or any other disease related to being infected with PRV. WDFW is methodical and objective in our evaluation of PRV, and we plan to increase surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and within our hatcheries. WDFW has been truthful with WFC and with anyone who asks us about PRV. The Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee made up of virologists, pathologists, geneticists, and veterinarians have produced a White Paper on PRV and HSMI. WDFW’s current management associated with PRV is consistent with that White Paper.



Edited by Fishinnut (02/19/18 10:26 AM)
_________________________
Join the Puget Sound Anglers Sno-King Chapter. Meets second Thursday of every month at the SCS Center, 220 Railroad Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 at 6:30pm Two buildings south of the Edmonds Ferry on the beach.

Top
#985738 - 02/19/18 10:46 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12358
Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.

Not everyone who has HIV gets AIDS.

But why take a risk on amplifying a KNOWN pathogen in our waters?

Stupid is as stupid does.

I'm glad WA's leaders are finally taking a stand against this industry.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#985793 - 02/20/18 09:06 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 12372
Salmon farming may not belong in Puget Sound, but false claim news releases grandstanding the effort by WFC to get rid of the farms is not the way to go about it. The review by Ken Warheit is a good read. I've read some of his genetics work; he is thorough, precise, and accurate. I'm glad he reviewed WFC's news release. When I read it I had some problems with it, but I'm not as articulate as Warheit is in his review.

Top
#985802 - 02/20/18 11:34 AM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Agreed, Salmo. Accuracy should be important.

Top
#985806 - 02/20/18 12:35 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4559
Loc: Sequim
WFC counter to WDFW press release.....and I would like to add part of eyeFISH's comments

But why take a risk on amplifying a KNOWN pathogen in our waters?


Wild Fish Conservancy stands firm behind PRV statements February 20th, 2018

For immediate release.

In light of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) response to Wild Fish Conservancy’s (WFC) press release on February 15th, we stand firm behind our original statements, and aim to briefly but fully clarify our position on the matter of Piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV) of Norwegian origin found in escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in Puget Sound. It is our intention that this clarification will dispel any charges of inaccuracy when it comes to the PRV threat. As is stated in the original release, WFC received independent lab results confirming the presence of PRV in 19 of 19 farmed Atlantic salmon tested that had escaped from a large-scale escape event off of Cypress Island in August 2017. Furthermore, testing of the samples showed the strain of PRV to be of Norwegian origin. Specifically, the S1 gene from tissue samples from eight of the 19 fish were sequenced and all identified as Geneotype 1a, which is known to be of Norwegian origin. We take issue with a number of claims made by WDFW in response to this press release, mainly that the agency did not attempt to accurately represent WFC’s views on the matter, and that WDFW is not taking an appropriately precautionary approach when it comes to evidence of a potentially harmful virus being proliferated in Washington’s public waters.
WDFW mischaracterizes our view regarding the Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammatory (HSMI) disease. In the press release we accurately state that HSMI has caused up to 20% mortality in Norwegian net pens. We also state that PRV is known to be the causative agent of HSMI, which has been well documented.
We do not claim, however, that HSMI has been shown to occur in wild Atlantic or Pacific salmon and steelhead. We do not confuse HSMI with PRV, but we do express unease over PRV’s demonstrated relationship to the lethal disease. We are clear that our primary concern is with infection of the virus itself and the concerning possibility that it may cause harm to wild salmon and steelhead, particularly juveniles.
In the press release, WFC states:
“As PRV builds up in a salmon’s red blood cells, the virus may reduce the amount of oxygen cells can transport to the fish’s muscles, lowering the fish’s performance. For a wild fish, reduced performance means a reduced ability to capture prey, evade predators, and swim upriver to spawn.”
This quote identifies a credible biological mechanism by which PRV infection may lead to increased mortality in wild salmon and steelhead. Even in the absence of HSMI, there is the potential for PRV infection to harm wild fish. We believe this potential for harm should not be taken lightly, especially considering the status of the wild ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound.
WFC additionally takes issue with the claim that escaped Atlantic salmon were infected with PRV as a result of stress in the aftermath of escape. 100% of escaped Atlantic salmon tested by both WDFW and WFC (a total of 23 fish) tested positive for
PRV. In a recent broad effort to survey for disease among Alaska and Washington, only 4.6% of Chinook, Coho, and steelhead sampled in Puget Sound tested positive for the virus, a finding that dispels the notion that PRV is ubiquitous among wild fish. Similarly, Norway’s wild salmon disease surveillance program data shows that escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in wild salmon rivers have much higher levels of PRV infection (55% of fish sampled) than either wild-origin conservation hatchery brood stock (24%) or wild salmon (13%). Lacking data that would indicate the absence of the disease prior to escape, WDFW cannot state with any amount of certainty that the disease was contracted in the days following the escape.
As for the issue of the virus’ origin, WFC strongly disagrees with WDFW’s implication that PRV in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea originated in the Pacific Northwest, rather than being imported from Norway. Our independent lab results identified the S1 gene samples of Atlantic salmon as Geneotype 1a, which is known to be of Norwegian origin. WDFW’s implication that the virus is native to the Salish Sea is, at best, highly controversial. Our evaluation of the recent scientific literature on this issue leads us to conclude, in agreement with a majority of researchers who have published on the matter, that it is highly improbable that PRV is native to the eastern Pacific Ocean, and that its presence in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea is the result of importation from Norway.
Much of WDFW’s reply treats the press release as if it were a detailed scientific article, rather than a news brief presenting a summary of critical information. In the release WFC provided members of the press and public with references to the relevant scientific journal articles that informed our position; those interested in digging deeper are encouraged to dig deeper. Still, a press release is necessarily brief and general. It is not a scientific document, and a reviewer should not treat it as such. The testing of the tissue samples from the Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Cypress Island pen, the general results of which we announced in the press release, is part of an ongoing collaborative research project soon to be published in a major scientific journal. Contact information has been provided at the bottom of this press release, please don’t hesitate to contact WFC to request more information regarding the information provided in this release.
When it comes to the impacts of PRV on our wild salmon and steelhead, the science strongly indicates that Washington state agencies need to take a measured and precautionary approach, not a dismissive one. In Puget Sound, wild Pacific salmon and steelhead find themselves at considerable risk, with several species threatened with extinction and many surviving at only a fraction of their historical abundance. Even a small amount of risk from the spread of PRV, compounded with the other stressors our wild fish populations face, has the potential to bring about disastrous consequences to already imperiled wild salmon and steelhead. Due to this concern, a measured and precautionary approach dictates that state agencies must err heavily on the side of caution.
The burden of proof that PRV does not cause harm to wild fish does not rest on wild fish. The burden of proof, rather, lies squarely with the Atlantic salmon net pen industry and regulatory state agencies. This burden has yet to be shouldered by the industry and its defenders.
To date, WFC has not seen sufficient evidence from either of these entities that PRV will not harm wild fish. In standing firm on our concern over the impacts of PRV to wild Pacific salmon, WFC calls on WDFW and other state agencies to accomplish the following: 1. Stop all restocking of Atlantic salmon net pens until thorough industry-independent testing has proven the Atlantic salmon hatchery is not planting PRV infected fish. 2. Immediately test all Atlantic salmon net pens in Puget Sound for PRV. 3. Remove all PRV-infected Atlantic salmon from Puget Sound net pens. 4. Immediately disinfect facilities showing any trace of PRV.
We maintain that these actions are essential to ensure that PRV-infected fish are not being planted into public waters and that Atlantic salmon raised in net pens are not amplifying and spreading the virus in public waters where it places our native salmon and steelhead at risk.
For more information, please contact:
Kurt Beardslee, Executive Director
(425) 788-1167
Or email us at:
info@wildfishconservancy.org


Edited by bushbear (02/20/18 12:37 PM)
Edit Reason: added comment from eyeFISH

Top
#985813 - 02/20/18 02:54 PM Re: Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus [Re: satsop_connoisseur]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 5143
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I agree with bushier and eyeFISH that WDFW has not been very risk-averse in this situation.

But, especially with the events of recent weeks with all of the shootings how much risk-avoidance do we want to put in place? Or drunk driving? Just asking the question as to how do we assess risk versus an action?

These cultured Atlantics sure seem to have pathogen issues. Is it more recent than when they were first imported in the 19th Century?

Also, the real target here. it seems, should be the whole net pen industry. Escape by 100,000 Chinook would have been significantly more damaging. The industry, to me, is a bigger issue than simply the fish stock used.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Recent Gallery Pix
Gibbs Delta Time Capsule
Driftin'
Who's Online
9 registered (Sock1eye, stonefish, Eric Kraig, Carcassman, 5 invisible), 232 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
davekp66, JudithJake, Gamerzone, Ieraryr, blenny
11409 Registered Users
Top Posters
Hankster 29775
Todd 24829
Sol Duc 15103
Dan S. 14243
elparquito 13386
Salmo g. 12372
eyeFISH 12358
STRIKE ZONE 12107
stam 11483
Dogfish 10975
Forum Stats
11409 Members
18 Forums
76567 Topics
887727 Posts

Max Online: 596 @ 05/24/12 03:35 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |