Forum Index > Stewardship > 'Environmental Nightmare' After Thousands Of Atlantic Salmon Escape Fish Farm 08/24/17
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 264 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 19, 2018 4:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Notice the links between farm and wild

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_and_parasites_in_salmon
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5880 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Feb 19, 2018 5:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Right but all the hype is about from farmed to wild,  this reported case is about from wild to farmed.

Sort of like the hype about bison borne Brucelosis and ranchers using that as a pretext for killing bison whenever they left Yellowstone park boundaries.

Seems like the most effective way to ensure a robust population of wild salmon to support orcas and other aspects the ecosystem would be to ban taking of wild salmon and only use farmed salmon for human consumption.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Feb 19, 2018 7:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Dunno!

I didn't read that entire paper yet. I just read the abstract.

Are you fishing here? wink.gif

Are you thinking that Kurt Beardslee and Wild Fish Conservancy are drawing lines where none exist?
That's entirely possible. Like I said, I didn't read that entire paper yet myself, and I'm not a ichthyologist or biologist or any other kind of "ologist".

If you think that the claims made in that press release are overblown, please point out for me why.
I've been responding to every email that WFC sends to me with a request for definitive evidence of their claims regarding transmission of parasites or virus to wild fish stocks ever since that incident, and that's the first thing I've received that comes close to being an answer.
Maybe it's possible that unless you send them money, any inquiries sent to info@wildfishconservancy.org are ignored.

Your analogy of the bison may well be spot on, Randy. I do not know.

I do know there are other reasons why this "aquaculture" industry is a sham; it is not by any stretch of the imagination "sustainable", for one. They are mining the small food fish stocks out of the oceans (to make the "fish pellets" to feed the farm-raised fish and shrimp) faster than the oceans can replenish the supply. In and of itself that is reason enough.

As to the claims made by Beardslee and WFC, read that paper and tell me where the holes are in the argument.

(WWLMS?)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 264 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2018 6:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski,

Here is a link to a conversation between a retired wdfw director, senior bios, and others.......


http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/985588/Atlantics_from_Net_Pens_were_I.html#Post985588

This board has little moderation......


Here is some insight from a retired Bio

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 264 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2018 6:45 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Randyhiker,

Unfortunately, you may be assuming that any of the players give a rats a.. about the ecosystem. It is all about money from the guv to the farmers to the tribes.If it was about the ecosystem or in my case just a pure love for our anadromous fish, farmed fish would be the new protien.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Feb 20, 2018 11:05 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory, thank you very much.
It looks like my gut feeling was correct: Ken Beardslee at Wild Fish Conservancy appears to be drawing lines between dots that do not exist.

Apparently the rebuttal response from Ken Warheit at WDFW was not sent out to those on WDFW's email list, but was sent to the press.  huh.gif

Virus in escaped fish common not harmful to salmon in Washington waters, state says

Ken Warheit, WDFW, on 02/16/18 in response to WFC's press release of 02/15/18 wrote:


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.


--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Feb 20, 2018 11:08 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory, am I crazy, or is there some sort of loop between Beardslee and Alexandra Morton and this "Kibenge" lab that lost its accreditation?
Can you shed any light on that one?
I poke around on the sites and read, but I can only read so much before I have to dismiss it as hyperbolic hysteria. Is this a deal like Fox News where they just create their own echo chamber?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Feb 20, 2018 1:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tuesday February 20, 2017 11:50 PST

Wild Fish Conservancy, in their press release of 02/20/18 wrote:


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


--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5880 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue Feb 20, 2018 2:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory wrote:
Randyhiker,
                  Unfortunately, you may be assuming that any of the players give a rats a.. about the ecosystem. It is all about money from the guv to the farmers to the tribes.If it was about the ecosystem or in my case just a pure love for our anadromous fish, farmed fish would be the new protien.

I'm not assuming anything about those players, other than they are more likely to serve the interests of various political interest groups.

I'm saying that if ensuring the survival of salmon runs and creatures that depend on salmon was the actual goal, that harvesting wild salmon for human consumption makes little sense.   Every fish taken is one less fish for orcas, seals, sea lions, etc, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Feb 21, 2018 10:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
... in other news....

Atlantic salmon farming company sues Washington State to keep its Port Angeles site open / Lynda Mapes, Seattle Times / 01/05/18

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 264 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 22, 2018 6:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski I just poked my nose in here and have to go to work but will get back to ya.

Yes, it is much like msnbc and Russian collusion.LOL, You are right about connecting dots that are not there.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 264 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 23, 2018 7:11 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ken Beardslee at Wild Fish Conservancy appears to be drawing lines between dots that do not exist.
True.With the tribes and Inslee on the same page, they are hoping to cash in.To me, it is the potential that is dangerous to our wild stocks.

Gregory, am I crazy, or is there some sort of loop between Beardslee and Alexandra Morton and this "Kibenge" lab that lost its accreditation?

I do not know the answer to this but they are both rowing the same boat now.Canada has been vicious and blatant in their support of the farms.I am sure they are watching closely what WFC does in our crooked courts.

I got to get out the door again.

There is no science that shows farmed Atlantics mixing genetically with Pacific stocks.There is no science showing disease affecting Pacific stocks.But that same science, minus politics, is the study of mother natures dynamics.The risk of either of these to worries being dynamic is scary.

Wfc and other orgs like the Hood canal enhancement group start out well-meaning but end up all about the money, not the fish, unfortunately.If the hceg were to succeed they would lose their funding and have to begin job hunting.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Mar 28, 2018 12:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
HB2957 signed into law by Hon. Governor Jay Inslee 03/22/18

http://apps2.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2957&Year=2017&BillNumber=2957&Year=2017

as passed by legislature:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/2957.PL.pdf

section 1 vetoed:
https://crmpublicwebservice.des.wa.gov/bats/attachment/vetomessage/598220db-3b2e-e811-812c-005056ba1db5

=========================================================

adios, Cooke Aquaculture! up.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu May 17, 2018 1:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thursday May 17, 2018 14:08 PDT

WDFW NEWS RELEASE

WDFW denies permit for company to place 800,000 Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound net pens


OLYMPIA – Citing the risk of fish disease transmission, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has denied permission for Cooke Aquaculture to transport 800,000 juvenile Atlantic salmon from its hatchery near Rochester to net pens at Rich Passage in Kitsap County.

In late April, Cooke applied for permission to move juvenile non-native salmon from its hatchery into pens in Kitsap County to replace adult fish that were recently harvested. Washington lawmakers enacted a bill earlier this year that will phase out Atlantic salmon aquaculture by 2022, but Cooke plans to continue to operate until then.

WDFW officials cited two factors in denying the permit that they said would increase the risk of disease transmission within the net pens and possibly to wild and hatchery-raised Pacific salmon outside the pens:

The population of Atlantic salmon that would have been transported from Cooke's hatchery near Rochester tested positive for a form of the fish virus PRV (piscine orthoreovirus) that is essentially the same as the PRV that occurs at the Iceland hatchery from which Cooke receives Atlantic salmon eggs. The Icelandic form of PRV is not known to occur in the eastern Pacific Ocean or Puget Sound, so WDFW classifies it as "exotic" in Washington.
Cooke proposed to place fish into pens that have not been empty (or "fallow") for at least 30 days after the most recent harvest of adult fish, and within a farm that still contains adult Atlantic salmon. These actions would contradict the company's own management plan.
"Each of these factors raised an unacceptable risk of introducing an exotic strain of PRV into Washington marine waters," said WDFW fish health manager Ken Warheit. "This would represent an unknown and therefore unacceptable risk of disease transmission."

Warheit said samples of the juvenile fish that would have been transported were collected by an independent licensed veterinarian under contract with Cooke.  The samples were tested for PRV at the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory at Washington State University. Test results were confirmed at the U.S. Geological Survey's Washington Fisheries Research Center.

Until recently, Cooke operated up to nine net pens in Puget Sound, including one at Cypress Island in Skagit County that collapsed last August and allowed approximately 250,000 Atlantic salmon to escape. The company's latest permit application is not related to the Cypress Island operation or the August mishap.

-WDFW-

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Byeguys
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1411 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Byeguys
  Top

Armchairing
PostMon May 21, 2018 1:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
Which was infected with life from somewhere else at the outset.

The distinction is totally artificial.

I'll get into this argument occasionally. I think that it is irresponsible to say that since humans themselves exist within the circle/web/etc of life/nature/etc as a race, our actions by extension are also 'natural'.

I like to remind the people who say "everything is natural, what's the problem!" that humans made up the word 'natural' and the definition itself is artificial and subjective. Saying that everything we do falls within the cycle of nature is just a lazy excuse, a shrug of the shoulders and a coward's means of turning away from the central truth that as a race we have unprecedented ability to affect the variables which control our environment. With that comes an equivalent responsibility. It just never seems right to me when the consequences of our actions are simply accepted with a glib "it's nature".

This article quantifies the effect of humans on the planet very well - perhaps not perfectly but the staggering disproportion can't be discounted and the trend shouldn't be ignored.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > 'Environmental Nightmare' After Thousands Of Atlantic Salmon Escape Fish Farm 08/24/17
  Happy Birthday Gabigabs, alpine964!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy