We have to approach this in two ways. There is definitely worldwide evidence that aquaculture operations have impacts on wild populations when they coexist in the same region. We're talking about here in the west coast, and the same thing applies in Europe. As Karen Wristen just mentioned in her previous statement, it's a cumulative sum of the different parts that actually raises the question of whether there is actually such a minimal impact or much more than that.
We have to consider a few factors in this aspect. First, we have evidence that fish farms carry a plethora of agents, agents that can be a threat to Pacific salmon, and in this case it can even be wild Pacific salmon, and they can be carried in concentrations, so the Tenacibaculum case is one of them, but this can be applied to several different agents. In this case, the farms can work as an incubator for this agent, but at the same time they can work also as a reservoir.
There was a case we did on VHS, which is a virus that can be retained by the farm as a reservoir and infect herring, which is a food source for salmon as well.
The other thing to consider is that wild salmon swimming by, like sockeye salmon at Discovery Island, and wild salmon living nearby, for example chinook on the west coast of Vancouver Island, have a higher probability of picking up these agents that are released in high concentrations from the farms. That's another risk factor to watch in the puzzle.
Then we have evidence that some of these agents can actually induce lesions and disease, just as we see in farmed fish. An example would be PRV—