HOME WATERS AND WILD FISH

HATCHERY SALMON AND STEELHEAD WASTE HABITAT

2012-01-28T08:35:00.000-08:00

HATCHERY FISH WASTE HABITAT

“In the Clackamas River basin, the summer steelhead hatchery adults had poor reproductive success; fewer smolts were produced per parent than in the wild population, and almost no offspring of hatchery fish survived to adulthood (Kostow et al. 2003). The hatchery program was meant to provide a sport fishery, and the production of adult offspring was not intended. If successful hatchery reproduction had occurred, at least the offspring could have contributed to fisheries. Instead, the hatchery fish wasted basin capacity by occupying habitat and depressing wild production while producing nothing useful themselves. It is not unusual for hatchery adults to have poor reproductive success when they spawn naturally (other examples are provided by Reisenbichler and Rubin 1999, Kostow 2004, and McLean et al. 2004). The combined effect of poor hatchery fish fitness and depressed wild fish production due to competition with the hatchery fish poses a double jeopardy that could quickly erode natural production in any system.”

Kostow & Zhou (2006) page 839:

Not only do hatchery fish waste habitat, making it less productive than it would be with wild salmon and steelhead spawners, the investments made in habitat restoration are also wasted when the habitat is over-run with naturally spawning hatchery fish. When the benefits of habitat restoration are calculated the impact of hatchery fish on those benefits is never included. Habitat restoration is based on the dual premise that it improves the productivity of wild salmonids and that it is cost effective. It is also assumed that habitat is limiting in all cases and that to increase the production of wild salmonids habitat investment is necessary. Because habitat restoration is typically not done within the context of fishery management by government agencies such factors as harvest and hatchery impacts are not addressed and the limitations these actions impose on the success of habitat investment is not acknowledged, evaluated and monitored.

It is important that habitat restoration serves the fish, improves watershed productivity and benefits other wildlife and not become an official deception. Habitat restoration should not be used by agencies to escape their accountability to protect wild salmonids and the healthy watersheds they require to be self-sustaining.

Hatchery Impacts on Wild Salmon and Steelhead

2011-12-19T09:56:00.000-08:00

The following summary is my attempt to provide each of my readers with a well documented list of impacts that hatcheries impose on wild salmonids. This information will allow you to understand the hatchery reform needed to reduce impacts on wild salmonids. In the Northwest fish management has embraced the hatchery option for over 130 years as a way to "mitigate" for watershed development at the expense of wild salmon and steelhead. This approach has promoted the degradation of watersheds and is forcing the replacement of wild native stocks with artificially propagated fish that have reduced reproductive success and interfere with the health and productivity of wild salmonids. What is missing in the Northwest is a wild native salmonid conservation program that effectively protects wild salmonid productivity, identity, and abundance.

The listing of wild stocks under the federal ESA has resulted in little benefit to wild salmon and steelhead populations but it has justified $1 Billion in annual funding for salmon recovery. The ESA has expanded the hatchery solution to wild salmon decline and the fish management agencies have been the primary beneficiaries of this annual flow of public tax dollars into the region.

It should be kept in mind that the primary goal of fish management agencies is not recovery of wild salmonids but to maintain an endless process of planning and the funding it provides. The goal is process not conservation and recovery. The only way that this perversion of the ESA will come to an end is when the wild salmon go extinct or are recovered. Another way, of course, is causing the agencies to be accountable for their programs, actions and expenditures. That requires oversight by government. It takes an independent review to make the agency bosses uncomfortable.

The brief summary on the impacts of hatchery production below is focused on how hatcheries affect the viability of wild salmonids. It needs to be expanded to include harvest reform measures, but it does capture the need to have minimum spawner abundance objectives that would be delivered by species for each watershed as purpose of harvest management. These science based recommendations are sound and they can be done, but the fish managers are not comfortable applying science to their management, so progress will be resisted and defeated without a strong push by those interested in wild salmon and steelhead recovery.

HATCHERY SALMONID IMPACTS ON WILD SALMONIDS

By Bill Bakke

Naturally spawning hatchery fish from long term hatchery cultivation produce 6-11% to the adult stage compared to wild fish. ( Leider et al. 1989, Araki et al 2006)

In the first generation native broodstock hatchery fish (using wild steelhead for hatchery broodstock) the reproductive success of the hatchery fish spawning naturally in streams declines by 14% (males) and 2% (females) compared to wild fish spawning naturally in the river. (ISRP 2011)

In later generations (second and third) the reproductive success of native broodstock hatchery steelhead spawning naturally in streams is 50% (males) lower and 77% (females) lower than naturally spawning wild fish. (ISRP 2011)

There is a genetic change in the hatchery steelhead that carries over to naturally produced progeny of hatchery-origin parents causing reduced reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild and the population fitness of subsequent generations. (Araki et al. 2009, ISRP 2011)

In just 6 generations native broodstock hatchery steelhead reproductive success is 29% to 54% that of wild steelhead. (Berntson 2011)

In order to maintain cost effective hatchery programs, access to healthy abundant wild steelhead populations is required. (Based on research by Araki et al. 2008)

In order to protect and rebuild wild salmon and steelhead populations harvest targeted on hatchery fish must be regulated to protect wild spawner abundance, spawner abundance goals need to be adopted by species and watershed, hatchery transfers among watershed need to be eliminated, and naturally spawning hatchery fish need to be excluded from wild fish spawning areas. (Conclusions base on best available science)

Impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish must be controlled so that competition for food and space for rearing juveniles in streams and the estuary support wild fish survival, predation and predator attraction by hatchery fish is controlled to protect survival of wild fish, and nutrient enrichment targets from natural spawning wild fish support and expand the productive capacity of the habitat. (Conclusion based on best available science)

Competition between wild and hatchery fish spawning naturally in a common habitat can reduce the production of wild juveniles by 50% (Kostow 2004)

The cost to produce a hatchery steelhead that contributes to the catch is $200 to over $400 per fish harvested. Most hatchery programs funded with tax dollars are not cost effective, making the hatchery program vulnerable to loss of funding as hatcheries compete for funding with other social needs for available dollars. . (Hans Radtke 2011, IEAB 2000)

HOW AGENCIES DEFEAT PUBLIC INITIATIVES

2011-09-04T08:59:00.000-07:00

INSTITUTIONAL SELECTION

We have all heard of natural selection, a concept created by Charles Darwin in 1859. It is the primary way in which animals and plants adapt to their environments through sexual reproduction.

There is another form of selection having to do with cultural forces, a system of beliefs, assumptions, and values. Institutional selection imposes compliance among people in agencies and business. If one wants to rise within the institution a clear record of compliance to institutional values and beliefs is required. These selective factors are often unspoken, but those who want the institutional rewards are nonetheless very much aware of them.

Public agencies are influenced by having to be responsive to public concerns and involve the public in policy development. The problem for the agency is that the public can interfere with agency culture. They are constantly having to deal with public proposals and are obligated to hold public hearings on issues that can result in agency change. For this reason public agencies have developed a sophisticated resistance to outside interference. As one administrator once told me if you poke us too much in one direction, we build a callus.

The first level of resistance comes when the agency is confronted with a policy change over how it administers its system of assumptions, beliefs and values. The public initiatives arrive without invitation from outside the agency. As one director of the Oregon fish and wildlife department once said, “we can recover salmon if the public would just stay out of our business.” This candid burp was rather revealing for its honesty.

Public agencies are also burdened with a commission that can, when they feel forced, be responsive to public initiatives to change agency policy. The commission is always a wild card that the agency staff is constantly worried about, for it could mean a reflexive change in the why things are done, so they spend a lot of time tuning the commission up to support staff’s natural abhorrence to any change whatsoever. But change happens and the agency has developed a way to slow change down and defeat it, if given enough time.

The first thing that staff does with cooperation of its legal department is make sure that any policy change has no clauses of accountability embedded in it, something the public can use to pester the agency about non-compliance through the courts. So all policy changes are cleansed of deadlines, deliverables, numerical values or anything else that the public can use to threatened the status quo of agency operations.

Another useful tactic is to know your public. This is necessary because the agency is often called upon to assemble a public advisory group to help in the process of policy development. A useful precautionary tactic is to stack public advisory groups with people who are supportive of the agency status quo, but to appear non-partial they appoint one or at the most two people who are progressive in their views knowing they can be controlled or out voted. A novel refinement of this tactic is to invite people who are opposed to the agency altogether. They are useful in creating conflict with the feared change makers giving the agency the middle ground. For example, when deciding the Native Fish Conservation Policy, the ODFW invited the private property advocates to the table. These folks were opposed to fish protection because they believed private use of land was threatened. Including them on a committee to develop conservation plans for the protection of native species insured conflict. This was an unusually perceptive adjustment by staff to protect the agency status quo for it created a strong opposition to those seeking a strong conservation policy and at the same time gave the agency staff the middle ground. The staff ran shuttle diplomacy between the two opposing groups in the committee, telling each one what they wanted to hear, thus strengthening the conflict. This increased the agency capacity to maintain the status quo.

Another artful dodge is to maintain a policy in draft form for as long as possible so that it is not binding on the agency and no matter how hard the public might press them to implement the policy, the agency reminds them that it is only a draft.

These tactics are for the single purpose of protecting the agency from change, especially those threats generated by the public.

Once a policy development committee is seated, it is obvious to the agency staff that change is inevitable, so additional tactics are necessary to slow change down.

The second level of resistance is to not implement or make implementation impossibly slow so that those wanting change get busy on other things and public pressure is dissipated. Too often the public assumes that once a policy is adopted by the agency and becomes administrative law, that the agency will practice due diligence and implement that policy. The public spends a lot of time in policy development but attention wanes when it comes to carrying out the policy on the ground.

When the Oregon department of fish and wildlife adopted the Oregon Wild Fish Management Policy in 1978 and revised it several times later to remove legal handles that could prove inconvenient, it was discovered that the policy was not actually being applied agency wide. The policy was never popular and it was left up to staff to implement if they wanted to do so. The environmental advocates for this policy assumed that it was being applied across the state to provide protection for wild fish and were shocked to find out that it was an elective.

When the public was successful in convincing the commission to implement a slot regulation for Deschutes River trout fishery, one agency administrator complained that ODFW no longer managed the Deschutes, the public did. The slot regulation did away with bait and allowed a restricted kill of trout in number and size. This lead to a catch and release fishery, which is not favored by an agency that believes a kill fishery is the only way to sell licenses.

The following is provided to show just how strong resistance to institutional change can be. The Oregon Legislature passed a state law that said it is the obligation of the fish and wildlife department and commission to “prevent the serious depletion of indigenous (native) species.” Serious depletion was not defined so the agency had plenty of interpretation room to avoid compliance. The ODFW commission got into the act and said that the law also directed the agency to provide social benefits and concluded that conservation was balanced by the requirement to provide those benefits such as harvested fish. They developed a code for killing fish called “fishing opportunity.”

At the request of the public, the Oregon Attorney General’s office provided the ODFW with its assessment of this statute in 1997 and again in 2003. In those legal reviews the agency was told that its “overriding obligation is to prevent the serious depletion of indigenous species” and the agency is unable to provide social benefits unless this happened. Thus, the balancing argument of the ODFW commission was set aside, but their dedication for it was not.

Also at the public’s request, the ODFW director distributed the 1997 legal opinion from the AG’s to the staff so they would be fully informed about the law and their obligation to it. However, this law did not mesh well with the understood institutional mission of the agency by staff. One did not advance their careers by being an advocate for wild fish. One staff person who left ODFW told me he left because he did not like getting in trouble for following the rules.

In 2003 the AG’s office once again reminded the agency of its overriding obligation to protect native species from serious depletion as they sought to adopt the Native Fish Conservation Policy. In 2010 this state law still has no real traction within the agency in their day to day management. It was disturbing when a commissioner told me that he did not know how to deal with this responsibility.

It can be argued that when the state assigns a species as sensitive, which means it is precarious and vulnerable to extinction, or when a species is provided protection under the federal Endangered Species Act, that it is certainly seriously depleted. With regard to ESA-listed species, the states must get coverage from the National Marine Fisheries Service to run its hatchery and harvest programs. This would appear to be a serious check on any agency’s institutional mission, but it isn’t, for even though the federal agency requires the agency to justify its actions, it is not often different from what the agency would have done anyway. The only difference is the additional paper work.

In the state of Washington, the WDFW commission adopted a Wild Salmonid Policy. The director that led this adoption struggle and the staff person that drafted the policy lost their job soon after this policy was adopted. Since its adoption, the agency has quietly ignored it for it requires change in hatchery and harvest structures that have been in place a long time.

More recently, the WDFW commission adopted a Wild Steelhead Management Plan. This plan calls for Wild Steelhead Management Zones to be adopted. The public requested this and was successful. However, when asked why there has been little movement in setting up Wild Steelhead Management Zones, including the 20 that the public recommended, they are given a number of reasons.

The first artful dodge is that this policy is still in draft form so it is not binding on the agency. That reasoning inflames the public so other reasons had to be found. Since their co-managers, Native American tribes, did not sign this policy, the agency cannot implement it. That is a better excuse because someone else is to blame. When reminded that the WDFW has an obligation to secure 50% of the available harvest for its constituents in a shared resource with the tribes, there is ample room to provide for wild steelhead management zones. When the public advocates are willing to forgo harvest to increase the spawner abundance of steelhead in these WSMZs it is unreasonable to allow the tribes to harvest the forgone and so-called surplus from the recreational fishery. But because the agency does not establish a steelhead harvest management plan prior to the fishery starting, it claims there is no power to make changes to protect spawners and achieve spawner escapement goals in each river that is co-managed. So the agency, by not doing its job creates an excuse to harvest all the fish, including those needed for spawning. In order to do this and still appear to be managers of good faith, the recreational fishery is closed while the tribal fishery continues to fish. The conclusion is that wild steelhead are not getting the needed protection.

In lower Puget Sound hatchery fish harvest zones were created to maximize the harvest of hatchery coho. Wild coho spawner objectives by watershed have not been established because that would interfere with the harvest of hatchery fish. A recent petition to list wild coho in Puget Sound by the public is an attempt to correct this problem. By not protecting wild spawner abundance the WDFW is ignoring the best available science that has been in place for 72 years following the research of Willis Rich.

The conflict over conservation of native wild fish populations is created by the fish management agencies. As one retired ODFW biologist told me, wild fish and their habitat are irrelevant to the agency. They manage by a simple model of stocking hatchery fish and running kill fisheries. If one challenges that, one threatens the institution that is based on an industrial model of production and consumption where wild fish are considered a constraint on commodity production.

Fish and wildlife agencies have developed an elaborate resistance to changing their institutional structure of beliefs, assumptions and values. Even though they are public agencies they have created proven ways to blunt the effect of public reform efforts. They have rationalized state laws when they are in conflict with agency operations. They are able to do this because elected officials such as legislators, Congress, and governors, are not interested in resolving the problem.

The public makes its demands and it can have a modest effect on the institutional culture of fish management, but unless the public is fully engaged constantly, agencies find a way to step around and reduce the effect of the changes. The public cannot assume the fish management agency will follow through on its commitments, tell the truth or follow the law, and for that reason, the public needs to be organized so that it is applying pressure constantly year after year to make sure conservation policies are implemented.

Most public groups are themselves not organized to be vigilant protectors of Nature. For one thing policy development and accountability do not sell as well to foundations as do “shovel ready” short tem action projects that have a short life span. First the environmental groups need to make a commitment to follow through on policy development and implementation and find the donors that will help make that commitment a real force for conservation. The other important thing to do is work to elect public officials that actually care about how the state and the nation is protecting the environment and to have elected officials leverage the public’s concern for protecting nature.

Lacking that commitment the public groups are constantly fighting a rear-guard action plan and responding to crisis issues. This means that the agencies will not be reformed, and in the case of salmon, wild native species will not be recovered and there will be no end of populations being listed as endangered species and the rapid rate of extinction will not be addressed. Public agencies are organized to serve the narrow interests of their constituents rather than maintain the productivity and benefits of natural resources they are charged with protecting for the public good.

WILD STEELHEAD MORTALITY AND GEAR TYPE

2011-09-04T08:28:00.000-07:00

In2001 Bob Hooton, fish biologist for the British Columbia Ministry ofEnvironment, evaluated the impact of bait, lures and flies on steelhead andresident fish. This paperreviews what is known through scientific evaluation of relative impacts ofthese fishing types. I have provided afew interesting quotes form this paper below.

“Duringthe Keogh River experiment, it quickly becameevident that, in order to obtain the requisite sample size of steelhead hookedon artificial lures, it was necessary to commence angling sessions with thatgear type. Despite a strong bias towardsartificial lure fishing prior to using bait, lures caught 99 fish while bait produced236 or 2.38 times as many for similar hours fished. Additionally artificial lures caught fishwere hooked deep inside the mouth or gill arches and bleeding heavily in 4 of99 cases (4.04%). Bait caught fish weresimilarly hooked in 26 of 236 records (11.02%) or 2.72 times as often.”

“During the Keoghhooking mortality study discussed earlier a total of 130 and 206

steelhead wereangled in study years 1985 and 1986 respectively (Hooton, 1987). The

weir count of adultsteelhead over the period that angling occurred downstream from the

fence was used toprovide a reasonable approximation of the percentage of the run

captured in thetime allocated. In 1985, the data revealed that project staff fished 117

hours to catch 130steelhead that represented about 27% of the fish available. In 1986,

121 hours wereangled to catch 206 fish that represented about 19% of the supply. In

other words twoanglers fishing an average of one hour per day over a two month period

caught roughly onequarter of the population one year and one fifth the next. All of that

occurredin about 50 meters (164 feet) of river.”

“More recentlyKeogh project technicians involved in requisite sampling of steelhead

upstream from anelectronic counter captured 45%, 62% and 30% of the total available

supply of steelheadin 1998, 1999 and 2000 respectively. For 2001 to date the figure

stands at 51%(personal communication, Bruce Ward, Senior Anadromous Biologist,

Ministry ofAgriculture, Food and Fisheries, Universityof BC, Vancouver). These catch

rates resulted fromtwo staff fishing for an hour or two per day over several kilometers of

a river that is notheld to be particularly accessible or “fishable” by most steelhead

anglers.All of the fish were angled with bait.”

“What we can say, however,is that angling with baited hooks is prevalent in streams

where it is legal,that angling with bait generally results in substantially higher catch rates

and mortality ratesfor both target and non-target fish than angling with any other gear

type, that many ofthe wild steelhead stocks subjected to this combination of factors are

far below targetescapement and that the status of non-target stocks and/or species is

frequentlyas bad or worse than steelhead.”

“Catch andrelease may have been oversold in that there tends to be a pervasiveopinion it can be prosecuted limitlessly with no influence on the status orhealth of steelhead or sympatric species. With respect to fluvial residenttrout populations it was accepted long ago fish are too catchable and prone tohooking mortality to sustain fishing with certain gear types. Resident fish aresimply that – stationary inhabitants of the available habitat. Arguably,steelhead in most of British Columbia’sshort coastal streams, are effectively resident trout. Their vulnerability isentirely comparable to fluvial resident trout.”

Rearing juvenilesteelhead and resident fish are affected by gear type:

“With respect tofluvial resident trout populations it was accepted long ago fish are toocatchable and prone to hooking mortality to sustain fishing with certain geartypes. Resident fish are simply that – stationary inhabitants of the availablehabitat. Arguably, steelhead in most of British Columbia’s short coastal streams, are effectivelyresident trout. Their vulnerability is entirely comparable to fluvial residenttrout.”

““Bruesewitz(1995, WDFW) examined the location of hooking among creeled summer and wintersteelhead in different Washington State streams in the 1992, 1993 and 1994sport fisheries. She found that the single hook and bait combination resultedin a 2.33 times higher incidence of hooking in critical locations (14.9% versus6.4%) than did single hooks and artificial lures.”

Exposure to air andmortality rate:

“Ferguson and Tufts (1993) reporteddisturbingly higher mortality among domestic

rainbow troutsubjected to air exposure after mimicked angling events than for control

fish orexperimental fish not exposed to air. Their data revealed 100% survival among

control fish and88% survival among exercised (i.e., “angled”) fish. Among fish that were

exercised and thenexposed to air for 30 and 60 seconds immediately thereafter,

survival dropped to62% and 28% respectively. The authors stressed their results had

importantimplications for Atlantic salmon sport fisheries where the marked trend was

toward catch andrelease but where anglers habitually hold fish out of water for

significant periodsof time prior to release.

Influence ofmultiple captures on fish mortality:

“The influence ofmultiple captures of individual steelhead is another element of many

British Columbia steelheadfisheries that remains to be evaluated. Catch and tag

recovery data froma large number and range of Ministry programs indicate that in many

heavily fishedstreams steelhead are commonly caught two or more times. It is

reasonable toconclude the frequency of these occurrences has increased steadily over

the past twodecades. The emerging and unanswered questions are whether or not

there arecumulative effects associated with multiple captures and how significant these

are from apopulation perspective? It is clear from the available CPUE (and mortality

rate) datapresented above, however, that any risk of sub-lethal effects associated with

multiple captureswould be skewed markedly toward gear types and procedures that

increased anindividual fish’s frequency of exposure to those circumstances.”

Hatchery fishincrease angling pressure and wild steelhead mortality

“Close examinationof Steelhead Harvest Analysis (SHA) data reveals a consistent pattern onstreams where hatchery steelhead have been introduced. The years immediatelyfollowing first returns of harvestable hatchery fish display pronounced

increases inangling effort and record high estimates of wild steelhead caught and

released(mandatory). Catches tend to have been sustained despite conclusive

evidenceof declining abundance in index streams.”

Anglers can choose to protect wild steelhead

“The anglingcommunity may wish to contemplate leaving a smaller and softer

footprint on allwild fish or risk the steady erosion of longer term opportunity. A sobering

reality is that thetrends in stream fishing opportunity throughout virtually all of

southwestern British Columbia havemanifested themselves in a very few generations of

steelhead. Ignoringhistory and assuming trends will be stabilized or reversed in the

absenceof attention to fishing impacts is unlikely to produce a desirable outcome.”

HATCHERY STEELHEAD IMPACT WILD STEELHEAD

2011-06-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

In a recent conversation with an executive of the ODFW fish division about releasing hatchery steelhead in the Sandy River, Oregon, the assertion was made that these hatchery fish had no impact on wild steelhead. That is a statement of fact, so I asked for the supporting data. After a bit of dithering, he admitted that this conclusion was indeed only an assumption.

Apparently, biologists that hold important political positions within an agency or those that have an agenda regardless of their pecking order within the agency, feel comfortable making factual statements even though they have no facts to back them up. Typically, the public has been conditioned to accept a strongly stated assertion at face value. After all, why would they lie? The public trust is easily violated by agenda driven agency functionaries.

Years of scientific studies costing thousands of dollars have shown that the release of hatchery steelhead has an impact on the health, abundance, and status of wild steelhead in our rivers. The public pays for these studies and should expect that what is learned would be applied to management decsions by government agencies, but there is no obligation for an agency or its personnel to use this information in their work.

What are some of the facts about releasing hatchery steelhead in streams already occupied by wild steelhead?

“Hatchery steelhead displaced wild O. mykiss in 79% of the contests observed between these groups. Our results indicate that the behavior of hatchery steelhead can pose risks to preexisting wild O. mykiss where the two interact.”

That is a startling fact discovered in 1999 by McMichael and others doing a study of hatchery and wild steelhead interactions on the Yakima River. That fact was documented 12 years ago. I wonder why it the ODFW biologist did not use it to at least question his assumption that releasing hatchery steelhead had no effect on wild steelhead in Oregon? Maybe he did not know about this study and maybe since it was from a Yakima River study in the state of Washington, it somehow does not apply to Oregon rivers.

What else did the scientists find out about hatchery steelhead impacts on wild steelhead in the Yakima River?

“Strategies to minimize undesirable risks associated with behavior of released hatchery steelhead should be addressed if protection and restoration of wild steelhead stocks is the management goal.”

That is interesting. Maybe this ODFW biologist is not interested in the protection and restoration of wild steelhead in the Sandy River? But I am sure he must be concerned for after all the wild steelhead are threatened with extinction and their recovery is his responsibility. His agency has even underscored that responsibility in the form of policy when in 2003 the ODFW commission adopted a rule that says protection of native fish is the primary goal of the agency. Even Oregon state law directs the agency to prevent the serious depletion of native species. That has been confirmed by the Oregon Department of Justice to mean that the department and the commission have an overriding obligation to prevent the depletion of native species. I would be surprised if this legal direction did not also include agency biologists and executives.

I was surprised by the comment of an ODFW biologist that had left the agency for another in state government. When I asked him why he had left ODFW he simply replied: “I wanted to work for an agency where I did not get in trouble for following the rules.”

Reference

McMichael, Geoffrey A.; Todd N. Pearsons; Steven A. Leider. 1999. Behavioral interactions among hatchery-reared steelhead smolts and wild Oncorhynchus mykiss in natural streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 19, Issue 4. pages 948-956.

ADDING NUTRIENTS TO STREAMS GIVES A BOOST TO STEELHEAD

2011-06-11T10:52:00.000-07:00

Fertilizers boost declining B.C. fish populations

Fry grow up to 95-per-cent bigger in streams treated with nutrients, fisheries biologists say

BY RANDY SHORE, VANCOUVER SUN FEBRUARY 14, 2011

Young steelhead and salmon grew dramatically in streams seeded with sacks of slow-release fertilizer, a method that shows real promise to help rebuild collapsed spawning populations, according to B.C. biologists.

VANCOUVER - Young steelhead and salmon grew dramatically in streams seeded with sacks of slow-release fertilizer, a method that shows real promise to help rebuild collapsed spawning populations, according to B.C. biologists.

The method has proven effective at improving steelhead growth and survival in Vancouver Island streams in programs dating back to 1989.

Steelhead fry in treated areas are typically about 95-per-cent larger than those in untreated streams, while coho fry are about 40-per-cent bigger. Fish counts in the Keogh River found a 50-per-cent increase in the number of coho that survived the freshwater stage of life.

Fisheries biologists are using fertilizers to replace the nutrients that would be added to the stream naturally by the rotting carcasses of fish that die after spawning, said Kevin Pellett of the B.C. Conservation Foundation. Enhancement programs are operating in 15 watersheds and 28 rivers on the Island and southwestern B.C.

When spawners fail to return, die and rot due to overfishing or ecological conditions, the entire food chain of the stream, from algae and insects to fish fry, goes into decline.

The fertilizers are designed to stimulate growth of certain algaes that in turn cause the populations of insects such as mayfly and stonefly to thrive. Juvenile salmon and steelhead fry feed on those insects.

“When you fertilize a stream it really stimulates algae growth,” said Pellett. “It’s the brown slime that we are really after because the key insects prefer the brown diatomaceous algae.”

Steelhead fry growing downstream from the fertilizer caches are bigger and typically 75- to 250-per-cent heavier than those upstream, which would not be expected to benefit from the improved food supply, according to the most recent data. Larger, more robust fish are more likely to survive and return as spawning adults.

“When those fish go into key overwintering periods, that’s where you see a lot of mortality,” Pellett said.

“The bigger those fish are, the more of them will survive.”

The first application of fertilizer is timed to benefit the tiny steelhead and coho fry that hatch and emerge from the stream bed gravel in the early spring.

Since the first stream enhancement programs started in 1989, a variety of fertilizers and delivery systems have been employed, including liquid fertilizers and fish meal.

“We’ve since switched to a new product called Crystal Green,” he said.

Crystal Green is a slow-release agricultural fertilizer comprised of nitrogen and phosphate recovered from municipal waste water using a technology invented by civil engineers at the University of B.C. The Vancouver-based manufacturer, Ostara, is harvesting a waste material called struvite for the fertilizer from the sewage stream in suburban Portland.

“This is not a panacea, but it is a good tool to increase productivity and it may increase the rate of rebuilding [spawning populations] if we see an increase in the ocean survival,” according to Greg Wilson of the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations.

“Struvite is one of the most cost-effective techniques that we have to help out populations,” said Wilson. “Using recycled phosphorus really reduces the carbon footprint of the project, because fertilizer is quite energy intensive to make.”

Testing on Crystal Green showed the material is extraordinarily pure with few measurable contaminants or metals.

“It’s the cleanest fertilizer we’ve ever worked with,” said Wilson.

Metro Vancouver is running a pilot project at the Lulu Island sewage treatment facility to produce its own version of the fertilizer to be used in the Seymour River, Wilson said.

Crystal Green Pellets are dropped into the stream in burlap sacks, which decay over time. That simple system eliminates the need for expensive liquid fertilizer delivery systems that require maintenance and that are prone to vandalism.

The concept of fertilizing fish habitat dates back thousands of years to China, where carp ponds were fertilized with human feces, Wilson explained.

More recently, the federal and provincial governments have partnered with conservation organizations since the 1990s to fertilize a number of lakes in B.C. with the aim of improving trout and kokanee salmon populations.

Nutrient additions to the Allouette Reservoir in 1999 generated a 12-fold increase in the resident kokanee population and sparked the first adult sockeye returns to the reservoir since 1928, he said.

That unexpected result gives fisheries biologists hope that this approach could help B.C.’s collapsed salmon spawning populations recover enough to become self-sufficient again.

Steelhead and coho in the test streams benefit from two seasons of enhanced growth, the first as tiny fry and the second as a smolt ready to begin its adult life.

Pellett says hatchery data show that the larger salmon smolts are when they leave freshwater for salt water, the more adult spawners return. Fertilizer-based enhancement programs are sending bigger smolts to sea and more smolts overall.

“The more smolts we send out the more adults we get back,” he said.

As spawning populations grow, the rotting carcasses of dead spawners are expected to regain their position as the natural source of elemental nutrients in spawning streams.

“We are starting to see critical mass developing in the steelhead and coho populations on Vancouver Island,” Pellett said.

The Vancouver Island fertilizer enhancement programs are run by the B.C. Conservation Foundation with support from the province, Living Rivers — Georgia Basin Vancouver Island, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and a handful of other conservation organizations.

rshore@vancouversun.com

Transgenic salmon and humility

2011-03-18T08:40:00.000-07:00

MARCH 17, 2011, 8:30 PM

Frankenfish Phobia

By TIMOTHY EGAN

Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.

At a time when the shell of the earth has cracked and the ocean heaved a mortal wave upon a shore of vulnerable nuclear plants, a small miracle is playing out in the biggest river of the American West. Spring Chinook salmon, the alpinists of the maritime world, are following biological imperative and climbing their way up the Columbia to spawn and die.

They are returning from a life in the distant Pacific, swimming home to a grave in gravel, some going almost 1,000 river miles inland. Chinook are the largest salmon, easily the most tasty, and perhaps the most imperiled.

Given the demand for salmon, it is no surprise that a Frankenfish has emerged — a lab-created hybrid that could soon become the first genetically engineered animal approved by the Food and Drug Administration for human consumption. The company behind these manufactured fish promises that they will not affect ones from an ancient and wild gene pool.

Here we go again. It is human to think we can trick nature, or do it one better. It is human to think a tsunami would never knock out a nuclear plant, a hurricane would never bury a city and a deepwater oil drill would never poison a huge body of water. In the gods of technology we trust.

Until they fail. And then, we feel helpless and small and wonder what they — or we — were thinking.

The fate of wild salmon and a panic over power plants that no longer answer to human commands would not seem to be interlinked. But they are, in the belief that the parts of the world that have been fouled, or found lacking, can be engineered to our standards — without consequence. You see this attitude in the denial caucus of Congress, perhaps now a majority of Republicans in power, who say, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that climate change is a hoax.

The newfangled fish comes from AquaBounty Technologies, a company in New England, where many species of the water world are now extinct. They have patented an “AquAdvantage Salmon,” a sterile Atlantic female with a Chinook gene that can “grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon,” says the company.

Consumer groups, and a bipartisan cluster of Congress that has not forsaken reason, are fighting fast-track Food and Drug Administration approval. They are also insisting that if the Frankenfish comes to market, the new salmon would have to be labeledtransgenic — over the company’s objections.

Wild salmon require so much work: they need clean water, a bountiful ocean and restraint to ensure that they aren’t fished out of existence. Vigilance, and a small amount of sacrifice — what a drag.

The alternative, some feel, is to create something under human control. What AquaBounty would do is to take the Chinook gene and splice it into a farm-raised Atlantic. A third fish, an ocean pout, which looks like an eel on a bad fin day, would provide the genetic code that allows AquAdvantage Salmon to grow so fast. Voila: fast fish from the factory, without the hassle of habitat preservation.

I’m not reflexively afraid of living better through chemistry. Genetically modified corn and soybeans have been around for some time. If we can grow food and fiber with less demand on water and nutrients, that’s often worth pursuing.

But the Frankenfish is a much bigger step, and not just because it opens the door to federal approval of all kinds of freaks from the farm. Splice a breast-heavy chicken with a pellet-loving pig and you’re into some seriously modified “other white meat.”

With wild salmon, many people wonder what all the fuss is about. In the Northwest, salmon is our symbol, even if we’ve so mismanaged their spawning grounds with dams and overfishing. Where once there were perhaps 20 million salmon returning to the Columbia, that number now is barely a million in some years.

Alaska has done much better. They have the world’s largest wild salmon runs because they’ve protected habitats, kept water quality fairly good and regulated fishermen.

These new salmon, AquaBounty says in its pleadings before the government, will not harm the ones handed down by the ages. There is “virtually no possibility of escape and interaction with the wild population,” company officials say.

Why do I not feel reassured? The last quarter century has bred skepticism into me, beginning with a personal experience in 1986. We were in Italy, my wife pregnant with our first child, when the Chernobyl nuclear plant blew. The Soviets lied, and covered up the accident.

But what soon became clear — that a runaway reactor had spewed more than 400 times the amount of radioactivity into the environment than that released by the atomic bomb over Hiroshima — made us tremble. For days, along with the rest of Europe, we watched the pattern of a huge radioactive plume, as officials warned that pregnant women were at particularly high risk.

Luckily, the radioactive cloud never came our way. But given the choice between the hard work of trying to respect the laws of nature, and the engineered solution, I’ll take the seasonal miracle of wild salmon — and try to learn something about humility.

Lubchenco Is The New Cheerleader For The Status Quo

2011-03-16T08:14:00.000-07:00

By Demian Ebert

In a recent commentary in The Oregonian, Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, stated that salmon recovery in the Columbia Basin is now being guided by science and pointed to increased survival of juvenile salmon and improved returns of adult salmon as validation of recovery efforts. But attributing improvements in salmon and steelhead returns to the recovery program alone is misleading.

Survival of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River has increased because of improved passage conditions, due largely to increased spill at the dams -- ironically, an action that was imposed on federal agencies by court order. Improved ocean conditions have resulted in increased adult returns for some populations of salmon and steelhead. Unfortunately, most of the returning fish are from hatcheries. Wild fish populations remain far below recovery levels.

Although Lubchenco asserted that science supports the NOAA plan, a comprehensive review by the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society concluded the plan relied more on monitoring than on specific actions -- monitoring that's adequate for tracking the status of salmon, but not adequate for ensuring their protection and recovery.

Let's face it: Science alone will not guide salmon recovery; ultimately it will be a societal decision. But the public should not be misled into believing that the best available science has been fully implemented, as NOAA contends. Many human actions have contributed to the decline of the Columbia runs of salmon and steelhead, including habitat degradation, overharvest and poor hatchery programs. Dams, reservoirs and operation of the hydropower system have been major contributors to the decline -- especially for Snake River populations -- and are also contributing to the decline of other native species, notably the Pacific lamprey and white sturgeon. Yet much of the NOAA recovery approach is a tacit acceptance of the status quo when it comes to the hydropower system.

In 2000, the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society -- representing hundreds of fishery professionals -- passed a resolution that "The four lower Snake River dams are a significant threat to the continued existence of remaining Snake River salmon and steelhead stocks; and if society wishes to restore these salmonids to sustainable, fishable levels, a significant portion of the lower Snake River must be returned to a free-flowing condition by breaching the four lower Snake River dams, and this action must happen soon." We reaffirmed this resolution in 2009. The Idaho Chapter and Western Division of the American Fisheries Society, collectively representing thousands of aquatic scientists, have also passed similar resolutions.

Furthermore, results from a scientific assessment -- a five-year effort of regional scientists convened by NOAA -- indicate that the action with greatest certainty of recovering Snake River salmon and steelhead is breaching the lower four Snake River dams.

Yet NOAA now considers even the study of breaching the Snake River dams to be essentially an action of last resort, triggered only when fish runs fall to perilously low numbers. Should society decide to implement dam breaching, many years of study and planning would be required. Comprising several generations of fish, this could severely limit the value of the action if important salmon and steelhead populations go extinct before the first shovel of dirt were moved.

Lacking the information necessary to assess the technical, physical and biological effects of breaching the Snake River dams, NOAA cannot meet its stated objective of using the "best available science" to develop recovery actions.

The Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society encourages a proactive, comprehensive study of dam breaching, with independent and open scientific review, so that this recovery action could be thoroughly considered and implemented in a timely manner. Hundreds of dams in the United States have been removed, with a growing record of immediate and positive responses by rivers and native fish. If society decides recovery of these imperiled fish is truly important, we should consider this science-supported recovery action for the Snake River and its fish.

Demian Ebert is president of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.

Published in The Oregonian March 11,2011

Multiple Sources of Gene Flow into Wild Steelhead Populations

2011-02-24T12:08:00.001-08:00

Molecular Biology 2011

Who are the missing parents? Grandparentage analysis identifies multiple sources of gene flow into a wild population

MARK R. CHRISTIE, MELANIE L. MARINE and MICHAEL S. BLOUIN

Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-2914, USA

Abstract

In order to increase the size of declining salmonid populations, supplementation programmes intentionally release fish raised in hatcheries into the wild. Because hatchery-born fish often have lower fitness than wild-born fish, estimating rates of gene flow from hatcheries into wild populations is essential for predicting the fitness cost to wild populations. Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) have both freshwater resident and anadromous (ocean-going) life history forms, known as rainbow trout and steelhead, respectively. Juvenile hatchery steelhead that ‘residualize’ (become residents rather than go to sea as intended) provide a previously unmeasured route for gene flow from hatchery into wild populations. We apply a combination of parentage and grandparentage methods to a three-generation pedigree of steelhead from the Hood River, Oregon, to identify the missing parents of anadromous fish. For fish with only one anadromous parent, 83% were identified as having a resident father while 17% were identified as having a resident mother. Additionally, we documented that resident hatchery males produced more offspring with wild anadromous females than with hatchery anadromous females. One explanation is the high fitness cost associated with matings between two hatchery fish. After accounting for all of the possible matings involving steelhead, we find that only 1% of steelhead genes come from residualized hatchery fish, while 20% of steelhead genes come from wild residents. A further 23% of anadromous steelhead genes come from matings between two resident parents. If these matings mirror the proportion of matings between residualized hatchery fish and anadromous partners, then closer to 40% of all steelhead genes come from wild trout each generation. These results suggest that wild resident fish contribute substantially to endangered steelhead ‘populations’ and highlight the need for conservation and management efforts to fully account for interconnected Oncorhynchus mykiss life histories.

http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Christie-et-al-w-M-Blouin-ME-2011-steelhead-missing-parents.pdf

New Study: Hatchery Fish Reduce Productivity of Wild Fish

2011-02-24T10:19:00.000-08:00

Can.

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68(3): 511–522 (2011) | doi:10.1139/F10-168 | Published by NRC Research Press

Reduced recruitment performance in natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish

M. W. Chilcote, K. W. Goodson, and M. R. Falcy

Abstract: We found a negative relationship between the reproductive performance in natural, anadromous populations of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and the proportion of hatchery fish in the spawning population. We used intrinsic productivity as estimated from fitting a variety of recruitment models to abundance data for each population as our indicator of reproductive performance. The magnitude of this negative relationship is such that we predict the recruitment performance for a population composed entirely of hatchery fish would be 0.128 of that for a population composed entirely of wild fish. The effect of hatchery fish on reproductive performance was the same among all three species. Further, the impact of hatchery fish from “wild type” hatchery broodstocks was no less adverse than hatchery fish from traditional, domesticated broodstocks. We also found no support for the hypothesis that a population's reproductive performance was affected by the length of exposure to hatchery fish. In most cases, measures that minimize the interactions between wild and hatchery fish will be the best long-term conservation strategy for wild populations.

The full study can be seen at the Native Fish Society:

http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Chilcote-et-al-2011-h-w-redu
ced-recruitment.pdf

SINGLE BARBLESS HOOKS REQUIRED FOR CONSERVATION

2010-12-28T09:35:00.000-08:00

Introduction

When there is a conservation concern for a wild salmonid population such as one listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, each fish is valuable for its potential contribution to recovery of the population. The loss of juvenile steelhead and salmon can negatively affect adult abundance several years later. It is important to consider all sources of mortality and take appropriate action over those that can be affected by management. Reducing the mortality associated with angling by requiring single barbless hooks is an important policy decision. Doing so can increase survival of juvenile and adult fish by reducing handling time required to take out the hook, and injury from handling as well as exposure to the air.

The following peer-reviewed studies provide a scientific basis for angling regulations to include barbless hooks as a factor important to conservation of native, wild salmonids. While there is ample justification to use barbless hooks on adult fish as required in ocean commercial fisheries to promote easy release with less handling and a goal of reducing mortality, there is also a measurable conservation benefit from using barbless hooks when adult salmonids are captured by angling in freshwater. These studies provide the verification for this conclusion. Using barbless hooks to reduce injury and mortality for juvenile salmon and steelhead is often overlooked when setting angling regulations. Steelhead juveniles rear in freshwater for 2 to 3 years and are exposed to angling mortality in fisheries targeted on trout and adult steelhead and salmon. It only makes sense to include juvenile fish protection as a benefit of barbless hook fisheries.

With a few exceptions such as the Metolius River, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has adopted a position opposed to the use of barbless hooks as a conservation tool for vulnerable wild salmonid populations. They base this policy on a scientific literature review done by staff in 2001. Oregon stands alone among entities that are concerned about recovery and protection of wild salmon, trout and steelhead. British Columbia requires single barbless hooks province wide, Washington requires single-point barbless hooks in areas designated as "fly fishing only" or "selective gear rules; California requires single barbless hooks on most trout and steelhead fisheries; Idaho says only barbless hooks may be used when fishing for steelhead in the Salmon and Clearwater river drainages and the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam.

The studies provided below provide the scientific justification for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Commission to adopt single barbless hooks as a conservation management tool to protect native, wild salmonids throughout the state. In waters where these fish are threatened, a more precautionary management approach is appropriate to reduce mortality. In waters where wild fish harvest is allowed, a barbless hook regulation would provide a conservation benefit for those that are released. For example, in some rivers a limit of one wild steelhead per day and 5 per year is allowed. In those fisheries a hatchery fish may also be taken. This means that the angler may release one or more wild fish in order to take a legal limit that includes a hatchery fish. There is also evidence that wild steelhead contribute more to the fishery than their numbers would suggest, so single barbless hooks would not only help prevent mortality, they could contribute to more angler satisfaction through multiple catches.

The point of this paper is to provide the Department and the Commission with information that provides the scientific justification and benefit of using barbless single hooks in Oregon waters for adult and juvenile fish.

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS:

Wright, Sam. 1992. Guidelines for selecting regulations to manage open-access fisheries for natural populations of anadromous and resident trout in stream habitats. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:517-527.

“Adding restrictions requiring single hooks, barbless hooks, or flies can provide only relatively small incremental improvements in trout survival. However, managers have realized that these can become important in situations where individual fish are hooked many times. The chance of mortality from a single hooking event was examined for various unweighted combinations of terminal gear from our compilation of research results. The categories and single-event losses were as follows:

Barbless hooks with flies 1.76%

All barbless hooks (with flies or lures), 2.16%

Barbless hooks with lures, 3.00%

All hooks with flies, 3.34%

Barbed hooks with flies, 3.88%

All barbed hooks, 5.86%

Barbed hooks with lures, 6.86%

“The most fundamental rule to remember in managing any open-access trout fishery is that effective regulatory control must be applied to every individual fish (Hunt 1970). Fishing seasons and daily bag limits, when used by themselves, are not effective management tools, because they do not apply to each fish that is captured.”

Meka, Julie, M. 2004. The influence of hook type, angler experience, and fish size on injury rates and duration of capture in an Alaskan catch-and-release rainbow trout fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:1309-1321.

“Recent studies have emphasized a holistic approach to evaluating the effects of catch-and-release angling on fish by evaluating both sublethal and lethal effects. When fish are subjected to angling stress, they are affected by stressors that may not cause immediate mortality; in fact, some may influence ultimate survival. These stressors include physiological disruptions from landing time, handling time, and exposure to air during the hook removal process or when photographed, as well as the potentially confounding effects of nonlethal hooking injuries.”

“…fishing methods and whether J hooks were barbed or barbless significantly influenced new overall injury rates. Fish caught by spin-fishing had similar injury rates as those caught by fly-fishing; thus, significance was from higher injury rates with barbed hooks for both fishing methods as well as higher injury rates for barbed hooks between fishing methods.”

“…novice anglers injured proportionally more fish than experienced anglers. The number of new injuries per capture was more significant in small fish. Small fish were hooked in more than one location more frequently than large fish (small fish <440 mm or 17-inches)…small fish were injured more frequently, and bleeding was most significant in fish hooked in sensitive areas and in small fish…small fish had higher bleeding rates. Bleeding was more prevalent in small fish. This presumably was because they were injured in sensitive areas more often as well as injured more often.”

“…hook removal time was significantly longer when barbed J hooks were used compared to barbless J hooks. Mortality was also higher for fish caught with treble hooks compared with single hooks, presumably because the increase in hook-point penetrations increased the probability of injury to critical locations and associated bleeding. My results indicate that smaller fish (<17-inches) may be more vulnerable to mortality.”

“In this study, barbed J hooks caused significantly more new hooking injuries, took longer to remove, and were more efficient at catching fish than barbless hooks. Higher injury rates and longer handling times for barbed hooks were mostly likely due to difficulty in hook removal and hooks becoming tangled in landing nets, both of which were observed to intensify injuries and bleeding. Barbless hooks have been found to cause a lower incidence of injury and bleeding than barbed hooks and decrease the amount of time fish are handled and exposed to air while removing hooks.”

“The results of this study indicate that the use of barbless J hooks may minimize injury and reduce the amount of time fish are handled during hook removal and that angler experience can contribute to hooking injury.”

“However, a slight reduction in hooking injuries and less handling time are two important benefits to consider in support of a regulation change or promotion of angler education programs for catch-and-release trout fisheries.”

“…focus future research on the prolonged sublethal effects of hooking injury on trout populations, and develop angler education programs and gear restrictions to minimize injury.”

Schreer, Jason, F., Dayna M. Resch, and Malachy L. Gately. 2005. Swimming performance of brook trout after simulated catch-and-release angling: looking for air exposure thresholds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1513-1517.

“Air exposure has been hypothesized as one of the primary stressors present during catch-and-release angling. However, there are few studies that systematically vary air exposure duration and evaluate the consequences on individual fish. Here we evaluated the short-term sublethal effects of exercise (to simulate angling) and air exposure on the swimming performance of hatchery brook trout at 10 degrees C. (50 degrees F.). Nearly half of the fish held out of the water for 120 seconds were unwilling or unable to swim at all. This work suggests that fish possess air exposure thresholds that, once exceeded, result in performance impairments. Fish released after extended air exposure may become easy prey for predators or could be displaced downstream . We conclude that air exposure should be restricted to less than 60 seconds and ideally should be avoided entirely.”

(Note: Barbless hooks decrease the amount of time fish are handled and exposed to air while removing hooks in the study by Meka.)

Taylor, Mathew, J., and Karl R. White. 1992. A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of nonanadromous trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:760-767.

“…fish caught on barbed hooks had higher mortality rates than fish caught on barbless hooks.

“…the mortality rate for fish caught with barbed flies or lures is almost double the mortality rate of fish caught with barbless flies or lures.

“”…the effects of handling on hooking mortality have been sparsely investigated. It would be nice to know about variables such as net use, resuscitation techniques, time out of water, and the effect of barbs on handling time. Research on these variables would give a clearer understanding of how to increase survival rates.

“The overall average mortality rate in these 18 studies was just under 12%. Under the best conditions, with barbless flies or lures, the percentage dropped to under 3%.

Reingold, Melvin. 1979. Mortality and catch rates of juvenile steelhead trout caught on single versus treble barbless hooks. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

“…even at the low level of mortalities observed, losses from treble barbless hooks were 4.5 times that of losses from single barbless hooks. In an intensive catch-and-release fishery, this could be meaningful…anglers hooked and released 75,000 cutthroat trout on the Middle Fork Salmon River in 1978. Applying the percent mortality observed, single barbless hooks would account for 428 deaths versus 1,928 for treble barbless hooks, a difference of 1,500 trout; predominately spawner size individuals. This is 83% of the estimated season trout harvest in that stream in 1969 (1,800) when it was catch and keep.”

Pollard, Herbert, A., and Ted C. Bjornn. 1973. The effects of angling and hatchery trout on the abundance of juvenile steelhead trout. Transactions of the Americana Fisheries Society No. 4: 745-752

“A large proportion of juvenile steelhead trout in a stream can be removed with a moderate amount of angling. Age II-plus steelhead are especially susceptible to harvest by angling and 70 to 100% of those present in a 122 m (400 ft) section of stream were removed with 4 angler hours of effort. The normal sport fishery may take as many as half of the catchable size (age II-plus) juvenile steelhead from a stream such as the Crooked Fork each year, and thus may reduce the number of smolts produced.”

“Hatchery reared, catchable sized rainbow trout did not act as a buffer to reducing the angling harvest of juvenile steelhead…”

“Removal of the larger pre-smolts by angling could decrease adult returns due to fewer smolts and decreased survival of the remaining, small smolts.”

(Note: This study was included to show how vulnerable juvenile steelhead are to a trout fishery and the impact of a fishery on the future abundance of adult returns. Angling with barbed hooks increases tissue damage, handling time, exposure to air, and causes a reduction in smolt numbers and adult returns.)

Cowen, Laura. 2007. Effects of angling on chinook salmon for the Nicola River, British Columbia, 1996-2002. North Americana Journal of Fisheries Management 27:256-267

“Gjernes (1990) found that barbed hooks caused higher hooking mortality rates. Bartholomew and Bohnsack (2005) reported three studies that showed increased mortality when using barbed versus barbless hooks. We did not use barbed hooks in this study.”

“The optimal angling gear and techniques used in our study included soft, knotless-mesh landing nets, suitable hook sizes, barbless hooks, short playtime, short handling time, little or no air exposure, angling only at water temperatures less than or equal to 20 degrees C, and leaving deep hooks in or removing them gently with pliers. In addition, Bartholomew and Bohnsack (2005) advocate fishing actively and setting the hook as soon as possible, use of dehooking tools, and avoidance of touching gills and handling the soft underbelly of the fish.”

Pelletier, Christine, Kyle C. Hanson, and Steven J. Cooke. 2007. Do Catch-and-release guidelines from state and provincial fisheries agencies in North America conform to scientifically based best practices. Environ Manage 39:760-773

“Barbless hooks were recommended by 34 (or 69%) agencies as an alternative to barbed hooks.”

“However, there is compelling evidence that barbless hooks are easier to remove than barbed hooks. Ease of removal results in reduced handling time and tissue damage, thereby decreasing associated mortality.”

“The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources explained that replacing treble hooks with single hooks will make live release easier. Because air exposure tends to occur when anglers remove hooks, these agencies have taken a positive approach in stressing the importance of a timely live release.”

“Air exposure was the most widely discussed catch-and-release issue among agencies. It was found that 44 of 49 agencies provided advice on the subject. The most common recommendation (64%) was to keep the fish in the water at all times. This is consistent with studies showing that air exposure is extremely harmful in fish that have experienced physiological disturbances associated with angling. Tufts (1992) found that when rainbow trout were exposed to air for either 30 or 60 seconds after exhaustive exercise, mortality increased from 38% to 72%, receptively.”

“…removing hooks (in deeply hooked fish) often results in mortality associated with increased handling time and air exposure.”

“Considering that water temperature is regarded as the ‘master factor’ in the biology of fishes, it is surprising that angling at extreme temperatures was not incorporated into all agency guidelines.”

“…mortality among Atlantic salmon is minimal when angled at water temperatures between 8 degrees C and 18 degrees C., but as water temperatures increased to greater than 18 degrees C, the risk of angling-induced mortality increases considerably.”

“…we believe that natural resource agencies are the appropriate target of initial attempts to ensure that catch-and-release guidelines are consistent with the best scientific information.”

Conclusion

In recent angler surveys by Oregon and Washington fish management agencies, a larger proportion of the respondents practiced catch-and-release fishing. Anglers are embracing live release fishing as a conservation measure. It also does not substantially deplete fish numbers like a kill fishery, and provides at least the expectation that the fish will survive to reproduce or be caught again.

The use of single barbless hooks complements the growing interest in catch-and-release fisheries. As these studies show, their use reduces sublethal and lethal impacts on juvenile and adult fish.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Commission ought to review their opposition to the use of barbless hooks in selective fisheries. The goal of selective fisheries is to allow angling opportunity while achieving conservation objectives. Barbless hooks advance the conservation objectives of selective fisheries.

MANAGEMENT FOR STRONG AND HEALTHY WILD SALMONIDS

2010-12-15T08:32:00.000-08:00

Strong and healthy salmonids

There are criteria to be achieved for each watershed to achieve healthy and productive salmonids. The following are criteria are necessary to make sure that these wild, native populations are healthy.

1. Determine whether the salmonid species in your watershed are healthy based on the following principles. Each wild native population health is determined by its productivity, diversity (genetic and life history), abundance, and spatial distribution.

2. Does your watershed have a spawner abundance objective? If not, then contact your district biologist to establish one for each species native to that watershed. Only wild, native fish should be counted for this to be a valid objective.

3. How many naturally spawning hatchery fish are using your watershed by species and race? The rule adopted by the ODFW for naturally spawning hatchery fish is 10% in the whole basin. This is too high. The NMFS has recommended 5% stray rate. The natural stray rate for wild fish is less than one percent per brood year.

4. What is the natural enrichment from spawning fish in your watershed? The estimate for coho salmon is 200 spawners per mile. This could be applied to chinook as well. It is important to have a natural nutrient enrichment goal per watershed rather than rely on distribution of hatchery fish carcasses distributed to the watershed. The natural spawners distribute nutrients to those areas where they spawn and provide nutrients that benefit rearing juveniles in those areas.

5. Naturally spawning hatchery fish are a negative impact on the reproductive success of wild, native fish populations, so an effective block to hatchery fish is needed to improve the life cycle survival of wild fish in you watershed. If your watershed does not provide a separation between naturally spawning hatchery and wild fish then your goal is to have one established. Remember it makes no difference what type of hatchery program is being used on your watershed, for they all have an impact that degrades the reproductive success of wild native fish. This includes native broodstock (integrated hatchery) or production hatchery fish.

6. Is harvest management supporting recovery and conservation management for wild native fish in your watershed? The impact of harvest should be determined in order to make sure it is not impeding wild spawner abundance. A discussion of this issue with the district biologist is necessary to determine whether harvest is supporting rather than impeding wild fish productivity, diversity, spatial distribution and abundance. If this question cannot be answered then you have a major conservation problem to be resolved.

7. Establish a conservation requirement for each species of wild native fish in your watershed based on the principles noted above. We need to develop reference streams so that it is possible to determine whether the wild native fish populations are getting the conservation benefit of management.

8. Does the habitat support or impede native wild fish productivity? Habitat is organized like links in a chain that support the life history requirements of the fish. If a link is broken the fish cannot complete their life cycle; if a link is damaged the population’s reproductive capacity is reduced. The primary mission of the Native Fish Society is to make sure that fish management policy and actions deliver wild spawners and exclude hatchery spawners. Success depends on having locally adapted wild fish utilizing the habitats of our watersheds. We also work on preventing habitat degradation and repairing what we can. Working with other groups that have habitat restoration as their primary mission is an important partnership.

2010-12-07T20:09:00.000-08:00

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife refuses to require barbless hooks to protect wild salmon and steelhead in sport fisheries. They are the only western state to take this position and in doing so they are increasing the risk to ESA-listed adult and juvenile fish. The Native Fish Society has compiled the scientific literature that supports use of barbless hooks to protect fish that are to be released, and ODFW use to require barbless hooks, but has decided that conservation is not important. Now the State of Washington must suspend its regulation for requiring barbless hooks on the Columbia River because Oregon refuses to go along where the two states share management responsibilities. When Governor Kitzhaber reviews the performance of ODFW director Roy Elicker, he should ask him to justify this action, giving Oregon a unique distinction among western states.

WDFW director seeks voluntary use
of barbless hooks on Columbia River

OLYMPIA - Columbia River anglers who fish for salmon and steelhead will not be required to switch to barbless hooks next year, but state fishery managers are asking them to do it voluntarily.

"Going barbless only makes sense in these fisheries where we’re trying to maximize survival rates for released wild fish," said Phil Anderson, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). "Anglers can play an important role in that effort by using barbless hooks."

Anderson made his appeal to anglers after informing the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission of plans to delay a new rule - originally set to begin Jan. 1 - that would require anglers to use barbless hooks in salmon and steelhead fisheries from the mouth of the Columbia River to McNary Dam.

The Washington commission, which sets policy for WDFW, approved that requirement, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission did not. Anderson said the prospect of having incompatible fishing regulations on a portion of the Columbia River jointly managed by the two states prompted him to delay the barbless rule for at least a year.

"The two states have worked together for nearly a hundred years to avoid conflicting fishing regulations that would create confusion for anglers on the Columbia River," Anderson said. "Delaying the barbless rule is disappointing, but we’re going to continue to pursue it."

Anderson noted that the border between Washington and Oregon - which determines which state’s fishing rules are in effect - is hard to define along the Columbia River. "Down near the mouth, about 90 percent of the river is in Oregon," he said. "That changes as you move upriver."

Anderson said barbless hooks, knotless nets and careful handling of released fish are all ways that anglers can contribute to recovery of wild salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia River.

"Anything we can do to rebuild wild runs will ultimately help maintain or expand fishing opportunities for hatchery fish," Anderson said. "We hope that all anglers will get behind that idea and voluntarily switch to barbless hooks."

SALMON SPAWNERS SUSTAIN WILDLIFE

2010-11-09T08:53:00.000-08:00

Salmon worth more alive than dead

BY JUDITH LAVOIE, TIMES COLONIST

OCTOBER 22, 2010

Entire ecosystems on the Pacific coast rely on salmon and humans are taking more than their share, a new study concludes.

The paper calls for a shift in fishing plans to protect other species, from insects and seagulls to grizzly bears and killer whales.

Some salmon would be worth more alive than dead, especially when runs are headed for rivers and streams in parks and protected areas, says the paper, published online by the journal Conservation Letters.

"Although more than a hundred species -- like bears, wolves and eagles -- depend on salmon, fisheries often capture more salmon than all of these animals combined, even from runs bound for protected areas created to safeguard wildlife," said the lead author, Chris Darimont of the University of California/Santa Cruz and Raincoast Conservation Foundation science director.

The idea for the study was spawned after a U.S. scientist, visiting a B.C. Central Coast park during the salmon run, asked whether the salmon were protected, Darimont said.

"We had to say 'no, there's a seine boat one kilometre from the river mouth scooping up 50 per cent of these fish,' " he said.

The idea of altering harvesting plans to ensure salmon are shared with wildlife is viewed as radical, especially by commercial fishing interests, admits Darimont.

But changes can be made in a way that minimizes economic consequences, especially as, in some areas, ecotourism, such as bear, eagle and salmon watching, is more lucrative than fishing for species such as pinks and chums, says the paper, written by 10 scientists.

"Our aim is to inform and inspire decision makers with a plan that not only favours biodiversity, but also one that ultimately might yield economic and management benefits," the paper says.

It is a difficult balance, but not impossible, said Paul Paquet, Raincoast senior scientist and one of the authors. "There should be some very intense efforts to understand the requirements of ecosystems and other species and the necessary allocation of salmon to sustain ecosystems and sustain people," he said.

Initially changes should concentrate on salmon runs bound for parks and protected areas. Also, using different harvesting methods could generate higher prices and more employment, Paquet said.

A Department of Fisheries and Oceans paper calls for an examination of the effect of catch rates on ecosystems, but that does not seem to underpin decisions, Paquet said,

The DFO was not able to respond to questions.

jlavoie@timescolonist.com

See the complete study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00145.x/pdf

Raincoast Organization

http://www.raincoast.org/

CONSERVATION RESTS ON PROTECTING LOCAL POPULATIONS

2010-10-10T14:48:00.000-07:00

A CHRONOLOGY OF

WILD SALMONID

LOCAL ADAPTATION

By Bill Bakke

Native Fish Society

____________________________

There is a continuing debate that has spanned 153 years of salmon management and that is whether salmon are locally adapted animals to their home streams through what Darwin (1859) called natural selection. The debate continues today and will be present in the future, shaping salmon and steelhead management. In Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California salmon and steelhead are still released from their river of origin into other rivers in the name of enhancement for fisheries. This lack of conservation management policy for and understanding of salmonid biology, genetics, and life history and respect for the fish is one issue the Native Fish Society is committed to changing.

I have researched the historical literature on this subject to provide a context for proper salmonid management. It is a fundamental problem that should no longer be a factor of deliberate fish management. Transferring fish from one watershed to another is not supported by history or by science, but it takes the many voices of informed people to make a administrative changes.

Hatchery fish management practices that encourage straying of hatchery fish from one watershed to another is another form of this same problem and it has the same detrimental, degrading effect on wild, native stocks.

1854

Andrew Lang: “…each river has its own peculiar race of fish…We have now shown that salmon undoubtedly return to the river where they have spawned, and where they belong to the race of fish that inhabit that particular river.” (N.P. Wilkins, Atlantic Salmon Trust)

1864

George Perkins Marsh: “Fish (salmon) are more affected than quadrupeds by slight and even imperceptible differences in their breeding places and feeding grounds. Every river, every brook, every lake stamps a special character upon its salmon…which is at once recognized by those who deal in or consume them…” (George Perkins Marsh, Man and Nature)

1880

Alvin C. Anderson: He was the inspector of fisheries in British Columbia, and he “…realized that the Pacific salmon are organized into separate local populations, with each river having its own distinct stock. He recognized that the supply of salmon in a river depended upon the number of spawners in that river. Anderson’s views reflected earlier recognition that Atlantic salmon faithfully returned to their home stream. Acceptance of the stock concept led managers of British Columbia’s salmon fishery to limit fishing effort by restricting both the timing of fishing and type of gear permitted.” (David Montgomery, King of Fish, 2003, page 132)

1893

R.D. Hume: “He recognized that salmon stocks in different rivers were distinct and adapted to their home stream. Consequently, he advocated using stocks from streams similar to those into which they were to be released as the key to successful salmon breeding.” (David Montgomery, King of Fish, 2003, page 165)

1902

David Starr Jordan: “The first president of Stanford University and the leading academic salmon biologist of his day, shared (Livingston) Stone’s view, stating: ‘It is the prevailing impression that the Salmon have some special instinct which leads them to return to spawn on the same spawning grounds where they were originally hatched. We fail to find any evidence of this in the case of the Pacific Coast salmon, and we do not believe it to be true.” (Jordan and Everman, 1902 in King of fish, 2003, page 159)

1939

Willis Rich: “It is obvious that the conservation of the species as a whole resolves into the conservation of every one of the component groups…Diverse evidence points so clearly to the existence of local, self-perpetuating populations in the Pacific salmon that…practical conservation measures be based upon the acceptance of the ‘home stream theory’ as an essentially correct statement.” (David Montgomery, King of Fish, page 165)

1939

Willis Rich: “It is apparent then that one of the first requirements of a sound conservation program must be the determination of the extent to which the species to be conserved is broken up into local populations. The defining of specific populations is concerned to a considerable extent with the determination of the geographical limits occupied by each.” (Willis Rich 1939)

1948

Willis Rich: “The importance of the fact that the salmon and steelhead return as adults to their home streams and tributaries is obvious; it is essential that each independent, self-perpetuating population of fish be preserved if depletion is to be avoided.” (Willis Rich 1948, Special Scientific Report No. 51. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

1965

W.F. Thompson: “This principle applies to the salmon along our coasts. Each stream or lake has its own extremely complex characteristics, and if salmon live in one of them we find that these salmon are adapted in an equally complex way to that environment. We are far from understanding these two complexes, the fish and the environment, but we do know that in order to return to the place for which it has been fitted, the salmon returns from the sea to its home stream, there to meet and breed with its own kind. Thus it develops and perpetuates the genetic characteristics which fit it for survival in the stream. So we have a multitude of groups of salmon, each self-perpetuating which we loosely term races, and which the scientists calls gene pools, each fitted to survive in a particular home. If it leaves this home the race either dies off or readapts.” (W.F. Thompson. 1965. Science 150: 3705: 1785-1789)

1974

Roderick Haig-Brown: “The river of birth is the river of return. Each species of salmon, each race within each species, by long selection, is ideally adapted to make best use of its own watershed, its own tributary and subtributary, even the gravel quality and water quality of its own particular spawning area.”

“What is now clear is that each species is made up of thousands of different ‘races,’ each specialized to its own freshwater environment by thousands of years of adaptation.” (Roderick Haig-Brown, The Salmon, 1974, pages 9 and 30)

2002

John Volpe: “Wild salmon, however, return to their natal river to spawn and each generation is repeatedly tailored by natural selection to the conditions of the river. Each river system ‘selects’ only those individuals possessing traits that are most suited to survive in the local environment. Thus, each adult wild salmon returning to spawn is an organic extension of not only its parents, but also of the river that produced it.” (John Volpe, 2002. Suzuki Foundation)

…….

Science is clear about the biological effect of hatchery fish on native, wild populations. Whether these hatchery fish are released into non-natal rivers or stray into them from releases into other rivers, the impacts are the same. The stray hatchery fish interbreed with wild salmonids and degrade their reproductive fitness and success.

Since hatchery fish are able to spawn successfully, they compete at the juvenile stage for food and rearing space. The abundance of hatchery fish is also attractive to predators and can increase mortality on wild salmonids. In addition, fishing mortality is increased on wild fish that are mixed in with hatchery fish. All these factors limit the productivity of wild salmonids and create multiple obstacles to their health and recovery.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife does not have an administrative rule to regulate the transfer of fish among watersheds. In 2003 the department adopted the Hatchery Fish Management Policy where it states that hatchery fish are to be managed by objective and Objective 2 states: “Contribute toward the sustainability of naturally produced native fish populations through the responsible use of hatcheries and hatchery-produced fish.”

However, there are on-going transfers of salmon and steelhead among Oregon watersheds. Information contained in the 2010 Hatchery Operations Plans shows that there are 27 stock transfers of fish into watersheds where they are not native.

The ODFW apparently does not subscribe to the factual basis that salmonids are locally adapted and to their own research and that of others showing that the best conservation principle is to protect locally adapted fish populations.

Science Based Management Improvements by ODFW

2010-10-03T16:16:00.000-07:00

ODFW Policy Change Favors Wild Native Fish

There are some encouraging improvements in conservation management of salmonids being carried out by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The following case studies document the changes and the response of wild salmon and steelhead.

Oregon Coho Salmon:

From 1960 to 1990 the ODFW policy was to use natural habitats to rear hatchery coho salmon and the 1980 Coho Plan dedicated the lower Columbia River to coho hatchery production and harvest. By 1990 10 million hatchery coho were being released annually. Form 1934 to 1990 pre-smolts were released, but those came to an end after 1990 when mostly smolts were released. The releases were reduced to 4.5 million smolts. In 2010 pre-smolt releases were ended and releases into natural habitats were ended. Lower Columbia on-station hatchery releases were reduced to 45% of the 1990 releases and fewer locations were used. Coastal hatchery on-station releases were reduced to 11% of the 1990 level and there are fewer release locations. Oregon wild coho salmon abundance has increased (1990-2007) in response to the change in hatchery policy and other environmental factors.

Hatchery impacts on the productivity of wild coho salmon documented in the scientific literature necessitated a change in management. The listing of Oregon coastal and lower Columbia River coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act created an important incentive.

Scientific studies going back to 1986 provided the following information: Nickelson et al. 1986 demonstrated that the planting of hatchery coho pre-smolts into natural habitats depressed natural productivity; Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987 demonstrated an association with increased hatchery coho releases decreased coho harvest and declining wild coho abundance in Oregon; Flagg et al. 1995 said the combination of hatchery programs and harvest was driving lower Columbia River coho to extinction; Nickelson 2003 said hatchery coho smolt releases depressed the productivity of wild coho on the Oregon coast, and Buhle et al. 2008 said hatchery coho spawners on the Oregon coast had density-dependent effects on natural productivity.

The shift in hatchery management policy by ODFW has contributed to the increasing trend in wild coho salmon in coastal and lower Columbia River populations. Whether it is enough to actually protect wild coho by improving their abundance, productivity, diversity and distribution remains to be seen. At least a 50 year policy of trying to replace wild salmon and their habitats with hatchery programs is beginning to change.

Siletz River Wild Summer Steelhead:

Siletz Falls creates a passage barrier to winter steelhead, fall chinook, and coho salmon during winter flows. Natural barriers like Siletz Falls are responsible for providing habitat for fish that can pass during the spring and summer flows, habitat that favors spring chinook and especially summer steelhead.

In 1952 a fish ladder was constructed at Siletz Falls and opened up the river above the falls to winter steelhead, coho, and fall chinook passage. The ODFW also started up hatchery programs for the release of winter steelhead, summer steelhead, coho and cutthroat trout by releasing smolt and parr in the 1960s. Monitoring results show that while hatchery fish increased wild steelhead and spring chinook rapidly declined. For 22 years from 1972 to 1994 the ODFW did no monitoring of this hatchery and fish passage program, but when it re-started again they discovered that there were fewer than 100 wild fish while 92% of the fish were of hatchery or non-native origin.

In order to salvage the wild summer steelhead above the falls the ODFW eliminated passage of all hatchery and non-native salmonids, but continued to release hatchery summer steelhead until 1999. In response, the wild spring chinook population stabilized and the wild summer steelhead population has increased from less than 100 fish to a range of 400 to 900 fish following the termination of the hatchery summer steelhead program and blocking access to hatchery and non-native salmonids at the falls. The river above the falls has been restored to its natural condition and is more productive for native salmonids as a result.

Source:

Kostow, Kathryn. 2010. Strategies for mitigating ecological effects of hatchery programs: Some case studies from the Pacific Northwest. State of the Salmon. Ecological Interactions Between Wild and Hatchery Salmon. May 4-7, 2010. Portland, Oregon.

http://www.stateofthesalmon.org/conference2010/presentations.html

COOL WATER SAVES SALMON

2010-07-06T15:33:00.000-07:00

THERMAL REFUGES AND SALMONID SURVIVAL

In most watersheds there are places where fish seek cooler water during periods of low, warm flows. I have seen westslope cutthroat and whitefish lined up in the cool flow of a tributary of the Selway River in Idaho. Spring chinook form a large school at the mouth of a cold creek on the Molalla River. On the Middle Fork John Day River spring chinook are found in a few pools that are influenced by cool ground water flow. Recognizing the value of these thermal refuges, environmental groups are seeking wilderness protection for cold water tributaries of the lower Rogue River to maintain their important ecological benefits for salmonids.

Historically, these thermal refuges have played an important role in salmonid life history, for during the hot days of summer, from July through September, migrating fish such as steelhead, summer chinook, and fall chinook, depend on these cool reaches of stream in order to complete their migration and reduce stress. As the climate changes and warms, these thermal refuges become even more important and should be protected, but they are not. The source of cold water is not protected, and these areas are a favorite among anglers because the fish are concentrated in a relatively tiny area. Even though I have asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect these areas on the Columbia River, the request has largely fallen on hard times as the agency tries to increase license sales and is reluctant to restrict angling in areas of high conservation value.

This year a team of scientists wrote a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers regarding their research findings about thermal refuges on the Columbia River and made recommendations for their management. In this letter they make the following observations.

“Summertime water temperatures in the lower Columbia River have steadily increased over the last several decades. Annual peak temperatures have exceeded 21 °C (69.8 degrees F) in most recent years and have been as high as 24 °C (75.2 degrees F). The warmest period typically occurs in late July to early September, coincident with late-migrating summer Chinook and sockeye salmon and with substantial portions of the fall Chinook salmon and summer steelhead runs. Water temperatures in the 19-22 °C (66.2 – 71.6 degrees F) range, like those that routinely occur in the Columbia River main stem, are a significant management concern for adult migrants because a large proportion of adults currently experience thermal conditions thought to be stressful. Such temperatures have been associated with behavioral changes and a variety of sub-lethal effects on physiology, disease susceptibility, reproductive development, gamete quality. Based on these and other studies, we assume that temperatures above ~18-19 °C (64.4 – 66.2 degrees F) induce stress in adult migrants and that higher temperatures are associated with stronger negative costs. This issue may become more acute if warmer regional temperatures predicted by climate models come to pass.”

“A series of cool-water refugia are located along the migration corridor at tributary confluences with the main stem rivers. Many of the most-used refugia sites are located between Bonneville and John Day dams in the lower Columbia River, where cool-water tributaries draining the Cascade Range enter reservoirs. These sites are often 2-7 °C cooler than the main stem.”

“The incidence and duration of thermal refugia use differs widely among populations as a function of migration timing and basic life history. In our research, summer steelhead had both the greatest incidence (~70%) and longest duration (up to several weeks or more) of refugia use. Many steelhead also used multiple refugia sites. Extended refugia residence times resulted, at least in part, from the relatively flexible migration timetable for steelhead. Many of the summer-run fish enter the Columbia River study area at the warmest time but have 6-10 months to reach springtime spawning areas. In contrast with steelhead, about 20% of fall Chinook salmon and 15% of summer Chinook salmon were recorded in one or more lower Columbia refugia sites in the radiotelemetry studies.”

“Initiation of thermal refugia use in the lower Columbia River has been associated with main stem water temperatures of about 19 °C for steelhead and between 20 and 21 °C for fall Chinook salmon. The incidence and duration of use for both runs rapidly increased as temperatures rose above 21°C.”

“Presumed benefits of refugia use include reduced metabolic costs, reduced physiological stress, reduced negative temperature effects on maturation and gamete quality, and increased survival. The most obvious direct negative effect is increased harvest risk because fish are spatially and temporally concentrated in refugia, attracting intensive fisheries. We found that Snake River and upper Columbia River steelhead that used refugia in the lower Columbia River were significantly less likely to survive to spawning tributaries, primarily because harvest rates in and near the refugia sites were high. Refugia sites are typically shallow, and intensive human use of the sites presumably can elevate fish stress levels.”

“Overall, it is currently unclear whether refugia are currently ecological traps for adult salmonids, where holding was adaptive under historic conditions but now results in a net mortality cost due to increased mortality factors (e.g., fishing), or whether they primarily provide fitness benefits.”

“As shown in Keefer et al. (2009), the concentration of steelhead in lower Columbia River refugia sites (e.g., at Drano Lake at the Little White Salmon confluence and the Deschutes River mouth) can result in high exploitation rates. Harvest impacts on upriver populations are also possible for Chinook salmon (especially summer and fall runs) and at sites other than those studied by the University of Idaho and NMFS. Harvest management at these sites may become increasingly important, particularly if impacts on threatened populations are significant.”

“The impacts of climate warming are likely to be greater for spring and summer-run salmon than for fall-run populations because spring–summer fish hold in tributaries during summer months, with increased metabolic costs and potential for disease expression. Longer, hotter summers predicted under climate change scenarios would also be expected to differentially affect spring-summer run stocks by increasing metabolic costs of migration. The behavioral flexibility observed in steelhead suggests the potential for greater benefit of thermal refugia use to steelhead than salmon because they can use the sites for extended periods during the warmest time of the year. However, refugia may become relatively more important for salmon under warmer climate conditions, allowing migration in a “stepping-stone” sequence among refugia sites.”

Based on their investigations and research scientists have documented an issue that warrants action by the National Marine Fisheries Service with the authority to protect ESA-listed salmonids and the state fish and wildlife agencies. So far, however, none of these government institutions have recognized the issue or have taken steps to provide improved management of thermal refuges and protection of salmonids.

Source:

Keefer, Matthew, Chris Caudill and Chris Peery. 2010. Temperature regimes during migration and the use of thermal refugia by adult salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River basin. Letter to David Clugston, USACE, May 6, 2010.

Follow this link to read the full letter

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/wild_population/documents/UI-FWS_thermal_refugia_letter_report_6May10.pdf

ACCOUNTING FOR PUBLIC FUNDING OF HATCHERIES NEEDED

2010-06-08T11:42:00.000-07:00

NATIVE FISH SOCIETY ASKS ODFW TO PROVIDE BETTER ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE STATE’S FISH HATCHERIES

June 8th, 2010

The Native Fish Society has asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to complete a cost/benefit analysis of Oregon’s hatchery system. Fiscal and ecological accountability is needed in the operation of Oregon’s hatchery system. This need is even more acute now with the recently announced declines in the state’s general fund.

Oregon’s fish hatchery program is growing at the rate of about a million dollars a year. This growth rate is unsustainable given the likely loss of general tax revenues that currently help fund the program. The only way to compensate for the loss of state taxpayer support for the hatchery program would be for the recreational and commercial anglers to support additional large increases to their license fees.

NFS has asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to complete a cost/benefit analysis for each of its separate hatchery programs in order to help determine the risks of these programs to native species and to help prioritize individual hatchery operations as reductions in these programs occur. The Hatchery Accountability Project provides a legitimate process that the department could use to determine which hatchery programs need to be reduced or eliminated. This process could lead to a smaller and more fiscally sound and sustainable hatchery program over the long term.

Oregon operates a fish hatchery system statewide that includes several dozen separate facilities. These facilities produce millions of salmon, steelhead and trout each year for release into the waters of the state to support commercial and recreational fisheries. For many years, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has said reform of the hatchery system is underway. The only major visible reform that NFS has seen has been the relocation of coastal coho releases to the Young’s Bay area and the expansion of supplementation and acclimation programs. These small changes are relatively insignificant and some may actually be counterproductive. There has not been any fundamental change to the way ODFW operates the hatchery system.

The Hatchery Accountability Project would provide the department with a legitimate way to prioritize its various programs based upon which programs are the most cost effective, which ones provide the largest benefit to the most anglers and which projects have the least potential for inflicting harm to native fish and wildlife resources. Saving the best programs and eliminating the worst ones should help lead to a more sustainable state hatchery program.

The Oregon Hatchery Accountability Project is based upon the following criteria:
• What is the return on investment in terms of fish caught in commercial and recreational fisheries?
• Are the angling opportunities provided commensurate with the investment?
• What are the environmental risks and costs associated with each hatchery program?

NFS has asked ODFW to begin the analysis on hatchery programs that a) seem overly expensive b) only serve small segments of the angling community or c) have a high risk of adversely effecting native fish and wildlife populations. Examples of such programs include:

1. The Atlantic salmon stocking program
2. The Cascade lakes brook trout stocking program
3. Trout stocking in flowing waters
4. The Willamette basin summer steelhead program
5. Programs that utilize non-native or introduced fish stocks
6. The transfer of anadromous salmonids among watersheds

“The Native Fish Society believes that the information provided by the Hatchery Accountability Project will provide ODFW, the Governor, the Oregon Legislature and the public with valuable tools to use in assuring that Oregon’s fish hatchery program is operated in the public interest for the long-term benefit and health of our native fish populations,” said NFS Executive Director Bill Bakke, “All we ask is that ODFW conduct an annual cost-benefit analysis of its hatcheries. That way the taxpayers, who are paying for the hatcheries, can make informed decisions about them. It just makes sound business sense to do so.”

The ODFW Commission will decide on the agency’s budget at their July 16 meeting, and it is NFS’ hope that the Commission will direct the agency to begin the Hatchery Accountability Project at this time.

The Future Depends on Diversity of Salmon Populations

2010-06-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

Study Provides New Standards for Reliable Fisheries

Preserving population diversity stabilizes fisheries, ecosystems, and the economies that depend upon them

The many populations of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska act like a diversified portfolio of investments, buffering fisheries and incomes from the ups and downs of particular stocks. Sockeye salmon are one of the most valuable fisheries in the U.S., and since 1950, more than 60% of that value has come from Bristol Bay. A new study in the June 3 issue of Nature quantifies, for the first time, just how much depends on this “portfolio effect.” Without its current population diversity, the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery would close ten times more frequently – once every two to three years rather than once every 25 years.

The study, by scientists at the University of Washington, draws on five decades of data and provides the first solid evidence that population diversity within a species plays a key role in maintaining stable fisheries.

“We believe this new evidence is a game-changer for managing species and entire ecosystems,” says lead author Daniel Schindler, an ecologist at the University of Washington. “Population diversity of species is often overlooked by managers and conservationists. Yet in general, current rates of population loss are probably a thousand times higher than species loss.”

The authors argue that, in order to maintain the steady flow of fish and other ecosystem services people depend upon, managers will need to put an explicit priority on preserving population diversity within species. Such strategies require aggressive protection of the habitat networks that ultimately generate and maintain population diversity. Both approaches will become increasingly important as a first line of defense against climate change.

“Part of it is understanding history and having the discipline not to chase the hottest stock of the day,” says co-author Ray Hilborn, also at the University of Washington. “We have to maintain a range of productive elements - a broad range of stocks.”

With a landed value of more than $120 million in 2009, the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery has provided a reliable source of income and food year after year. This is because sockeye salmon are finely tuned to the individual streams and lakes in which they were born, and are thus incredibly diverse. Some populations do better in cold, wet years - others thrive when it’s hot or dry. Each population experiences its own boom and bust cycles based on environmental conditions and pure chance. But given sufficient diversity, there should be enough winners to make up for the losers every year for the species overall.

“Mother Nature does a pretty good job dealing with uncertainties – climate change, for instance – by producing a diversity of populations,” explains Schindler. “In terms of fisheries, we need to have a longer term vision for the viability of populations; the populations that are strong now are not necessarily going to be strong in coming years, so we need to protect weaker populations too, as insurance for the future.”

Protecting weaker populations is a challenge– not only in salmon, but also in other species like tuna and cod. Managers must reduce fishing pressure below the levels that the stronger populations can tolerate, or distribute fishing pressure to protect diversity within stocks. The authors argue that in addition to protecting existing population diversity, we must also preserve and protect the variety of habitats that generate population diversity in the first place.

Many salmon rivers, including the Sacramento River in California and the Columbia in Washington, once enjoyed a high degree of population diversity and productivity. However, decades of heavy fishing, habitat degradation and reliance on hatcheries have dramatically simplified populations in these rivers. This has resulted in intense boom-and-bust cycles and frequent fishery closures. In British Columbia, major salmon rivers like the Skeena and Fraser have some populations that are highly depressed and show symptoms of decreased portfolio performance and increased vulnerability.

Hatcheries are frequently used to bolster wild salmon populations. But over time, hatchery fish can become closely related to one another, and can contribute to declines in unique wild populations. Eventually, hatchery-dominated areas can resemble one giant population. Just as intensive monoculture practices make food crops more vulnerable to disease or bad weather, a dependence on hatcheries can leave a fishery open to huge swings in fortune.

“The first lesson [of this paper] is that a wild multi-stock fishery can function very well on its own – better than we’ve ever done with any kind of hatcheries,” says Jack Stanford, an ecosystem scientist at the University of Montana who was not involved with the research. “Hatcheries are counterproductive if the goal is to sustain very healthy wild fisheries, especially in light of climate change.”

Beyond hatcheries, the study results hold other important implications for wildlife management strategies in the US and beyond. In terms of habitat protection, for example, California is currently working on lessening the blow to Chinook salmon, delta smelt, Central Valley steelhead, and green sturgeon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin delta. A March 2010 report by the National Research Council supported recommendations by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to reduce the number of engineered diversions, such as dams and water diversion channels, in these river systems, on the grounds that they have negative consequences for these endangered species.

“In the Sacramento River, we have a history of exploitation and degradation going back to the gold rush,” says Steve Lindley, a research ecologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Santa Cruz, CA, who was not involved with the research. “It’s radically simplified the habitats that salmon depend on in the valley. In California, people have managed ecosystems with concrete. We build dams, line channels, and build flood control structures. Rivers need room to work, and they make salmon habitat if you let them. This research shows that sustainability depends on a healthy ecosystem, but our technological fixes to ecosystem problems usually have unintended consequences that make matters worse for salmon.”

Salmon population loss is not confined to places with lots of people. The same activities that started eroding salmon diversity in the Columbia and Sacramento rivers a hundred years ago are spreading northward quickly.

“Bristol Bay, the most productive salmon ecosystem in the world, is facing decisions about major development proposals such as the giant Pebble Mine copper and gold mining facility, as well as hydroelectric dams,” explains Stanford. “This research shows that the choices made in Bristol Bay today will help determine whether the fishery remains reliable for the next hundred years and beyond.”

Hilborn adds, “Offshore drilling has also been proposed in Bristol Bay, and a spill similar to what we're seeing in the Gulf of Mexico could devastate this productive fishery. However the diversity in timing of migration to the ocean and age at maturation among different sockeye populations – that is, the portfolio effect - could afford them protection. In essence, protecting diversity is a form of insurance against the unexpected."

The lessons from Bristol Bay will be important for communities that rely on sustainable ecosystems, as well as the decision makers charged with managing them.

“This is a ground-breaking piece of work,” says Jeff Hutchings, a professor of biology at Dalhousie University in Canada and former chair of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, who was not involved with the study. “It’s the strongest evidence to date that there’s a financial benefit to maintaining population diversity – and a greater chance that species can withstand environmental and human induced change. It’s not done in a lab or in a tank. These are real rivers and a strong data set for a major fishery. If managers ignore this, they do so at their own peril.”

Source:

University of Washington: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences

Daniel E. Schindler

deschind@u.washington.edu

206-616-6724

ALEXANDRA MORTON GATHERS SUPPORT FOR WILD SALMON

2010-05-04T09:20:00.000-07:00

Alexandra Morton is walking to Victoria to save wild salmon and writes the following about her journey.

Walking through the communities of Vancouver Island on the Get Out Migration has been a powerfully emotional experience. We are walking to tell people that if they simply stand up and make themselves visible to government, there is no reason we have to lose our wild salmon. But as we walk into towns with our flags flying, brilliant salmon signs, singing “we are walking to Victoria to save our fish,” an entirely unexpected thing is happening. People are coming up to me and holding me - crying. They are speaking about schools without children, independent livelihoods lost, communities dying. This is about much more than fish.

This is about the independent way of life that built these communities going extinct. As we walk I see a land of beautiful clear streams, fertile soil green with life, air sweet with flowers and then I enter towns so burdened by global corporate markets that they can no longer thrive on the richness of this land. There is something very wrong here, it is painful to witness and people are sad.

Somehow we have become blind to our public resource - millions of salmon flowing annually to our doorstep, feeding people and our economy province wide. We have somehow been convinced that Atlantic salmon, dyed pink, vaccinated, fed Chilean fish, in pens where we cannot catch them, infesting our fish with lice - are better. We believe there are jobs even as the Norwegian companies are mechanizing as fast as they can to reduce the number of jobs. When people see us they know we have been duped and they don’t know how to turn this around. The Get Out Migration has been protected, blessed, gifted and honored by the First Nations who know best what has been lost. Everyday more people are joining our trek - weathering storms in tents, waving at thousand honking motorists on the road to Victoria. Our ranks swell as we enter the towns, white doves have been released, First Nation canoes parallel us, songs have been written, feasts laid out, flotillas surround us, people are awakening.

Do we still live in a democracy? Our essential rights and freedoms are being lost as foreign shareholders decide our fate, what happens on our land, dividing our communities, in an equation where they get more as we get less. As our salmon go so we go, they are a lifeline to the powerful natural world that gave birth to us. We must lead our governments back to where we can survive. Walk with us. Be there for our salmon, our towns, our children for yourself. If you want to be represented you must represent yourself.

Alexandra Morton

ASOTIN CREEK - POINTING THE WAY TO WILD STEELHEAD RECOVERY

2010-04-08T09:42:00.000-07:00

By excluding hatchery fish a wild steelhead population will double its productivity, more than double the number of returning adults and double its adult recruits per spawner. It also means that there are more fish available for harvest. With a ten percent improvement in habitat these number increase even more. That is the prediction of a recent scientific evaluation of Asotin Creek in southeastern Washington, a tributary to the lower Snake River above eight mainstem Columbia and Snake river dams.

In 2009 the Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG) made a recommendation to exclude hatchery steelhead in Asotin Creek to improve the productivity of wild summer steelhead. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has constructed a weir a few miles above the mouth of the creek with the Snake River and has collected data on adult and juvenile steelhead since 2005, and it represents one of the only intensive evaluations of a wild steelhead population in the Columbia River Basin.

Recovery of Columbia Basin salmon runs has long been claimed to be the world’s largest salmon recovery program and has spent over $9 billion to double the runs from 1992 to 2000. That effort, dependent primarily on releasing more hatchery fish, has failed. Artificial propagation promises to mitigate for damaged salmon habitat, but has failed to make up for the losses. The promise was made that hatcheries would increase salmonids available for harvest, but have failed. However, hatcheries have been successful in contributing to the depletion of wild salmonids throughout the basin.

The Asotin Creek evaluation points to a new direction: exclude hatchery fish form the natural spawning population. According to the HSRG analysis the productivity would increase from 1.3 adults recruits per spawner to 2.3; average abundance of wild spawners would increase from 354 fish to 817 fish, and the harvest contribution would increase from 38 fish to 179 fish.

This analysis is confirmed by other studies that show a decline in wild steelhead when hatchery fish are able to spawn naturally with wild fish:

In 2008 Araki et al. evaluated the impact of native brood steelhead hatchery program on Hood River wild steelhead, saying, “We show that genetic effects of domestication reduce subsequent reproductive capabilities by 40% per captive-reared generation when fish are moved to natural environments. These results suggest that even a few generations of domestication may have negative effects on natural reproduction in the wild.”

Michael Blouin of OSU also worked on Hood River steelhead study and said, “If anyone ever had any doubts about the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish, the data are now pretty clear. The effect is so strong that it carries over into the first wild-born generation. Even if fish are born in the wild and survive to reproduce, those adults that had hatchery parents still produce substantially fewer surviving offspring than those with wild parents. That's pretty remarkable." Blouin added, “"What it means is that if you are trying to help a wild population recover then putting hatchery fish in there is probably not a good idea."

Mark Chilcote (ODFW) published a study in 2003, and concludes, “ Naturally spawning population comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish would produce 63% fewer recruits per spawner than one comprised entirely of wild fish. For natural populations, removal rather than addition of hatchery fish may be the most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience.” He added, “a spawning population with 20% hatchery strays (regardless of the type of hatchery program and whether they are integrated or segregated) had the net survival rate (recruits per spawner) that was 20% less than a population comprised entirely of wild fish (0% hatchery strays). Likewise, a population with 40% hatchery strays had a population survival rate that was 40% lower than a population comprised entirely of wild fish.”

Steve Leider in his work on the Kalama River compared the survival of hatchery and wild steelhead and said, “ The mean percentage of offspring from naturally spawning hatchery steelhead decreased at successive life history stages, compared to wild steelhead, from a potential of 85-87% at the egg stage to 42% at the adult stage. Reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery steelhead compared to wild steelhead decreases from 75-78% at the subyearling stage to 10.8-12.9% at the adult stage.”

Given this and many other sources of information on the impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead the question has to be asked: Why do the recovery programs developed by the states and the NMFS always include hatchery fish as part of the fix for ESA-listed depleted wild salmonid populations?

The simple answer is that hatcheries mean federal dollars for state programs, so hatcheries have to be a central factor in salmonid recovery plans. It also means that because the fish managers are never held accountable to the scientific information they generate, they are free to ignore it and they do.

In a recent paper by Jim Lichatowich and Rick Williams in 2009, they confront this issue head on: “The management agencies must put learning and incorporation of science on the agenda, something which in our experience management agencies have been reluctant to do.”

FAILURES TO INCORPORATE SCIENCE INTO FISHERY MANAGEMENT

2010-03-24T13:35:00.000-07:00

Introduction:

This study is an evaluation of the failure to incorporate science into fishery management on the Columbia River for salmonids over the last 80 years. It is the road not taken and the consequences of not taking a science-based program for fish has lead to ESA protection, extinction, and reduced fisheries at the expense of billions to the public that funds this work.

The authors present a lucid and distressing account of what has taken place in the name of fish management, presenting a time-line of events that comprise a series of decision points that could have meant salmon and steelhead recovery rather than degradation. If salmonid sustainable decisions had been made it is likely that there would be fewer fish listed for protection under the ESA because they would be healthy and productive. But that was not the road taken. Fish management is deaf to science, turning away from a factual and rational fish management program that is based more on agendas, politics, and funding than it is on healthy wild salmonids in productive watersheds. The outcome for these decisions is what we now have a future that is likely to cause the extinction of salmonids, hatchery and wild, in the Pacific Northwest. As fish managers try to compensate for bad decisions they are delivering a likely outcome that is expensive biologically and a waste of public funds. The public is paying for it with billions of dollars and lost opportunity. This study is important to read because it sets out a history of our collective failure to be effective stewards of our salmon and steelhead. Knowing how we failed paves the way for correcting this 150 year dedication to it.

Abstract.—The Pacific Northwest states of Oregon, Washington, California, and Ida-ho are engaged in a massive effort to restore depleted populations of Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. The region’s largest watershed, the Columbia Basin, is the focus of what has been called the world’s largest attempt at ecosystem restoration. After 26 years of implementation, the failure of the program to achieve its modest recov-ery goal was the result, in part, of a failure to incorporate the latest science into the program. The fundamental assumptions and principles that guide the selection of recovery tasks and their implementation were not based on the latest scientific under-standing of the salmon production system. Three impediments to the incorporation of science into management and recovery programs are identified: an inadequate conceptual foundation, fragmented institutional structures, and political interference. Each impediment is illustrated and discussed using case histories from the Columbia River.

The Timeline: (taken from the text)

1893: R.D. Hume, recognized differences in salmon populations from different streams and incorporated those observations into management recommendations.

1933: Anticipating the work of Hume and later the research of Willis Rich on salmon management, some fish culturists recognized the implications of the stock concept of management that was not desirable, so the Oregon Fish Commission constructed salmon management units to facilitate harvest regulations and these artificial constructs were sometimes referred to as stocks. The importance of biological stocks received little attention for the next several decades.

1939: However, it was not until 1939 that Willis Rich, after reviewing the results of salmon tagging experiments, describes the importance of the stock concept for Pacific salmon to describe the biological organization of salmonids.

1970s: Interest in biological stocks surfaced again and in the 1980s and 1990s management agencies began inventorying biological salmon stocks.

1995: Fifty-seven years after Rich identified stocks as the basic unit of management, researchers reported that one of the factors contributing to the decline of the lower Columbia River stocks of coho salmon was the continued stocking of universal donor coho stocks in the lower river tributaries, essentially ignoring the stock concept.

2010: Today, 71 years after Rich’s paper, the harvest of salmon in the Columbia River is not based on escapement targets for biological stocks, but on mixed stock aggregates defined as fish passing convenient counting sites such as mainstem dams. This approach does not take into account the different productivities of the individual stocks or the variation in habitat quality of the different tributaries. This is not limited to the Columbia River. Fisheries science has recognized the importance of the biological stock as the basis of sustainable management; however, that realization has not yet been incorporated into all appropriate management activities in Columbia River Basin.

The Power Planning and Conservation Council:

1980: The U.S. Congress enacted the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act. One purpose of the act was to create parity between fish and power production from dams. To implement this act, Congress created the Northwest Power and Conservation Council made up of two representatives from the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana and directed them to develop a fish and wildlife restoration program funded by the Bonneville Power Administration using power revenues. (It should be noted here that the National Marine Fisheries Service had already initiated a review of upper Columbia River and Snake River salmon and steelhead for protection under the Endangered Species Act, but this effort was dropped in the belief that the Power Council and the authority given it by Congress would provide the funds and measures to save the salmon. Bakke)

1982: “The first fish and wildlife program was adopted by the Council characterized as the largest ecosystem restoration program in the world. The Council estimated the pre-development salmonid abundance in the Columbia River was 10-16 million. This abundance has declined to an average of 2.5 million fish, most of which are of hatchery origin. A goal was set to “double the run” a common goal at the time, but have failed to do so. The total run ranged from 750,000 to 3 million fish, largely the result of improved ocean environments. However, from 1982 to 2003 the Council spent 1.16 billion in direct funding of the fish recovery program. When indirect expenses such as forgone power production to improve fish passage at dams is included the total cost during this time period is 6.45 billion dollars.”

2000 – 2003: “Salmonid runs increased to 3 million, however, monitoring at the ecosystem level is inadequate to determine how much of this increase was due to the effects of the ocean environment or the fish and wildlife program.”

1982 to 2002: After twenty years the fish and wildlife program has failed to reach its goal of doubling the runs.

1999: The Independent Science Group (ISG) was asked by the Council to review the scientific foundation of the Council’s fish and wildlife program (FWP) when the run declined to 750,000 fish in 1995. The ISG reported in 1999: “After reviewing the science behind salmon restoration and the persistent trends of declining abundance of Columbia River salmon, we concluded that the FWP’s implied conceptual foundation did not reflect the latest scientific understanding of ecosystem science and salmon restoration.”

The authors of this paper ask: “How could the Council’s salmon recovery program, with its massive financial backing, fail to incorporate the latest science?”

The authors make a “distinction between fishery science and fishery management including restoration programs. Fishery science includes the body of research conducted by academic and fish and wildlife management institutions, and others. Fisheries management includes programs and policies intended to conserve and/or recover fish resources and their habitats.”

“The incorporation of the latest science into management and recovery programs is not automatic…impediments exist to the incorporation of fishery science into the Columbia Basin’s principle salmon recovery program.”

1994: The Council’s fish and wildlife program included nine measures of importance to wild salmonids:

1. Develop a Policy to protect wild spawning populations.

2. Evaluate salmon survival throughout their life history to understand the ecology and capacity of the basin.

3. Adjust hatchery releases to river carrying capacity.

4. Collect baseline data on population status and life history of wild populations.

5. Conserve genetic diversity.

6. Review procedures for conducting population vulnerability analyses.

7. Evaluate systemwide and cumulative impacts of existing and proposed artificial production projects.

8. Establish a biodiversity institute.

The authors confirm that these are the elements that are basic to an ecosystem approach to salmon recovery in the basin. However, the fish managers disagreed and did not implement any of the measures. Instead, the managers decided to submit measures related to hatchery supplementation and new hatchery construction.

The authors say, based on recommendations of scientific panels that the “Council’s attempt to incorporate an ecosystem approach to salmon recovery consistent with the latest science was thwarted by the implementation proposals submitted by salmon managers.” In conclusion the authors say, “Both the Council and the fish managers bear responsibility for the failure to implement the 1994 fish and wildlife program consistent with the latest science.”

Hatchery Production:

1878: The first salmon hatchery on the Columbia was established on the Clackamas River by the commercial packers to boost the declining salmon catch.

1903: There is evidence in the record that “some biologists recognized that they had little scientific basis for their hatchery programs.” Chamberlain (1903) said, “Until the salmon industry or the people choose to pay for several years of careful, expensive investigation, propagation must be taken on faith. Without this, even if our fish-eries should increase, we could not be sure it was from the hatchery work…”

The authors say, “The success of hatcheries was taken on faith for another 20 years when two evalu-ations of artificial propagation were under-taken. The study showed that artificial propagation was no more effective than natu-ral propagation. Following the publication of those results, hatcheries in British Columbia were closed. The statistical analysis of Co-lumbia River hatchery releases and adult harvest did not find evidence that artificial propagation influenced the supply of salmon to the fishery; however, those findings had no effect on the operation of hatcheries in the Columbia Basin (Lichatowich 1999).”

“…managers used artificial propagation to mitigate for the expected loss of salmon production. Hatcher-ies were relied on to make up for lost habitat, even though fish culturists had not yet dem-onstrated the efficacy of artificial propagation (Lichatowich 1999). Biologists still took the success of hatcheries as a matter of faith, or “idolatrous faith” as one biologist described (Cobb 1930).”

The Secretary of Interior in the 1930s responded to the construction of mainstem dams on the Columbia and assembled a board of consultants to evaluate the threat mainstem dams to salmon. The uncertainty of hatchery mitigation lead the board to recommend that hatcheries be treated as an experiment “only for so long as the results may reasonable appear to justify its continuation.”

The Power Planning and Conservation Council began a review of hatchery propagation sixty years later and that review confirmed the idea that hatcheries are experimental and should be evaluated. The authors conclude, “ Given the status of salmon in the Columbia Basin, it’s clear that artificial propagation failed to achieve its early objectives of maintaining the supply of fish to the fishery and its later objectives of mitigating for lost habitat.”

In 2003 the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Council “concluded that even though it was considered experimental, (hatchery) supplementation was being carried out in a way that will make comprehensive evaluation unlikely. Implementation of ‘experimental’ uses of hatcheries without actually carrying out the experiment is a persistent problem.”

As a consequence, the authors conclude, “After more than a century of use…artificial propagation not only failed to meet its goals, but it has contributed to the depleted state of the salmon.”

In 1991 when several populations of chinook and sockeye salmon were listed as protected species under the federal Endangered Species Act (initiated by the public not the fish managers who resisted) it was necessary to evaluate the effect of hatchery fish in the ecosystem and their impact on imperiled wild salmonids. The question that needed an answer according to the authors: “Are artificially propagated fish equivalent to naturally propagated fish for the purposes of listing or delisting Pacific salmon?” NOAA Fisheries answered in the affirmative in by counting wild and hatchery steelhead in the upper Columbia River tributaries so that endangered steelhead could be treated as threatened species, making their protection less of a burden. Environmental groups, including Trout Unlimited and the Native Fish Society, brought this issue to the attention of the federal court. Even though they prevailed in district court it was reversed on appeal by deferring to the expertise of the management agency.

According to the authors, both of whom have participated in Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council science panels for many years, the Council’s fish and wildlife program lacked an adequate conceptual foundation they describe as “a set of principles, assumptions, and beliefs about how an ecosystem and its fish production system function.” They go on to conclude that the Council’s fish and wildlife program has numerous problems. They say, “Among those problems were the failure to implement any of the biodiversity measures in the 1994 version of the fish and wildlife program; the lack of stock specific escapement targets; the reluctance to deal with the impacts of artificial propagation to the ecosystem beyond the hatchery; and the reliance on an approach to salmon recovery based on halfway technology and command and control management. Halfway technology results in the natural environment and ecosystem function becoming more brittle, less resilient, and less capable of long-term sustainability (Holling and Meffe 1995).”

The Council science panels tried to correct these problems but were ignored. The Council’s fish and wildlife program continued to pour billions of public funds into fish conservation measures, following the direction of the fish managers, that were bound to fail, proving in its grossest sense that money alone will not recover salmon.

The National Research Council reviewed the salmon decline on the Pacific coast and concluded, “The current set of institutional arrangements is not appropriate to the bioregional requirements of salmon and their ecosytesms,” and that, “the current set of institutional arrangements contributes to the decline of salmon and cannot halt the decline.” (NRC 1996)

The authors also say, “For fisheries, (the current institutional structure), favors a conceptual foundation based on simplifying assumptions about production processes and an emphasis on harvest management and artificial propagation. Those activities cause little conflict with the activities and jurisdictions of other institutions. In fact, mitigation hatcheries can help further economic development that conflicts with salmon conservation.”

No factual review of this region’s failure to actually establish a credible salmon conservation management and restoration program is complete without a comment about political interference. The authors define political interference “as the attempt to present a policy decision made for political or economic reasons as the outcome of scientific analysis when the science does not support the decision.

Among many examples it is worth mentioning one of the most egregious examples accomplished by NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency with the responsibility for salmon recovery under the ESA. When they develop their draft hatchery policy and asked a science panel they appointed to review it, NOAA Fisheries rejected that science review. The science panel said the hatchery “policy did not reflect the published scientific research on the differences between hatchery and wild salmon and the implication of those differences for management and recovery programs.” NOAA Fisheries insisted that the panel’s recommendations be taken out of the report. In order to make their recommendations known, they published them in an independent scientific journal.

Further investigation points to political interference of a Bush Administration political appointee. The authors say, “when the scientists are asked to strip out their scientific findings to give cover to a salmon hatchery policy that runs counter to science, then the process has slipped into political interference.”

Conclusion:

This important paper documents the failure of the institutions charged to protect and recover West Coast wild salmon populations. They have failed to establish ecological objectives for salmonids; a set of principles, assumptions and beliefs about how the ecosystem and its fish function; failure to base management on stock specific spawner abundance targets; failure to address the impacts of the hatchery program on the ecosystem and the fish; and perpetuation of a simple salmon management model dedicated to stocking salmonids for kill fisheries. The reason this problem persists on the West Coast is that the salmonid management institutions are not accountable for their management programs and how they spend public funds to support it. This problem has continued for 150 years and the authors of this study lay the foundation for a complete overhaul of salmonid management. However this will not take place as long as the public remains ignorant of the cost of this institutional transgression against salmon, steelhead and trout and until Congress continues to fund the old system of management. Reform of salmonid management is well beyond our grasp until the public decides to correct this problem.

Source:

Lichatowich, James, A., and Richard N. Williams. 2009. Failures to incorporate science into fishery management and recovery programs: Lessons form the Columbia River. Am. Fish. Soc. Symposium 70:1005-1019.

References:

Chamberlain, F.M. 1903. Artificial propagation. Pacific Fisherman 1: (11) 10.

Cobb, J.N. 1930. Pacific salmon fisheries. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1092. Washington, D.C.

Holling, C. and G. Meffe. 1995. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology. 10:328-337.

Lichatowich, James. 1999. Salmon Without Rivers. Island Press

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Report of the Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest anadromous salmonids for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

ALEXANDRA MORTON TO MARCH FOR WILD SALMON

2010-03-16T14:52:00.000-07:00

Alexandra Morton blog, 14th March 2010

The Migration

Salmon Are Sacred GET OUT MIGRATION

I have decided it is time to take the issue of industrial salmon farming to the people in an unprecedented way. I have written letters, done the science, met with government and industry around the world, engaged in government processes, talked to thousands of people, been the subject of international media and films and today I stand facing a vertical wall of impenetrable denial. Nothing has brought reason to this situation. We will lose our wild salmon if government continues to carelessly put farm salmon before wild salmon every time.

Because there has been no significant progress in spite of this enormous effort and time spent by many, I no longer feel there is hope of reforming this industry. Government is allowing Norwegian salmon farmers to continue denying even the most basic issues, like sea lice and ISA virus introduction. If we let this play out our wild fish simply will not survive

So it is time for the Get Out Migration. I am not talking about all aquaculture. I am referring specifically to the massive scale Norwegian feedlots. There are Canadian fish farmers who know how to use tanks on land who are not impacting our wild salmon and herring. This is about saving wild salmon and all of us who depend on them.

I will begin deep in the beautiful Ahta River in late April with the salmon and move by boat through the Broughton Archipelago to Sointula. On Earth day I will simply start walking to Victoria and ask people join me to stand up along the way and be counted. I will communicate our progress and connect the countries facing this industry through the website www.salmonaresacred.org We hold salmon as sacred because they so generously feed our world. They built the soil of this province with their flesh, they grow our children, they feed the trees that make the oxygen we breath, they are food security in a world losing ability to even pollinate flowers.

When we get to Victoria, we will meet with representatives from government.

We cannot match the corporate PR machine, nor their lobbying power. So I am simply inviting people to make themselves visible by joining us on foot, electronically and by mail. This will be peaceful, colourful, musical, fun, family oriented. Unless we stand up and become visible, government will continue to degrade the laws of Canada to the benefit of the salmon farming industry, as suggested in the most recent throne speech. The salmon farming industry must be free to grow relentlessly to meet their responsibility to their European shareholders. We will carry a message to the Federal government – do not degrade the Fisheries Act again so that it no longer protects the fish that belong to the people of Canada.

Please stand up for wild salmon by joining a migration emerging from the Broughton Archipelago on then leaving Sointula on 22nd April and closing with a blessing in Victoria on Mothers’ Day (9th May). If you are interested in hosting other events, leading a migration arm from the Fraser River Valley, Gold River or other places in B.C. or just joining us for one step of the way please let us know. www.salmonaresacred.org

http://www.alexandramorton.typepad.com/

HOW AGENCIES DEFEAT PUBLIC INITIATIVES

2010-03-03T08:57:00.000-08:00

INSTITUTIONAL SELECTION

We have all heard of natural selection, a concept created by Charles Darwin in 1859. It is the primary way in which animals and plants adapt to their environments through sexual reproduction.

These tactics are for the single purpose of protecting the agency from change, especially those threats generated by the public.

Once a policy development committee is seated, it is obvious to the agency staff that change is inevitable, so additional tactics are necessary to slow change down.

Petition to list Puget Sound Coho Salmon for Federal Protection

2010-02-24T19:32:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION:

Sam Wright is a retired fish biologist from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. His successful petition for Puget Sound steelhead a few years ago extended federal protection for wild steelhead as a threatened species. Sam is the kind of biologist that did not take an extended vacation when he retired; he stayed engaged and is accomplishing important conservation work outside the agency that he could not always get done inside it.

PETITION TO LIST PUGET SOUND COHO SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH) AS AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)

TO: SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

From: Sam Wright (Petitioner), 1522 Evanston Ct., NE, Olympia, Washington, 98506 (360-943-4424, samwright@scattercreek.com). Petitioner is a fish biologist with 45 years experience in managing fish populations and fish habitat.

Subject: Petition the Secretary of Commerce to list as Endangered or Threatened the Puget Sound populations of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and to designate critical habitat.

These same populations were previously evaluated for possible ESA listing in the following September 1995 report:

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NMFSC-24, 258 p.

The report, herein defined as Weitkamp et al. (1995), under “Assessment of Extinction Risk” in the Executive Summary, makes the following statement about the Puget Sound/Georgia Strait evolutionarily significant unit: “The BRT was concerned that if present trends continue, this ESU is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Although current population abundance is near historical levels and recent trends in overall population abundance have not been downward, there is substantial uncertainty relating to several of the risk factors considered. These risk factors include widespread and intensive artificial propagation, high harvest rates, extensive habitat degradation, a recent dramatic decline in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions. Further consideration of this ESU is warranted to attempt to clarify some of these uncertainties.”

The phrase “this ESU is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future” is the exact language that NOAA Fisheries Service has used for other resources that have subsequently been ESA-listed as Threatened. Since the trends cited have continued, and in fact have been exacerbated in the past 15 years, it seems logical that a listing as Threatened is fully justified at this time. In addition, there is now a brand new problem for Puget Sound coho salmon that was not even recognized 15 years ago. This is the serious and widespread pre-spawning mortality of adult Puget Sound coho salmon. Weitkamp et al. (1995) did not even mention this 15 years ago, much less flag it as a serous problem.

Since all of the technical data considered in Weitkamp et al. (1995) is now at least 15 years old, a reconsideration of ESA listing for Puget Sound coho salmon is warranted on the basis of 15 years of new information that is now available and will be presented by Petitioner in the remainder of this Petition. A separate detailed report on the new problem of pre-spawning mortality is attached.

Deliberate and Planned Overfishing

Table II-I (page 9) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wild Salmonid Policy lists 89 Washington Pacific salmon naturally spawning populations that are deliberately overfished in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Final environmental impact statement for the Wild Salmonid Policy. WDFW, Olympia, WA). The 14 populations that are listed for Puget Sound coho salmon are as follows:

Nooksack River coho

Lake Washington/Sammamish tributaries coho

Cedar River coho

Green River/Soos Creek coho

Newaukum Creek (Green River) coho

Puyallup River coho

White River coho

Nisqually River coho

Chambers Creek coho

Deep South Sound tributaries coho

Deschutes River coho

East Kitsap coho

Dungeness River coho

Elwha River coho

None of these populations have established spawning escapement objectives for natural spawning, thus fisheries are never constrained in order to put natural spawners on the available natural spawning grounds. None of these populations appear on the list that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) must consider when managing the ocean salmon fisheries (PFMC. 2003. Fishery management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fishery off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California as revised through amendment 14. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.). Eleven of the 14 populations form the immense South Puget Sound Hatchery Salmon Management Zone (HSMZ) which encompasses everything from the Lake Washington system southward. The only escapement goal given is as follows: “Hatchery rack return of 52,000 adults.” (PFMC 2003, Table 3-1, p. 11). There are no quantified coho salmon escapement objectives in any form for the Nooksack, Dungeness and Elwha rivers. All three river systems are Hatchery Salmon Management Zones.

Assessment: The current management system for 14 coho salmon populations in Puget Sound has been in placed since the mid-1970s. There is no evolutionary future for any of these populations since artificial propagation has replaced natural selection for a period of at least 35 years for all of these populations.

Decline in Adult Size and Reproductive Viability

The problem of reduced adult size was addressed from a long-term coast wide perspective in the following from WDFW (1997:E-6):

“The change in coho size Ricker (1980) observed from 1951 to 1979 was a decrease of 0.168 kg. He proposed that genetic changes were consistent with observed reductions in coho size. In the 25 year time period he studied (1951-1975), he found an average 1.22 kg (2.7 lb) decline in coho size when converted to size at maturity in areas outside the Strait of Georgia and Johnstone Strait (0.37 lb per generation). He used the difference in the mean size of fish harvested by selective gears (trolls and gillnets) to the size of coho caught by seines and the mortality rate from fishing (75-85%) to estimate a selection differential of 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) to 0.73 kg (1.6 lb) smaller. These values correspond to a heritability of adult size between 0.23 and 0.35, which are reasonable values. Thus, he determined that it was quantitatively possible the “outside” cohos decreased in size because of genetic selection by the fisheries.”

The same problem, but specific to the more recent period in Washington, was documented in the following passage from WDFW (1997:E-8):

“Recent studies on coho salmon in Washington have found that the average size of fish harvested in many gill-net fisheries was significantly larger than the spawning population from the same stream or hatchery (S. Phelps and C. Knudsen, WDFW, personal communication). The studies also documented a significant decline in length since 1980 and a parallel decline in eggs per female since 1960. The number of eggs per female has declined by nearly 1,000 (about 40%). It now takes 1,700 spawners to produce the same number of eggs as 1,000 spawners did in 1960. This suggests that fishing may be one part of the cause of the decline in fish size. Other potential causes include environmental factors or hatchery programs.”

The recent dramatic decline in adult size recognized by Weitkamp et al. (1995) has not been reversed and in fact can never be reversed as long as many of the coho salmon populations are being subjected to intensive troll and gillnet fisheries that are continuously and selectively removing the larger fish. Salmonids have perpetuation values from larger fish that go far beyond the simple increase in fecundity.

Survivors during natural salmonid egg incubation come from the deepest egg pockets (van den Berghe and Gross 1984; De Vries 1997) in larger, more stable spawning gravel (Burner 1951; Hawke 1978). The eggs were placed there by large females (Hankin and McKelvey 1985; Forbes and Peterman 1994) who deliberately select large males as their mating partners (Schroder 1981; Hankin et al. 1993) and are better at defending their nests against dig-up by other fish (van den Berghe and Gross 1989). These same females also have larger eggs (Hankin and McKelvey 1985; Beacham and Murray 1990) which produce fry with higher pre- and post-emergence survival rates (Shelton 1955; Forbes and Peterman 1994).

Net result of these processes is that larger female salmonids have demonstrated a productivity that is much greater than can be explained by increase in fecundity alone. For coho salmon, van den Berghe and Gross (1989) estimated that the largest females within a population had a 23-fold fitness advantage (measured to time of fry emergence) over the smallest females. Only about one-third of this reproductive differential was attributable to differences in fecundity. Helle (1989) compared the largest and smallest size-classes of chum salmon and found only a 1.2 fold difference in fecundity per parent but a four-fold difference in surviving offspring per parent.

References for this section:

Beacham, T.D., and C.B. Murray. 1990. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:927-945.

Burner, C.J. 1951. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bulletin 61(52):97-110.

De Vries, P. 1997. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1685-1698.

Forbes, L.S., and R.M. Peterman. 1994. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:603-616.

Hankin, D.G., and R. McKelvey. 1985. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:393-394.

Hankin, D.G., J.W. Nicholas, and T.W. Downey. 1993. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:347-358.

Hawke, S.P. 1978. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 12:167-171.

Helle, L.H. 1989. Journal of Fish Biology 35(Supplement A):99-107.

Schroder, S. 1981. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle WA.

Shelton, J.M. 1955. Progressive Fish-Culturist 17:20-35.

van den Berghe, E.P., and M.R. Gross. 1984. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:204-206.

van den Berghe, E.P., and M.R. Gross. 1989. Evolution 43:125-140.

Assessment: Intensive and selective long-term removals of larger coho salmon by troll and gillnet fisheries has had a profound adverse impact on productivity potential of Puget Sound populations. This problem can only be further exacerbated by continuation of the current fisheries management regimes.

Deschutes River Coho Smolt Production

Natural coho smolt production is the key to understanding coho salmon populations because it integrates a wide array of variables into a single quantitative final value. Two stream systems in Puget Sound have had long term monitoring programs to accurately measure adult spawning escapements and their resultant smolt production. The largest is the Deschutes River, a 186 square mile watershed at the extreme southern end of Puget Sound.

The following from WDFW (1997:B-6) describes status of the resource until the late 1990s:

“The Deschutes River wild coho population appears in Table II-1 (Chapter II) but has persisted much better than most of the other stocks listed. There is no hatchery coho program in the system itself, thus the immediate terminal area does not attract concentrated fishing effort. (Note: By agreement with the Squaxin Tribe, net fishing is not conducted in Budd Inlet.) The population data presented in Figure B-10 show that spawning escapements were inadequate in most years. Still, production prior to the 1989 brood year always exceeded 50,000 wild coho smolts per year. Massive landslides and culvert failures from the January 1990 flood reduced smolt production all the way down to 10,000 fish. The system’s fish production capacity has not recovered from these events.

The Deschutes River data show the expected relationship between adult females and smolts produced per female (Figure B-11). At small adult population sizes, there is a general tendency for each individual female to produce more smolts. However, as several low data points show, this relationship fails in the face of adverse environmental conditions.”

In a subsequent discussion of coho survival rates (as determined from marked fish experimental groups), the following was reported by WDFW (1997:B-8):

“The apparent downward trend in recent years is a cause for concern, particularly with the Deschutes River stock. There have been recent increases in both the South Sound net pen program for coho and the delayed release program for chinook. We have not established any cause-and-effect relationship between these increases and the apparent decline in wild coho marine survival. However, the fact that the Deschutes survival has declined lower than the other stocks indicates that a negative interaction may exist.”

Coho salmon are essentially all 3-year-old adults and one-year-old smolts in the southern part of their range and this produces three very distinct cycles that have no overlap as adult spawners or as juveniles rearing in streams. The three cycles in the Deschutes River had the following estimated smolt production by brood year:

1977-60,275 1978- 65,776 1979-131,261

1980-64,757 1981- 65,518 1982-101,901

1983-64,452 1984- 99,241 1985- 91,057

1986-54,397 1987-117,164 1988-133,198

1989-10,101 1990- 76,438 1991- 29,652

1992-19,686 1993- 23,912 1994- 38,197

1995- 6,356 1996- 8,259 1997- 23,535

1998- 4,144 1999- 892 2000- 73,299

2001- 2,340 2002- 7,423 2003- 61,090

2004- 4,215 2005- 2,372 2006- 35,000

The first cycle, beginning with the 1977 brood year, plummeted in abundance after the January 1990 flood, recovered somewhat in the 1992 brood year, and then fell again to a very low level of abundance for four consecutive recent brood years. The second cycle, beginning with the 1978 brood year, showed its initial steep decline with the 1993 brood year, but also followed this with a decline to very low levels of abundance for the four most recent brood years. The third cycle, beginning with the 1979 brood year, was definitely the strongest of the three cycles in earlier years. It shows a definite declining trend in abundance over time but never reached the very low abundance levels of the other two cycles. Thus, it can be concluded that the river system still has the capability of producing coho smolts at a level shown by recent brood years of the third cycle.

Assessment: Productivity of the freshwater system has definitely declined over time but this cannot fully explain the decline actually observed. Overfishing continues to be a major problem but the worst culprit is consistently poor marine survival rates in South Puget Sound. Coho populations in this entire region face a very uncertain future.

Big Beef Creek Coho Smolt Production

The second area is a smaller watershed but has the additive benefit of a productive lake system. The following narrative is provided in WDFW (1997:B-6,7):

“Big Beef Creek is in Hood Canal where coho populations are supposedly managed to achieve wild fish spawning escapement objectives. However, as the data in Figure B-12 demonstrate, there have been many inadequate spawning escapements. During dry years, spawners congregate off the creek mouth and are harvested during the chum salmon management period.

The Big Beef Creek data also demonstrate a case where the system’s coho rearing capabilities have diminished in recent years. Lower summer stream flows and adverse stream channel changes have been the visible result of cumulative development activities in the watershed. No single action seemed significant by itself, but the system can no longer produce the quantities of coho smolts that it did just a few years ago.”

In a subsequent discussion of total fishing rates (as determined from marked fish experimental groups), the following was reported by WDFW (1997:B-9):

“Figure B-17 shows recent exploitation history for the Big Beef Creek population. The high rates in earlier years were obviously not sustainable and led to the inadequate spawning escapement shown in Figure B-12. The lower rates in recent years demonstrate that the overfishing problem is being corrected.”

The three independent cycles of estimated coho smolt production in Big Beef Creek were as follows by brood year:

1976-17,619 1977-45,634 1978-20,493

1979-41,056 1980-25,217 1981-23,620

1982-36,564 1983-26,062 1984-23,994

1985-11,510 1986-26,534 1987-17,594

1988-19,740 1989-23,646 1990-18,677

1991-13,071 1992-18,431 1993-16,574

1994-25,820 1995-40,828 1996-22,222

1997-20,967 1998-47,087 1999-21,803

2000-24,352 2001-36,060 2002-25,062

2003-32,950 2004-38,579 2005-29,911

2006-27,416 2007-45,364

This smaller system has much less potential for coho smolt production than the Deschutes River. However, there is no obvious strong cycle and the production is much less variable from year to year (an obvious benefit from having a lake in the system). All three cycles have maintained their production levels over time and there is no sign of any adverse impacts from the January 1990 flood (again, a benefit of flow buffering by the lake). Overfishing continues to occur in some years but partial resolution of this problem has masked the decline in inherent productivity seen earlier.

Assessment: Big Beef Creek coho smolt production has faired much better than has been the case in the Deschutes River. The only obvious difference is a major departure in marine survival rates. Very favorable survival rates have benefited the Big Beef Creek resource – an average of 13.3% for the most recent ten years of record. Deschutes River coho smolts have only had a 2.1% average marine survival rate in their most recent ten years of record.

Defining the Distinct Population

The Distinct Population that Weitkamp et al. (1995) defined in their Executive Summary was as follows: “Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia. This ESU includes coho salmon from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the eastern Olympic Peninsula (east of Salt Creek), and the Strait of Georgia from the eastern side of Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including Campbell and Powell Rivers), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope.”

The coho salmon populations in British Columbia have some, but not all, of the same problems impacting Puget Sound coho salmon populations. For example, abundance of coho has declined 90% in the Thompson River system due to the combination of overfishing, decreased adult size, landscape modification and changing ocean conditions (Bradford, M.J., and J.R. Irvine. 2000. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:13-16.).

However, any connectivity with Canadian stocks has been effectively severed by 35 years of managing the entire Nooksack River system as a Hatchery Salmon Management Zone. The Skagit River system now forms the northern boundary of a much smaller and isolated viable ESU that now has its southern boundary formed by the Snohomish River system. The new and much smaller viable ESU has also been compressed and isolated from the west by 35 years of managing the Dungeness River and Elwha River systems as Hatchery Salmon Management Zones.

The Case for Listing Puget Sound Coho Salmon

The entire southern half of the Puget Sound Coho Salmon ESU (with 11 defined populations) has become the immense South Puget Sound Hatchery Salmon Management Zone (HSMZ) that extends from the Lake Washington system southward. Geographic extent of the remaining viable ESU (or northern half) has been further compressed from the north by the Nooksack River HSMZ and from the west by the Dungeness River and Elwha River HSMZs.

Puget Sound coho salmon have been adversely impacted by a serious decline in adult size and this is much more devastating than a simple decline in fecundity. Selective removals of larger coho salmon are continuing unabated in gillnet and hook-and-line fisheries. The latter gear type is not generally recognized as being selective. However, coho taken by commercial troll gear in a 1968 Washington study averaged 51 cm while coho taken by non-selective seine gear at the same place and time averaged only 43 cm (Wright, S. 1970. A review of the subject of hooking mortalities in Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus). 23rd Annual Report of the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, p. 47-64.).

There is no question (or debate) that the inherent smolt production capabilities of Puget Sound stream habitat is in a long term downward trend that will continue far into the foreseeable future. The consistently poor marine survival rates of coho salmon smolts in South Puget Sound is a relatively new phenomenon as is the emergence of serious pre-spawning mortality for adult coho salmon. Both were not even mentioned as problems 15 years ago.

2010-02-16T10:41:00.000-08:00

Published by Science Daily, June 13, 2009

HATCHERY FISH HURT RECOVERY OF WILD SALMON

ScienceDaily (June 13, 2009) — Steelhead trout that are originally bred in hatcheries are so genetically impaired that, even if they survive and reproduce in the wild, their offspring will also be significantly less successful at reproducing, according to a new study published today by researchers from Oregon State University.

The study found that a fish born in the wild as the offspring of two hatchery-reared steelhead averaged only 37 percent the reproductive fitness of a fish with two wild parents, and 87 percent the fitness if one parent was wild and one was from a hatchery.

Most importantly, these differences were still detectable after a full generation of natural selection in the wild.

The effect of hatcheries on reproductive fitness in succeeding generations had been predicted in theory, experts say, but until now had never been demonstrated in actual field experiments.

"If anyone ever had any doubts about the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish, the data are now pretty clear," said Michael Blouin, an OSU professor of zoology.

"The effect is so strong that it carries over into the first wild-born generation. Even if fish are born in the wild and survive to reproduce, those adults that had hatchery parents still produce substantially fewer surviving offspring than those with wild parents. That's pretty remarkable."

An earlier report, published in 2007 in the journal Science, had already shown that hatchery fish that migrate to the ocean and return to spawn leave far fewer offspring than their wild relatives. The newest findings suggest the problem does not end there, but carries over into their wild-born descendants.

The implication, Blouin said, is that hatchery salmonids – many of which do survive to reproduce in the wild– could be gradually reducing the fitness of the wild populations with which they interbreed. Those hatchery fish provide one more hurdle to overcome in the goal of sustaining wild runs, along with problems caused by dams, loss or degradation of habitat, pollution, overfishing and other causes.

Aside from weakening the wild gene pool, the release of captive-bred fish also raises the risk of introducing diseases and increasing competition for limited resources, the report noted.

This research, which was just published in Biology Letters, was supported by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. It was based on years of genetic analysis of thousands of steelhead trout in Oregon's Hood River, in field work dating back to 1991. Scientists have been able to genetically "fingerprint" three generations of returning fish to determine who their parents were, and whether or not they were wild or hatchery fish.

The underlying problem, experts say, is Darwinian natural selection.

Fish that do well in the safe, quiet world of the hatcheries are selected to be different than those that do well in a much more hostile and predatory real-world environment. Using wild fish as brood stock each year should lessen the problem, but it was just that type of hatchery fish that were used in the Hood River study. This demonstrates that even a single generation of hatchery culture can still have strong effects.

Although this study was done with steelhead trout, it would be reasonable to extrapolate its results to other salmonids, researchers said. It's less clear what the findings mean to the many other species that are now being bred in captivity in efforts to help wild populations recover, Blouin said, but it's possible that similar effects could be found.

Captive breeding is now a cornerstone of recovery efforts by conservation programs for many threatened or endangered species, the researchers noted in their report. Thousands of species may require captive breeding to prevent their extinction in the next 200 years – which makes it particularly important to find out if such programs will ultimately work. This study raises doubts.

"The message should be clear," the researchers wrote in their report's conclusion. "Captive breeding for reintroduction or supplementation can have a serious, long-term downside in some taxa, and so should not be considered as a panacea for the recovery of all endangered populations."

WARM RIVERS INCREASES IMPACT OF HATCHERY FISH AND DISEASE PROBLEMS FOR WILD STEELHEAD

2010-02-05T10:10:00.000-08:00

Warm Rivers and Disease

The El Nino year has brought some interesting variation in air and stream temperatures. As many of you know I have been collecting water temperature and steelhead spawning data in the Quileute River basin since 1997 (excluding the two years I left for school). This year, to no surprise, the streams (SolDuc and Calawah) are running warmer than any other January I have on record. Typically, streams run 38 - 42F in January, this year they are running 42 - 45F.

Because of the warm water temperatures the steelhead spawn timing is shifting this year. I have counted at least 50 steelhead redds over the past three weeks in the Sol Duc and Calawah Rivers. Interestingly, many of these redds are in the middle and lower sections of the rivers. If you remember the paper I published a few years ago, I found that steelhead spawned earlier in the upper river sections and later in the lower sections. There are fish spawning up high this year - the high water facilitated their migration. However, there are also many fish spawning in areas further downstream, which is unusual. I have already caught 4 female kelts, including 2 Snider Ck. hatchery fish and 2 wild fish. I wondered if WDFW and the Tribes were aware that this early spawning and trying to account for the activity by initiating redd surveys earlier than normal? It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the course of the season.

Because of the early spawning wild fish and the large Chambers Creek hatchery run, there is a lot of opportunity for interbreeding between wild and hatchery fish this year (and potentially other El Nino years). In fact, I am catching and seeing Chambers Creek males hanging out in sections of the SolDuc where I have never previously observed them. Right now there are still several Chambers Creek rip males in both of the aforementioned rivers. There are also numerous Snider Creek males. Given the IHN outbreak in the hatchery fish, surely transmission from adult to offspring is occurring via hatchery males fertilizing wild females. There is simply too many wilds spawning activity right now and too many hatchery males for that not to occur.

I imagine that the managers are aware of the typical modes of IHNV transmission. However, four days ago I caught a male Chambers Creek fish in the middle SolDuc. As I removed him from the water at least 20 leeches evacuated his gills. Another 10 or so slithered away after I beached him.

The leeches raised a question in my mind: Can they transmit IHNV? Guess what, leeches and copepods can carry IHNV and presumably transmit to wild fish. I have attached a nice paper that found very high infection levels in leeches, so high in fact that alost all of the leeches on the spawning grounds were infected. I am wondering if WDFW has considered this transmission pathway? I saw an email from Heather Bartlett and she rattled off the normal modes of transmission but did not mention leeches or copepods. Perhaps my observations and the attached paper will raise some questions.

Lastly, IHNV has a fairly narrow range of temps that it survives under (46 - 59F). As I previously mentioned, in your typical year water temps range from 38 - 42F during the time of overlap between Chambers Creek and wild steelhead. The cold water temps would limit survival and transmission of IHNV. This year though, with the El Nino, the water temps are around 46F and the intragravel temps are at least 46F, meaning that INHV survival and transmission is highly possible.

This could be the worst mix of conditions WDFW could ask for with their hatchery program. It is not a surprise though. IHNV outbreaks are nearly always the worst in good ocean years. Couple their abundance with very warm stream temps and I believe the potential for heightened transmission of INHV from hatchery to wild steelhead needs to be evaluated.

Mass transmissions are difficult to track and find in nature. I understand that. In this case though, it seems imperative to determine if transmission is occurring.

I hope you are finding this year to be as interesting, and potentially disappointing, as I am.

Sincerely,

John McMillan

INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS AGAINST WILD SALMON

2010-01-30T19:15:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION:

State governments have never been organized to actually protect wild salmonids and the habitats that sustain them. What passes for protection are carefully chosen words in plans and policies that are never expected to actually be carried out on the river. That way the public is pacified, the agency looks good, and the salmon continue to swim into the toilet. The following letter from an ex- ODFW employee shows the frustration of those in the field that would like to solve problems if their jobs did not depend on them holding their silence.

Bakke

To: Oregon Department of Forestry

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:26 PM

Subject: Observations of spawning surveyor- ODF proposed changes

ODF must change its course in logging practices on state lands. It’s essential for the health and survival of our coastal salmon and steelhead.

I performed fish and redd surveys on Oregon coastal streams for ODFW in the mid- 2000s. Logging practices have destroyed the fish habitat we were all trying to help preserve.

We had to get the permission of logging companies and private landowners to even do surveys on their land, giving them the power over us in any information that was posted. There was always a feeling in the district offices I was at that you don't talk bad about the loggers or the companies because we needed them to get our jobs done. How messed up was that, that the very people destroying the resource we are trying to protect, we had to bow down to so that we could monitor that same species. To me, that is a serious gap in public relations and policy governing monitoring of streams. And how frustrating it was as a young biologist, bowing down and cow- towing to these companies that you just knew were destroying the habitat.

Meanwhile, things don't get better, every year you go back and observe a new logging operation right next to a spawning stream, and you think, "what the hell are we doing out here. Nothing is changing." And you watch these amazing fish, the last of their kind, giving all they got to pass on their DNA, scouring redds (many of which will perish), struggling upstream, and you look up and hear the whistle of a yarder while another tree is being dragged up the hill. It really makes one wonder what the hell is the point. What is really going on here? Why are we the ones without power here, and they can still do business as usual, after all these years. Nothing has changed, and it’s a shame. Yet we would be the bad guys if we speak out against it.

Often times I can remember looking over at my partner after a survey and asking, "is this ever going to stop? These fish are screwed." And back at the office I can recall a few times telling my boss about a new operation near a spawning stream and expressing my frustration. Mostly the reaction would be "yeah, I (we) know. Nothing we can do about it."

And so, everyone goes home. Nothing changes. The next day, its business as usual. Nothing changes. How long can we wait?

What could we say? Say anything negative about the coastal logging practices, you no longer have the survey, then your outfit no longer has a job for you, and then you no longer have any friends in the community. Just keep your mouth shut, I guess.

N. Davis

Former Employee, ODFW

Spawning Surveyor, 2002-2006

INTEGRATION HATCHERIES - A NEW DECEPTION

2010-01-27T12:01:00.000-08:00

INTEGRATION

Integrated has a positive ring to it, doesn’t it. When we have integrated decision making, societies, and networks, it gives one the impression that every thing is working, as it should, for each part has importance and sureness of the whole. Some things are more easily integrated than others and some cannot be. For example, ivy is cannot be integrated into Northwest forests, even though people continue to plant it around their homes. Starlings are not something blue birds accept in their native landscape. Round pegs are not easily inserted into triangular holes, even though we may try.

In nature integration is being locally adapted to the environment that sustains an animal or plant, for its full life cycle is successfully completed when it is fully capable of coping with changes in seasons, weather, and the landscape. We have discovered that fir trees are adapted to elevation, location in reference to the sun, precipitation, and micro-habitats that provide the conditions needed to grow and reproduce. When seeds from a stand of fir or a species of fir is translocated to a site that does not meet all its needs it is less likely to survive and if it does it lacks vitality. One often sees western red cedar planted in uplands only to find them turning brown in a year or two. Trees are integrated into foreign landscapes only if their needs are met. To be fully integrated means that an animal or plant is able to cope with both short and long term conditions. Apple trees were planted and productive near Flathead Lake in Montana until an Arctic Express came one year after the sap was up and even though they had flourished for 20 years in that place they died. The evolutionary history of the apple tree did not include the periodic climate events of the Flathead country.

By de-coupling a plant or animal from its history means that it is not well integrated. It may perish when conditions are hostile to it or it can disturb the viability of native species around it like ivy growing up a Douglas fir or big leaf maple.

Mechanically forcing a round peg into a triangular hole does not create a good fit, just as our aspirations force native nature into the background. What happens to the native bees when we introduce domesticated bees that have disease the local bees are not able to cope with? What happens to butterflies and native birds when we create our perfect yard? We are engineering an environment that may not support the life that once called a place home.

I was called a cheat and a liar by second graders when I asked the class for their feelings after I took one dollar from a student and replaced it with a dime. We have invented mitigation to replace what is taken from the natural landscape. When I explained mitigation to the class in this way, they knew better than those who work for government agencies that mitigation does not work in their interest.

We are being asked to believe in integrated hatchery programs and mitigation for degraded habitat and lost native salmonid populations. In the march of time over the last 150 years of fish management on the Northwest Coast, we have been told that native salmon can be manufactured in a hatchery and not to worry because we can mitigate development of watersheds with hatchery replacement parts. The result has been a broad and remarkable depletion of salmon across our landscape.

Within the memory of some, a stage coach was turned over when fording the Rogue River as a push of migrating salmon swept it off its wheels. Not long ago, when wading an Alaskan stream, I remember the sound of salmon. I knew they were coming for they made a furious sound and pushed a wave of water ahead of them as they approached. All I could do was stand there hoping not to be dumped into the stream. Others were not so fortunate. When the big chinook that once called the Columbia their home above Kettle Falls and now above Grand Coulee Dam, the density of their redds created bars that stopped steamboats from passing up the river. We have forgotten the true abundance of salmon in our rivers; we have grown accustomed to ten cents on the dollar.

Some of us have made a commitment to wild native fish and the watersheds that nourish and hold them. I am sure you have, as I have, but the larger society has not. We have not yet invented a wild fish priority for our rivers. We are more concerned about what we do to them rather than what we do for them. The client of fish managers is the fisherman not the fish. When we develop recovery plans more emphasis is placed on the point of decline than abundance. We have made little switches in the wild salmon framework of survival in order to accommodate our cultural perception of salmon.

Today, we have defined salmon so they fit our conceptual framework. They have become a commodity rather than a natural economy. We have created an industrial model for salmon to fit into like they are brown shoes that can be manufactured.

We have dedicated ourselves to making sure rivers do not get the spawners they need, for low abundance means higher juvenile survival. This works in theory but not in practice for it overlooks the values of cleaning the gravel of fine sediments by the spawners and the nutrients they bring from the sea to nourish the rivers their young will grow in. It overlooks the seasonal food supply salmon bring to watershed for wildlife and the enrichment of the forests. As the salmon decline the bears also decline. It overlooks the fact that salmon have nourished the Northwest landscape and that salmon evolved with their abundance being fully expressed.

We are now being asked to accept another untested theory where wild salmon are needed to improve the survival of the hatchery stock and adopting a formula for allowing a proportion of the hatchery fish to have sex with wild salmon. It is called the integrated hatchery. It is based on what has always been done but improved by a mathematical formula. In the past wild salmon were expendable. The number of spawners were what was left over after fishing. Since salmon were believed to be interchangeable, it made no difference how many hatchery fish spawned naturally with wild salmon. This cultural framework dominated salmon management and still does. It was not until the runs were reduced to levels that threatened extinction and listed as endangered that there has been a general panic among the government agencies responsible for salmon management. The question became not how to recover wild salmon, but how to fit harvest and hatcheries, our industrial framework, within the legal context of the Endangered Species Act.

Being an ingenious species, we have invented the integrated hatchery. The hatchery has morphed into a conservation tool rather than one concerned only with production. We are told it will be possible to have both conservation and production, for we have learned that wild fish survived better in nature than hatchery fish, so by purposely breeding them together in a hatchery they improved the survival of the hatchery product. That took care of the sagging production problem. The conservation problem would be solved, theoretically, by allowing hatchery fish to spawn naturally with wild fish based on a formula. Even though we know this does not work due to an extensive research, the fish agencies have developed numerous integrated hatchery programs anyway. The motive for doing so needs to be explored before one accepts them at their word. The purpose of the integrated hatchery is to perfect the hatchery not to recover wild salmon. In this way the hatchery can be once again safely justified for continuing public funding because it fits the industrial model and can be sold as a conservation tool. Problem solved. The fact that hatchery and wild salmon have only one thing in common – water – is glossed over in our dedication to making the industrialization of salmon work.

De-coupling salmon from their families and their evolutionary history sets them up for decline and extinction. Our path is not the salmon’s path into the future. Wild is the future of the salmon and for having them in our future. There are no short cuts or partial measures to get there from here. As long as our industrial model of salmon management trumps nature, the salmon will fail, not because they lack the capacity to flourish, but because we are not providing the cultural permission for them to succeed.

BC Supreme Court Rules For Wild Salmon!

2010-01-26T21:08:00.000-08:00

Alexandra Morton is a very effective voice for wild salmon in British Columbia as many of you know. Once again she has been successful in pushing back on destructive salmon farms. The following is a note from her about a recent court decision. I thank Gary Mikesh for making sure I saw this exciting news.

From: Alexandra Morton

To: fishermenlist@lists.onenw.org

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:13 PM

Subject: [fishermenlist] We Won again

Hello

Today BC Supreme Court ruled in our favor once again. Justice Hinkson granted the federal government a suspension order until December 18, 2010 so that Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) can further prepare to assume control of regulating salmon farms. However, Justice Hinkson forbade any expansion of aquaculture during that period. Specifically, the province cannot issue any new fish farm licences and cannot expand the size of any tenure. He recognized the First Nation interest in this matter by granting the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council intervenor status, which is essential as this case is based in their territory.

On the matter pursued by Marine Harvest at the Court of Appeal and sent back to Justice Hinkson to reconsider (that is whether the fish in the farms are privately owned by the companies and whether the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA) is still in force), Hinkson confirmed that the FPPA, will no longer apply to finfish aquaculture and thus no longer protect farms from nuisance claims.

On the question, does Marine Harvest own the fish in their pens? Justice Hinkson found that this was not the place for this decision. Marine Harvest will have to bring this before the courts themselves. For now, we know that the aquaculture fish are now part of the fisheries of Canada.

Today’s decision is met by the unrelated announcement by US box store chain “Target” that they have eliminated all farmed salmon from its fresh, frozen, and smoked seafood offerings in its stores across the United States, because of farm salmon environmental impact on native salmon.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead to translate any of this into better survival of our wild salmon, but the courts seem consistently interested in bringing reason, the constitution and the law to bear on the Norwegian fish farm industry in British Columbia.

While I am truly sorry that jobs will be lost in ocean fish farming, bear in mind the industry is in deep trouble with mother nature herself in the fish farming strongholds of Chile and Norway. Trying to hold this nomadic fish in pens is never going to work, because it causes epidemics, unnatural sea lice infestations and drug resistance. Salmon farming is not sustainable and ultimately we are better served by our wild fish.

Alexandra Morton

Naturalized Salmonids Are More Viable Than Hatchery Fish

2010-01-23T10:16:00.000-08:00

LOWER FITNESS OF HATCHERY AND HYBRID

RAINBOW TROUT COMPARED TO NATURALIZED POPULATIONS

Introduction:

The following study and quotes have substantial importance to fish management within the native range of salmonids, for this work documents the force of natural selection on non-native species that have become locally adapted. When new hatchery stock is added to the naturalized population the reproductive fitness of the naturalized population is compromised. The locally adapted naturalized and non-native population is behaving like a wild population in the native range of the species when hatchery fish are added to it. This is additional confirmation that adding hatchery fish to locally adapted population, whether wild and native or naturalized has unfavorable consequences to the locally adapted population, affecting its reproductive success in nature.

In the Pacific Northwest, we have assumed that adding hatchery fish to a wild population will contribute to its abundance and viability. This assumption is wrong. Hatcheries cannot be used to recover wild fish populations and when released to interact with wild populations these hatchery fish impose risk not salvation.

L. M. Miller, T.Close, and A. R. Kapuscinski. 2004. Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. Molecular Ecology. 13, 3379-3388.

Abstract: We have documented an early life survival advantage by naturalized populations of anadromous rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss over a more recently introduced hatchery population and outbreeding depression resulting from interbreeding between the two strains. We tested the hypothesis that offspring of naturalized and hatchery trout, and reciprocal hybrid crosses, survive equally from fry to age 1+ in isolated reaches of Lake Superior tributary streams in Minnesota. Over the first summer, offspring of naturalized females had significantly greater survival than offspring of hatchery females in three of four comparisons (two streams and 2 years of stocking). Having an entire naturalized genome, not just a naturalized mother, was important for survival over the first winter.

Naturalized offspring outperformed all others in survival to age 1+ and hybrids had

reduced, but intermediate, survival relative to the two pure crosses. Averaging over years

and streams, survival relative to naturalized offspring was 0.59 for hybrids with naturalized females, 0.37 for the reciprocal hybrids, and 0.21 for hatchery offspring. Our results indicate that naturalized rainbow trout are better adapted to the conditions of Minnesota’s tributaries to Lake Superior so that they outperform the hatchery-propagated strain in the same manner that many native populations of salmonids outperform hatchery or transplanted fish. Continued stocking of the hatchery fish may conflict with a management goal of sustaining the naturalized populations.

Quotes from the text: “In the US State of Minnesota, there are concerns about negative interactions between hatchery and naturalized populations of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in the state’s waters of Lake Superior. Rainbow trout from various Pacific coast sources were translocated into Lake Superior beginning in the late 1800s and many naturalized anadromous populations now spawn in tributaries throughout the lake. Naturalized rainbow trout have provided a popular recreational fishery in Lake Superior for almost a century, but catch rates in Minnesota have declined since peaking in the 1960s. In the late 1960s, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) introduced a hatchery strain of rainbow trout to create new fishing opportunities. The MNDNR once stocked this hatchery strain along much of the Minnesota shore of Lake Superior but now stocks only a few streams because of concerns about potential negative impacts of hatchery fish on naturalized populations.

As a consequence of stocking hatchery fish, outbreeding depression due to loss of local adaptation may arise from either or both the use of nonlocal fish that have evolved in different environments from the resident population or from genetic changes in captive populations due to adaptation to the hatchery environment, i.e. domestication. Either case could result in hybrids between hatchery and wild fish having lower fitness than individuals from the resident populations.

We made crosses within and between naturalized and hatchery rainbow trout for 2 consecutive years… These matings produced four cross types, two pure strain crosses (NxN and HxH) and two reciprocal hybrid crosses (NxH and HxN).

We have documented an early life survival advantage by naturalized populations of anadromous rainbow trout over a more recently introduced hatchery population and outbreeding depression resulting from interbreeding between the two strains.

Having an entire naturalized genome, not just a naturalized mother, was important for survival over the first winter, a time of harsh environmental conditions in northern Minnesota streams. Our results therefore indicate that naturalized rainbow trout are better adapted to the conditions of Minnesota’s tributaries to Lake Superior, so they outperform the hatchery-propagated strain in the same manner that many native populations of salmonids outperform hatchery fish. Continued stocking of hatchery fish may disrupt this apparent local adaptation, reducing the fitness of naturalized populations.

Family sizes were consistently low for crosses with hatchery females. For age 1+, they ranged from 0 to 3 in HxH crosses and 0-7 in HxN crosses of the 1999 year-class, and from 0 to 6 in both crosses of the 2000 year class. Naturalized female crosses had higher means and greater variance, especially the NxN crosses. Family sizes for pure naturalized crosses ranged from one to 24 for the 1999 year-class and 0-14 for 2000 year-class. In addition, the NxN cross had five and six families larger than any HxH or HxN family for the 1999 and 2000 year-classes, respectively.

Breeding competition probably interacts with survival differences to limit the introgression of hatchery genes into naturalized populations. Studies involving native salmonid populations have documented inferior mating success by hatchery fish. In a meta-analysis of experimental studies in seminatural conditions, Fleming and Petersson (2001) found sex differences in reproductive inferiority, with hatchery males less successful than hatchery females in breeding competition with wild fish. Fleming et al. (2000) showed that this male bias extended to breeding competition in the wild. We found that NxH hybrids had higher survival than HxN hybrids, but NxH hybrids would be uncommon if hatchery males are reproductively inferior. HxN hybrids would be more common but we found them less likely to survive. As a result, there would be fewer hybrid adults and less chance to initiate introgressive backcross matings with naturalized fish, than would be expected if the sexes mated randomly in hybrid crosses.

The smaller size of NxN offspring at age 1+ was unexpected, considering the generally equal size of all cross types at age 0+. It is possible that offspring with a hatchery parent (HxH, HxN, and NxH) needed to obtain a larger threshold size to survive the winter than did the NxN offspring.

The viability of these naturalized populations could also be compromised by continued stocking of translocated or hatchery-propagated fish. The potential for rapid adaptation implies that we should be cautious of using a population’s non-native status to justify indiscriminant stocking over naturalized populations. If the goal is to maintain the naturalized population, then on-going stocking of hatchery fish or transplants may reduce the fitness and viability of the established population.

WHEN WILL WE BEGIN TO PROTECT WILD SALMONIDS

2010-01-20T08:08:00.000-08:00

HATCHERY AND WILD FISH DO NOT MIX

Stray steelhead are recognized as a problem, but why and what is their effect on wild steelhead? Natural stray rates (one or two fish per year) are low compared to stray rates form some hatchery programs that can have stray rates of more than 60% of a run.

The problems that have been identified are associated with naturally spawning hatchery strays, for when they breed with wild fish there is a loss of reproductive success and can lead to reduced fitness in the wild population. Hatchery fish spawn successfully but their survival is poor compared to wild steelhead. Crosses between hatchery and wild fish produce progeny that have a lower survival rate and the result is fewer adult fish produced from the affected naturally produced wild population. Even if hatchery fish do not interbreed with wild fish, the progeny they produce have an impact for they occupy rearing space and are competitive with wild fish for food. They can also be predators on wild fish, attract predators, and spread disease. One study shows a remarkable 50% reduction in wild smolt production caused by the ecological impacts of hatchery fish on the wild population.

Some might assume that the naturally spawning hatchery fish enhance the number of adult fish returning to the river and available to the fishery, but they would be wrong, for hatchery smolt-to-adult survival is poor and few adults return.

This effect is not just a short term problem, for genetic changes caused by maladapted hatchery fish can change the basic productivity of a wild population so that its survival is jeopardized.

Over the last 150 years of fish management in the Northwest there have been many assumptions made about hatchery fish spawning naturally with wild fish ranging from “it doesn’t matter” to “no naturally spawning hatchery fish at all.”

In 1978 researchers tested the survival of hatchery and wild steelhead in the Deschutes River, Oregon to determine if there is a difference between them in the natural stream and hatchery environments. The results clearly pointed to wild fish surviving better than hatchery fish in streams than hatchery fish. The reverse was true in the hatchery. When wild and hatchery fish were crossed their progeny survival was better in streams than pure hatchery fish but inferior to wild fish. Wild fish produced more adult spawners than hatchery fish and a naturally spawning population of wild and hatchery fish reduced the reproductive success of the wild population.

During the 1980s and 1990s further research confirmed this initial research in other rivers. During this time concerns about mixing hatchery and wild fish in streams became the subject of concern, leading to scientific recommendations for how many naturally spawning hatchery fish could safely spawn with wild fish.

In 1997 NMFS invited an international group of scientists to discuss the effect of stray rates on native fish from non-native hatchery fish.

They concluded, “based on estimates of gene flow from allozyme frequencies in natural populations, a value of 5% gene flow is much higher than that generally occurring between non-local salmon populations. Also based on what is known about the strength of selection in other animals, this amount of gene flow would quickly lead to the replacement not only of neutral genes, but also of locally adapted ones. Most genes in natural populations probably have selection coefficients less than 5% and would thus be subject to loss if gene flow occurred at this level. The panel found no genetic justification for allowing gene flow from non-native fish at levels as high as 5%.”

“There are no ‘safe’ levels of hatchery straying. Any level of long-term straying will change the structure of local populations.”

In 2001, NMFS determined that “levels of gene flow from out-of-ESU hatchery stocks into natural upper Columbia steelhead populations should be less than 1% and patterns of straying and gene flow among the natural populations should be free from human-caused alterations.”

In 2002, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted the Native Fish Conservation policy that allows a 10% stray rate for hatchery fish of any origin.

Native Fish Conservation Policy 2002, page 6.

“(5) Reproductive Independence – At least 90% of the spawners within a population must be naturally produced and not hatchery produced fish, unless the department determines the hatchery produced fish are being used in a short-term experimental program to help restore a population in its natural habitat or otherwise directed by a court order.”

From 2001 to 2009, the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) reviewed hatcheries in Puget Sound and the Columbia basin saying:

“…the traditional practice of replacing natural populations with hatchery fish to mitigate for habitat loss and mortality due to hydroelectric dams is not consistent with today's conservation principles and scientific knowledge. Hatchery fish cannot replace lost habitat or the natural populations that rely on that habitat.”

The HSRG recommended that hatchery fish be isolated from wild fish (segregated hatchery) or integrated with wild fish using a formula that incorporates wild fish into the egg take and allows a proportion of the naturally spawning fish to be of hatchery origin.

The HSRG program would allow hatchery fish to reproduce naturally with wild fish based on a formula that is aimed at controlling genetic introgression and reproductive fitness in the wild stock. It does not address ecological effects of adding hatchery fish to wild fish populations for natural breeding. In addition, the benefits of this practice are theoretical and have not been tested.

The fish management agencies in Oregon and Washington have embraced the HSRG formula and have developed native broodstock hatcheries before they have been evaluated to determine their effect on wild salmonids.

The integrated hatchery program has finally been evaluated and results published in 2007 through 2009.

The poor reproductive fitness – the ability to survive and reproduce – of the wild-born offspring of hatchery fish means that adding hatchery fish to wild populations may ultimately be hurting efforts to sustain those wild runs, scientists said. The study found that a fish born in the wild as the offspring of two hatchery-reared steelhead averaged only 37 percent the reproductive fitness of a fish with two wild parents, and 87 percent the fitness if one parent was wild and one was from a hatchery.

“The implication,” Blouin said, “is that hatchery salmonids – many of which do survive to reproduce in the wild– could be gradually reducing the fitness of the wild populations with which they interbreed. Those hatchery fish provide one more hurdle to overcome in the goal of sustaining wild runs, along with problems caused by dams, loss or degradation of habitat, pollution, overfishing and other causes.”

Conclusion:

We now know that naturally spawning hatchery fish have a negative effect on the reproductive fitness and success of wild salmonids whether they are of native origin or strays from some other population. We also know that they have an ecological impact on wild fish through competition for spawning and rearing space, disease transfer, predation, and the attraction of predators. We know that fisheries directed at hatchery fish cause the over harvest of wild fish reducing the number of spawners in our streams. Even though we know hatchery fish degrade the reproductive success of wild salmonids, allowance is still being made for mixing naturally spawning hatchery and wild fish.

Fish management agencies are continuing to contribute to the decline and extinction of wild salmon and steelhead, and that contribution combined with the determined degradation of salmonid habitat by land, water and energy management agencies has created a crisis in the Northwest.

Sources:

Blouin, Michael: This research, which was just published in Biology Letters, was supported by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. It was based on years of genetic analysis of thousands of steelhead trout in Oregon's Hood River, in field work dating back to 1991.

Ford, Michael, et al. 2001. Upper Columbia River Steelhead and Spring Chinook Salmon Population Structure and Biological Requirements. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA .

HSRG http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp/summary/welcome_show.action

ODFW. 2002. Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/rogue_river/docs/nfcp.pdf

W. Stewart Grant (editor). 1997. Genetic effects of straying of non-native fish hatchery fish into natural populations: proceedings of the workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-30, 130p.

Pete Bergman Response to Sam Wright

2010-01-12T13:01:00.000-08:00

SELECTIVE FISHING CAN REBUILD WILD SALMON

Wright says “The common practice of deliberately overfishing naturally spawning salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish continues to be alive and well in Washington and Oregon (albeit with some new disguises commonly called “hatchery reform”). It is true that at this date hatchery and naturally spawning salmon are still harvested together in unnecessary and harmful mixed-stock fisheries. But the goals of hatchery reform, apparently misunderstood by Wright, are largely the same as the changes he proposes, but with more precise guidelines.

Hatchery reform is a process created by Congress, guided by a group of largely independent scientists called the HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). It is ongoing and its recommendations are widely accepted in the Pacific Northwest. A primary conclusion is the numbers of hatchery salmon spawning together with natural stocks should be strictly limited so hatchery fish do not compromise the genetics and thus the productivity and survival rates of natural, protected fish. This means that hatchery fish should be fully harvested, above hatchery broodstock needs, or not produced in the first place. Since hatchery fish are largely the only fish available for harvest, no production means no fisheries. Thus we assume the logical goal is to maintain harvest while simultaneously recovering ESA listed stocks.

Both Wright and the HSRG agree that what is needed is selective fishing that can harvest hatchery fish and release natural fish without harm. A requirement so fishermen can identify natural fish and release them is the hatchery fish need to have a visually identifiable mark. This has largely been accomplished by removing the adipose fin from all hatchery fish intended for harvest throughout Washington State and the Columbia River in anticipation of conversion to selective commercial gear, which has not happened. Recreational gear is capable of selective fishing, but cannot fully harvest most stocks. Gillnets are the primary legal commercial gear, but are not capable of selective fishing. There are a variety of commercial gears available that could fit the requirements, such as beach seines, modified purse seines, reef nets, traps, pound nets, and others, but they are largely illegal. Wright emphasizes halting use of “hatchery fish zones”, in order to avoid killing protected salmon. The HSRG uses different terminology, stop killing natural fish unnecessarily, but the result is the same.

There has been a great amount of political effort to maintain gillnet fishing. For example, in 1995 Initiative 640 in Washington State would have required selective commercial gear and accomplished everything Wright and the HSRG are proposing, but it was resoundly defeated. Why was it defeated? One issue was gillnetting would not qualify for the necessary selectivity. The typical TV ad showed a poor family with small children, with the false assertion that their livelihood would be taken away, and housewives would not be able to purchase salmon because gillnets would be banned. What did not come out was the fact that commercial catches of chinook and coho would greatly increase because the hatchery surplus fish and the excess hatchery fish on the spawning grounds would be caught, not wasted. Hatchery surplusses and escapees to natural spawning grounds number in the hundreds of thousands each year, greatly exceeding the catches.

Gillnetters, and presumably purse seiners, etc., seem to identify with the idea that they are gillnetters, not just commercial fishermen. From either a manager’s or a fisherman’s perspective, it should make little difference what gear is used, except the catch and escapement goals should be achieved, which does not happen now. Gillnets catch essentially everything, mixed species and sizes of fish, plus birds and marine mammals. Also, they are the basis for most ghost nets, lost nets that continue to fish unseen and cost millions of dollars to remove. Another point of resistence to change is the fear that the fishermen would have to invest heavily for new gear. This should not be a concern because the enormous costs of modifying the hydro system, irrigation, and other habitat issues is so large compared to the costs of new gear that this would be a best buy for the public relative to other costs of maintaining natural salmon.

Wright presents the hatchery fish management zone concept as being maintained by supressing information about acts that are either illegal or at least misleading. He is righteously concerned that he was forcing major investments in habitat that would never see needed spawners because of mismanaged harvest. He should be made aware that at this time the WDFW and the Puget Sound tribes have agreed to a Puget Sound Chinook harvest management plan that repeatedly asserts there is no reason to reduce harvest, hatchery zones or not, until spawning habitat is improved. This might seem to be simply a case of different conclusions from the same information, but it is not. There is no scientific basis for the State/Tribal position that there are sufficient natural spawners. Throughout the area of concern, hatchery salmon are a major, or the major, component of naturally spawning salmon. The HSRG asserts, based on published science, that hatchery origin spawners produce offspring that do not survive as well as progeny of natural origin salmon. They further state that even under current habitat conditions, productivity of natural fish can be doubled by eliminating hatchery spawners. At a minimum, hatchery-origin spawners replaced by natural-origin spawners would increase the probability of Recovery.

Wright sees harvest management that fails to provide adequate spawners as probably illegal. Looking at the same problem from a slightly different perspective, the authorized killing of substantial proportions of ESA listed fish, particularly when this is not even necessary if the gear is changed, seems clearly contrary to law.

Scientifically and economically, the change to selective fishing, sport and commercial, is required and obvious. What is preventing the change?

Pete Bergman Jan. 11, 2010

FARMED SALMON ARE NOT WILD SALMON

2010-01-10T09:11:00.000-08:00

SALMONID RECOVERY?

In a recent interview with Inlander News, Don Chapman and Steve Pettit made an appeal to President Obama to “restore science” in efforts to recover salmonids in the upper Columbia, and specifically the Snake River.

The condition of wild salmon and steelhead in the Snake River Basin is “dire” according to these two retired fish biologists who have spent their careers, sometimes on the opposite side the issue, but have come together to speak directly to government to pay attention to the science of salmon recovery and put that information into actions that will actually restore the wild runs.

Recent large runs of sockeye, summer steelhead, and fall chinook have returned to the Snake and there has been a lot of excitement among government agencies and fishers about the success of measures to save the salmon. In 2002, a similar large run of hatchery fish swarmed into the Columbia, creating a wave of optimism that the worst was behind us. Little was said officially about the condition of the wild runs, which continue to be plagued by low survival rates.

It makes sense, doesn’t it, that when on an annual basis millions of hatchery smolts are released from federally funded hatcheries, that when these fish enter a productive ocean environment that there survival is high and large returns of adults come a few years later.

What is not stated by the government agencies is that for wild runs to take advantage of periodic high survival rates in the ocean, it takes several years to make a difference in the adult returns. Even though wild smolts have a higher survival rate than hatchery smolts, there are a lot fewer of the wild smolts entering the ocean. A high survival in one or two years means that more wild spawners reach their natal rivers to spawn, but it takes them longer to increase the number of smolts entering the ocean. Compared to hatchery fish that have an instant response to improved ocean conditions, the wild runs take several run years to rebuild.

In addition to this lag time in their ability to respond to a favorable ocean environment, the wild smolts are plagued by high mortality rates due to many factors including passage at the dams, predation in the reservoirs and harvest mortality in the ocean and in river fisheries.

Chapman said the wild salmon are just two percent of what use to return to the Snake River. All the “cheery” and “misleading” stories about Snake River salmon returns over looks a single critical factor: “Those record numbers are hatchery fish.” The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is recovery of wild salmon and steelhead not farmed hatchery fish released by huge factory hatcheries in the basin.

Salmon recovery in the Snake River means that survival of smolt to adult return of two percent to six percent is needed.

The Endangered Species Act has been in effect 19 years, but wild fall chinook, sockeye, and steelhead survival from smolt to adult is just 0.5 percent to 0.7 percent. “That is a long way from recovery,” Pettit says. In nearly twenty years, the ESA has failed in its application and mission to recover wild salmon and steelhead in the Snake River.

WILD FISH AND THE NEXT DECADE

2010-01-05T14:12:00.000-08:00

WHAT DOES THE NEXT DECADE HOLD FOR WILD SALMONIDS?

Now that year-end comments and reviews have been made it is time for new-year predictions. It is customary to make predictions based on guesses and absolutely no information other than what one knows of the past and based on past experiences one can guess about the future. So what are my guess-predictions of the future for native wild salmonids in the Pacific Northwest?

I know from experience that policy changes in salmonid management, this means salmon, trout, and steelhead, take at least ten years to hit the ground. So predictions about what will happen to salmonids can be checked in no less than a decade from now. Since most of our major problems have a policy link, that is, people have to decide to do something and once the decision is made the institutional ship must be changed and that is what slows every thing down, for the machinery of fish management is the main problem in solving problems. This process also involves governors and legislators and even congress, and for the most part they come in three flavors ranging from “Don’t care,” “Luke-Warm,” and “Openly Hostile.”

Agencies fear change and resist it with all their power. When I was able to convince the ODFW commission to adopt a wild fish management policy for Oregon salmonids in 1978, the opposition form the agency staff was remarkable and the policy was never really implemented before they revised it to make it more bullet proof to legal actions. It took 16 years to get stocked hatchery trout out of the Metolius River, but it took the retirement of the district biologist to make it happen. When I sought a slot-regulation for the Deschutes rainbow fishery, the staff was the major opponent. If it was not for the Chief of Fisheries, Dr. Harry Wagner, and his sidekick Jim Lichatowich as the deputy chief, the trout fishery on the Deschutes would still be based on hatchery trout, bait, and a kill fishery.

So making predictions about the next decade is really pretty simple: more of the same and massive resistance to change by state, federal, and tribal agencies; inattention or hostility form governors and legislators; with congress maintaining status quo on funding and remaining unaccountable for the public funds they shovel into state and tribal coffers. The federal agencies will continue to be miniaturized by funding cuts, but it is possible that there will be less interference on questions of science by the White House, even though the federal agency leadership will continue to be panting pets of the fish managers.

The critical areas of salmonids problem solving that will be addressed in the next decade are:

 Conservation requirements for each wild, native salmonid population in each watershed. (Managers are being forced to move in this direction, but progress is slow and it will not happen in this decade. This has been applied to wild Atlantic salmon in Canada.)

 Hatchery reform so that hatchery fish do not contribute to the natural spawning of wild fish. (This is being discussed and weirs are proposed like those that NFS and ODFW have placed on three Deschutes tributaries. A science review team has recommended reducing but not eliminating naturally spawning hatchery fish. There will be some movement in this decade, but only a few rivers will be treated in this decade and protection of wild salmonids will be less than complete.)

 Harvest reform so that the by-catch mortality of wild fish is nearly zero. (The state of Oregon is resistant to applying harvest methods to reduce the kill of wild fish, but the state of Washington and Colville Tribe are testing the use of seines to live capture fish without harm. If an initiative petition is adopted by voters in Oregon this issue could be resolved in this decade.)

 Habitat management/protection fully addresses the life history requirements of wild, native salmonids and increases the productive capacity of wild populations. (Setting standards to protect and increase habitat productivity for salmonid watersheds by state agencies will not happen in this decade, however, improvements will be made on federal lands, but many species and wild populations will not directly benefit.)

 Spawner abundance objectives for wild, native salmonids provide full utilization of spawning and rearing habitats. (Interim spawner abundance objectives have been suggested for most ESA-listed species, but there is no indication that these objectives are taken seriously by state fish managers, for it constrains harvest. There will be little progress on this issue in the next decade without legal action.)

 Nutrient enrichment of streams from spawner carcasses and eggs is enough to increase the productivity of streams for naturally produced wild salmonids. Streams will have nutrient enrichment targets from naturally spawned salmonids and management successfully achieves these targets annually. (State and tribal fish managers are not supportive of nutrient enrichment of streams if it comes from natural spawners. There is some pretense at doing this work using hatchery fish carcasses, but nutrient enrichment goals have not been established for each stream. There will be some progress in this during the decade, but not enough to provide much value to natural populations.)

 Cured salmon eggs no longer contain the toxin sulfite and contribute to mortality of juvenile salmonids. (The state fish managers are not interested in moving to remove toxins from cured eggs used as bait even though their own research indicates that 30% or more of the juvenile salmonids that ingest these baits are killed. It will take legal action to move this issue forward this decade.)

 Juvenile salmonids are protected in streams with bait and barbless hook restricted fisheries. (The state fish agencies have decided that selling more angling licenses is more important than protecting wild salmonid juveniles in trout fisheries. The states are using trout kill fisheries to harvest residualized hatchery steelhead in streams as a justification to maintain excessive hatchery releases and using trout fishing as a conservation tool. The issue is regressing and will not be resolved in this decade.)

 Ecological effects of competition for food and space, from disease transmission, and from predation and predator attraction from hatchery fish is resolved to protect wild, native salmonids. (The first impact wild fish see from a hatchery program is a swarm of hatchery fish released into rivers. There has been little research on this issue, but what has been done points to a severe impact on the abundance of wild salmonids. There will be lots of foot dragging on this issue by the state fish managers because it is a threat to the hatchery programs and the federal funding they get to run them.)

 Passage barriers for adult and juvenile salmonids are removed so that fish have full access to their natural distribution in watersheds. (Passage barriers take many forms and come under the authority of many jurisdictions. Barriers include culverts, diversion dams, hydro dams, storage dams, dewatered streams below diversions. All of our rivers are affected and it will take a focused and well funded effort and commitment by jurisdictions to solve this problem. Progress will be made in this next decade, but it will be slow and under funded.

 Transported smolts in the Columbia River no longer generate adults that stray into non-natal watersheds and disrupt the reproductive success of wild salmonids. (In the 1980s researches for NMFS identified that transported steelhead were lost (failed to return to their home river or hatchery release point), but NMFS administrators were anxious to confirm transportation as the solution to dam mortality. Since then, recent research confirms that transported steelhead are lost and have a high stray rate. In response NFS and ODFW have constructed hatchery fish exclusion weirs on three tributaries of the Deschutes, so that they do not interbreed with wild fish. However, some hatchery fish are not externally marked and wild fish stray as well, so the weirs are only a partial fix of a bad fish management policy affecting all rivers. Given the resistance of NMFS and the state agencies to their own research, it is unlikely that much progress on this problem will be made in the next decade.)

 Ocean acidification from carbon dioxide will be arrested and reduced to near normal conditions. (Increasing use of coal power plants in Asia is contributing to global warming and ocean acidification. The impact on the ocean may cause it to be less productive for salmonids. Acid precipitation in the Northwest will also acidify our streams. The effect of this pollution is well documented in eastern Canada where some salmon runs have gone extinct due to acid precipitation from coal plants in the eastern United States. Monitoring of this problem is poor in the Northwest, and we can look forward to rivers not only having lower summer flows that are warmer, but more acid. Resolving this international pollution problem is not likely to progress much in the next decade.)

 ESA-listed species will have recovery plans in place and recovery measures are increasing the reproductive success of threatened species. (Since salmon were first listed in 1991 there are few recovery plans in place to recover threatened species. There has been more scientific evaluation of population status recently and we have a blue print of what needs to be done in many ESUs, but getting these plans implemented by the state and federal fish agencies will be slow and difficult because they disrupt established management policy. There will be important advances in our understanding of what to do, but doing it will be slow and awkward over the next decade.)

 The cost to produce a hatchery fish that is caught in a fishery is routinely evaluated for each hatchery program in the region. (Hatcheries consume about 40% of the salmonid management budget at the state and regional levels. This large investment of public money has not been evaluated from the perspective of how much it costs to produce a fish that is actually harvested. When the economic team at the Power Council evaluated selected hatcheries in 2002, they found that the cost to catch was higher than the economic benefit of the salmon that were harvested. When the economists proposed to do an economic evaluation of all Columbia River hatcheries, the Power Council refused to fund the study. A recent economic study of Mitchell Act Hatcheries shows that all Mitchell Act Hatchery production for all species is a deficit program. The contractor, NMFS, fired that economic team, and another economic study was solicited to get a more favorable answer. The fish management agencies do not want a cost-benefit analysis of the public funded hatchery program. It is unlikely that this will change in the next decade.)

 Water quality limited streams for temperature and sediment affect all watersheds in the region. (Most river basins in Northwest states are water quality limited and a major reason goes to high water temperatures and sediment that degrade streams for salmonid production. There are many thousands of miles of affected streams but state and federal agencies have been impossibly slow in developing a resolution to this non-point source pollution problem. Too many established commercial uses of our watersheds would be gored. In the next decade this problem will only get worse and global warming are making our streams far less productive. In the next decade this problem will expand rather than reduced.)

 The public with a dog in the fight to protect wild salmonids and the habitats that sustain them will grow in size and effectiveness. (In the next decade the public will become more informed and more effective in its commitment to protect wild, native fish. Becoming organized, informed, and taking a stand for nature protection will mean that government will have a harder time retaining status quo policies. The public will act with a growing realization that government does not lead, it follows. Increasing the pressure for conservation is growing with improvements in communications and development of specific missions. As these organizations increase their commitment to protect nature and can show effectiveness, their public support and funding will increase. In the next decade there will be important growth and accomplishments in protection of nature.

HATCHERY FISH HARVEST AND EXTINCTION OF WILD SALMONIDS

2009-12-29T16:17:00.000-08:00

12-28-09

To: WDFW Commission

Fr: Sam Wright

Re: Hatchery Fsh Management Zones and Extinction of Wild Fish

WILD FISH EXTINCTIONS CAUSED BY THE LONG-TERM USE OF HATCHERY FISH ZONES TO MANAGE PACIFIC SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS) IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON

A common management practice in Washington and Oregon since the early 1960s is the planned, deliberate overfishing and eventual extinction of wild Pacific salmon populations in order to harvest comingled populations of salmon that are produced by artificial production (Wright 1993). In Washington, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Wild Salmonid Policy identified 89 separate naturally spawning Pacific salmon populations that were being subjected to this practice or nearly one-third of all existing Pacific salmon populations in the State (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997: Table II-1, p. 9).

I was the project leader and lead author for this EIS process and had to work with an Assistant Attorney General (AG) assigned to WDFW. My original language in Table 3 described the process in part as “planned, deliberate overfishing and eventual extinction of wild salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish”. The AG stated that “this sounded like something illegal” and changed the language of the Table title to “Current fish management plans and practices overfish 89 wild stocks in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish at rates that are not sustainable by wild populations.” This is an example of one of many ways that have been used to disguise the process.

My initial attempt to stop this practice occurred in the early 1980s when I was administrator of the Habitat Management Division for the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). My work included involvement in a wide array of habitat protection, enhancement and mitigation projects. I soon began to wonder if I was knowingly committing illegal acts. Was it illegal to commit public funds to habitat improvement work when I knew that viable adult salmon spawners were never going to be provided to reap projected project benefits? Was it illegal to force a landowner to correct an upstream fish passage problem when I knew that spawners were never going to be provided to utilize habitat above the obstruction? Was it illegal to force a developer to fund a costly mitigation project when I knew that spawners were never going to be provided to justify the expenditure? I was also concerned that the “secret” would eventually be revealed to the public and that this could destroy our future ability to protect salmon habitat.

In 1982, I advised WDF that it was essential to end this practice since it was probably illegal in several different respects. The practice appeared to be illegal under the legislation that created WDF and had never been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). In addition, all of the more recent hatcheries requiring environmental reviews did not even hint at this practice in their environmental documents. At best, the practice was simply very poor resource stewardship. I then provided a plan to eliminate this practice that was later described in Wright (1993).

The first part of my recommendation was to mark all hatchery Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and all hatchery coho salmon (O. kisutch) by removal of their adipose fins. The basic principle involved was the ability to manage wild and hatchery salmon as “separate species” and the adipose mark enabled this to be done in practice. The second part of my recommendation was that natural spawning escapement objectives needed to be established for all existing naturally spawning salmon populations and that all fisheries would then be managed to achieve these objectives. The third part of my proposal was that existing and planned hatchery programs would be adjusted as necessary to make them compatible with achieving these natural spawning escapement objectives.

The adipose marking proposal was initially rejected by everyone, but gradually came to be accepted and is now widely implemented. The problem is that it was decoupled from both the establishment and management for natural spawning escapement objectives and the need to make hatchery programs compatible. Adipose marking is meaningless by itself when the same high exploitation rates continue to be applied in non-selective fisheries harvesting comingled wild plus hatchery salmon and hatchery programs continue to be incompatible.

My only successful attempt to expose this problem in a formal publication occurred in Wright (1993). The subtitle was “Salmon managers need to abandon the use of hatchery fish management zones.” WDF tried to stop publication but had to settle for a disclaimer stating that “The views in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Washington Department of Fisheries.” There was a great deal of luck involved in the peer review process since two of three reviewers were not from Washington or Oregon. Two subsequent attempts to expose the problem in formal publications failed when the majority of peer reviewers were from Washington and Oregon.

I initially had high hopes for resolution of the problem when Puget Sound Chinook and Lower Columbia River Chinook were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Both areas had many Chinook populations on the list of 89 that were being deliberately overfished (WDFW 1997). However, all of these same populations were then assumed to be indistinguishable from hatchery Chinook or “genetically extinct” as wild populations. In Puget Sound, a total of 37 defined Chinook salmon populations were divided into 22 “A” and 15 “B” populations, with the latter group judged to be extinct. The situation in the Lower Columbia River was far worse, with North Lewis River fall Chinook being the only remaining population that was not determined to be extinct.

Unfortunately, my prediction of mass extinctions had been fulfilled. This extinct classification allowed the status quo practices of existing hatchery programs and high exploitation rates to continue for all of these populations. Some even had “escapement goals” identified to complete the public illusion of responsible resource management. Many hatchery Chinook never make it all the way back to existing hatchery traps and end–up spawning naturally. These can then be identified as an escapement goal without compromising the desired hatchery programs and high exploitation rates.

Over the years, there have been many varied attempts to disguise hatchery fish zones such as the “escapement goals” established for 15 Puget Sound “B” group Chinook salmon populations. The only citable reference that precisely identifies salmon populations where there is clear, unambiguous management intent to put adequate numbers of viable natural spawners on the spawning grounds is the Salmon Fishery Management Plan of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PMFC 2003: Table 3-1,15p.). This confirms the solitary status of North Lewis River fall Chinook and that both the entire Columbia River system and the entire South Puget Sound Region are huge hatchery fish zones for coho salmon. As predicted for wild Chinook salmon, there have also been massive extinctions of wild coho salmon populations.

The common practice of deliberately overfishing naturally spawning salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish continues to be alive and well in Washington and Oregon (albeit with some new disguises commonly called “hatchery reform”). The solution is still exactly what it was in 1982. At a minimum, resource managers in Washington and Oregon should at least be honest about what they are doing so that countless millions of dollars will not continue to be spent in hatchery fish zones when the same money could be spent much more productively in wild salmon zones. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent and the management status (wild or hatchery zones) has never been used (as a criteria) to prioritize competing project proposals.

References

PFMC 2003. Fishery management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fishery off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California as revised through Amendment 14. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

WDFW 1997. Final environmental impact statement for the Wild Salmonid Policy. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Wright, S. 1993. Fishery management of wild Pacific salmon stocks to prevent extinctions. Fisheries 18(5):3-4.

Author: Sam Wright, 1522 Evanston Ct. NE, Olympia WA 98506 (360-943-4424, sam.wright@att.net)

Pathways to Resilient Salmon Ecosystems

2009-12-25T10:11:00.000-08:00

Pathways to Resilient Salmon Ecosystems

“Resilience - the ability of a system to absorb disturbance without losing its characteristic structure or function - is the key idea that links articles in the issue.”

Introduction:

Human and salmonid societies are linked as well as integrated. What we do to salmon populations and to the habitats that sustain them affect the health of salmon populations as well as that of our own. Wild salmon in the Northwest and the Northeast of North America are suffering. They are in decline and many have been lost forever. Those of us who live in these regions are responsible for their future and the ecological services a healthy environment provides for all of us. Salmon are a primary indicator that our landscape is healthy and productive, diverse as it is from mountains to valleys and from forests to grasslands. Our commitment to having a healthy environment includes a place for salmon as well as our economy since they are fully linked.

I have provided the following abstracts on salmon resilience to introduce the topic, and there is a link to the full studies that are on an open access web page at the end of each abstract for you.

Reconnecting Social and Ecological Resilience in Salmon Ecosystems

ABSTRACT. Fishery management programs designed to control Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) for optimum production have failed to prevent widespread fish population decline and have caused greater uncertainty for salmon, their ecosystems, and the people who depend upon them. In this special feature introduction, we explore several key attributes of ecosystem resilience that have been overlooked by traditional salmon management approaches. The dynamics of salmon ecosystems involve social–ecological interactions across multiple scales that create difficult mismatches with the many jurisdictions that manage fisheries and other natural resources. Of particular importance to ecosystem resilience are large-scale shifts in oceanic and climatic regimes or in global economic conditions that unpredictably alter social and ecological systems. Past management actions that did not account for such changes have undermined salmon population resilience and increased the risk of irreversible regime shifts in salmon ecosystems. Because salmon convey important provisioning, cultural, and supporting services to their local watersheds, widespread population decline has undermined both human well-being and ecosystem resilience. Strengthening resilience will require expanding habitat opportunities for salmon populations to express their maximum life-history variation. Such actions also may benefit the “response diversity” of local communities by expanding the opportunities for people to express diverse social and economic values. Reestablishing social–ecological connections in salmon ecosystems will provide important ecosystem services, including those that depend on clean water, ample stream flows, functional wetlands and floodplains, intact riparian systems, and abundant fish populations.

Bottom, D. L., K. K. Jones, C. A. Simenstad, and C. L. Smith. 2009. Reconnecting social and ecological resilience in salmon ecosystems. Ecology and Society 14(1): 5. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art5/

Evolutionary History, Habitat Disturbance Regimes, and Anthropogenic Changes: What Do These Mean for Resilience of Pacific Salmon Populations?

ABSTRACT. Because resilience of a biological system is a product of its evolutionary history, the historical template that describes the relationships between species and their dynamic habitats is an important point of reference. Habitats used by Pacific salmon have been quite variable throughout their evolutionary history, and these habitats can be characterized by four key attributes of disturbance regimes: frequency, magnitude, duration, and predictability. Over the past two centuries, major anthropogenic changes to salmon ecosystems have dramatically altered disturbance regimes that the species experience. To the extent that these disturbance regimes assume characteristics outside the range of the historical template, resilience of salmon populations might be compromised. We discuss anthropogenic changes that are particularly likely to compromise resilience of Pacific salmon and management actions that could help bring the current patterns of disturbance regimes more in line with the historical template.

Waples, R. S., T. Beechie, and G. R. Pess 2009. Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance regimes, and anthropogenic changes: What do these mean for resilience of Pacific salmon populations? Ecology and Society 14(1): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art3/

Resilient Salmon, Resilient Fisheries for British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT. Salmon are inherently resilient species. However, this resiliency has been undermined in British Columbia by a century of centralized, command-and-control management focused initially on maximizing yield and, more recently, on economic efficiency. Community and cultural resiliency have also been undermined, especially by the recent emphasis on economic efficiency, which has concentrated access in the hands of a few and has disenfranchised fishery-dependent communities. Recent declines in both salmon stocks and salmon prices have revealed the systemic failure of the current management system. If salmon and their fisheries are to become viable again, radically new management policies are needed. For the salmon species, the emphasis must shift from maximizing yield to restoring resilience; for salmon fisheries, the emphasis must shift from maximizing economic efficiency to maximizing community and cultural resilience. For the species, an approach is needed that integrates harvest management, habitat management, and habitat enhancement to sustain and enhance resilience. This is best achieved by giving fishing and aboriginal communities greater responsibility and authority to manage the fisheries on which they depend. Co-management arrangements that involve cooperative ownership of major multistock resources like the Fraser River and Skeena River fisheries and community-based quota management of smaller fisheries provide ways to put species conservation much more directly in the hands of the communities most dependent on the well-being and resilience of these fisheries.

Healey, M. C. 2009. Resilient salmon, resilient fisheries for British Columbia, Canada. Ecology and Society 14(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art2/

Freshwater Ecosystems and Resilience of Pacific Salmon: Habitat Management Based on Natural Variability

ABSTRACT. In spite of numerous habitat restoration programs in fresh waters with an aggregate annual funding of millions of dollars, many populations of Pacific salmon remain significantly imperiled. Habitat restoration strategies that address limited environmental attributes and partial salmon life-history requirements or approaches that attempt to force aquatic habitat to conform to idealized but ecologically unsustainable conditions may partly explain this lack of response. Natural watershed processes generate highly variable environmental conditions and population responses, i.e., multiple life histories, that are often not considered in restoration. Examples from several locations underscore the importance of natural variability to the resilience of Pacific salmon. The implication is that habitat restoration efforts will be more likely to foster salmon resilience if they consider processes that generate and maintain natural variability in fresh water. We identify three specific criteria for management based on natural variability: the capacity of aquatic habitat to recover from disturbance, a range of habitats distributed across stream networks through time sufficient to fulfill the requirements of diverse salmon life histories, and ecological connectivity. In light of these considerations, we discuss current threats to habitat resilience and describe how regulatory and restoration approaches can be modified to better incorporate natural variability.

Bisson, P. A., J. B. Dunham, and G. H. Reeves. 2009. Freshwater ecosystems and resilience of Pacific salmon: habitat management based on natural variability. Ecology and Society 14(1): 45. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art45/

The Social Construction of Fishing, 1949

ABSTRACT. The theoretical construction known as maximum sustained yield (MSY) exists in three realms: as science, as policy, and as a legal concept. Despite substantial criticism by scientists and economists, MSY remains at the heart of fisheries science and fisheries management. This paper suggests that its institutional resilience springs more from its policy and legal roles than from its scientific strength. Maximum sustained yield was adopted as the goal of American fisheries policy in 1949. Between 1949 and 1955, the State Department pushed for its adoption internationally. In this paper, I first look briefly at the relationship between fishing and foreign policy goals during this period. Second, I look at how fishing was understood during 1949, when the American High Seas Fishing Policy was adopted. Third, I look at the actions of the 1955 International Technical Conference on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea and how American actions shaped the development of fisheries science and the modern fishery management process.

Finley, C. 2009. The social construction of fishing, 1949. Ecology and Society 14(1): 6. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art6/

Resilience in Lower Columbia River Salmon Communities

ABSTRACT. In 1992, the first listings of Columbia River salmon under the Endangered Species Act occurred. Regulation of the Columbia River gillnet fishery since that time has greatly reduced fishing time and economic return to the fishing fleet. The counties where two-thirds of the gillnetters reside have registered negative social statistics during this period, including drug and alcohol abuse rates, incomes, and mortality rates, among others. The fishing communities’ attempts to cope with this change, their strategies for resilience, and the potential consequences for their ability to advocate on behalf of salmon should they be further weakened are discussed. The possibility exists that the gillnet population could abandon its commitment to the Columbia River and settle in other areas.

Martin, I. E. 2008. Resilience in Lower Columbia River salmon communities. Ecology and Society 13(2):23. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art23/

The Fate of Coho Salmon Nomads: The Story of an Estuarine-Rearing Strategy Promoting Resilience

ABSTRACT. The downstream movement of coho salmon nomads (age 0), conventionally considered surplus fry, has been an accepted characteristic of juvenile coho salmon for the past 40 to 50 yr. The fate of these nomads, however, was not known and they were assumed to perish in the ocean. Several studies and observations have recently provided new insights into the fate of nomads and the role of the stream-estuary ecotone and estuary in developing this life history strategy that promotes coho resilience. Chinook and sockeye salmon have developed the ocean-type life-history strategy to exploit the higher productivity of the estuarine environment and migrate to the ocean at age 0. Nomad coho can acclimate to brackish water, and survive and grow well in the stream-estuary ecotone and estuary, but instead of migrating to the ocean they return upstream into freshwater to overwinter before migrating to the ocean as smolts. Nomads may enter the estuarine environment from natal or non-natal streams, rear there throughout the summer, and then emigrate to a non-natal stream for overwintering and smolting in the spring. These estuarine and overwintering habitats have enabled coho to develop this unique nomad life history strategy that may help to ensure their resilience. Restoring estuarine habitats may be essential to the recovery of depressed populations of coho.

Koski, K V. 2009. The fate of coho salmon nomads: the story of an estuarine-rearing strategy promoting resilience. Ecology and Society 14(1): 4. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art4/

Institutions for Managing Resilient Salmon (Oncorhynchus Spp.) Ecosystems: the Role of Incentives and Transaction Costs

ABSTRACT. Institutions are the mechanisms that integrate the human and ecological spheres. This paper discusses the institutional challenge of integrating salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) ecosystems and human systems in ways that effectively promote resilience. Salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin demonstrates the challenge. Despite the comprehensive scope of Basin salmon management, it has a number of problems that illustrate the difficulties of designing institutions for ecosystem and human system resilience. The critical elements of salmon ecosystem management are incentives and transaction costs, and these comprise a large piece of missing institutional infrastructure. Once the focus is placed on incentives and costs, a number of different management strategies emerge as options for salmon ecosystems, including refugia, property rights to ecosystem goods and services, co-management, and markets in ecosystem services.

Hanna, S. S. 2008. Institutions for managing resilient salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) ecosystems: the role of incentives and transaction costs. Ecology and Society 13(2): 35. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art35/

FISH MANAGERS RESIST SCIENCE

2009-12-17T10:30:00.000-08:00

THIRTY YEARS OF RESEACH TELLS A STORY:

As an advocate for wild salmonid conservation and protection I rely on research to make may case, for I rely on facts. Getting ahead of the facts can be temping in the heat of a debate but should never be practiced. Consequently, it takes years of following the research papers as they are published to develop a factual case upon which to base a conclusion.

With regard to the fitness divergence between hatchery and wild steelhead, the research by Reginald Reisnbichler and Jack McInyre in 1978 initiated the inquiry into a remarkable difference between what can only be said are two forms of the same species: the domesticated and the wild forms.

Many scientific papers have been published since that initial work helping to define the various attributes of these two forms of fish and their performance in natural streams. In 2008 and 2009 research was published by Araki et al about hatchery steelhead derived from wild parents and compared to the performance in nature with wild steelhead. This research concluded that hatchery steelhead survival was less than that of wild steelhead in the first generation, and that this divergent performance persisted through the second generation in natural spawning and rearing conditions.

Hatchery culture changed the hatchery fish genetically in the first generation of hatchery culture and natural selection did not remove the effect of artificial propagation.

After 31 years of research on the question of hatchery and wild steelhead divergence, a conclusion can be made: hatchery culture degrades the fitness and survival of steelhead. This research also concludes that the interbreeding between hatchery and wild steelhead in streams reduces the fitness of wild steelhead, degrading their natural productivity. Even though Reisenbichler’s research defined a future path of inquiry, it took 31 years to determine conclusively that hatchery culture creates a domesticated animal in the first generation, reducing its fitness and acting as a degrading influence on wild populations in nature.

The fish management agencies resisted evaluating the efficacy of hatcheries for over one hundred years, for they did not have to prove they worked to get public funding from state and federal governments. Belief in hatcheries is all that is required and the fish agencies believed. Having no factual information has not been important to justify funding. A belief doesn’t require accountability. The consequences have been severe, if one counts the number of wild populations that have gone extinct and those listed as endangered species. The fact that salmonids today are just 5% of historic abundance should be enough to cause a shift in management policy.

It will take at least another ten years for the fish management agencies to adjust their policies and procedures to improve the conservation of wild steelhead by changing how hatcheries are used. This shift in institutional commitment takes a long time, too long given the scientific evidence, but fish management is not designed to be responsive to science. It takes a strong, long-term public advocacy to force changes in fish management policy. In the meantime, there will be considerable damage to what remains of our wild steelhead, for wild fish and their habitat are considered irrelevant to the mission of fish management agencies.

CURED SALMON EGGS KILL JUVENILE SALMONIDS

2009-12-16T22:12:00.000-08:00

CURED SALMON EGG BAIT KILLS JUVENILE SALMON AND STEELHEAD

In 2007 Jeff Misler asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to test cured salmon eggs for toxic compounds, for he was concerned juvenile salmonids were being killed by ingesting the bait.

Oregon State University and ODFW researchers conducted the study for ODFW and made the following discovery: Cured salmon eggs killed juvenile salmon and steelhead.

The research discovered that within a 23 day span 30% of the juvenile salmonids were killed. Upon further investigation, they found that eggs cured with sodium sulfite were lethal. It is this chemical that kills the fish.

They also tested the eggs by giving them a soak to see if they were less lethal. They were testing whether fishing softened their impact. Soak times ranged from 30 seconds to 10 minutes, but the results were the same: the fish died.

Salmon eggs are a favored bait used by anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead. Anglers cure their own eggs or buy them, but if sodium sulfite is used in the curing process they are fishing a poisoned bait.

Additional research on nutrient enrichment of salmon and steelhead streams has pointed out the fact that eggs are preferred by juvenile salmonids. Most salmon eggs are available in early winter months when the juvenile fish are seeking food in cold water when other food supplies are less abundant.

Juvenile fish are seeking the fat rich eggs and anglers fishing steelhead and salmon are using cured eggs. The combination is lethal.

ODFW officials said in a news release that “We’ve already talked with several manufactures and we’re encouraged by their commitment to solving this problem.”

However, ODFW researchers said they “…cannot predict what impact, if any, the ingestion of cured eggs by juvenile fish has on the final size of the adult population.”

In the research proposal to investigate the toxic effect of cured salmon eggs on juvenile salmonids, there is evidence of even more mortality than what was found in the OSU research. A 1979 study showed that consumption of borax cured eggs led to decreased growth and an increase in plasma corticosteroids in chinook and rainbow trout juveniles. Furthermore, we recently observed between 50-60% mortality in a preliminary study feeding cured salmon eggs (Clements Pers Obs).

Measuring the impact based on the effect on adult salmon and steelhead production, is like taking pins out of the voodoo doll. They can reason that not all juveniles survive to return as adults, so the loss of a few or even a gob of young fish is, at best, immaterial and mitigates any need to manage the use of eggs as bait.

At a time when most of our wild salmon and steelhead are depleted and designated a threatened species, sensitive species, and candidate species for ESA-listing, one would hope that the management authorities would recognize a problem rather than trying to minimize it.

SEA LICE THREATEN WILD SALMON

2009-12-03T16:26:00.000-08:00

Sea lice infestation associated with salmon farms (primarily Norwegian firms) along the coast of British Columbia, Canada, continue to devastate wild salmon populations that must pass by the farms. There is mounting concern about this problem especially after the Fraser sockeye run failed this year and wild smolts were found to be covered with lice as they migrated through the inside passage. The combination of escaped salmon and sea lice infestation is a major issue in Norway, but the government in both Norway and Canada refuse to resolve the issue.

Norway is managing the extinction of wild salmon!

The Director of The Directorate for Nature Management, Janne Sollie, says today that Norway is not managing the farmed salmon business, but the extinction of wild salmon!

She says this is due to the fact of record high and disastrous levels of sea-lice in the farmed salmon farms. If this is allowed to keep on, all wild salmon will be history!

The Directorate for Nature Management is the national governmental body for preserving Norway's natural environment. The directorate serves as an advisory and executive agency under the Norwegian Ministry of Environment.

The Government do not listen to their warning! It's shameful how Norway's officials are promoting and protecting the business of farmed salmon! An unsustainable business ruining wild life!

Norwegian Salmon Association – Saving Wild Salmon

http://norwegian-salmon.com/salmon/extended-en.php?recID=26

Norway's national broadcaster NRK and newspapers across Norway are reporting on the sea lice crisis, chemical resistance and the controversial use of chemicals to kill sea lice.

NRK reports today under the headline: "Lice dispute threatens Norwegian exports: Export Council fears that the dispute about the lice will threaten the export of Norwegian salmon"

NRK, Dagbladet, Aftenposten and Adresseavisen reported yesterday on the use of two controversial chemicals to kill sea lice despite an agreement in 1999 signed by the Norwegian Government not to use them.

NMF reported yesterday (in English):

"The use of these chemicals was stopped after the agreement was signed in February 1999, and fish farmers have used other drugs instead. However, since the salmon louse has developed resistance against the drugs used, these controversial chemicals are again being thrown into Norwegian salmon cages. The industry respected the agreement until now, and we claim the minister of fisheries to be responsible for breaking the agreement."

VG reported yesterday "Tolerance limits for farmed salmon exceeded 6 to 10 times: fish farming in Norway is very far from sustainable, says the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)".

VG quoted Professor Tor Einar Horsberg at the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science who said: "The harsh treatment that is needed to reach lice limits will lead to more resistant and multi-resistant lice. There is a dramatic development, and I'm worried how this will end."

Professor Tor Einar Horsberg was also quoted in a front page article in Fiskeribladet/Fiskaren titled: "Lice cure will give even more resistant lice."

The Green Warriors of Norway said in a press release - "Sea Lice Situation is Out of Control" - issued earlier this week:

"The sea lice situation is now out of control along the entire coast of Nordland and south. Green Warriors of Norway requires complete slaughter of all salmon biomass with multi-resistance against lice medicines."

NRK reported yesterday that the "Directorate for Nature Management (DN) believes that the number of farmed salmon along the coast from Rogaland to Nordland must be reduced by the Spring."

Last month, VG reported that the Norwegian Fisheries Minister (who was formerly the head of the Norwegian salmon farming association and is an owner of a salmon farming company) had been reported to the police for "repeated violations of the salmon regulations."

Aftenposten also published an article - "Monsternæringen" ("Monster Food") - by award-winning journalist Niels Chr Geelmuyden ending with:

"Incompetent: Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect imminent action from the sitting government. Finance Minister Johnsen comes straight from the post of chairman of Cermaq (A salmon farm corporation). Fisheries Minister Berg-Hansen for her part, co-owner of fish farming company Sinkaberg-Hansen, who recently was reported to the police for a year's greatest salmon escapes. Combined with that, she has been chair of the Fishery and Aquaculture Industry Association and board member of Aker Seafoods, she would in most decent societies have been considered completely incompetent in his current ministerial role. But even this seems to be interested Norwegian media people worth mentioning."

Last week in Norway, the Norwegian Fisheries Minister convened a crisis meeting on the sea lice issue. The day before the sea lice meeting WWF Norway issued a press release (25th November) warning that Norwegian farmed salmon would be given a "red light" unless the issue of sea lice and escapes was tackled. The press release included:

"The management of the aquaculture industry in Norway is not environmentally sound. For several years the Government has increased the number of fish in the sea and provides for even more fish next year, contrary to the recommendations of its own environmental authorities," said Secretary-General Rasmus Hansson of WWF-Norway. The amount of sea lice has exploded along the coast, despite the measures industry and governments have implemented. It shows that the Norwegian regulations are not good. "WWF-Norway will make a new assessment of the sustainability of the Norwegian farmed salmon next year. Such developments on the environment page in Norwegian aquaculture industry is now, it seems that the salmon can get a red light - which in practice means that we will ask consumers worldwide to avoid buying farmed salmon from Norway," said Rasmus Hansson, and Maren Esmark, head for Nature Conservation Department, WWF-Norway."

This week, the Norwegian Hunters and Fishers (NJFF) published a news story headed - "A Lot of Talk - Little Action" - referring to a:

"......life-threatening situation for our wild salmon along the coast is informed by a disaster. The trend of increasing resistance to the main treatment methods are cause for great concern. The organizations ask that the Minister immediately initiated after a standstill for further growth in the industry......We will increase the pressure in this case. The battle is now."

Thanks to Don Staniford of Pure Salmon Organization 12-2-09 for providing NFS with this important information.

WDFW REFUSES TO PROTECT JUVNEILE STEELHEAD

2009-11-28T20:52:00.000-08:00

Washington Refuses to Protect Juvenile Steelhead in Fisheries

By Sam Wright, WDFW biologist (retired)

2009

Ever since the ESA-listing of Puget Sound steelhead as Threatened, I attempted to convince the Commission and WDFW that existing regulations for trout fishing in streams were exerting a high fishing mortality rate on juvenile Puget Sound steelhead. The standard response by WDFW had been that comments in the listing decision documents clearly stated that fishing mortality was not a significant problem for Puget Sound steelhead. While all of these Federal comments were clearly made in the context of only adult steelhead, they were mistakenly being applied to juveniles by WDFW. In reality, the fishing mortality rate on juveniles may be an order of magnitude higher than the fishing mortality rate on wild adult steelhead.

The changes proposed for 2010-2012 have finally recognized both the Puget Sound and State-wide problems and the solution is the correct one. It will be the beginning of the end for the long Washington tradition of providing widespread “trout fishing” on juvenile steelhead. It is also being proposed in the correct CLOSED unless OPEN harvest management strategy that limits fishing mortality to times and locations where there is a reasonable expectation of a harvestable surplus for one or more species. In addition, it will make management of trout fishing in streams parallel to the same CLOSED unless OPEN format that has been used for decades to manage both salmon and steelhead fisheries in the same streams.

The primary purpose of the comments to follow is to describe why the net result of existing regulations is a high fishing mortality rate on juvenile Puget Sound steelhead. The basic reference that I will be referring to (unless noted otherwise) is the following: Wright, S. 1992. Guidelines for selecting regulations to manage open-access fisheries for natural populations of anadromous and resident trout in stream habitats. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:517-527.

The existing Statewide Freshwater Rules that apply to all Puget Sound streams not identified under Special Rules are a five month fishing season from the first Saturday in June through October 31, a two fish daily bag limit and an 8 inch minimum size limit. In practice, the effective minimum size limit is about 7 inches since there is a tolerance policy (just like everyone knows that they can always go 5 miles over the posted speed limit and never get a ticket). Every length frequency distribution for any fishery with a minimum size limit will show this artifact. There is no restriction on the use of bait even though numerous studies have indicated the expectation of a 30 to 50 % mortality rate for any fish that are hooked and released. This is recognized in WDFW regulations since fish caught with bait count as part of the daily bag limit, while you can continue to catch and release fish caught on artificial lures or flies. However, the regulations also state that, if any fish has swallowed the hook or is hooked in the gill, eye, or tongue, it should be kept if legal to do so. Obviously, these types of regulations can never be effectively enforced in actual practice. Fishing with bait produces a much high incidence of serious injuries since fish are attempting to swallow bait as opposed to capturing a lure or fly.

The net result is that hundreds of the smaller named and unnamed streams in the Greater Puget Sound Basin are open under Statewide Rules to harvest fisheries on juvenile steelhead plus a high hooking mortality rate on smaller fish. There are 56 stream reaches listed under Special Rules that have a 14 inch minimum size limit to prevent retention of juvenile steelhead but this does not apply to most of their tributaries and 51 of the 56 allow the use of bait. There are an additional 24 stream reaches with catch-and-release fisheries but this does not apply to most of their tributaries. There are also 23 stream reaches closed to fishing that lack tributary protection. These three categories total 98 stream reaches where protection has not been extended to most named and unnamed tributaries (a small percentage of named tributaries are identified under Special Rules). Research conducted in Idaho in the early 1970s demonstrated that 70 to 100% of 2-year-old juvenile steelhead could be removed from 400 foot reaches of streams with only four angler hours of fishing effort. Thus, it is possible to severely deplete or even eliminate any juvenile steelhead populations with only a very modest amount of fishing effort.

One source of information that can be used to quantify impacts from fishing comes from the WDFW long-term research station at Big Beef Creek on the Kitsap Peninsula. Smolt production of juvenile salmonids has been measured every year since 1978, while the regulations needed to eliminate significant fishing mortality on juvenile salmonids have been implemented in several increments extending from 1987 to 1999. The end result is a catch-and-release fishery with a prohibition on the use of bait. In the 10-year “before” period from 1978 through 1987, the average annual production of anadromous trout smolts (steelhead, cutthroat, and hybrids) was 1723 fish. The average annual anadromous trout smolt production in the 9-year “after” period from 2000 through 2008 was 2638 fish. This represents a 53% increase in anadromous trout smolt production.

Another quantitative expression of impacts from fishing can be seen in the end result at Chambers Creek, the original brood stock site for most Washington hatchery steelhead. Biologist Bruce Crawford described the history of this resource in a 1979 report entitled “The origin and history of trout brood stocks of the Washington Department of Game”. The natural steelhead run in Chamber Creek had the normal run timing of Puget Sound winter run steelhead and early egg takes were made mainly from February through April. However, the run was shifted a full two months earlier in run timing by continually selecting the earliest returning adults. Egg takes were then made mainly in December and January and the trap was generally opened to unimpeded upstream fish passage in early February. The early run hatchery fish gradually died out due to exceptionally poor smolt to adult survival rates. However, everyone assumed that a natural run still existed in the normal winter steelhead run timing period beginning in early February. WDFW installed a fish counter in the fish ladder during 2008 but not a single adult steelhead was detected. The only plausible cause for this extinction is the “trout” fishery that was provided for decades with only 6 and then 8 inch minimum size limits. This is a 149 square mile watershed with over 330,000 people living in it. New regulations to supposedly “protect steelhead” have recently been adopted for the 2009-2010 period but were applied only to the main stem of Chambers Creek. At least half of the juvenile steelhead rearing potential occurs in four named tributaries and these remained unprotected.

The problems that I have attempted to describe for juvenile Puget Sound steelhead are generic statewide problems that extend to other ESA-listed and unlisted juvenile steelhead populations, ESA-listed bull trout, ESA-listed and unlisted juvenile Chinook salmon populations with significant yearling production, ESA-listed and unlisted juvenile coho salmon populations, juvenile sea-run cutthroat, and immature resident rainbow and cutthroat trout.