Pathways to Resilient Salmon Ecosystems

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

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

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

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

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.

HATCHERIES DEFEAT WILD FISH RECOVERY

HATCHERIES ARE AN IMPEDIMENT TO WILD SALMONID RECOVEY

As wild salmon and steelhead populations decline toward extinction in the Northwest, and many have already gone extinct, recovery has been based on the assumption that wild salmonids can be rebuilt using hatchery technology.

Since the first wild salmon and steelhead populations were listed in 1991 in the Columbia River basin more than $8 billion dollars have been spent on salmon recovery. If money were enough wild salmon would have increased rather than continued to decline. The federal response to the court has been that “trending toward recovery” is good enough to justify this investment of public funds.

During the past eighteen years of salmon recovery efforts, attention has been on hatchery supplementation of wild salmonid populations rather than on developing a recovery program for wild populations. A program for wild salmon and steelhead recovery would adopt river specific conservation requirements. But this has not been done. Consequently, the vast amount of public funding for salmon recovery has not been effectively applied. It is not how much money has been spent, but how it is spent.

There are now two opposing recommendations on the use of hatcheries to rebuild wild salmonid populations. Congress recently funded a hatchery review by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) that has recommended many important hatchery modifications to improve their operations and reduce their impact on wild salmon and steelhead. However, the HSRG has recommended an untested premise. By including wild fish in the hatchery brood stock and limiting the number of hatchery fish that spawn naturally with wild fish this so-called integrated hatchery concept can be used not only to protect the wild population, but increase its size.

The other recommendation comes from a separate research project that evaluated the effect of hatchery fish, derived from native, wild brood stock, on wild fish when they spawn together naturally in streams. This study concludes that the hatchery fish that spawn naturally with wild fish are a drag on the productivity of the wild population, reducing their fitness and reproductive success. Wild fish the hatchery program was intended to help are exposed to greater risk. This study also shows that this effect spans several generations, that is, when progeny from wild born hatchery fish return and spawn, their progeny are less productive than wild fish, producing fewer surviving adult progeny. And when these fish spawn naturally with wild fish the reproductive fitness of progeny is reduced. In addition, this detrimental effect is genetic and is not erased by natural selection in the stream and ocean.

The findings of this research and the recommendations of the HSRG are in conflict. The HSRG says that some naturally spawning hatchery fish is okay, but the research says that naturally spawning hatchery fish degrade the fitness and reproductive success of wild fish and that this impact increases with each generation.

The following are some quotes from a 2009 scientific paper that describe this hatchery effect on wild fish:

“…relative reproduction fitness was only 37% in wild born fish from two captive-bred parents and 87 per cent in those from one captive-bred and one wild parent (relative to those from two wild parents. Our results suggest a significant carry-over effect of captive breeding, which has negative influence on the size of the wild population in the generation after supplementation. In this population, the population fitness could have been 8 per cent higher if there was no carry-over effect during the study period.”

“…genetically-based loss of fitness in the wild has been well documented (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977, Reisenbichler and Ruin 1999, Araki et al. 2007, 2008). Thus, captive-bred organisms could potentially drag down the fitness of the wild populations they are meant to support, even while temporarily boosting their numbers.”

“We examined the reproductive fitness of captive-bred fish in the wild using the same molecular technique, in the same population (Hood River, Oregon). The results suggest that first-generation hatchery fish were reproductively less fit than wild fish, and that second generation hatchery fish were even less fit than first generation fish.”

“The estimated reduction in fitness of captive-bred fish was up to 40 per cent per generation. Now we ask whether their wild-born offspring, which successfully survived a full generation of selection in the wild, can have as many adult offspring as wild fish that have not been influence by captive-breeding.”

“Now we ask whether their wild-born offspring, which successfully survived a full generation of selection in the wild, can have as many adult offspring as wild fish that have not been influence by captive breeding. This comparison provides a unique opportunity to estimate the change in wild population size owing to any carry-over effect of captive breeding. “

Over all three years there is a clear pattern of decline in reproductive fitness in order of W (w x w) > W (derived from captive x wild origin parents ) > W (derived from captive x captive origin parents).

“The fitness difference persisted despite a complete life cycle of natural rearing, during which time natural selection had the opportunity to eliminate less fit individuals from the population…”

“We estimated that this carry-over effect reduced population fitness by 8 per cent relative to a purely wild population of the same size.”

“Given that the genetic effect of captive breeding was not erased by a full generation in the wild, supplementation programmes could have a cumulative impact on wild populations.”

“The message should be clear: captive breeding for reintroduction or supplementation can have a serious, long-term downside in some taxa, and should not be considered as a panacea for the recovery of all endangered populations.”

Until this research was done, it was assumed that by using native brood stock, the hatchery and the wild fish were the same, that they had the same reproductive fitness. The wild fish would be enhanced and hatchery fish survival increased. On that basis the fish management agencies initiated numerous native brood stock hatchery programs. Now that this research points out the fallacy of this assumption, will the agencies correct the problem?

This study also points out a fallacy in the HSRG recommendation that would allow a proportion of the naturally spawning population to be of hatchery-origin fish. If this advice is followed the hatchery fish (even those derived from wild parents) would negatively impact the reproductive fitness of the wild population they interbreed with.

It is evident that hatchery technology cannot be used to recover wild salmonid populations. However, this research implies, but does not profess, that hatchery fish survival can be improved by incorporating wild fish into the hatchery broodstock, but it is necessary to have access to healthy wild populations. This higher survival could increase contribution to the fisheries and reduce the cost of putting a fish into the catch. However, in doing so, the wild fish are exposed to higher risk.

This illustrates a fundamental conflict ingrained in the fish management agencies between conservation and utilization. If this conflict did not exist, the fish agencies would not have assumed wild salmonids could be recovered with hatchery fish with out proof and they would not have moved ahead with native brood stock hatcheries on the assumption there was no risk to the affected wild populations.

Source:

Araki, Hitoshi, Becky Cooper and Michael S. Blouin. 2009. Carry-over effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild. Conservation Biology. Biology Letters. Rsbl. 2009.0315.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/OHRC/docs/2009/june/ArakiEtAl2009BiolLetters.pdf

NOAA Fisheries Calls For Improved Fish Management

The following quotes are taken from a guidance letter from the National Marine Fisheries Service to the state and tribal fish managers for monitoring recovery of ESA-listed salmonids (2009). This guidance document would vastly improve management for wild, native salmonids and provide the basis for recovery of ESA protected fish, and it is similar to adopted criteria for Atlantic salmon conservation in Eastern Canada. These criteria place conservation management emphasis on specific stream management and a conservation requirement for each river and each stock of salmon. This upgraded management is needed on the Pacific coast and this guidance by NOAA Fisheries is scientifically sound and should be carried out by those managing harvest and hatchery programs. There is nothing in this guidance that the fish managers do not already know and have known for many decades, so the issue is compliance. Will the fish managers comply with this guidance? If they do not, then will NMFS do more than make suggestions?

This guidance letter to the fish managers by NOAA Fisheries improves management of harvest and hatcheries so that ESA-listed salmon and steelhead can be recovered and all wild, native populations can be managed for health and productivity. It recognizes that the more these populations are aggregated into large groups for harvest and hatchery programs the more risk individual populations are exposed to, making fish management less likely to protect individual populations. The long history of this kind of management has brought us threatened species, extinction, loss of productivity, restricted fisheries and has wasted public funds.

HARVEST THREATS TO WILD SALMONIDS:

“Harvest of listed species, though incidental can have a major impact on small populations.

“It is important that the management agencies and tribes directing harvest regimes can demonstrate that harvest is not a threat to recovery.

“In the past hatchery fish have been used to determine harvest percentages in coastal fisheries because they are easily accessed and marked with a CWT (coded wire tag). It has been assumed that nearby natural stocks will migrate in a similar manner to hatchery fish and also encounter fisheries in a similar manner. These assumptions may not hold true for many populations.

“These tag recoveries have been used in run reconstruction scenarios to estimate the percent harvest and harvest exploitation rate in each of the identified coastal and inland fisheries. Although this system provided huge improvements in stock management, the “stocks” managed have been by necessity aggregates of hatchery and wild populations based upon assumed common migration routes and common geographic origins. Hatchery CWT recoveries have been used as the surrogate for estimating interceptions of wild populations as part of stock aggregates but not successful in delineating individual populations within the stock aggregate.

“It is recognized that stock aggregates no longer provide the management resolution necessary for estimating harvest impact to recovering populations listed under the ESA. (emphasis added) Therefore, either a shift must be made from stock aggregate management to population management, or existing fisheries will no longer be able to function due to the inability to quantify their jeopardy impact on listed populations and ESUs.

“Harvest curtailment to address ESA listed species has been used as a strategy to increase spawner escapements and therefore viability of listed populations. However, monitoring is needed to demonstrate that these strategies have been effective in meeting the desired reduction in interception of ESA populations.

“Because harvest removes potential spawners from the population and thus reduces the potential number of eggs that could be deposited and the potential number of emergent fry available to fill the habitat, it is important to understand what impact exploitation rate regimes are having on the rate of recovery in terms of time and spatial distribution.

“If it can be shown that the number of available spawners is fully capable of seeding all available habitats, then recovery rates will depend upon improvements in habitat or some other threat. If it cannot be demonstrated that sufficient spawners are available to fully seed the habitat, then any allowable exploitation rate will potentially prolong the recovery process. Those impacts should be modeled and available for all recovery participants to evaluate.

“Monitoring of natural origin adults should demonstrate that harvest exploitation rates on natural origin listed populations were minimal and that the escapements necessary for building populations back to target viability levels were achieved.

“In conjunction with selective harvest strategies targeting hatchery fish, the states and tribes should continue their evaluation of selective fishing gear and methods to demonstrate reductions in impacts to natural origin spawners.

“The effectiveness of harvest curtailment strategies is validated when the adult to adult productivity ratios are calculated and the percent of total natural production that is harvested is determined to be at the level that does not interfere with meeting or achieving viability productivity goals.

“Although spawner abundance is the defining information needed to determine viability, one of the metrics of interest to those working toward recovery is the total number of adults returning from the sea and how did harvest affect the number available for spawning and recovery. This metric is crucial in validating that the management actions taken by federal, state, and tribal harvest managers have been sufficient.”

HATCHERY THREATS TO WILD SALMONIDS:

“Although it is challenging to quantify the impact of changes in specific diversity traits, such as run timing or age at maturity, on eventual population and species persistence, one likely outcome of adverse changes in diversity is loss of reproductive success.

“…hatchery reared fish are believed to genetically diverge from wild fish as they adapt to survive in the novel hatchery environment. A number of studies (e.g. (Leider, 1990); (Kostow 2003); (Berejikian 2004; (Araki 2008) have reported that when such hatchery fish return and spawn under natural stream conditions among themselves or with a wild fish, their ability to produce viable offspring is much reduced relative to paired wild fish in the same environment. The magnitude of this difference has generally been found to be quite large and may be related to population productivity. For example, Chilcote (2003) found that a spawning population of equal numbers of hatchery and wild steelhead would produce up to 63% fewer recruits per spawner than one comprised entirely of wild fish. If these findings can be applied broadly, then there could be situations where wild production of smolts could be increased by up to three times by restoring genetic diversity to the natural wild populations where such diversity has been lost and by excluding hatchery fish from spawning areas so that additional erosion of genetic fitness cannot occur. (Emphasis added)

“…a successful (integrated hatchery) program would have few hatchery fish straying into the spawning grounds and many natural fish available for cross spawning in the hatchery. “

(Note: This suggests that integrated hatchery programs are dependent upon having access to viable, healthy and abundant wild salmonids in order to function properly While the HSRG prescription is to allow a fraction of the natural spawners to be hatchery fish, this statement takes a more cautious approach. Based on the best available science, there is no justification to manage for an integrated hatchery program recommended by the HSRG. The integrated hatchery program would mine depleted wild populations for eggs and allow hatchery-origin fish to spawn with wild fish, causing further depletion of wild salmonid populations while blending them so that they are more like hatchery fish. Since this HSRG theory has not been tested, applying it broadly throughout the West Coast would be scientifically indefensible.)

“…growing evidence has indicated that hatcheries can have substantial adverse impacts upon wild populations due to competition, genetic introgression, harvest exploitation rates and disease.

“McElhany (2000) concluded that valid estimates of natural productivity are impossible to obtain for supplemented populations in which the abundance of naturally produced and hatchery produced fish on the spawning grounds are not estimated separately.

“…we are recommending that all hatchery fish not marked externally be coded wire tagged so that they are detectable with CWT wands in the fisheries, at counting facilities, and on the spawning grounds.

“Programs need to monitor the genetic characteristics of brood stock to prevent the homogenization of the stock or alteration of gene flow over time. Baseline genetic monitoring is essential and should support current GSI (genetic stock identification) work with salmonids across the Pacific Northwest.” (Emphasis added)

(Note: In the1994 Fish and Wildlife Program adopted by the Power Planning and Conservation Council I was successful in securing a genetics baseline study for the Columbia River Basin, however, this was never funded.)

Source:

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/upload/Draft-RME-Guidance.pdf

Crawford, Bruce A. and Scott Rumsey. June 12, 2009. Guidance for monitoring recovery of Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) National Marine Fisheries Service. Northwest Region. Pp 129.