An interesting point was made by a somewhat surprising source (Plunker), but one which merits some attention regarding the decline our fisheries. The ocean survival of adult salmon and steelhead has declined over the past few decades as well as the spawning and juvenile habitats in streams. The causes of lower ocean survival are not known (or at least not quantified), but are undeniable. Over the past couple of years I have had the opportunity to work in this area, at least indirectly, and I'd like to share some of things that are known or suspected.

We have all have heard of El Nino/La Nina, the 1 or 2 year weather events that come every so often to wreak havoc on run sizes. Sometimes it seems that WDFW is hanging their hat on this weather phenonmenon a little too often, but studies have shown that they do affect ocean survival.

There is another weather pattern that is even longer term or even more significant called the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation (PDO for short--thank some climatologist for the huge term). The PDO is a 20 to 30 year cycle of relatively dry/warm winters to wet/cool winters in the northwest. According to climatologists and oceangraphers, from 1947 to 1976 we were in the wetter/cooler pattern, from 1977 to 1997 we were in a dry/warm pattern. And beginning in 1998, it seems we've again begun another cool/wet pattern.

What does this have to do with fisheries? Fishery statistics over these years show that in the dry warm pattern, Alaskan salmon fisheries generally flourish, while WA, OR fisheries are below normal, and vice versa for the wet/cool pattern. The Alaska Bristol Bay Sockeye fishery is a good example of having a good two decades of fishing. Post-World War II catches, on the other hand in Alaska, were substantially lower.

Just the opposite has occurred over the same period in the northwest. Relatively strong commercial fisheries were observed Post WWII until the late seventies, followed by marked declines. Not just for sportsmen, but totals numbers--sporties, commercials, and tribes--there were just fewer fish than expected.

Warmer ocean temperatures over the past 20 years are also speculated for contributing to the decline of Puget Sound groundfish stocks, particularly Pacific cod, pollock, rockfish, and herring. There have been no commercial fishing efforts on cod since the eighties, yet there has been absolutely no recovery of this species. Rockfish are faring a little better. The difference in the two is that cod are near the southern end of their habitable range, so increases in average temperature would likely have a more negative impact. Rockfish, on the other hand, have stocks well into California, so are more tolerant of warmer water.

If the past is an indicator of the future, the outlook may not be so dire. As said, we are now moving into a relatively cooler/wetter pattern and it should last for the next 20 or so years. A look at Puget Sound herring stocks over the past couple of years has shown improvements in populations, although its too soon to tell.

There are certainly other factors involved with the decline of our runs. But if you've looked at the long term stats, the evidence is somewhat compelling. Diligent conservation and management efforts need to be adhered to, after all, overfishing and habitat degradation is all too real. However, it should also be realized that mother-nature beyond the reach of humans may also play an all too real role, as well.


[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-07-2000).]

Good information and some interesting points. However, I'm not entirely sure what to do with the information presented. I believe everything stated is accurate but I'm not sure how this changes the debate or adds/subtracts to the list of actions that need to be taken to restore salmon and steelhead. In my view, just because these fish may be subjected to unfavorable ocean conditions doesn't mean we should not protect habitats or remove obstacles to their migration or take other actions needed to restore the stocks. I'm sure you agree.

The "poor ocean conditions" argument is used consistently by those folks who think the best way to save salmon is to do nothing. (I'm not lumping you into this group). Don't breach dams, don't restore water flows, and don't reduce harvest because all the problems are in the ocean. And since we can't do anything about that, let's do nothing. This certainly is NOT my view and it's not the view of many anglers that I know. But there are folks who think this is the proper course of action.

So, even if we could all agree that ocean conditions are a factor, how does this change the debate? What actions should we take, or not take, to restore salmon? Perhaps someone smarter than I can provide some additional thoughts. <@)(((><



------------------
MSB

I don't think there's anyone who doesn't think Ocean conditions play a role in recovery. Your Pacific Cod senerio is flawed though because there are untold tons caught and killed dragging for Lings, Halibut, Polluck, etc...Hopefully the weather patterns you describe will improve our returns...My 2

Cohoangler- You asked for a smarter post than yours. Well, your post has been one of the most intelligent I've read on here; as has been this thread so far. It is unfortunate that so many things, especially Mother Nature's factor's (such as poor ocean survival and floods, etc.), are out of our control to help with. The things we should be able to control, but are so difficult to manage, are the more frustrating factors by man. The dams, gill nets, habitat denegration are all politically and money controled. Real frustrating! We should band togther as has been suggested on this site to fight against these things. The most significant immediate thing we as sportfishermen can do is to stop killing nates at the very least. And immediately report illegal fishing abuses using our cell phones. We have to start those immediately, and work on the more difficult challenges diligently over time. ..shtick

I didn't provide this info as a policy turner, just wanted to provide something for the boards perusal. After all, there is no doubt that a possible return of favorable ocean conditions will be jumped on with gusto by non-conservation interests. It should also not be used as an excuse to further relax conservative management measures.

It should be recognized as an important stressor or enhancement to fish survival. I don't think it is realized what a difference 0.8 percent survival vs. 2 percent survival means. At the higher end, resource allocation would not be a problem, especially with current commercial restrictions.

Most of all, I guess I was providing some tangible evidence that might mean we could be optimistic about our future resource.

obssesed- here is some info from my own exp while fishing up near the pribs in alaska, duing the year el nino first came up the coast . we were fishing for ground fish and had noticed that the by-catch on cod was decreaced due to the really warm weather. the crabbers up north had reported alot more cod in their pots. there was a real noticable difference in the fishery there.and it has continued since. even the hake fisheries off the wash., oregon coasts have been impacted. were the fish usally hang out,are not there. the sensitve equipment that is used "can determine fih size" at incredible depths, has a part in determining wheather to put out nets or not!. the increase in the newer variety of fish species off our coast ie..."marlin" makes me wonder!

[This message has been edited by willie14me (edited 04-08-2000).]

Thanks for this info. It makes an even better argument in my opinion that all wild fish should be released, since NO ONE can predict what is going to happen in the Pacific Ocean. Its like a savings account, you put a little in each year and it grows. Sorry I just cant get off the wild fish release idea.

Knowing that several who have posted on this string spent time in the mild little mud puddle called the Bering Sea I thought I might pass on what I witnessed there last fall during the red king crab season.
I'd heard reports from biologists and from cannery officials last summer of a massive algae bloom northwest of the Pribloffs. According to biologists the O2 levels within the affected waters was significantly less than what is normally encountered in the Bering Sea. Cause of the bloom was specualtive, but opinions generally bent towards ocean temperatures rising and related phenomena that I really didn't understand fully. However, one could speculate through the SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) method that any oxegen dependent creature venturing into a 300-400 square mile patch of this stuff would suffocate in time.

We encountered water last October in the King crab grounds that looked like the glacial turquiose water found behind Ross or Diablo damns in the North Cascades. It was like nothing I'd ever seen in 15 years of fishing on either side of the Aleutians or Bristol Bay. What made me worried was that our pots set in that water mostly came up blank of crab or the cod that sometimes venture into them. Pots set outside of the bloom were doing much better.

Obviously these blooms drift with the weather and tide and I understand occur both north and south of the Aleutian chain. Whether they also effect our andronomous fish I don't know. But it seems that a charging school of fish could find themselve in the middle of oxegen depleted water in a hurry with a good chance of not getting out.

I wonder if this is in direct correlation with the wet/cool or warm/dry pattern? Or is this an event acting independently as a phenomena birthed from global warming etc...?
However, it is another good example of the extreme amount of variables our salmon and steelhead encounter in their ocean travels.

Chuck n' Duck

Your guess as good as mine. There has been a lot of speculation about how, or if, global warming will affect the PDO--shorten the wet/cool cycle, lengthen the warm/dry, etc. Since the causes of global warming have only been around for the past century, and its effects measured only in the past couple of decades, no one can say.

If you see the same thing up there this year, be sure to report it. Sounds like its worth studying.

Obsessed - Excellent point. You're exactly correct - the best way to respond to the expected improvements in ocean survival is to be optimistic about the future of the Pacific salmon stocks in the Northwest. Your information might not change how we go about improving habitat or reducing mortality but keeping a positive outlook might be the best response of all. (now why didn't I think of that....)

Chuck'n Duk - It appears that you ran into an algae bloom. They appear whenever there is the right combination of nutrients and temperature. For whatever reason, the conditions where right for a bloom to occur in the Bering Sea. This is not unusual near shore where there are usually alot of nutrients in the runoff. However, I'm not sure what might have caused an increase in temperature or nutrients in the middle of the Bering Sea. Your observations on fish distribution in the algae bloom are also right on. Algae blooms often consume large amount of oxygen in the water thereby reducing the oxygen available to fish. This usually drives the fish away, or in some cases, kills them in large numbers. So it's not surprising your catch rate in these blooms was zero. <@)(((><


------------------
MSB

It's true we don't have much control over ocean conditions or survival, but we sure could study and learn more about what's happening out there. Our research fleet has been pathetically small since Reagan scuttled it during his watch. Let's remind the politicians that we should invest as much exploring our oceans as we do exploring space. We can't effectively forecast salmon or steelhead returns with "SWAGs!"

The ocean survival topic so far is very interesting. Though El Nino, La Nina and PDO do play a part in how many fish return to our rivers we must remember that those three elements have been around as long as the fish have.
A few months ago on the Gillnetters web page there was an article on the amount of bait fish being harvested by the fish farm industry to feed aquaculture fish. The article said that as much as 27% of the worlds bait fish are now being harvested to feed aquaculture. If that is true then the chances that our Steelhead & Salmon may be starving to death in their ocean journey.
Just wondering if anyone knows what the estimated amount of Squid and Herring that are harvested from Alaska to California a year?
Some how when all is said and done I have the feeling that Aquaculture will be the finale thing that wipes out our wild runs of Salmon and Steelhead.

Tuna: There are some pretty well-informed Canadians who believe the Big Business salmon farm industry up there is blatantly hoping to get rid of their wild stocks -- a direct effort, not just "incidentally" by funneling baitfish to the net pens.

This is an interesting topic in itself. I'm sure Canadian net pens consider the wild stocks as "the competition", but I don't see what they can do about it. As far as the use of bait fish and such for pen rearing and other aquaculture operations, I'd consider the source of information--commercial gillnetters and aquaculture interests are dead on competitors and you have to look for the spin. For example, what bait fish and where? The heaviest level of aquaculture in the world is in Snaglys neck of the woods, Southeast Asia, where there are no salmon. And I thought net pens used pellets, just like hatcheries to feed their fish. In this case, they could use fish protein from a variety of sources--e.g., hake, pollock, or any fish that doesn't meet quality standards for the the human market. Local aquaculture industries may deplete local populations of baitfish, but salmon stocks do the loop around the Pacific Rim, feeding in deep water. Think of the expense of harvesting these baitfish just for aquaculture feed.

Ultimately, what I think is the more fish we buy and consume from farms, the more wild fish we leave alone. Just like the lack of demand for commercial hunting has brought back populations of game, a lack of demand for wild fish could be as beneficial. Commercial hunting met its demise in the first half of the century; you can bet that commercial fishing interests don't want to meet the same fate and are working hard to prevent it!

Any other thoughts out there?

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-14-2000).]

Farmed Salmon...Yikes! Obsessed, you are dead on when you say that higher consumption of farmed salmon drives the market for wild fish into the dumper. However, I have to put my two cents worth in on the commercial netting issue.

While I believe that commercial salmon (and in the tribes cases, steelhead) netting is a dead horse and isn't economically, or evnvironmentally feasable in the lower 48 anymore, it still is a well managed and viable business in certain regions (ie. Bristol Bay, Copper River,) where the controlls on the commercial fleets are very tight. While everyone has their opinion and right to do as they please in most matters, I don't agree with promoting the consumption of pellet-raised, foriegn farmed salmon with the idea that it will ultimately put all commercials out of business. I understand the concerns and urgent need to do everthing possible in the name of protecting andromous fish runs that need help, but there are runs healthy enough and closely monitored enough to justify viable commercial fisheries. In most cases, adequate harvest is needed to prevent over-reproduction of a certain species of salmon. Bycatch also, is tightly monitored and if the managing agency has even a slight notion that a questionable run of fish mingling with the targeted healthy run is in danger of failing to meet expected spawning goals the entire fishery is shut down till more data is available... regardless of economic impact on the commercial side.

In addition, controlls on aquaculture regarding disease, genetics and retention of fish in pens seems sub-par. How many times have we recieved reports in the last few years of an alien species of salmon migrating up one of our rivers. At what cost would it be to our native salmon if a run of Atlantics was able to take a foothold in Pacific rivers. Competition for food, disease, genetic mingling, spawning bed competition...endless snafus in my opinion. I know net raised fish are supposed to be triploid and sterile, but they so far, have found the wits to muster up the instincts to travel up our rivers and behave like a species bent upon procreation. Did you read the artical in Time about the genetics lab in New Zealand that successfully created "Frankenfish", 500 lb. king salmon clones. The government ordered the fish destroyed but milt from the fish was retained for future "research". How about that monster competing with our puny Hoh springers?

In my opinion that alone poses a far larger threat to our native species than the now basically defunct non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries. Their fishing time is so minimal and their short openings fall to one side or the other of the peaks of runs that impact on salmon runs is minute. Honestly, I believe that commercials in the lower 48 are beating a dead horse by continuing to fish, but it still is their right just as it it the tribes right by law to net our rivers. Our government would do all of us a favor by putting a moratorium on all salmon netting. But in the same mode, outlawing fishing with bait or fishing in any river with a questionble run of fish should be stopped also. You can't put blame on one sector when addressing the issue of whats happened to our fish. The propaganda put forth by sportsmen's organizations paints the commercials as the main ill affecting our fish while they fail to put all their cards on the table. How many wild steelhead and salmon are kept every year in our local river systems by sportsmen (ie. 7000 on the peninsula rivers this year) How many fish are C&R'd by fishermen only to die of stress or fatigue? How many native fish suck down a sand shrimp or gob of eggs and die from hook wounds even if they are released?

So Obsessed, while I respect your right to your opinion that eating more farmed fish would enentually put the skids on all commercial fishing I think consideration to healthy and well-practiced commercial fisheries needs to be given. I am a Bristol Bay salmon fisherman of 15 years and am a participant in an extremely well-managed fishery that ensures that new generations of wild salmon will allways have the opportunity to reproduce in sufficiant numbers...Ultimately generating enough numbers of a new generation to venture into the ocean and face what trials we can't controll. If those runs were in jeapordy they would be fished at all. Besides, farmed, hormone, pellet, and drug raised fish taste like crap!

[This message has been edited by Chuckn'Duck (edited 04-18-2000).]

Chuck n Duck

Didn't mean to portray myself as anti-commercial netting; I'm actually not as against it as a lot on this board. I agree with just about everything you say, emphasizing that netting of depressed runs either by target or bycatch needs to be controlled or eliminated.

I actually applaud many of the commercial fisheries in Alaska that are well controlled, have no intercept issues, bycatch issues, or form coops with hatcheries and target those fish. These are creative ways that use the available science (fish management) and technology to stay efficient (defining efficient as to consistently harvesting to sustainable yield), like any other successful business venture.

I simply think that farmed fish helps satisfy a growing market demand that present wild salmon resources cannot sustain. I should have made more clear, that I too believe that the biggest problem is down here in the lower 48.

I haven't heard of the 500 lb salmon thing, what a silly idea (cow salmon?!). But I do know that some smart bunch of fellows in the then Wa Dept. fish and Game actually tried to start Atlantic salmon runs during the early eighties. Hatchery smolts were planted in several streams, concentrating on the Green River, for several years. The run never did take; seems Atlantics are just not up to anadromous migration in this half of the world. This indicates to me that the occasional pen breaks of Atlantic salmon would do no harm to the existing resource. Triploid rainbows are also safe; sterile as sterile gets.

There are still disease issues, but no outbreaks have ever been recorded in anadromous populations attributed to net pens. With the dilution offered by the marine environment, the situation is vastly different then say, the outbreaks of whirling disease in Montana streams.

Bottom line, I don't advocate aquaculture driving commercial fisheries out of business. But I do believe they can relieve market demand that may otherwise put pressure on depressed stocks. I also believe they provide an additional competitive force that would make the existing commercial fishing industry evolve just like any other business sector.

Obsessed,
I believe that Atlantic Salmon parr or smolts have recently been identified in a couple of BC rivers, indicating that escaped Atlantics can and have successfully spawned in northwest rivers. Whether this will ultimately be a threat to native stocks is still a question, but it ain't good news.

[This message has been edited by Preston Singletary (edited 04-19-2000).]

Preston,

I've heard about Atlantics in BC streams; I've also heard that every once in a while an Atlantic is caught in Puget Sound streams that cannot be attributed to net pen releases. I think there are definitely remnant numbers of Atlantics around. However, given the number of years they've been around in Washington waters, and the concerted efforts to actually start a run 15-20 years ago, I believe the fish just doesn't have what it takes to establish viable populations in this neck of the woods.

Similar efforts to establish runs in the Great Lakes have also failed and historically, there were landlocked Atlantic salmon runs in Lake Ontario tribs. The species appears to be very habitat specific.

I guess it all depends on how you feel about unknowns. The possibility of a run will always be an unknown until it actually happens, but after 20 years, it just seems the possibility is very remote.

Here's some info on "Frankenfish" you might find interesting.

!
> > What Happens To These Ordinary Salmon If The Genetically Modified
Lunkers
> > Ever Get Loose?
> > BY FREDERIC GOLDEN
> >
> > These salmon are siblings, yet one grew spectacularly, thanks to a gene
> > transplant
> >
> > Whether served as raw sushi, grilled steak or in thin smoked slices,
most of
> > the salmon you eat these days is not the sleek sport fish that has been
a
> > favorite of anglers since Izaak Walton but rather a chunky, sluggish
> > creature raised in captivity. Indeed, salmon caught in the wild accounts
for
> > less than half of all salmon sold in the U.S.
> >
> > Now gene splicers have cooked up a replacement that sounds like a fish
tale:
> > a veritable superfish, one that can grow at least twice as fast, resist
> > disease and outmate competitors. If approved, it could provide protein
to
> > millions of people at a time when fish stocks are perilously low. But as
you
> > might expect, some critics are carping. They consider the supersalmon a
> > biological time bomb that could destroy the remaining natural salmon
> > populations and wreak other environmental havoc. To them, the
supersalmon is
> > nothing less than a "Frankenfish."
> >
> > Unlike other genetically modified foods--so-called Frankenfoods--the
> > supersalmon was born almost accidentally. About 20 years ago, a fish
> > researcher in Newfoundland found that even though his saltwater tank had
> > frozen, the flounder in it survived. Adapted to icy Canadian waters, the
> > fish turned out to have a gene, known in other polar fishes, that
produces
> > an anti-freeze protein. While trying to splice this gene into salmon so
it
> > too could be grown in colder waters, scientists made a second accidental
> > discovery: they found that while the gene didn't keep the salmon from
> > freezing, a portion of it, when stitched onto a salmon's growth-hormone
> > gene, greatly speeded development--up to five or six times as fast as in
the
> > early months and about twice as fast overall. Patenting their discovery,
the
> > scientists started a company in Waltham, Mass., called A/F Protein (A/F
> > stands for antifreeze).
> >
> > The company has 10,000 to 20,000 Atlantic supersalmon swimming in
endless
> > circles in 136 tanks at three locations in Canada's Maritime provinces.
The
> > hope is that these fish will soon be producing eggs for commercial
> > aquaculture not just in Canada but in New Zealand, Chile and the U.S. as
> > well. By turning to the supersalmon, says Elliot Entis, A/F's president,
> > fish farmers could double production without doubling costs because the
fish
> > converts food into body mass so much more efficiently than ordinary
salmon.
> > That, he says, would mean "more fish for more people at a lower price."
> >
> > But this so-called blue revolution may not reach U.S. shores for a
while.
> > Although gene scientists in the U.S. have been tinkering with a variety
of
> > marine creatures--not only salmon and trout but also carp, catfish,
tilapia
> > and shrimp--these efforts are drawing criticism similar to that directed
at
> > genetically modified foods. Opponents, who complain about the
fertilizers
> > and other pollutants released into coastal waters by the fish farms, are
> > especially concerned about the potential impact on the gene pool. They
note
> > that domesticated fish regularly escape from their pens into the wild
and
> > breed with native stocks, upsetting the balance of nature.
> >
> > No one knows what ripple effects might occur if the new supersalmon
escaped
> > into the wild. One of the few studies done by U.S. researchers found a
lower
> > survival rate for eggs produced by transgenic fish. Still other studies
show
> > that despite their name, so-called superfish have diminished muscle
> > structure and swimming performance. Says Canadian fish geneticist Robert
> > Devlin: "Science, at the moment, is unable to give us a reliable
assessment
> > of risk."
> >
> > Entis and others reply that whatever the risk, it could be lowered to
almost
> > zero by raising the fish in closed tanks rather than in storm-exposed
pens.
> > Still another tactic under consideration is shocking the fertilized eggs
so
> > they create fish that cannot reproduce--a marine equivalent of the
> > self-destructing terminator gene that Monsanto once considered putting
in
> > its patented plant seeds.
> >
> > Fearing a consumer backlash, New Zealand King Salmon, a major producer
of
> > Chinook salmon--the largest Pacific salmon--announced last week that it
was
> > suspending its gene-modification experiments. Entis, by contrast,
believes
> > he can win acceptance of his supersalmon through public education. "We
have
> > to show we have nothing to hide," he says.
> >
> > But don't count on putting supersalmon lox on your Sunday-morning bagel
> > anytime soon. The Food and Drug Administration must first approve
> > introduction of the fish into the U.S., something that probably won't
happen
> > before 2001.

Saw the franken fish on tv......Huge but seriously ugly. Looked like a mongoliod trout.

------------------
Marty
www.steelheader.net
marty@steelheader.net