Tip 'o the iceberg??

WFC is at it again, going after the commercial net pens. Which may deserve it. But, there is nothing really different in operation between the commercial and enhancement pens. His density fish rearing, waste material, disease, and antibiotics.

Perhaps more disturbing is that the suit uses and outbreak of IHN virus as a risk to listed species here in PS. True enough. BUT, the non-native sockeye in the Cedar are hot with IHNV and there are those listed chinook and steelhead trying to use that river.

The arguments against commercial culture, and the risks, are found in the enhancement and mitigation facilities too.

I find the timing interesting as the lawsuit names NOAA in it. NOAA is strapped on the PS hatchery EIS and now they have to pull resources from that to address another ill timed lawsuit from the WFC. I dont think the timing is a coincidence.

The pen reared fish may be more at risk to catch a disease from the free roaming fish then a source of disease. The other arguments are reasonable and would apply to most pen rearing operations. I listened to a talk at the AFS meeting in Portland last week presented by WFC folks. The subject was that the origin of the fish caught in the Alaska chinook troll fishery is 90% other than Alaska. The fish are from BC, coastal Washington (including Puget Sound) and Oregon, and a high percentage from the Columbia River basin. The fishery is MSC certified as sustainable even though it kills listed chinook. This is not new information but my impression was that WFC may be thinking of suing. Lots of targets, Alaska, NOAA, PFMC, maybe even the MSC.

In most (probably all) cases the hatchery and net pen fish get their disease from the free-ranging fish. But, since they are in high densities, they magnify the problem.

[Bleeeeep!], it's been well known since the 80s (at least) that AK sucked up WA and BC fish. They have even taken PS chum!

MSC needs to take a more holistic view of sustainability.

But, knowing that BC and AK hammer southern Chinook, how many folks from here go to AK and BC and participate in those marine mixed stock fisheries or buy the troll-caught fish. As long as they make money on those fisheries, they'll keep them open.

In most (probably all) cases the hatchery and net pen fish get their disease from the free-ranging fish. But, since they are in high densities, they magnify the problem.

[Bleeeeep!], it's been well known since the 80s (at least) that AK sucked up WA and BC fish. They have even taken PS chum!

MSC needs to take a more holistic view of sustainability.

But, knowing that BC and AK hammer southern Chinook, how many folks from here go to AK and BC and participate in those marine mixed stock fisheries or buy the troll-caught fish. As long as they make money on those fisheries, they'll keep them open.

What WNA1 and Carcassman said. Fish farms have a legitimate concern of wild fish and potential disease transmission. Properly placed and with appropriate tidal exchange the dilution of parasites/disease organisms is such that, in most cases, you'd be hard pressed to measure appreciable amounts of disease vectors very far "downstream" of net pens.

The problem is that the cultured fish will come into the pens clean. The whole process from egg on up is, by necessity, pretty close to pathogen free. Once in the pen, they get the bugs from the wild fish, and then give them back.

That is why I am afraid that if WFC prevails there is no (to my knowledge) defensible science to separate the enhancement/mitigation net pens from the commercial. In fact, the mitigation/enhancement pens use fish local fish that pose a greater genetic threat than those reproductively incompetent Atlantics.

WFC has shown a strong anti-hatchery bent and this, to me, seems to be another attempt to get WA out of any hatchery business.

I am not a fan of WFC, but their critique of the MSC endorsement of Alaskan fisheries is right on, given the reality of the Alaska troll fishery.

Agreed. If WFC wants to take on the Alaska troll fishery, I'll support that. No doubt in my mind that the quickest, cheapest way to get more wild fish on the gravel is to NOT kill so many of them at sea.

For a variety of reasons, any and all marine mixed stock fisheries are close to the worst possible way to get fish.

Somebody once asked why you chase a fish (salmon) all over the ocean when they are going to come back and at the maximum size.

That's a good point, Cman.

I agree. I would also note that the Tribes have been asking this same question for about 100 years.

Cohoangler -

I agree that most tribes question fishing in mixed stock areas but I have noticed that those tribes that have U and As that include waters with mixed stocks have no problems fishing those areas.

Curt

The "Tribes" are certainly not a monolith. Like Smalma says, those who have mixed stock and ocean U&A adore mixed stock fishing. Those confined to rivers and extreme terminal areas have a different view.