Farmed Fish and Disease

#18
I'd point you toward the conservation page about this topic. Mbowers post seems pretty reasonable


Chile has an exploding problem of invasive king salmon showing up in barren rivers. The invading kings are growing up to 90lbs with fish farm densities that are 15 times higher than BC. Clearly fish farms are not a day to day issue although they could cause a disease catastrophe. Also obvious is that the genetics for huge kings are still in the WA gene pool because the Chile kings came from WA hatcheries..

Something else is causing the problems and my money is on Alaska hatchery pinks as the biggest thing that humans can do something about.

https://www.currentresults.com/Invasive-Species/Invasive-Water/chinook-709271.php


Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#19
About that bridge . . . , The WSC tries, but doesn't always get it quite right. And maybe that is partly to better support their agenda; I don't know. It would be more accurate to say that bi-catch is a problem in parts of their range, like the Skeena (and Nass) and Dean in some years. And definitely for the Thompson/Chilcotin. But it's not everywhere nor all the time.

The upshot is that while wild salmon would be more abundant in terminal areas, there is no strong indication that significant increases in total abundance would accrue to WA state watersheds.

Sg
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
#20
Since there is no comercial fishing for steelhead and those runs are doing so well I dont think it would magically restore salmon runs. It would help though, but good luck with that.
I do find it interesting that trawling for bottom fish or in fact all trawling was banned in Puget sound in the mid eighty's , as of present date the ground fish have not rebounded and are in low numbers especially the once abundant cod .
 

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
#21
I do find it interesting that trawling for bottom fish or in fact all trawling was banned in Puget sound in the mid eighty's , as of present date the ground fish have not rebounded and are in low numbers especially the once abundant cod .
Hi BB,
The lack of recovery of Pacific cod is an interesting problem. Puget Sound is the near southern end of their breeding area. It appears while they aren't salmon as far as homing is concerned, there are specific populations and they migrate to specific locations, especially fjords, to spawn, leading to semi-closed populations (see http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/F08-199#.WrQrB5pG3RY). The damage to the Puget Sound spawner biomass may have been so severe that recovery will require multiple strong year classes and those are episodic in gadids. A similar problem with slow recovery is occurring in the Gulf of Maine area for Atlantic cod.
Steve
 
#22
I was under the impression the bottom fish were slow to recover because of commercial fishing destroying spawning habitat like Agate Pass by dragging their trawling nets across the bottom.
 
#23
About that bridge . . . , The WSC tries, but doesn't always get it quite right. And maybe that is partly to better support their agenda; I don't know. It would be more accurate to say that bi-catch is a problem in parts of their range, like the Skeena (and Nass) and Dean in some years. And definitely for the Thompson/Chilcotin. But it's not everywhere nor all the time.

The upshot is that while wild salmon would be more abundant in terminal areas, there is no strong indication that significant increases in total abundance would accrue to WA state watersheds.

Sg
Isn't more fish getting back to the terminal areas the lions share of the problem? There's no benefit to having more fish in terminal areas for SRKWs or having more spawners on rivers where carrying capacity is going to be an issue for the foreseeable future (Stillaguamish)? It seems like what we are currently managing is an extinction one commercial fishery at a time.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#24
Isn't more fish getting back to the terminal areas the lions share of the problem?
When runs are under-escaped, of course getting more fish to the terminal area will make a difference in terms of meeting desired escapement goals. In the case of Puget Sound Chinook and coho it's not incidental by-catch that prevents this. It's directed and targeted marine fisheries on Chinook and coho in SE AK and in BC that precludes sufficient returns to PS to meet escapement in many years. In the case of PS steelhead, pre-terminal interceptions and by-catch are minuscule and not the problem with adult abundance. It's mainly marine survival, following rather distantly by freshwater habitat limitations.

We don't manage commercial fishing in AK or BC, so have nearly zero control over the abundance of Chinook or coho reaching PS. If by "we," you mean AK and BC, then yes, your point is more appropriate.

Sg
 

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
#25
I was under the impression the bottom fish were slow to recover because of commercial fishing destroying spawning habitat like Agate Pass by dragging their trawling nets across the bottom.
Hi TC,
The destruction of spawning habitat per se is often not a huge issue. But damage to juvenile habitat via trawling can be a HUGE problem. Not only are the refuges of vulnerable juveniles from predators destroyed but the benthic food chains are disrupted by the leveling (simplification) of the three-dimensional habitat. In the case of Agate Pass, 30+ years should be sufficient time for the benthic communities to recover. The key species (tunicates, giant barnacles, scallops, urchins, kelps) that create habitat have much faster growth rates (and recovery times) than the cold-water corals that are of such concern during deep-water bottom trawling on continental shelves.
Steve