If We Want Sockeye In The Skeena -Need to Change Our Ways

Thursday, June 03, 2010 01:12 PM

Terrace - A landmark study published today in the prestigious journal Nature could hold the key to the survival of the Skeena River salmon fishery.

The study, based on the sockeye salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, Alaska, found that maintaining diverse salmon populations stabilizes the fisheries that depend on them, in the same way a diverse investment portfolio buffers against financial ups and downs.

“This study provides a solid basis for changing the way we manage wild salmon here in the Skeena,” said Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust. “It shows that if we want a stable fishing economy we need to protect smaller stocks because they
could become strong producers down the road.”

“Protecting and rebuilding smaller stocks also protects the fishing industry and DFO from future Species at Risk listings and legal action from First Nations,” said Knox.

The study, by Dr. Daniel Schindler and Dr. Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, is based on 50 years of fisheries data for Bristol Bay sockeye. It found that without its current population diversity, the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery would be forced to close ten times more
frequently – once every two to three years rather that once every 25 years.

In the Skeena, the commercial sockeye fishery has been closed for three of the past twelve years due to poor returns and concerns over weak stocks. “This suggests the effects of reduced salmon population diversity are evident in the Skeena, and that’s a major concern,”
said Knox.

Knox said artificial enhancement in the Babine watershed has decreased the Skeena’s stock diversity. “Babine Sockeye enhancement has boosted production of this one stock, providing an incentive to harvest at rates other co-migrating stocks can’t withstand, and a disincentive to
rebuild wild stocks,” said Knox.

Historically non-Babine sockeye made up between 30 and 40 percent of the Skeena’s total production, but today they only make up 12 percent, with many of these stocks at risk of extinction.

“If we want to rebuild the Skeena’s stock portfolio, we need to shift from large mixed-stock marine fisheries to more selective locations, and make sure we are protecting a diversity of salmon habitat,” said Knox.

Even within the Babine watershed, the Skeena’s largest sockeye producer, there are signs of decreased diversity. “Recently, we’ve seen very low returns to many wild Babine populations,” said Knox, “the enhanced spawning channel populations are also seeing dramatic fluctuations,
with low returns and disease outbreaks becoming more common.”

“We knew maintaining diverse salmon stocks was in the best interest of First Nations, anglers, and ecological health,” said Knox. “What this study clearly shows is that it’s also critical for the long-term health and survival of the commercial fishery.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2010 01:12 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Dragonmaster on June 3 2010 3:45 PM

Just allow open netpen salmon farms to open all around the mouth of the Skeena and that will help get rid of those pesky wild salmon. Vermin all of them!

Posted by: Eagleone on June 3 2010 5:35 PM

I hope we can elect a government someday that will put a priority on protecting our wild salmon stocks. A starter would be the closure of all open net fish farming off our coast and the banning of net fishing in our rivers.

Posted by: seamutt on June 3 2010 7:18 PM

No fish farms near the Skeena and the sockeye are the only salmon under threat on the southern coast. Nothing to do with the farms. You are misinformed. Hatchery fish, little or no diversification, over fishing-sport, native and commercial. Loss of habitat, pollution.

Some people on this site need to do a little basic research and not from some american women making a living off grants and handouts.

Posted by: gamblor on June 3 2010 7:44 PM

'zactly. The biggest threat to the fish is continued bungling by hot-dogging "experts" such as the ones who wrote this bogus report. They admit their "artificial enhancement" (thats a gem) was a flop, but promise that their new "artificial enhancements" will be better. So the fish are simply subjects in an ongoing series of failed experiments by a bunch of quacks playing god with innocent animals and government funds. These "experts" just figured out that species diversity is important. Party on.

Posted by: Dragonmaster on June 3 2010 8:56 PM

Yup all misinformation there salmon farmer boy.
Here choke on this------->http://www.salmonaresacred.org/blog/fish-farmers-threaten-not-release-disease-information

Posted by: Dragonmaster on June 3 2010 9:00 PM

Nothing to do with the farms, lol you crack me up! You are Colin Hansen correct?
It's all good for you I tell you, it's all good!!!

Posted by: Dragonmaster on June 3 2010 9:07 PM

Open netpen farmed salmon are toxic and require that they be fed 3 lbs of other fish that are harvested from our oceans to produce 1 pound of farmed salmon flesh. These environmentaly destructive Norwegian salmon farmers dump toxic chemicals into the ocean to kill off the massive outbreaks of sea lice caused by the open netpen salmon farms on our coast. The chemical used is called slice. I bet thats good for everyones health and well being.

Posted by: gamblor on June 3 2010 10:44 PM

If you want to beat up on salmon farms, fine. But then you also have to beat up on the geniuses who advocated stocking salmon in "artificial enhancement" programs. These monoculture fish are/were raised in the same or worse cramped, filthy conditions as farm fish and spread disease. But when you do that, many more reputations get dirtied. Reputations that belong to the "Get out Migration" Reputations that control our fisheries. Suddenly, you aren't just calling out some foreign business man, you are calling out our very own wildlife elitists, and that just doesn't sit well. Its much more convenient to take the easy road and just blame fish farms. Yet the fish continue to die. And nobody reins in the bunglers.

Posted by: seamutt on June 3 2010 11:26 PM

Dragonmaster not one piece of truth. Farmed salmon uses less protein than land based animals. Very little slice is needed to control lice it is not dumped in. Farmed salmon get lice from wild by the way.

I have fished all over the coast starting before farms and have had lice back then.

Slice and antbiotics if needed have to be stopped some time before harvest the same with any other farmed animals.

I suggest you update your information.

Posted by: Dragonmaster on June 4 2010 10:48 AM

Gamblor, farmed salmon and hatcheries are two completely different things as I have mentioned to you in the past. They are not alike at all. They have no connection to one another and the fish are not raised the same way.

Salmon farmer boy, you have a very short memory. Just a few weeks back we had this very same discussion. What do land based animals have to do with farmed salmon and how much protein they eat?

You say..."Farmed salmon uses less protein than land based animals".

Theres rocket science for ya. You are correct on that though. A grizzly bear eats way more protein than a farmed or even a wild salmon does.

It is a scientific fact that farmed salmon must eat approximately 3 lbs of protein to gain 1 lbs of weight. That protein consists of other fish that are harvested from the pacific Ocean and processed into the pellets used for their feed. Post your proof this is wrong!

You obviously don't see the problem with using 3 to achieve 1. Such a waste of other fish species that are taken from the mouths of wild salmon stocks to be used for the bank account filling of foreign companies. Don't you agree?

If it was the opposite that would be great.

You say once again..." Farmed salmon get lice from wild by the way"

Really, you think? Has anyone ever stated that farmed salmon are the source of the lice? No one has ever said that because everyone knows it's not true.

You say..."I have fished all over the coast starting before farms and have had lice back then".

You are kidding right? Are you suggesting someone has said there were no lice before salmon farms came into existance? Let me answer that for you.
Yes thats exactly what you are saying.

Sea lice are a natural thing. Salmon farms cause sea lice populations to explode and therein is the issue. Lice do not have any effect on adult fish. They do however effect them when they are little and return to the ocean. In fact the lice kill them.

Salmon farmers use a toxic chemical called slice to kill these lice infestations. Read up on it and learn the truth.

I provide backup for most of the information I post on this subject. You provide nothing other than your opinion.

Read what Health Canada says about farmed salmon.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php

Slice is also a wonderful thing.
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/page/sealicechemical

Slice is not the only "DRUG" used in the production of farmed Atlantic salmon.
http://www.artsandopinion.com/2005_v4_n2/slice.htm

So there you go Seamutt as always, my info is updated and backed up. Yours???

Posted by: gamblor on June 4 2010 12:19 PM

Here's a link about how wonderful hatchery fish are for you.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/46319_salmon12.shtml

The Bunglers who have been killing our rivers are using farms as a lightning rod to deflect blame from their own failed experiments. The original article was a rare admission that The Bunglers policies aren't always right. What's sad is they just push on with more dumb ideas. But killing wild fish is a job for them. Its a systemic problem - give us more money and we promise we'll get it right next time. On and on it goes. Until we move from reputation and funding-based biology to science-based biology, these "fish experts" will continue to kill more innocent creatures than any oil company.