Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

... As expected, Noggin and many others (not just antis) took this news story as gospel and did not look a little more into it to see what the real story was.  Matt, I am surprised that you took the media story at face value without looking more into it. 

Actually I have been aware of both the developing situation and the background behind it for better than a year now. I would strongly suggest you (and your compatriot) do a little digging of your own before suggesting I (and other locals) are simply and blindly jumping on a media bandwagon.

These are NOT "farmed fish" in any sense beyond being reared for 2 years in the facility they are being reared in. The broodstock for these fish was EXACTLY the same as those employed by Robertson Creek Hatchery - the Federal facility on the same system. They are NOT the progeny of some type of stock mutated as suggested for market performance. In fact they carry the exact same genetic make-up as those released annually by Robertson Creek.

As for nibbles comments regarding intermingling with "wild" fish and obvious disregard for the potential of this experiment to positively effect Alberni Chinook production, here are a couple points to consider:

The Stamp system has been the focus of enhancement for chinook for decades now, and as of the past 10 or so years, has been directly managed towards an escapement barely sufficient to meet hatchery requirements. DFO itself has publicly employed the excuse for doing so that "there is no significant wild component contributing to recruitment" on a repetitive basis. Genetic studies of the stock in question well suggest that every individual chinook in the system now indicate influence from the hatchery (drift). Under these circumstances, I have to wonder just WHAT "wild brethren" he might be referring to? 

The current practice of releasing first year smolts at ~ 3 months (Robertson Creek) has developed into something approaching a futile effort. Survival rates have dropped to 0.5% and below for subsequent years now, forcing the hatchery to produce ever greater volumes of clones simply to try and get the number of returnees up to something near requirement levels.

Should the 2 year freshwater experiment result in substantially increased survival, and subsequent return rates (as it has proven to in several well documented experiments south of the line), it could well provide the template for addressing those ever decreasing survival rates from our hatchery production coast-wide. And that of course has some pretty damn good potential for positively influencing the floundering chinook populations in the Alberni system and elsewhere.

As suggested, perhaps it would be a rather good idea for all of us to look a little more into the background of such situations before firing off "armchair biologist" comments from afar...

More on the issue from last night's news: http://www.cheknews.ca/?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAA4mHNTzE~%2CejlzBnGUUKY1gXVPwEwEepl35Y795rND&bclid=975107450001&bctid=2492167722001

Cheers,
Nog

[IronNoggin]

"The smolts all come from eggs that were obtained from adult chinook at the Robertson Creek Hatchery."

http://www.avtimes.net/news/local/hatchery-wants-to-donate-65-000-chinook-1.232216

[absolon]

"armchair biologist"

LOL!

[Fisherbob]

"A third mechanism that might underlie a foolish bargain in PWS is genetic interaction between hatch­ery and wild salmon (e.g., Waples 1991), whereby the fitness and productivity of wild stocks are degraded through interbreeding with hatchery stocks. This deg­radation might occur because hatchery stocks have been artificially selected, intentionally or unintention­ally".

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/fedaidpdfs/AFRB.04.1.075-078.pdf

[absolon]

As was suggested, there is much more to this than the DFO simply refusing a new idea that will "save the Chinook stocks". Unfortunately, browsing a newspaper report doesn't even begin to touch on the real issues.

The Omega fish may have their origins in RC stock but they don't come from fresh egg takes every year from a diverse selection of broodstock. They come from a captive broodstock that has been derived from generations of inbreeding and represent a substantially narrowed genetic library developed from hatchery acclimatized fish, not fish that have proven successful at surviving in the wild.

Releasing these fish is nothing more than a band aid and a very small one at that, a blind shot in the dark that both the commercial and sports fleet support because it has the potential to at least one time put a few more fish on their hooks. Such an outcome would result in further pressure to adopt this model without any consideration of the longer term consequences which might include an acceleration of the rates of decline in survival. It is quite possible that the decline in stock survival is related to the long running hatchery enhancement program and the associated hatchery induced decline in genetic variation that may have removed the genetic traits required to deal with the current ocean environment from the genetic library. The nature of an enhancement program based on S1 stocks would likely result in a much greater genetic narrowing and a much greater risk of stock extinction.

A more rational approach would be to wait for the data to come in from the Sarita river release carried out in April 2011. That should commence this year and will begin to give a clearer picture of the effectiveness of the S1 strategy on survival rates. That would mean a loss of those offered fish (a total of 300 - 900 fish at return) but the reality is that they represent a drop in the bucket in terms of the total releases and in spite of the claims, don't offer any certainty of enhanced survival to return. Should survival be improved, the next step would be to determine how to overcome the genetic issues associated with the program.

Another issue for which the details need to be worked out is how the new strategy will be financed. There isn't a bottomless wallet to pay for salmon enhancement nor an entitlement in the sports and commercial sector for the kind of expenditure required to cover the considerable capital and operating costs of the strategy. The DFO has for decades operated on the principle of optimizing the return from the stocks, a political decision, and spending more than is returned is simply not going to happen no matter how loud the wails about saving our sacred salmon from those end users that benefit from the stocks. Perhaps it is also time for a discussion about how the salmon enhancement program should be financed.

[IronNoggin]

Some interesting points absolon.

The Omega fish may have their origins in RC stock but they don't come from fresh egg takes every year from a diverse selection of broodstock. They come from a captive broodstock that has been derived from generations of inbreeding and represent a substantially narrowed genetic library developed from hatchery acclimatized fish, not fish that have proven successful at surviving in the wild.

However in this instance, the brood was collected at the same time as all the Robertson fish were a couple falls ago. They were indeed from that particular "fresh egg take" that given year. Given hatchery influence to date, one can indeed concur that there will be some inbreeding in their background. However the brood selected did return on their own, and have therefore met the criteria of "surviving in the wild".

I do hear what you are saying regarding hatcheries and their influence. And, as this case is obviously in the experimental stage, there are risks to be considered. On the other side of the coin, given that the results of maintaining the status quo has not achieved any stellar results as stocks continue to fall along with survival rates, are the associated potential risks significant enough to outweigh doing nothing?

As for funding, that is a viscous little circle. Personally I'd like to see a LOT more emphasis being placed on proper habitat enhancement, and proper "management" of the returning runs, than simply figuring out how to successfully pump out more clones. But then again, I often live in a bit of a Dream World...

Cheers,
Nog

[absolon]

This offer, though it sounds like helpful, doesn't really do much toward solving any problem and although 60,000 fish sounds significant, the realizable benefits are considerably smaller.

The likeliest upside, given current trends, is the return of about 300 two year ocean fish, the largest part of which will end up on the end of a hook. The upside could be greater or worse, but the probabilities of that decrease sharply as the potential outcome varies from the norm. At this point, it's also a one-off unless Kenny and Schmidt are able to mobilize sufficient support for a repeat. In fact, that is most likely what they will attempt as, rightly or wrongly, they have been pursuing this agenda for many years.

Worse, the release will provide no useful information on the success of the strategy as, unlike the Sarita river case, no effort is being made to monitor the outcome. The natural way of things is that if for any reason the returns are better in 2 or 3 years, the salmon user groups will claim it was this strategy and vociferously insist it be adopted more broadly regardless of what is truly responsible. On the other hand, should there be any negative consequences arising, we all know whose doorstep the user groups will drop the blame on.

This exercise would have considerably more chance of both being permitted and being a useful tool for evaluating this strategy if it were actually constructed as an experiment to test the theory. Unfortunately, it isn't; it is just a dump of fish that proponents blindly hope will save the stock. The fish aren't being tagged so no monitoring of the outcome is possible. On the other hand, the Sarita project did tag the fish and is monitoring the return and will contribute to the evaluation of this strategy.

Omega stepped up to make that project happen, as did Mainstream, Creative, Grieg and Marine Harvest. Perhaps this release could be reorganized along similar lines, this time perhaps financed by the sport fishing groups that are so loudly touting it and that will realize the benefit from it. If that were done, the chances of approval would likely increase considerably.

[Dave]

Omega stepped up to make that project happen, as did Mainstream, Creative, Grieg and Marine Harvest. Perhaps this release could be reorganized along similar lines, this time perhaps financed by the sport fishing groups that are so loudly touting it and that will realize the benefit from it. If that were done, the chances of approval would likely increase considerably.

Now that seems like an idea that should be pursued. Great opportunity for some angling groups to step forward and partner, at least a bit, with aquaculture. A winner for both sides, imo.

[alwaysfishn]

Great opportunity for some angling groups to step forward and partner, at least a bit, with aquaculture. A winner for both sides, imo.

Yup that seems like a good idea......   Gives the feedlots a PR opportunity to try and convince the public that they actually care about the sports fishing community.

[absolon]

When all you own is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[Dave]

Yup that seems like a good idea......   Gives the feedlots a PR opportunity to try and convince the public that they actually care about the sports fishing community.

Have you ever considered that perhaps they do?  Thank goodness not everyone has your narrow minded view of our fisheries af; your blinkered thoughts are becoming even lamer than usual.

Time for your nap perhaps?

[alwaysfishn]

Have you ever considered that perhaps they do?  Thank goodness not everyone has your narrow minded view of our fisheries af; your blinkered thoughts are becoming even lamer than usual.

Time for your nap perhaps?

Look around the world to see how feedlots care less about wild fish. The sooner they are gone the sooner the feedlot companies will be able to fill the oceans with their net pens....

Of course you're going to tell me that the feedlots on the BC coast are different, that they actually have a conscience and care about the wild fish....    Remember the same companies that are operating in other parts of the globe are here polluting our coast as well.

[dnibbles]

Now that seems like an idea that should be pursued. Great opportunity for some angling groups to step forward and partner, at least a bit, with aquaculture. A winner for both sides, imo.

Exactly Dave. Opportunities for partnerships abound. Throwing your potential partner under the bus on TV is not the best way to move forward. That being said, Ms. Schmitt has no reason to demonstrate goodwill at this point, given her history and treatment from the dept.

As absolon states, the Sarita project is a properly designed study designed to assess the efficacy of an S1 strategy on stocks that have a natural S0 life history. The history of altering salmon life histories by enhancement hasn't been stellar; that said, it's worth looking into, if done so properly. I still fully agree with the Dept's stance of fully reviewing any application to release farmed (or hatchery, whatever you want to call these) fish into the wild. Not clear on af's stance, if he in in favour of just allowing any private interest to release their fish to the wild to give them a sense of accomplishment?

Keep in mind that given the increased cost to rear these Chinook for an extra year (~10X), you will need to see an increased survival commensurate with that cost to make it a feasible alternative. If it is, then let's look harder at it. With a little research and perusing of the IFMP you'll see that this work is taking place in several other locations in the province over the past few years to properly assess the S1 strategy in systems that have a naturally occurring S1 component.

Nog, I do appreciate your time and efforts in the Alberni area, and I think we are all working towards the same objective, just differing perspective on the issues around those objectives. Your vision and "dream world" scenario are not as farfetched as you think. There are many folks looking at options around improving things from the status quo, both from a habitat restoration as well as enhancement perspective, much as you describe.

Back to my armchair.

[Fisherbob]

Yup that seems like a good idea......   Gives the feedlots a PR opportunity to try and convince the public that they actually care about the sports fishing community.

And Mortons PR actually does what? Time to get out of that US funded propaganda train of thought like I did AF.

[shuswapsteve]

As suggested, perhaps it would be a rather good idea for all of us to look a little more into the background of such situations before firing off "armchair biologist" comments from afar...

More on the issue from last night's news: http://www.cheknews.ca/?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAA4mHNTzE~%2CejlzBnGUUKY1gXVPwEwEepl35Y795rND&bclid=975107450001&bctid=2492167722001

Cheers,
Nog

All good information, but my issue is that you took this story all over the internet on the assumption that the department was going to deny this request. As was stated in the news article, the department is reviewing the request - it didn't not automatically close the door.  When things like this are proposed there needs to be some oversight because it could have also been spun around to look like the department allowed dumping of farmed fish into the ocean.  I realize things do not move fast enough for you and many others that share your view.  I believe many others on the other side of the fence can understand this frustration to a point.

In some respects, this reminds me of the iron fertilization project off Haida Gwaii where many people thought it was a great idea to dump iron off the coast to feed all starving salmon and why the Canadian government was not very supportive.  If that part of the province has excellent salmon returns is it because of the dumping of the iron?  Well, before you start dumping stuff or releasing something else that you believe is beneficial there has to be some sort of plan or monitoring in place (In the case of the HSRC simply finding the presence of increased phytoplankton growth alone does not prove anything).  There was a time many people thought Mysis was good idea to feed Kokanee.  I agree with Absolon that if there are any negative consequences from this release it is pretty safe to say where blame will be laid, so reviewing the application is important before jumping all in.  Unfortunately, the department dropped the ball in effectively communicating to the public its direction on this.  From that perspective I don't necessarily blame people for being upset - just don't take the media story as being the complete picture is all I am saying.  In addition, calling a Conservative MP about this would be like trying to get a response from a lamp post outside my house.  I do not believe anyone really wants the status quo with what is going on in your area, but a sober second look before approving this may not be a bad thing.

Back to my armchair as well......