this is false. In fact the Americans in Washington are releasing fewer fish. In fact the # of chinook about 50% since 1990. Steelhead has dropped by about 20%. Coho releases have dropped by 70%. Chum production has dropped by about 40%. Only sockeye production has increased.
In Oregon total salmon & steelhead releases in 2017 were pretty much the same as in 2007 yet total coho returns in 2017 were about 20,000 vs 50,000 in 2007, chinook returns were about the same at 50,000 and steelhead returns in 2017 were 25,000 vs 56,000 in 2007.
In many ways US salmon programs have adopted the same approach as what is used here in Canada; wild fish are the priority, hatchery production is limited to appropriate situations and hatchery fish are marked.
see:
http://hatcheryreform.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Hatchery-reform-in-Washington-state-for-WA-BC-AGM-3-16-18.pdf
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/hatchery/docs/2017_Fish_Propagtion_Annual_Report.pdf
In January of this year their was a proposition in the Washington State Legislature to increase hatchery Chinook production by 10 to 20 million going forward. The idea was brought forward by Washington F&W, has the support of the Governor and so far all parties. Now this is being done to address the express concerns over the Killer Whale populations but it will surely have an affect on Spring Stocks as well.
As for your earlier post about reducing fishing opportunities being the only proven means of population recovery, I would beg to differ. Opportunities have been continually slashed for the last 25 years. Populations have never continued to decline. Even the DFO's own scientists stated that the reducing fishing opportunities, while having some impact, would be the least effective of all the possible options.
You asked what other proven means to increase fish numbers are available? The answer is easy! HABITAT!!! There are several smaller systems across BC that have come from being void stretches of water in the 80s to remarkable little salmon streams in their own right today. What do almost all of these systems have in common? The habitat has been restored. Spawning grounds were created. Riparian zones were replanted. Culverts were daylighted.
But huge problems still exist. The number of seals that exist today is not abnormally high compared to historical numbers; the problem is rather,the lack of cover. The estuaries used to be filled with drift wood, huge logs, sediment. In other words, places for the juvenile fish to hide. Today they are as barren as the Sahara. Can anyone tell me one beach in the lower mainland that has a healthy population of seaweed/eel grass/kelp? I remember refusing to go into tide pools as a kid 30 years ago because they were so dense with it was stuggle. Heck, I even remember taking my exgf on a date to White Rock and walking through the eel grass picking up crabs (that would of been only about 15 years ago). Go to White Rock now; nothing but sand as far as the eye can see! This massive loss of eel grass has also cost had a huge impact on herring population. Combined with the excessive kelp harvest there is simply not enough spawning areas for the herring numbers to rebound.
Now, many of these concerns are being addressed. But not by the Federal Government or the DFO but concerned citizens. In the DFO and the Minster's announcement to protect the SRKWs they said they were committing 9.5 million towards 8 projects across BC, or about 1.2 million per project. I would hazard a guess that many of the smaller, community driven groups would each spend close to the
equivalent each year annually** for years before any real change is seen and the government hopes that 8 projects done once will stem the tide? I am at a loss. People say that fisherman expect to much... I say we know what the rivers and oceans are capable of producing and expect those that make the decisions should focus on achieving those number; not taking away ours!
**I am basing this on personal experience and opinion. For example, if the society I am volunteer had to pay my hourly wage that would probably work out to close to $25,000+ a year. Now, there are about 12 members who are as active (or more so than I am). Add in dozens of other volunteers who spend less, but equally important, hours helping out and labour alone would be over half a million annually. Add in operating costs, incurred expenses, or any supplies that may be donated that the government would have to purchase and the 1.2 million annually is not far off.
Author
Topic: 2018 Fraser river Chinook and Sockeye Salmon Updates (Read 19040 times)