Atlantic Salmon

[Salmonstalker]

People need to look at the evidence that has been gathered in BC, regarding the negative effects of salmon pens providing breeding grounds for sea lice. Salmon smolt come in contact with the pens on the the way to the ocean, then are preyed upon by the lice- and considering their size (in comparison to the lice) they cannot survive for long, once the lice have latched on.

Piscine Orthereovirus. Look it up. I just read an article that was recently put out by the department of ecology that claims 100% of the escaped fish were carriers of the disease.

And furthermore, ask the Norwegians how their wild stocks are doing since they planted their fish pens in the fjords at the mouths of their rivers.

[87Ford]

DUVALL, Wash. — The Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest said Thursday that lab results show the Atlantic salmon that escaped from pens last summer were infected with a highly contagious and harmful virus that could kill native wild salmon.

http://newsbut.com/wild-fish-conservancy-says-escaped-atlantic-salmon-were-infected-with-contagious/

[Tbar]

Careful guys, Lokidog has all the knowledge concerning these fish.  And, according to him and the team of scientists he works with there are no ill effects and these fish are great.  KWIAHT even has a their own lab and is submitting data to dispel claims. 

[plugger]

The runs have been depleting way before the pens arrived and there declining in areas where they don't swim as smolts passed any pens. That would be any river west of Port Angeles. Perhaps if the ocean conditions where favorable every year and the adult fish weren't getting slaughtered by the tribes as they make there way to the spawning grounds things would be better, but there not and that's not going to change anytime soon.

[Katmai Guy]

And they taste like crap.  Farm silvers or sockeye so if they escape they might enhance the local runs.  Salmon are going to become a put and take resource in the not so distant future anyway.  But that's a discussion for another time.

[Skillet]

A couple of the above comments indicate surprise/humor that commercial salmon fisherman are generally opposed to farmed fish.  Does this really strike us as funny or surprising?  Think about whatever industry you're involved in, and then think about the effects on your livelihood when a lower quality, cheaper alternative is marketed to your customer base.  Manufacturing?  China's your fish farm.  Writing code?  India's your fish farm.  Retail? Amazon's your fish farm.  Nearly every industry has its own fish farm threatening. 

A comment mentions the livelihoods of the fish farm workers in PA.  I actually do care about jobs in rural areas, and know how hard it can be to come by good ones now-a-days. But I also care about my own livelihood, as do every one of us.  Plus, I think most of you would be shocked at how much money a small boat owner like myself pumps into shoreside economy each year.  I help keep skilled tradesmen's kids in nice colleges, I can assure you.  At the end of the year, I report a ridiculously low income for the hours invested and risk I assume. 
Not looking for any sympathy, since I chose this life and I love what I do - but I am hoping this perspective would help fill in a few blanks.

[Skillet]

I do find it kinda funny and ironic that the loudest advocate against salmon farming is the commercial fishermen. Makes sense tho, if salmon farms were completely done away with in Washington then the price per pound for commercial caught Wild Hatchery salmon would most likely double.

Seems to me any environmental problems-pollution related caused by salmon farming is only minute compared to all the other issues related to salmon stock demise.

Had to respond directly to this post.

Atlantic salmon farms in Washington do little to nothing to the price of the fish I catch and sell.  They are just too low on the salmon totem pole to compete directly with FAS troll kings and coho.  A big farm harvest in BC that floods the market *might* temporarily push my coho prices down 5% or so, but they will quickly rebound.  Kings never feel the impact. Washington has a small fraction of BC's farmed Atlantic salmon numbers.  So as far as the market impact of these particular fish on my fish prices, it is insignificant and I really don't care.  The main reason why I am opposed to the farms in Washington, and why I think all of us should oppose them, is because of the unknown degree of negative impacts on the wild kings that are failing here.  Why do I care about that?  I live in Alaska now, and make most of my money fishing up here.  What does Puget Sound wild kings have to do with me?  A lot.  The Pacific Salmon Treaty is being negotiated again as I type, and since kings really move around, a very low stock abundance in the Puget Sound severely impacts Washington fisheries - and all points north.  Your own WDFW just negotiated away the vast majority of the king salmon fishing in the Sound over the next 10 years based on low king abundance in one river.  Why play with fire by allowing these farms in the very waters the troubled kings from most Puget Sound rivers use? You can manage commercial and sport harvest a whole lot easier than you can manage a virus outbreak or heavy sea lice loads on outbound smolts.

Finally, re: a few comments about there not being any known negative impacts of these farms, but there are several documented issues, some of which are already cited here (I will try and find some time in the next couple of days to add to this information).  At the very least, I think we could agree that the pen collapse didn't improve the king salmon situation - the only realistic unknown is how bad these farms are for the wild kings.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The runs have been depleting way before the pens arrived and there declining in areas where they don't swim as smolts passed any pens. That would be any river west of Port Angeles. Perhaps if the ocean conditions where favorable every year and the adult fish weren't getting slaughtered by the tribes as they make there way to the spawning grounds things would be better, but there not and that's not going to change anytime soon.

What about when salmon school up on the feeding grounds. You don't think that salmon that did catch disease from salmon pens will pass it on when they get together with other salmon? Look at a flu epidemic in humans. Someone gets it and they give it to people around them. Then some of them travel to other areas and they spread it to people in new areas.  Start thinking out the long game instead of the short game.

[singleshot12]

I do find it kinda funny and ironic that the loudest advocate against salmon farming is the commercial fishermen. Makes sense tho, if salmon farms were completely done away with in Washington then the price per pound for commercial caught Wild Hatchery salmon would most likely double.

Seems to me any environmental problems-pollution related caused by salmon farming is only minute compared to all the other issues related to salmon stock demise.

Had to respond directly to this post.

Atlantic salmon farms in Washington do little to nothing to the price of the fish I catch and sell.  They are just too low on the salmon totem pole to compete directly with FAS troll kings and coho.  A big farm harvest in BC that floods the market *might* temporarily push my coho prices down 5% or so, but they will quickly rebound.  Kings never feel the impact. Washington has a small fraction of BC's farmed Atlantic salmon numbers.  So as far as the market impact of these particular fish on my fish prices, it is insignificant and I really don't care.  The main reason why I am opposed to the farms in Washington, and why I think all of us should oppose them, is because of the unknown degree of negative impacts on the wild kings that are failing here.  Why do I care about that?  I live in Alaska now, and make most of my money fishing up here.  What does Puget Sound wild kings have to do with me?  A lot.  The Pacific Salmon Treaty is being negotiated again as I type, and since kings really move around, a very low stock abundance in the Puget Sound severely impacts Washington fisheries - and all points north.  Your own WDFW just negotiated away the vast majority of the king salmon fishing in the Sound over the next 10 years based on low king abundance in one river.  Why play with fire by allowing these farms in the very waters the troubled kings from most Puget Sound rivers use? You can manage commercial and sport harvest a whole lot easier than you can manage a virus outbreak or heavy sea lice loads on outbound smolts.

Finally, re: a few comments about there not being any known negative impacts of these farms, but there are several documented issues, some of which are already cited here (I will try and find some time in the next couple of days to add to this information).  At the very least, I think we could agree that the pen collapse didn't improve the king salmon situation - the only realistic unknown is how bad these farms are for the wild kings.

I'm not completely buying into that theory. I believe salmon farms are being used as a scapegoat
for the most part by all
 the negative impact claims against salmon farms are mostly being fabricated by commercial interests(tribal and non-tribal) and wild salmon conservancy groups(the same group that wants to do away with all hatcheries).
Realistically most (Wild King runs) are extinct here in Puget Sound due to over commercial harvest. Over population of preditors such as seals and cormerants. And on top of that the ever growing populace continues to pollute our water ways with tons and tons of industrial,ag.,timber and residential contaminants all known to be very fatal to wild salmon.
I really think that any neg.issues related to salmon farming are still and always be just a drop in the bucket compaired to the above threats I listed.
IMO Salmon farms could easily coexist with any of our struggling salmon runs. With that said operations like Cooke Aquiculture need to change the way they farm by having higher regulations.

If we could clean up fish farms, the enviroment and
 do away with commercial fishing we would all be much better off

Sport fishing creates more jobs and puts much more into the economy...

No more comment

[Skillet]

I'm not completely buying into that theory. I believe salmon farms are being used as a scapegoat
for the most part by all
 the negative impact claims against salmon farms are mostly being fabricated by commercial interests(tribal and non-tribal) and wild salmon conservancy groups(the same group that wants to do away with all hatcheries).
Realistically most (Wild King runs) are extinct here in Puget Sound due to over commercial harvest. Over population of preditors such as seals and cormerants. And on top of that the ever growing populace continues to pollute our water ways with tons and tons of industrial,ag.,timber and residential contaminants all known to be very fatal to wild salmon.
I really think that any neg.issues related to salmon farming are still and always be just a drop in the bucket compaired to the above threats I listed.
IMO Salmon farms could easily coexist with any of our struggling salmon runs. With that said operations like Cooke Aquiculture need to change the way they farm by having higher regulations.

If we could clean up fish farms, the enviroment and
 do away with commercial fishing we would all be much better off

Sport fishing creates more jobs and puts much more into the economy...

No more comment

Not buying into what theory? 

I think we agree on more than we don't.  The absolute last thing I want to see is continued trouble for the Puget Sound kings, as my livelihood is directly related in part to their success.  I'm not saying that the other impacts aren't significant, but this thread is supposed to be about the Atlantic Salmon in the Sound, so I'm trying to stay focused on that.

[Bullkllr]

I have followed salmon issues very closely since...the Boldt Decision.
It is true that there are myriad negative impacts; we've all heard of "death by a thousand cuts".

A pattern has played out repeatedly regarding salmon management: If some group is profiting (by harvest/habitat destruction/pollution/etc.), the drive to achieve that profit has grossly outpaced the ability of any of our resource "managers" to manage that activity or even realize its impacts. The damage is done, or continues, before most of them seem to realize what happened. Then they try to "fix" it when the science catches up. It's expensive, and it usually hasn't worked.

The too little, too late trend probably applies to farms as well. Maybe there are places where farms' impacts are negligible. But with our current crisis in Puget Sound (and the financial and human impacts associated) farms seem like just another domino.
 

[Salmonstalker]

And they taste like crap.  Farm silvers or sockeye so if they escape they might enhance the local runs.  Salmon are going to become a put and take resource in the not so distant future anyway.  But that's a discussion for another time.

That sounds great, and would be awesome if that were possible but it's not. Wherever Pacific salmon imprint, is where they will return, attempt to spawn and die. For example: In Alaska they have "Remote Release Sites" that have holding pens with small mesh to keep artificially-spawned salmon (Chums, Pinks, and maybe Cohos?) safe and in time, they imprint. They are turned loose to the ocean at the right time, where they complete their life cycle, return back to said location, grow old and die. These are "Terminal Harvest Areas" paid for by a Salmon Tax that commercial salmon pay for (Permit holders in Alaska, resident and non resident). These areas are first harvested by a contractor that catches returning fish, artificially spawns them, and once they get their escapement, the commercial fleet gets to go at them. All the while, sport fisherman can fish there 7 days a week. On the same subject, there's a rumor going around that the state may be doing this with Cohos for the purpose of "Whale Food"........ I hope there's some truth to it.

[j_h_nimrod]

And they taste like crap.  Farm silvers or sockeye so if they escape they might enhance the local runs.  Salmon are going to become a put and take resource in the not so distant future anyway.  But that's a discussion for another time.

That sounds great, and would be awesome if that were possible but it's not. Wherever Pacific salmon imprint, is where they will return, attempt to spawn and die. For example: In Alaska they have "Remote Release Sites" that have holding pens with small mesh to keep artificially-spawned salmon (Chums, Pinks, and maybe Cohos?) yes, coho in some areas as well as chinook in AK. In WA this is done to a lesser degree along with steelhead at acclimation sites, usually land based sites where fry/presmolts are released or held for a time ti imprint. safe and in time, they imprint. They are turned loose to the ocean at the right time, where they complete their life cycle, return back to said location, grow old and die. These are "Terminal Harvest Areas" paid for by a Salmon Tax that commercial salmon pay for (Permit holders in Alaska, resident and non resident).  A self imposed 3% tax that started back in the late 60s when salmon numbers were crashing. Assessed on the gross ex vessel value of the salmon caught during the year. Funds are divided by the state based on contribution and given to the regional PNP hatcheries. The 3% monies help fund the hatchery programs, while cost recovery fishing helps make up the rest in many locations.    These areas are first harvested by a contractor that catches returning fish, artificially spawns them, and once they get their escapement, the commercial fleet gets to go at them. The cost recovery contract boat typically just catches and sales the fish to finance the hatcheries producing the fish, only in rare occasions are these Fish spawned or used for broodstock.  Broodstock is usually collected at a central hatchery where the eggs are incubated and then transferred to another site for imprinting and release. The fisheries are managed (in most cases) to allow escapement to the hatcheries, cost recovery, and commercial harvest to all get a fair shot. Remote, terminal harvest areas are typically only managed for commercial and cost recovery. All the while, sport fisherman can fish there 7 days a week. On the same subject, there's a rumor going around that the state may be doing this with Cohos spring chinook, to protect the only declining orca population left that is too snobby to adapt to eating something other than chinookfor the purpose of "Whale Food"........ I hope there's some truth to it.

Atlantics do the same thing, they return to their natal waters to spawn. Imprinting takes place on the freshwater where the smolts enter saltwater. The fry can be reared in one freshwater source, and as long as enough time for imprinting occurs, moved to a new freshwater source where they will return as adults.

[Stein]

So, how does all of this imprinting knowledge end up with atlantics up multiple rivers in Puget Sound?  I've hunted Tulalip and several other terminal fisheries, I guess my question is why they don't either hang around where they were raised or return there?

[j_h_nimrod]

Any or all of a number of reasons, or some not even thought of.  These fish were never meant to imprint at the pen site, they were meant to live in captivity so imprinting was not even considered. They were in pens in a high flow area, likely with numerous fresh water influences and no primary, strong source.  They are not sexually mature and are milling around the way Pacific salmon will. These Atlantics have been produced from captive brood for so many generations they no longer have the natal homing instinct.  Atlantics genetically adapted for many thousands of years in the Atlantic creating an entirely different life history and set of homing cues??? 

Who knows, this may have something in common with the reason active Atlantic salmon plants have always failed on this coast.