Post by: trophyelk6x6 on January 31, 2018, 06:45:07 PM
Post by: trophyelk6x6 on January 31, 2018, 06:47:50 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
Post by: Fungunnin on January 31, 2018, 08:20:39 PM
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Post by: h2ofowlr on January 31, 2018, 08:30:16 PM
Post by: Skillet on January 31, 2018, 09:04:22 PM
The fish from the most recent disaster ARE NOT SPAWNING! They were too young to spawn this year, simple biology....
If that's what Cooke Aquaculture is telling us, forgive me my skepticism. They are having a harder time telling the truth than a Clinton.
Millions of Atlantic Salmon have been released on the pacific coast and not one reproducing population has taken hold.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I do hope that stays true. Our fisheries can't afford another blow - especially Puget Sound kings.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
The fish from the most recent disaster ARE NOT SPAWNING! They were too young to spawn this year, simple biology....
If that's what Cooke Aquaculture is telling us, forgive me my skepticism. They are having a harder time telling the truth than a Clinton.Millions of Atlantic Salmon have been released on the pacific coast and not one reproducing population has taken hold.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I do hope that stays true. Our fisheries can't afford another blow - especially Puget Sound kings.
No need to hear a word from them. Anyone with a brain could tell that the egg masses were not mature enough for them to spawn this season.
Post by: Skillet on February 01, 2018, 05:04:26 PM
But why did they run the rivers, if not to spawn? I have seen no information that says Atlantics take sightseeing tours up rivers en masse. What was observed 40+ miles up the Skagit seems far above the normal percentange of native jacks that run the rivers.
As evident as it must be to you that these fish couldn't spawn this year, it must be something you accept that they will soon grow and mature to spawning age, yes? They've already proven they'll run the rivers, so it's not like they couldn't spawn for either lack of maturity or habitat at that point.
A final question - It seems counter-intuitive to me that you, a San Juan Islands resident, would be so in favor of fish farming to the point of not being able to acknowledge this as a negative event in for Puget Sound salmon. There is no way this release is going to improve the pacific salmon situation in the Puget Sound, and therefore is a direct threat to your enjoyment of the native resources in your home waters. Would you humor me with some enlightenment on your support of farming non-native stocks in our waters? You seem like a very intelligent man, and I respect your contributions to this site - but I am puzzled by this strong position you've taken supporting Cooke Aquaculture.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 06:00:04 PM
These fish are at more risk of catching diseases from native salmon than the other way around as these fish did not evolve with native pathogens. If the argument is that these fish are a reservoir for disease, then this argument should be made toward hatcheries of any kind as well. There was little evidence that these fish were successfully consuming forage fish, so it actually surprises me and the "experts" I know that there are even any left, though they did start with massive fat reserves. Some people claim these fish are "toxic", I'd bet dollars to donuts that an Elliot Bay salmon has higher toxin levels than a farmed fish since, I have no doubt the fish food is monitored for such things whereas, especially South Sound, forage fish are not.
As far as them going up the rivers, these fish have spent their lives in a giant school and probably just latched onto whatever congregation of fish they came across.
I am a proponent of farmed fish because I believe they take a lot of pressure off of "wild" fish being caught for human food. Face it, humans like to eat salmon and our wild populations cannot support the level of harvest to supply this demand, especially here in WA.
Could/should Cooke have done a better job? I'm sure the answer is yes. We require oil tankers to be double hulled, why not a double net barrier for these farms?
I hope this helps.
Post by: Fungunnin on February 01, 2018, 06:20:51 PM
Farm raised fish is absolutely necessary I just don't want it in my back yard...
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 01, 2018, 06:59:32 PM
Why do otherwise intelligent people think that Atlantic salmon would have any better chance of thriving here with no additional benefits vs. the Pacific salmon that have genetically adapted to this coast and are being given every possible, probable, and improbable advantage? It is not like the Atlantic’s are being dropped into a super rich environment ready for an invasive species to take advantage of. The Atlantics have proven they are as susceptible to decline on their native coast as Pacifics are on theirs.
This is just the next BIG catastrophe that the conservationists and “wild” fish folks have spun to convince the ignorant masses that farmed fish is the Devil! (Said in the voice of Kathy Bates of The Waterboy). There has been enough negative press and opinion thrown around the I5 corridor that a valuable business could be removed from this state or so heavily restricted that the cost of business will become prohibitive.
It will not surprise me to see another poorly written and emotion grabbing initiative make it way to the ballot to be voted on by people who have no business voting on something they know nothing about.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 01, 2018, 07:02:52 PM
Farm raised fish is absolutely necessary I just don't want it in my back yard...
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
:yeah: NIMBY - feel kinda selfish, but there is plenty of saltwater and native stocks that are under less stress than puget sound.
Double nets seem like a good idea. Of course, so does more regular monitoring. Charge them a license fee that pays enough to have regular checkups. Sounds like the nets hadn't been cleaned and the drag from mussels and other junk was the primary problem. Shame on them, but also shame on the agency that should have been monitoring. That kinda thing doesn't sneak up overnight.
Post by: gasman on February 01, 2018, 07:04:55 PM
Tic salmon in sound for as long as I can remember, nets have broken, pens have crushed and fished were released but not once has a single Atlantic ever bread .....
I remember in the 90s when a pen in Bremerton broke, we were catching them all over Owens beach and the game dept tolx every one, get the fish, there free game and no worries of them reproducing, they are sterile fish.
Post by: Skillet on February 01, 2018, 07:11:20 PM
The only positive aspect of this release is it heavily strengthened the opposition to farmed fish in Puget sound and will likely lead to the removal of net pens in Washington waters.
Farm raised fish is absolutely necessary I just don't want it in my back yard...
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Quote of the day. Salmon farming operations are springing up in a lot of places, when those large volumes of fish are harvested it really impacts our bottom line as commercials.
If salmon become unharvestable, I suppose there's always tuna...
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 01, 2018, 07:18:54 PM
To me, the big concern is them eating forage fish and smolts, the concentrated waste around the pens, and the potential for disease. For those that say we shouldn't be worried about disease, I bet the domestic sheep herders used to say domestic sheep didn't pose a threat to wild sheep either. We now know different. Cooke has had some massive die offs. I don't want that spreading.
Post by: jmscon on February 01, 2018, 08:09:29 PM
I think the river/spawning thing is a non-issue. If any of them spawned from the many releases, why don't you hear about Atlantic shakers being caught?:yeah:
To me, the big concern is them eating forage fish and smolts, the concentrated waste around the pens, and the potential for disease. For those that say we shouldn't be worried about disease, I bet the domestic sheep herders used to say domestic sheep didn't pose a threat to wild sheep either. We now know different. Cooke has had some massive die offs. I don't want that spreading.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 08:18:13 PM
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs. The most recent fish I have seen a photo of was one caught near Sultan a month or so ago, it looked like a cigar with fins it was so skinny....
The largest environmental impact is probably the increased organic waste around the net pen area causing potential problems for bottom dwellers nearby. However, the amount of organics from these pens likely pales in comparison to the amount of organics pumped into the Sound from treated and untreated sewage as well as runoff from all those big green lawns surrounding the Sound.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 01, 2018, 09:43:46 PM
Quote of the day. Salmon farming operations are springing up in a lot of places, when those large volumes of fish are harvested it really impacts our bottom line as commercials.
If salmon become unharvestable, I suppose there's always tuna...
That is a little disingenuous and oversimplified. The farms have made commercial fishermen step up their game and maintain a higher standard while at the same time keeping the market more solid. It was not many years ago that bleeding and iceing were unheard of and there was little market for salmon beyond the can. The fish were poor quality, prices low, supply was seasonal, no on knew there were different types of salmon than the “pink” kind, and the fresh market almost non-existent. The farms came along and offered a consistent high quality, reasonable price, and a supply that was available as a fresh product that actually had a good taste; they capitalized on a ready market when wild harvests were plummeting. Comm fishermen tried competing, but until the great marketing and leaps in producing quality product from wild caught fish that started sometime in the 70s or 80s, really started to flourish in the 90s, and is ongoing currently, most people more than an hour or two from a coast almost never had a chance at anything but farmed salmon or local source fish. I grew up in CO and until moving to AK had never had good salmon and thought trout was fine eating. The first few months in AK I was catching spawning pinks and thought they were great! I shortly found out what good salmon was, winter white king on the bbq :EAT:
Commercial fishing on available stocks can in no way support demand at current prices and you would create a market like Beluga caviar where there is a small, high priced supply controlled by a few big companies, consumed by a few rich people, and rampant poaching on remaining wild stocks. Doing away with fish farms is one of the worst things you could do to the Pacific salmon stocks. There is enough poaching as is, imagine if the ex vessel price doubled? How many new fishermen would be recruited if a power troll permit went from $35k to over $100k? There would be some happy fishermen for awhile, but it is a bubble that would pop.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 01, 2018, 09:49:38 PM
”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 09:54:39 PM
”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 01, 2018, 09:59:17 PM
”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet.
Instinctive or otherwise, they still kill whatever they bite.
Post by: Tbar on February 01, 2018, 10:03:33 PM
Alaska and California are big proponents right?”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 01, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
These fish are not "bringing disease with them", unlike domestic sheep, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. These fish did not live in some foreign wild location where they would pick up diseases that our native fish are not ready to fight.
Maybe not introduce a new virus, but certainly a concern in concentration. Same fish farms had a virus in 2012 and decided to kill off the whole supply before it got out of hand. Google Icicle fish farm die off 2012, and you'll come up with the articles. Certainly the bios cited in the articles were worried about what effect it might have on native stocks. Heck, even Icicle decided to get out in front of it.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 01, 2018, 10:15:52 PM
Alaska and California are big proponents right?”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
Proponents against farms, yes. My early training in AK taught me farms were evil and were the number one cause of everything from decline in wild stocks to epilepsy. After further study I came to the opinion that in a perfect world all fish would be free ranging, but until that happens fish farms are a necessary part of a healthy salmon run.
Post by: Tbar on February 01, 2018, 10:18:50 PM
These fish are not "bringing disease with them", unlike domestic sheep, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. These fish did not live in some foreign wild location where they would pick up diseases that our native fish are not ready to fight.Seriously? Dumping parasiticides into the water has zero impact? Could you find the chemical concoction used in the broadcast dumping?
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs. The most recent fish I have seen a photo of was one caught near Sultan a month or so ago, it looked like a cigar with fins it was so skinny....
The largest environmental impact is probably the increased organic waste around the net pen area causing potential problems for bottom dwellers nearby. However, the amount of organics from these pens likely pales in comparison to the amount of organics pumped into the Sound from treated and untreated sewage as well as runoff from all those big green lawns surrounding the Sound.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 01, 2018, 10:59:59 PM
These fish are not "bringing disease with them", unlike domestic sheep, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. These fish did not live in some foreign wild location where they would pick up diseases that our native fish are not ready to fight.
Maybe not introduce a new virus, but certainly a concern in concentration. Same fish farms had a virus in 2012 and decided to kill off the whole supply before it got out of hand. Google Icicle fish farm die off 2012, and you'll come up with the articles. Certainly the bios cited in the articles were worried about what effect it might have on native stocks. Heck, even Icicle decided to get out in front of it.
The disease in this case was IHNV which has been known in wild and hatchery fish for many years and is a disease of high concern. The native stocks are what gave it to the penned salmon and when you have that many individuals in close proximity the spread is fast and certain, one infected fish can shed something around 10million virus units per day. It was not a case of killing off the fish before it got out of hand , it was a case of killing the fish before they died since there is no vaccine or treatment. Also this was not a choice that Icicle made, this was a determined course once the virus was detected. This is not something where the manager sits back and says “let’s wait and see”, you detect it and immediately go into DEFCON. Mortality rates can easily reach 90% and even fish that recover will likely be life long carriers of the disease. Whole hatcheries in AK have been sterilized after IHN outbreaks. AK has a very stringent set of practices that hatcheries must follow to prevent the outbreak and spread of the disease and they have been pretty successful over the years. The disease isn’t still in the natural environment where it originated, but AK hatcheries have had a good track record of preventing it over the last 15-20 years. The farms have much invested and have also done very good at preventing their fish from catching this wild fish disease.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 11:19:09 PM
These fish are not "bringing disease with them", unlike domestic sheep, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. These fish did not live in some foreign wild location where they would pick up diseases that our native fish are not ready to fight.Seriously? Dumping parasiticides into the water has zero impact? Could you find the chemical concoction used in the broadcast dumping?
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs. The most recent fish I have seen a photo of was one caught near Sultan a month or so ago, it looked like a cigar with fins it was so skinny....
The largest environmental impact is probably the increased organic waste around the net pen area causing potential problems for bottom dwellers nearby. However, the amount of organics from these pens likely pales in comparison to the amount of organics pumped into the Sound from treated and untreated sewage as well as runoff from all those big green lawns surrounding the Sound.
Broadcast dumping of what? Cite your sources! Anything given to treat these fish was in their food. Broadcast "dumping" is a completely inefficient way to treat anything in an open system like an open water fish farm.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 11:22:19 PM
Alaska and California are big proponents right?”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
AK and CA? You talk about crap that seems like you are pulling it out of your butt. The loudest voice I heard against the evil fish came from the tribes... until they were offered money to catch them, then it quieted down substantially. They were making enough money from these fish that they could hire a helicopter to look for schools of them.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 01, 2018, 11:31:30 PM
These fish are at more risk of catching diseases from native salmon than the other way around as these fish did not evolve with native pathogens. If the argument is that these fish are a reservoir for disease, then this argument should be made toward hatcheries of any kind as well.
This is already documented and so is the fact that hatchery salmon are detrimental to wild stocks.
I am a proponent of farmed fish because I believe they take a lot of pressure off of "wild" fish being caught for human food. Face it, humans like to eat salmon and our wild populations cannot support the level of harvest to supply this demand, especially here in WA.
Farmed fish do not take any pressure off of wild stocks. They add to the pressure through disease and parasites and the waste that hatchery stocks produce. Hatchery fish also put pressure on food fish stocks that are caught to feed the hatchery fish, thereby limiting what is available for wild salmon and other wild fish.
Hatcheries may end up being the final nail in the wild stocks coffins. And I say this as a commercial fisherman who hates hatcheries and what they have done to wild fisheries. The only good I can see from hatcheries is a limited use for enhancement of troubled runs. They should never have been used for a replacement or substitute for troubled runs. The problems with troubled runs should be addressed and taken care of, not masked by millions of hatchery fish.
Post by: Skillet on February 01, 2018, 11:35:58 PM
”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
We've been doing a relatively good job so far, let's continue to keep things real here. These fish, as all fish, will eat what appears edible. Be it sand lance, herring, king smolts or pellets - a fish is going to eat. I make a living catching coho that have increased their weight by a factor of several thousand by eating the bounty the ocean provides, yet succumb to a chartreuse/fire dot Manistee that looks like nothing in the natural world for their final meal. A significant number of these fish arrive on my boat with empty stomachs - that doesn't mean they (or the atlantics escaped into Puget Sound) - haven't or don't eat natural forage. It just means either they haven't eaten the forage very recently or puked it up before being landed. An empty stomach means nothing.
The truth is, we don't know how negative the real impacts of these escapees are on the native salmon population. Anything beyond that, for this particular escape, is speculation.
I do think it is fair to say, however, that we DO know that the escapees are not helping the native salmon population. At the very best, the negative impact is negligible. At worst, this escape can be another mail in the native salmon's coffin.
Post by: Skillet on February 01, 2018, 11:37:20 PM
Alaska and California are big proponents right?”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
AK and CA? You talk about crap that seems like you are pulling it out of your butt. The loudest voice I heard against the evil fish came from the tribes... until they were offered money to catch them, then it quieted down substantially. They were making enough money from these fish that they could hire a helicopter to look for schools of them.
Settle down, now. Don't take the bait Loki, so to speak.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 01, 2018, 11:37:43 PM
Why do otherwise intelligent people think that Atlantic salmon would have any better chance of thriving here with no additional benefits vs. the Pacific salmon that have genetically adapted to this coast and are being given every possible, probable, and improbable advantage? It is not like the Atlantic’s are being dropped into a super rich environment ready for an invasive species to take advantage of. The Atlantics have proven they are as susceptible to decline on their native coast as Pacifics are on theirs.
Why would anyone think the walleyed pike would thrive in the Columbia River? Or that Chinese lice would play Hell with blacktail deer?
It is small minded not to consider the dangers of invasive species.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2018, 11:48:49 PM
I'm done here until someone can actually show some evidence that pen raised salmon are a problem. They are a scapegoat to the real problems that our native fish face. All I've seen is conjecture and hyperbole....
Post by: Skillet on February 01, 2018, 11:50:13 PM
Why do otherwise intelligent people think that Atlantic salmon would have any better chance of thriving here with no additional benefits vs. the Pacific salmon that have genetically adapted to this coast and are being given every possible, probable, and improbable advantage? It is not like the Atlantic’s are being dropped into a super rich environment ready for an invasive species to take advantage of. The Atlantics have proven they are as susceptible to decline on their native coast as Pacifics are on theirs.
Why would anyone think the walleyed pike would thrive in the Columbia River? Or that Chinese lice would play Hell with blacktail deer?
It is small minded not to consider the dangers of invasive species.
I'm on the opposite side of the hatchery argument as Sitka Blacktail, but agree 100% with this.
(And Walleye are still doing quite well in the Big C, I can personally attest)
Post by: Skillet on February 02, 2018, 12:15:38 AM
How about you look up the definition of invasive species? Atlantics in no way fit it.
I'm done here until someone can actually show some evidence that pen raised salmon are a problem. They are a scapegoat to the real problems that our native fish face. All I've seen is conjecture and hyperbole....
Atlantic salmon... in the Pacific Ocean... Not in any way invasive?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species)
Is the fish finally meeting the Wikipedia definition of "Invasive" the standard that needs to be met before you'll admit this isn't a good thing? The damage needs to be done first? What do you get out of that outcome? Isn't that simply the fact that these are known to be a relatively agressive fish https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/63/7/1162/752771 (https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/63/7/1162/752771) and competitive with Pacific Salmon enough to say this escape was a bad thing? We know it can't be a good thing. That much is certain, isn't it? It may in fact be that these fish pose little risk, but the truth is we don't know that. They certainly pose less risk if they hadn't escaped. The premise these escaped fish cause no harm is more speculative than the premise they do cause some harm. Why not admit that fact and get on board with stricter regulation, higher standards for pen construction/maintenance, and severe penalties for failure to protect the environment the endangered native runs need to survive?
Post by: Tbar on February 02, 2018, 05:08:43 AM
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/04/27/business/cooke-aquaculture-to-pay-490k-after-illegal-pesticides-kill-lobsters-in-canada/These fish are not "bringing disease with them", unlike domestic sheep, this is a completely inaccurate comparison. These fish did not live in some foreign wild location where they would pick up diseases that our native fish are not ready to fight.Seriously? Dumping parasiticides into the water has zero impact? Could you find the chemical concoction used in the broadcast dumping?
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs. The most recent fish I have seen a photo of was one caught near Sultan a month or so ago, it looked like a cigar with fins it was so skinny....
The largest environmental impact is probably the increased organic waste around the net pen area causing potential problems for bottom dwellers nearby. However, the amount of organics from these pens likely pales in comparison to the amount of organics pumped into the Sound from treated and untreated sewage as well as runoff from all those big green lawns surrounding the Sound.
Broadcast dumping of what? Cite your sources! Anything given to treat these fish was in their food. Broadcast "dumping" is a completely inefficient way to treat anything in an open system like an open water fish farm.
Yeah, making it up. cypermethrin- sounds like organic matter!
Post by: Tbar on February 02, 2018, 05:21:10 AM
You guys crack me up. The loudest voice against? They are already banned in Ak and California, that seems to represent strong opposition. There is definitely more evidence out there about the negatives besides the junk science your group produces. Show me some peer lit reviews of Russ and all the good science you guys produce.Alaska and California are big proponents right?”
Also, they are not hardly competing with the native fish for food either as hundreds of them sampled in the beginning had no forage fish in their stomachs.
You caught some. Did you use power bait? Or something that mimicked a bait fish?
Yes, however, like a salmon returning to the rivers, I believe it was more of an instinctive strike and once grabbed, they did not know what to do with something that was not a pellet, hence no forage fish in the stomach contents of at least 200 that I know of (there was actually one, I think, that had a herring in it).
j_h_ the loudest voice against the fish farms are the tribal and non-tribal commercial interests IMO.
AK and CA? You talk about crap that seems like you are pulling it out of your butt. The loudest voice I heard against the evil fish came from the tribes... until they were offered money to catch them, then it quieted down substantially. They were making enough money from these fish that they could hire a helicopter to look for schools of them.
Settle down, now. Don't take the bait Loki, so to speak.
Post by: singleshot12 on February 05, 2018, 12:04:48 PM
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.
Post by: jmscon on February 05, 2018, 05:19:32 PM
Post by: kodiak 907 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:14 PM
The tribe boats below Lyman were getting quite a few in the gill nets.
Post by: Stein on February 06, 2018, 10:06:10 AM
Saying the chance of eating, breeding or carrying diseases is 0% seems foolish to me looking back in history every time humans think we have it all figured out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Fungunnin on February 06, 2018, 11:14:46 AM
Rainbow trout are fed pellets and then released where they figure out how to both eat and breed.Rainbow trout are also native to the Pacific Northwest.
Saying the chance of eating, breeding or carrying diseases is 0% seems foolish to me looking back in history every time humans think we have it all figured out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is not the first time Atlantic Salmon have been released in Puget Sound and they have never formed a breeding population. I'm not saying it can't happen but all prior data would indicate that it won't.
The upside is it looks like the farm on Cyprus Island is getting shut down permanently.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on February 06, 2018, 03:49:25 PM
We don’t know Atlantic’s have not bred. We haven’t seen evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 06, 2018, 04:23:05 PM
Post by: plugger on February 07, 2018, 04:44:12 AM
Sure. I have seen no credible evidence that these fish, or the farms, are actually having a detrimental effect on the native salmon. There have been similar fish farms in the area for forty years including attempts in the late 1800's to actually establish runs and the decline in native salmon has not correlated to these fish being here.
These fish are at more risk of catching diseases from native salmon than the other way around as these fish did not evolve with native pathogens. If the argument is that these fish are a reservoir for disease, then this argument should be made toward hatcheries of any kind as well. There was little evidence that these fish were successfully consuming forage fish, so it actually surprises me and the "experts" I know that there are even any left, though they did start with massive fat reserves. Some people claim these fish are "toxic", I'd bet dollars to donuts that an Elliot Bay salmon has higher toxin levels than a farmed fish since, I have no doubt the fish food is monitored for such things whereas, especially South Sound, forage fish are not.
As far as them going up the rivers, these fish have spent their lives in a giant school and probably just latched onto whatever congregation of fish they came across.
I am a proponent of farmed fish because I believe they take a lot of pressure off of "wild" fish being caught for human food. Face it, humans like to eat salmon and our wild populations cannot support the level of harvest to supply this demand, especially here in WA.
Could/should Cooke have done a better job? I'm sure the answer is yes. We require oil tankers to be double hulled, why not a double net barrier for these farms?
I hope this helps.
I have to agree with you lokidog, Not to mention there are some peoples careers at stake here. They pay a decent wage and its not easy to find a job in port angeles that does. I really don't understand why the commercial guys appose the pens so much, Ay this point, closing them down in this state wont effect there bottom line, The fish will just be produced somewhere else.
Post by: Salmonstalker on February 16, 2018, 01:38:24 PM
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.
Post by: 87Ford on February 16, 2018, 02:21:01 PM
http://newsbut.com/wild-fish-conservancy-says-escaped-atlantic-salmon-were-infected-with-contagious/
Post by: Tbar on February 16, 2018, 02:49:34 PM
Post by: plugger on February 16, 2018, 03:23:47 PM
Post by: Katmai Guy on February 16, 2018, 04:29:09 PM
Post by: Skillet on February 16, 2018, 08:25:13 PM
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.
Post by: Skillet on February 16, 2018, 09:03:41 PM
:chuckle: 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 caughtWildHatchery 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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 16, 2018, 11:08:50 PM
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.
Post by: singleshot12 on February 17, 2018, 06:18:57 AM
:chuckle: 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 caughtWildHatchery 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 :twocents:
Sport fishing creates more jobs and puts much more into the economy...
No more comment
Post by: Skillet on February 17, 2018, 07:33:42 AM
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 :twocents:
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 17, 2018, 08:04:30 AM
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.
:twocents:
Post by: Salmonstalker on February 17, 2018, 05:44:01 PM
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. 8)
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.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 18, 2018, 09:56:28 AM
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. 8)
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.
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2018, 10:04:38 AM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 18, 2018, 10:45:05 AM
Who knows, this may have something in common with the reason active Atlantic salmon plants have always failed on this coast.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 18, 2018, 12:58:16 PM
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?
Have you ever heard of straying? A certain % of salmon stray to other streams even after they have been imprinted. So take a pen full of fish that haven't been imprinted and they will likely go all over the place. And who knows how the currents in the Sound move fresh water around and how many smells of different different streams these fish may have been exposed to?
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2018, 02:29:45 PM
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?
Have you ever heard of straying? A certain % of salmon stray to other streams even after they have been imprinted. So take a pen full of fish that haven't been imprinted and they will likely go all over the place. And who knows how the currents in the Sound move fresh water around and how many smells of different different streams these fish may have been exposed to?
Yeah, but they don't stray all that much. How often is a sockeye caught in a river it shouldn't be in? The story is that we caught the vast majority of those that escaped and just a few were left that should have died of starvation. Yet, we seem to be having no trouble catching several of the one in a million "strays" that don't eat yet bit lures up numerous rivers which doesn't add up to me. Seems like a long string of coincidental longshots.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 18, 2018, 07:11:33 PM
http://wildfishconservancy.org/resources/science-library/Brenneretal.2012HatcherysalmonstrayinginAK.pdf
http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/local/2017-12-10/data-shows-prince-william-sound-pink-salmon-homer-streams
I could go along with hatcheries and farming maybe if first and foremost, wild fish were protected from damage. I can't go along with pumping out millions of hatchery fish if it's just going to stress wild populations even more and so far that is the case.
Post by: fish vacuum on February 19, 2018, 12:53:50 AM
Yet, we seem to be having no trouble catching several of the one in a million "strays" that don't eat yet bit lures up numerous rivers which doesn't add up to me.
Atlantics stray at something like 10%.
Post by: Skillet on February 23, 2018, 11:58:42 AM
How about you look up the definition of invasive species? Atlantics in no way fit it.
I'm done here until someone can actually show some evidence that pen raised salmon are a problem. They are a scapegoat to the real problems that our native fish face. All I've seen is conjecture and hyperbole....
@lokidog
Inviting you back to this discussion, I hope you rejoin. I've got an example of what you were asking for-
A peer-reviewed scientific journal, PLOS One, recently published the following regarding the high rate of PRV transmission from farmed to wild salmon:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793)
A excerpt from the summary states:
... sampled wild Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) from regions designated as high or low exposure to salmon farms and farmed Atlantic salmon reared in British Columbia (BC) were tested for PRV. The proportion of PRV infection in wild fish was related to exposure to salmon farms (p = 0.0097). PRV was detected in: 95% of farmed Atlantic salmon, 37–45% of wild salmon from regions highly exposed to salmon farms and 5% of wild salmon from the regions furthest from salmon farms."
*edited to add: PRV, a virus, is the causitive agent of HSMI (Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation) in salmon. It is a cause of significant economic losses in farmed salmon operations.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 23, 2018, 11:46:38 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38966188
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/environmental-impacts/sea-lice/
https://www.watershed-watch.org/issues/salmon-farming/salmon-farming-impacts/sea-lice/
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 23, 2018, 11:48:50 PM
More discussion, the disease has likely been around much longer than it has been recognized and the fact it was first isolated in farms salmon only means that the more stringent and rigorous testing done at farms was able to isolate it and not that farms were the causative agent. Wild fish surveys typically have a much lower detection rate of all diseases due to their necessary collection bias and less intense scrutiny.
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2018, 07:30:26 AM
The fundamental takeaway is that farmed salmon concentrate the disease, and those farms increase transmission of the disease to the wild salmon that pass by.
Post by: 87Ford on December 18, 2018, 08:36:57 PM
"The spill and state findings led the Washington state Legislature last session to enact a gradual phaseout of net-pen farming of exotic species in Washington waters by 2025, including Atlantic salmon."
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2018, 08:42:42 PM
Post by: onmygame on December 19, 2018, 06:08:38 AM
How would PRV be transmitted to native stocks?
It is a virus after all, and though there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that native or hatchery stocks would become infected - it isn't a risk anyone wants to take.
Post by: huntnphool on December 19, 2018, 10:08:15 AM
How would PRV be transmitted to native stocks?
It is a virus after all, and though there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that native or hatchery stocks would become infected - it isn't a risk anyone wants to take.
I understand it's a virus, I'm asking how it's transmitted.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2018, 10:31:18 AM
Post by: kidkodger on December 20, 2018, 05:31:26 PM
Post by: Night goat on December 21, 2018, 10:12:20 PM
Im curious about establishing a spawning atlantic population. Maybe not frankenfish from the farms, but a good btoodstock from somewhere a little more organic... Why? Atlantics spawn several times in thier life span and are a little more resilient than our wild fish. I doubt an Atlantic population would hurt our wild numbers, if not it would probably help our fish. Do kings eat chum fry? Do pinks eat coho? Nope.
It would give the indians something to catch too instead of hacking away at whatever little runs we have left.
Im all for establishing atlantics here.
Large scale fish farming with abtibiotics and hormones feeding em salmon-chow? Hell no. Makes me sick just thinking of it. Same reason why i stopped eating beef and pork. I honestly see alit if advantages to adding atlantics.to.the ecosystem to take some of the weighr off the native fish but it would take 99 other things along with that to bring back our salmonthat will never happen.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on December 21, 2018, 11:24:00 PM
Post by: castie2504 on December 24, 2018, 07:42:08 PM