Coho Management Review Now Under Way

[FishNmemories]

This newspaper article by Jeremy Maynard (Ardent Angler, for the North Islander), contains stats that show how dramatically coho harvests rates, “fell off a cliff” after the mid 90’s. Citing , “an average annual catch of a half a million or more coho from the inside coastal waters”, we all can now agree that the present management plans have not resulted in any dramatic increase in the wild southern stocks.

He states, “As well, the commercial troll fishery for coho was ended in 1995 of the Straight of Georgia and 1997 on the WCVI,” and “in 1998 the minister of the day, David Anderson, eliminated coho harvest, “by all fisherman everywhere in BC.” Jermey expresses concern for the “coho mark selective fishery”, but also states, “whatever the outcome of the review change won’t arrive quickly.”

He just thinks that, “the southern BC Angling community should be aware that coho management is now under-going a comprehensive review.”
Although, I couldn’t find a link to this newspaper article, the point is that management plans for coho are being scrutinized and resulting change may be coming.

I can remember, just for the Comox Valley area and Campbell River area, how many resorts that have fallen by the wayside since the collapse of the coho stocks. Clearly, over-harvesting once was a factor, but that is not the case now, so what other factors are causing the continued poor recruitment and subsequent re-building of the coho stocks?

 

[wstcoaster]

just another example of the decline of wild salmon with the proliferation of salmon farms

 

[Dave]

Guess I knew that was coming ....

 

[profisher]

I would say that part of the problem with Coho populations is the loss of the small creek populations all over the south coast. While each smaller stream didn't have the vast numbers like the Cowichan or Fraser the numbers frfom all those combined streams added up to a big number. How fast can a small stream rebuild when it went from a few hundred or a few thousand fish then down to 10 or 20 remaining? Not very fast. Sounds just like our southern killer whale story too.

 

[Gunsmith]

We are watching the canary die before our eyes and there is little we can do without the backing of the governments.

 

[trophywife]

the decline of spawning habitat, overfishing, farms,,, all contributors... i grew up with the crazy coho's in the 70's and 80's.. then gone....

 

[Foxsea]

the decline of spawning habitat, overfishing, farms,,, all contributors... i grew up with the crazy coho's in the 70's and 80's.. then gone....

Now Herr Harp-err guts habitat protection, farms continue to do damage to wild stocks and the commies decimate stocks through net bycatch.
Action plan:
1) Get the farms out! We are working on that.
2) Get Herr Harp-err out! Remember to write, call, sign petitions, protest and to vote! We have lots of members - that can make a difference.
3) Get organized and lobby for fair allocation and for sustainable harvesting. A professional lobbyist in our corner would be a great asset.

These things can be done.

 

[salmonkiller01]

I would say that part of the problem with Coho populations is the loss of the small creek populations all over the south coast. While each smaller stream didn't have the vast numbers like the Cowichan or Fraser the numbers frfom all those combined streams added up to a big number. How fast can a small stream rebuild when it went from a few hundred or a few thousand fish then down to 10 or 20 remaining? Not very fast. Sounds just like our southern killer whale story too.

I agree. Loss of habitat caused by urbanization(if thats a word). In 1990 we were putting gas pipelines in Courtenay and salmon were spawning in a ditch that was once a creek but the subdivision above re-routed the creek, I am pretty sure they never made it. I wonder if there are staistics showing the decline of coho vs expansion of fish farms starting in the 80's.(Charlie).

 

[Charlie]

The single biggest threat to ALL Pacific salmon is indeed those "open netpen fish farms"!

The part everyone seems to keep missing "IT IS NOT" overfishing, or the destruction of their habitat that is causing the present wild salmon decines in both BC and Puget Sound. Sorry, to keep trying to inform; however, the Columbia (which has NO fish farms is actually seeing an increase in their salmon stock returns, while both BC (all stocks) and Pugut Sound (most) are still showing declines. The only ONE COMMON FACTOR or lack there of is - OPEN NETPEN FISH FARMS!

Open netpen fish farms have been killing off entire enviroments and entire wild salmon stocks ALL over the world! If anyone believes they aren't killing off the Pacific salmon, I can only suggest - you are a FOOL! You (we) can restore whatever habitat you wish; however, until ALL those open netpen fish farms are OUT of the water both Atlantic and Pacific wild salmon, as Dr Kristy Miller has stated - they are just "dead fish swimming"! Please note and think about, all those "Pacific COHO" in those open netpens of Gregs that are now spreading the DEADLY IHN disease to ALL the migrating wild salmon passing those open netpens?

FYI… in case you don’t know and it is well documented, IHN is “highly contagious” and if those Atlantic salmon and Pacific Coho have a strain BC/Puget Sound fish have not built up a resistance and then they are exposed, it is/has the potential of being VERY DEADLY to "ALL" BC and Puget Sound wild salmon! In case one doesn't know or remember, my Puget Sound Chinook are currently swimming around ALL those infected pens. If one doesn't think IHN hasn't been brought back to Puget Sound by those fish... you are again a FOOL - it already has been!

Here is part of a couple of studies and I do quote:
Infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN): The virus known as IHN attacks the liver of salmon or steelhead. The fish are more susceptible to IHN when water temperatures are cold. The disease is "vertically transmitted" which means that it can be passed from fluids within the gut of female fish to eggs of the next generation. Chen (1984) suggested that various strains of IHN exist, and if salmonids evolve with a specific strain they will develop resistance to it. He suggested that if IHN were transferred from one basin to another, its virulence could be substantially increased. Juvenile salmonid mortality at large northern California hatcheries has been very high due to IHN outbreaks (Kier Assoc., 1991).

Horizontal transmission of the IHN virus occurs readily in both saltwater and freshwater (Traxler et al. 1998). Although there is anecdotal information that vertical transmission of IHNV occurs, no laboratory study has been able to demonstrate the event (Traxler et al. 1997, Bootland and Leong 1999). Ribonuclease protection assays and nucleotide sequencing of IHNV isolates collected over a 20 year period found that the isolates can be grouped into three separate regional isotypes: northwest coast (Oregon to Alaska), California, and Idaho (Hsu et al. 1986, Emmenegger et al. 2000, Troyer et al. 2000, Emmenegger and Kurath 2002). Different salmonid species appear to be sensitive to different genetic isotypes. For example sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, are susceptible to the northwest coast IHNV isolates while chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, are more susceptible to the Californian isolates. Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, are susceptible to the Idaho isolate.

Most of the losses associated with IHN, in sockeye salmon, occur in the freshwater alevin and swim-up stages. Disease in the seawater sockeye stages has not been as commonly observed, however, the northwest isolates are quite homogeneous indicating that continual mixing of the isolates has occurred over the generations. The only location where this appears possible would be in the ocean (Williams and Amend 1976, Traxler and Rankin 1989, Emmenegger et al. 2000). One such place could be the “Alaskan gyre”, the common feeding grounds for all sockeye populations north of Oregon (Emmenegger et al. 2000, Emmenegger and Kurath 2002).

Lab transmission studies have found that Atlantic salmon are very susceptible to IHNV infections (Traxler et al 1993). In 1992, IHN was diagnosed in a population of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in British Columbia (BC). Over the next four years, the disease spread to 13 separate farm sites within a 20 km radius of the index case (St-Hilaire 2000, St-Hilaire et al.2001). In the summer of 2001, nine years after the first epizootic, IHN was again diagnosed in a population of farmed Atlantic salmon. As in the 1992 epizootic, mortality as a result of the disease has been significant.

Lag time between suspicion and confirmation of an infection
For sites where mortality data was examined, in 82% of the cases IHN was suspected prior to any substantial jump in mortality. This indicates a high level of diligence in fish health monitoring at the sites. The concern, however, is the length of time between suspicion and confirmation of IHN. This ranged from five to twenty-one days, with an average of 15.7 days.

Here is a study, as asked on the impact of those open netpens... and I do suggest reading it very closely:
'A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids'
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

 

[salmonkiller01]

Thanks for the info, your always on top of things!

 

[Dave]

Charlie, I know your devoted followers won’t like this but for you to suggest fish farms have caused a larger declination in wild west coast coho stocks than habitat loss and overfishing is ludicrous.

 

[reelfast]

the ice age created a situation where ALL habitat was lost. various plate upheavals, volcanic activity, tsunami's, wild fires,.........have all played out through the ages but the anadramous fish DNA has allowed them to survive. of course while all of this environmental damage was occurring there were neither hatcheries nor floating net pens. you don't suppose charlie is on to something now do you??????

 

[Charlie]

Charlie, I know your devoted followers won’t like this but for you to suggest fish farms have caused a larger declination in wild west coast coho stocks than habitat loss and overfishing is ludicrous.

Dave, I would suggest stop thinking how I once did and also stop believing what I "used" to believe!

The destruction of habitat and overfishing should still continue to be an issue and are areas of concern; however neither contribute to BC Coho and Chinook declines and don't even come close to the amount of damage those "open netpens" are doing! "Ludicrous" is leaving those pens in the migration routes of any wild salmon.

It is only a matter of time and hopefully will not be to late before this whole thing gets into the Supreme Court. When that happens the legal term I suggest "fish farm" owners become familar with is: Res ipsa loquitur

In the common law of negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") states that the elements of duty of care and breach can be sometimes inferred from the very nature of an accident or other outcome, even without direct evidence of how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, the common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the following conditions:

1. A "duty" exists for a person to act "reasonably"; and
2. A "breach" of this duty occurs because a person [or agency, etc.] acted outside this duty, or "unreasonably"; and
3. There was "causation in fact"...the result would not have occurred "but for" the "breach" of this duty;
4. There was actual legally recognizable harm suffered by the plaintiff who did nothing wrong (i.e., no contributory negligence).

Upon a proof of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff need only establish the remaining two elements of negligence—namely, that the plaintiff suffered harm, of which the incident result was the legal cause.

The destruction of ALL salmon habitat, including Coho stopped years ago here in Puget Sound. Contrary to popular belief and what some would like people continue to believe, there are quite a few "stream keepers" currently in BC doing some very good work rebuilding salmon habitat. While the Fraser watershed has certainly been damaged and there are some particular races of salmon doomed to extinction, as a whole the Fraser watershed, along with BC's total west coast is still a very viable and sustainable habitat for salmon. The salmon just have to SURVIVE those "net pens" to use the habitat - right now they are NOT surviving those "open net pens"!

"Overfishing" of Coho? What "overfishing" of Coho currently even exists? More damage to the stocks is actualy being done with that "catch and release" program currently being used, than overfishing! Concerning any "by-catch" the only thing I can say there is... yea, right!

If you keep those "open net pens" on the migration routes, you can stop ALL fishing in BC and the salmon declines will simply continue!

 

[Rockfish]

Charlie, I know your devoted followers won’t like this but for you to suggest fish farms have caused a larger declination in wild west coast coho stocks than habitat loss and overfishing is ludicrous.

A new member with 3 posts all on the same topic. Looks like we have another fish farm lobbyists shrilling for the Atlantic salmon disease factory fish farm industry.

Great, they are usually good for pizzing enough of us off to the point of writing more letters and donating more money to protect our pacific salmon. Lets see how long this one takes to figure out the more he posts here the more it hurts them. I am feeling more motivated already.

http://www.gofundme.com/SalmonDiseaseTestingFund

 

[profisher]

Charlie...overfishing has played a huge part in the decline of what were once vast numbers of Coho on this coast. The archives of the commercial net catch (especially the ocean gill net) from the late 50's through into the 70's show annual catches in the millions of pounds. When you look at these documents it becomes very apparent how both Coho and Steeelhead populations both dwindled. Then along came a few ill timed consecutive and strong El Nino events and the populations were reduced to the point where the commercial troll fleet could no longer maintain a viable fishery. I'm not saying you are wrong about the farms, they do pose a real threat, are responsible for fish losses and should be removed. However Dave's statement about overfishing and also habitat being responsible for larger losses of Coho (to date) is very accurate. I fished during the 60's when there still were decent numbers of wild Coho still around and then witnessed the decline. To the point where in the late 70's (and before SEP's work kicked in) it was hard to catch a Coho each fall. The Coho fishing now is nothing like in the 60"s but it is still better now than it was in the late 70's.

 

[Dave]

Sorry, not buying it. I have a passable knowledge of salmon, their biology, necessities, stressors, diseases and management, having worked in this field for close to 40 years. Still do, voluntarily. I live near the Chilliwack River and have seen the coho habitat destruction firsthand. As a boy I remember nearly every waterway in the Fraser Valley supporting either a spawning run of coho or supplying the necessary rearing habitat. Now these waterways are parking lots, shopping malls, housing developments, farmer’s irrigation ditches, or golf courses.
I do advocate for salmon farming in BC and of course I know there is an environmental impact, as there is with most human activities and all animal husbandry but IMO, there are not measureable impacts from this industry severe enough to warrant closure or removal.
I’ve been on enough forums on this issue to know I won’t be changing your minds with my opinions and I don’t expect to. So how about this …. you change mine. Show me some defensible data that proves salmon farming in BC is having a bigger impact on wild coho production than loss of habitat.

 

[Charlie]

Charlie...overfishing has played a huge part in the decline of what were once vast numbers of Coho on this coast. The archives of the commercial net catch (especially the ocean gill net) from the late 50's through into the 70's show annual catches in the millions of pounds. When you look at these documents it becomes very apparent how both Coho and Steeelhead populations both dwindled. Then along came a few ill timed consecutive and strong El Nino events and the populations were reduced to the point where the commercial troll fleet could no longer maintain a viable fishery. I'm not saying you are wrong about the farms, they do pose a real threat, are responsible for fish losses and should be removed. However Dave's statement about overfishing and also habitat being responsible for larger losses of Coho (to date) is very accurate. I fished during the 60's when there still were decent numbers of wild Coho still around and then witnessed the decline. To the point where in the late 70's (and before SEP's work kicked in) it was hard to catch a Coho each fall. The Coho fishing now is nothing like in the 60"s but it is still better now than it was in the late 70's.

Rollie... What "we" remember and grew up with is now GONE! The key words to your statement is "overfishing has played" and to that I can and will only repeat:

The single biggest threat to ALL Pacific salmon is indeed those "open netpen fish farms"!

It is "NO" longer "CURRENTLY" either overfishing or destruction of habitat and I again will repeat:

The part everyone seems to keep missing "IT IS NOT" overfishing, or the destruction of their habitat that is causing the "present" wild salmon decines in both BC and Puget Sound. Sorry, to keep trying to inform; however, the Columbia (which has NO fish farms is actually seeing an increase in their salmon stock returns, while both BC (all stocks) and Pugut Sound (most) are still showing declines. The only ONE COMMON FACTOR or lack there of is - OPEN NETPEN FISH FARMS!

I will again state and again repeat anyone believing "overfishing" or the destruction of habitat "is currently" the problem the main problem with any salmon species decline - is simply a FOOL! Sorry, my friend that includes "anyone" and I do again repeat:

Open netpen fish farms have been killing off entire enviroments and entire wild salmon stocks ALL over the world! If anyone believes they aren't killing off the Pacific salmon, I can only suggest - you are a FOOL! You (we) can restore whatever habitat you wish; however, until ALL those open netpen fish farms are OUT of the water both Atlantic and Pacific wild salmon, as Dr Kristy Miller has stated - they are just "dead fish swimming"! Please note and think about, all those "Pacific COHO" in those open netpens of Gregs that are now spreading the DEADLY IHN disease to ALL the migrating wild salmon passing those open netpens?

Alexander Morton hit the "nail on the head" before I a few years ago, when she stated her biggest concern was NOT sealice, it is "DISEASE". There are currently "THREE" diseases being spread by those "fish farms" that are currently killing your salmon and if one doesn't believe that... YOUR salmon are simply "DEAD FISH SWIMMING":

FYI… in case you don’t know and it is well documented, IHN is “highly contagious” and if those Atlantic salmon and Pacific Coho have a strain BC/Puget Sound fish have not built up a resistance and then they are exposed, it is/has the potential of being VERY DEADLY to "ALL" BC and Puget Sound wild salmon! In case one doesn't know or remember, my Puget Sound Chinook are currently swimming around ALL those infected pens. If one doesn't think IHN hasn't been brought back to Puget Sound by those fish... you are again a FOOL - it already has been!

Here is part of a couple of studies and I do quote:
Infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN): The virus known as IHN attacks the liver of salmon or steelhead. The fish are more susceptible to IHN when water temperatures are cold. The disease is "vertically transmitted" which means that it can be passed from fluids within the gut of female fish to eggs of the next generation. Chen (1984) suggested that various strains of IHN exist, and if salmonids evolve with a specific strain they will develop resistance to it. He suggested that if IHN were transferred from one basin to another, its virulence could be substantially increased. Juvenile salmonid mortality at large northern California hatcheries has been very high due to IHN outbreaks (Kier Assoc., 1991).

Horizontal transmission of the IHN virus occurs readily in both saltwater and freshwater (Traxler et al. 1998). Although there is anecdotal information that vertical transmission of IHNV occurs, no laboratory study has been able to demonstrate the event (Traxler et al. 1997, Bootland and Leong 1999). Ribonuclease protection assays and nucleotide sequencing of IHNV isolates collected over a 20 year period found that the isolates can be grouped into three separate regional isotypes: northwest coast (Oregon to Alaska), California, and Idaho (Hsu et al. 1986, Emmenegger et al. 2000, Troyer et al. 2000, Emmenegger and Kurath 2002). Different salmonid species appear to be sensitive to different genetic isotypes. For example sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, are susceptible to the northwest coast IHNV isolates while chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, are more susceptible to the Californian isolates. Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, are susceptible to the Idaho isolate.

Most of the losses associated with IHN, in sockeye salmon, occur in the freshwater alevin and swim-up stages. Disease in the seawater sockeye stages has not been as commonly observed, however, the northwest isolates are quite homogeneous indicating that continual mixing of the isolates has occurred over the generations. The only location where this appears possible would be in the ocean (Williams and Amend 1976, Traxler and Rankin 1989, Emmenegger et al. 2000). One such place could be the “Alaskan gyre”, the common feeding grounds for all sockeye populations north of Oregon (Emmenegger et al. 2000, Emmenegger and Kurath 2002).

Lab transmission studies have found that Atlantic salmon are very susceptible to IHNV infections (Traxler et al 1993). In 1992, IHN was diagnosed in a population of farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in British Columbia (BC). Over the next four years, the disease spread to 13 separate farm sites within a 20 km radius of the index case (St-Hilaire 2000, St-Hilaire et al.2001). In the summer of 2001, nine years after the first epizootic, IHN was again diagnosed in a population of farmed Atlantic salmon. As in the 1992 epizootic, mortality as a result of the disease has been significant.

Lag time between suspicion and confirmation of an infection
For sites where mortality data was examined, in 82% of the cases IHN was suspected prior to any substantial jump in mortality. This indicates a high level of diligence in fish health monitoring at the sites. The concern, however, is the length of time between suspicion and confirmation of IHN. This ranged from five to twenty-one days, with an average of 15.7 days.

Sorry to report - anyone who doesn't believe this is a FOOL!
I highly suggest reading this and the two associated comments:

Here is a study, as asked on the impact of those open netpens... and I do suggest reading it very closely:
'A Global Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids'
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033

 

[Jiggit]

Just saw that they "DFO" posted the new notice about Coho limits (http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/x..._notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=143198&ID=recreational). 2 Hatchery only for Areas 18-20. I got a little excited when I looked lower down and saw it says 4 per day only one fo which can be wild but realized that doesnt come into effect until Oct 1st. Bummer. At least it is still open.

 

[Rockfish]

.
I do advocate for salmon farming in BC and of course I know there is an environmental impact, as there is with most human activities and all animal husbandry but IMO, there are not measureable impacts from this industry severe enough to warrant closure or removal.

I’ve been on enough forums on this issue to know I won’t be changing your minds with my opinions and I don’t expect to. So how about this …. you change mine. Show me some defensible data that proves salmon farming in BC is having a bigger impact on wild coho production than loss of habitat.

That would be a total waste of time. Those who make money off this industry are never going to be convinced of anything that would close it down and get them out of our ocean.

As for a debate over which is worse, habitat loss or fish farms; it is irrelevant. Both are very bad for Coho and all Pacific Salmon; so what. I don’t think we will be tearing down houses, cancelling water leases, replacing long lost watersheds, replacing gravel removed for construction aggregate and restoring former Coho creeks that are now nothing more than paved over storm water runoff culverts under four lane roads. We are doing our best to protect what is left.

On the other hand we can close down fish farm net pens tomorrow and absolutely should. Once they are gone perhaps it will be a little easier to convince government to spend some of the millions of tax dollars they waste propping up this industry on habitat restoration.

Atlantic salmon are an alien species that does not belong in the Pacific Ocean period, especially in huge numbers on Pacific salmon migration routes. They are only here because of greed and political influence.

You admit you are an advocate for this industry. You admit the net pens are harmful, you just don’t think they are destructive enough to warrant a close down. I guess so, that would put them out of business.

What happened to the precautionary principal which DFO seems to apply rigorously to other aspects of fishery management? Why don’t you show us some absolute proof that the Atlantic Salmon Pens cause no harm to our environment or Pacific Salmon. We also can play your silly PR challenge games.

I am not prepared to risk Pacific Salmon and I think most British Columbians who have informed themselves have come to the same conclusion. You can keep up the TV ad campaigns, they are not fooling many.

 

[chris73]

To even suggest that a disease laden fish mass production would have no harmful impact on the bypassing wild fish is such a blantant lie that no further discourse is required. There are reasons why they put leprosy infected on isolated islands in the past. Maybe every fish farm advocate should get a mandatory vacation on leprosy island to give them "first hand proof" and "defensible data".