Hatchery makes plans to breed bigger fish

[agentaqua]

you might be right Rover - and that's the main hypothesis I hear concerning Jacks - they spread genetic material between years - verses one cohort. At least 1 researcher calls them "sneaky" in their presentations. Watching how the spawning dance goes - I think that is an appropriate handle.

Generally, Chinook need larger and more dependable flows for their large eggs - associated with larger gravels - and sometimes communal spawning redds (e.g. Kitsumkalum Lake outlet). That's why I believe that most Chinook systems have large lakes on them - flow requirements.

 

[california]

But I have known the managers of the Quinsam hatchery since the facility was first opened. I have sat around the lunch table and heard discussions about lack of funding, the devastating effects of leaching from the coal mine, the discussions with Hydro to get decent flows for fish at the right times of the year, the struggle to figure out proper release timing of smolts or fry to take advantage of marine plankton blooms-- and the list goes on. I KNOW how dedicated they were, and are, to doing the best for the salmon in the hatchery and the rivers. /

I am sure they are dedicated to what they do. That unfortunately does not change the fact that what they are doing is damaging to the stocks and cant be modified to not have that effect. The establishment of hatcheries has been a disaster for fish stocks, and helped ALLOW the abuses of wild streams because "they can always put a hatchery on it" and the problem is solved. Hatcheries cost tens of million to build, and millions every year to operate. This is all $ that could have and could be used for habitat enhancement, perhaps with small scale enhancement projects where needed temporarily. Big commercial hatcheries are not a solution, after initial high returns the first few generations, hatcheries then see significant declines in returns, and the response is always it to ramp up production and pump out even more inbred smolts, swamping out the wild runs even faster. Their dedication to a broken hatchery system is not the issue, the broken system is.

Do I ever expect the system to change? Of course not, this or any forum on conservation issues is primarily mental masturbation so hatchery lovers don't worry, science will not win out over politics. On a practical scale its a political issue that the declines that are happening need to be gradual, and cant be seen as because the federal government did something to drastically alter the number of fish in the short term, therefore hatcheries must stay and maintain or increase smolt production to limit the stock declines to a level that we have come to accept. Nothing bold to save wild stocks will happen. Instead we get the idiocy of an expanded forever smolt factory on a river like the Wannock to domesticate it too. Federal governments could care less about Pacific salmon, the status quo is fine for them, they are focused on Atlantic fisheries as Newfoundland and The Maritimes will deliver blocks of seats to either the Liberals or Conservatives (mostly liberals) based on management promises, subsidies and payments, and the most lax UI rules for fisherman. How many ridings in BC hinge on Pacific salmon management. Is it even 1?

 

[agentaqua]

I agree w you on the unfortunate political situation, California. To add some depth to that argument: salmon (exception: steelhead) are a FEDERAL responsibly (including hatcheries which are now regulated through the federal Pacific Aquaculture Regulations) - while land use (and abuse) is a PROVINCIAL responsibility. There has also been a large reduction in enforcement/monitoring capacity for the last 10 years or so under the federal Conservatives. The BC Liberals and the federal Conservatives gutted the Fisheries Renewal and the Habitat Restoration and Salmonid Enhancement Programs, respectively - after taking office. Recently, there has been a smaller federal version of HRSEP/FR put back on the table after the federal Liberals got elected.

In any event - it is difficult to monitor and enforce both things like instream and riparian impacts - and subsequently finding $ to do habitat rehab. In addition, there are many other factors (WQ, diseases, etc) that are affecting stocks - not strictly related to habitat abuse - and for some species - they use habitat sparingly and benefit less from any strait habitat rehab activities.

I agree there are genetic risks to long-term and intensive hatchery activities - and the lack of a plan to get systems off life-support.

I don't think I would paint all hatcheries, all stock assistance activities, and all involved in those activities as "idiots", though. I don't see it necessarily as a black/white problem. There are many scales and intensities of activities - I would like to see something like this "Parental Based Tagging" as a way to assess how bad/good it has been - and how to improve those activities before I condemned all hatcheries, and their often very diverse activities.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Well, you are right and the government does not care about salmon.
They are not going to fix the rivers ever.
The public has shown they do not care by the lack of concern.
The fn. are really only concerned about the money they can make, as shown by their actions.

As shown we do not kill our own stocks as much as the US does and we have little to no control over this.
We better hope that the US hatchery programs work well as this is what we are catching.

We should be happy that we have people who care about salmon be they our hatchery managers or stream keepers.
They are doing the best they can with what they have.

I am sure they are dedicated to what they do. That unfortunately does not change the fact that what they are doing is damaging to the stocks and cant be modified to not have that effect. The establishment of hatcheries has been a disaster for fish stocks, and helped ALLOW the abuses of wild streams because "they can always put a hatchery on it" and the problem is solved. Hatcheries cost tens of million to build, and millions every year to operate. This is all $ that could have and could be used for habitat enhancement, perhaps with small scale enhancement projects where needed temporarily. Big commercial hatcheries are not a solution, after initial high returns the first few generations, hatcheries then see significant declines in returns, and the response is always it to ramp up production and pump out even more inbred smolts, swamping out the wild runs even faster. Their dedication to a broken hatchery system is not the issue, the broken system is.

Do I ever expect the system to change? Of course not, this or any forum on conservation issues is primarily mental masturbation so hatchery lovers don't worry, science will not win out over politics. On a practical scale its a political issue that the declines that are happening need to be gradual, and cant be seen as because the federal government did something to drastically alter the number of fish in the short term, therefore hatcheries must stay and maintain or increase smolt production to limit the stock declines to a level that we have come to accept. Nothing bold to save wild stocks will happen. Instead we get the idiocy of an expanded forever smolt factory on a river like the Wannock to domesticate it too. Federal governments could care less about Pacific salmon, the status quo is fine for them, they are focused on Atlantic fisheries as Newfoundland and The Maritimes will deliver blocks of seats to either the Liberals or Conservatives (mostly liberals) based on management promises, subsidies and payments, and the most lax UI rules for fisherman. How many ridings in BC hinge on Pacific salmon management. Is it even 1?

 

[Cuba Libre]

New post on The Ardent Angler

Salmon and genetic research.
by Jeremy Maynard
As in so much else advances in science are finding ways to advance our knowledge and understanding of fish, which in this part of the world frequently concerns salmon. In my hometown of Campbell River one example of this became front-page news recently in the local paper - it may have been a slow news week but I for one was pleased to see the exposure this initiative received.

The story (www.campbellrivermirror.com/news/409575025.html) concerns a study intended to find out if size-specific pairings of chinook salmon being used for broodstock at the Quinsam River hatchery can result in offspring better or best suited to spawn naturally in the Campbell River, the much shorter but wider system into which the Quinsam flows. The Campbell River itself once hosted some of the largest chinook salmon found on the south coast, fish that were the foundation of the communities’ recreational salmon fishing reputation over 100 years ago. Such were the large size of these fish that the Tyee Club
(www.tyeeclub.org), membership of which requires the landing of a fish 30 pounds or more under club rules, was founded in 1924.

It is thought that this specific stock of chinook salmon evolved in response to the river habitat which features high flows and large gravel, requiring bigger than average fish to spawn successfully there. The history of changes to this rivers’ habitat are outside the scope of this column but efforts are ongoing to ensure the future sustainability of this chinook stock and, to the extent possible, replicate the traits that made them what they were.

Declining size-at-age in the 21st century is a feature common to all salmon, not just to Campbell River chinook, likely caused by a combination of factors possibly including less favorable rearing conditions at sea, increased competition between hatchery and wild origin fish and the long-term effects of fishing, but nobody knows for sure. The fact that Campbell River chinooks still have the capability of becoming very large in a fairly short period of time was confirmed in 2013 when a 61.5-pound chinook landed under Tyee Club rules was found to be a 5-year old fish.

Starting a couple of years ago a small tissue sample from the tail fin is taken from all chinook and coho used as broodstock at DFO production hatcheries to provide DNA. This program is known as Parental Based Tagging and has a variety of applications, including sampling in at-sea fisheries, but in combination with the size-specific (large by large, small by large etc.) pairing study being conducted at Quinsam hatchery is at the center of efforts to restore Campbell River chinook to something of their former greatness. As soon as the eggs from these pairings become eyed-up they are transferred from the hatchery into in-stream incubators in the Campbell River itself, maximizing the imprint time of the river on the resulting juveniles. Emerging as fry from the incubators they will spend approximately 3 months rearing as essentially wild fish before becoming smolts and heading to sea.

Tissue samples taken from returning adults in future years will be analyzed to find out if their parents were part of this program and, in combination with the usual stock assessment data (sex, length, age) collected each year, will inform the study as to what, if any, specific size-pairings create larger chinook. Being long lived salmon, typically 4 – 6 years for Campbell River chinook, the answers won’t come quickly but the study is underway so that’s the important thing.

One genetics study on chinook salmon has already come up with some answers and it has raised some big questions about previously held assumptions on the migration range of chinook originating from BC and southern US (Washington, Oregon & Idaho) rivers. The fact that chinook from the southern part of their range often migrate up the coast has been well understood for decades but it was thought that BC origin fish usually didn’t migrate past the top end of the Alaska Panhandle. This was the basis for Cape Suckling as the upper geographic boundary of the Pacific Salmon Commission area of responsibility when the Canada/US salmon treaty was first negotiated in 1985.

Now a study by the state of Alaska ( https://fnonlinenews.blogspot.ca/ ) sampling the genetics of chinook caught in both sport and commercial fisheries around Kodiak Island, further southwest across the Gulf Of Alaska, has found that in some years half the chinook caught there originate from BC, including fish from the inner south coast such as Quinsam/Campbell chinook. Also included in the mix of fish found there are chinook salmon originating from Russia, albeit in much smaller numbers, but this study is sure to initiate a serious rethink of chinook ocean distribution patterns with possible implications for high-level fisheries management arrangements. Almost certainly this apparent change is a result of salmon, and not just chinooks, responding to a warming ocean.

Much closer to home the results of a study using genetics to determine the general stock composition of chum salmon encountered in commercial fisheries in Johnstone Strait and the San Juan Island – Point Roberts area in Washington State has been released. Funded by the Pacific Salmon Commission Southern Endowment Fund and sampling nearly 5,000 fish a joint Canada/US team of researchers has determined that more than 95% of chums encountered in Johnstone Strait are of Canadian origin, mostly from the Fraser River and east coast of Vancouver Island rivers.

In US management areas 7 and 7A the majority of the chums taken there originate from the Fraser River, with the percentages varying depending on timing and which exact area, with 7A being closest to the border. As well Vancouver Island chums from rivers like the Cowichan and Nanaimo contribute significantly to the commercial fisheries there.

For those with an interest in salmon these new understandings derived from genetic sampling are exciting and represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in where this field of research will go. Likely the biggest constraint to additional research is the cost of analyzing the tissue samples – about $15 each currently – but provided it can be funded all kinds of new and informative information about salmon will be forthcoming in the not so distant future.


Jeremy Maynard | January 7, 2017 at 8:29 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p7zAr0-3M

 

[agentaqua]

The fn. are really only concerned about the money they can make, as shown by their actions.

I consider this statement not only racist - but incorrect

 

[Bear]

No fish were able to get by Elk Falls. Please explain how the dam caused any issues with the Chinook in the Campbell River. The fact that all Chinook returning to the Quinsam river are hatchery stock may have something to do with the size issue.

The 61.5 Chinook never made it to spawn. Could that have been like the Passenger Pigeon or Dodo bird?

 

[Cuba Libre]

No fish were able to get by Elk Falls. Please explain how the dam caused any issues with the Chinook in the Campbell River. The fact that all Chinook returning to the Quinsam river are hatchery stock may have something to do with the size issue.

The 61.5 Chinook never made it to spawn. Could that have been like the Passenger Pigeon or Dodo bird?

WHOOSH!!!! there go all the eggs as Hydro releases water all at once because they have been holding the natural flow back for power generation instead of the river experiencing natural flows that impacts the aquatic system less in flood events

 

[Cuba Libre]

And I have never seen any DNA data that suggests that ALL the Quinny fish go up the Quinsam River and vice versa with Campbell stocks.

 

[Bear]

That is an issue that would and does happen on rivers without dams. The Campbell is not as affected as the Salmon or Oyster. The logging has not been an issue with the Campbell like it has on the previous mentioned rivers. What makes you think that natural floods don't do the same damage?

The large shift in spawning area came when the Federal Fisheries decided to create a Chum spawning channel by the Upper Islands.

If you do a little research you will find that there were no Chinook utilizing the Quinsam River for spawning. They are Campbell River fish used for hatchery stock and now return to the hatchery.

 

[Cuba Libre]

Oh Boy re-read what I said. A dammed river that Hydro has a reservoir on is more likely to suffer from bigger flushes when they reach the tip off point when they HAVE to spill. Remember , in the hydro power world, stored water is cash in the bank. But every now and then, a major event will FORCE the dam operator to release a major flow quickly , that does NOT consider the stream ecology . Eggs, insects, riparian habitat etc , take a kicking. Stream juveniles end up in the trees. Does this happen in nature ? Of course-- but usually not near as catastrophic as a dammed river. And as far as the Salmon and the Oyster ---- common denominator is LOGGING. But .. not a fair comparison at all. Pick an unlogged system and tell me that they flood with the same rapidity . And what about gravel recruitment for spawning?? I have C & P a DFO Executive summary of 2003 on what happened to the gravel-- read it carefully and then tell me that dams like the John Hart are the lesser of the two evils-- power or nasty hatchery fish !

Executive Summary
Gravel was placed in the Campbell River during 1997 and 1998 to restore spawning habitat that was lost as a result of BC Hydro's operational footprint of the John Hart Dam and Generating Station over the past 50 years. A summer student was hired with funds provided by BC Hydro ($4,000) through the Bridge Coastal Restoration Program (BCRP) in the summer of 2000 to assess the stability of gravel placed in the mainstem of the Campbell River during 1997 and 1998. This report provides background information and some results of gravel stability during the first 2 years of gravel placement.

Early records show that the Campbell River supported a mean escapement of 4980 chinook spawners (Campbell River Interim Flow Management Strategy, CRIFMS 1997). By 1995, the natural spawning habitat that remained could only accommodate 200 spawning pairs of chinook salmon (Burt & Burns, 1995). The key factor that contributed to this loss of spawning habitat was the construction of John Hart dam in 1947 by BC Hydro. This dam eliminated the natural process of gravel recruitment. Over the past 50 years, periodic high flow events have flushed most of the remaining gravel into the estuary.

Following the results of the Assessment of Salmonid Habitat in the Lower Campbell River (Burt & Burns, 1995), the Vancouver Island Hydro/Fisheries Technical Committee and the Campbell River Gravel Committee made it a priority to restore spawning and rearing habitat in the Campbell River. Chinook and steelhead were used as the target species and it was recognized that all species would benefit. As a first step in this restoration the Campbell River Hydro/Fisheries Advisory Committee was formed.

One of the goals was to develop a flow management plan that would help to sustain fish populations in the lower Campbell River. The second step saw the construction of four major side-channels which provide approximately 8676 m2 of spawning habitat. The next and most ambitious step was to strategically place the gravel in the mainstem of the Campbell River at locations where it was determined that the hydraulic conditions were satisfactory and where fish had spawned historically. Criteria for gravel size and placement sites based on water depth, velocity and substrate criteria for salmonids were taken from Hamilton and Buell (1976). During 1997, 354m3 of gravel was placed at 3 sites above the Quinsam confluence utilizing a helicopter which created 469 m2 of spawning habitat. Another 715 m3 was placed near the highway bridge by truck and excavator which created 1390 m2 . The total amount of spawning habitat created during 1997 was 1,859 m2 . During 1998 566 m2 of habitat was created near the upper sites and an additional 660 m2 near the bridge. The habitat created during 1998 totalled 1226 m2 . The total for both years was 3085 m2 . A gravel depth of 0.45 m is considered adequate as chinook spawning habitat. In the upper area 83 % of the habitat created remains in place at this depth. In the lower area 59% remains and the average for all areas is 67%. In the lower section some of the gravel that moved downstream has created additional habitat considered adequate for chum spawning (0.3 m depth). The area available to chum is 108.5% of the original habitat created.

So what hit the Campbell chinooks the hardest?--- It sure wasn't the hatchery

 

[Bear]

That may have applied if it were not for the Elk Falls. There was no natural recruitment of gravel below Elk Falls. Take a look at the rock formation below Elk Falls. There is no indication of gravel movement.

There were no spawning area at Haig-Browns, at the mouth of the Quinsam or below Elk Falls. Why was gravel dumped there? As I said before, the Federal Fisheries screwed with the Campbell River, for 30yrs after the dam was built there was still an average of 2500-3000 Chinook spawning in the river. What was the dramatic event that changed the return of salmon?

 

[Cuba Libre]

Give it a break Bear-- just read the report and do some thinking....I am done here " There is none so blind as he cannot see.."