Low holing by Alaska's salmon ranchers

seadna

Well-Known Member
See - "Productivity and life history of sockeye salmon in relation to competition with pink and sockeye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean" Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 72, Number 6, June 2015.

I don't know if this paper has been discussed before so I apologize if it has. In brief it points out that sockeye salmon returns to rivers from Alaska to Washington have almost all declined over the past 50 years and in particular since the 1970's. It tests the hypothesis that much of this decline is due to competition with pink salmon for food in the open ocean (one mechanism that can operate on such a large geographical scale). There is strong support for this hypothesis. So, as Alaska, Russia and others dump more pink salmon (and chum salmon) into the ocean, the shift the returns to increases in their local waters at the expense of other areas (WA, BC).

Here's the key points - quoted from the discussion:
"The productivity of sockeye salmon populations in BC, Southeast Alaska, and Washington has declined similarly over time and intensified in recent years, suggesting that the primary causal mechanism driving this decline operates at a large, multiregional spatial scale at sea (Peterman and Dorner 2012). We examined the productivity and life history characteristics of up to 36 sockeye populations — including 18 Fraser River populations — spanning this region of similar trends in productivity over the past 55 years to test whether competition between pink and sockeye salmon for resources at sea may have contributed to these declines. We found consistent evidence that productivity of these sockeye salmon populations has declined in response to increasing abundance of pink salmon in the North Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, length-at-age of male and female Fraser River sockeye salmon was inversely correlated with both pink and sockeye salmon abundance, and age-at-maturity of Fraser River sockeye salmon was positively correlated with pink salmon abundance. These findings were consistent for both detrended and raw datasets involving North Pacific pink salmon, indicating that the influence of pink salmon was detected across both short and long time scales. The abundance of pink salmon in the North Pacific alternates from high (odd-numbered years) to relatively low abundance (even-numbered years), and this alternating-year pattern was also observed in sockeye salmon productivity, length-at-age, and age at maturity. Thus, the evidence for competition between pink and sockeye salmon comes from both hierarchical modeling of patterns over time and the natural experiment provided by the 2-year life cycle of pink salmon and its alternating-year abundance. Our analyses predict that an increase in pink salmon abundance from 150 million to 600 million fish (i.e., the observed range) would lead to a ~67% reduction in total abundance of returning Fraser River sockeye salmon (catch and spawning escapement combined) after controlling for other variables in the model such as parental spawning abundance." (emphasis added).

Note that since about 1980, Alaska's hatchery plants have gone from ~100million to about 1.6 billion and that most of those plants are chum and pink. While the paper doesn't provide an analysis of the impact of chum on other on sockeye nor the impact of either on chinook abundance, one might anticipate that other species would also be affected (either directly through competition for squid and forage fish or indirectly via impacts of hatchery salmon on krill in competition with squid).
 
Interesting excerpt. Do you have a link to the whole paper?

I remember reading something elsewhere that observed that pinks are more tolerant of warmer water, and their 2-year life cycle allowed them to adapt through natural selection twice as fast as sockeye and other pacific salmon. What I read was forecasting that pinks would become the dominant salmon specie in the future for these reasons.
 
Interesting excerpt. Do you have a link to the whole paper?

I remember reading something elsewhere that observed that pinks are more tolerant of warmer water, and their 2-year life cycle allowed them to adapt through natural selection twice as fast as sockeye and other pacific salmon. What I read was forecasting that pinks would become the dominant salmon specie in the future for these reasons.
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0134
 
This article talks seems to focus on abundance. I think the question is more what is the impact on other species if the abundance of any one species is higher than natural and in proportion to the others.
I think the question is, where to from here? Alaska, Russia and Japan all pump chum and pink out as they are the easiest to grow. I doubt very much anything will be done to curtail that. So the question I have is, what is in the best interest for Canada?
A) continue to do nothing?
 
I think the question is, where to from here? Alaska, Russia and Japan all pump chum and pink out as they are the easiest to grow. I doubt very much anything will be done to curtail that. So the question I have is, what is in the best interest for Canada?
A) continue to do nothing?
That's a good question. First, it's key to gather more data/research on the impact of Alaska Hatcheries on other fisheries. The case that they have a negative impact on BC, WA and other locales is key to making a strong case for change. Second, pressure needs to be put on governments that can cause change. I believe that the Alaska ranching operations are affecting most species of salmon. With the SRKW issue, perhaps a case can be made that Alaska needs to reduce pressure on forage fish in the Bering Sea/N. Pacific to contribute to the SRKW recovery. Perhaps first nations/tribes in WA or BC can sue based on previously negotiated treaty rights.
 
No disrespect but Alaskans don’t give a rats butt about the sick SKRW population. It’s about business and feeding people. If anything they along with the other countries will increase production and BC will do..........a study.
 
If pumping out hatchery fish was the answer Fraser river chum returns should of been a hell of a lot better last year.

I have read that Alaska farming is successful because Alaska fish are first to the feeding grounds.

as climate change has moved the northern rich waters more north Alaska has fared well.
 
If pumping out hatchery fish was the answer Fraser river chum returns should of been a hell of a lot better last year.

I have read that Alaska farming is successful because Alaska fish are first to the feeding grounds.

as climate change has moved the northern rich waters more north Alaska has fared well.
Alaska releases about 5 times more hatchery chum than all of BC's hatcheries combined (655.2M vs 133.5M). The Frasier chum release in the last few years has been around 10-11M (about 60x fewer chum than Alaska released).
 
No disrespect but Alaskans don’t give a rats butt about the sick SKRW population. It’s about business and feeding people. If anything they along with the other countries will increase production and BC will do..........a study.
I agree - Alaskans don't really care about Southern Resident Killer Whales but the feds in the U.S. and B.C. do. While BC fishermen are getting hosed to protect them, the Alaskans are not and they bear more responsibility for the problem than fishermen in BC - both through interception AND through saturating the feeding grounds with their ranched fish.
 
I agree - Alaskans don't really care about Southern Resident Killer Whales but the feds in the U.S. and B.C. do. While BC fishermen are getting hosed to protect them, the Alaskans are not and they bear more responsibility for the problem than fishermen in BC - both through interception AND through saturating the feeding grounds with their ranched fish.

And their answer is, and has always been "So What".
As Fish4all noted above, they care not a whit.
And historic examples (if which there are hundreds) well show that the US cannot control this "Renegade State" whatsoever.
They never have been able to do so, and I highly doubt they ever will.
Alaska will do what it does, while raising a middle finger both to BC and the other US States. Simply the way it is...

If you or anyone else here comes up with a method to make them listen, I am certain Washington would love to be the first to know.
On the other hand, should Horgan or Pierre's Idiot Child show up to make a plea, they would likely be tarred and feathered on their way out of town.
Really.

Nog
 
And their answer is, and has always been "So What".
As Fish4all noted above, they care not a whit.
And historic examples (if which there are hundreds) well show that the US cannot control this "Renegade State" whatsoever.
They never have been able to do so, and I highly doubt they ever will.
Alaska will do what it does, while raising a middle finger both to BC and the other US States. Simply the way it is...

If you or anyone else here comes up with a method to make them listen, I am certain Washington would love to be the first to know.
On the other hand, should Horgan or Pierre's Idiot Child show up to make a plea, they would likely be tarred and feathered on their way out of town.
Really.

Nog
Then let’s send little potato up that way and hope they give him a warm Alaskan welcoming.
 
Back
Top