Port Alberni Sockeye Fishery Shut Down For All

[agentaqua]

Did any Sockeye make it to the Stamp River. I was up there looking for Summer Runs last weekend and didn't see a single fish over 3 inches. Things looked pretty dismal. Maybe I was too far upstream.

Try:
http://www.pacfish.ca/wcviweather/Content Pages/Sproat/CameraStream4.aspx

That's from the counting camera on the front end. They likely hold for a bit in the lake, 1st.

 

[Fishmyster]

Tell you what I'll just leave this alone. I hope you get the recognition you deserve from the science community. Clearly there are many professions that monitor the environment here in BC that can learn a thing or two, from you, about a thing or two.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality

and of course from post # 14
Average weight of the returning sockeye has declined from the normal five to seven pounds to between four and 4.5, he noted. “Obviously they’re not getting enough to eat.”

It must be acid rain somewhere for the last 3 years out in the ocean for those sockeye /Sarc off.

Thanks GLG for your kind words.

Yes there are many professionals conducting water quality work. It is apparent that they do not compare information and if they do it is not advertised on the net. In my experience of knocking on doors to learn of the freshwater ecology shifts I have seen there is obviously little communication between the bureaucracies or desire to do so.

Yes the average size of fish has dropped. Less food is a likely suspect. What causes less available food kind of like the global insect decline would be interesting to figure out!! There science is lacking in the chemistry field of how aquatic life can uptake calcium. This is where I believe slow growth patterns and food availability could be linked in the water quality.

Since 2015 I have only seen the rain be below pH5 once until this morning which was 4.8pH. It was a very small sample from my bowl that always sits on my front deck. There can be an accumulation of sulfate dry fall out so the tiny sample would be concentrated sulfate dissolved into the small precipitation sample that was barely enough to get a sample. The rain now is still averaging much higher pH than 20 years back and the total sulfate deposition is less as indicated in rain ph samples. It would be unlikely acidic rain could acidify open ocean waters but in coastal waters where high volumes of fresh water run off spill into confined costal waters like the Salish Sea. However the presents of deep water volcanic vents blasting sulfate into the deep sea areas could be having an effect there. Again there is little science researching this effect as of yet but hopefully more coming soon.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Bristol Bay sockeye harvest blowing away forecast once again

July 25, 2019 North Pacific
Bristol Bay is approaching the record for sockeye salmon harvest once again. As of July 21, fishermen in Bristol Bay’s five districts had harvested just more than 42 million salmon. More than 41.5 million of those were sockeye, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; that’s already more than the 41.3 million sockeye harvested in 2018, the second-largest harvest on record. The largest harvest on record, which occurred in 1995, still stands at 44.2 million sockeye. >click to read< 09:40

 

[wildmanyeah]

The Legacy of the Blob
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/the-legacy-of-the-blob/

Is the blob relative to this discussion. Perhaps...If Sproat stocks migrate more north into colder waters then GLC it could explain the difference in returns.

Could it be freshwater related...perhaps...tho they say the outmigration of smolts for GLC was above average...then they say their counts were **** so who knows their.

GCL has also been fertilized since the late 1970's so its already being enhanced. Still lots of good Sproat is above average so theirs that,

Preseason outlook:

?Somass sockeye consists of two CUs: Great Central Lake (GCL) and Sproat Lake (SL). The age of return ranges from 3 to 6 years with age-4 and -5 fish predominant (originating from the 2014 and 2015 brood years). Escapement for both stocks was below average for the 2014 brood year (5-year olds returning in 2019), and especially low in GCL. Along with poor ocean conditions, this resulted in very low age-4 returns to GCL in 2018. This likely means low age-5 returns in 2019, especially in GCL. Escapement for both stocks for the 2015 brood year was one of the biggest on record (4-year olds returning in 2019). The estimates of juvenile sockeye abundance for the 2017 sea-entry year are above average for the GCL stock and just below average for the SL stock. However, these estimates of juvenile abundance are more uncertain than usual due to changes in the smolt sampling program. Marine survival is expected to have improved in 2017—which was the main sea-entry year for the 2015 brood—due to La Niña conditions and dispersal of the ‘blob’. Jack returns observed in 2018 were low at both sites but could be related to high smolt numbers (i.e., density-dependent mortality). Overall, an improved return of age 42 and 53 sockeye in 2019 should provide fishing opportunities for each sector, but with higher than normal uncertainty. (2018 Outlook Category was 2/3)"

 

[Fishmyster]

Different people have different theories about what they believe. The world is flat. Elvis and sasquatch are hanging-out together. Climate change is some wonderfully organized hoax. The stock market is the reason we have awareness and life. Everyone is welcome to their own “opinion” (verses the available science) – that doesn’t necessarily mean that their theory is correct and supported.

Due to complex and far-reaching life cycles – everyone has theories about fish – some theories are well supported by data – some are not. Ocean/marine survival issues are well documented and supported by many years of data over large geographic areas and through many studies, researchers, and science.

Just living near a waterbody does not necessarily give a person the data crucial to understand the complex interactions and potential impacts to fish populations. All salmon species also spend significant time in the ocean – and some species only briefly use freshwater for spawning. Generating data at different scales and specifically to fill-in gaps in that understanding of complex interactions and potential impacts is where that understanding is developed.

I don’t think anybody has suggested that water quality (fresh and salt) is unimportant to fish. That “quality” however – has numerous and complex interacting variables including DO, pH, nutrients, plankton, upwelling, turn-over, etc. – the list is long.

The changes in marine survival, however – has affected all species at some points in time from many watersheds – more so in the past 20 years or so.

In the case comparing juvenile survival between GCL and Sproat – both have likely been affected by reductions of survival in the marine environment - as numerous posters have pointed-out It also appears that in addition to those marine survival reductions – GCL has additional issues within the lake catchment basin verses Sproat.

Everyone has their pet theories here, as well.

Maybe logging around the lake has caused increases in drought/floods which are crushing eggs and fry in the gravels. Maybe there isn’t enough plankton production in GCL verses Sproat – so they have initiated a nutrient seeding program in GCL (which is strange to me that someone who supposedly knew the lake never mentioned this). Maybe Sven’s wife believes that an IHN outbreak caused this lowered survival in the lake. Maybe it is a combination of all the above, and other not-yet researched issues.

In any event – these potential additional issues do not mean that ocean survival is not an issue.

Even wrt science – there are ways to objectively test how much and how well the data matches and supports a theory(eg. power analysis, multivariate stats, etc) Talking to a guy named Sven that you desperately wish to believe - or releasing a couple of fish does not generate the type of data to take someone’s pet theory seriously.

W/o data – that’s what non-scientific beliefs are – pet theories.

I’ll believe the available science thanks – and maybe change my mind as the data comes in - rather than adopt any one particular pet theory.

There is plenty of data to support my theories being the videos of lacking supporting ecology in many streams as apposed to others proves that the global insect decline is here too! Just because entomology has no clout in your fisheries assessments it does mine. I also believe there is bacterial effects that will alter stream productivity but because it is not studied here you will never believe this. Your assessments seem to disregard any possible influence from the drastic chemistry changes in the water source which feeds salmon reproductive streams. Everyone has there pet theories and yours seem to be set against any possible pollution falling from the sky. Not very scientific if you ask me.

It's funny how back a few months ago you went off on me saying something like "pH doesn't effect local salmon productivity and the available science proves ocean conditions are the culprit"? Then I post a few links where studies were done proving pH has drastic effects on egg development of salmon and other aquatic life. You then pull a Houdini and disappear from the conversation. Kind of telling of character when you pull that move. lol

Just to keep our discussion in context. You are constantly attempting to discredit me and my field findings. Are you ever going to sign off on your words or just keep you identity hidden like an internet grafter??? I am happy to sign off on my findings and will love to match notes with anyone who has the knowledge or resources for us collaboratively understand more.

We can spend all effort to understand the effects the ocean has on salmon populations but it is apparent by the stats you AA have posted that there is a large issue effecting fw that deserves more research. There is possibility to effect the fw environments where as the ocean not so much. Why is it that you so desperately reject any possibility of fw chemistry issues when the graphs stats indicate otherwise???

 

[agentaqua]

I can understand how frustrating it must be when you aren't taken seriously and how that might lead one to wish to believe they are a victim and wish others to believe one is a victim. However, both communication & science is - or should be - a 2-way street w often real and obvious criticisms of assumptions. That is common in the science world - and more common when a person is in denial of alternative basic scientific data that is available (e.g. the importance of marine survival rates). They may well be a simple reason why other researchers don't wish to engage or assist any longer with a person holding rigid beliefs who refuses to acknowledge the available science. Silence is also a comment.

 

[Fishmyster]

I can understand how frustrating it must be when you aren't taken seriously and how that might lead one to wish to believe they are a victim and wish others to believe one is a victim. However, both communication & science is - or should be - a 2-way street w often real and obvious criticisms of assumptions. That is common in the science world - and more common when a person is in denial of alternative basic scientific data that is available (e.g. the importance of marine survival rates). They may well be a simple reason why other researchers don't wish to engage or assist any longer with a person holding rigid beliefs who refuses to acknowledge the available science. Silence is also a comment.

I am in no way disputing ocean survival is not negatively effecting salmon population but am disputing it in being the most influential component like you are implying. Yes science should be a two way street but you desperately refuse to acknowledge the stats, you posted, which indicate fw is having issues. Where is your two way street mentality here?? Like normal you are continuously discrediting the input from a citizen scientist who is revealing the unappreciated science of water quality, fw entomology and bacterial efficiency. Just because it has been ignored locally for many years doesn't mean it is not relevant. You also discredit any information in that the continuous streams of freshwater does effect the inshore ocean areas too. You are the classic example of close minded science. When you state that you will chose to believe the available science it proves you are not able to be acknowledge any new direction in scientific studies and will not support any new ideas or information. You apathetic belief rain chemistry has no effects on local fw environments is not supported by the invertebrate populations within local fw's. Only believing the available science because the study of fw chemistry has been ignored by DFO, MOE for many years is an example of pure ignorance.

 

[Fishmyster]

Is the blob relative to this discussion. Perhaps...If Sproat stocks migrate more north into colder waters then GLC it could explain the difference in returns.

Could it be freshwater related...perhaps...tho they say the outmigration of smolts for GLC was above average...then they say their counts were **** so who knows their.

GCL has also been fertilized since the late 1970's so its already being enhanced. Still lots of good Sproat is above average so theirs that,

Preseason outlook:

?Somass sockeye consists of two CUs: Great Central Lake (GCL) and Sproat Lake (SL). The age of return ranges from 3 to 6 years with age-4 and -5 fish predominant (originating from the 2014 and 2015 brood years). Escapement for both stocks was below average for the 2014 brood year (5-year olds returning in 2019), and especially low in GCL. Along with poor ocean conditions, this resulted in very low age-4 returns to GCL in 2018. This likely means low age-5 returns in 2019, especially in GCL. Escapement for both stocks for the 2015 brood year was one of the biggest on record (4-year olds returning in 2019). The estimates of juvenile sockeye abundance for the 2017 sea-entry year are above average for the GCL stock and just below average for the SL stock. However, these estimates of juvenile abundance are more uncertain than usual due to changes in the smolt sampling program. Marine survival is expected to have improved in 2017—which was the main sea-entry year for the 2015 brood—due to La Niña conditions and dispersal of the ‘blob’. Jack returns observed in 2018 were low at both sites but could be related to high smolt numbers (i.e., density-dependent mortality). Overall, an improved return of age 42 and 53 sockeye in 2019 should provide fishing opportunities for each sector, but with higher than normal uncertainty. (2018 Outlook Category was 2/3)"

In 2017 dead salmon in the Sproat river decomposed very quickly where in the Stamp they decomposed slowly, commonly bloated and grew fuzzy. I tried to get PSF and DFO scientists to come all the way from Nanaimo to look into this and the missing invertebrates but nobody ever had time. Guess this effect indicating the inefficiency of bacterial function is not worth investigating in their eyes. Maybe they feel there is enough available science to believe in just like AA and because fw chemistry has been ignored for so long why bother now!!

 

[calmsea]

fishmyster, there is probably a good reason why you didn't become a scientist and probably never will. Social skills are important too. Just saying.

 

[Fishmyster]

fishmyster, there is probably a good reason why you didn't become a scientist and probably never will. Social skills are important too. Just saying.

If it is necessary to disregard field information and politely follow communal beliefs to be part of your kind of scientific community then I don't want to be a scientist as you may look up to. I am a person who looks for credible scientific answers for the productivity changes I have seen in the environment. Just because I haven't spent years being a professional student for a biology label doesn't make me any less of a scientist than any other person. Science is derived from curiousity and initiative which I have more than most. I have field experience or boots on the ground that surpasses anyone who has spent years in school could ever have. I study aquatic science as a hobby to make sense of the field experiences I encounter and cannot be pier pressured into disbelieving what the field evidence shows.

There seems to be all kinds anonymous posters who like to discredit me but why don't any of you try to disprove my field findings? Does thinking outside the communal science box scare you scientific guys? Are you fw chemistry deniers afraid of being wrong??

Calmseas this is the internet where most of you hide behind an alias and slander others like you just did me. Why don't you reveal who you are so we can both play on a level playing field. If you guys had the nards to sign off with your names then you would get a lot more respect from me.

 

[IronNoggin]

fishmyster, there is probably a good reason why you didn't become a scientist and probably never will. Social skills are important too. Just saying.

Actually Ken is a lot more focused and dedicated to task than many book learned& papered "scientists" I know.
And I do know a rather large handful, seeing as I was trained / worked in that field myself.

As for "social skills", you would literally melt in front of some of the best real scientists we will ever produce.
Most in that league could give a rat's behind for political correctness, or applying "social skills" towards the great unwashed and ignorant masses.
Myself included quite obviously.

Nog

 

[agentaqua]

Most larger-scale issues require larger-scale investigations. Most of those investigations require a team of people - In-the-field researchers, lab people, stats people, and often a PhD organizer to keep things running and get funding and write reports.

All the way through this process there are frequently real and obvious criticisms of assumptions and methodologies of your peers so that there is not as many embarrassing questions at the end of this process when the findings are submitted to peer-review - if it even makes it that far.

You can call it "social skills" or maybe "teamwork" or even maturity and professionalism. If a person does not wish to have their assumptions questioned - wants to be seen as some victim -and then wonders why people aren't engaging anymore - I would suggest to look in the mirror.

 

[Fishmyster]

Most larger-scale issues require larger-scale investigations. Most of those investigations require a team of people - In-the-field researchers, lab people, stats people, and often a PhD organizer to keep things running and get funding and write reports.

All the way through this process there are frequently real and obvious criticisms of assumptions and methodologies of your peers so that there is not as many embarrassing questions at the end of this process when the findings are submitted to peer-review - if it even makes it that far.

You can call it "social skills" or maybe "teamwork" or even maturity and professionalism. If a person does not wish to have their assumptions questioned - wants to be seen as some victim -and then wonders why people aren't engaging anymore - I would suggest to look in the mirror.

Well this is a large scale local issue which has not yet received the large scale investigation as you describe. I am just a one man show looking for answers and am finding some. The people with the resources to launch a large scale investigation are still not interested so says my local stock assessment biologist at the DFO meetings. They are working hard at enumeration statistics so maybe after more stats like the ones posted above roll in they may find initiative to start investigating fw chemistry someday.

Not sure how you think I'm being victimized. I sure don't feel that. My feelings are to share the field evidence to the people who are being victimized by the spread of inaccurate and incomplete science. Even though many people will not engage I know I am making an impression on some so that is rewarding for me.

It is funny you mention "maturity and professionalism". How professional and mature are you who conceals his identity on this forum? A real respectable man would step up and be accountable for his words would he not. Anybody upfront, honest and professional doesn't need to hide their identity..lol

Attached is a photo of a couple bloated fuzzy salmon from Somass river across from Sproat. As stated before dead salmon in Sproat river decomposed quickly, within ten days and did not bloat or get coated in fuzz like in the Stamp water. I have seen this same effect through out B.C. salmon which have collapsed salmon runs!!! There doesn't appear to be any available science to explain the phenomena or acknowledgement of the insect die off. If any of you scientists out there wish to help me learn more of what causes this condition it would be appreciated by me. Learning this should help reveal some of the mystery of water quality impacts on fw salmonid productivity.