What?......
- Thread starter Lipripper
- Start date
jeffywestcoast
Well-Known Member
Thanks Rockfish !!you probably could have maybe explained it to me a little better without all the condescending undertones, i don't claim to have all knowledge of the aquaculture industry. what i wanted was a clear answer as to why these fish would not be released. Which is why i went ahead and contacted Mr Kenny of Omegapacific who has agreed to speak to me about my concerns for the 65,000 Chinook smolts that are ready to get axed by the DFO. Im sure what you have just stated is not far off from the truth . The public outcry for an answer as to why these Chinook will not be released will not go unnoticed. As Albernifisher just posted it made headlines again today, the public demands a better answer then "We don't want them" .
Sorry about the perception of condescension JWC. I will bounce back from my current state of cynicism which has increased with the decision to let the Coho cook in the Upper De Mamiel Creek with the destruction of the Bill James Dam. I appreciate your efforts on behalf of these Chinook Smolts. It is nice to see some younger people taking an interest, some of us are getting older and tired from battles past.
My perception is the fact that it is still in the media may be their best hope for the survival of these Chinook. I suspect they are now measuring the political risks of having cameras filming the destruction of $50,000. worth of desperately needed robust healthy higher survival rate Chinook. Politically there is not a lot of upside to that for them. It is not like DFO is being asked to pay for them so even the time honored austerity/saving tax dollars rational fails in this incidence.
My perception is the fact that it is still in the media may be their best hope for the survival of these Chinook. I suspect they are now measuring the political risks of having cameras filming the destruction of $50,000. worth of desperately needed robust healthy higher survival rate Chinook. Politically there is not a lot of upside to that for them. It is not like DFO is being asked to pay for them so even the time honored austerity/saving tax dollars rational fails in this incidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffywestcoast
Well-Known Member
Fair enough Rockfish! 
i think we are all on the same page as To what we would all hope for these fish.Keep up the good fight!
i think we are all on the same page as To what we would all hope for these fish.Keep up the good fight!pretty good discussion on this thread. Thanks to Jeffrey, Rockfish, Ironnoggin, GDW and others for insights and either asking or answering the obvious questions.
I am glad that the discussion has lead to the purpose and origins of the broodstock, and a discussion of pros and cons of aquaculture of different species of salmon. To stick my neck out a bit - I am glad that the aquaculture industry has reduced the numbers of Pacific salmon they have tried to rear in Pacific waters - as those fish WHEN (and not if) they escape - can interbreed with local stocks with unintended and negative consequences. This has been the sorry example from the East Coast and Europe with aquacultured Atlantic salmon overwhelming local stocks in many rivers.
To continue sticking my neck out - hatcheries can and sometimes do serve an important purpose - especially when combined with habitat restoration and short-term (defined as ~ 1-3 life cycle) stock assistance in order to jump-start impacted systems. BUT they should never be used to artifically support runs over the longer term. There is quite a bit of information out there now about stock fitness and hatchery impacts to support this view.
As far as Chinook go - like other Pacific salmon - they are usually specialized as to run timing and other variables that are specific to each river. In addition - there are often 2 clades of Chinook in many rivers - the Ocean and River types - with Ocean-type Chinook being more prevalent in southern and coastal rivers, while river-type Chinook dominating in more interior and more Northern Rivers. Many rivers have a certain proportion of either cohabitating in different parts of the river.
If these aquacultured fish we are talking about survive and reproduce in a river that they do not originate in - you are not doing the local Chinook any favours. They could interbreed.
YES - destroying these fish would be a big waste of taxpayer monies - but we should only release these fish from whence they came. Difficult decision for sure - but I think Rockfish has again hit the nail on the head as to the politics and the behind-the-scences deliberations.
Too bad the news people never picked-up on the more subtle aspects of this case so we would be better prepped for this discussion.
I wonder what the permit from DFO said as to the reason for the broodstock take, and where the smolts were intended to go? has this gone to the transplant committee for referal?
I am glad that the discussion has lead to the purpose and origins of the broodstock, and a discussion of pros and cons of aquaculture of different species of salmon. To stick my neck out a bit - I am glad that the aquaculture industry has reduced the numbers of Pacific salmon they have tried to rear in Pacific waters - as those fish WHEN (and not if) they escape - can interbreed with local stocks with unintended and negative consequences. This has been the sorry example from the East Coast and Europe with aquacultured Atlantic salmon overwhelming local stocks in many rivers.
To continue sticking my neck out - hatcheries can and sometimes do serve an important purpose - especially when combined with habitat restoration and short-term (defined as ~ 1-3 life cycle) stock assistance in order to jump-start impacted systems. BUT they should never be used to artifically support runs over the longer term. There is quite a bit of information out there now about stock fitness and hatchery impacts to support this view.
As far as Chinook go - like other Pacific salmon - they are usually specialized as to run timing and other variables that are specific to each river. In addition - there are often 2 clades of Chinook in many rivers - the Ocean and River types - with Ocean-type Chinook being more prevalent in southern and coastal rivers, while river-type Chinook dominating in more interior and more Northern Rivers. Many rivers have a certain proportion of either cohabitating in different parts of the river.
If these aquacultured fish we are talking about survive and reproduce in a river that they do not originate in - you are not doing the local Chinook any favours. They could interbreed.
YES - destroying these fish would be a big waste of taxpayer monies - but we should only release these fish from whence they came. Difficult decision for sure - but I think Rockfish has again hit the nail on the head as to the politics and the behind-the-scences deliberations.
Too bad the news people never picked-up on the more subtle aspects of this case so we would be better prepped for this discussion.
I wonder what the permit from DFO said as to the reason for the broodstock take, and where the smolts were intended to go? has this gone to the transplant committee for referal?
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
Is this whole thing your idea CK? Seems like a good one for the sustainabolity officer to come up with for the sustainability of your industry. It could really make it look like the industry cares about local stocks. Is it part of the plan to have dfo put up a bit of a stink...get public support, and then of course the industry are Heros?
Well enough of my conspiracy theories. CK you obviously have more information than you are divulging as you are clearly involved....your link clearly shows you are.
Well enough of my conspiracy theories. CK you obviously have more information than you are divulging as you are clearly involved....your link clearly shows you are.
It is most certainly at my risk to get into a debate with someone of your knowledge level on this subject and I will likely get my butt handed to me, but ???? - you seem to be assuming that local rivers have resident Chinook runs left in them. As I understand it the Sooke river run of Chinook was permitted to go extinct but now supports a viable population of Chinook thanks to the hatchery enhancement program which used genetically similar fish from nearby to reestablish a Chinook run in the river. The choice was hatchery Chinook or no Chinook. Those of us who now catch those Chinook off Sooke and along the coast of BC and the Killer Whales who feed on them are happy with that decision.
The gentleman from the local Alberni Salmon Enhancement Society gave and interesting list of local creeks and rivers without any Chinook in them and one that is down to less than 10 %. Here also it seems to me that it is either enhancement Chinook or no Chinook.
That is not to say that we should not be putting money into Habitat restoration and efforts to restore native Chinook runs but the funds being made available for that is a joke and even if it comes may be too late in many situations except through enhancement. When one adjusts for our population difference with what the USA has done and is doing funding wise it seems to me that we are behind by a billion dollars or two total on a per capita basis and I don’t expect our current federal government to be playing catch up anytime soon despite our economy being considerably better than the USA’s for some years now. In short we have more money per capita available to do this than they do yet we do virtually nothing. Worse our Federal government has also weakened our fish protection legislation so the habitat damage they won’t spend money on to repair is accelerated.
For example the USA spend huge dollars to take out dams to save salmon. The only time the upper management of DFO has pushed to take out a Dam it kills salmon. Worse we are working hard to dam or remove water from every last coastal creek, stream and river with our inappropriately called GREEN Run of River Hydro Projects with taxpayer guaranteed profits (welfare for millionaires) at a huge loss to the taxpayers. Our stewards of the land are happy to go along with it because big business has learned you can get almost any fish damaging project through if you buy their cooperation and the going rate seems to be 20%.
Without putting money into salmon restoration, unless I am missing something, it is enhancement Chinook or no Chinook.
I also question that if it is preferable not to allow Canadian hatchery enhancement salmon to interbreed with wild salmon on the spawning gravel; why is it that we do not/are not allowed to clip most of them in Canada. In increasingly restricted fisheries with clipped retention only and slots restriction we are playing catch and release with unclipped hatchery Chinook that could in theory go on to interbreed with wild salmon. I understand this has to do with Canada USA politics and differentiating USA hatchery Chinook from ours but why can't the politics of this be cleaned up to allow us to retain some of these hatchery Chinook given we do not want them to interbreed with wild salmon. The logic of this escapes me.
It also concerns me that trying to maintain genetic purity/diversity of Chinook runs at this stage is pointless. That ship has sailed and attempting to do so by limiting Chinook enhancement as Canada has been doing is likely to end in the short term extinction of Chinook from a great many of our rivers.
If all other factors were ideal it could possibly make sense to limit and reduce enhancement as Canada has done and our governments have been happy to save money doing.
Unfortunately we don’t live in an idealized academic world. We live in the real very political world with competing interests and out of control human population growth and governments that have blinders on for any type of economic development that is not quick fix resource extraction , no plan to limit human population growth and a mind set that taxation and governments spending public money is evil.
I sometimes draw a comparison to BC forestry. If we don’t replant our trees (and sure from an idealized academic perspective it effects forest genetic diversity) we will have no forests left in the not too distant future. Between logging, water extraction, cities and farms on the best soil in river bottoms and global warning/pine beetles, all we are going to have is hills covered with scotch broom. Take a ride along our roads; anytime there is an opening in the trees with a little light the introduced broom takes over.
Hatchery Salmon enhancement is like replanting trees. It may not be perfect but it is that or no salmon. The USA has taken a different path on enhancement and the comparative results are obvious to me and most. If we don’t follow the USA’s lead on this they will have Chinook and salmon in general and ours will be extinct and it won’t take too many more years to do it.
Finally as a society we need to get rid of Atlantic Salmon open pen Fish Farms. They are nothing more than turbochargers accelerating the decline of our Pacific Salmon.
But I am no expert, just a lay person and I am sure it shows.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Rockfish -good post. You covered quite a bit. I have absolutely no wish to flame you - as I find your posts politically astute and well intended. It's obvious you care about wild salmon - lay person or not. I welcome, enjoy and appreciate your input here, Rockfish.
I am not anti-hatchery - just anti-release of smolts "willy-nilly" w/o doing the background work - which is reasonably cheap and easy to do.
By that I mean - a DNA baseline. I know that the Chinook DNA baseline is reasonably complete for most of the province, with some holes here and there. I am unfamilar with the SVI Chinook baseline, but generally adjacent creeks are quite similar and some straying does occur between creeks - which is how salmon recolonized the watersheds after the last glaciation period.
However, over time - local adaptations have occurred, and continue occurring today and hopefully well into the future - past our human self-indulgent phase on this planet. This also means over time frames of dozens to hundreds of life cycles of fish - some of our worst mistakes may be self-correcting wrt improper stock outplanting.
There has been quite a bit of work done on allelle depression and stock fitness decreases through improper outplanting on both trout and salmon in North America and Europe. Much of this work has happened in the past 20 years or so - with our abilities now to examine and to correlate changes in the DNA to changes in spawning success and overall stock survival. Some of these negative changes are from improper hatchery methodology/protocol - some are from improper outplanting with improper stock as determined using DNA methodologies.
I believe that hatcheries can and should be 1 strong tool in the toolbox - but only 1 such tool - and like any tool - should be "honed' and used appropriately. I believe that habitat restoration (including improvements in water quality - where appropriate) should be concurrent with stock restoration (including stock assistance). Spawning channels are also a form of stock assistance, as are streamside upwelling boxes.
ALL forms of intervention have pros and cons. The trick is to do your homework - learn from others mistakes and successes and have a good idea of potential failures and plan to mitigate them.
As far as these Chinook go - they would have to have been raised under a permit from DFO which would have stated where the broodstock was from, how many broodstock were to be used, and where the smolts were to be released. We should know these details first before we judge the news article, and the news guys should of asked these questions.
IF these were to be transplanted - there is a committee - the "transplant" committee which is suppossed to look over the application and look at some of the things I mentioned above and guage the risk verses the benefits. Maybe James er CK could enlighten us on that process and what is going on behind the scenes there since he seems involved in this process.
I am not anti-hatchery - just anti-release of smolts "willy-nilly" w/o doing the background work - which is reasonably cheap and easy to do.
By that I mean - a DNA baseline. I know that the Chinook DNA baseline is reasonably complete for most of the province, with some holes here and there. I am unfamilar with the SVI Chinook baseline, but generally adjacent creeks are quite similar and some straying does occur between creeks - which is how salmon recolonized the watersheds after the last glaciation period.
However, over time - local adaptations have occurred, and continue occurring today and hopefully well into the future - past our human self-indulgent phase on this planet. This also means over time frames of dozens to hundreds of life cycles of fish - some of our worst mistakes may be self-correcting wrt improper stock outplanting.
There has been quite a bit of work done on allelle depression and stock fitness decreases through improper outplanting on both trout and salmon in North America and Europe. Much of this work has happened in the past 20 years or so - with our abilities now to examine and to correlate changes in the DNA to changes in spawning success and overall stock survival. Some of these negative changes are from improper hatchery methodology/protocol - some are from improper outplanting with improper stock as determined using DNA methodologies.
I believe that hatcheries can and should be 1 strong tool in the toolbox - but only 1 such tool - and like any tool - should be "honed' and used appropriately. I believe that habitat restoration (including improvements in water quality - where appropriate) should be concurrent with stock restoration (including stock assistance). Spawning channels are also a form of stock assistance, as are streamside upwelling boxes.
ALL forms of intervention have pros and cons. The trick is to do your homework - learn from others mistakes and successes and have a good idea of potential failures and plan to mitigate them.
As far as these Chinook go - they would have to have been raised under a permit from DFO which would have stated where the broodstock was from, how many broodstock were to be used, and where the smolts were to be released. We should know these details first before we judge the news article, and the news guys should of asked these questions.
IF these were to be transplanted - there is a committee - the "transplant" committee which is suppossed to look over the application and look at some of the things I mentioned above and guage the risk verses the benefits. Maybe James er CK could enlighten us on that process and what is going on behind the scenes there since he seems involved in this process.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
As soon as I heard about Carol's work with chinook I did everything I could to help support the Sarita project.
I was there when they released them, maybe I'll get to catch a big one when they return...
My thoughts (other than the aquaculture reference) are pretty much the same as Rockfish's on enhancement - particularly chinook.
DFO says there are no S1's in WCVI rivers because they don't catch them in recruitment surveys - but from what I have seen they sure don't try very hard to do it...
Omega Pacific has the ability to raise small numbers of chinook to S1 in seperate flow-through troughs from a clean, cold water source. (You could have 3 or 4 systems rearing in the same building)
They can effectively take a few of the small number of eggs taken from small runs in need of help and give them a bit more of a chance compared to the S0 plan.
The 2-3 year boost program is exactly what is forseen with this type of rearing - you are not doing large numbers of fish to create a terminal fishery, you are accentuating the run with fish that may return in 3-5 years in greater numbers than the expected S0's. (Comparitively you may end up with similar returns given the low survival of larger numbers of S0's)
Aquaculture facilities know how to rear strong, healthy fish - there is no reason this experience should not be used to help wild runs which have been pressured to very low levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
I don't have that info - they are the same stock that Robertson Creek Hatchery would be releasing every year as S0's in the same area(s), so I just don't know.
Nahmint, Sarita and Kennedy Lake are distinct stocks, Toquart are transplanted from Nitinat, Thornton Creek has a hatchery stock (not sure where from) and Cypre, Bedwell and Tranquil are all a combined stock. (From DFO Community Programs Update)
In this case I don't think it is about putting fish from somewhere else in the water - it's more about about the rearing method.
The preferred methods (from DFO) seem to be:
1. Build the indigenous stock
2. Use indigenous males to fertilize transplant eggs
3. Combine systems and their stocks into a single gene
4. Use a direct transplant
As I said before - Omega Pacific can rear multiple stocks independently within the same facility and have them all brought to S1 state in cold, clean water and a reduced feed rate which mimics the natural environment.
It's not about quantity - this idea is all about quality.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
The US hatcheries seem to know the value of utilising both types of Chinook - although they are working at a scale much larger than most anywhere here.
http://www.vancouversun.com/enterta...n+into+rivers+damaged+dams/8558700/story.html
"The hatchery's goal is to release 2.9 million fish annually - two million summer chinook and 900,000 spring chinook."
"Under the recommendations, the hatchery will draw water from the reservoir behind the dam, Rufus Woods Lake, to ensure that water temperatures fluctuate as they would for fish in the wild. Fish reared in hatcheries that draw well water, which can be too warm in the winter months, have a higher incidence of "jacking," where the fish mature too quickly. Those fish tend to return in two or three years instead of the normal three to five years."
http://www.vancouversun.com/enterta...n+into+rivers+damaged+dams/8558700/story.html
"The hatchery's goal is to release 2.9 million fish annually - two million summer chinook and 900,000 spring chinook."
"Under the recommendations, the hatchery will draw water from the reservoir behind the dam, Rufus Woods Lake, to ensure that water temperatures fluctuate as they would for fish in the wild. Fish reared in hatcheries that draw well water, which can be too warm in the winter months, have a higher incidence of "jacking," where the fish mature too quickly. Those fish tend to return in two or three years instead of the normal three to five years."
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the Stamp system has been the subject of "enhancement" for so long now, there is basically no "wild" component remaining. In DFO's own oft repeated words (to justify managing the escapement to hatchery requirements ONLY) "There is no significant wild contribution to recruitment in this system". While many of course question the validity of that, it is true that pretty well every individual chinook in the system now displays influence from the hatchery (drift). And therein may lie some of the reason for ever dwindling survivorship rates (< 0.5%) and returning numbers.
These particular fish were taken from the broodstock captured at Robertson Creek two falls ago. They are one and the same as those released by that facility, excluding of course the fact they have been held back an extra year in fresh water.
The fish as noted are the result of broodstock capture at Robertson Creek. DFO has known all along the target release site and have since well before authorizing the transport to Omega. That fact certainly did not spring up on them overnight. Their insistence that the Project is "currently under review" is but smoke and mirrors IMHO. The Department has found excuse after excuse to stand in the way of this development here, and I see the current foot-dragging as more of the same.
I do believe we can all agree of the necessity of a thorough review process. Any new enhancement technique carries risks, and these must be clearly defined and weighed closely against the potential benefits. But 2 years? (Actually considerably longer if you go back 10 years to the origins of these projects). There has to be a realistic time frame for conducting the review, or many in the public start to suspect the review is being stalled intentionally to preclude the project's implementation.
The responses of DFO representatives in multiple public meetings (SFAB) have done little to dissuade that perception. Rolling eyes and clearing the item off the agenda as fast as is possible sends a reasonably clear message to those in attendance. A performance that has literally been repeated dozens of times over the course of many years.
I do recognize there is a Money Issue. For the experiment to provide comparative results, these smolts must be clipped prior to transport and release. However the Department (from what I have been informed) has also placed roadblocks in the way of that operation. Fine, if they cannot provide the funding (Highly Unlikely under Harpo's current budget constraints) then why not look to the local Enhancement Society and the others who contributed so freely with the Sarita Project? Possibilities exist, however it seems the Department chooses to wear blinders to those options.
Heck of a mess alright. Somehow I can't escape the feeling that the Project Review simply consists of a handful of senior bureaucrats, sitting in some back room, and weighing the consequences of public outcry over the destruction of these fish against the possibility of having their current system being proven in error. That, and of course trying to figure out how to lever the huge increase in required funding to follow the methodology were this experiment to prove successful...
Cheers,
Nog
albernifisher
Well-Known Member
Just wondering if anyone has any updates on this?
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Here's a press release just sent out by Carol Schmitt from Omega Pacific:
For Circulation – Update June 24, 2013
Due to much interest and response on this topic.
For additional information - carolgcl@xplornet.com
Donation of 65,000 Robertson Creek Stock Chinook Smolts to
Port Alberni Community for Release and Future Fishing Opportunities
Chinook Stock and Rearing Information
October, 2011, Omega Pacific Hatchery received a permit to acquire Chinook Eggs and Milt from Robertson Creek Hatchery. The adult Brood stock was randomly selected by DFO Staff at their brailer site. Omega Pacific staff then spawned the eggs and milt into zip lock bags, and transported these back to Omega Hatchery for incubation and rearing. Adult Females were disease screened for Bacteriology and Virology. Females numbered. # 818 to 848, spawned October 21, 2011, were fertilized with 30 Robertson males. This group is being donated to the community for release.
Omega Pacific Hatchery is located 15 km upstream from Robertson Creek, on Great Central Lake. Water source is cool fish free creek and well water, single flow through rearing pools, discharged by exfiltration into man made ponds. Since 1988 we have grown millions of high quality Chinook smolts.
Chinook smolts were ponded for first feed in June 2012 and reared in circular fiber glass pools until June 2013. Their current size is 10 to 16 grams. On May 16, 2013 sixty smolts were submitted to the Center for Aquatic Health Sciences for routine Health check. Report received June 7th, fish have a clean bill of health, free of any bacterial and viral pathogens. On May 16th Omega Hatchery submitted an Introductions and Transplant Committee Application (ITC) for release by June 30th, 2013, pending approval.
Committee Proposal to DFO for Release
Our community has a “Barkley Wild Salmon Working Group (BWSWG) made up of First Nations, Governments, Enhancement facilities and Residents to address topics of concern for the betterment of our salmon resource and ensure fishing opportunities.
Sub-committees under the BWSWG take on topics as projects.
• May 21, 2013 the Chinook Projects (S1) subcommittee submitted a proposal to DFO, Mel Sheng, to release the 65K donated chin. He replied he’d get back to us.
• May, 2013 the Alberni Clayoquot Regional District and City of Port Alberni designated a member to participate in the upcoming meeting with DFO.
• June 7th, BWSWG general meeting of all participants, Mel Sheng phoned in and said he just received the proposal, DFO has a process and the ITC and DFO’s Andy Thomson, and March Klaver would be handling the proposal..
• Committee response was- he had been informed in discussions at least two months previous and three weeks ago been sent the proposal. Although there is a process within DFO, there is also the ability to make a decision on this in a timely fashion.
• June18th, Andy Thomson updated us that Mel was overseeing this proposal.
• June 20th, James Lunney called from Ottawa having seen the media coverage. He called Andy Thomson who informed him the experts within the department were currently reviewing the proposal.
Proposal Submission Includes: Intro Letter, Proposal, Omega Summary, Documentation of S1 Prevalence in WCVI Streams, Disease Screening Results, ITC Application.
Robertson Chinook Smolt Release Locations
Robertson Creek Hatchery annually releases 6.5 million chinook S0 smolts (3 month freshwater rearing) and in past released several groups of S1 smolts (12 months freshwater rearing). Omega Pacific currently has S1 smolts. Chinook S0 and S1 are documented to occur in WCVI streams (Technical Fisheries Report 1482).
Robertson Creek Smolts have been released at several locations throughout the water shed from Great Central Lake, into Sprout River as well as many locations in the Alberni Inlet. This stock has also been released in Clemens Creek, head waters to Henderson Lake. The Chinook Projects (S1) Subcommittee has suggested Great Central Lake, having been a past release site by Omega Pacific in 1996 for Bob Wright’s Quick Start Chinook program, as well as Arden Creek, currently identified by DFO as a future net pen rearing and release location for Robertson stock. ITC requested a site for the permit so we entered Arden Creek. We have asked DFO their suggested site; however have not yet had a response.
Robertson Creek chinook releases are classified as “an enhanced stock”, the objective to provide fishing opportunities. The 2013 preliminary forecast of Chinook returns for this stock is 16,600 adults. (record low). The river requires 28,000 adult returns before any fishing opportunities are allowed. This year there will be no chinook fishery and the Salmon Festival Society annual Salmon Derby will be for Coho salmon. The loss of fishing opportunities is very costly and directly impacts everyone in our community.
With all things considered, there is no reason for the 65,000 Chinook smolts to not be given the go ahead for release. Omega Pacific staff and especially the beautiful school of chinook smolts hope this ends on a positive note, and the fish are able to swim as family school up to Alaska and back home in 2016 to 2018!
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the update Ck. I hope that these little guys get let released!
I find it very interesting that the fish farm industry is behind this....and yet there is no mention of that in the press release. Why is that? The whole thing is quite intriguing. Does the industry see getting into the hatchery and enhancement business as a sustainable future, since open net pens are looking to be on the way out? Is this an artifical wedge being driven between the industry and DFO? A feel good story about the industry once these fish are released and then...wow look at the kind business' behind it all along. Just very interesting stuff and it will be neat to see how it plays out.
I find it very interesting that the fish farm industry is behind this....and yet there is no mention of that in the press release. Why is that? The whole thing is quite intriguing. Does the industry see getting into the hatchery and enhancement business as a sustainable future, since open net pens are looking to be on the way out? Is this an artifical wedge being driven between the industry and DFO? A feel good story about the industry once these fish are released and then...wow look at the kind business' behind it all along. Just very interesting stuff and it will be neat to see how it plays out.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Omega Pacific Hatchery has been in business producing smolts for farms for years, along the way they developed some excellent ways to raise healthy, strong fish.
They, like many others in the industry, are also passionate about the wellbeing of wild stocks and have utilised their facility for enhancement whenever they've had a chance.
I am in support of this because I too am passionate about the wellbeing of wild stocks and see it as an excellent way to boost some of the very small Chinook runs on WCVI.
You may not be able to reconcile the idea that farmers care about wild stocks with your preconceived notions - but it doesn't mean that there aren't a whole bunch of us out there working towards the same goal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
