Solution to salmon decline: Build more hatcheries?

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Anyone read this :? ?

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/873883.html

Discussion anyone :?:

[Ed Wahl]

Hi Robin, I'll bite. I think he's right. The salmon have been dammed, polluted, deprived of who knows how many miles of spawning habitat, preyed upon(yeah, I said it) by introduced stripers, largemouth and smallmouth bass, and their nursery, the delta, has been just about ruined for them as they head out to sea.

That's all pretty much straight forward in the article. However, he lost me on his 'more hatcheries will cure this' line of reasoning. We could line the American and Feather rivers with hatcheries from the lowest dams down to the mouth, but if we don't get any returns from adults from the ocean what have we accomplished?

The season before last was predicted to be the largest in recent history. The hatcheries had met their goals, plus a lot more. It was a good water year, survival should have been very good for the smolts heading out through the system.

No one knows for sure what happened. Millions(billions?) of smolts from central valley rivers went out. But they never came back. How more hatcheries could have possibly changed that I can't imagine. Does the author of the article have any credentials other than being the son of a commercial salmon fisherman?

This is big. I mean world changing big. Our salmon are in grave danger of extinction. Death by a thousand cuts. Heading off their extinction will be a huge and politically expensive proposition. I'm not sure good ole John Q. Public is willing to go along with it.

This is becoming a rant, so I'll leave it here. Pick it up here or shoot me down, at least it's a start. Ed

[Darian]

Yeah.... I read the article, too. :? Altho I feel the authors pain, I can't go along with some the supporting statements or the suggested solution. 8)

Among the statements made was one about commercial fisherman not fishing themselves out of business. :? Commercial fisherman have been overfishing every part of the worlds oceans and when one fishery is depleted, they move to another but complain about how it used to be. :x Does anyone on this BB recall what the Pacific Sardine population was in SoCal waters during the 40's before they were effectively wiped out for a period of about 30 years by commercials :?: :?: :x :x :x Or, how about illegal drift nets being cut loose to kill everything in the way by commercials to avoid being caught fishing in waters closed to all fishing. :x :x

Enough of that. In spite of all of the recent scientific studies by academic institutions that indicate hatcheries are not the be-all/end-all of fishery problems, the author proposes hatcheries which, by the way, is a major cash subsidy for commercial fisherman. Of course, as Ed suggested, hatcheries do not address conditions/hazards in the ocean environment. Such as, disruption of the Salmon's food chain or over fishing by commercials.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

The kindest thing I can say about this self serving article is that it's a simplistic solution to a complex problem.... 8) 8) 8)

Lest you think I'm against commercial fishing, I'm not. I'm against overfishing by commercials. :) :)

[lee s.]

The way salmon fishing is done in Ca. waters commercially, one would be very hard pressed to over fish the resource. The salmon has to do his part.......bite. It is not a net fishery, which, by all means, can certainly fish a resource to depletion. Believing we can fish out the salmon with ANY means of hook and line system, commercial or fly, is akin to believing we can fish out the pike in Lake Davis by the same means. Does anyone recall the results of haphazardly trying to poison this contained envirioment? Those same people are trying to have us, the public, believe that we change our anadromous fisheries, an uncontained envirioment, with a stick and a string system, be it commercial or fly fishing.....proposing barbless hooks and restricted limits or useage as restoration tools is very indicitive of projecting phony solutions.
As proven with the piosoning, our problems run FAR deeper than resource useage. What DFG could not do haphazardly, ruin the pike's necessary envirioment, we have done to our anadromous fisheries' envirioments.
They will not (cannot?) return our water to us where or how we need it for the fish. It is not possible economically nor for the economy. The best we can get done is to improve what we have left.
Hatcheries would provide fony fish, as they do, tho maybe they would have to be placed nearer the ocean (read on the shore) to eliminate our sewer ditches we call fresh water. But then they would ALSO have to be funded and run to capacity.....not like our unfunded metigation hatcheries we now are blessed with.
Too bad we did not require workable PLUNGE POOL fish ladders on ALL of our existing damn dams. We would not have 100% but 100% would NOT have been lost. Too bad this could not be a requirement before ANY other damn dams are accepted.....and they are comming.
What IS effectively being done by the powers that be, along with the decimation of our fisheries through enviriomental degradation, is the elimination of the witness......us the fishers. :roll:
.....lee s.

[Darian]

Lee,.... You've raised a valid point about small, commercial long-liners/trollers. However, my comments were directed at a larger commercial enterprise. California law only applies at sea up to 12 miles and federal out to 200 miles. The laws/rules/regs governing fisheries are the same i each area. In addition, Salmon/Steelhead from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers supposedly migrate far south as far north as the Gulf of Alaska where they're governed by numerous states laws/regs/rules enroute. Commercial ground fisheries along that route amount to drag fishing or nets. Bottom fish, with the exception of Halibut, etc., are caught as by-catch. The volume of Halibut caught in this type fishery can be absolutely mind boggling. For example, during the year 1992, it was reported that the by-catch was 17.2 million pounds of Halibut. The amount of by-catch was reduced to 10.2 million pounds of by-catch in 2002. All by catch must be returned to ocean. However, the mortality rate for these fish is estimated at 80% to 90%. Most of the fish washed overboard were already dead. What a waste. :x :x Just imagine how all of that has impacted our own fisheries....

Some of the ships that operate in the gulf of Alaska and off-shore are as large as 400' trawlers from our own as well as foreign and multi-national corporations. Much of the offshore catch is shipped overseas for processing/consumption. So, with that in mind, commercial fisherman are definitely responsible for the decline. When a fishery for a particular species (Salmon) is marginal (supported by hatcheries, already), any amount of commercial pressures will bring about decline in numbers.

I acknowledge that we have an un-contained system to deal here. I just think the articles appearing in the news media by/from commercial fisherman are just too much emotionalism on their part. They (just as we) need to take a good look at and acknowledge what their part in this has been. :? :? :?