 |
|
|
|
Between October 8, 2001 and February 22, 2002, panelists representing different perspectives from Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington were available to answer students' questions related to salmon biology on the Salmon Summit Web site. In selecting participants for the Salmon Summit panel, we tried to choose panelists with different opinions and different backgrounds. The opinions expressed by the panelists were their own. They may not agree with those of other panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 7th Floor Media.
The panelists are not currently online. However, you will find the questions submitted by the students and the responses received from the panelists, below.
|
|
|
|
| Q - I was wondering about the politicans. I know how much the US congress promised, and I know how much has been paid and not yet paid. Anyway, how much has Pres. Bush been paying attention to the Northwest and Salmon? | | Q - I read in the Jan 6, 2002 edition of "The Province" newspaper that some 8,000 Atlantic salmon of the mowi variety escaped from a Vancouver Island fish farm on January 2 after a storm. The spokesperson of the operator of the farm, Pacific National Aquaculture, likens the farm to a McDonald's. "They come up. They feed. We try to net them. And they sound back down." So far, one has been caught using seine nets.
In a report by the auditor-general, 345,000 Atlantic farmed salmon have escaped in the period 1991 to 2001 and were found in 79 streams, rivers, etc. A member of Friends of Clayoqout Sound said farm operators should be trying to remove farmed fish from wild rivers, and not having more farms. A member of the David Suzuki Foundation says people are worried about diseases spreading and competition from the non-natives. On the other side, a member of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association claims "Four or five fish are not a threat to the tens of millions and billions of fish out in the Pacific."
I don't think fish should be farmed at all. If they are to be farmed, I'm sure the aquabusiness industry can have pools on the land instead of having pens in wild fish water. Sea pen and lake pen rearing is okay to me, since these pens are trying to preserve the wild salmon stock.
Should salmon treaties include farmed Atlantic salmon, then? | | Q - I read in the New York Times that a federal judge in Oregon has ruled that ‘regulators 'arbitrarily and capriciously' treated the Alsea's wild and hatchery salmon differently when listing the wild fish as threatened.’ It seems as if the judge is saying that, when deciding whether a species is threatened or endangered, the regulators were not supposed to look just at the wild stocks, but also count the hatchery fish. Do you think that hatchery fish should be counted when determining whether salmon are endangered? | | Q - What are the Canadian commerical fishing concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty?
| | Q - What are the concerns from the Canadian environmentalists involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | | | Q - I was wondering about the politicans. I know how much the US congress promised, and I know how much has been paid and not yet paid. Anyway, how much has Pres. Bush been paying attention to the Northwest and Salmon? | |
A - The US is very serious about the commitment to maintain and propagate the 1999 agreement. These times are trying with both our governments attempting to stabilize the world's security concerns and protect the prosperous and peaceful environment we have been blessed to live in over the post WWII period.
Frankly, our governments will provide the money and the forum with the PSC, but will have little patience for any interruption or disruption of the agreement prior to the final year, 2008, when we will be renegotiating. In fact, I would be very surprised if there are any changes in the wind when we get to 2008. I believe that the agreement struck in 1999 will be the deal that stands in perpetuity for all practical purposes.
It should be our job as participants to work together, country to country, stakeholder and manager to stakeholder and manager, to ensure that we keep on track this time. We've got 3 years down thus far and although we have some problems in the making with late-run Fraser sockeye stocks and a lower than expected WCVI chinook rebound, these are natural-occurring phenomena which are not caused by the treaty. It's actually been the least contentious 3 year period since the 70's between the US and Canada. Let's strive to keep that spirit going.
--
Bob Thorstenson
| |
A - This is a relatively difficult question for us scientific types but I'll give it a try. I suspect that President Bush has paid very little attention to the salmon concerns of the Pacific NW. He had very little time in office before the events of Sept 11,and since then the government has been consumed in that fight. Fortunately the previous administrations of Bush Sr and Clinton had made serious commitments to the restoration of salmon and habitat of the pacific NW. Most of the structure of that commitment runs on "autopilot" and is continuing to fund the commitment to the Pacific Salmon Commission activities, research, and projects. Some of the congressional politicians from the Pacific NW and Alaska are also continuing to funnel millions of dollars of federal money to projects and processes to benefit the salmon of the region.
--
Gary Freitag
| |
A - Obviously, President Bush and the Congress have been focused on issues other than salmon recovery in the Northwest since the unfortunate events of September 11. However, salmon recovery in the Northwest has received a great deal of attention from the federal government including the Whitehouse. Congress has appropriated large amounts of money directed specifically at salmon recovery efforts. In the U.S. fisheries management is primarily the purview of state and tribal governments and not of the federal government. We do, however, look to the federal government for leadership and financial support, which they have been providing.
The federal government has become more involved in salmon recovery in the Northwest for three reasons. First, there is an international treaty and multiple states involved. The implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada is a federal responsibility. Second, the federal government has a trust responsibility to the many Indian tribes with treaty reserved rights, including fishing rights, in the Northwest. These treaties were signed with the federal government, and they have a responsibility to see that their provisions are upheld. Third, several salmon populations have been listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The federal government, therefore, has a responsibility to develop recovery plans for these populations. With local state and tribal leadership and the support of the federal government, we have embarked on an initiative in the Puget Sound region called the Shared Strategy for Salmon Recovery. This is an ambitious effort to bring together all affected parties, including local, state, tribal and federal governments and all private interests, to develop salmon recovery goals and plans at the watershed level that all parties can endorse and support. This is a balancing act between the interests of the fish and of the people that live on these watersheds, and only those people directly affected can strike that balance and implement the changes that will be necessary to recover salmon. Time will tell if we are successful.
--
Michael Grayum
| |
A - From what I can tell, very little attention is paid to pacific salmon by the Bush Administration in Washington. This is not surprising. The U.S. federal government does not take an active role generally in the on-going management of Pacific salmon. It has devolved or given its responsibility largely to the states to take care of. Thus the important governments are the state governments. The Salmon treaty is of course between governments, and so the federal government in the U.S. was involved with the treaty. However one of the frustrations for B.C. was the decisions were largely made by the states, and Alaska in particular refused to recognize the equity provisions in the 1986 Treaty. The federal government in the U.S. claimed that it could do nothing because the states now have the power. Meanwhile in Canada the federal government refused to provide any power to B.C.
As far as enforcing the provisions of the last agreement on the U.S. side the Bush administration will not risk harming its relationship with powerful Senators, particularly from Alaska. So it will do only what these Senators want it to do. And that has been and continues to be essentially nothing.
The experience with salmon is a good case study in trying to work with the U.S. government. Powerful interests, including those in the U.S. congress will get what they want regardless of agreements or understandings with or obligations to other countries.
--
Douglas McArthur
| | |  | | Q - I read in the Jan 6, 2002 edition of "The Province" newspaper that some 8,000 Atlantic salmon of the mowi variety escaped from a Vancouver Island fish farm on January 2 after a storm. The spokesperson of the operator of the farm, Pacific National Aquaculture, likens the farm to a McDonald's. "They come up. They feed. We try to net them. And they sound back down." So far, one has been caught using seine nets.
In a report by the auditor-general, 345,000 Atlantic farmed salmon have escaped in the period 1991 to 2001 and were found in 79 streams, rivers, etc. A member of Friends of Clayoqout Sound said farm operators should be trying to remove farmed fish from wild rivers, and not having more farms. A member of the David Suzuki Foundation says people are worried about diseases spreading and competition from the non-natives. On the other side, a member of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association claims "Four or five fish are not a threat to the tens of millions and billions of fish out in the Pacific."
I don't think fish should be farmed at all. If they are to be farmed, I'm sure the aquabusiness industry can have pools on the land instead of having pens in wild fish water. Sea pen and lake pen rearing is okay to me, since these pens are trying to preserve the wild salmon stock.
Should salmon treaties include farmed Atlantic salmon, then? | |
A - There is a lot of disagreement about the possible affects of salmon farming. The farmed stocks can and do escape. If they inter-breed with wild salmon, they could create new
'cross-breed' stocks that will compete with the wild salmon for food, habitat, etc. These could have greater survivability, which would doom the wild stocks. No one knows for sure the extent of this danger. Further, farms create discharges into the ocean that could affect natural aquatic stocks. And farms are usually located on prime waterfront sites, pushing out other users, interfering with aboriginal rights, and reducing amenity values for local communities. And, farmed salmon from a number of countries including Canada have driven salmon prices to very low levels, creating hardship for commercial fishers in coastal communities.
However, there are some good things about salmon farming. It creates much needed jobs in communities which are suffering. It could create investment opportunities for coastal communities and First Nations, although the existing farms are largely owned by non-resident investors. And farm salmon production can take the pressure off wild stocks, which could be helpful if conservation regulations are not controlling over-fishing.
One thing is certain, and that is that farm salmon must be closely regulated and controlled. The farmers themselves do not bear the impact of the problems; it is others who do. In these kinds of cases we need extensive regulations. Because there are so many unknowns, it is my view that regulations should set very high standards, those who don't follow them should be severely penalized, and the industry should not expand any further until it is able to demonstrate a record of no escapes of farmed fish for something like three consecutive years. Even if it can do this, expansion after three years of zero tolerance regarding escapes should be slow until we know more about the long term impacts. First Nations should also have the first chance to develop farms in sites in their traditional territories.
You should have heard that today the provincial government announced that the moratorium on expansion has been lifted. Regulations remain inadequate, and nothing is being done to ensure that control and benefits stays with local communities and First Nations. This is an unfortunate development, no doubt brought on by demands from investors who will not be affected by the downside problems.
--
Douglas McArthur
| |
A - Very interesting question because it has several layers to it. It includes social economic issues relevant to B.C. coastal communities.
Failure of the U.S. particularly Alaska to live up to Chapter #1 of the Pacific Salmon Treaty put huge pressures on some B.C. stocks. In the end Canada at the highest level sold out its fisheries bowing to high level U.S. pressure. This caused huge economic dislocation of B.C. fisheries and a move to weak stock management which in turn created an economic environment more receptive to fish farming.
The David Suzuki foundation at times uses voodoo science, not a really reliable source. However there are some very real concerns with sea pen aquaculture. These include parasites, disease, feeding on local small fish. This industry needs improvement.
Salmon treaties however should not include aquaculture.
--
Paddy Greene
| |
A - I do not have much to say on this question. However, if the action of one country is directly affecting another then that action could be an issue for an international treaty or, at least, the topic of dialog between the two countries. Another example is the issue of the sewage discharge from Victoria that empties into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is a body of water shared by two countries. This issue produced a lot of dialog, but I am not sure a resolution was ever reached. If farmed fish escape from either party's net pens and have the potential to adversely impact the other party, then some discussion should occur and a resolution reached. The Pacific Salmon Treaty, as can be ascertained from its title, does not address Atlantic salmon. This treaty deals primarily with the management and allocation of wild pacific salmon that do not respect international boundaries in their travels. Thus, salmon produced in one country are caught in fisheries of the other country. The Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) does address environmental and habitat issues from time-to-time, but their role in these matters is very unclear. It is generally thought that these matters are the sovereign responsibility of the respective country. If, however, these Atlantic salmon escapees are shown to adversely impact wild Pacific salmon, they could become an appropriate issue for discussion by the PSC.
--
Michael Grayum
| |
A - You wrote, "Sea pen and lake pen rearing is okay to me, since these pens are trying to preserve the wild salmon stock."
The problem is that sea or lake pens do NOT preserve wild salmon stock since they still permit escapes, disease transfer and benthic fouling. Only land based systems can avoid these problems.
I believe all resource use is a subject of treaty negotiations and therefore uses of the marine environment, such as fish farming, should be negotiated with local First Nations.
--
Bruce Burrows
| |
A - I should take the time to introduce a few concepts that the Alaska salmon sector of the Pacific Salmon Treaty stand upon.
1. Over 95% of the salmon harvested in Southeast Alaska are of Alaskan origin-from Alaskan streams and rivers.
2. The Treaty was intended as a compromise to maintain historic, traditional fisheries, but not intended to disrupt existing fisheries. The point was to limit the impact on the salmon originating in the other's country while allowing that country to receive the benefits of harvesting their own salmon stocks.
3. The salmon stocks of both BC and Alaska, and to some extent, Washington and Oregon, spend the majority of their lifespan in the Gulf of Alaska. These salmon stocks feed on Alaskan herring, juvenile salmon and other food sources.
Now, to Atlantics. We have harvested thousands of escapees and have witnessed dozens of streams and rivers in Alaska where these farmed salmon have escaped to. Furthermore, and perhaps a worse situation, is occurring with the escaped king and coho salmon.
I visited salmon farms in Norway in 1991. By that time, the entire wild stock Atlantic salmon population from Bergen south to Oslo had been exterminated by mixing with escaped farmed Atlantic salmon.
What we are witnessing is a corporate, foreign implementation of a business practice that puts all of BC's and Alaskan salmon stocks at risk. These farmed salmon are mixing in the Gulf of Alaska and also entering into Alaskan streams and rivers.
Canada keep their farmed salmon at home. The BC and Canadian Federal Government have decided to sell out their commercial fishing industry, not to mention the potential impact on native and sport fisheries. BC has been producing more farmed salmon than commercial caught wild salmon for quite some time. The farmers claim that there will be no problem with these escaped salmon. Prove it. Put up a bond for 5 billion dollars. That's about what we expect to receive for our economy in wholesale value over the next decade.
Alaskan coastal communities are fully dependent upon the harvest of seafood, especially commercially caught salmon. In many of our Southeast Alaska communities, fishing makes up 75% of the private sector employment. Many others are at 50%.
Canada needs to come to the realization that if salmon farming is to supplant the commercial fisheries of BC that there may be no need for any Treaty with the US.
--
Bob Thorstenson
| |
A - I think that the treaty has clear direction on the issues. They are allocative in nature, sharing fairly on a resource that utilizes the environment of both countries. Farmed fish by definition should never share the environments of both countries. Danger from escapee's is real but seems outside the role of the Pacific Salmon Commission. It seems that there should be another avenue of enforcement or government to government interaction that should deal with enforcement issues. I'm sure that it is not permitted to allow exotic Farmed fish (those that don't naturally occur in the local waters) to escape there confinement. Those that allow it are violating their permits to operate and should be questioned, restricted, made to correct problems etc. The treaty process has no way of dealing with such processes.
Farming the sea may be necessary in the future since the population will in the next few decades reach over 9 billion. We will only see more of these problems in the future. New treaties may eventually be necessary to incorporate requirements that protect the natural populations and allow for sea farming.
--
Gary Freitag
| | | | | Q - I read in the New York Times that a federal judge in Oregon has ruled that ‘regulators 'arbitrarily and capriciously' treated the Alsea's wild and hatchery salmon differently when listing the wild fish as threatened.’ It seems as if the judge is saying that, when deciding whether a species is threatened or endangered, the regulators were not supposed to look just at the wild stocks, but also count the hatchery fish. Do you think that hatchery fish should be counted when determining whether salmon are endangered? | |
A - The Alsea decision did not involve the Federal court answering if hatchery coho are like wild coho in coastal Oregon, but whether they should be included in the listed unit once NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)decided the biological question of whether they were largely similar or largely distinct.
NMFS in 1998 determined that several hatchery stocks of coastal coho were largely identical to their wild counterparts based on the similarity of their life cycle attributes, their genetic profiles and their geographic proximity and therefore that they were part of the distinct population segment (DPS) of coastal coho (or the evolutionary significant unit — the NMFS equivalent of DPSs). NMFS then, however, did not include them in the listing because of its policy to only include hatchery fish in the listed unit if the hatchery were essential to recovery. NMFS determined that the hatchery fish were not essential, and thus did not list them even though they were part of the DPS for coastal coho in Oregon.
The court said that once the agency found they were identical to the wild populations and part of the ESU, the agency could not legally exclude them and list only a portion of the DPS because to do so was to drop below the tropic floor on listings established by Congress, which said that the lowest tropic level the statute authorizes for listings is the distinct population segment -- and not something that is just a portion of the DPS.
--
Will Stelle
| |
A - No I do not think they should be counted in the same way, although I do not know the exact and correct interpretation of the U.S. legislation. Hatchery fish do contribute to re-building stocks, but there is debate about how effective the hatchery approach is compared to other alternatives. For instance, hatchery fish are not as hardy when young, as I understand it. We can't just leave hatchery stocks out completely when looking at whether a species is endangered, however, since when recovery occurs it will seem fair enough to include hatchery stocks as part of the continuing stocks. However, I do not think they should be counted the same.
--
Douglas McArthur
| |
A - Your question referring to hatchery versus wild fish is complex. But a threatened species designation should be made on the basis of the wild population alone. Otherwise an industry that kills wild salmon, either directly or though habitat degradation, can simply run a hatchery and claim there's no problem.(And hatchery fish always end up being genetically inferior to wild fish)
We faced that scenario when Alcan was threatening Nechako River Chinook stocks by lowering the water levels. They proposed to run a hatchery and fly in the brood stock if necessary. But we forced them to maintain proper water levels instead. That was obviously a preferable solution.
Some logging companies run hatcheries and use that as an excuse to trash a watershed. But it's obviously better to save the environment and the wild runs that depend on it.
--
Bruce Burrows
| |
A - The judge in the case you are referring to did not rule that hatchery fish should be treated the same as wild fish in an ESA listing. He ruled that the NMFS did not follow proper procedure in deciding that only the wild fish should be listed after finding that the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) included both groups of fish. The NMFS is now reviewing and revising their policies on how to consider hatchery fish, and will be revisiting their listing decision, not only for Oregon Coastal coho but for several other ESUs including Puget Sound chinook. I do not expect that their initial conclusions about listing these wild stocks will change, but they will follow the proper procedure this time.
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to provide for the continued existence of self-sustaining populations in their natural habitats. Hatcheries can play a role in helping to reestablish and rebuild wild populations, but ultimately they must be self-sustaining in their natural habitat to be considered for de-listing under the ESA.
--
Michael Grayum
| |
A - Hatchery vs. Wild Salmon
1. Hatcheries in Alaska are sited away from wild stock streams and rivers so as not to overharvest returning wild stocks and also to be certain that minimal straying occurs.
2. Hatchery salmon are different than wild stocks. But not that much different. The genetic makeup is the same. Hatchery salmon are more like foster kids. They don't know their mom and dad. But they are remarkably similar to wild stocks in almost every characteristic.
3. Wild salmon stocks and their biodiversity should be protected as much as reasonably possible. However, there are occasions where the stock level has been decimated that it makes sense to plant with hatchery stocks to reinforce the wild stock situation.
Hatchery salmon are caught on both sides of the border. Alaskan-origin chum salmon are harvested by drifters and seiners in the Area 3 fishery by Canadian fishermen.
One of the problem areas for Alaska in the treaty is the Skeena sockeye caught at Noyes Island. These are a stock that is 70% enhanced by the Babine spawning channels. Our total harvest at Noyes Island has averaged 14% during the years from 1985-1998. Since the signing of the latest 10 year agreement Alaska has only harvested around 5% of the Skeena sockeye.
Where Canada was concerned in the 1990's was over the increased numbers of Skeena sockeye harvested in Alaska. These were relatively constant percentages, but as the Skeena enhanced sockeye increased, so did Alaska's harvest.
Hatcheries are here to stay and we like them in Alaska. However, if one country decides to put out millions of hatchery salmon, expect the other country to catch a proportionate share. There is language in the PST that speaks directly to this. It states that one country is not allowed to "flood" the other country out of a traditional, historic fishery by allowing vast numbers of hatchery salmon to be released across the border and then to attempt to shut the other country's fishery down accordingly.
The initial arrangement wasn't negotiated properly, in Alaska's view. Numbers were put in place without regard to the changes in abundance in salmon stocks. For example, Noyes Island is only allowed a 2.43% (that's two point 43) harvest of Nass-Skeena sockeye in July. If the previous agreement had been in place, this year (2002) Alaska would be allowed to harvest 120,000 sockeyes, which would be approximately 8% of the Skeena sockeye run in July of 2002.
The current arrangement is based upon abundance of the resource. That allows the countries to share in the healthy, productive years and maintains a shared conservation ethic in the years of lean abundance like 2002 is predicted to be on the Skeena sockeye.
Hatcheries in BC and Alaska are welcomed in the PST. Just don't expect to release hatchery fish and not let the other country catch some of them.
--
Bob Thorstenson
| |
A - Good question. This is a controversy that is difficult since it deals with the perception that hatchery fish are genetically domesticated. Although I believe that some fish in a hatchery would probably not survive their freshwater life in the wild does it mean the a hatchery stock is less fit than a wild stock? From some of the work that has been done I suspect that natural selection processes in the natural environment would return a hatchery stock indistinguishable from the original wild stock in one or two generations. The natural genetic traits are still in the population as long as the hatchery broodstock was relatively large to start with.
One of the most interesting examples that pertains to this discussion is that of Snake river chinook. Before the dam was put in wild chinook were taken from the snake and put in the Lyons ferry hatchery, since then only tagged fish from returns from those releases were used in the hatchery. The wild component in the river in the meantime has been made of a mix of strayed fish (due to habitat degradation) from several systems and hatcheries that were altered when the dam was put in. The Lyons ferry snake fish are not considered in the endangered snake river chinook issue yet genetically they are the most genetically pure component of the original snake population. The "wild" endangered fish that are endangered most likely don't genetically represent the original snake population very well at all. Since the hatchery fish went through a facility they are not consider important to the officials even though they truly represent genetically the original wild population.
I think that in most cases hatchery fish should be counted or at a minimum considered.
--
Gary Freitag
| | | | | Q - What are the Canadian commerical fishing concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty?
| |
A - Canadian commercial fishing concerns about the treaty are quite simply that the US is violating it and has been doing so since 1986. Please read Article 3 of the treaty. It defines 3 principles. The first one, the equity principle, states that "each Party shall conduct its fisheries...so as to...provide for each Party to receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters." This means in effect that neither nation shall intercept the other nation's fish unless the interceptions are roughly balanced. The US intercepts millions more Canadian fish than Canadians do of US fish.
The 3rd principle talks about "the desirability in most cases of reducing interceptions." Canada has drastically reduced its interceptions of US fish but the US is increasing its catch of Canadian salmon.
--
Bruce Burrows
| |
A - These questions can best be answered by Canadians. As often as I talk with Canadian fishers, First Nations representatives and government officials I would not presume to put myself in their heads and know exactly what they are thinking.
In general, however, there are two primary interests in the treaty that are not easily separated by interest group. All interest groups share these concerns to one degree or another. First, there is an interest in properly managing a resource that does not respect international boundaries in its migrations. If there are to be salmon in the future, mortalities from all sources of fishing must be considered and limited to a level that the stocks can sustain without causing the resource to decline. This requires the coordinated management of all harvest across all governmental boundaries, both internationally and domestically. For example in Washington, salmon are co-managed by the State of Washington and the treaty Indian tribes, who must closely coordinate their management activities. Second, there is an interest in the allocation of the harvest. Obviously, each fishing group desires as large a share as they can negotiate. In salmon management you can not resolve allocation disputes by simply producing more fish. Allocation disputes are always about who gets what proportion of the harvest, not about the absolute number of fish each group gets. From a government perspective it is important that each country receives sufficient benefits from the resource that it produces to justify the cost of that production. So in summary, the treaty is about conservation and allocation.
--
Michael Grayum
| | | | | Q - What are the concerns from the Canadian environmentalists involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | |
A - The concerns of Canadian environmentalists:
Stocks that are fished by more than one nation must be protected by a treaty or they will be depleted in "fish wars." If the Salmon Treaty continues to be violated by the US it will collapse and the salmon will suffer. More specifically the treaty calls for both nations to prevent over fishing. Yet the US continues to take endangered coho.
--
Bruce Burrows
| | | |
|
|
|
