Jeff
Betts: [Compared with the USA] You say we hatch more for
less money, but not all chinook....and you say 'Canada marks few, while in the
States high numbers are marked, meaning cut off adipose fin, but no tag. ' Does
that mean we Canadians release unmarked fish from hatcheries? Given the regs
specify marked and unmarked limits that seems strange....?
A: Yes, we produce more than 500 million salmon fry of
the five species for about $25 Million – and virtually all are unmarked. The
Washington budget for operating is about $65 Million and they produce about 150
million fry (coho, chinook and steelhead).
There are caveats: Washington is only one of four
states producing fry; the USA spends far more cumulatively, Washington State
having about a billion in aging infrastructure while in BC, although with far
fewer hatcheries, I don’t think there is a document yet that tots up
infrastructure needs.
I surmise the reason for no capital budget is,
unfortunately, that the Salmon Enhancement Program budget is erroneously put in
DFO’s Conservation and Protection Branch budget, and thus gets whittled down as
a bargaining chip when divvying up the cross-Canada protection money at
budgeting time.
Up until the end of 2015 when Gail Shea put $4-million
into east coast Atlantic salmon hatcheries, only BC had a hatchery system, and
thus we got criticized for good treatment that no one else got; another
instance of the east and Ottawa not understanding BC and how central salmon are
to our culture. You may recall that my estimate is that BC has 99.8% of
Canada’s salmon while six eastern provinces – half the country – total .2% of
the salmon, and it is easy to see why points of view might differ, and
unfortunately, budgets are decided in the east.
Returning to west coast comparisons: Alaska puts out
1.5 billion pink salmon alone in an average year. ‘Ocean Ranching’ it is
called, meaning flood the ocean with pinks and it will return large numbers the
following year. The commercial catch numbers from 2015 are staggering: 263.5 million fish, comprised of 474,000 Chinook, 15.2
million chum, 3.6 million coho, 190.5 million pink and 54 million sockeye. I
don’t have their hatchery cost figures, but this system is criticized for
homogenizing gene pools across many watersheds, and putting too many predators
in the ocean after the same amount of food.
I don’t have figures for Oregon and
California. My recollection is that work on the Columbia is in the billion
range, but that would have double counting of Washington costs in it. And
comparing the two systems, with the figures I have, is comparing apples and
cumquats.
The reason for marking chinook in BC is
that they are in our waters 12 months of the year, are the mainstay of the
sport fishery, are in lesser numbers than other species and we want to know
where they are from. The other four species are pass through fish for a max of
two months in the year, and here only as adult fish.
As for marking, there is less in Canada, and largely
for chinook. The main purpose is to get return figures from the heads with tags
in them turned into DFO for analysis – which fish is from where. In Puget
Sound, the main purpose in marking is to provide a sport fishery, rather than
return information. Both systems protect wild fish. As mentioned, we are
authorized to fish for Puget Sound chinook under the Pacific Salmon Commission.
And yes, the vast majority of our hatchery fish are
unmarked. Marking has a cost and a marking plant costs a million bucks, and
that’s a stumbling block. I have witnessed marking coho by hand, and it is
costly to mark a lot of fish – and these were not tagged, as in a coded wire
inserted into a head.
Most of Juan de Fuca, and Haro Strait has marked Puget
Sound chinook in the winter months – up to 80%. Cowichan chinook migrate north
and then circle Georgia Strait before leaving for the ocean hence, with some
migrating through Johnstone Strait, their addition to Victoria area fisheries
is low.
Turning to retention limits, we have slot limits,
meaning from a set shortest length fish to a set longest length fish. In
Victoria, the short length is 45 cm, while north of Cadboro Point, it is 62. The
Victoria long length is 67. The purpose is to protect wild fish, 3 years and,
at this time in the annual calendar, four year and older chinook on spawning missions,
from both BC and Washington. We have mature chinook in our waters eight months
of the year from March through to October from both BC and Washington State.
This year’s current regulation for Cadboro Point to
Sheringham Point (expect this to change), from March 1 to June 17 is: “Daily
limit of 2 chinook: Wild or hatchery marked between 45 cm and 67 cm; or Hatchery
marked greater than 67 cm in length; and, Minimum size 45 cm in length.”
In other words, at present the large marked chinook we can keep are
largely Puget Sound returnees. I mentioned recently that the Fraser spring 5-2s
and summer 5-2s are expected at a very low 25,000 Fraser River mouth number.
Expect an announcement based on the Albion river sampling to May 31 shortly.