Atlantic Salmon Trust Review of 2012

January 5th, 2013

Most readers of these blogs will know that I work for the Atlantic Salmon Trust, so I thought you might be interested to read our end of year message to supporters. While I couldn’t deny that there are some threats to the survival of wild salmon and sea trout, I hope you may feel encouraged by some shafts of light that are appearing after the success of the SALSEA project (research into the lives of salmon at sea).  Atlantic Salmon Trust. This new knowledge should ultimately make us better managers of salmon fisheries than we are at present, but there’s a long way to go. For me it is a never ending source of fascination to be working on the big picture simultaneously with managing a small east coast river fishery.

ATLANTIC SALMON TRUST

End of year review 2012

People have asked me recently, “What do you think is the actual state of wild Atlantic salmon stocks?”  While AST has no more information than ICES,  NASCO, or anyone else involved in salmon and sea trout conservation, we do perhaps have an overview of what is happening now, what the trends are, and in some circumstances, what can be done to improve survival. AST’s new strategy, which came into being after our Ocean Silver conference last December, takes the whole life of the salmon – from the egg to the kelt – and breaks it down into what we are calling “the three Pillars”, the ocean zone, coastal waters and the freshwater environment.

AST’s new approach has compelled us to think strategically about threats to both salmon and sea trout throughout their life cycles, and to identify places or periods in their lives where there are opportunities for remedial action. The last year, in the wake of NASCO’s Salmon Summit and AST’s own Ocean Silver conference, has been spent putting together, piece by piece, the new strategy. By looking at the whole lives of the two species from the viewpoints of a) what the threats are and b) Assessing risks to survival each threat poses in the light of likely effectiveness of management interventions, we have a plan of work that will keep us busy for at least the next five years.

The key outcome here is to prioritise the work plan on the basis of where we can make the greatest contribution to conservation, and ultimately survival of both species.

The last year has therefore been a period of gestation, as everyone involved in the science and management of migratory salmonids has clarified their objectives, and none more so than AST. We recognise, among many other initiatives, the outstanding work being done with AST support by GWCT on, for example, parr survival to smolt at East Stoke on the River Frome, and S&TA’s and AST’s hugely important lobbying effort to persuade Government to take action to protect the unique environment of the Southern chalk rivers. Work being done throughout the UK by the Rivers Trust and the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland to improve water quality, flows and access for migratory fish is absolutely essential if our rivers are to produce optimum numbers of smolts. The increasing influence of the national fishing lobby has engaged the wider angling community, and given anglers highly effective political lobbying instruments. However, most of this work concentrates on the freshwater environment, with some notable exceptions.

In coastal waters the old chestnuts of mixed stocks netting and the impacts on salmon and sea trout of salmon aquaculture, have come under increasing scrutiny, with perceptible movement in terms of new data, technologies and opportunities to influence real changes in both areas.

While we cannot yet claim any outcome that has led immediately to a greater abundance of wild salmon and sea trout returning to rivers, the fact that there is now some movement in these debates means that there is at least a modicum of hope that real results can be achieved. The decision by the Westminster Government to phase out the NE drift nets before 2022 is most encouraging. Moreover, there is now recognition by government that T&J nets in England are operating mixed stocks fisheries. In cases where these nets are shown to exploit stocks close to or below conservation levels, they will also be closed. These are big steps forward, and will certainly benefit Scottish rivers, as well as English ones.

Salmon farming in Scotland continues to expand, with large farms being planned off the west coast. This valuable industry, in terms of jobs and revenue, as well as its contribution to removing the pressure off killing wild salmon, deserves our support. Most conservation bodies recognise that industrial scale exploitation of the seas is unsustainable, and that aquaculture can reduce that exploitation.

The problem is that salmon farming as currently practised has been shown to damage the environment and wild life in both fresh and salt water.

For AST this issue is a major challenge because, while we recognise  the achievements of the industry in terms of the economic and social boost is has provided to local communities along the west coast of Scotland, we know that it cannot continue as it is. The Trust’s recent efforts have focussed on alternative technologies where influents and effluents can be properly controlled, and a ‘biological firewall’ placed between farmed fish and the environment. The Trust is now looking carefully at closed containment (CC) technologies. After three visits to Canada and USA to look at the prototype CC industry there, AST has supported its development in the UK. The new re-circulating freshwater systems have been shown to work in terms of the technology, controlled grow-out and product quality, but have not yet persuaded the investment community to take the plunge. With interest being shown in China, Romania, as well as in countries experiencing the adverse effects of open cage systems, we are confident that commercial initiatives are not far off.

The next three years will see AST moving forward, guided by its Three Pillars strategy.

Under Pillar 1 – the ocean – we will identify as precisely as possible the salmon’s ocean migration routes, work with governments to include salmon in their ongoing pelagic monitoring, negotiate safe passage for salmon along their migration corridors. We will also be building an extensive database of the genetic ‘signature’ of historic salmon samples taken from the Greenland and Faroes commercial fisheries and relate those to regions and increasingly to rivers of origin in the UK. For example, knowledge of where salmon from rivers with fragile populations feed will enable us to negotiate with the Greenland Government reductions in fishing intensity in those specific areas. This approach should also enable prediction models to be developed for advising managers of future migrations in terms of both quality and abundance.

Pillar 1. This is the mid Atlantic Ocean, across which our salmon migrate to reach the Greenland feeding grounds. AST aims to negotiate safe corridors for smolt migrations to prevent them ending their lives as by-catch in commercial trawler nets.

Where Spring Salmon feed: the Greenland Coast

Pillar 1. Where the South Esk’s spring salmon feed. This is the west coast of Greenland in the summer of 2011.

Under Pillar 2 – coastal waters – we will identify all existing and potential threats to the safe passage of outgoing migrations of smolts and inward migrations of returning adults. We will then quantify these threats in a risk analysis and prioritise them in terms of our ability to take remedial actions. Inevitably most of the threats where we can take effective action are manmade. We will therefore work closely with our partner organisations and with governments to reduce threats, such as those posed by renewable energy generation and transmission, coastal pollution, impacts of climate change (eg invasive species) salmon farming and mixed stocks exploitation of salmon and sea trout, to an absolute minimum. We will also maintain a close watch on damage to stocks from predation, especially in estuaries.

PILLAR 2 - coastal waters -Rough seas in the Pentland Firth

Montrose Basin, the estuary of the South Esk

Pillar 2. This is Montrose Basin, the tidal lagoon that forms a unique feature of the South Esk estuary. Superb habitat for water fowl, especially geese, waders and birds of prey, it is also important coastal habitat for wild salmonids. There is considerable concern about a current planning application  to install two-way tidal turbines on each side of the new bridge in Montrose, where the South Esk enters the open sea. 

Under Pillar 3 – the freshwater environment – we recognise that the catchment-based monitoring, measuring and maintenance work done by fisheries trusts is the key to natural smolt production. However there is also a vital role for AST in raising awareness of issues such as flows, the role of small streams, the efficacy of stocking, the welfare of sea trout populations and stock assessment.  The Trust’s overview  of the whole lives of salmon and sea trout means we are better placed than ever to support our partners in their work, to initiate new research and communicate results to fisheries managers on the riverbank.

Tyndals Pool

Pillar 3. Tyndals Pool on Finavon Castle Water at a good spring height

AST finds itself increasingly working across national borders, sometimes taking a lead role in bringing together new data under the Three Pillars approach. Our conservation effort focuses on influencing, promoting and enabling relevant research and communicating results to fisheries organisations, trusts and the public.

Lemno pools full of parr

AST is the only conservation charity devoted solely to promoting the wellbeing of wild salmon and sea trout across their full range of habitats at sea and in fresh water. We do not have a subscribing membership, but we do have a growing constituency of AST Friends who regularly give money to the Trust. Because we are a very small organisation (2.5 staff), and are supported by a team of some of the most eminent scientists in the field, we are able to exert our independent leadership separate from any vested interest. While we work in harmony with others in the sector, it is our freedom to develop thought-leadership that gives AST its ability to work with partners throughout the North Atlantic region, especially in the UK and Ireland. Please visit our website and become an AST Friend if you like what you read.

At the end of the day the only success measure will be a recorded improvement in numbers of wild salmon and sea trout returning to our rivers.

WWW.atlanticsalmontrust.org

TA

3 Jan 2013

 

Implications from the radio tracking data

December 18th, 2012

 These bulletin blogs represent news about Finavon and the South Esk, and my views as a riparian owner. They are not the views of any other organisation, nor are they designed to promote the interests of any individual or organisation other than Finavon Castle Water and factors affecting the fishery. Tony Andrews

South Esk radio-tagging and tracking of spring salmon : a three-year project.

I was wrong in an earlier blog to suggest, on the grounds of cost, that Marine Scotland would be unlikely to use helicopters to track salmon in east coast rivers. They were used to great effect to track tagged salmon in the Don, Dee and the two Esks. None were recorded in either the Bervie or the Earn, which is not to say that tagged fish could not be found in other rivers further away from Usan than those with recorded fish. Smaller rivers such as the Cowie at Stonehaven and the Lunan, near Montrose, have not yet been considered.

Usan nets: Scotland's most destructive mixed stocks fishery

Usan Fisheries Ltd nets in Lunan Bay. In May 2011 these nets killed 2,307 spring salmon, of which nearly 700 may have ‘belonged’ to the South Esk and at least 4 other east coast rivers were affected, probably more.

We know from ICES returns that the most fragile component of northeast Atlantic salmon stocks is the spring run of multi sea-winter salmon. Most of the rivers affected by the Usan coastal net catch are showing poor levels of abundance of these early running fish. We should bear in mind that the main spring run is later than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, and now takes place in May. It is from the beginning of that month that the Usan commercial fishery operates. The Usan nets declared a May catch of  2,307 spring salmon in 2011. If you extrapolate that catch proportionately from the 2012 tagging attribution to rivers, it demonstrates the indiscriminate and massively damaging nature of that mixed stocks fishery.

Massive kill of May 2011 spring salmon by Usan nets. Lets do just that, and see what the impact might have been, had the salmon caught by Usan nets in May 2011 been distributed among the rivers proportionately with radio-tagged salmon recorded in Marine Scotland’s 2012 tracking project. Those figures from the 56 salmon recorded after tagging might have revealed the following, had the proportions of that group been attributed to the May 2011 Usan catch of 2,307 MSW salmon:

River with recorded radio -tagged salmon  Number of 2012 salmon recorded from the 153 tagged Percentage of 56 salmon recorded(23xSalmon=1%) No of 2,307 S Usan May 2011 attributed to each river
       
Don 2 3.53% 80 MSW spring salmon
Dee 8 14.12% 320   ”      ”         “
North Esk 19 33.53% 709   ”      ”         “
South Esk 18 31.77% 686   ”      ”         “
Tay 6 10.29% 240   ”      ”         “
       
Recaptured 3 5.29% 120   ”      ”         “

***The table above comes with a health warning for the following reasons:

  1. The 2,307 Usan catch return for May 2011 includes all fish caught, and could include fish from rivers other than those listed above.
  2. The 56 salmon recorded are about 37% of the 153 which were tagged Feb to May 2012.
  3. Annual variations in abundance, sea conditions and catches give this extrapolation exercise indicative status only. It answers the question “What if the proportions of the Usan May 2011 catch were apportioned to rivers as indicated by the MS 2012 tracking project?”
  4. However, despite its obvious flaws, there is sufficient hard data behind the figures to suggest that, at the very least, they should reinforce the Precautionary Principle.  

Marine Scotland’s  South Esk Tracking Project

www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/Research/Freshwater/SoutEskProject

Using data from the first year (of 3 years) of Marine Scotland’s 2012 radio tracking project (153 salmon tagged: 56 later recorded) shows likely exploitation of spring salmon from each river by the Usan Fisheries Ltd coastal nets in May 2011, when 2307 salmon averaging over 9lbs were killed.

In the table above I have taken the percentage of the total salmon recorded after tagging and then attributed those fish on a percentage basis to their rivers. But of course there were only 56 salmon recorded, out of 153 that were fitted with radio tags. However, because of uncertainties over the unrecorded 97 salmon (see paragraph below) it is I feel a valid exercise to use the figure of 56 recorded salmon to allocate the May 2011 catch of 2307 salmon on a proportional basis to each of the affected rivers. Nonetheless, I have also used the bigger number – of tagged salmon, whether recorded or unrecorded – to demonstrate the possible damage done to stocks of spring fish on these rivers, three of which are SACs. Whichever figures you choose to use it is clear that the Usan mixed stocks fishery is doing considerable and indiscriminate damage to fragile spring stocks.

While there may be many reasons for the ‘loss’ of 97 tagged salmon, including predation, regurgitated or malfunctioning tags, or simply that those salmon went out of range or to other rivers, it would perhaps be more logical if we allocate numbers of fish to rivers based on the full 153-fish sample, which generates the figures in the table below:

River with recorded tagged salmon Number of salmon recorded Percentage of fish recorded for each river Number of May 2011 salmon catch of 2307 attributed to each river
Unrecorded 97 63.4% 1,463
Don 2 1.3% 35
Dee 8 5.2% 120
North Esk 19 12.4% 286
South Esk 18 11.8% 272
Tay 6 3.9% 90
Recaptured 3 2.0% 46

“So what?” the cynic might say after reading all these figures, “we’ve known about the mixed stocks nature of Usan nets for years”. Yes, that is certainly true, but I think on this occasion the numbers of fish – a significant proportion of the 153 salmon radio tagged – and the certainty that they are bound for at least 5 other rivers, with the likelihood of other rivers such as Cowie, Lunan and perhaps further afield, show in stark terms the damage that can be done by a mixed stocks fishery at a time when conservation of early running fish is a national management priority. The data have never been more conclusive.

Our cynic might then say, “OK, I concede that point: we now have incontrovertible data showing that these east coast rivers are adversely affected by Usan netting activities, and I don’t deny that is powerful confirmation of what we long suspected. But, judging by its track record, I doubt the Scottish Government will do anything to improve the situation.”

I make the following two points:

The situation has reached a point where the Scottish Government may have to take action in the face of ‘bullet-proof’ data, and because the Westminster Government has now decided to phase out the remaining drift nets and T&J nets by 2022. Moreover, the data are so strong that they may support a successful complaint to Brussels in the light of the 3 SAC rivers (Tay, South Esk & Dee) affected by the Usan nets. Finally, the Minister has not yet responded to the report and recommendations of the Mixed Stocks Fishing Working Group of 2009/10.

The next step is to identify stocks of rivers with fragile populations of spring salmon. If it can be shown that some of the Usan-tagged fish are from populations that are below their conservation levels, then the scientific argument will be watertight when we make the case to the Scottish Government or higher authority for the Usan nets to be closed down. However, even if the angling community argues that catch & release obviates the need to restrict angling pressure on spring salmon, political sensitivities may prevail, with the result that some rivers may have to shorten their angling seasons.

Back to the South Esk;

The tracking project tells us that there are ten tagged fish in the river catchment, representing about 18% of  the 56 subsequently recorded radio-tagged fish. Those salmon are well spread out in the main stem and its main tributary, the Prosen. Others will have spawned elsewhere in the system upstream of Finavon. These recorded salmon were caught and tagged in March, April and May, with none from February. The Rottal Burn, recently restored to a more natural meander than a straight drainage ditch, also shows spawning activity, and a visit from one tagged salmon.

TA 18/12/2012

Some thoughts on Marine Scotland’s tracking project.

December 18th, 2012

These bulletin blogs represent news about Finavon and the South Esk, and my views as a riparian owner. They are not the views of any other organisation, nor are they designed to promote the interests of any individual or organisation other than Finavon Castle Water and factors affecting the fishery. Tony Andrews

It would be wrong to think of the South Esk radio tracking project as a failure, because some very interesting data have emerged from it, some of which are rather unexpected. At the end of year one of a three-year project there is much to build upon. So what has been going on in the South Esk and along the coast south of Scurdie Ness? Here’s a summary:

153 multi sea winter salmon netted and radio tagged at Usan, By Montrose, over 14 weeks between February and May 2012

Where Spring Salmon feed: the Greenland Coast

The Greenland west coast & feeding areas of many of our multi sea-winter spring salmon.

Following tagging, some fish were later recorded by receivers on neighbouring rivers:

3 were recaptured at sea.

19 entered the North Esk, of which 6 returned to sea = 13

18 entered the South Esk, of which 8 returned to sea = 10

8 entered the Dee

6 entered the Tay

2 entered the Don

 56 salmon recorded from a total of 153 tagged = 36%

 36% of salmon recorded after tagging is a very satisfactory sample, although it is perhaps disappointing that such a small number of fish entered the South Esk.

16lbs salmon April 2010

April spring salmon 16lbs

 A caveat: 2012 was not a typical year weatherwise for the South Esk; it is important that we take this into account when using data from the tracking project. In a wet year, as 2012 was, salmon behave differently in inshore areas than they do in a drought year. The threat of a mixed stocks fishery to smaller rivers, such as the Bervie, Lunan, or Fife Eden, is greatly increased in a dry summer. In drought years salmon arriving off the coast are liable to congregate in shoals in the larger estuaries, such as in the Tay estuary, or off Montrose, where freshwater flows are stronger, and concentrations of fish become vulnerable to exploitation by nets.

We have no knowledge of stock structures or abundance of most of the rivers affected by the Usan fishery, nor if any population is below sustainable levels (CLs). In effect this means that, while indiscriminate exploitation continues in this way, we cannot take action on any of these rivers to protect fragile stocks. For the three SAC rivers thus affected there is therefore little prospect of Scotland meeting the basic requirements of the EU’s Habitats Directive.

 Usan nets also affect salmon stocks from unknown, distant rivers

The most recent news from Marine Scotland is that two Usan radio-tagged spring salmon have been recorded in the River Don, just north of Aberdeen. That confirms that fish netted at Usan in the early months of the year (16th February to 31st May) originate in a wide range of rivers, including the Dee, Tay, South Esk, North Esk and Don. Who knows how many other rivers are affected by the mixed stocks coastal nets at Usan?

If, as may be the case, the Usan nets are killing fish from further afield than the 5 identified rivers, it is of concern that stocks from rivers such as the Fife Eden, and even some of the smaller rivers in the Forth estuary, may suffer damage to fragile stock components from Usan nets in a drought year. However you look at it, the Usan Fishery poses a serious threat to the genetic diversity of east coast MSW salmon, especially in drought years.

 Hard facts means no more doubt

It is now beyond dispute that the Usan coastal nets are a mixed stocks fishery par excellence, surely as indiscriminate and destructive as any drift net fishery. Their very existence ensures that it is impossible to manage the stocks of any of the affected rivers fully effectively. It should be noted that Scotland ended its own drift netting in the North Sea in 1962.

There is no conceivable logic, in the light of the data we now have, which show that the Usan nets are at least as damaging to wild salmon stocks as the Scottish drift nets were, why the Usan coastal nets should not be closed too.

It seems to me that the argument for restricting or ending the Usan Fishery is now overwhelming. Please see the next blog for a more detailed proposition.

TA 16 December 2012