Info on decline of salmon

S
Spydeyrch
0
I found this website. It is very informational and interesting. I think y'all should take a look at it. Don't forget the links on the left of the page for more reading information.

Enjoy!!

https://www.fws.gov/salmonofthewest/salmon.htm

-Spydey
 
thanks for posting that, not too deep into details and science but but good coverage of most of the big picture....
 
okay well first off, steelhead and trout are not a salmonoid. they do not have that bone in their tail allowing them to be tailed much easier. so that was wrong. second the hatchery and wild fish being geneticly different, how is that possible if the salmon they used to get the eggs and sperm were both from wild fish then all smolts from that will have the same genetic make up as a wild fish. they just get raised in a pond. and like roger said, not very scientific just saying things that people already know. i read a bunch of it though its intresting to read, thanks for the link
 
Trout are considered salmonid along with char, grayling and various whitefish. A tailbone has nothing to do with identification.

Thanks for sharing Spydey. Good info.
 
joem said:
okay well first off, steelhead and trout are not a salmonoid. they do not have that bone in their tail allowing them to be tailed much easier.

Well actually .... they are part of the salmoniod family. Consult Dr. Wiki, ODFW, Federal sites, etc. It is part of the salmonoid family. :D

joem said:
I read a bunch of it though its intresting to read, thanks for the link

Yeah, I found it to be interesting. Granted, perhaps some of it wasn't backed by cited research, but none-the-less, it still is an interesting read. :think:

-Spydey
 
joem said:
okay well first off, steelhead and trout are not a salmonoid. they do not have that bone in their tail allowing them to be tailed much easier. so that was wrong. second the hatchery and wild fish being geneticly different, how is that possible if the salmon they used to get the eggs and sperm were both from wild fish then all smolts from that will have the same genetic make up as a wild fish. they just get raised in a pond. and like roger said, not very scientific just saying things that people already know. i read a bunch of it though its intresting to read, thanks for the link


They are considered salmonids... also rainbow trout and steelhead are one and the same species. To the best of my knowledge they still have not figured out why some elect to migrate and others to stay. To touch on the genetic differences, there is less genetic diversity with hatchery reared fish. Also way back when they first started doing hatcheries they would collect fish from one system and release them in another system effectivly "contaminating" genetics of a particular river. There are quite a few factors that can alter the genetics of the fish. also rearing situations can impose certain predisposition in the fish.
 
yeah but the genetic make up is still the same of a wild fish. and the salmanoid thing i was told that they werent by a scientist so i dont know. but yeah stay on topic haha have you guys watched to documentery some one put on here of the disease from farmed fish? im watching it now kinda scary
 
joem said:
yeah but the genetic make up is still the same of a wild fish. and the salmanoid thing i was told that they werent by a scientist so i dont know. but yeah stay on topic haha have you guys watched to documentery some one put on here of the disease from farmed fish? im watching it now kinda scary

Yes, it is a very cool documentary. But as with any information, one must take it with a grain of salt. Information can be manipulated to best support one side or the other while making the other side or another appear very evil. Although it is very informative and astounding what happened. I think things need to be investigated more in depth and further to get a definitive result.

But yes, I agree. Very scary!! My question is, how is this affecting the wild steelhead runs too? They take the same paths as the salmon. And they are in decline too. Why? :think:

-Spydey
 
joem said:
...have you guys watched to documentery some one put on here of the disease from farmed fish? im watching it now kinda scary

yeah, that was me. farm raised fish: just say NO!
 
rogerdodger said:
yeah, that was me. farm raised fish: just say NO!

The one I am thinking of was posted by Mr. Ace. It is the Salmon Confidential. Very interesting video!!

-Spydey
 
I just returned from a two week trip to Ireland. We stayed in a small B&B on Galway Bay. As we drove along I would see a lot of signs that said "No open cage salmon--save Galway Bay". I asked the fellow we were stay with what that was all about. It turn out that it was in regard to rasing farm salmon in Galway Bay. The folks in the area are dead set against it. They don't want the disease problem in their bay. They want to protect their salmon which comes form mostly hatchery stock. With out their hatchery programs they would not have what fishery they do have. I was interested in their salmon problem because they lack the big logging and dam problems that samlon have had here. Over there it is mostly over fishing by forgein countries. One fellow I talked to said you can see the forien vessles light at night from the beech. Their coast guard and fisheries folks will arrest a boat but then there are still 20 others out there still fishing. I feel sorry for them as their fishing is nothing like ours. Oregon is such a great place and there has been a dramtic improvemet in both the attitude toward salmon and salmon habitat. I hope things contiue to improve as they have been.
 
Last edited:
Spydeyrch said:
The one I am thinking of was posted by Mr. Ace. It is the Salmon Confidential. Very interesting video!!

-Spydey

yep, that is it, we both must have linked it, I posted it on March 16th under "other stuff (related to fishing)"...
 
I love these topics, its like global warming. We all need some so called expert to tell us things that are obvious and directly in front of our blind eyes. wake up and pay attention. think 3 steps into the future.

Why do we need evidence to support something you can look at with your own eyes. I can tell you that in my 33 years on earth (no time at all in the age of the earth) things have changed in nature. Period. I don't need a study to tell me this, I have been watching it with my own eyes. Humans have lost the ability to trust their own eyes with the advent of the interweb. They somehow think google is more right than that which is directly in front of their face. I actually have people come into my restaurant and tell me that we are supposed to have blah blah because its on the website. I tell them "well, can you see it here in front of you?" "But its on the website..." Put your phone down and open your eyes.

Any time humans start tinkering with nature, genetic diversity is lost. Any time genetic diversity is lost, a population suffers. Any time a population suffers, there is a subsequent decline in organisms which depend on the suffering population. It is an indisputable fact of nature. what is crazy is how infrequently people take the next few steps. salmon migrate into small rivers. these small rivers are often located in forests. the dying salmon are a very important source of nutrients for that ecosystem. No dying salmon means no nutrients for rainforests of the PNW. this will cause a decline in tree species and then our air and water start to lose natural filtration mechanisms. not to mention the fact that rainforests actually create more rain, due to the water holding capacity and transpiration of trees. Stop feeding this system, and this system stops feeding you, know what I'm saying?

and we thought we were just talking about fishing...
 
MattZ said:
.....and we thought we were just talking about fishing...

I thought we were talking about cheeto flies .... :think: :confused: ......

hahahaha


Very good points MattZ. It is true that things can be beheld with one's own eyes. But to convince the masses, reputable proof and a scientific foundation is what is needed to be credible. Then you got the bureaucrats and the politicians ( tangent: what are the root words that make up politics? Poly = many, tic = blood sucking parasite. Thus politicians are groups of many blood sucking parasites!!! hahaha :lol:) that try to standardize everything so that their tiny minds can categorize, organize, and control what they don't grasp and understand. Then you have the paper work, the laws, the measures, the this and that that. It takes up time and nothing gets done. Granted I think that a biologist's standpoint is crucial, even if their research takes years to come to a conclusive point/resolution, it is for the better in most cases ... the biologist's work that is. But for all the laws and congress, and government that interjects their "power" (power we give them) and hand, it doesn't solve a thing.

Just sayin' ......

-Spydey
 
Spydeyrch said:
But for all the laws and congress, and government that interjects their "power" (power we give them) and hand, it doesn't solve a thing.

Just sayin' ......

-Spydey

that's right, what has our congress/governent ever done that improved things....nothing right?...

sure, mandating catylitic converters and all the other emission stuff have reduced auto emissions to near zero but what else? (anyone else remember LA in the late 60's? been there recently?)....and record high fuel economy numbers, mandated by laws, have cut our oil imports dramatically, but what else? or laws requiring airbags and such (which saved both my son's lives in 2006 when they were in and walked away from a head-on in a well designed and US build Saturn ION)...
and rivers in the east stopped catching on fire and the great lakes have recovered, fisheries are recovering all over but what else have regulations and the Clean Water Act done?...
and don't get me started on the FAA and aircraft regulations, I mean the last major air incident in the US was what, several YEARS ago...

but other than that, what have laws and regulations ever solved or improved?

(extra credit if you picked up on the Monty Python theme...)....cheers, roger
 
Spydeyrch said:
Very good points MattZ. It is true that things can be beheld with one's own eyes. But to convince the masses, reputable proof and a scientific foundation is what is needed to be credible. Then you got the bureaucrats and the politicians ( tangent: what are the root words that make up politics? Poly = many, tic = blood sucking parasite. Thus politicians are groups of many blood sucking parasites!!! hahaha :lol:) that try to standardize everything so that their tiny minds can categorize, organize, and control what they don't grasp and understand. Then you have the paper work, the laws, the measures, the this and that that. It takes up time and nothing gets done. Granted I think that a biologist's standpoint is crucial, even if their research takes years to come to a conclusive point/resolution, it is for the better in most cases ... the biologist's work that is. But for all the laws and congress, and government that interjects their "power" (power we give them) and hand, it doesn't solve a thing.

Just sayin' ......

-Spydey

I don't think we need to convince the general population that things have gone awry. I'm convinced that everyone knows it, if not consciously, then down in our bones, we know something is very, very wrong. I believe we cling to the hope that some scientific wizard will shake a magic wand and make everything right again.

I read an old EPA report 15 years ago that said, in undisputed language, that there isn't a drop of water in North America that isn't already badly polluted by antibiotics, synthetic estrogens and steroids. Not a single drop. Probably just as bad everywhere else, but the science was based on research in Canada and the U.S. They're in the water table now: even the water from deep springs and wells is contaminated.

If you need a source of genetic drift - "drift" is the correct scientific term - look to the effects of multi-generational exposure to these synthetics in a captive population hampered by limited genetic diversity. Or, just look at the amphibians...
 
rogerdodger said:
that's right, what has our congress/governent ever done that improved things....nothing right?...

These are little, practically insignificant things in the global scheme. I couldn't possibly be happier that air bags saved your son's life, but the chemicals used to inflate that bag are horrifically toxic - one of the dealier poisons known - and they don't degrade any faster than PCB's. Think in tens of thousands of years.

Airline safety is all well and good, but the jet engine emissions are eroding the stratosphere and airline traffic is increasing due to higher safety standrds, isn't it?

Been to L.A. quite recently - and Phoenix, Arizona and Medford - and that air isn't fit for a kid to breathe. Didn't we have serious health advisories for the air quality in Medford last Autumn? Sure, they aren't Beijing, but that doesn't mean the air is fine - it's just less toxic than it was.

Catalytic converters didn't eliminate exhaust pollutants, they simply reduce the amount being spewed into the air. Increased fuel economy? Doesn't that put more cars on the roads driving more miles and neutralizing the impled benefits of catalytic converters?

The Cuyahoga, Detroit and Chcago river have stopped catching on fire every year, but to say the Great Lakes have recovered is wrong. You'd be an idiot to eat a fish caught in the Great Lakes without reading all the multi-layered health warnings about how many fractions of an ounce you should think about eating. And really, is any amount of that crap good for you, or is it just in such a low dose that they don't expect you'll drop in your tracks?

Solar power requires incredibly toxic and long-lived materials in the manufacture of solar collectors. Wind farms have dramtic effects on local climate stability.

And all those great laws meant to save our lives: The Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act, The Endangered Species Act? They've all been systematically gutted and the agencies created to test and enforce have had their budget stripped so dramatically that they barely function and there are now so many exemptions that the laws are becoming meaningless. When we hear political shills bemoaning how regulations are strangling Free Enterprise, which regulations do we think they're talking about? They're careful not to say, aren't they?

I'll give extra credit to any who recognize the George Carlin theme... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rogerdodger
Tinker said:
These are little, practically insignificant things in the global scheme. I couldn't possibly be happier that air bags saved your son's life, but the chemicals used to inflate that bag are horrifically toxic - one of the dealier poisons known - and they don't degrade any faster than PCB's. Think in tens of thousands of years.

Airline safety is all well and good, but the jet engine emissions are eroding the stratosphere and airline traffic is increasing due to higher safety standrds, isn't it?

Been to L.A. quite recently - and Phoenix, Arizona and Medford - and that air isn't fit for a kid to breathe. Didn't we have serious health advisories for the air quality in Medford last Autumn? Sure, they aren't Beijing, but that doesn't mean the air is fine - it's just less toxic than it was.

Catalytic converters didn't eliminate exhaust pollutants, they simply reduce the amount being spewed into the air. Increased fuel economy? Doesn't that put more cars on the roads driving more miles and neutralizing the impled benefits of catalytic converters?

The Cuyahoga, Detroit and Chcago river have stopped catching on fire every year, but to say the Great Lakes have recovered is wrong. You'd be an idiot to eat a fish caught in the Great Lakes without reading all the multi-layered health warnings about how many fractions of an ounce you should think about eating. And really, is any amount of that crap good for you, or is it just in such a low dose that they don't expect you'll drop in your tracks?

Solar power requires incredibly toxic and long-lived materials in the manufacture of solar collectors. Wind farms have dramtic effects on local climate stability.

And all those great laws meant to save our lives: The Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act, The Endangered Species Act? They've all been systematically gutted and the agencies created to test and enforce have had their budget stripped so dramatically that they barely function and there are now so many exemptions that the laws are becoming meaningless. When we hear political shills bemoaning how regulations are strangling Free Enterprise, which regulations do we think they're talking about? They're careful not to say, aren't they?

I'll give extra credit to any who recognize the George Carlin theme... :rolleyes:

full marks. "improve" would be a key word in my post; if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, then the result can be no action at all. moving things in the right direction is the first step, how fast we move them is the next part of progress...cheers, roger
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irishrover
rogerdodger said:
full marks. "improve" would be a key word in my post; if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, then the result can be no action at all. moving things in the right direction is the first step, how fast we move them is the next part of progress...cheers, roger

Agreed.
 

Similar threads

delaneycyphers
Replies
4
Views
436
TheKnigit
TheKnigit
EOBOY
Replies
5
Views
478
Hasa
Hasa
troutdude
Replies
0
Views
1K
troutdude
troutdude
bass
Replies
0
Views
277
bass
bass
bass
Replies
0
Views
140
bass
bass
Back
Top Bottom