When I was growing up my extended family used to spend Christmas at the house of my grandfather in northern England. It was a time when the whole clan would come together to eat, drink and generally catch up. As part of the get-together my grandfather always laid on a special treat — a smoked Atlantic salmon. This was over 20 years ago, before aquaculture, when salmon in any form was an expensive delicacy, and certainly cost considerably more than the Nintendo Entertainment System that had been on my letter to Santa one year. Christmas was the only time in the year that I would eat salmon; it was a revered feast, traditional, part of a family ceremony. I believe salmon should be eaten like this today. Over the years it seems as if peoples’ mindsets concerning salmon has changed; we’ve relegated it from a delicacy to be shared with pride in social situations to an overly processed staple all too often wolfed down off the knees in front of the television.

The Sockeye Migration

In Canada there has been much media attention directed at the fate of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River of British Columbia. The life cycle of Fraser sockeye historically represents one of the world’s great migrations. The salmon hatch from eggs laid in freshwater rivers and lakes and remain as parr in freshwater for two years before migrating out to sea as smolt. After two years growing in the North Pacific Ocean, up to tens of millions of adult fish migrate from off the coast of Alaska, down Canada’s west coast, into the mouth of the giant Fraser River near Vancouver. Some sub-populations then travel up to 1000 km against the current, through river systems to the spawning grounds they left as youngsters. The sockeye migration is of huge ecological importance; it transfers protein-rich nutrients from the Pacific Ocean to fertilize fresh water lakes and tributaries. This influx of food supports large predators such as grizzly bears and eagles, which in turn leave thousands of salmon carcasses strewn throughout the surrounding forests potentially helping to make them some of the most productive and fertile in the world. As well as being an integral part of the biosphere of western Canada, sockeye are, or at least were, of enormous commercial significance. Revenue from commercial and recreational fishing previously generated over a billion dollars annually, and employed thousands of local people either directly, as fishers or indirectly, as laborers in processing plants and canneries. Sockeye are also of huge cultural significance to the First Nations people of the Fraser River. The symbolism is clearly evident in their history; migrating sockeye with their scarlet bodies contrasting against their green heads and tails are easily recognizable in the art and dress of the local people. Even the name “sockeye” is believed to have descended from sθə ́qəy, which is the species name in Halkomelem, the language of the First Nations of the Lower Fraser.

Are We Heeding The Sockeye Danger Signs?

The enormous ecological, commercial and cultural presence of salmon makes the acceptance of the recent decline in sockeye returns all the more shocking. However, a quick look at the basic numbers published by the government can be misleading. Due to their life cycle, sockeye in the Fraser are categorized by what are known as run cycles. As the standard life cycle is four years long, there are four run cycles; the returning adults produce spawn that will eventually return in four years time as the next generation of fish in their cycle. The biggest of these is known as the Dominant Cycle, the last one of which was 2006, and this year the run was one of the largest ever recorded. This huge salmon run has on multiple occasions seen over 20 million fish returning to the river. After the Dominant Cycle is the Sub-dominant, which is roughly half the size of the Dominant, and the remaining two years are known as the Small Cycles, and are roughly one-tenth the size of the Dominant Cycle. It is thought that that the differences in cycle size are linked to the building of the Canadian National Railway in 1913 and 1914. During these years thousands of tons of rubble were dumped into the Fraser River due to the sides of canyons being blasted to build bridges, and due to the famous collapse at Hell’s Gate. Rock falling into the river formed a near impenetrable barrier across the entire width of the lower Fraser cutting off the adult salmon from their spawning grounds. These disasters led to a near total failure of the run for two successive years, and despite extensive efforts to rebuild the populations, the two Small Cycles remain small to this day. In recent times all cycles have been in serious decline; some populations are even being considered for listing as endangered.

At present, the government of Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages the sockeye in the Fraser, along with the other species of salmon. This management includes counting numbers of returning salmon and setting harvest levels. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has come under fierce scrutiny in recent times from fishers and the public at large due to declines in returns, and highly inaccurate predictions of the numbers in these returns, leading to conservation and lost revenue concerns. This came to a head in 2009, when initial forecasts were predicting runs in excess of 10 million fish, despite the fact 2009 falls on a Small Cycle. In fact, a little over one million fish returned that year, and the previously lucrative fishery never opened. The fallout over this poor year was so severe that a judicial enquiry was launched to uncover what was responsible for the poor returns and why the prediction was inaccurate.

The Ecological Implications of Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific

The effects of the large numbers of salmon farms producing non-native Atlantic salmon, which are situated along the migration route of the wild fish, have been widely blamed for the poor returns. The current hypothesis is that sea lice or other diseases, present in the farms, are infecting wild fish as they pass by en route to the ocean as juveniles, or on the way back to the river as adults. While this hypothesis makes logical sense, at present there remains only anecdotal evidence to support it, such as the fact that the populations entering from the north which pass areas of intense fish farming are performing much more poorly that those returning via the south of Vancouver island. The big question has to be why concrete, scientifically rigorous evidence has not been carried out. Why isn’t money being spent on research to specifically monitor fish as they pass by the farms to look for incidence of disease? Responsibility for carrying out this work must surely belong to Fisheries and Oceans, and although not cheap, it ought to show one way or another whether the farms are a problem. The reason the research is not being carried out may stem from a severe conflict of interest. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is an economic department, and fish farms are a reliable and profitable source of income. I suspect it’s not that Fisheries and Oceans know there is a link with fish farms and the decline; it’s that they don’t want to know. Many staff members who hold the purse strings for research are highly involved in the aquaculture industry and literally don’t want to know if there’s a link. No news is good news.

I would propose the Department be split. Divide it into two smaller departments: the Department of Fisheries (an economic department), and the Department of Oceans (a conservation department). Each could act as the other’s regulator; the immediate effect would be that communication becomes more transparent and traceable. Within a department, communication is often verbal, leaving no record. Instead, if people were forced to e-mail and communicate in written forms, what’s being said is there for all to see. A fact illustrated by the recent global warming e-mail scandal at the University of East Anglia. What also surprises me is that there appears to be little promotion of the four run cycles; more discussion of this phenomenon by both the government and the popular media would mean the public would be better informed about the situation and potentially disastrous low returns would not come as such a surprise.

Climate Change

Another potential cause for decline in salmon numbers is the serious increase in temperature in the Fraser River over the past 20 years, with waters now 2^o C warmer than previously recorded. Although this may not sound like a large increase, salmon are not able to regulate their body temperatures, and their muscles and metabolisms perform best over a very narrow range of temperatures. Higher temperatures reduce the amount of oxygen present in the water making the situation even worse. As a result, the rise in temperature can lead to serious stress levels for the fish, causing direct mortality or intensifying their susceptibility to disease. These increases in temperature, likely the result of global warming and the human population becoming larger, are more difficult to address. Global warming is everyone’s fault and responsibility, and there are no rapid solutions. The best course of action for the salmon may be to reduce all other stressors. Substantially reducing fishing and, should a concrete link be demonstrated, fish farming will give the fish the best possible chance to evolve the ability to cope with the warmer water.

The judicial enquiry itself also raises serious questions. As mentioned earlier the sockeye populations in the Fraser are on a four-year run cycle. The 2009 run, which is the return under enquiry, had the lowest numbers on record. That year was also the second and smallest of the Small Cycles. The reason a bumper year was predicted for 2009 instead was because the number of young salmon being released had been artificially increased through the use of hatcheries. However they failed to return. The year 2010 on the other hand is the year of the Dominant Cycle, and the run size was enormous, substantially larger than was predicted before the season. The judicial enquiry has been running for nearly a year now, and must have at least suspected that salmon returns in 2010 would be very large. Is it reasonable to suspect that the government has simply delayed the 2009 enquiry until after the 2010 run? Believing that the 2010 returns will fill the newspapers with headlines stating, “the fish have returned! We don’t know what the government did but it worked! Everything’s wonderful again”? It’s not outside the realm of possibility. By delaying the enquiry the government has been buying itself time, and giving itself the opportunity to look like a savior in 2010. However, due to the natural cycle the run in 2011 will be smaller, and even smaller in 2012 and 2013, and then we will be in the same position as we were in 2009.

Genetically Modified Salmon

Although the situation on the west coast of Canada appears as though it may be a cause for concern, far more worrying developments are occurring on the east coast of the US. The American Food and Drug Administration has begun a 60-day public consultation looking at whether to approve genetically modified (GM), farmed Atlantic salmon for human consumption. The salmon, known as AquAdvantage Salmon, have been created by AquaBounty Technologies in Boston, Massachusetts. This GM fish contains growth hormone genes from Pacific Chinook salmon and control DNA from ocean pout, an unrelated fish resembling an eel. As a consequence the fish grow at twice the speed of normal Atlantic salmon. This is the first time a GM animal has ever been considered for consumption in the US meaning legislation regarding it doesn’t even exist. The company claims that the increased growth rate gives better yields, and the fish are bred to be sterile so even if they did escape the transgenic fish should not interbreed. What else is interesting about the story is that although the company press release has information on the inserted genes from the closely related Chinook salmon, it has no mention of the genes from the unrelated pout. Despite company claims that the increased growth rates reduce environmental impacts, the situation must be looked at in a benefit/risk manner. The main benefit is clearly going to be increased yield, which only really benefits the farmers, and the company producing the fish. This in real terms doesn’t benefit the environment or the consumer, only the industry. The main risk of GM Salmon is clearly these fish escaping and establishing a viable wild population. Although AquaBounty claims this risk is small, if it were to happen the consequences could be catastrophic. The faster growing fish may be able to out-compete wild populations and then wreck havoc in the wider ecosystem. There’s no way any impartial observer could claim the benefits outweigh the potential risks, no matter how small.

Overall, the future for salmon may be looking a little bleak now, but it’s by no means a certainty, and what’s needed isn’t that difficult to achieve. The main issue is for governments and those involved in the industry to stop seeing salmon as a pure resource to be plundered, and for us as consumers to hold them in higher regard. These beautiful and astonishing animals are an integral part of not one, but several important ecosystems. They require respect, and should be treated with the dignity they deserve. It’s highly likely that we’re all in some way partially responsible for salmon declines, either through consumption driving markets, global warming, or inaction leading to GM production. Like salmon, we’re an important component of many ecosystems and have to realize our position and take responsibility. I’d like to share a side of smoked salmon with my grandchildren, and I’d like them to see it as a special delicacy, something they didn’t come across every day, rather than them knowing it as a processed additive, or not knowing it at all.

Words: Brian Fox.