Hey, everyone.

This topic came up in the "Pissing" thread, and I thought it should have its own thread...

It's not about seeding rivers with carcasses, it's about seeding rivers with nutrients, literally dumping fertilizer in them.

I've seen some studies, not on hand now, that have some positive things about it. However, the (not so obvious) problem is this; the areas of rivers that are most nutrient poor are at the headwaters, gradually becoming more rich as the river system grows. If we fertilize the headwaters, by the time the water gets down to the lowlands the problem kicks in.

The problem is that farming, industry, and water treatment generally takes place in the lowlands. If we seed the upper, somewhat sterile, parts, by the time the water goes past a mill, a treatment plant, and two cattle farms, the water is considerably "over-seeded" with organic nutrients.

Is there a way to avoid this problem? The legal concern is that water below those industrial concerns won't pass the Clean Water Act standards, and those industries will pay the price...

Does anyone have any scholastic or practical knowledge about this problem? Mine is only rudimentiary, so I'm interested in what others may have to say about it.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd
I've probably read the same studies and am in the same boat...tooo may boxes of stuff. The one I liked the most was the one on north Vancouver Island where they substantially brought back the health of the ecosystem thru use of fertlizer pellets in the upper watersheds.
In this case there aren't any problems in the lower reaches with additional inputs from humans.
We might look at most of the OP rivers as candidates for this type of work. also the canadians see this as a temporary measure as when the rivers become saturated with fish then mother nature can take over in the long term.

gooose

It seems to me that the upper reaches of the rivers are the healthiest section of our rivers.So why are we adding nutriants?Is the goal to enhance the middle lower sections of the river?I personaly am a big believer in salmon carcass's being put in the rivers.I am just not sure about "fertilizing" the head waters?

I have a whole binder full of info on this topic that I was fortunate to have been given. I don't have time at the moment to OCR everything into the post here (especially with a bad OCR program and photocopies to start with). It includes an extensive study on the fertilizer made by Vigoro Corp. which applied for a patent on it on January 27, 1995.

But looking over the data, OR & WA streams are in sad shape when it comes to fertile streams. A URL you can visit to give an overview:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/salmon000207.html

An excerpt from this article:

"Research has indicated that between 93 and 155 carcasses per kilometer are needed to provide the maximum ecological benefit on coho streams. While Oregon’s goal for coastal coho streams is 26 fish per kilometer, only two to seven fish per kilometer were found in 1997."

When was the last time you saw that many carcasses in a the upper tribs. Not very often I'd imagine ... but I've seen streams in other regions that have these sorts of numbers and more ... just wish we had them here

Todd,

It's difficult, but possible to do on at least some streams. Timing and amount and type of fertilizer are critical. As water flows downstream, the fertilizer is "processed" and taken up by whatever can use the nutrient enhancement. As long as this happens before the next organic inputs from farms or factories or peeing fishermen, there should be no problem. But if there is a screw-up, then there would be a risk of creating a biological oxygen demand (BOD) or chemical oxygen demand (COD), and then fish in that area ain't gonna' be happy.

So, short answer is yes. But with a lot of care.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

What?! Do some of our lower rivers pass Clean Water Act standards? I had no idea--! Which ones?!

Here's two...the Dosewallips and the Duckabush.

Gooose

I have thought that the streams have become sterile for years but I am a fraid of science trying to replace mother nature.One thing I learned up in the Bearing sea is that mother nature rules.We need Bardo to use that whirly bird to haul salmon up to replace what is not there any more.I am still finding salmon remains,they are old but is it time release?Should be a thousand times!Mother nature rules.
I post this before reading Bob's link so bear with me! what do you think I will be back eating crow!

ltlCleo nothing wrong with what you're saying. The pellet thing is more economical from what I've read and is seen as a short time fix....then nature is allowed to take over. Hauling carcasses has some problems also with distribution of diseases. But both are only tools that can work if used proper.

gooose

I'd be real careful with this. Aside from the difficulty with timing and the proper dosage, adn the risks of BOD that have been brought up earlier, there are dramatic changes in biodiversity possible from such a sudden input of nutrients. Matching the time-release of natural process like the decomposition of fish carcasses and the distribution of the waste products of creatures that utilise these carcasses is difficult if not impossible. Different organisms are likely enhanced by sudden jolts of processed fertilizer, and sudden differences are not good in nature. Add to this the possibility that reaches that run through commercial forest lands may be fertilized to grow doug fir clones better at any time and you have a real risky situation.

That being said, I think Goose has a point - particularly since the Dose and Duck steelhead populations have not responded to several years of C&R - although the coho seemed to a little bit this year . We long ago lost the upriver stocks in these streams, and they have gotten horribly sterile - might be a good place to try fertilizer, say in one and not the other and compare the results.

Also, I once read a study done on the Cispus that pointed out the dramatic decline in size and numbers of native trout brought on by the near total loss of nutrients provided by now extinct Cispus salmon runs. Now this is one that you would really have to be careful with - the lower Cowlitz is way eutrophic and may even be on the 4d list. But still, maybe a good place to experiment, lots of still water for biodegredation to go on anyway.

The lack of salmon problem does more than just make rivers nutrient poor - gravel becomes cemented with silt if it is not turned over several times by many fish spawining on top of each other. The "criminal excess" of overspawning salmon also produces lots of eggs and fry for consumption for ESA listed and proposed species, like Bull and Cutthroat trout, and is likely the single most significant reason these fish are going extinct. The rivers are also unable to support resident rainbow, which are simply a river form of steelhead that never leave for the ocean and are the basis for run perpetuation in terrible El Nino ocean years. Basically, there are no MSY numbers of fish and W.E. Ricker was an idiot - the what to our eyes appears as overspawning and individual fish survival reduction would never have developed naturally if it was a detriment to the species. Unless we leave wild fish alone to spawn to their maximum excess they are doomed. So, oppose commercial fishing and release anything with an adipose fin, and encourage the rest of the world to do the same

Nice post spawnout.This is the type of thread that I like?I have alot to learn in these areas!

All the canal tribs exept the Skoke are blocked in the lower reaches.The Dose is blocked by falls somewhere around mile 10? Tha Hamma Hamma is blocked down low.The Duc was blocked at about mile five untill the state blasted the chute open.I see fish in the canyon upstream of the old barrier but have never seen any above that canyon and I made a point of looking hard this year.I believe that just because you remove a barriar doesn't mean the fish are going beyond there traditional reaches.I see way to many fish just upstream spawning to believe they go much farther,atleast in any effecting numbers.

The Duc has only been logged once and above mile 7 or so is all second growth.I would say that two thirds of that river is pristine.

The dose again is in good shape all things considered.I think that the dose has a problem with all the camping and fishing done on it in the summer.I know how many smolt I killed with worms as a kid,how much do we multiply it by?None of those rivers are big by any means especialy when you cut them in half with a natural barrier.The Dose recieves alot of preasure during the summer!99% of the fish caught by all that preasure are smolt not trout.(Goose buddy don't beat me up to bad

I know so little about the Hamma Hamma in its lower reaches that I will leave that one alone.I will say that two thirds do not see any ocean going fish.

Most of the creeks dumping into the west side of the canal are blocked down low also.There are a couple that are not as RichG Knows.

The Skoke is in a whole other world.That dam on the N. fork is an atrocity.I just did a bit of research on it and canot believe what politics has done to that river.I also will say that the best friend that river has are the Skoke indians nets and all!They have forked out the most money and fought the hardest for that river!I have spent the last couple of weeks driving around up there and talking to the fishery guys at the hatcherys.I stated a couple of weeks back that I thought logging practises have changed for the better,I do not think that now.There are too many roads flushing mud straight into it.I am surprised anything has survived the abuse that river has taken!

Leaving the Skokomish R. out of this, how come we do not have the fish we used to?

I do not believe we have lost the stocks in the upper reaches they are blocked.I know what has returned for a good ten years,better than the state.There is enough stock to come back if left alone.

The dead salmon on those rivers pretty well get flushed out to the canal by jan.If we add more nutriants but don't have more fish to balance this out what are we doing?Seems to me if we let the fish return than we get more nutrients.I don't believe we will get more fish by adding nutrients.Maybe fatter fish but more,no.

The whole Idea of rebuilding our stocks with science scares me.A biologist gets exited over an idea and goes looking for the answers he wants and ignores the facts.

Science has been used to come up with the states numbers and it obviosly doesn't work.The state has used science to many times and when the truth rolls into the bay it hardly ever agrees.The state's science has got us where we are now.

I think political preasure has more to do with those numbers than the actual science that is used to justify it.Our ecosystem is not an exact mathematicle equation,whether we like it or not!

I wasted my time once sticking up for the creek I learned how fish behave in as a snot nose.I caught searuns,silvers and chum in a creek you could jump without getting wet as a grown man.The best memmories of my life.I went to a hearing in front of the county to try to reduce the amount of units a developer was going to build on top of the creek.The developers Bioligist who did the impact statement,stood up and looked me straight in the eyes and said that the creek only had trout in small numbers and never supported a salmon stock.He also stated that the old boy who owned the land before,cows, did more harm that 9 living units per acre would do.That weighed more in that hearing than the truth because of science.

It is too easy to twist theory into fact.It happens all the time in the medical world.Just listen to the news.

I believe you can use science to understand mother nature but you can't use it to control her.

Seals have become a bad problem.Once upon a time there was enough fish to take care of the food cycle but not with human intervention.Man has also chased away the only predetor the seals have so the canal has become a refuge governed only by the amount of food available.

Once again mother nature is the answer but will we use her,no.All you have to do is leave her alone and she will show all her glory!!

lTlCleo not to worry...gotta agree with pretty much everything you said .

Spawnout was all right on with his cautions about nutrient use. The one thing he needs to consider though is what you see today as far as biodiversity is not what it was 20 years ago or longer. But a cautionary approach is the right path.

ltlCleo is also right about harvest of smolts...lots of fathers showing their kids how to catch downstream migrant steelhead and coho(easily identified by the white stripe on their anal fin). This continues to occur even though the regs are pretty clear that if it ain't fin clipped then you can't keep it.

Also the seals at the mouths of these rivers are able to overwhelm the returning steelhead as these fishes numbers have been driven below the level at which they can recover on their own...simple predator/prey relationship.

Good discussion.

Gooose

I read an article on a study conducted a couple of years ago by the Canadian Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans. I for the life of me can't remember the name of the river. Their biologists analyzed a salmon to determine the mineral/nutrient level(not sure what species). They determined that nitrogen was the largest component. They manufactured a charcoal briquette comprised of the same amount of nitrogen as a salmon carcasse(these were time release to mimic the natural decay of a salmon). They dropped these briquettes in based on the number of salmon that usually spawn . When the progeny of the actual spawners out-migrated they trapped the fish and measured the smolt. Based on previous out-migration studies these particular smolt were much larger and healthier than those of the previous studies. Canada is looking at this as a short term aid(not a solution) towards recovery. As far as the lower parts of the river is concerned, out-migrating fish only hang around short term so I don't think this would be a big issue. Besides, most of this activity as well as carcass seeding occurs in the middle upper reaches of most watersheds.
I like the idea as long as it is used to jumpstart mother nature and not as a cure all.

Chumcatcher

OK gang thought I would chime in on some info on MSY and it's inefficientcies(sp). The information below is from a project I did regarding this nutrien recycling. It was taken from, I believe The Canadian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, and all the data here relates to the Skagit River. Their are three numbers for each species Current Goal using the MSY, actual fish numbers the last 25 yrs up to 1999, and the needed goal to obtain enough nutrients to satisfy all fish and bbirds along the river(note this does not include the forest and the flood plains down below).

OK so the numbers current goal for Chinook per year is 17,900, actual 14,870 and needed 121,600. For Coho Current Goal 30,000, actual 21,884, and needed 72,400. For Pinks, and this did not include this year, Current Goal 330,000, actual spawners 383,692, and needed spawners 500,000. Chum are slightly different between even and odd years because the amount of pinks in an odd year off sets the number of chum needed. But in an even year the goal for Chum is 117,800, the actual spawners has been 107,407, and the needed spawners is 178,500.

Obviously MSY does not work worth a darn. One other thing I remember reading in this article was that even when you add up the Harvest in the Saltchuck and the Ocean the amount of fish returning would not meet the needed goals. This is not as much about Seeding as it is about the joke of MSY.

My opinion on jump starting the seeding process is to take cautious steps but lets at least move forward before all we fertilize are empty streams.

NEN