Fly Fishing Forum banner

Missing Salmon Project – update 2

14K views 138 replies 12 participants last post by  thetrouttickler 
#1 ·
Missing Salmon Project


Launched in the Spring of 2018, The Missing Salmon Project, is the clarion call that salmon conservation organisations are rallying round to try and halt, and then reverse, further decline. It is an ambitious and collaborative plan which, through the exemplar of The Moray Firth Tracking Project, aims to piece together the mystery of what happens to our smolts as they migrate downstream and out to sea.

The first Missing Salmon booklet was produced in March 2018, and since then a great deal has happened in the planning, fundraising and project design of The Moray Firth Tracking project which is due to start in early 2019.

In this second booklet the Atlantic Salmon Trust and Partners spell out in much more detail the project plan for The Moray Firth Tracking Project giving you a detailed breakdown of the aims and objectives, geography, timings, equipment, finances and likely outcomes.

Starting to solve the mystery of our missing salmonDownload

The post Missing Salmon Project - update 2 appeared first on Fish and Fly.

Source Article...
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
People who should no better.
Leaving aside the fact that they couldn't find a picture of an Atlantic Salmon...

If you or I went down to the river with a trout rod and a team of small wets in April and started catching and releasing smolts all day long they would have something to say about it. But they can trap them and stuff sodding great tags in them and it's OK.

Andy
 
#13 ·
I thought it would go without saying that the transmitters would be tested on fish and the survival rate worked out?
I don't know what I expected but it wasn't fish getting cut open and stitched up with tm inside them.
Apparently 60% never made it to salt water?

Al
 
#29 ·
Bert you will really need to read the report, the figure of 6.32 is actually % loss per kilometre, don't ask me why they cannot be clearer and come out and say 8 fell before the first fence, perhaps they want to keep things confusing. But my point still remains the same every other figure is less or close to 1 % loss per kilometre.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Umm did you read any of the articles you quoted?
There appears to be some concern about the reporting of the surgical techniques used and the types of suturing used. I couldn't find much specifically on smolts, which as has already been pointed out are quite small.

Peter Gray in his book, Swimming Against the Tide suggests even looking at a smolt causes it newly grown scales to fall off. I hate to think what a surgical procedure does to them. Page 142.
 
#36 ·
"
Ninety-one percent loss - in a river the size of the Ness - in April/early May! It all makes good headlines, and will no doubt serve to keep the big corporate sponsors of the project happy by continuing to keep the attention of both the public and salmon anglers well away from their activities. Nevertheless, you do have to wonder what level of loss will persuade somebody to seriously question the methods that are being used?

One prominent feature of the Lost Surgically Tagged Smolt Project is that it has never been referred to as a scientific or science-based endeavour. Indeed, to my knowledge there has been no public mention of the existence a scientific (oversight) committee or, if such a body exists, details of its membership. This may be a simple oversight. However, to date, both the blizzard of press releases and the highly controlled and restricted presentations related to the project have been led by a collection of characters with apparently little or no background in live fish handling, surgery or tagging - or so-called 'suspect frameworks'.

In what seems to be a desperate attempt to get things back on track, a recent press release in a local Scottish newspaper attempted to defend the Project on the basis that the tags were only the size of a Paracetamol tablet. What could be more harmless than just one paracetamol (albeit jammed into the body cavity) - even if you are only a 13 cm long fish that is desperately trying to get down to sea? The problem is that a number of photos that have leaked out suggest the use of a tag that is rather larger than anything available over the counter of your average High Street chemist. Perhaps they meant an equine version of the tablet - or even a particularly poorly designed suppository?

The article went on to state that the tags do no harm. However, the basis this rather critical assertion is not currently known, as there was no reference to a supporting source of data and information - even from the tag manufactures themselves. The potential impacts of field surgery on smolts were not mentioned. "

and

"
Given the shockingly poor rates of survival of surgically tagged smolts, I do wonder if there should be an Option 2 - to sponsor wild smolts to be left alone and NOT tagged in this way?

It would probably be hundreds of pounds cheaper per fish, and they would then at least have a theoretical
3-5% chance of surviving to adulthood and returning to our rivers.

Failing that, I offer the following selection of new 'names':

• Sponsored (to almost certain premature death).

• I'm stuffed - literally! No photos or videos of the tags, surgery procedures - or their results, please.

• Imagine having something the size of a small bathroom peddle bin jammed into your chest cavity - in a layby - by somebody who is not a qualified surgeon.

• Disinfected is not the same as Sterile

• Post-surgery infections can debilitate and lead to death

• Implanted foreign objects can debilitate and lead to death

• I can't tell you (literally) how much my guts hurt

• What's Florence Nightingale's phone number?

• Acoustic tag shedding: do I have a large infected hole in my abdomen?

• Help me - call a vet! "

As far as I know, no attempt was made to keep control groups of smolts to see how many died because of tagging. Instead, an expert on modelling has been employed to crunch the numbers and baffle us with "science". The first two quotes were from, I think, a learned chap not in the loop. Or maybe that should be Loop (but thats a different subject!".
 
#37 ·
In what seems to be a desperate attempt to get things back on track, a recent press release in a local Scottish newspaper attempted to defend the Project on the basis that the tags were only the size of a Paracetamol tablet. What could be more harmless than just one paracetamol (albeit jammed into the body cavity) - even if you are only a 13 cm long fish that is desperately trying to get down to sea? The problem is that a number of photos that have leaked out suggest the use of a tag that is rather larger than anything available over the counter of your average High Street chemist. Perhaps they meant an equine version of the tablet - or even a particularly poorly designed suppository?
The project bumpf says the tags used are Vemco v7.

The Vemco site lists (see link below) four versions of the v7 and gives dimensions. As we can see they are go from 19.5mm to 24mm long and 7mm diameter. I suspect they are using the smaller ones but as Laxdale says it is hardly the size of a headache pill! This being stuffed in fish with an average length of 134mm.


It is madness and the numbers produced are meaningless with no idea of tagging mortality.

Andy
 
#39 ·
Well for starters I knew that the project was tagging smolts with internal tags inserted through an incision. It is quite clear from you early posts on the thread that you were not aware of this as you were talking about adult salmon.
Perhaps you didn't read them closely enough. Yes, I am aware. That is how these acoustic tags are attached now. And without those one cannot track fish at sea, the main purpose of the research (what happens to all the salmon?)
Does the fact that the biggest loss of smolts occur directly after tagging not make you think?
It depends what the losses are like without tags. If the project is losing most of its fish due to tagging then it is worthless. I would expect those running the project to have thought of this, notwithstanding your contact.
 
#40 ·
Umm did you read any of the articles you quoted?
There appears to be some concern about the reporting of the surgical techniques used and the types of suturing used. I couldn't find much specifically on smolts, which as has already been pointed out are quite small.

Peter Gray in his book, Swimming Against the Tide suggests even looking at a smolt causes it newly grown scales to fall off. I hate to think what a surgical procedure does to them. Page 142.
Not the whole thing. Did you? The point is I am better informed than you.
 
#42 ·
One prominent feature of the Lost Surgically Tagged Smolt Project is that it has never been referred to as a scientific or science-based endeavour. Indeed, to my knowledge there has been no public mention of the existence a scientific (oversight) committee or, if such a body exists, details of its membership. This may be a simple oversight. However, to date, both the blizzard of press releases and the highly controlled and restricted presentations related to the project have been led by a collection of characters with apparently little or no background in live fish handling, surgery or tagging - or so-called 'suspect frameworks'.
Anyone cannot set of a project of this kind without being a bona fide science establishment. Any research involving animals has to be licensed. The Atlantic Salmon Trust set it up under the directorship of Dr Ken Whelan, an experienced fish biologist. There is no question that the project is run by 'a collection of characters'.
 
#44 ·
Wrong!
I merely mentioned the bumpf because I didn't want you telling me I was dreaming up the transmitter they were using.
I have followed the project both online and at presentations (and presentations about similar tagging studies on sea trout smolts on Skye and Loch Laxford). I have spoken to people in the field doing the work who have reservations.

Andy
 
#48 ·
The salmon angling and management community in Scotland is quite small and a lot of the characters know, and speak, to each other. Bob, Wullie and I rely on out income to some extent on the industry which, as well as making us follow what is going on, allows us to discuss matters with those involved in Scottish fisheries management. I note you are from London, Secret Angler.....
 
#57 ·
It is of note that an almost identical project run by MSS on the Conon a couple of years earlier found an in river mortality rate of < 20%, rather than the almost uniform in river mortality rate found during the MSP of around 50%. Leaving aside the fact that such different rivers (in many ways) could have such a uniform mortality rate (what was the common factor involved?), this should raise inquisitive scientific eyebrows.
When I mentioned the Conon results elsewhere, I had a fisheries manager from other rivers involved in the tagging project launch into a bout of whataboutery listing reasons why smolt migration on hydro rivers could maybe/perhaps influence smolt mortality.
Useful in that I expect to see these possible/maybees mentioned in the MSP results discussion of the Ness, Conon and Shin!
ps.....Oor Wullie might be a piss taker, but he is no mug...
 
#59 ·
I wonder if any of you has bothered to read any of the science literature on the subject. Most is not public, true, but some can be found on the internet. I suspect all your questions will be answered in there somewhere. Mortality in fish is always high and many factors will be involved. But given what I've seen of the literature (though I've not conducted an extensive search), and the rather obvious fact that it is extremely unlikely all fishery scientists are naive enough to kill off their subjects with the exptl method, the tag is unlikely to be a major factor.
 
#71 ·
Seems to me perfectly natural that you would keep a confidence. In my experience highland river fishers, ghillie's and even scientists is a fairly close knit community so I would be surprised if some don't know the main people involved. Some of the reports (not particularly this study) have ghillie's aiding in the collection of data; I know friendships are made.
I appreciate word of mouth is anecdotal but that does not make it incorrect or invalid. If scientists are having doubts lets hope they have the freedom (not always the case) to explore the issue and find a solution or accommodation to validate the remaining evidence from the surviving fish if mortality causes by transmitters is occurring .
Oh I don't mind people keeping confidences. But if they are using what somebody said to criticise a point I was making regarding the science, their point becomes much weaker if it's unclear whether that person has any expertise.
 
#84 ·
As far as mortality due to the tagging goes, the report quotes Thorstad et al (2012). I no longer have access to full papers but the abstract says:

Reported mortality is 0.3-7.0% (median 2.3) km(-1) during downriver migration, 0.6-36% (median 6.0) km(-1) in estuaries and 0.3-3.4% (median 1.4) km(-1) in coastal areas. Estuaries and river mouths are the sites of the highest mortalities, with predation being a common cause. The mortality rates varied more among studies in estuaries than in rivers and marine areas, which probably reflects the huge variation among estuaries in their characteristics. Behaviour and survival during migration may also be affected by pollution, fish farming, sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis, hydropower development and other anthropogenic activities that may be directly lethal, delay migration or have indirect effects by inhibiting migration. Total mortality reported during early marine migration (up to 5-230 km from the river mouths) in the studies available to date varies between 8 and 71%. Hence, the early marine migration is a life stage with high mortalities, due to both natural and human influences. Factors affecting mortality during the smolt and post-smolt stages contribute to determine the abundance of spawner returns. With many S. salar populations in decline, increased mortality at these stages may considerably contribute to limit S. salar production, and the consequences of human-induced mortality at this stage may be severe. Development of management actions to increase survival and fitness at the smolt and post-smolt stages is crucial to re-establish or conserve wild populations.
At first glance at an average of 0.82/km the freshwater loss for the missing salmon project does not seem out of kilter with Thorstad's findings of 0.3 - 7% in their study. But not having access to the full report I don't know how Thorstad's fish were counted.
 
#96 ·
Yes which is why I pointed to it upthread.


I quite like a good debate around these issues, it's something I'm very interested in and have looked at quite closely. If you can follow logic and are well informed we could have a proper debate but I'm not at all interested in pig wrestling. I have given you my position and to anyone I'm interested in debating with where to get the data should be second nature, but I've given some pointers in case you are not quite up to it. So if you think my position is wrong then say so and give me your detailed reasons. If you can't/ won't then fine, but don't waste my time.
 
#97 ·
Yes which is why I pointed to it upthread.

I quite like a good debate around these issues, it's something I'm very interested in and have looked at quite closely. If you can follow logic and are well informed we could have a proper debate but I'm not at all interested in pig wrestling. I have given you my position and to anyone I'm interested in debating with where to get the data should be second nature, but I've given some pointers in case you are not quite up to it. So if you think my position is wrong then say so and give me your detailed reasons. If you can't/ won't then fine, but don't waste my time.
You can be as supercilious as you like. You made the assertion: you back it up. Give the url (I know it's web stuff) and we can look at it. All I see you've mentioned is Maine Uni, and I imagine any work they do is on the US east coast. Not necessarily relevant to Scotland. No one is wasting your time but yourself.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top