Criteria for a good catch: A conceptual framework to guide sourcing of sustainable salmon fisheries

Abstract

The identification of sustainably managed fisheries is problematic for marketers and consumers of Pacific salmon food products owing to lack of well-defined and robust criteria that take into account current ecosystem science of salmon. We present the rationale for an alternative conceptual framework for salmon management that supports the development of sustainable sourcing criteria. Our approach contrasts with current large-scale fisheries certification programs such as that of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and general consumer recommendation services such as Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch (SFW) program. Our framework is based on the “place-based” character of salmon populations and recognition of fundamental aspects of salmon ecology, particularly the evolution of population life histories that are locally adapted to freshwater spawning and rearing habitats. We describe how this framework underpins development of science-based sourcing criteria and how it differs in important respects from the industrial approach that historically and currently is the basis for most salmon management. We conclude with a discussion of how the framework and its application may provide a model for redirecting salmon management, in general, towards a more science- and place-based approach and why that is likely to be sustainable in the long term in a way that most contemporary salmon management is not.

Survival of Salmonids from an Experimental Commercial Fish Trap

“…Retooling of commercial gillnetting fleets to lower-impact alternative gear types such as fish traps could provide substantial benefit to the Pacific Northwest salmon fishing industry (Gayeski et al 2018b). Presently, commercial gillnetting opportunity is constrained from the onset of the fishing season; this is due in part to high bycatch mortality rates and ESA conservation and management concerns (Vander Haegen et al 2004;Martin 2008).…”

“…This branding can result in product differentiation to consumers and increased prices received by fishers and processors (Cooper 2004;Kaiser and Edwards-Jones 2006;Gayeski et al 2018b). Transitioning to alternative gears and utilizing value-added practices in certifiedsustainable fisheries could improve economic prospects within the industry, increasing fishing opportunity and the prices received for harvested products (Gayeski et al 2018b). Transitioning to alternative gears and utilizing value-added practices in certifiedsustainable fisheries could improve economic prospects within the industry, increasing fishing opportunity and the prices received for harvested products (Gayeski et al 2018b).…”

“…By enhancing fisheries through hatchery production, resource managers increase mixed-stock fishing effort and bycatch mortality to threatened wild stocks that co-mingle with hatchery stocks during ocean rearing and the spawning migration. However, bycatch mortality and mixed-stock harvest can impede recovery efforts of ESA-listed stocks in lacking fishing gears that can selectively harvest targeted stocks (such as hatchery-origin fish) while leaving non-targeted fish (such as wild fish) unharmed (Wright 1993;Flagg et al 1995;Gayeski et al 2018b). However, bycatch mortality and mixed-stock harvest can impede recovery efforts of ESA-listed stocks in lacking fishing gears that can selectively harvest targeted stocks (such as hatchery-origin fish) while leaving non-targeted fish (such as wild fish) unharmed (Wright 1993;Flagg et al 1995;Gayeski et al 2018b).…”

“…State, tribal, and federal (both U.S. and Canadian) agencies manage harvest to maximize catch of hatchery-origin fish-attempting to address the genetic and ecological problems associated with escapement of hatchery fish (Naish et al 2007;Chilcote et al 2011;Lichatowich 2013), while minimizing mortality to wild stocks mixed within regional fisheries (Canada DFO 2005;WFWC 2009;ODFW 2013). However, bycatch mortality and mixed-stock harvest can impede recovery efforts of ESA-listed stocks in lacking fishing gears that can selectively harvest targeted stocks (such as hatchery-origin fish) while leaving non-targeted fish (such as wild fish) unharmed (Wright 1993;Flagg et al 1995;Gayeski et al 2018b). Although mortality rates differ between species and fisheries across the West Coast, Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha bycatch mortality from conventional gill nets ranges from 49% to 43% [Correction added on July 24, 2019, after first online publication: "51% to 57%" was corrected to "49% to 43%"].…”

“…If sufficiently regulated and operated with a conservation-minded approach, fish traps have the potential to lessen sublethal physiological effects in fisheries by reducing air exposure, overcrowding, entanglement, and handling of fish (Baker and Schindler 2009;Burnley et al 2012;Raby et al 2015). Furthermore, when used in fluvial settings, the fish trap allows for escapement of wild fish and does not deprive killer whales of the opportunity to secure the marine food resources required for their survival (Ford et al 2010;Gayeski et al 2018b).…”