Topic Index
for February
  • Club News
  • February Guest Speaker
  • Events Calendar
  • Articles of Interest

Club News for February

JANUARY MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

For those members who were not able to attend the January meeting our guest speaker Jim Kerr, gave an excellent presentation on his guided trips to the Kitsap Peninsula rivers and fishing various bays of Puget Sound.   His guided trips will take you up the Hoh, Sol duc and Bogachiel rivers fishing for steelhead, salmon of cutt throat trout.  He also guides trips throughout the Puget Sound and Hood Canal.  It was a very interesting and fun presentation.  If you are interested in learning more about his trips, you can contact him (Jim Kerr) at 360-301-4559, or check him out on the web at www.Jimkerrguides.com.

GUESTS & NEW MEMBERS

The Club would like to recognize a number of guests that attended the January meeting, they were:  Richard Flowers, John White, Stuart Larie, Hal Rowe and Jim Carlson.  We hope to see you at future meetings and consider becoming members of the Club.   The Club would also like to welcome two new members - Steve and Julian Anderson.  Both gentlemen are avid fly fishermen and are looking forward to spending more time fly fishing the waters of the Pacific Northwest.  Steve & Julian, we look forward to seeing you on many of the Club outings scheduled for this year.

FLY TYING CLASSES

The Club is again sponsoring Fly Tying classes; for those interested please contact Eric Sauer (425-776-3811 or Steve Murray 425-355-6404.  The classes started January 20th and will run for 7 weeks through March 2nd.  The classes are being hosted by Steve and Eric with other members - Jack Byrd, Mike Bunny, Blair Scarth, Sam Ottens, Norm Primc and Don Mills attending. 

FEBRUARY OUTING

Eric Sauer, our esteemed Club President, will be sponsoring a Steelhead float down the Skykomish River on Saturday, February 7th.  If you are interested in attending the outing please  contact Eric.  Weather permitting! If it appears that weather will not cooperate and the trip will be postponed, Eric will contact all those that have verbally expressed interest to him concerning the trip. 

CLUB JACKETS, SHIRTS, VESTS & HATS.

If you wish to purchase one of these items please
call me (425)673 7028 or Norm Primc (425)481- 1653. I will then bring the item to the next meeting or you can pick up the item at my home by calling me 1st. Sorry to say we only have one vest

REMINDER  - CLUB DUES
Annual dues of $30.00 are due. Please pay Norm at the February meeting.

Club Meetings :
2nd Wednesday of every month  @

South County
Senior Center
220 Railroad Ave.
Edmonds, WA
Social Hour 6:00PM
Dinner 7:00 PM

Club Board Meetings :
4th Wednesday of every month  @

Alfi's
196th Avenue
Lynwood, WA
Dinner 7:00 PM

February Guest Speakers
JOE FOSTER & JEFF KORTH

This is a program you will not want to miss if you do any trout fishing in Eastern Washington.  Joe Foster is the WDFW Region 2 Fish Manager and Jeff Korth is the WDFW Region 2 District Biologist.  This region includes Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant & Okanogan counties.  This area is without a doubt the best quality trout fishing in the state.  This is the 4th or 5th time Joe and Jeff have made the trip over to the Club from Ephrata in the middle of winter.  It's a real pleasure to have them back again this year.

Not only will the guys tell us the results of the 2003 fishing season in there region but more importantly they can make forecasts on how the fishing may be in your favorite lake next spring.  They can also tell you which lakes have been rehabilitated in 2003 which lakes may be treated in 2004.

So be sure to bring your questions about the Stillwater fishing in the region and don't forget about the great steelhead fishing in the fall in the Methow river and when the Wenatchee river will get open again for steelheading.

For those who may have missed this interesting article that appeared in the Seattle PI

P-I Focus: Farming is a net-loss proposition -- ecologically, socially and economically


A Salmon Scare

Sunday, January 25, 2004
By JOHN VOLPE

From the perspective of the specialist, it is a mixed blessing when the world turns its attention to your chosen area of endeavor. You feel somehow legitimized when, if only briefly, the public shares your own intense interest in the issues to which you have devoted your professional life. However, initial excitement quickly gives way to exasperation as rhetoric overshadows the substantive deliberation necessary to move from knowledge to understanding.

As a university professor dealing with issues surrounding seafood ecology, I toil in relative obscurity. The bread and butter of my research is how the relationship between the fishing and aquaculture industries is altering ecological, social and economic checks and balances the world over.

The landmark study detailing the greatly increased toxin loads found in farm salmon relative to their wild counterparts has thrust me and my colleagues around the world into the media limelight for a few moments. A seemingly endless parade of cameras and microphones has passed through my lab recently at the University of Alberta in search of expert opinion to put these startling data in perspective.
On average, farm-raised salmon have an order of magnitude higher load of cancer causing POPs (persistent organic pollutants) than wild caught salmon. This is not new. In fact over the last few years three other such studies -- albeit much smaller -- have come to nearly identical conclusions. As the dust settles around the current research, attention is shifting to consumer reaction and what effect this news will have on the aquaculture industry.

What I have not seen in any of the worldwide coverage is anyone asking "Why?" By this I don't mean, "Why are toxin loads higher in farm salmon?" The answer is straightforward and was predicted long ago from well-established bioaccumulation principles. Nor am I referring to the implied paradigm of the existence of such a thing as a safe level of carcinogen. No, my frustration is rooted in the deafening absence of what should be a vigorous debate -- "Why industrial aquaculture?" -- or more specifically -- "Why industrial salmon aquaculture?"
Consider the following:

Current production methods adopt maximum economies of scale. Thus, feedlot style, open net-pens in the oceans simultaneously maximize consumption of marine (read: public) resources (i.e. fresh, oxygenated water) while offloading production wastes (feces, uneaten food) and byproducts (toxins, antibiotic residues, escaped fish, bioamplified parasites and pathogens). Each net-pen (numbering in the hundreds on both of Canada's coasts) is tantamount to an untreated sewer outfall introducing solid and dissolved wastes directly into the marine environment. This is in every way "industrial waste," disposed of at no charge.

The unnaturally high densities of animals in the feedlot environment of net-pens make that environment a breeding ground for disease and parasites. Recently in British Columbia, farm-derived parasites were implicated as the causal agent leading to the largest salmon cohort collapse on record anywhere in the world, ever.
Three to five kilos of edible fish are used to make one kilo of farm salmon; a net loss of protein badly needed by humanity.

The contribution of the salmon aquaculture industry to British Columbia's gross domestic product in 2001, as calculated by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, was $87 million. Marine-based industries directly jeopardized by salmon farming, including commercial and sport fisheries and marine tourism, contributed $582 million, or 51 percent of the provincial total.

Salmon farming in Canada is dominated (greater than 80 percent of B.C. production) by foreign-owned multinational companies seemingly intent on liquidating Canada's natural marine capital for a very small profit. A similar arrangement characterizes the Washington state industry.

Farm salmon overproduction (principally from Chile and Norway) has driven the price of all salmon to all-time lows. This forces Canadian and American farms to slash jobs to remain competitive and has brought ruin to coastal fishing communities across the Northern Hemisphere (which depend on a fair price for their wild catch).

So, even a cursory review of the available information leads to the question of why we are engaging in this activity? This industry is clearly a net-loss proposition, whether viewed from the ecological, social or economic perspective. Consumers have either been uninformed or have opted to turn a blind eye to these facts. Admittedly, the cause-and-effect relationship between the viability of the world's oceans and your choice of entree is not as obvious as it could or should be but that does not make it any less real.

The take-home message of the recent research is that we can no longer ignore the natural law that what is bad for the environment is bad for your health. Perhaps if industrial salmon aquaculture really held promise to feed the world's hungry or revitalize our struggling coastal communities or even provide a worry-free epicurean experience, there would be reason to give that industry the benefit of the doubt.
Alas, the farm-raised salmon destined for your dinner plate arrives with overwhelming environmental and social baggage, in addition to -- as we now know -- not being as healthful as you've been told.

As with most enviro-social dilemmas, there is hope, and options are available to consumers. The wild Pacific salmon fishery, contrary to popular belief, is not dead. Its major problem has not been lack of wild salmon, which have been plentiful in recent years. Rather, the problem has been to remain viable in the face of rock-bottom prices from the farms offloading costs of production to our coastal habitats. There are five wild Pacific salmon species, each unique in taste and texture.
Advances in flash freezing at sea have resulted in continent-wide availability of a prime product 12 months of the year. In fact, for anyone who cares about what she/he eats, Internet communication and entrepreneurial spirit have combined to make it possible to buy fish (not just salmon) directly from the fisherman, regardless of location (some even have on-board Web cams). Supporting these fisheries not only does your body a service but also helps to support the dozens of coastal communities hurt by plummeting salmon prices.

The major hurdle to the informed consumer is the current lack of labeling in supermarkets and restaurants. Without consistent labeling (farmed or wild, country of origin), the consumer cannot make an informed decision. Currently grocers and restaurants are not required to provide this information, a situation that is unfair to consumers and must change.

The moral of this story resonates far beyond the farm salmon debate, coloring all of industrial agriculture: There are no shortcuts. So long as market forces alone shape how our food is produced, we will be faced with similar reality checks with increasing frequency and magnitude. Market forces only work when truthful product labeling and public understanding of all the costs accompany them.
Indeed, the current crop of toxic farm salmon stories appearing in this paper compete for page space with mad cow disease coverage, transgenic crops and the like -- all born of the shortsighted demand for more with less.

In light of the remarkable shortcomings of this industry, it is time consumers
and bureaucrats recognize that industrial salmon farming is a solution in search of a problem. Aquaculture in general has a bright future to be sure, but farm-rearing salmon is no one's idea of sustainability. The story is not just that farm salmon have greatly elevated toxin loads, but that this is actually the thin edge of the wedge.

John Volpe is assistant professor of fisheries and seafood ecology at the Univer