DOCSLIB.ORG

Tana Salmon Stock Status

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Diversity in life histories and genetic structure in a large population complex of wild Atlantic salmon in the River Teno, northernmost Europe Jaakko Erkinaro Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Oulu, Finland DSRRN 2013 Science Meeting January 2013 Acknowledgements Juha-Pekka Vähä Morten Falkegård Eero Niemelä Panu Orell Maija Länsman Jorma Kuusela Matti Kylmäaho Jari Haantie Jorma Ollila Kjell-Magne Johnsen Teno/Tana/Deatnu Catchment area 16 380 km2 Mean discharge 170 m3/s (max. 3000 m3/s) > 1200 km and >30 tributaries available for anadromous salmon Green = tributaries with predominantly 1-sea-winter salmon Black= stretches and tributaries with high % of multi-sea-winter salmon Salmon fishing in the River Teno • nets (weir, gill net, drift net, seine) • rods (boat fishing, fly fishing) Monitoring of salmon stock diversity • all fishing season (late May-end of August) • all catchment (main stem, tributaries) • all user groups, fishing methods • 3 - 9000 scale samples per year (age, genetics) Life histories of the River Teno Atlantic salmon Smolt age Sea age 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 + previous x 2X 3X 4X 5X 6x x spawning 1 1S1 x 2X 3X 4X 5X 6 times x X X X x 2 3S2 x X X X X 2S1 x X X X x 3 x 1S1S1X xX XX X x X x 3S1 x X X X x 4 2S1S1X xX X x X X x 1S2 X X x x x x 5 3S1S1 X X x 2S2 x x x 1S1S1S1 x x x 96 combinations ! Size difference within male individuals reproducing at the same time & place up to 10 000 –fold ! (3g vs. 30 000g) Atlantic salmon catch in the River Teno 250000 Norway Finland 200000 150000 100000 Catch, kg Catch, 50000 0 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Salmon catch of the River Teno 110000 260 Previous spawners 240 100000 4-5 SW 3 SW 220 90000 2 SW 200 80000 1 SW 180 70000 160 60000 140 50000 120 40000 100 80 Total catch (tonnes) 30000 60 20000 40 10000 Estimated number of salmon in the catch 20 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Distribution (%) of salmon from 1990 year class across later spawning years 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Maiden 0.05 11.6 39.7 29.4 15.1 3.8 0.4 0.01 0.01 salmon Previous 0.1 8.3 33.4 32.6 17.9 5.8 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.05 spawners A single year class may contribute to reproduction over 12 years So…what if there wasn’t this diversity? Less buffer/resilience against environmental/human disturbances, less adaptation to various habitats Portfolio effect? Diversity is stabilizing ecosystems and the services they provide – analogy: asset diversity & stability of financial portfolios Genetic structure of Luft the River Teno Leva salmon stock complex Baiss Nili • 30+ baseline populations Geaimm Aku e Karigas Iskuras Noiaid at Vuoma Anar Skietsha m Univ Turku Genetics of the River Teno salmon - Substantial genetic differences between populations - Mean pairwise FST 0.10 (max 0.21) (Vähä et al. 2007) - Large populations more diverse, small more diverged - Life history matters: % of MSW females linked to gen variation large females important in maintaining biodiversity (Vähä et al. 2007 Mol. Ecol) - Temporal stability in population complex structure - 1970s > 80s > 90s > 2000s ( Vähä et al. 2008 Evol. Appl.) - Run timing of salmon to the Teno is population- specific - Life history matters: 1SW males from populations with high % of MSW females migrate later (Vähä et al. 2011 Evol. Appl.) Applicable management implications - - - > Photo: Panu Orell Coast Fjord, estuary Main stem Accumulated population-specific Tributary exploitation Máskejohka Exploitation in different fisheries and spawning escapement in two River Teno Coastal tributaries (% of pre-fishery abundance) 19 % Spawning stock 41 % Main stem 11 % Máskejohka 29 % Iésjohka Mixed-stock exploitation in the River Teno main stem fishery; Multi-sea-winter-salmon catch in 2008 Univ Turku 100 % Iesjohka (N) 90 % Karasjohka (N) 80 % Anarjohka (N/F) Akujoki (F) 70 % Valljohka (N) 60 % Baisjohka (N) Levajohka (N) 50 % Kuoppilasjoki (F) 40 % Utsjoki (F) 30 % Vetsijoki (F) Laksjohka (N) 20 % Polmak (N/F) 10 % Luovttejohka (N) 0 % Maskejohka (N) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Tana main stem Week Early season exploitation of populations and life-history groups: – Driftnet catch in lower part of the River Teno main stem 250 YläTeno Vetsi Valjoki Utsjoki 200 Karasjohka and Iesjohka salmon are importantTsarsjoki contributors to the maiden MSWTanaBru salmon catch LotsPulmanki of previously spawned salmon in 150 theOutakoski driftnet catches MaskeMany small grilse populations well Luftrepresented (e.g. Pulmanki, Kevo, Tsars, Valjoki) where PS salmon are the Leva 100 ~only large females Laksjoki Critical exploitation on the largest Kuoppilasfemales in multpile populations of small Kevotributaries ? 50 Keskiteno Karasjoki Inarijoki Univ Turku 0 Iesjoki Previous157 Maiden215 21 42 spawnersPS MSWmaiden PS maiden Baisjoki Tana Teno Akujoki Females Males Total catch 200 120 100 150 80 100 60 40 50 Catch (tonnes) 20 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 All age groups 35000 40000 30000 25000 30000 20000 20000 15000 10000 10000 5000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Previous spawners 3500 2500 3000 2000 2500 2000 1500 1500Negative trend for 3-4SW1000 -salmon in the 1000 500 River500 Teno salmon catches 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 4 SW 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 3 SW 18000 6000 16000 5000 14000 12000 4000 10000 3000 8000 Estimated number of salmon in the catch 6000 2000 4000 1000 2000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Females 2 SW Males 16000 2000 14000 12000 1500 10000 8000 1000 6000 4000 500 2000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1 SW 10000 35000 30000 8000 25000 6000 20000 4000 15000 10000 2000 5000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Year Females Males Total catch 200 120 100 150 80 100 60 40 50 Catch (tonnes) 20 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 All age groups 35000 40000 30000 25000 30000 20000 20000 Positive15000 trend for previous spawners; 1-2SW? 10000 10000 5000 0 0 Major change in fishing regulations 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Previous spawners 3500 2500 3000 2000 2500 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 4 SW 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 3 SW 18000 6000 16000 5000 14000 12000 4000 10000 3000 8000 Estimated number of salmon in the catch 6000 2000 4000 1000 2000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Females 2 SW Males 16000 2000 14000 12000 1500 10000 8000 1000 6000 4000 500 2000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1 SW 10000 35000 30000 8000 25000 6000 20000 4000 15000 10000 2000 5000 0 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Year Selectivity of marine drift nets Coastal drift nets in Norway mostly 65–70 mm knot to knot Especially selective for mid-size salmon, 60–80 cm (TL) Ban in Norway in 1989 Abundance of PS, 2SW, large grilse increased in the Teno Size of 1SW increased (more large grilse escaped), 2SW decreased (more small 2SW escaped) Gillnet 90 80 , cm , 2 SW length 70 Fish Fish 60 1 SW 50 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Weir 100 90 80 2 SW 70 Col 1 vs k1swk 60 Col 1 vs k2swk Length (cm) 1 SW 50 40 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Rod 90 80 2 SW 70 60 1 SW 50 40 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Selective fishing on River Utsjoki (tributary) salmon in the River Teno main stem? Sea age distribution of salmon in: Teno main stem catch of salmon Video at the Utsjoki river mouth assigned to R. Utsjoki origin Video monitoring Catch in the main stem Lower main stem fishing area Video station at the Utsjoki river mouth Video monitoring Catch in the main stem River Utsjoki catchment Challenge How to manage the mixed-stock fishery and diverse salmon stock complex in the Teno system? Run timing of 1SW salmon in the lowest part of the River Teno main stem Univ Turku Small tributaries Large tributaries Upper main stem Large tributaries Lower main stem Vähä et al. 2011 Evol. Appl. Run timing of 1-3 SW salmon originating from the rivers Karasjohka and Iesjohka, captured in the lowest part of the Teno main stem Univ Turku 3SW Karasjohka 3SW Iesjohka Lower main stem fishing area 2SW Karasjohka 2SW Iesjohka 1SW Karasjohka 1SW Iesjohka R.
Recommended publications
  • Endring Av Tillatelse Til Landing Med Helikopter I Øvre Anarjohka Nasjonalpark

    Endring Av Tillatelse Til Landing Med Helikopter I Øvre Anarjohka Nasjonalpark

    FYLKESMANNEN I FINNMARK FINNMÁRKKU FYLKKAMÁNNI Miljøvernavdelingen Birasgáhttenossodat Bongo / Hætta / Sokki siida v/ Mikkel Per Bongo Stornes 9520 KAUTOKEINO Deres ref Deres dato Vår ref Vår dato Sak 2016/2326 10.06.2016 Ark 432.3 Saksbehandler/direkte telefon: Jan Erik Knutsen - 78 95 03 14 Endring av tillatelse til landing med helikopter i Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark Vi viser til brev datert 25. mai 2016, vårt saksnummer 2016/2326, hvor Bongo/Hætta/Sokki siida v/Mikkel Per Bongo ble innvilget tillatelse til to landinger med helikopter i Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark. Tillatelsen ble avgrenset til tidsrommet 23. mai – 10. juni 2016. Søker kontaktet Fylkesmannen på telefon den 8. juni, hvor han informerte om at de ikke fikk gjennomført flyvningene før 10. juni på grunn av at det ikke har vært mulig å få tak i helikopter. De tar imidlertid sikte på å få gjennomført det i løpet av uke 24. Fylkesmannen viser til vurderingene som fremgår av vedlagte vedtak av 25. mai 2016. Formålet og forutsetningene for tillatelsen er fortsatt de samme. I og med at tillatelsen ikke er benyttet vurderer Fylkesmannen at endring av dato kun utgjør en mindre endring av gjeldende tillatelse. Fylkesmannen vedtar på den bakgrunn å endre tillatelsen slik at den er gyldig til og med 30. juni 2016. Vedtaket gjøres med hjemmel i naturmangfoldloven § 48 første ledd første alternativ. For øvrig gjelder de vilkår og forutsetninger som fremgår i brev av 25. mai 2016. Vedtaket kan påklages til Miljødirektoratet innen 3 uker, jamfør forvaltningsloven §§ 28 og 29. Klagen skal være skriftlig og begrunnet og sendes via Fylkesmannen i Finnmark, jamfør forvaltningsloven § 32.
  • Troms Og Finnmark

    Troms Og Finnmark

    Kommunestyre- og fylkestingsvalget 2019 Valglister med kandidater Fylkestingsvalget 2019 i Troms og Finnmark Valglistens navn: Partiet De Kristne Status: Godkjent av valgstyret Kandidatnr. Navn Fødselsår Bosted Stilling 1 Svein Svendsen 1993 Alta 2 Karl Tobias Hansen 1992 Tromsø 3 Torleif Selseng 1956 Balsfjord 4 Dag Erik Larssen 1953 Skånland 5 Papy Zefaniya 1986 Sør-Varanger 6 Aud Oddrun Grønning 1940 Tromsø 7 Annbjørg Watnedal 1939 Tromsø 8 Arlene Marie Hansen 1949 Balsfjord 04.06.2019 12:53:00 Lister og kandidater Side 1 Kommunestyre- og fylkestingsvalget 2019 Valglister med kandidater Fylkestingsvalget 2019 i Troms og Finnmark Valglistens navn: Høyre Status: Godkjent av valgstyret Kandidatnr. Navn Fødselsår Bosted Stilling 1 Christine Bertheussen Killie 1979 Tjeldsund 2 Jo Inge Hesjevik 1969 Porsanger 3 Benjamin Nordberg Furuly 1996 Bardu 4 Tove Alstadsæter 1967 Sør-Varanger 5 Line Fusdahl 1957 Tromsø 6 Geir-Inge Sivertsen 1965 Senja 7 Kristen Albert Ellingsen 1961 Alta 8 Cecilie Mathisen 1994 Tromsø 9 Lise Svenning 1963 Vadsø 10 Håkon Rønning Vahl 1972 Harstad 11 Steinar Halvorsen 1970 Loppa 12 Tor Arne Johansen Morskogen 1979 Tromsø 13 Gro Marie Johannessen Nilssen 1963 Hasvik 14 Vetle Langedahl 1996 Tromsø 15 Erling Espeland 1976 Alta 16 Kjersti Karijord Smørvik 1966 Harstad 17 Sharon Fjellvang 1999 Nordkapp 18 Nils Ante Oskal Eira 1975 Lavangen 19 Johnny Aikio 1967 Vadsø 20 Remi Iversen 1985 Tromsø 21 Lisbeth Eriksen 1959 Balsfjord 22 Jan Ivvar Juuso Smuk 1987 Nesseby 23 Terje Olsen 1951 Nordreisa 24 Geir-Johnny Varvik 1958 Storfjord 25 Ellen Kristina Saba 1975 Tana 26 Tonje Nilsen 1998 Storfjord 27 Sebastian Hansen Henriksen 1997 Tromsø 28 Ståle Sæther 1973 Loppa 29 Beate Seljenes 1978 Senja 30 Joakim Breivik 1992 Tromsø 31 Jonas Sørum Nymo 1989 Porsanger 32 Ole Even Andreassen 1997 Harstad 04.06.2019 12:53:00 Lister og kandidater Side 2 Kommunestyre- og fylkestingsvalget 2019 Valglister med kandidater Fylkestingsvalget 2019 i Troms og Finnmark Valglistens navn: Høyre Status: Godkjent av valgstyret Kandidatnr.
  • Development in the Pink Salmon Catches in the Transboundary Rivers

    Development in the Pink Salmon Catches in the Transboundary Rivers

    Development in the Pink salmon catches in the transboundary rivers of Tana and Neiden-in Norway and Finland Niemelä, Hassinen, Johansen, Kuusela, Länsman, Haantie, Kylmäaho • Who can identify pink and Atlantic salmon • Feelings against pink salmon • First catches in the history • Distribution in the River Tana watershed • Total catches in the rivers Tana and Neiden • Timing of the catches • Ecology ©© NaturalNatural ResourcesResources InstituteInstitute FinlandFinland To recognize silvery pink salmon might be difficult for tourist fishermen or even for some local fishermen early in the summer 2 6.2.2018 © Natural Resources Institute Finland In the second half of July and especially in August fishermen have no problem to distinguish Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon in the catches 3 6.2.2018 © Natural Resources Institute Finland Fishermen do not like this new fish species in their catches especially in the end of July and August. Why? 4 6.2.2018 © Natural Resources Institute Finland Why not pink salmon in the catches? • Local fishermen are not get used to catch other species than salmon and seatrout • Tourist fishermen have payed a lot of money to catch silvery Atlantic salmon • Local fishermen catching Atlantic salmon with gillnets and weirs have an opinion that pink salmon in their fishing gears are scaring the real target, Atlantic salmon, away. Does this scaring help Atlantic salmon to avoid to be caught with traditional fishing methods? • In rod fishing from shore and boat pink salmon is disturbing the real Atlantic salmon fishery.
  • The Horseshoe of Fennoscandia, Norway, Rein Midteng

    The Horseshoe of Fennoscandia, Norway, Rein Midteng

    The Horseshoe of Fennoscandia-A corridor for the long term survival of old-growth forest dependent species in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Rein Midteng, Asplan Viak. Norway. [email protected] 1.What is the Horseshoe of Fennoskandia? 2. What is its ecologial function? 3. Which subparts does it consist of? 4.Transboundary zones 5. How continuous and broad is the Horseshoe? 6. Key regions and areas in need of protection 7. Futher emphazis Un-protected old-growth forest in Pasvik 1.What is the Horseshoe of Fennoskandia? • Its a more or less continously corridor of old-growth forests from southern Finland/southeast Karealia to southern Norway/Sweden. • It consists of four subparts that are connected as a whole. These four subparts are although presented individually. In addition, it exists so called transboundary zones, which are “green” corridors with mostly continuously old-growth forests that stretch out from the Horseshoe. • Old-growth forests dominate the Horseshoe while in the rest of Fennoscandia culture forests dominate. • It consist of both protected and unprotected old-growth forests. • It includes a great variation of vegetationzones and foresttypes. • It is of major importance in the implementation of the Nagaya goals • It is of major importance for the preservation of old-growth forest species in Norway, Sweden, Finland and probably also in some parts of Russia. 2. What is its (ecologial) function? • It is a migrationzone east-west (since the last ice age), and the Fennoscandinavian countries share therefore to a large extent the same flora and fauna as Russia (low level of endemism). • It provides an exchange of species, individuals and genes to and forth in the Horseshoe.
  • Salmon Sans Borders

    Salmon Sans Borders

    Scandinavia TRADITIONAL FISHING Salmon Sans Borders Fishing for salmon along the Deatnu or Tana river has long been fundamental to the culture of the indigenous Sámi people along the Finland-Norway border ishing for salmon (Salmo Danish-Norwegian jurisdiction. This salar) along the over 200-km had consequences for the territorial Fwatercourse on the border of division of the Tana river valley too. Finland and Norway, called Deatnu From then until the present border (in the Sámi language) or Tana (in was drawn in 1751, Denmark-Norway Norwegian), has been going on for at had exclusive jurisdiction over the least 7,000 to 8,000 years, or for as long lowest 30-40 km of the river. Juridical as human existence after the last Ice and clerical jurisdiction over the rest Age. The Tana river valley is situated in of the valley belonged to the Swedish an area in which the Sámi are the oldest realm. But the Sámi still had to pay known ethnic group. Sámi culture, as taxes to Denmark-Norway. it exists in northern Scandinavia and Until 1809, Finland belonged to 4 the northwestern parts of Russia, is at Sweden. Then it became a Grand Duchy least 2,000 to 3,000 years old. Salmon under the Russian Tsar. The border fishing remains a fundamental part along the Tana watercourse became the of Sámi culture on both sides of the border between Finland and Norway. Finland-Norway border. Neither this change, nor the separation The first written sources from this of Norway from Denmark in 1814 river district date to the end of the 16th and its union with Sweden, had any century.
  • Genetic Structure and Gene Flow in a Continuously Distributed Large Terrestrial Carnivore - the Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) in Northern Europe

    Genetic Structure and Gene Flow in a Continuously Distributed Large Terrestrial Carnivore - the Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) in Northern Europe

    Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis 2015:72 Genetic structure and gene flow in a continuously distributed large terrestrial carnivore - the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Northern Europe Genetisk struktur og genflyt i et kontinuerlig distribuert stort rovdyr - den nordeuropeiske brunbjørn (Ursus arctos) Julia Schregel Genetic structure and gene flow in a continuously distributed large terrestrial carnivore - the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Northern Europe Genetisk struktur og genflyt i et kontinuerlig distribuert stort rovdyr - den nordeuropeiske brunbjørn (Ursus arctos) Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis Julia Schregel Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås 2015 Thesis number 2015:72 ISSN 1894-6402 ISBN 978-82-575-1309-2 PhD supervisors Dr Snorre B. Hagen1 Dr Hans Geir Eiken1 Professor Jon E. Swenson2 1Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy (NIBIO), Section of Biotechnology and Molecular Genetics, Frederik A. Dahls vei 20, N-1430 Ås, Norway 2NMBU, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management P.O.Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway PhD evaluation committee Professor Ettore Randi University of Bologna Instituto Superiore per la protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) Via Cà Fornacetta 9 I-40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), Italy Dr Øystein Flagstad Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) P.O.Box 5685 Sluppen N-7485 Trondheim, Norway Committee coordinator Dr Katrine Eldegard NMBU, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management P.O.Box 5003N-1432 Ås, Norway ii Table of contents Summary ................................................................................................................................... v Sammendrag ..........................................................................................................................
  • General Fishing Rules for Visitors Anglers in Tana River System

    General Fishing Rules for Visitors Anglers in Tana River System

    Tanavassdragets fiskeforvaltning- Deanučázádaga guolástanhálddahus-Tana River Fish Management General fishing rules for visitors anglers in Tana River System 1. Fishing areas Persons living permanently in Norway are permitted to fish on the border area, in the Norwegian tributaries and in the lower, Norwegian part of Tana River. Persons not living permanently in Norway, are not allowed to fish in the Norwegian tributaries of Tana river, except in the lower part of Tana main stem and the lower part of Kárášjohka downstream the joint of Iešjohka and Kárášjohka. The fishing rules for the Tana River applies for the salmon-area. In some of the tributaries that area is marked with signs. Above the salmon-area, the ordinary rules and fishing license for freshwater fisheries in Finnmark, apply. 2. Fishing time Fishing is prohibited from Sunday 18:00 hrs to Monday 180:0 hrs (Norwegian time). There is one exception: the area from Tana River mouth up to Langnes. 3. Minimum size Catching salmon, trout or char smaller than 25 cm is prohibited. Kelts must be released to the river. 4. Forbidden methods and areas Prohibited baits: prawns, shrimps, fish and earthworms. Using the fishing gear to hook the fish is not allowed. Rod fishing is prohibited within the fish fence guide-nets, within 50 m downstream of the fence, and 10 m to either side. Fishing is also prohibited within a 10 m distance from gill nets. In the main river it is prohibited to fish with rod from shore and boat within a 50 m distance downstream and upstream of the river mouths of salmon tributaries.
  • Status of the River Tana Salmon Populations

    Status of the River Tana Salmon Populations

    STATUS OF THE RIVER TANA SALMON POPULATIONS REPORT 1-2012 OF THE WORKING GROUP ON SALMON MONITORING AND RESEARCH IN THE TANA RIVER SYSTEM Contents 1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 The group mandate and presentation of members ..................................................................... 10 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 11 4 The River Tana, the Tana salmon, salmon fisheries and management ........................................ 12 4.1 The Tana and its salmon ....................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Tana salmon fisheries ........................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Management of the Tana salmon fishing ............................................................................. 28 5 Local/traditional knowledge and local contact ............................................................................. 29 5.1 How the Group will approach these issues........................................................................... 29 5.2 Current locally raised issues .................................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Predation ......................................................................................................................
  • Tillatelse Til Felling Av Jerv I Øvre Anarjohka Nasjonalpark

    Tillatelse Til Felling Av Jerv I Øvre Anarjohka Nasjonalpark

    Miljødirektoratet Postboks 5672 Torgarden 7485 TRONDHEIM Deres ref Vår ref Dato 15/412-10 22. mars 2019 Tillatelse til felling av jerv i Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark - vinteren 2019 Klima- og miljødepartementet vedtar med hjemmel i verneforskriften for Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark at det kan felles inntil to jerv innenfor nasjonalparken. Beslutningen er begrunnet i skadesituasjonen for tamrein i området, bestandsstatusen til jerv og den effekten et uttak samlet sett vil ha på jervebestanden. Beslutningen gjelder i tidsrommet f.o.m. 21. mars t.o.m. 15. mai. Beslutningen gjelder kun innenfor nasjonalparkens grenser og erstatter ikke nødvendige tillatelser etter andre lover og forskrifter. Bakgrunn Miljødirektoratet ønsker å fatte beslutning om ekstraordinært uttak av inntil to jerv innenfor Øvre Anarjohka nasjonalpark i Finnmark fylke, med hjemmel i naturmangfoldloven § 18 tredje ledd, jf. første ledd b og § 77, jf. rovviltforskriften § 13, jf. §§ 1 og 3. Bakgrunnen er potensialet for tap av tamrein til jerv. Direktoratet opplyser at det så langt i 2019 ikke er funnet/registrert mange kadaver av rein innenfor nasjonalparken, men tidligere år viser et relativt høyt antall kadaverfunn, verifisert tapt til jerv. Vinteren 2017/2018 (november til og med mars) ble det funnet 49 kadaver verifisert tapt til jerv og 3 kadaverfunn med usikker vurdering. Kadaverleting er generelt vanskelig i disse vinterbeiteområdene hvor reinflokkene går tett og gjetere kjører rundt reinflokkene for å holde de adskilt fra hverandre. Gjetere unngår i størst mulig grad å kjøre inn i reinflokkene fordi de da lager spor som reinen kan følge og dette kan forårsake sammenblanding. Funn av reinkadaver er derfor helst i ytterkanten av flokken, da gjetere i liten grad følger jervesporene inn i reinflokkene.
  • Atlantic Salmon Monitoring and Research in the Tana River System

    Atlantic Salmon Monitoring and Research in the Tana River System

    Norwegian‐Finnish working group on monitoring and research in Tana Atlantic salmon monitoring and research in the Tana river system Outlining a monitoring and research program for the River Tana within the framework of the precautionary approach Morten Johansen, Jaakko Erkinaro, Eero Niemelä, Tor G. Heggberget, Martin A. Svenning, Sturla Brørs 2008 Atlantic salmon monitoring and research in the Tana river system Preface This report concludes the work of a working group put down to draft a monitoring and research program for the Atlantic salmon resource in River Tana, within the framework of the precautionary approach given by The North Atlantic Salmon Concervation Organization (NASCO). The mandate of The Tana Working Group (TWG) was outlined through joint meetings and co‐operation between The Directorate for Nature Management (DN) and The Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (FGFRI/RKTL). The report is the responsibility of the Tana Working Group, and is based on both published and unpublished reports and data. In this report the working group suggests to establish a permanent Norwegian‐Finnish monitoring and research group for the Tana river system. At present such a group is under formation. The tasks of the group will be to give annual reports on Atlantic salmon stock status including trends in stock development, evaluate stock status according to NASCO's guidelines to the precautionary approach, identify knowledge gaps related these aspects. The group also can be asked to answer questions posed by the authorities concerning salmon management in Tana River system. Furthermore, tasks of a permanent group task list may be developed in the course of establishing.
  • Sámi Salmon, State Salmon: LEK, Technoscience and Care1

    Sámi Salmon, State Salmon: LEK, Technoscience and Care1

    Sámi Salmon, State Salmon: LEK, Technoscience and Care1 Solveig Joksa and John Law b a Sámi Allaskuvla, Sámi University of Applied Science Hánnoluohkká 45, NO-9520 Guovdageaidnu, Norway [email protected] b Department of Sociology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK, [email protected] and Centre for Science Studies, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YN 10 March 2016; JoksLaw2016SamiSalmonScienceSalmon.pdf 1 We are grateful to Petter Somby, Aslak Varsi, Johannes Varsi and all the other fishing people on the Deatnu who talked with Solveig and so willingly shared their knowledge with her in the course of her fieldwork. Solveig would also like to thank Sámi Allaskuvla for financial support for the PhD-research on which this paper is based. Finally she thanks her supervisor Britt Kramvig who has supported her during the fieldwork and the writing of her dissertation. 1 ‘Nowadays there are so many people fishing. And of course they will catch fish if they fish day and night. The problem is that the fish never get any peace, not even for an hour.’ (The words of Petter Somby, Tana River fisherman) ‘An overview of threat factors in the Tana show that overexploitation of salmon in the different parts of the salmon migratory system is the major threat factor for Tana salmon.’ (A view from the biologists)2 Introduction In Sámi ‘Deatnu’ means ‘the big river’. It is also the Sámi name for a major river in Sápmi in north Norway and Finland.3 Deatnu is one of the most important salmon rivers of Europe.
  • 4569 72Dpi.Pdf (943.5Kb)

    4569 72Dpi.Pdf (943.5Kb)

    O - 8 8 1 9 2 OVERVÅKING AV TANAVASSDRAGET Årsrapport for 2001 Saksbehandler: Tor S. Traaen, NIVA. Medarbeidere: Harald Muladal, Fylkesmannen i Finnmark. Pekka Räinä, Annukka Puro, Outi Mähönen, Markku Örn, Lapplands Miljøsenter. NIVA - 4569-2002 Forord Den finsk-norske overvåkingen av Tanavassdraget startet i 1988 som følge av vedtak i den Finsk-Norske Grensevassdrags kommisjonen. Undersøkelsene er administrert av Fylkesmannen i Finnmark og Lapplands Miljøsenter. Fra finsk side ble prosjektet administrert av seksjonssjef Pekka Räinä, mens Marjaleena Nenonen har deltatt i planleggingen av undersøkelsen. Vassdragsforvalter Kjell Moen administrete prosjektet fra norsk side inntil sin altfor tidlige bortgang. Ny prosjektadministrator er vassdragsforvalter Harald Muladal, som også har revidert rapportens innledning. Denne rapporten omhandler resultatene fra undersøkelsene i 2001. Det meste av vannprøvetakingen er utført av Fylkesmannen i Finnmark og Statsskog, Finnmark. De vannkjemiske og bakteriologiske analysene er utført ved Lapplands Miljøsenter i Rovaniemi. Tor S. Traaen, Oslo Oslo, august 2002 NIVA - 4569-2002 Innhold Sammendrag 5 Summary 6 1. INNLEDNING 7 1.1 Beskrivelse av Tanavassdraget 7 1.2 Stasjonsvalg og analyseprogram 9 2. VANNKJEMI 11 2.1 Generell vannkjemi 11 2.2 Næringssalter og organisk stoff 13 2.3 Metaller 16 3. HYGIENISK VANNKVALITET 17 4. LITTERATUR 20 Vedlegg A. Vannkjemiske tabeller. 21 NIVA - 4569-2002 Sammendrag Den vannkjemiske overvåkingen i Tanavassdraget 1988-1993 omfattet vannkjemiske og bakteriologiske analyser på 7 stasjoner i hovedvassdraget og 10 stasjoner i sidevassdrag. De fleste stasjonene ble prøvetatt 4 ganger i året. På grunn av de store variasjonene i vannkjemiske parametre gjennom året i Tanaelva, ble prøvetakingen fra 1994 utvidet fra 4 ganger pr.