°FO lilll/l~~ll~li l l~lfI~ lil~illii~lrque 12001752 S~ON QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT , ,. :·1 · ~ :: ·, ~ ~ .. :~ by A. Wayne Holmes Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Field Services Branch Victoria, B. C. "1".i ~ -. •' { • ... ~ ... _. ... _·:_· ! > "•• r) ~ . April, 1982 SH 167 . .S l 7 H66 D c . oi. 'I -I ) (,- / I , LI I \ ' THE LIBRARY BEDFORD INSTITUTI! OP: OCEANOGRAPHY BOX 1006 DARTMOUTH, N.S. B2Y 4A2 SAUfON QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UBRARY FISHERIES AND OCEANS BlBUOTHEQUE PECHES ET OCEANS by .,, \ A. Wayne Holmes Department of Fisheries and Oceans, • L Field Services Branch Victoria, B.C. April, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS i. ABSTRACT .............................................. 0 •••••••••••••••••• iii. LIST OF TABLES .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iv • LIST OF FIGURES • • • • • 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iv • PURPOSE .................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................... 1 FACTORS ..................................... ct •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 A. SALtfON QUALITY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• 3 1 • Grades .................................................... 3 2. Maturity by Species ...................................... 4 3. Spoilage Factors .......................................... 9 B. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR QUALITY ............................... 11 1. Salmon Canned in 1981 11 2. Information on Stocks at Various Geographical Locations 28 c. PARASITES .......................... 0 •••••••••••••••••• ,.......... 41 D. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 51 E. FISH INSPECTION REGULATIONS .................................... 53 RECOM1'1ENDED PROGRAMS .................................................... 5S A. SALMON QUALITY • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• SS B. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR QUALITY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• S6 c. PARASITES • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 58 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 60 A. S.AL.MON QU.Al.ITY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 60 B. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 60 1. Fish Quality •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 60 2. Conservation and Protection ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 61 c. PARASITES .................................................... 63 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................... 64 REFERENCES ............................................................. 65 APPENDICES ............................................................. 66 1. BABINE LAKE SALMON QUALITY DATA ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 67 2. AREA 4 MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY 69 3. FRASER RIVER SALMON QUALITY DATA•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 76 4. YUKON AND NORTHERN B.C. SALMON QUALITY DATA ••••••••••••••••••••••• 84 5. PROPOSED SALMON GRADE STANDARDS ................................... 96 6. BAND-BASED INDIAN FISHERIES ....................................... 103 ABSTRACT iii. In the Pacific Region, wild stocks of salmonids are suffering from the impacts of mixed stock. harvesting practices; additionally, the increased exploitation necessary to harvest some enhanced stocks takes a further toll on weak.er, unenhanced stocks. If the natural production from wild salmonid stocks is to be preserved, fishery managers may have to consider harvesting stock. s, or portions of them, at or near the rivers to which these stocks return. To ensure an optimll!:l harvest of Pacific salmonids, resource managers need to be able to identify the locations where they can harvest individual stocks somewhat discretely, thereby avoiding or minimizing the impacts of mixed stock fisheries without foregoing a substantial loss of product quality, associated with the maturation process, which will be evident when fish are caught in terminal fisheries. This report presents preliminary salmon quality information which may need to be considered as prerequisite to the implementation of terminal fisheries. General criteria for grading salmon are presented for, and applied to, each of the five salmon species. The maturity of selected stocks at various locations has been described; pictures and maps graphically detail maturational characteristics and the areas where salmon undergo quality or grade changes, and tables list additional quality information for these, and other, stocks. Also discussed are other relevant factors which affect the quality of fish after they are caught; the incidence of parasites; and possible conflicts concerning the use of terminal fisheries. (The federal government's Quality Improvement Program has specific implications for terminal fisheries, and there may be extra fish inspection and conservation requirements if fisheries are held in rivers.) Additional programs are recommended to fill numerous information gaps, and some financial considerations of program implementation are presented. LIST OF TABLES iv. 1. Quality of salmon canned in 1981, and maturational characteristics of stocks at various geographical locations. .......................... 17 2. Henneguya salminicola in adult salmon sampled from 1978 to September 1981. • ..•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••..• 45 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Adult sock.eye, Babine Fence, Aug. 27/81 ............................ 12 2. Jack sock.eye, Babine Fence, Aug. 27/81 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 3. Adult pink., Babine Fence, Aug. 27/81 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 4. Adult coho, Qualicum Hatchery, Oct. 8/81 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 s. Adult coho, Qualicum Hatchery, Oct. 5/81 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 6. Chinook, Qualicum Hatchery, Oct. 5/81 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 7. Adult chinook, Robertson Creek, Oct. 7/81 .......................... 13 8. Jack chinook, Robertson Creek, Oct. 7/81 13 9. Jack coho, Robertson Creek, Oct. 7/81 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 10. Pink., Agassiz, Bridge, Sept. 17/81 (Not canned) ••••••••••••••••••••• 14 11. Pink, Jones Creek., Sept. 18/81 ••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 14 12. Chinook, Fraser R. Between Chilliwack and Hope - Late May or Early June ••...........•..•.•.•.•.•.•..•.•••.•.•.•.•...•••••..••.... 14 13. Chum, Jones Creek, Sept. 18/81 ...................................... 15 14. Sock.eye, Fraser R. Above Mission Bridge, July 29/81 15 15. Sock.eye, Fraser R. Above Boston Bar, July 15/81 ..................... 15 16. Sock.eye, Fraser R. Between Quesnel and Williams Lake, July 23/81 15 17. Sock.eye, 6 Miles S. of Prince George, July 22/81 •••••••••••••••••••• 16 18. Sock.eye, Fraser Lake, Aug. 29/81 .................................... 16 19. Vancouver Island/Lower Mainland Chum Salmon Quality at Various Locations •.••...............•...••..........•.....•..•.•••....••.... 36 20. Adams River Sock.eye Salmon Quality at Various Locations ••••••••••••• 37 21. Stuart River Sockeye Salmon Quality at Various Locations ............ 38 22. Babine Sock.eye Salmon Quality at Various Locations 39 23. Bella Coola River Salmon Quality at Various Locations 40 24. Cysts containing the parasite H. salminicola. 49 25. Close-up of Henneguya salminicola cysts. ............................ so Page 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to contribute to the optimization of the salmonid catch by maximizing the catch of abundant stocks and minimizing the catch of weak.er stocks through the use of terminal fisheries. Salmon quality information contained in this report will assist managers to determine where terminal fisheries might be located in order to achieve stock separation, yet still obtain fish of marketable quality. BACKGROUND 1. The Department has a problem with mixed stock fisheries in which weak stocks may be overharvested as a result_ of heavy fishing pressure on strong stocks. There are numerous opportunities to reduce mixed stock harvest levels; for instance, a portion of the harvest can be taken at more terminal points so that the fleet's fishing effort can be focused more directly on specific stocks. 2. Terminal fisheries are being considered in the context of a Canada - U.S.A. Salmon Agreement to reduce interceptions which are now common in many fisheries. 3. The recently announced Quality Improvement Program suggests that the Department should consider directing the fishing effort away from terminal points to ensure a higher quality catch. However, this would involve fishing mixed stocks in a large number of situations. Therefore, an effort should be made to catch only a portion of fish in a mixed stock situation, where they are of very high quality, and the remainder of the harvestable surplus should be taken at more terminal points where there are fewer mixed stocks, but where the quality is still acceptable. Because there are markets for different quality products, Page 2 BACKGROUND (Continued) the resource can still be fully utilized if mixed stock and terminal fisheries are held. This action may assist in preventing over-fishing of weak stocks. 4. The Salmonid Enhancement Program, by adjusting its strategies in some areas, may be able to enhance all stocks migrating through a fishing area at the same time, thereby overcoming the mixed stock problem without overharvesting weak stocks or forgoing fish quality by harvesting in terminal fisheries. 5. The sale of Indian food fish