0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your idea of releasing the eggs so that we have a higher rate of return to the ocean is a good one. Fish normally release their eggs and yes they often become cannibals and eat both the eggs and the emerging young, so releasing the fertilized eggs where the sonar does not show huge shoals of fish is always going to be a wise move, and lets face it the fishermen are struggling to find fish these days.
A good friend of mine runs a very expensive boat out from Brixham and several times has returned back to port after a week without enough fish to pay his crews wages. So I guess if the eggs all get eaten we don’t have a problem with dwindling fish stocks to begin with.
Another alternative is that the eggs are nurtured until they hatch and then release them to feed on the plankton in stages rather than putting them all out in one place. The collecting team might prove difficult given the huge distances these fishermen travel in order to locate catches. However having an official on board might prove to be more cost effective than sending out a boat and a team.
There is another option and that is a holding tank secured to take the eggs and milt from the fish on landing them back at port, this could be a percentage of the roe in exchange for letting the fisherman keep the whole catch rather than dumping them overboard.
When cod spawnEvery December and January, sexually mature Northeast Arctic cod migrate from the Barents Sea to their spawning grounds between Finnmark and western Norway. The most important of these grounds are in Lofoten and Vesterålen.By Beate Hoddevik SunnsetThe lifecycle of the cod is certainly interesting and there are contact numbers on this site to ask if we could have someone add their expertise and thoughts in this area of research to the possiblity of replenishing fish stocks. Might be worth dropping them a line?http://www.imr.no/english/news/2007/when_cod_spawn [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
http://www.newfoundland-books.com/site/1495114/page/912775 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/7/1353 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] Salmon in Japan
Taken from the above article...To use these programmes more effectively, it is necessary to evaluate both their river- and species-specific benefits and compare hatchery programmes with other management tools, such as fishery controls and habitat rehabilitation. Future hatchery programmes should incorporate active, adaptive learning approaches to minimize the risks associated with artificial propagation and to promote sustainable salmon stocks. and In Japan, considerable effort has been made to increase the number and survival of hatchery-reared fish (Nogawa and Yagisawa, 1994; Seki and Shimizu, 1996), most results being published in the grey literature. Japanese hatchery technology is well-developed, and both the quality and quantity of juveniles released are high because of the substantial efforts of hatchery managers. Japanese chum salmon are considered to be representative of the phenomenal success of hatchery programmes, which are seen as necessary to sustaining catches of Pacific salmon in Hokkaido. Unfortunately, there have been few efforts to assess whether these programmes have actually increased the population of the target species after accounting for the negative impact on wild fish and environmental changes. In particular, there have been few river-specific evaluations of their effectiveness. There are risks associated with hatchery programmes, such as competition between cultured and wild salmon, genetic impacts on wild salmon, domestication selection, and disease outbreaks (National Research Council, 1996; Altukhov et al., 2000). Overall they may be replacing wild salmon rather than augmenting total salmon production (Nickelson et al., 1986; Hilborn and Eggers, 2000; Sweeting et al., 2003). In addition, if genetically modified captive stock is released into rivers where wild fish occur, both wild and hatchery fish may decline (Muir and Howard, 1999; Devlin et al., 2004). For the sustainable use of salmon resources, it is necessary, therefore, to consider not only the potential benefits but also the risks, associated with hatchery programmes. We suggest adopting the concept of managing hatchery and wild fish together (Fisheries Agency of Japan, 2004). To use hatchery programmes more effectively, we need to evaluate their river- and species-specific benefits first (cf. Nickelson et al., 1986; Hyatt et al., 2005), and then compare hatchery programmes with other management tools. The latter should include spawning-bed enhancement (Merz et al., 2004), rehabilitation of channelized streams (Nagata et al., 2002), and improvements to access for migratory fish (Sagawa et al., 2004), but fisheries management should be implemented more actively. Such conservation management tools will guarantee the long-term sustainability of salmon stocks. Future hatchery programmes should clarify goals and incorporate active, adaptive learning approaches to minimize the risks associated with them and promote the sustainable use of salmon stocks. Scientists in Japan have initiated a dialogue about the most appropriate future direction for Pacific salmon hatchery programmes, with special reference to wild salmon.
How about this as an idea,Right the government or an N.G.O, builds fish farms to restock the sea with missing species. So each country would have one. Right, therefore the fish would be owned by either the 'people' or greenpeace for example. So any fisher men would have to pay the government for each fish they caught. Right so that would keep fish stocks up, help enforcement of legal restrictions, and generate revenue for preservation of the sea. You may have to tag the fish but it would surely help.