I’m one sentence in and I can already feel the tension from bringing up the taboo topic everyone in Pulaski NY knows not to talk about- the collapse of the Salmon River’s steelhead fishery. That’s fine. Its time that a real conversation ensue regarding what has happened to the Salmon River’s steelhead fishery after the 2013 peak, followed by what can be fairly characterized as a 7 year collapse that began in 2014 after a well documented fish kill in the fall of 2014. This fish kill that occurred was deemed by New York DEC to be due to a “a severe thiamine deficiency” found in the steelhead that were sampled.
One would expect that after an event such as this in 2014, scientific attention and regulations to follow would be the norm. Not on the Salmon River though. Instead, the local community went into defense mode, proclaiming the fishing was great per usual to encourage visitors to come up and preserve their busy season. Given what was known then, I can’t blame the local community. The river had been coming off historically strong returns for numerous years prior to the 2014 season, so it was not crazy to think this was a freak event that had occurred and just a minor blip on the radar. Unfortunately, to date the Salmon River steelhead fishery has shown little to no signs of recovering since the start of the collapse in fall of 2014, and in fact has significantly declined in terms of both numbers and average fish size from a steelhead standpoint. In trying to pinpoint the issues, there are several factors that one can point to, and a lot of room for debate. However, the overwhelming issue that prevents any progress on the above is the fact that no one in the community with the power and influence to raise awareness or have an impact wants to talk about it.
POST 2014-PRESENT: THE DECLINING ALEWIFE POPULATION AND AN OVER-EMPHASIS ON THE KING SALMON FISHERY
Anyone fishing the Salmon River consistently from 2014 to present when being honest will admit that the fishery has never been the same during this time period, when compared to state of the river prior to the 2014 fall die off. Yes, I hear you river veterans talking about prior cycles where the river was equally dead, only to return again, and am in no way discounting what you are saying. But we are now into our 7th season since the 2014 die off, with no real rebound seen over that time. But the bigger question is, why has it yet to even be publically acknowledged by the area that the steelhead fishery has taken a major hit 7 years later? If we can’t admit that, how can we fix the problem?
While the 2014 steelhead die off was ultimately diagnosed by DEC as being a thiamine deficiency issue, I’d be misleading everyone if I said this lone event is why the steelhead fishing still is objectively subpar in 2020. It’s more complicated. The broader issue revolves around Lake Ontario’s alewife population, aka the primary forage fish that salmon primarily rely on, and to a lesser extent steelhead still consume as part of their diet while in the lake. With regards to the Alewife Population in Lake Ontario, DEC publicly issued a statement last year stating, “The 2019 lake wide adult alewife (age 2 and older) biomass index declined 29% relative to 2018.” NYDEC further stated that they anticipate that they expect and are projecting a further decline in 2020. These being the facts, New York DEC responded by making significant cuts to stocking numbers of Kings and Steelhead across the board in an attempt to prevent a full collapse of Lake Ontario’s Alewife population. But when looking at the stocking numbers and allocations across the board in terms of species, it’s evident that ecological balance is not the priority of the State or commercial angling community in managing the Salmon River and Lake Ontario Fishery generally.
WHY STOCK A DISPROPORTIATIONALY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF KING SALMON WHEN THEY RELY MORE HEAVILY ON ALEWIFE’s AS A FOOD SOURCE AND HAVE A HIGHER REPRODUCTION RATE IN THE RIVER?
Reiterating DEC’s public data cited above, Lake Ontario’s Alewife Population declined by nearly one third between the years of 2018 and 2019. DEC further stated that the Alewife population declined in 2020. This is important when turning to the fish stocking policies that presently have 300k Kings being stocked a year in the Salmon River, versus 120k steelhead being stocked during the same time period. King Salmon are the primary predators for Lake Ontario’s rapidly declining alewife population, and the State knows that to be a fact. This point being reinforced by Lake Ontario’s history where King Salmon stocking, and numbers related to King Salmon stocking were implemented for the specific purpose of controlling and regulating the non-native alewife population in Lake Ontario for years when the baitfish population was thriving. This being the case, why is the State of New York still stocking 300k Kings, and only 120k steelhead in the Salmon River when the King Salmon are the largest consumer of alewives thereby posing the most risk to Lake Ontario’s declining alewife population/the lake’s ecological balance generally? Doesn’t it seem especially odd that King Salmon are being stocked at nearly a 3x rate to steelhead when knowing Lake Ontario’s alewife population has seen exponential decline year over year and Kings being their primary predator? The only logical conclusion to draw from the Salmon River’s stocking policies is that DEC is trying to create every bit of capacity they can for the King Salmon fishery, even if it means devastating the Steelhead fishery and risking a further collapse in the Lake’s Alewife population. Steelhead are not the primary predators of Lake Ontario’s Alewife population, but they do eat some. Therefore, if getting rid of significant numbers of steelhead allows for a few more King Salmon to be sustained in Lake Ontario/return to the Salmon River each fall, its worth it in the eyes of the Salmon River’s management policies. The general risk to the entire fishery posed by King Salmon and their predation on Alewife’s is accepted on the basis of financial desperation. This along with pressure asserted by Lake Ontario’s fishing economy that favor King Salmon for the dual lake and river based economies King Salmon support (whereas steelhead only largely support a river-based economy that’s considered to be secondary to its respective King Salmon river based economy).
Other policies reflect a clear protectionist view of King Salmon over Steelhead on the river in recent years. For instance, just this year New York DEC announced the closure of the Salmon River’s upper fly zone during the king salmon run citing low flows and the need to ensure a sufficient number of eggs were obtained by the Salmon River hatchery to preserve future returns. https://www.newyorkupstate.com/outdoors/2020/09/dec-lower-fly-fishing-only-zone-on-salmon-river-closed-until-oct-31.html
Compare that to DEC’s current regulations that allow for fishing to begin on April 1st of each year, a time when many steelhead are still spawning in the upper fly zone/or have just left the hatchery where there eggs were collected. Was any action taken to address this issue over the last several years when steelhead numbers were known to be down? Bigger question being, did anyone even ask for action to be taken? My guess being no on both counts.
Then there is the point of wild reproduction which exposes the imbalances of the State’s current stocking policies for King Salmon versus Steelhead. Per DEC’s recently published 2018 Salmon River Management Plan, DEC stated that upwards of 70% of kings that return to the Salmon River (excluding 1yr fish) are wild, while also stating in passing that steelhead studies will eventually follow. Translation: DEC is aware that people love to snag salmon and spend a lot of money to be able to target a fish that’s visibly easy to identify in the river to sink a hook into. DEC is also aware that the local community relies heavily on the fall snag fest economically and culturally favors the fish for very cliché great lakes meat fishing environment that King Salmon create. King Salmon are therefore the priority, but we want to appear like we care about steelhead too so we’ll give them a mention to not entirely expose our conflict of interest. Four years later we are still waiting for that study which makes it fair to say don’t hold your breath.
We also know that natural steelhead reproduction in the salmon river is very low, and nowhere near the upward range of 70% for Kings as stated by Dec. Therefore, this becomes a situation of pure and simple math, where the steelhead stocking numbers (120k + low wild reproduction) don’t allow for a sustainable fishery. And if you want to argue 120k can support a legitimate steelhead fishery, how do you explain the need for 300k King Salmon being annually stocked when they reproduce at a 70% success rate in the river? (https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/37926.html#:~:text=Stocked%20fish,steelhead%20and%2030%2C000%20Atlantic%20salmon.
THE SALMON RIVER DOESN’T HAVE A GRASSROOTS STEELHEAD ADVOCATE
When you look at nationwide fishing destinations you often find organizations that are deeply rooted there and fight for the river and resource that serves as the foundation of that community. The Henry’s Fork Foundation. Friends of The Upper Delaware River. The Snake River Fund. On the Salmon River, When surveying the local scene for who should be speaking up, and isn’t, you have to ask yourself whether the Lake Ontario Tributary Anglers Council (“LOTAC”) is even a legitimate grassroots organization for the river? The reason I pose this question is because an honest look at this organization’s public mission statement and website generally suggests its merely a good ole boys club that created the organization to create a superficial display of unity amongst the river’s commercially involved angling base. This digressed into an incompetent group of incompatible business owners with interests too diverse to take a meaningful stance on anything on behalf of the river itself. A look at LOTAC’s sponsors shows a broad “more the merrier” approach to their purported sponsors, which includes everyone from Douglas Fly Rods to Fat Nancy’s that target entirely different demographics when it comes to the region’s angling base. Beyond LOTAC’s sponsors, going to LOTAC’s website reveals the organization has no active publications or updates for what’s being done for the river, and sets minimally low standards via its mission statement principles that state LOTAC does not condone the “wanton waste of any fish species such as keeping a fish only for its eggs and disregarding its meat and carcass”. It gets better, and for a moment I thought I got sidetracked by a pop up add for SPCA abuse before realizing LOTAC’s mission statement includes “Anglers will not harass, corral or torment purposefully, any fish swimming in a Lake Ontario Tributary.” I’m sorry but are we supposed to get up and clap here? These standards reflect the downright barbaric behavior that is known to ensue during king salmon season. By setting the bar this low, LOTAC essentially concedes they support the circus and draw the line at the point where an angler resorts to prehistoric man tactics to torment a dying salmon. It’s also entirely clear that by setting the bar this low, LOTAC isn’t really trying to be a conservation advocate for the river at all. These low level standards were put in place to ensure they did not offend or exclude any angling demographic (regardless of ethics), rather than imposing on the shameless snag scene and trying to actually protect the river. LOTAC’s identify crisis and empty commitment to actually serving as the Salmon River’s conservation advocate is echoed by the fact they list places that sell products like black sponge, weighted treble hooks, and other gear that could only possibly be used by someone that is fishing in an unethical manner. Yes, LOTAC’s strategic partners make clear that LOTAC is not even taking its own barbaric standards seriously. And from a collaborative standpoint, is LOTAC really envisioning Douglas Fly Rods and Fat Nancy’s getting on the same page here along with all of the many other businesses shamelessly plugged out on LOTAC’s sponsor page that have nothing in common with one another?
Looking elsewhere, you will struggle to find a single outfitter on the Salmon River who has tried to raise public awareness with regards to the substantial decline in the Salmon River steelhead fishery. In fact, you’ll see the opposite, with almost comical over compensation and egotistical behavior trying to blame the entire angler base as incompetent, rather than express environmental concern for the river they know is a shadow of itself and has been for years. I’ll say all are not guilty of overcompensation, but merely fear retribution and stay quiet as a result while grinding out their season. They fish hard and do the best they can under the conditions, know the river is a shell of its former self, but don’t want to catch local heat for saying the river as a whole is suffering. Understandable and acknowledged given the scene and characters involved.
The Underwhelming Role of DSR in Raising Awareness Regarding The Salmon River’s Steelhead Population Collapse is Equally Disappointing:
The Douglaston Salmon Run is a private section of approximately 3.5 miles of river that incudes the lower most reaches of the Salmon River before the river enters Lake Ontario. The land the river runs through is owned by a wealthy family that includes a prior Senator, who created a pay for access preserve so to speak in the name of Douglaston Salmon Run. Given these facts, never has a situation seemed like it could work out so well for a river, yet worked out so poorly.
The hopeful assumption is that a wealthy family who owns a meaningful plot of land and river that enters Lake Ontario will preserve the resource, advocate for protections for the river based on its political and local connections, and be able to do more than the average grassroots organization or individual. Their wealth and lack of need to profit would lead to good.
The reality is Douglaston Salmon Run turned their property into a local enterprise where over the recent years it became abundantly clear that they were self conscious in terms of how they were perceived by the local fishing scene and community. What followed was a series of year to year rule changes ranging from who gets to go in when (guides, season pass holders, general paying customers) to manage the personalities and demographics that form the Salmon River fishery. All of these annual tweaks, and motivations for making them, make clear that DSR has dwelled on their image and which angling group matter most to them whether it be season pass holders, guides, or property guests.
Since the start of the collapse of the Salmon River’s steelhead fishery in 2014, Douglaston Salmon Run has not once made a public statement that acknowledged the issue or tried to raise awareness with regards to the specific issue of the River’s Steelhead fishery collapsing. Nothing emphasizes Douglaston Salmon Run’s disappointing and backwards priorities more than their painfully handcrafted daily reports. These reports reinforce much of the internal and self-conscious image issues raised above, as they for years now have struggled with trying to appear “honest” but also not undermine the fishery and local economy by over-emphasizing how bad the fishing is. For numerous years now, DSR has said the same thing in 200 different ways, that message being the fishing was generally not good but a few people had a decent day. For an owner of property that includes the lower most 3 miles of the Salmon River and its entry into Lake Ontario, I expect that owner to be acquainted with the status quo of what is normal for returns and results in a given season, and to use the data they acquire on any given season as a barometer of whether the river is thriving or declining. And for over 7 years now, Douglaston Salmon Run has undoubtedly come to learn by speaking with their customers that the state of the Salmon River Steelhead fishery is a shadow of its former self, while the King Salmon fishery is alive and well. Has DSR publically advocated against the disproportionately high stocking numbers for King Salmon when compared to Steelhead in the Salmon River after 7 years of results that clearly reflect this very imbalance? Has DSR publically acknowledged the collapse of the Salmon River’s steelhead fishery in a meaningful way period? The answer is a simple no. DSR may work with DEC behind the scenes in limited respects, generally supporting blanket regulations that in theory or on paper are intended to protect the Salmon River’s King Salmon and Steelhead. However, this isn’t a generic issue, and it requires sides to be taken when it comes to each respective fish. Anything that involves King Salmon and Steelhead in the same proposed regulation is avoiding those nuances, perhaps intentionally given the political landscape surrounding the fishery, and illustrates the very reason the Salmon River’s steelhead population continues to decline ever since 2014. Steelhead and King Salmon are not mutually aligned when it comes to the issues each fish faces in the Salmon River as it currently stands when considering the limiting factors in Lake Ontario. They are adversaries from a policy perspective. No one, including LOTAC and DSR, are willing to distinguish between the two and single out the issue of reviving the Salmon River’s steelhead population due to the fact that the King Salmon fishery is viewed as the more lucrative fish when it comes to the fishery’s economy as explained above.
PUBLIC DATA AND STATEMENTS FROM NEW YORK’s DEC AND OTHER SOURCES FURTHER REINFORCES THE FACT THAT RESTORING THE SALMON RIVER’s STEELHEAD POPULATION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA
If you think I’m biased and my claims are unsupported, Google “Salmon River New York Steelhead Stocking Policies” and see what your results are. You will find articles that fail to mention steelhead stocking and management within the river entirely, instead diverting back to King Salmon and which focus solely on King Salmon stocking, management, and managing their numbers and population in the midst of the baitfish population issue mentioned above. The latest DEC management policy being “strategic outcome stocking” which in simple terms means stocking King Salmon where the most people fish so they are given a high probability of catching one when the fish return to these areas. Does this sound like environmental conservation to you?
The reality is that DEC is responding to those that are in their ear when it comes to the management of the Lake Ontario fishery as a whole and its tributaries, and right now no one is in their ear and having an influence when it comes to the Salmon River’s Steelhead fishery. The commercially organized and influential Lake based fishery is certainly in their ear, and the historical precedent of Salmon prevailing over Steelhead is being upheld irrespective of the fact that Lake Ontario needs less Salmon and more Steelhead from an ecological standpoint.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
With most of my longer write ups, I assume that most reading have stopped before getting to the end. But on this topic, on this river, I know the angry souls either in favor of my arguments or against me are still reading on pure emotion. Good. Glad you’re with me or sorry I upset you. The point of this is to start the dialogue, and call out the fact that nothing is being said or done to sort these issues out. The leaders of the Salmon River community need to accept the fact that improved management and correction of the issues very much present now starts with them, and many other devoted anglers (including myself) will follow and participate. However, without muscle behind us, the complaints of individual anglers pointing out the obvious does nothing to move the needle or rectify complex issues. Especially when those issues overlap with and involve our State’s top environmental agency. After 7 years of successive decline in the river’s steelhead fishery, it’s time we get over the potential short term set backs of admitting there is a problem. The reality is, people that come to the Salmon River love it for what it is, and will be there every year regardless of whether the fishing is said to be good or bad. Those that quit when the fishing is no good have probably already stopped coming to the region, because yes it has been that bad for that long. Its time to call a spade a spade, accept the state of the river as it currently stands, and do something about it.