SEAFOOD WATCH will soon assess specifically Alaska hatchery-augmented salmon fisheries (Feb. 2012)

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program will specifically assess “hatchery-augmented” Alaska salmon fisheries & farmed salmon per producing country & species

We have made reassessment of farmed salmon a priority in 2012 priority” – Dr Tom Pickerell, Senior Science Manager of the Monterey Bay Aquarium & Seafood Watch

Editorial by Editor Bertrand Charron, First published March 21, 2012

For some years now, we have raised the issues surrounding the high dependency of Alaska’s “wild-caught” salmon fisheries on their hatchery enhancement strategy. This results yearly in billions of [usually all labeled ‘wild’] hatchery-raised juvenile salmon being released, which in 2011 represented 20% of all wild-caught AK commercial salmon (49% in 2010, figures fluctuate yearly). We have raised the issues in a series of tweets to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s influential Seafood Watch (40 million seafood advisory booklets distributed in the past decade); the latter’s Senior Science Manager, Dr Tom Pickerell, has just confirmed to SeafoodIntelligence that it “do[es] not distinguish between the two in our recommendation and therefore we are not recommending one over another”.

PS June 2016:  The substantial ‘Unit of Certification’ representing the Prince William Sound (PWS) salmon fisheries [~80% hatchery salmon dependent] in Alaska has not been (and is not to date) recertified as a sustainable fisheries by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)…

Excerpted from the MRAG Americas May 2016 document titled ‘Second Annual MSC Surveillance Report Alaska Salmon Fishery’.

This is essentially part of the ‘problem’: No distinction is ever made between ‘[truly] wild’ salmon & [hatchery] enhanced/ranched salmon fisheries in the marketplace/at consumer level.

Seafood Watch however confirmed that things are evolving: Seafood Watch’s “forthcoming assessments for hatchery-augmented salmon fisheries will look at hatchery impacts more explicitly than in existing assessments”. […] “Accordingly: […] The revised fisheries criteria will be complemented by specific interpretive guidance on how to evaluate salmon fisheries that include hatchery dimensions. We are developing an ‘issues paper’ on the “Impacts of hatcheries and appropriate management for hatchery-supplemented stocks.” This will be peer reviewed by leading experts and regularly updated to reflect new science [..] We will update the recommendations in our US Pacific Salmon Seafood Watch Report when these are completed.” […] “We have made reassessment of farmed salmon a priority in 2012 priority” by producing country, he added.


In passing – but very importantly – we must praise here the transparent attitude taken by Seafood Watch in addressing our queries. The latter were made all the more pressing due to the fact that the Alaska salmon industry has indicated in January that it is pulling out from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) eco-certification programme after the current certification lapses in October 2012.

Communication is paramount for the public’s understanding of wild and farmed seafood sustainability issues, and for people to make informed and science-based purchasing decisions. It is equally important for advisories to be able to adjust, change and update on a regular basis – as “science” does – and for the public to be aware that this is the case…

We must also note that eco-labels and eco-certification programmes tend at the moment to look only at the issue of sustainable fisheries management practices and at the status of the concerned fish stocks/ecosystems; whereas the broader “sustainability” issues of “how sustainably is the fish caught/processed/transported?” – i.e. sustainability of the actual seafood on display at the retail end – are not addressed. The various environmental impacts resulting from the various harvesting and processing industries – eg. energy & water use, social impacts, greenhouse gas emissions & land/carbon footprint, etc… – tend to be widely underestimated or ignored in “sustainable” and “responsible” seafood sourcing. More is happening on that front in the realm of aquaculture, perhaps because it has until now been under more scrutiny, and also because fish products are traceable from [fish] egg-to-plate and that the industry is more consolidated (the same firm is often involved in all stages of harvest, processing and transport to retail).

Indeed, what good is it to harvest a particular species from “sustainable fisheries”, if the exploitation of that particular “sustainable” fishery and the processing/transport & retailing of these ‘sustainable fish’ products lead to globally negative environmental impacts, detrimental to other species/ecosystems elsewhere on the Globe?

Furthermore, who should decide who can & should certify what a sustainable fisheries is? The marketplace, eNGOs, industry NGOs, governments, only people/fisheries who can afford the cost of fee-paying certification?

Should “somebody else” fund the cost of eco-certification so as not to be a disincentive to lesser-funded fisheries/operators/countries? This could/would also bring further transparency/integrity to the eco-certification process by removing the client-certifier relationship and a possible variability in the integrity of a certification based in part on such economic/business ties.

It is not because a fish product originates from a coveted ecolabel that it is always necessarily more “sustainable” or “advisable” to consume it, by some critics’ account, than other non-certified products. Some of the world’s largest foundations and environmental NGOs have objected to the [still granted] eco-certification of some fisheries (eg. Antarctic krill, British Columbia Fraser River sockeye salmon, Ross Sea toothfish [‘Chilean sea bass’] etc…). Equally, it is not because a fishery is not rubber-stamped as “sustainable” that it necessarily isn’t…

Certification schemes such as the MSC are nonetheless very important ‘means to an end’ going in the right direction to ensure a more sustainable future for the world’s fisheries (at least ‘what’s left of them’, if one was to have a look 50-100 years back…). But neither the MSC nor other eco-labels are without their flaws…

What is more “sustainable” & “advisable” to eat?

  • A “Best Choice” fish product originating from a “sustainably managed fisheries” but sent half around the globe (eg. some Asian country) for cheaper processing costs and then re-exported/shipped thousands of miles for final consumption back near the area of harvest? Or plainly sent ‘half around the globe’ to be purchased.
  • A “Good Alternative” fish product originating from a local fish harvester and processed by a [series?] of unknown processors?
  • An “Avoid” fish product originating from a company which can trace, measure and assess its precise carbon/GHG footprint for each ounce of fish produced to the nearest decimal, exposed to perhaps less contaminants than “sustainable” fish from some polluted seas, and which actively funds the local community?

There is no single/simple answer: “it all depends”… on many things; the particular producer, processor, retailer, species, etc… Basically, every single product is different & every different seafood products’ “sustainability” varies, also depending on who buys it, when and how…

Some techniques – still widely debated and fined-tuned – such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) would enable addressing some of these issues by assessing wider environmental impacts; and thus ultimately the true “sustainability” of consuming a particular seafood product (remember: fish and seafood are different terms.)…

Furthermore, eco-labels do not address issues relating to food safety (contaminant levels etc…), product quality and/or the several corporate & social responsibility (CSR) of medium-to-large scale suppliers. Perhaps seafood advisories of the future will have a more global & environmental, and quality encompassing perspective…

‘Eat local’ movements have their merits, but also have many flaws…

Only a local–and-global multipronged strategy addressing all environmental issues in a flexible, adapted and science-based approach considering both the market-end needs and demands (and the location of specific consumers) – focusing on precise fish populations/stocks rather than a species with international/global distribution range (when it comes to aquaculture) and providing traceability of all the “sustainability” indicators along the entire (sea)food chain – seems the way forward in order to adequately and objectively inform and advise consumers in their respective markets.

Notwithstanding the fact that aquaculture will inevitably provide more seafood than the wild-catch sector in years and decades to come, we are pleased to learn that Seafood Watch has finally “made reassessment of farmed salmon a priority in 2012 priority” [See Dr Pickerell’s comments below].

There is still a long way to go… and plenty of issues for us to raise…


 Background & updated figures from our March 6th story (2011 Retrospective : ALASKA hatcheries released 1.5bn juvenile salmon; 48 million hatchery salmon harvested, more in 2012):

Below are excerpts from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) report just published: “Alaska salmon fisheries enhancement program 2011 annual report”. “The total permitted production capacity for PNP hatchery programs increased in 2011 by about 67 million and now totals 2.35 billion green salmon eggs. [..] Over 48 million hatchery-propagated salmon returned with the majority (28 million) being pink salmon produced in hatcheries in Prince William Sound. Approximately 33 million fish, or 20% of the commercial common property harvest [CPH], were produced by the Alaska salmon hatcheries. [..] hatchery-propagated salmon provided an estimated $109 million, or 18%, of the exvessel value of the statewide commercial [CPH].” [NB Ed: total commercial harvest stood at 177 million fish in 2011; in 2010 77/158 million fish were hatchery fish, i.e. 49%] “[..] Statewide, the fisheries enhancement program is accredited for contributing 53% of the chum, 26% of the coho, 16% of the Chinook, and 6% of the sockeye salmon to the commercial CPH [..] In 2012, over 54 million hatchery-produced fish are projected to return to Alaska.” [i.e. 12.5% more than in 2011]. Read the report (1.6Mb) here

NB Ed: How much longer will it take environmental NGOs, eco-certifyers & retailers to start acknowledging Alaska salmon industry’s level of reliance on aquaculture, and start considering the sustainability aspects of the Alaska salmon enhancement policy; incl. in advisories? Alaska salmon are not all (born) equal; & certainly not all are truly ‘wild’, despite what labels may often claim! This also serves to highlight that seafood does not always simply originate from wild vs./or farmed species; communicating this clearly to the public would help. Why systematically demonize aquaculture when in fact it “continues to drive the state’s economy”?!


Below is the email response (un-edited) we received yesterday (March 20th) from Dr Tom Pickerell, Senior Science Manager at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

—– Original Message —–

From: Dr. Tom Pickerell

To: Bertrand Charron @ SeafoodIntel

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 5:03 PM

Subject: RE: Alaskan Salmon

Dear Bertrand

Thank you for your patience while I was away.

I’ve tried to address your questions about Alaska salmon one by one below. Please note that Seafood Watch will shortly be updating our report on Alaska salmon to reflect the latest data using our new assessment criteria we just adopted for our program.

A. I would –and I’m not the only one – indeed be very interested to see if & how (if not: why?) Seafood Watch (SW) considers the sustainability rating of the hatchery component (~30% of total Alaska salmon harvest in 2010/2011) of Alaska ‘wild-caught’ salmon

The Seafood Watch report in question (US Pacific Salmon Seafood Watch Report) does attempt to cover both hatchery-reared and truly wild (i.e. no hatchery stage) salmon from this geographic region. The opening line of the report states:

“This seafood report evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught U.S. West Coast salmon.”

You highlight a statement (page 40) as an indication that the report in fact only assesses wild (i.e. no hatchery stage) salmon:

“There is an ongoing debate in the management and legal community as to whether artificially propagated salmon ought to be included when considering the health of an ESU. While there are valid economic and sometimes environmental reasons to encourage hatcheries, this review attempts to focus on the health and abundance of only wild fish for the following reasons.”

Out of context it certainly appears this way. To explain why this isn’t actually the case I need to explain the Seafood Watch criteria used to make this evaluation[1].

Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure

Factors to evaluate:

  • Intrinsic rate of increase (‘r’)
  • Age at first maturity
  • von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k)
  • Maximum age
  • Reproductive potential (fecundity)
  • Species range
  • Evidence of special behaviors that increase ease of capture
  • Quality of habitat from non-fishery impacts

Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks

Factors to evaluate:

  • Classification status
  • Current population abundance relative to BMSY
  • Occurrence of overfishing (current level of fishing mortality relative to overfishing threshold)
  • Overall degree of uncertainty in stock status
  • Long and short term trend in population abundance as measured by fishery dependent and independent means
  • Current age, size or sex distribution of the stock relative to natural condition

Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Discarded Bycatch

Factors to evaluate

  • Quantity of bycatch relative to the quantity of targeted landings
  • Composition of the bycatch, including any species of “special concern”
  • Population consequences of bycatch
  • Short and long-term trends in bycatch interaction rates
  • Evidence of ecosystem alteration through continued removal of the bycatch species

Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems

Habitat factors:

  • Effect of fishing gear on physical and biogenic habitats
  • Resilience of physical and biogenic habitats to disturbance by fishing method
  • Spatial extent of fishing gear effects
  • Evidence of ecosystem alteration through use of fishing gear

Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime

Factors to evaluate:

  • Stock Status: Does management implement a stock assessment that seeks scientific knowledge related to the short and long-term status of the stock?
  • Scientific Monitoring: Does management regularly collect data and analyze it with respect to stock abundance?
  • Scientific Advice: Does management ignore advice from its scientific advisors?
  • Bycatch: Does management implement an effective bycatch reduction plan?
  • Fishing practices: Does management address the effect of the fishing method(s) on habitats and ecosystems?
  • Enforcement: Do management and appropriate government bodies enforce fishery regulations?
  • Management Track Record: Have conservation measures enacted by management resulted in the long-term maintenance of stock abundance and ecosystem integrity?

The statement on page 40 refers only to Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks; and therefore in this one criterion, we have only evaluated wild stocks as it is inappropriate to include propagated stock in a wild-stock assessment. This is actually directly noted on page 105 of the report:

“The wild fisheries criteria as written do not adequately accommodate a review of the effects of hatcheries.. To address this limitation, the indirect effects of both wild stock depletions and hatchery augmentation have been incorporated into the review under the ecosystem effects factors.”

The forthcoming assessments for hatchery-augmented salmon fisheries will look at hatchery impacts more explicitly than in existing assessments. Further down you will see the steps we have/are taking to achieve this.

B. SW does not recommend hatchery-origin Alaska salmon as a ‘Best Choice’, what is thus the recommendation (‘Good Alternative’ or ‘Avoid’)?

Seafood Watch does indeed currently include hatchery-origin salmon as part of our ‘Best Choice’ recommendation for wild-caught Alaskan salmon.. The entire fishery, including hatchery-raised, is considered in the assessment.

C. SW cannot have an opinion due to “lack of information and data”? [If so: What steps have you/SW taken to remedy this? I can suggest data & people to contact in Alaska as there is a lot of quantitative data on the escapement & breeding figures]; But answer a) is thus being inferred.

As noted above, our forthcoming assessments for hatchery-augmented salmon fisheries will look at hatchery impacts more explicitly than in existing assessments. Accordingly:

  • Seafood Watch has recently revised our assessment criteria for fisheries & aquaculture. The revised fisheries criteria will be complemented by specific interpretive guidance on how to evaluate salmon fisheries that include hatchery dimensions
  • We are developing an ‘issues paper’ on the “Impacts of hatcheries and appropriate management for hatchery-supplemented stocks.” This will be peer reviewed by leading experts and regularly updated to reflect new science. It will be available on our website for full transparency and will ultimately help maintain the robustness of our report.
  • We will update the recommendations in our US Pacific Salmon Seafood Watch Report when these are completed.

D. Given the choice between a certified ‘truly wild’ Alaska salmon and one certified ‘hatchery-raised’ and ranched salmon: Is one salmon more ‘recommendable’ than the other by Seafood Watch? Are they exactly the same from a sustainability point of view? [assuming the fisheries from where the fish come from is deemed equally/comparably sustainable, apart from the hatchery issue component].

As I mentioned early, we do not distinguish between the two in our recommendation and therefore we are not recommending one over another.

E. In any case: How does SW answer (in more than 140 characters) the rather simple and precise question relating to the sustainability of Alaska hatchery-origin ranched/enhanced salmon – in general & specifically when some of the fisheries have double-digit % hatchery-components : “What is the Seafood Watch advisory when it comes to the consumption of Alaska ranched/hatchery salmon?

The current Seafood Watch recommendation for wild-caught Alaskan salmon (both hatchery-origin and wild-origin) is “Best Choice” or green. It will remain so until we update or retire the current report.

F. Are Alaska wild-caught salmon originating from hatcheries to be considered exactly as other truly wild wild-caught salmon, and can thus benefit unconditionally of the same ‘Best Choice’ advisory?

Based on our current Seafood Watch report, yes.

G. Also and finally, assessing the sustainability of enhanced fisheries should be taken outside of the Alaska marketing context and strategy that all Alaska wild-caught fish are conveniently labelled ‘wild’: This is ASMI marketing and one would hope this should not influence Seafood Watch’s recommendation.

I can confirm that ASMI marketing has not, and will not, have influence on the science-based evaluation process we use to develop all of our recommendations.

H. You will appreciate that SW advisories are often quite general when it comes to salmon: eg. the advisory for Atlantic farmed salmon is a five-letter word ‘Avoid’; no matter where in the world & how (‘organic’ or not, etc…)it is produced.

That is currently correct. We have made reassessment of farmed salmon a priority in 2012 priority, incorporating our new criteria. Specifically, we will be re-assessing:

Atlantic Salmo salar Canada Farmed open pen net
US Farmed open pen net
Norway Farmed open pen net
Scotland Farmed open pen net
Chile Farmed open pen net
Australia Farmed open pen net
Chinook Onchoryncus tshawytscha Canada Farmed open pen net
New Zealand Farmed open pen net


You will notice that we are making our assessments on a country level to better reflect regional differences. Unfortunately we will not be assessing individual salmon farms at any greater granularity. This is beyond the capacity of our scientific evaluation team.

That said we are exploring two approaches in 2012 that offer opportunities to get around this.

First, we are carrying out a benchmarking exercise of sustainable seafood eco-certification schemes. Essentially, if an existing eco-certification scheme (including those that assess salmon farming approaches) is demonstrated to be credible & equivalent to a minimum of a “Good Alternative” or yellow ranking, we will consider deferring to it and will tell consumers/buyers to “buy” seafood certified by that scheme.

Second, throughout 2012 we will be piloting an “external assessment model” for wild fisheries and aquaculture. We want to open up our assessment criteria to allow fisheries/farms that are not being assessed by our team to be assessed independently using our criteria.

Kind regards



From: Bertrand Charron @ SeafoodIntel
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:03 AM
To: Dr. Tom Pickerell
Cc: Seafood Watch
Subject: Fw: Alaskan Salmon
Importance: High


Hello Tom,

Now that the IBSS is over, can you let me know when you intend to provide some answers re. the ‘truly wild’ & ‘ranched/enhanced’ Alaska salmon fisheries issues & Seafood Watch clarifications I sought?

Best regards,



February 27/28th & March 7th ‘Salmoskius’ Tweets (on relevant to this story, in antechronological order:

February 27, 2012

@SeafoodWatch 1) Re. your salmon report: “this review attempts to focus on health & abundance of only wild fish” (p40)

@SeafoodWatch 2) “There is a lack of information & data necessary to evaluate effects of hatcheries on wild salmon”p114

@SeafoodWatch 3) Question: Does Seafood Watch ‘Best Choice’ rating re. Alaska #salmon refers ONLY/MOSTLY to “[truly] wild”? (not #hatchery)

@SeafoodWatch 4) All MSC-certified (but not for long?) Alaska #salmon are labelled “Wild” but ~30% born&bred as juvenile in #hatcheries

@SeafoodWatch 5) Q2: How can anybody purchasing ‘wild’ labelled Alaska salmon be sure that they’re not buying hatchery-origin Alaska salmon?

@SeafoodWatch 6) Should U not inform consumers in earnest re. substantial ‘enhancement’ & true sustainability of Alaska hatchery #salmon?

@SeafoodWatch 7) Being aware of 1-6, isn’t maintaining ‘Best Choice’ recommendation for ALL/ANY wild-caught AK #salmon = misleading public?

Monterey Aquarium (@MontereyAq) [note: not @SeafoodWatch to whom we were addressing our query…] replied: ?

@MontereyAq @Salmoskius All the variations are here:

We replied Feb. 27 & Feb. 28 to Monterey Aquarium, then also included Seafood Watch in, as a reminder:

@MontereyAq Not true! No breakdown between ‘truly wild’ & ‘hatchery-origin’; 1) Your own report “[focuses on] only wild fish” (p40)

@MontereyAq 2) Question remains: Does Seafood Watch’s ‘Best Choice’ rating re. Alaska #salmon refers ONLY to “[truly] wild” (not #hatchery)?

@MontereyAq @SeafoodWatch Please answer: Does ‘Best Choice’ rating re Alaska #salmon refers ideally/ONLY to “[truly] wild” (not #hatchery)?

[…] March 7th 2012 Tweets:

March 20th 2012, reminder:

😉  Follow Salmoskius for more daily tweets… 😉

PS: On Twitter @Salmoskius (21.03.2012):

@Bittman By leaps & bounds; Monterey Bay’s Seafood Watch will scrutinise more closely Alaska #hatchery #salmon in 2012

#Climatechange does/will impact all facets of fish & aquaculture/seafood industries; How do they affect climate change? #CSR

“We have made reassessment of farmed salmon a priority in 2012 priority” – Seafood Watch

“ASMI marketing has not, and will not, have influence on the science-based evaluation process” – Seafood Watch #Alaska #salmon

@MontereyAq Seafood Watch “carrying out a benchmarking exercise of sustainable seafood eco-certification schemes”

@SeafoodWatch “we are making our [farmed #salmon 2012 reassessment] on a country level to better reflect regional differences”

Alaska #hatchery vs. truly wild #salmon: “we are not recommending one over another” – Seafood Watch #ecolabels

Seafood Watch’s forthcoming hatchery-augmented #salmon fisheries assessments will look at hatchery impacts more closely

PS, 24.05.2012:

  • “Harmoniously raised” @VerlassoSalmon one of few worldwide to undergo @SeafoodWatch 2012 pilot assessment #aquaculture


PS: Read also, amongst the many hundreds of relevant articles & editorials on

  • Market Comments & Prices  : ECONOMIC impact of Alaska hatchery salmon; “A perfect fit for social & health conscious consumers”?… (06.12.2012).
  • Trends & Forecasts  : 2013 BRISTOL Bay sockeye salmon forecast is 33% lower than previous 10-yr average, lower than 2012’s (27.11.2012)
  • Sustainability  : “GREY AREA”: NOAA casts the spotlight on Hatchery vs. Wild salmon; Distinguishes 3 categories (11.10.2012).
  • Science & Society  : ~100% Alaska hatchery salmon marked; Accurate detection on spawning grounds (& at sea) possible (04.10.2012).
  • Editorial  : ALASKA hatcheries’ impact “remained unexplored for years, despite numerous calls from experts” & MSC (07.09.2012).
  • Trends & Forecasts  : 2013 BRISTOL Bay sockeye salmon forecast is 33% lower than previous 10-yr average, lower than 2012’s (05.09.2012).
  • Politics  : ALASKA Senator Begich introduces US-wide seafood marketing effort legislation; Coalition support (25.08.2012).
  • Politics  : ALASKA files fishery disaster for Yukon & Kuskokwim rivers’ Chinook salmon; Ocean survival (23.07.2012).
  • Science  : NORTH AMERICA West coast experiencing widespread decreasing trends in sockeye salmon spawning (05.07.2012).
  • Science  : PROGRESS… Investigation into interactions of wild & hatchery pink & chum PWS/SE Alaska salmon (30.05.2012).
  • Marketing  : MSC PROMOTION reaches astronomical heights… Astronaut joins sustainable fish alternative campaign (22.05.2012).
  • Science  : NORTH AMERICA West coast experiencing widespread decreasing trends in sockeye salmon spawning (21.05.2012).
  • Fisheries Management  : “GROWING RISKS” from hatchery salmon; Findings have implications in Russia, Japan, Canada & US (14.05.2012).
  • Sustainability  : ‘ALASKA’ or ‘MSC’ salmon (or both)? ASMI & MSC: A tale of two perspectives re. eco-certification (10.05.2012).
  • Certification  : SCIENTISTS say 31% of MSC-certified fisheries ‘overfished’; “Definition not globally accepted” – MSC (23.04.2012).
  • Science  : NORTH AMERICA West coast experiencing widespread decreasing trends in sockeye salmon spawning (22.04.2012).
  • Quotation of the Day  : “If you want more [wild salmon] to survive to spawn, the place to start is by not killing them” (04.04.2012).
  • Editorial  : 2012 SE Alaska chinook salmon harvest quota released 266,800 fish; + hatchery-produced salmon (30.03.2012).
  • Certification  : ALASKA Gov. criticises “changeable” [MSC] standard: “logo licensing fees”, “monopolistic lock”… (26.03.2012).
  • Sustainability : TIMELINE of retailers/supermarkets & caterers sustainable seafood sourcing pledges; MSC comes n°1 (13.03.2012).
  • Editorial  : LETTING more salmon leap away to reproduce naturally could ultimately benefit both nature & fishers (11.04.2012).
  • Certification : SUPERVALU expands sustainable seafood program; Discontinues 6 wild-caught Sp.: Alaska salmon next??? (13.03.2012).
  • Natural Resources Management  : US RETAILERS step-in re. Alaska’s Bristol Bay potential development; Of sustainable seafood sourcing (13.03.2012).
  • Quotation of the Day : “Home-grown salmon – don’t ever refer to them as farmed – are Alaska’s largest commercial crop” (12.03.2012).
  • Quotation of the Day  : PROPHETIC? “effect of Alaska’s salmon hatchery program on “wild” image of Alaska salmon fisheries” (07.03.2012).
  • 2011 Retrospective : ALASKA hatcheries released 1.5bn juvenile salmon; 48 million hatchery salmon harvested, more in 2012 (06.03.2012).
  • Traceability : WILL farmed & Alaska salmon industries be willing to provide full traceability? DNA testing out soon (05.03.2012).
  • Quotation of the Day : “Important questions about Alaskan hatcheries remain unanswered”– Seafood Watch report; Indeed… (28.02.2012).
  • Editorial : SEAFOOD WATCH dodging (so far) tweets re. sustainability of hatchery-origin by wild-caught AK salmon (28.02.2012).
  • Certification : “THE ASMI scheme & MSC are not equivalent” – SFP Briefing Note re. Alaska salmon “sustainability” (17.02.2012).
  • Quotation of the Day  : “It’s game over” for Alaska salmon processors if MSC “convinces” retailers like WalMart… (10.02.2012).
  • Editorial : DEAR JOHN, I beg to differ: “Retail buyers & partners” don’t decide what seafood sustainability is.. (06.02.2012).
  • Certification : AK Salmon fisheries withdrawal from MSC: ‘Sutton didn’t speak on behalf of Seafood Watch’ – Packard (03.02.2012).
  • Certification : LOCAL vs GLOBAL: Honeymoon over between MSC & Alaska salmon industry; MSC critical of ASMI’s scheme (24.01.2012).
  • Recreational Fishing : 7.8 MILLION hatchery salmonids will be released in Alaska in 2012; Of triploidy, escapes & diseases (20.01.2012).
  • Editorial : MSC must rethink & re-focus: Sustainable fisheries, yes… but ecolabelling discernments also needed (19.01.2012).
  • Quotation of the Day : MSC withdrawal: “Alaska’s marketable traits extend well beyond sustainability” – ASMI’s Ray Riutta (19.01.2012).
  • Editorial : MSC must rethink & re-focus: Sustainable fisheries, yes… but ecolabelling discernments also needed (19.01.2012).
  • Certification : ALASKA salmon harvesters & processors withdraw from MSC eco-certification program; Massive blow (18.01.2012).
  • Certification : BC conservationists challenge “unsustainable” & aquaculture-reliant MSC eco-labelled Alaska salmon (12.01.2012).
  • Science : EVOLUTION at warp speed: “Hatcheries change salmon genetics after a single generation”: Sustainable? (23.12.2011).
  • 2011 Retrospective : ALASKA 2011E salmon harvest worth $603m; 3rd most valuable since 1975, but # fell short of forecast (30.11.2011).
  • ISA in BC? : CONCERNED but not over reacting: ADF&G watching: “There is a lot of misinformation out there” (24.10.2011).
  • Science & Society : AK Sen. Murkowski’s bid to ban GM salmon postponed; “This is an issue that is key & critical to us” (09.09.2011).
  • Editorial : 70-75% of all Oregon salmon caught by anglers & commercial fishermen are hatchery-produced fish (07.09.2011).
  • Quotation of the Day : “Aquaculture continues to drive the state [Alaska]’s economy”… 46% of 2010 pink salmon (08.07.2011).
  • Editorial : ALASKA HATCHERY salmon responsible for killing Prince William Sound herring? – New study (30.06.2011).
  • Certification : FIRST wholly native-owned & operated fishery establishes milestone in MSC Program; SE Alaska salmon (22.06.2011).
  • Legal : NOAA proposes special “experimental” designation for re-introduced steelhead salmon in Oregon (25.05.2011).
  • 2010 Retrospective  : BEST YEAR ever for Alaska’s exports; Seafood industry’s top markets: Japan & China top US$ 1 billion (16.05.2011).
  • Science  : MAPPING ‘wilderness’ of ‘wild’ salmon in Norway’s rivers; Quantifying salmon escapes’ impact (01.04.2012).
  • Certification : WILD'(-caught) Alaska salmon earns new responsible fisheries management certification (17.03.2011).
  • Trends & Forecasts : BOOSTED harvest forecast for Alaska’ 2011 salmon harvest; 27.5% to be of aquaculture/hatchery origin (09.03.2011).
  • Politics : RESPONSIBLE use of salmon hatcheries in Oregon: Understanding differences between wild/hatchery fish (09.03.2011).
  • AK Salmon Feed Sustainability : “More than 95 per cent of Alaskan ranched salmon are never harvested” & feed pellets wasted – Krause (09.02.2011).
  • Trade & Economy  : SOUTH EAST ALASKA’s salmon & trout fisheries contribute ca. $1 billion annually to regional economy (17.01.2011).
  • Legal : COURT rules that US Fish & Wildlife Service salmon hatchery may contribute to bull trout extinction (08.12.2010).
  • Climate Change  : ALASKA salmon, crab fisheries – & many others – likely to be impacted: State establishing strategies (07.12.2010).
  • Editorial : MODIFIED quote regarding MSC certification of “the first enhanced fishery”: Only applies to UK.. (02.12.2010).
  • 2010 Retrospective  : ALASKA salmon fishermen took home largest paycheck in 18 years; 11th largest since statehood (09.11.2010).
  • Certification : NEED to distinguish “clearly” wild capture & enhanced fisheries (eg. AK salmon), aquaculture – FAO (27.10.2010).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : HATCHERY vs. truly wild salmon debate opens up: “Averting the perfect storm” for wild Pacific salmon (05.10.2010).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : ‘NOT TRULY WILD’: New study underscores critical contribution of Alaska’s hatchery salmon (01.10.2010).
  • Inland Fisheries : WDFW begins transporting fall chinook by tanker trucks to rebuild wild stocks on the Cowlitz River (01.10.2010).
  • Inland Fisheries : 494,000 CHINOOK salmon juveniles lost at Oregon hatchery due to high/muddy waters (09.06.2010).
  • Quotation of the Day : HATCHERY FISH can become closely related […] & contribute to declines in unique wild population (03.06.2010).
  • Inland Fisheries : NEW $40 million Pacific salmon hatchery approval in upper Columbia River watershed (20.05.2010).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : HUNDREDS of scientists gather to explore ecological interactions between wild & hatchery salmon (04.05.2010).
  • Fisheries Management : WASHINGTON tribe acquires genetic testing equipment to establish if salmon originates from hatchery (12.04.2010).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : “SCIENCE or misinformation/marketing”? Vivian Krause questions 4 prominent foundations about funding (19.03.2010).
  • Quotation of the Day : ASMI hiring Global Trust for independent audit is “not a plan to create an ecolabel” – ASMI exec. (10.03.2010).
  • Veterinary & Animal Health : IHN virus recently discovered in returning adult winter steelhead; Hatchery to destroy 250,000 eggs (11.02.2010).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : STILL a long way to go to improve Bristol Bay salmon quality; “this is not an option.. not a choice” (04.12.2009)
  • Certification : FIRST tribally-managed fishery to seek MSC certification; Joins the rest of Alaskan salmon fisheries (26.11.2009).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : HATCHERY salmonids’ detrimental impact on truly wild fish: New policy on WA hatcheries & fisheries (11.11.2009).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : ESA protection of Pacific salmon & hatchery fish’s impact; “Mark-selective harvest” part of solution (01.10.2009).
  • Fisheries Management : EARLY SEASON helps prevent “hatchery steelhead from crowding out wild fish on spawning grounds” (22.09.2009).
  • Environment : 40,000 COHO SALMON smolts die in holding area just after delivery – Alaska (11.06.2009).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : HATCHERY FISH may hurt efforts to sustain wild salmon runs; Study has HUGE implications for Alaska (11.06.2009).
  • Fisheries Management : WASHINGTON Commission to take final public input on proposed hatchery and fishery reform policy (26.05.2009).
  • Media Monitoring : PBS’ FRONTLINE dives in murky waters; “They’ve been finding PCB-riddled [wild] salmon for decades” (20.04.2009).
  • AK Salmon Feed Sustainability : ALASKA could save $20m p.a. if it produced its own feed; Hatchery salmon = 30%+ of ‘wild’ catch (07.03.2009).
  • Certification : NEW GUIDANCE: MSC includes ‘enhanced fisheries’ – “not truly wild fish” – in wild-capture eco-cert. (20.03.2009).
  • Certification : MSC Certification cost a matter if much debate & ‘impasse’ in Alaska: “Is it worth it?” (18.03.2009).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : WHY does David Suzuki take issue with salmon “farmers”, but is deemed to promote salmon “ranchers”? (13.03.2009).
  • Certification : ALASKA SALMON’s MSC eco-certification annual audit worries many; ADF&G’s “All or none” approach (06.03.2009).
  • AK Salmon Feed Sustainability : ARE ALL the right questions asked on the sustainability of Alaska ‘wild’ salmon fisheries? PART 1 (03.03.2009).
  • AK Salmon Feed Sustainability : ARE ALL the right questions asked on the sustainability of Alaska ‘wild’ salmon fisheries? PART 2 (04.03.2009).
  • AK Salmon Feed Sustainability : HATCHERY salmon “not truly wild; sustainability of reduction fisheries a very serious concern” – WWF (06.03.2009).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : SHOULD the US authorities consider hatchery-raised salmon when considering protection under ESA? (23.10.2008).
  • Media & Lobbying : WILL SARAH PALIN’s media exposure benefit the Alaska salmon ‘brand’ name? Catapulted in the news… (11.09.2008).
  • Politics : ‘60 Minutes’ takes a close look at the West Coast salmon closures and the “salmon recovery industry” (23.06.2008).
  • Editorial : DEAD OR ALIVE: Who’s truly benefiting from salmon “conservation”? Fishermen, anglers or … salmon? (18.06.2008).
  • Media & Lobbying : “A LONG TIME AGO, in Alaska, a team of marketers decided to farm salmon & sell them as ‘wild’…” (18.06.2008).
  • Marketing : “Many Pacific salmon are either ranched (hatchery-bred) or commercially farmed” – UK Authority (02.05.2008).
  • Science : HATCHERY vs. WILD: Alaskan scientists mix genetically different salmon populations (23.04.2008).
  • Environment : Causes for decline of upper Columbia steelhead & Chinook salmon include “impacts of hatcheries” (29.10.2007).
  • HOT News : 15 years of DNA tracking help establish that salmonid hatcheries cause stunning loss of reproduction (05.10.2007).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : Salmon RANCHING examined; Are Alaskan hatcheries responsible for the disappearance of BC salmon? (21.09.2007).
  • Sustainability : “Joint efforts to modify hatchery and harvest practices essential to further Pacific salmon recovery (27.08.2007).
  • HOT News : Does Alaska’s ‘all or nothing’ salmon re-certification carry sustainability of MSC’s programme? (20.08.2007).
  • ‘’Wild vs. Farmed’ : REARED, NOT FARMED please: “Alaska doesn’t “farm” salmon; Fish are reared to specific juvenile size” (15.06.2007).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’: US federal judge rules that hatchery salmon can not be considered as ‘wild’; “Not self-sustaining” (15.06.2007).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : OF MELAMINE & DOUBLE STANDARDS: Alaska’s ‘wild’ salmon also ate tainted farmed fish feed… (14.05.2007).
  • MELAMINE in fish feed: RAMIFICATIONS… Focus on hatcheries raises issues of ‘wild’ fish being ‘tainted’; Trade (11.05.2007).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : DEMANDING: Almost all of Icicle Seafoods’ customers worldwide already also use farmed salmon (19.03.2007).
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’ : Should Icicle Seafoods sit on the Board of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute? (13.03.2007).
  • Editorial : HEARTBURNS… One of Alaska’s top salmon processor, Icicle makes farmed salmon leap in Chile (08.03.2007).
  • General News : Pacific salmon & steelhead hatcheries in 13 Washington counties suffer extensive flood damages (21.11.2006)
  • ‘Wild vs. Farmed’: A third of Alaska’s ‘wild’ Pacific salmon in fact start their life as ‘farmed’ fish (21.04.2006).
  • Science : New $7.8 million Oregon salmon & steelhead Hatchery Research Center opens (19.10.2005).
  • Legal : Alaska Governor signs Fish Hatchery Bill: Double the number of released salmon for angling (25.08.2005).
  • Etc…

See also CBS’ 60 Minutes Programme dated November 2000 and June 18, 2008: ‘The Fuss Over Fish’


Sustainable Seafood Intelligence, News & Consultancy for Stakeholders of the Global Seafood, Fisheries & Aquaculture sectors with a focus on issues re. industry Transparency (#Top35Salmon #Top100Seafood), Economic, Social and Environment Sustainability, Ethics (#SeafoodEthics #SustainableSeafood #TransformSeafood #ResponsibleSeafood #SeafoodIntelligence), CSR/RSE & Politics… Perceptions of issues (negative & positive) impacting industry’s Social License to Operate (SLO) and acceptance. Farmed salmon & global seafood industry Sustainability Reporting benchmarks…. Multi-stakeholder sustainability thinking & analysis applied to seafood…