Either you’re with wild fish, or you’re making excuses: Oregon’s Recent Cured Egg Study
Don’t know how many folks will find this one interesting or applicable in their corners of the world, so if you’re not into reading more about the stupidity and greed happening here in the Northwest, we suggest you skip this and groove on some rather uplifting wordwork from the Gaper and our new mop-boy G_Smolt by scrolling down the page.
Here in our corner of North Oregon, however, we’ve been closely following a study that has found the sodium sulfites in cured eggs responsible for juvenile salmonid mortality rates as high as 35% for a number of reasons:
1. The social angle: To see whether egg guys will cling to proven-deadly sulfite cures as they bitch about dwindling salmon returns, or to see how serious they truly are about doing what they can, whatever they can and whatever it takes to make returns better, even if that means abandoning the reliance on sodium sulfites in their age-old, tried and true bait cures and catching a few less fish each season.
2. The economic angle: To see the ODFW, fishing industry and guide response to this; whether they’ll refute or dodge science (as has become quite popular out here in the Northwest with regard to wild fish policy) and if/how they’ll try to defend proven-deadly sulfites in the name of the whorish almighty dollar. Now, the industry and guides we have no faith in, really, because it’s business and we all know what happens on the greed-o-meter when you monetize something. in the case of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, an public agency, we find their refusal to do anything more than simply recommend manufacturers stop using sulfites extremely telling about their relationship with the fishing industry (in a cock-down-throat sort of way).
Below is an article by Jeff Mishler (and you thought he was just a punk-ass Drake writer, right?) that’s worth a read, in my oh-so-humble opinion. Love to hear some thoughts from both non-egg guys, as well as egg guys who’ve stumbled over here and still fish sulfite-cured bait. And please, fight nice, kids. But do fight. I’d like to see this one get hashed out some.
CHEMICALLY CURED SALMON EGGS KILL JUVENILE SALMON AND STEELHEAD AT RATES AS HIGH AS 35%. NOW WHAT?
By Jeff Mishler
In April of 2008 I approached the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with the framework for a study to determine whether chemicals in commercially made salmon egg cures were toxic to juvenile salmonids. The results of the study proved Sodium Sulfite, used pervasively as a preservative and bite enhancer in commercially available egg cures and cured eggs killed juveniles at rates up to 35%. Sodium Sulfite is listed as a regulated toxin by EPA and regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act. In the wake of this study conducted by ODFW at an Oregon State University research facility, the staff at the fisheries department at Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have only recommended that the use of sulfites cease and are not willing to regulate the use of Sodium Sulfites by adopting new rules. According to EPA, a toxin must only cause harm, not mortality, before regulation under TSCA guidelines must be enforced. As noted in the study’s summary, sodium sulfite present in cured salmon eggs and used as bait by sport anglers caused mortality on juvenile salmon and steelhead at rates as high as 35%.
See ODFW press release and study results:
BACKGROUND
Fisherman use cured salmon eggs 12 months a year on waterways and lakes from Alaska south to California and East to the Great Lakes, where the use of bait is allowed. Eggs are fished using a variety of methods; back bouncing, drift fishing, bobber or float fishing, diver and bait and plunking. Of the techniques used by egg fishermen, bobber fishing presents the bait for the long intervals in the slow water zones inhabited by juveniles. Back bouncing and diver techniques present the bait near the bottom at a very slow rate of downstream travel for long periods of time. Plunking presents the stationary bait very near the bottom indefinitely. Drift fishing presents the bait near the bottom traveling downstream at a rate slightly slower than the current for an interval of less than one minute per cast.
Anglers target spring Chinook, fall Chinook, Coho, late winter steelhead, summer steelhead and resident trout with chemically cured salmon eggs. These proprietary chemical cures contain powerful sulfites, formaldehydes and other toxic chemicals. Cured egg use in the spring and summer coincides with the out migration of young salmon and steelhead. It also coincides with increased consumption of food by all resident salmonids, driven by an increase in water temperatures, post spawning metabolism, and increases in the abundance of aquatic food sources. When presented a bait of chemically cured salmon eggs, juveniles can be observed feeding on it aggressively.
In a real world fishing situation, with an abundance of juveniles present, it is not uncommon to observe 100 or more juveniles of varying age classes attack an egg presentation when it is paused only momentarily at the side of the boat, before making another cast. I also witness discarded baits attacked voraciously by juveniles.
IMPACTS ON JUVENILES IN THE WILD
I worked with OSU and ODFW staff to design the framework of this study. In light of the results, I believe sport anglers are impacting populations of wild fry, out-migrating smolts, one and two year-old juvenile steelhead, resident and sea run cutthroat trout, and resident rainbow trout by choosing to fish with chemically cured salmon eggs.
The impacts on juvenile populations could be profound when one figures: (the physiological impact of one exposure on a quantity of juveniles) x (the number of chemically cured egg presentations made by one angler) x (the total number of anglers fishing chemically cured eggs on a given day) x (the number of angling days). Millions of juveniles are exposed to the toxin Sodium Sulfite daily during peak angling seasons.
NEXT STEP
How do we get the ball rolling towards an enforceable ban on the use of sulfites in baits?
1) Add two words to ORS 498.046 to include “fish and”.
Current rules state:
498.046 Making toxic substances accessible to wildlife prohibited. No person shall place any toxic substance where it is accessible to wildlife unless the substance used and the method of application is approved by the state governmental agencies having authority to prescribe or implement environmental control programs. [1973 c.723 §81]
Proposed change:
498.046 Making toxic substances accessible to wildlife prohibited. No person shall place any toxic substance where it is accessible to (fish and) wildlife unless the substance used and the method of application is approved by the state governmental agencies having authority to prescribe or implement environmental control programs. [1973 c.723 §81]
This is a simple fix that will in essence protect millions of juvenile salmon and steelhead, some stocks listed under the ESA as endangered or threatened, from unnecessary exposure to a known lethal toxin. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year trying to recover stocks on the Lower Columbia alone. Ethically, it’s wrong to place toxins in the water, ever. Fishing with chemically cured eggs and baits is voluntary and without a change in the language of law, there is no incentive for fishing guides who depend on catching salmon and steelhead, at all costs, to change behavior regardless of ODFW’s soft recommendations. Who could argue against the rule change? What, they support placing poisons in the river, though the voluntary actions of sport fisherman?
2) Ask the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to reconsider ORS 498.208 in light of the ODFW/OSU study findings.
Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Commission allows the use of eggs as bait as an exception to the rule:
498.208 Use of electricity or foreign substances to take game fish prohibited; rules.
(1) Except as the State Fish and Wildlife Commission by rule may provide otherwise, no person shall:
(a) Use in any body of water any electric current that may attract, frighten, retard, stun, kill or obstruct the movement of any game fish.
(b) Place in any body of water any foreign substance such as blood or fish offal or any gas, chemical, drug or powder that may attract, frighten, retard, stun, kill or obstruct the movement of any game fish.
(c) Use in any body of water any explosive device for the purpose of taking game fish.
(2) No person shall possess any game fish that the person knows or has reason to know was taken in violation of subsection (1) of this section. [1973 c.723 §92]
In the light of the study results, they have not reconsidered this exception. I believe they should.
3) File a Citizen’s Petition with EPA to begin enforcement of Toxic Substance Control Act provisions.
EPA will be required to conduct additional studies to determine safe levels of Sodium Sulfite in commercial bait cures and enforce reporting from manufactures of such products.
CONCLUSION
Prohibiting the use of the preservative Sodium Sulfite in cured salmon/steelhead eggs (used as fish bait) is a common sense response in light of evidence proving exposure to the toxin is lethal to young salmonids. Unfortunately there are those who value angling opportunity and business profits more than the recovery or survival of stocks balanced on the brink of extinction. We don’t know whether salmon and steelhead adult populations experience net impacts after exposure to Sodium Sulfite as juveniles. Many of these stocks are struggling populations in freshwater environments where summertime flows are low and water temperatures high. The impacts of exposure could be profound where adult Spring Chinook and various age classes of juveniles share freshwater sanctuaries.
This is a no brainer to me. You’re either with the fish, or you’re not.
Jeff Mishler
February 24th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
whoa…what’s up w/ that blue?
I like blue and I like black and I like black and blue but it doesn’t work.
my head hurt.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Jeff and Bacon,
Native fish mean all the world to use here. our native salmonid, the brook trout now inhabits only 5% of it’s range in it’s native Adirondacks and that percentage dwindles every day. It’s time for the combatants to lay down and come together in the fight to save our native species….even to the detriment of my beloved steelhead, brown, and rainbow trout who are not native to my area. Keep the fight alive…
February 24th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
There, fixed it. Now no more excuses.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
We need a fucking revolution….
February 24th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Sometimes I start to wonder what the hell is happening to BWTF (like Metallica videos, wtf?). But I gotta say that the last set of posts from G_Smolt, Gaper, and now bacon have renewed my respect.
It’s always good to uncover something new about the world, especially as it relates to fish and water. And I will cut the ODFW some slack in that it takes more than one limited study of consumption mortality to understand the risk to a whole population. But the potential is clearly there. And more needs to be done.
I am not a bait fisher myself. I don’t have anything against it, in general. To me this sounds like the issue of using lead shot in shotgun shells. The risk to wildlife is real. Alternatives exist. But most folks just don’t want to change, so they don’t, which is b.s. So I doubt the social angle will hold much sway with most folks. I like Mishler’s suggestions for focusing on regulations and enforecement in this case.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Are the alternative egg cures such as borax (sodium borate) and salt (sodium chloride) less harmful? If so, yes - it’s a no brainer.
Sodium sulfite (or to be precise, sodium thiosulfite) is the primary ingredient in photo fixer - nasty stuff. I have a hard time imagining how anyone could defend dumping even small amounts into a river.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“Are the alternative egg cures such as borax (sodium borate) and salt (sodium chloride) less harmful? If so, yes - it’s a no brainer.”
it is my understanding the borax, salt, sugar, etc. have not been found to harm fish. only sodium sulfite.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I’ve got problems with bait in general, but I don’t imagine that is a rare opinion here.
That said, its a reality and for the time being spawn is going to continue being dunked (and getting hooks stuck deep in throats, but I digress). If the bait guys opt for the status quo, despite its obvious costs to the resource, and rally against regulation, then the marketplace may be able to do some of the heavy lifting.
Fisheries groups could provide lists of spawn cures that don’t use sodium sulfites and encourage their use instead. The dudes producing the non-sodium sulfite cures have a slam dunk ad campaign, too. “We help catch fish, we don’t fucking kill them before they even have a chance to migrate downstream.” They could compare their sodium sulfite using compitition to dams, or fish farms. They could really harp on the offending products and it would become understood and common knowledge among the bait community that cures aren’t all the same.
This could happen in conjunction with regulation, or ahead and independent of it.
I spent a couple of summers working on the Kenai. The population of largest kings is suffering because the assholes keep killing the biggest specimans before they spawn. The guide culture complains about the lack of big fish AND then complains about the slot limit. They also dump piles of treated eggs in the river. I would watch the small fish swim into the shallows and tear about the egg clumps, that shit was like crack. Could have been helping…
Great post Bacon. Good article Mishler.
And to Angus: I’m way for the Metallica post. Culture, in all forms.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Bacon said “it is my understanding the borax, salt, sugar, etc. have not been found to harm fish. only sodium sulfite.”
Sounds like this could be an opportunity for an enterprising egg supplier to capitalize on marketing “fish friendly” eggs.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Good luck. People here still complain about not being able to buy lead sinkers (or snag fish). Christ, they can’t even enforce the kill limit here in NY and the villages are lined with fish-cleaning stations and smoke-houses for fish that are so loaded with PCBs and pesticides that the department of health recommends that pregnant women and children eat none and adults over 18 eat only 1 lb per month.
Now we’re going to convince them that their fish-catching eggs are killing fish, too?
February 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I’m inclined to side wit Jerome…a good shit-slinging rev is in order!
…but reality check, I’m meeting wit ODFW guys on Monday…I’ll bring up 046/208 and see where it goes
February 26th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
My hat is off to you Jeff. I don’t know how you can write such information and remain calm. To reject scientific fact is so stupid anyone who read these studies and didn’t get the picture needs to get their ass handed to them , male or female, and be terminated from whatever post they hold. If the shops that sell this shit would stop, it would probably much be easier to get them to stop than getting any legislation done
February 26th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Sounds to me like a proverbial can of worms has been opened, and the cured bait industry would very much like to get the lid back on it, fast.
To paraphrase one argument I’ve heard through the grapevine against banning sulfites, supposedly from the mouth of a producer of an especially popular brand of cure: It’s not the sulfites. There’s way worse stuff in there than sulfites.
Apparently either the sulfites or the “way worse stuff,” or both, aren’t exactly “bite enhancers.” They are caustic, toxic substances that “milk out” into the water and agitate fish, fish that are stacked in holes with nowhere to go until more rains come, and leave them with no other recourse against the offending agitator than to attack it.
I think the marketplace will take care of reducing the amount of harmful curing agents going into our waterways as soon as someone effectively markets a non-toxic cure to those who care enough for the fish to make that choice for themselves. Problem is that the majority of anglers are not interested in enlightened self-moderation for the benefit of the fishery, only with catching fish. So as long as it’s legal, a lot of folks will continue to use whatever they think it takes to get fish in their cooler, especially if they think the guy next to them is advantaged by using the legal, but toxic, cures in question.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:06 am
[…] salmon eggs used as bait also decimating juvenile wild steelhead? http://busterwantstofish.com/?p=1759 […]
March 1st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
If sodium sulfite was so clearly responsible for the death of fish in this study, can you or Mishler explain how/why some prominent sulfite-based cures did not kill fish?
March 1st, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Certainly…
Some manufactures of egg cures use less sulfite than others in the product. During the study, when the sulfite was removed from the product, mortality was zero. When the full strength commercial product was used, morality varied from manufacturer to manufacturer; mortality ranged from very low, to over 30%. The full study was designed to isolate the cause of mortality in a preliminary study where a very popular egg cure was tested over a period of 10 days. 60% of the one year old rainbow trout in that study, died. The Cured Egg Study Summary very clearly states, some commercial products containing sulfites had very low or no mortality, but that does not prove that sulfite doesn’t kill. The next step in the regulation process is for EPA to test the products containing sulfites to determine safe levels. Very likely, products containing low levels of sulfites will comply with EPA standards (TBD). But we won’t know what that level is until EPA conducts the mandatory tests to set safe levels under the Toxic Substance Control Act. At this point I can’t, or won’t say which products killed at higher levels, and which products caused lower mortality. But it is certain that there are commercially available egg cures that kill juvenile salmon and steelhead at rates as high as 35% in controlled settings. Until then, we’re pressing forward to remove sulfites from commercially available cured eggs and cures.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Okay, that makes sense. The researchers knew they had a killer on their hands from the initial trials, so they set their sights on isolating the toxin. Once sodium sulfite was clearly identified, the job of this study was done. Erring on the side of caution (and protecting wild fish), the prudent action would be to remove these products from store shelves until further study can indicate whether or not sulfite can be safe for salmon at low enough levels. It’s really strange that you would have to be the one to make this stuff happen. I mean, shouldn’t the EPA or Oregon’s DEQ be taking the lead on this? Seems like the burden is all on your shoulders…
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:56 am
I fish upstate n.y. great lake tribs, that being said here goes. With so sooo many good egg imitations on the market, made out of every material possible, can’t we just make real eggs illegal. Just get over it die hards I am sure you can find something else to use. I am sorry I like artificials better anyway, I have rubber eggs, plastic eggs, polyester eggs, and they last longer and catch fish. Think of future and find something else to use.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
tj,
interestingly enough many Oregon anglers and guides who still sidedrift bait have gone over to EZ eggs (soft plastic) and yarn and report big days, especially when the fish are pressured.
an aside, the whole potential sulfite ban isn’t attempting to get bait off the rivers, just a chemical science has proven deadly in some cases. that said, isn’t it ethically wrong to continue using something that even MIGHT harm what’s left of our wild fish? in the case of guides who refuse to stop using sulfite-cured baits, what does that say about their intelligence level as it relates to the future of their career? is it accurate to even call guides like these conservationists? or should we be labeling them for what they really are: money whores making a living off the backs of wild fish?
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:51 pm
If’n y’all want to see the attitudes we’re up against locally, visit the link below. Should you care to join in the discussion, please keep it factual, on topic and reasonably respectful. Nothing beats bat-shit crazy like stone-cold logic.
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=294296
March 5th, 2010 at 8:53 am
what is the best case scenario for hooking mortality of a steelhead caught on a swung fly? what is the breaking point? is it OK to swing flies for steelhead if only 1 of 1000 dies? how about 1 of 100?
also, let’s say hooking mortality is zero, what is the decrease in fitness for an individual upriver steelhead caught on the swung fly? what if that big old egg-wagon can’t quite make it over that one last set of falls, the last obstacle to the mother of all gravel beds, because she burnt so much energy trying to get away from you? if you knew for a fact that this situation took place, would you just call it part of the game, or would you change your habits?
now that i have a kid, and fish a lot less, i have had the time to consider many things that i had overlooked in the past. for the past six months i have felt guilty when fishing rivers with a “strong” (this is relative) return of natives. from my current perspective, we should all be fishing rivers that have a mixed return (hatchery and natives), and that are overstocked (again, relative) with our primary mission being to remove as many hatchery steelhead as possible. of all the options that do not include dropping the rods, this one seems best.
although, maybe it’s all just a big self-reacharound to make myself feel better about picking the fork in the road with less fishing.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I hear you, t-mos. Some introspection is healthy in all matters. You wouldn’t be the first ex-angler I’ve met who felt they’d rather apply themselves to some thing other than harassing an animal that faces nearly impossible odds, already.
My own rationalizations for continuing such a pursuit center on the relative ineffectiveness of my chosen tactics. When getting a “good grab” constitutes a successful day of fishing, I hardly feel I’ve burdened my quarry in a life-altering way. I spend far more time tying flies, cutting tips, patching waders, taking photographs, picking up rocks, pushing oars, watching eagles, talking to otters and just being high on hope than actually finding contact with any fish. But the fish is the reason I’m there. And I’m the reason that old-timer pulling plugs on a nates-only river didn’t bonk that wild hen I just saw him catch. For me actually catching a fish, as plenty have said before me, is just a bonus.
It’s a little like when people used to question why I would carry a gun to hunt and kill in the woods instead of a camera to merely capture the animal’s image and allow it to continue living. I wasn’t in the woods to kill, and I wasn’t in the woods to observe. I was in the woods to participate with humility and reverence. I believe we’re just animals with a place on this planet, and to hold ourselves above that is to position ourselves in the company of God. How much more conceited can one get?
March 14th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Back in January, I wrote to ProCure. Here is the response:
Hi Jamie,
First thank you for your concerns on this issue.
I want you to know that Pro-cure has been working closely with ODFW since the beginning of this project that started over two years ago. Once I received signed confidentiality agreement from ODFW I shared all of my cure formulas with them, and we also provided them with formulas that were missing only one key ingredient. This was extremely time consuming but I felt Pro-cure had a responsibility to get this right. These custom cure samples enabled ODFW to isolate problem ingredients.
Although ODFW determined that sodium sulfite did cause mortality in smolts and pre-smolts you need to carefully read their statement. It said “some of the cured eggs that contained sodium sulfite caused mortality.” The key work here is “‘SOME”. I am still bound by a level of confidentiality but I can tell you that Pro-cure has absolutely no problem with our formulas killing smolts. It seems some ‘renegade’ cures with excessively high sodium sulfite levels did, however, cause mortality. With that being said ODFW readily admitted that the tests conducted had no peer testing, and no testing in the wild. At this point their results lead to the conclusion that high levels of sodium sulfite is causing mortality in smolts, but this is not set in stone. Also once it is found to be conclusive then ODFW has an obligation to asses the danger and rate it in perspective to other causes of smolt mortality. This would include bird predation (20 million smolts killed annually on the Columbia by cormorants, 8 million by Caspian terns), plus barging, reduced water flows, dams and turbines, turbine passing, clear cutting, pesticides and fertilizers, raw sewage, etc. In perspective the possible mortality caused by the ingestion of sulfite eggs by smolts appears pretty low on a scale of 1 to 100. Based on this at this time ODFW has no further intentions to pursue this issue. Unless something radically changes it is pretty much going to blow over.
However the folks involved in the fishing industry want to be the best stewards of our resources we can be. For this reason many retailers are posting the information on using excessive amounts of sodium sulfites on eggs, and alerting anglers to properly dispose of eggs and egg clusters while on the water. Spent egg clusters should be treated as litter and put in a boat’s garbage sack to be disposed of off the water. Empty egg container should be rinsed or cleaned off the water to reduce the chance of smolts ingesting cured eggs. Now that we know the potential of the problem we will all do our part to make the situation better.
As for your concerns, the Pro-cure formulas will stay the same until ODFW formally asks us to change them. At this point they see no reason to do this. Thanks for your support of all the Pro-cure products, Phil Pirone, CEO