The effect of surveillance fishing on migration distance of Atlantic Salmon during the spawning period

• Published in: North American Journal of Fisheries Management
• Main Authors: Munkeby, Johan O., Davidsen, Jan G., Havn, Torgeir B., Ulvan, Eva M., Næsje, Tor F., Karlsen, Dag H., Solem, Øyvind, Lennox, Robert J.
• Other Authors: Miljødirektoratet
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2024
• Subjects: Atlantic salmon; Salmo salar
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nafm.11020; https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/nafm.11020

Abstract Objective Surveillance fishing surveys can be performed to estimate the proportion of farmed salmon represented in the spawning stock of native Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar populations. These surveys take place after the recreational fishing period and therefore closer to the spawning period than the open recreational fishing season. Although catch‐and‐release angling has been demonstrated to affect salmon migration during the summer months, surveillance fishing that is conducted close to the spawning time could have more severe effects. Methods To test this, the migration distance of Atlantic Salmon ( n = 74) caught in the Orkla River, Norway, was tracked by use of radiotelemetry. One group was tagged during the regular fishing season in the summer (control group), whereas another group was tagged in autumn during surveillance fishing (surveillance group). Result Sixty‐one salmon remained for analysis after we excluded fish that were recaptured, died, or migrated to other rivers. Relocation of the salmon during autumn (October 11–31) was used to compare movements and test for differences in migration using negative binomial regression because distances were nonnegative integers. During the tracking period, the surveillance group moved 12 ± 14 km (mean ± standard deviation) and the control group moved 13 ± 15 km; both groups moved 1 ± 2 km/day on average. There was no evidence that surveillance fishing impacted movement of the salmon compared to controls. However, one salmon died after tagging and three were not released due to injuries; total mortality of 9% during surveillance fishing could be unsustainable for smaller populations. Consequently, factors such as surveillance sample size, the status of the salmon population, and the population size should be assessed for each river individually when deciding the necessity of and approach to surveillance fishing. Conclusion The results support existing recommendations to use careful handling and to end surveillance at least 2 weeks prior to the expected ...