this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
60 points (95.5% liked)

New York Times gift articles

615 readers
160 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kautau 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The article states it’s a little over 75,000. It also states that those salmon will then follow the river to the ocean since they are freshly hatched salmon they will be migrating to the ocean, which is what the tanker was transporting them to do anyway

[–] aeronmelon 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If it were that easy, the hatchery would just do that and save money on trucking.

Don't salmon swim upstream to spawn? I assume the reason they don't release them right there is the risk some would stick around and mess up an existing ecosystem.

[–] eyes 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They were being transported to a specific river for release, so they'd return to that river to spawn. As juviniles they swim downstream and spend 3 years at sea, where food is much more plentiful - any that stick around in the river would die of starvation.

[–] aeronmelon -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That means these rogue salmon and their descendants are going to keep coming back to the wrong stream.

That's why I was curious about potential problems with the salmon being released somewhere unintended.

[–] eyes 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They're an indigonious species so the effect on the ecosystem is likely to be beneficial in the long run as they form an important part of the food web for inland animals during their breeding season which should lead to increased biodiversity. The whole purpose of the project is to reinforce their numbers which have been reduced by fishing. The main concern would be disease, but they would have been screened prior to their release so it should be a non-issue.