Another little interesting tidbit from the Staff's presentation is the slide which indicates that NOAA/NMFS has not established an Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) for harbor seals.

In an article entitled Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-99 by Harriet Huber and Jeff Laake as published in the AFSC Quarterly (Oct-Nov-Dec 2002) there was the following:

"Status Relative to OSP
Although the evidence is not strong, the growth models of both stocks agree with the speculation that MNPL is in deed greater than 0.5 K (Table 3). The predicted population size for 1999 is very close to K for both stocks (Table 3), and none of the bootstrap replicates predicted a 1999 population size that was below MNPL. These results provide overwhelming evidence that both stocks in Washington are above MNPL and meet the guidelines for OSP. These stocks could decline or be reduced by 20% and they would still be above MNPL with a high degree of certainty (Table 3). The coastal stock recovered earlier than the inland stock as evidenced by the status of the stocks in 1990 (Table 3)."

In that article they had five geographical areas covering what the Staff presented as three inland areas - I point that out to avoid any confusion. The combined total population of harbor seals for those inland areas east of Tatoosh in the last year presented (1999) was 8,949. If you reduce that number by 20% you would arrive at 7,159 animals.

Compare that to the Staff's cited three year average (2013, 2014, 2015) total number of 19,029 for that same area and you would be able to reduce the population by 11,970 animals or 62.4%. Is there any doubt that such a reduction wouldn't have a significant positive affect on Chinook returns all other factors remaining the same?

Note: This post has not been peer reviewed and if there is an error I welcome any (polite) corrections. It is a starting point for discussion given the vacuum created by the absence of an OSP in the presentation to the Commission.