But will PA speak to that restriction?

I don't trust him further than I could throw him.

I brought my concerns to a direct NOAA-F source. Says they will be rendering an opinion on the matter later this month. He emphasized that the latest PST agreement saw AK cutting back their chinook exploitation by 7.5% and BC cutting back by 12.5%. SRKW's were a consideration in the discussion as these cutbacks were negotiated.

At some point AK and BC will ask why the pinnipeds are allowed to be as numerous as they are. The evaluation has to be holistic, cover all the fisheries even the trawling with by catch and the forage-fish fisheries. And, somebody will have to answer for the pinnipeds.

In the end, I am afraid that some fisheries will be restricted a bit. especially the politically weak and ineffective ones, and the the SRKWs will arrive at zero breeding age females and become functionally extinct.

The "BC cutting back by 12.5%" applies just to WCVI fisheries; not northern BC or inside marine.

Barry’s letter states clearly that NMFS will be reinitiating consultation under ESA for the PFMC fisheries, pursuant to the impacts on SRKW’s. They’ve been operating under a biological opinion written in 2009. A 10-year old bi-op is not likely to be very useful, given the new information on SRKW’s.

WFC knows this. That’s why they filed their Notice of Intent to sue. In my view, they have NMFS ‘over a barrel’.

The new bi-op from NMFS will get a lot of attention from WFC, and everyone else. My sense is that NPFMC (Alaska) is operating under the same 2009 bi-op as PFMC. Therefore, as goes PFMC, so goes NPFMC.

That is, the new bi-op will likely cover Chinook fisheries under both PFMC and NPFMC. The impacts from the various Chinook fisheries would need to be factored into the overall impacts to SRKW’s. A bi-op from NMFS must have a comprehensive analysis of all these fisheries, including those in BC (under the PST). If NMFS tries to “piecemeal it”, WFC will tear them limb-from-limb in court. And rightfully so.

The question now is whether, and to what extent, will 2019 Chinook fisheries be constrained by measures intended to help SRKW? I wasn’t able to get to all the PFMC discussions this past week, and weekend, in Vancouver, WA, so I’m not sure. But I’ll check.

My sense is that NMFS cannot escape imposing measures in 2019 to conserve Chinook (likely fall Chinook stocks) in the short-term while a new bi-op is being written. The troll fishery folks are likely facing more constraints in 2019, and perhaps beyond. And I would not be surprised to see recreational angling constraints as well, to the extent those fisheries occur in saltwater.

Gee whizz cohoangler, that almost sounds like any exploitation of critical CR chinook stocks needs to shift in-basin (estuary/in-river) in order to avoid low-holing the SRKW's.... imagine that?

I think any attempt to strongly constrain AK fisheries will be met with something along the lines of "Deal with the Pinnipeds". If it is already being shown that the pinnipeds take more salmon than humans the whole "why us, why not them?" argument will come up. Given the current mindset of the upper level Feds on money versus the environment questions I think it will make for lively discussions.

That would be correct. And it would be the simplest solution, although difficult (but not impossible) to implement because of political forces. Even the Tribes (Makah) have an ocean troll fishery, so NMFS needs to consider the implications of reducing harvest across the board.

But it would likely only apply to CR Fall Chinook, although perhaps to summer Chinook too. As I recall, PS Chinook, Lower Columbia tules, and Snake River URB's are major components of the SRKW diet. The focus would likely be on these stocks.