#1023840 - 03/06/20 04:49 PM
PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
|
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1023990 - 03/07/20 02:22 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Carcass
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 2432
Loc: Valencia, Negros Oriental, Phi...
|
I have said it for years, the only way to deal with the harvest portion of the problem is to close mixed stock fisheries. There are very powerful forces that will make Option 3 difficult (if not impossible) but it is the right thing to do.
_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"
R.P. McMurphy - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024001 - 03/07/20 05:27 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4411
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
They usually do not tell them. If jammed go into % / exploitation rate dance. Remember John M who worked with our team fencing and restoring the creek than ran through his property? 6 hrs after hearing the harsh truth he was done. I did not blame him a bit. In fact I would not recommend a property owner give up a damn thing until that agency starts to manage for a watershed health rather than how many fish it can kill.
Edited by Rivrguy (03/07/20 08:49 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024024 - 03/08/20 07:32 AM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
Without a doubt the simplest and fastest way to increase the numbers of fish returning to the our rivers is by addressing the harvest piece of the 4 Hs. In the region of the State that I'm most familiar with (Puget Sound) there are a number of examples of where harvest has been reduced by lowering exploitation rates. I remember clearly discussions in the 1990s and early 2000s that the lower of harvest rates of Puget Sound Chinook would buy time for the hoped for habitat restoration efforts to kicking in leading to increased fish abundance and even recovery.
That approach has colluded full force with the harsh reality that at least to this point our society has proven to be unable or unwilling to take meaningful actions leading to an overall improvement habitat conditions that might ultimately lead to improved status of our salmon. There are examples illustrating collectively we have wasted that time reduced fishing bought recovery efforts.
It is now clear that any resource impacts gained by reducing fishing (harvest) and most cases has been merely converted to increased impacts used by the habitat and hydro impacts and not to produce more fish.
It should be clear to all that society view fishing to be a low priority use of any productivity that salmon stocks may have. It now appears that reducing fishing today only means that there will be less fishing in the future.
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024025 - 03/08/20 08:12 AM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
|
They usually do not tell them. If jammed go into % / exploitation rate dance. Remember John M who worked with our team fencing and restoring the creek than ran through his property? 6 hrs after hearing the harsh truth he was done. I did not blame him a bit. In fact I would not recommend a property owner give up a damn thing until that agency starts to manage for a watershed health rather than how many fish it can kill. That. Plus, we shouldn't placate the Tribes' demands to fix culverts 20 miles from where any salmon has been seen by any living person on the public dime until the deal comes along with a corresponding increase in escapement goals in the system hoped to benefit. That's called skin in the game, and any party without it isn't a serious or trustworthy partner in a co-management strategy.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024030 - 03/08/20 08:51 AM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4411
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Not sure this is the right thread but I think it is a good discussion. So this, recognizing that all human activity harm the natural order and fish are very vulnerable just what part of this mess does harvest play? In other words if a judge shut down all OCEAN salmon impacts both directed and incidental what would the returns be? Twice or three times as large?
For Chinook it would take at least five years to get the true number as harvest would need to be removed on each year of the marine life cycle. Then the impact of incidental catch in other commercial fisheries which some say exceeds actual targeted harvest. A number thrown around is 84% of the harvestable Chinook are removed one way or another prior to entering WA waters. So I will throw out my guess based on the fact that I believe the harvest impacts in the ocean are vastly underestimated and say five years out the terminal Chinook run size would triple for a similar year environmentally. No other change but harvest.
So look at numbers from the past & present, good years and bad. Look at ESA stocks and how the numbers would change. Simply put the only way this mess is truly understood is to get marine impacts out of the picture. I think one would be amazed at what would happen. For GH guys think of it this way the high in years was a 40k year and low was around 6k with a something around 15k a average. ( bit of a guess but good number off the model ) Now times 3 and if the ocean impacts were removed our average returns would be around 45k terminal. Think about it.
Edited by Rivrguy (03/08/20 09:12 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024038 - 03/08/20 10:29 AM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
Not sure this is the right thread but I think it is a good discussion. So this, recognizing that all human activity harm the natural order and fish are very vulnerable just what part of this mess does harvest play? In other words if a judge shut down all OCEAN salmon impacts both directed and incidental what would the returns be? Twice or three times as large?
For Chinook it would take at least five years to get the true number as harvest would need to be removed on each year of the marine life cycle. Then the impact of incidental catch in other commercial fisheries which some say exceeds actual targeted harvest. A number thrown around is 84% of the harvestable Chinook are removed one way or another prior to entering WA waters. So I will throw out my guess based on the fact that I believe the harvest impacts in the ocean are vastly underestimated and say five years out the terminal Chinook run size would triple for a similar year environmentally. No other change but harvest.
So look at numbers from the past & present, good years and bad. Look at ESA stocks and how the numbers would change. Simply put the only way this mess is truly understood is to get marine impacts out of the picture. I think one would be amazed at what would happen. For GH guys think of it this way the high in years was a 40k year and low was around 6k with a something around 15k a average. ( bit of a guess but good number off the model ) Now times 3 and if the ocean impacts were removed our average returns would be around 45k terminal. Think about it.
Interesting to consider but would all other factors remain the same? If hatchery production remained the same would predator numbers respond by increasing their numbers? If hatchery production decreased due to a significant drop in license revenue would there be a significant drop in numbers of wild (ESA listed) salmonids as they become more vulnerable (greater percentage of the population) to predators? Would an increase (should that occur) in population of esa listed species result in delisting which could lead to less habitat protection/restoration? I need more coffee.......
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024041 - 03/08/20 10:41 AM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12767
|
The kicker is that the number of salmon in the fishery is minuscule (so the fishery is clean) it is just a majority of the run. THIS! An otherwise very conservation-minded steelhead flyfisher was once my host for a weekend on the Skagit. Turns out he was heavily involved in the pollock fishery. When the conversation came up, he talked about how "clean" the fishery was.... millions of pounds of pollock to miniscule numbers of kings in their trawls. "We're NOT the problem" Yes, I could appreciate his point.... but I wasn't blind to the bigger picture. Cook Inlet's gillnets are capable of taking thousands of sockeye for every king encountered. Seems "clean" enough for the gillnetter. But those sockeye-directed nets typically snarf up 25-30% the entire chinook return over the course of a season. CLEAN?
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024109 - 03/08/20 12:22 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7428
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
While I don't agree that harvest has been cut back enough to bring on recovery, let's assume it has. Harvest is not the problem. The problem is habitat. We have had, with steelhead, Chinook, and SRKWs about 25 years or so to affect recovery.
WDFW just told us that the years of ESA coverage for Chinook have resulted in about 30% fewer wild fish than when listed. I thought the goal was more, not less.
So, harvest is not the problem, we have put all the money we are willing to into habitat, and we're losing ground. Time for the God Squad. Either we make progress (progress being more fish and whales, not less) or we move on. In which case we will need to re-open, rebuild, repair, and refund the hatcheries.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024125 - 03/08/20 01:56 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
While I don't agree that harvest has been cut back enough to bring on recovery, let's assume it has. Harvest is not the problem. The problem is habitat. We have had, with steelhead, Chinook, and SRKWs about 25 years or so to affect recovery.
WDFW just told us that the years of ESA coverage for Chinook have resulted in about 30% fewer wild fish than when listed. I thought the goal was more, not less.
So, harvest is not the problem, we have put all the money we are willing to into habitat, and we're losing ground. Time for the God Squad. Either we make progress (progress being more fish and whales, not less) or we move on. In which case we will need to re-open, rebuild, repair, and refund the hatcheries. Would the God Squad first require a significant reduction in predators?
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024141 - 03/08/20 02:53 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Larry B]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
Would the God Squad first require a significant reduction in predators? Good question. Since the amendment of the ESA in 1978, I believe there have only been six applications for exemption from the ESA made to the Endangered Species Act Committee (God Squad). Three were withdrawn, one was denied (Tellico Dam, TN), and two were granted (BLM Timber Sale, OR and Grayrocks Dam, WY and NE). The exemption for BLM timber sales in OR was later withdrawn. Not much history to go on to figure out exactly how the system would work, and there has been a long time since the last action under this exemption process, close to 30 years I think. Here is a good link describing the past exemption requests made: ESA Exemption Applications - Congressional Research Service Legal review of the exemption process, Notre Dame Law Review: How the God Squad Works
Edited by OncyT (03/08/20 03:00 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024144 - 03/08/20 04:20 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
Oncy T - Thanks for that information; makes for interesting reading.
Who may apply; as extracted from the first link:
"In either case, the following are the categories of potential applicants that can apply for an exemption for a federal action despite its effects on listed species or their critical habitat:
the federal action agency interested in proceeding with the action,
an applicant for a federal license or permit whose application was denied primarily because of the prohibitions of ESA requiring that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species or harm to their critical habitats,
or the governor of the state where the action was to have occurred."
So, who's willing to jump in and change the paradigm?
Edited by Larry B (03/08/20 04:22 PM)
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024146 - 03/08/20 05:17 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1533
Loc: Tacoma
|
It is definitely a matter of perception.
Take the Makah Tribal whiting catch. Year 2005, total whiting catch by catch was estimated at 3811 chinook.
Year 2005/2006 reported sports catch card numbers for areas 3 and 4 total 3061 chinook.
Of course, to be fair to the tribe, the total west coast by catch was expected to be over 11,000. It is just harder to break down by area. ( from the federal register--- Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51683)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024166 - 03/08/20 07:34 PM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: Larry B]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
So, who's willing to jump in and change the paradigm? Looks to me like the God Squad is not the answer to changing the paradigm. I haven't read both references fully, but one statement stands out from the Congressional Research Service document: "Because projects are exempted, rather than species, the ESA still requires that species affected by the exempted project must be conserved in their remaining habitat." Not exactly what I thought the God Squad could do. I was under the impression that they could write off an entire ESU. That does not appear to be the case.
Edited by OncyT (03/08/20 08:41 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1024243 - 03/09/20 09:32 AM
Re: PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1270
Loc: WaRshington
|
Although habitat is a primary necessity for recovery it is pretty clear that our current river habitats are well below their carrying capacities and estimated productivity capabilities, even in their degraded state.
It is becoming ever clearer that a marine survival bottleneck also exists, stemming largely from food availability and continued declines in forage fish availability and zooplankton prey items for juveniles. Of particular concern are the affects of ocean acidification on the carapaces of shelled species, especially post-larval dungeness crap megalopa which are a key component of outmigrant smolt diets entering the marine environment.
Point being, although fisheries and particularly fisheries by-catch and northern intercepts are a major concern the environment itself is likely at the root of the problem. A warming and increasingly acidic ocean as a result of climate change is a much much larger nut to crack. If we can't even make the move to stop killing fish to save fish, I doubt humans as a species will be able to make the much larger sacrifices necessary to stop destroying the oceans to save fish.
_________________________
When I grow up I want to be, One of the harvesters of the sea. I think before my days are done, I want to be a fisherman.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (1 invisible),
345
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63778 Topics
645367 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|