Does anyone have knowledge of escapement goals changing throughout the decades?

My impression is that they haven’t changed much or at all recently. To be clear, I’m NOT advocating for lowering the escapement goals as a way to give us winter fisheries. Just wondering if they’ve been raised or even lowered in the past for whatever reasoning. These goal numbers would be set by the state biologists and tribes, correct?

Yes, escapement goals have changed over time. The usual reason is because new and better information informs the change. For example, in the late 1960s, early 1970s, WDF set Chinook escapement goals at the average of the previous 10 years, largely because that is all the information they had. They felt Chinook runs were doing OK with those escapement levels, so that's what they set the goals at. This was followed by setting coho escapement goals based on estimates of coho smolt productivity per unit of estimated coho rearing habitat. For such a crude method it was actually pretty darn good considering how large and varied an area it covered. Some of these escapement goals were later modified as a result of tagging studies (both juvenile and adult) and calculating spawner:recruit relationships. In a few cases the escapement goals were increased, and in others they were reduced. And some, like Lake Washington sockeye, where there is a super-abundance of spawner:recruit data, the ridiculous goal remains unchanged.

Steelhead escapement goals (for wild fish) were first developed in 1984 based on extensive habitat use and productivity estimates in a dozen western WA drainages. Some of those goals remain in use and some have been modified by using spawner: recruit data.

Back when they were developed, coho and steelhead were the only goals based on some measure of habitat. The other three species were averages. A few comments.

When the Chinook goals were set WDF clearly noted that the goals were not designed to utilize the available habitat; much of which even at that time was un-used. They felt it was ludicrous to try and use all the available habitat. They also were proud of the fact they were having trouble hitting the wild goal in streams with large hatchery runs (the Green for example). This was before mass marking. The solution was to lower the goal, which the proudly pointed out that they hit.

Chum were based on the three highest years in the data base. Different goals for even and odd years because the presence of pinks depressed chum production. WDF did a stock recruit analysis on how well that goal was working, coupled with the boom in chum in the 80s and 90s. The results of running the Ricker Curve on the data was that goals were too low and needed to be raised. They weren't.

Pink, likewise, were averages. When I was still working the goal for the Puyallup was 19K, despite the returns of hundreds of thousands.

The Lake WA "goal" was intended to be only temporary. Actually, the 350K was to be applied only to the Cedar. That number was based on some recent year's data. Turns out they had mis-calculated the escapements and the interim goal should have been more in 500K range. Over time, the goal was lowered in that the whole watershed was managed for 350K. Production declines in recent years make Lake WA goal look a bit ridiculous.

Interesting. Is there anywhere to check the annual escapement goals other than the year to year reports? I’m specifically interested in Region 6 goals over the last 40 years or so.

Thank you for all the info so far.

At least through the late 80s, the goals set in the 60s and early 70s were constant. After that, escapement goals became, I think, more of recommendations.

03/02/2022



Good luck with that.....I'm aware of more than a few cases, WDFW person in charge of a certain task, when that person either retired or moved to another position in WDFW, cleaned out paper files, wiped hard drive clean, .... I'm was here, now I'm gone!!!!!!!!

Region 6----Big turn over in personnel, lots of the "old timers", from when the Offices were in Aberdeen, retired long ago....

True, that, Drifter. But, it often wasn't the retiree who threw stuff out. It was on orders from above. Especially in R6 there seemed to be a desire to erase, or at least forget, the past.

Stepping into the wayback machine, one of my tasks when I first came to WDF was to collect and the get bound the PS "Key Management Documents". This included, among other things, the forecasts plus escapement goals, in-season update models to be used, an analysis of the season's catches and resulting escapements, egg-take goals at hatcheries, agreements with Tribes, other states, and countries. I think they did this on the Coast, too. Did being the operative word.
'

Seems contrary to good science to dump positive historical data. I too have struggled to find accurate historical steelhead plant data numbers. The only reason the interest, is because I experienced it back then. I know the success it was, and want to compare it to today why or how things are so different. Seems obvious though historical records on successful plants and return/catch numbers would be something to hide in this day and age. It just takes a generation to erase the "Good Years" memories, and accept todays poor results as normal. This reduces WDFW criticism. Whether responsible or not, WDFW gets the finger pointed at them at how bad it is for current fisheries. Piling historical success data on todays failures does little to improve there image to Legislators or the public, who pays the salaries. Go's back to the Mantra, not enough WDFW employees are engaged or have a stake in the profession they have chosen, therefore have little to lose as long as the paycheck keeps coming.

Look at appendix G for Puget Sound historical (1965-2008) steelhead plants:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01508/wdfw01508.pdf

Look at appendix E for 1900-1945

Current plant reports start for 2015, here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/reports/stocking/steelhead

You will only find a few references to escapement goals in the SASSI report, circa 1993, but you will see an excellent review of not only the status of salmon and steelhead populations as of 1993, but how significantly worse they have become in large part since then.

Fish on...

Todd

The Tribes have expressed the same concerns regarding PS and Oly Pen stocks. Before the Boldt decision, the Tribes were getting about 2% of the Pacific salmon harvested in these areas. When the Boldt decision was handed down, that went up to 50%.

Now fast-forward 45 years…….

The actual number of salmon the Tribes are getting now (i.e., 50% of the harvestable surplus) is LESS than the 2% of the harvest they got in 1974, just before the Boldt decision. That’s how far the stocks have fallen.

Given that, what’s the point of the escapement goals? It appears they’re seldom achieved, and when they’re not, the goals are lowered. If the goals keep moving, they’re not goals. They’re little more than aspirational indicators.

If you go to the tables in Appendix B of this report you will find run sizes, escapements, and current escapement goals for most WA Chinook and coho stocks. It doesn't show a history of changes in escapement goals over time though, although changes generally are infrequent IMO. You can decide how frequently the goals are met but "most of the time" occurs more often than seldom.


https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2022/02/review-of-2021-ocean-salmon-fisheries.pdf/

In looking at the "goals" they look lower than what we managed for. And what is being achieved is less than what was managed for in the 80s.

In re-reading Salmo's responses he notes that some of the goals get re-evaluated (lower). That's fine but why when the same models show that they should be increased they aren't?

I remember way back in the early years of Boldt that tribes were pushing "probing" to determine goals. The idea was, try different escapements and see what gives MSY. Conceptually sound but they also wanted to only probe lower than the WDF goals.

Changing an escapement goal under co-management requires agreement to do so. Human nature, being subject to greed and avarice, it's almost always easier to get your working partner to agree to lower it than to raise it.

In hindsight, I think probing for a better escapement goal is subject to duplicity. Think about the ecosystem mechanics and density dependent mortalities. It's nigh on universal that low escapements yield the highest number of recruits per spawner. As escapement increases and you approach habitat carrying capacity, recruits per spawner decreases toward 1. And "so called" over escapement yields less than 1 recruit per spawner, as if that is somehow wrong in the world of ecosystem processes. MSY/MSH is strictly an economic yardstick and not an ecological one; that's what I've come to think.

Absolutely Salmo; MSY is simply "How few must we not kill so we can kill the most?" A **ck the rest of the ecosystem like eagles, whales, bears, and trees.

Dave Montgomery, and other, were looking at chum spawning in Kennedy Creek. He found that mass spawning, by turing over the streamed, actually protected the eggs better by putting bigger gravels on top. Also, while the number of fry per female was lower the absolute number of fry was larger. But we'll keep the smaller goals.

Many years ago, the term was MINIMUM ESCAPEMENT GOALS. When WDF couldn't sustain those, it changed the language to escapement goals, then violated them in lots of streams. With the overall shrinkage in good habitat, I think an independent entity should be retained to define spawning/rearing holding capacity for our best streams.

There are many habitat models that defined available spawning area and WDFW does not even meet those. I think that Salmo noted that management aims at MSY, which is a purely economic model. What is the minimum investment for maximum return. It ignores ecosystem needs whether it is salmon feeding the system through carcasses or other beasts eating salmon. Most folks are unwilling to share salmon; the predators can have the scraps we can't catch/kill. See arguments to control seals, sea lions, cormorants, terns, wolves, bears, cougars. I get mine first.

I find this "funny" considering that the numbers of seals and sea lions, cormorants and terns has vastly over populated the waters of our state with no predators to keep them in check, and the state's failure to protect our resources by employing the MSY (which in itself is total bullshi*). I blame the state and all those have worked for a paycheck and never questioned the unsustainable practices they have followed.

Why do you think that the seals, sea lions, corms, and terns have "vastly overpopulated" ? If they truly overpopulated, they would be starving. You are also making a huge assumption that MSY and unnsustainabilty have not been internally challenged. Just ignored.