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.

If my bosses ignored facts instead of science in something as important as fish runs

I wouldn't work for such ilk, I would work against them. Otherwise you have no

integrity, just an awful need for a paycheck.

I guess the govt. entities that are oiling bird eggs in the Columbia are doing it for

no reason at all. As far as sea lions and seals they don't have to be starving to be

overpopulated. They have lots of fish to eat.

Meanwhile our runs (or what's left of them) are being

decimated. Anyone who fishes regularly in the Chehalis or Puget

Sound can see the increase over the last 40 years. Anything to shift the blame

away from the state's failure to manage our stocks.

Overpopulation, in the ecological sense which is my world of work, results in starvation as there are too many of them and too little food. Your "overpopulation" is a social construct as in "they are eating my fish". i don't disagree that the pinniped populations have to be at least temporarily reduced to aid in recovery of salmon but salmon recovery (at least as practiced in the eastern Pacific) is focused on controlling/fixing everything other than fisheries.

And yes, sometimes one strays in a position to maintain income, health insurance and such. But, as many on here know, there are folks on the inside working hard for change through a variety of channels. More would be accomplished by dealing with the Generals that pissing and moaning about the Privates.

3/13/2022

grrrrrr, just moved all my clocks ahead, 81% of the State wants to remain of Daylight saving year around but the "Feds say no", what happened to State Rights??????

Sorry about above, just pisses me off..

Now back to the problem, forget about Alaska and Canada taking Washington raised fish, HOW TO FIX Grays Harbor, Chehalis Side Problem??????

Rivers, Hoquiam, Wishkah, Wynoochee, and Satsop are NOT MAKING Escapement most years, in the past 10 years.

What to do????? Who needs to be held accountable in 2022???? What needs to be done????? or could salmon, on Chehalis side, be facing a future like Coastal Steelhead????

So you tell me in one post that sea lions and seals are not "over

populated" and then in another you say that you "don't disagree

that the pinniped population have to be at least temporarily reduced

to aid in salmon recovery" . As with a lot of fisheries employees I have

talked to or heard from it sounds like you are talking out of more

then one side of your mouth. And I have given flack to more then one

"general" and it does about as much good as talking to "the privates".

“So you tell me in one post that sea lions and seals are not "over

populated" and then in another you say that you "don't disagree

that the pinniped population have to be at least temporarily reduced

to aid in salmon recovery" . As with a lot of fisheries employees I have

talked to or heard from it sounds like you are talking out of more

then one side of your mouth.”

It’s the new age fisheries management language for this state. Always used to answer prickly questions, and served up to us, the dweebs that fund them....

The problem is see, with pinnipeds, is that they are taking many of the fish early in the growth cycle. Others in the food chain, including humans, are generally taking fish later on. With hatcheries pushing out huge numbers of smolts as mitigation in a shorter time period and with obstacles like the hood canal bridge, these predators can basically wipe out a large percentage and knock the entire food chain out of whack. The number of fish returning would probably be low enough that the runs would fall and the predator population would collapse, but the hatcheries then pump up production and produce enough to continue the cycle. It eventually will collapse, but the process is going to take a much longer time that it has in the past. And, for it too happen, the returning runs will have to be so correct that a natural correction may not be possible.

Like it or not, humans are part of the ecosystem and have altered it in many ways. Altering it in one area and not in another can have serious implications.

Agree 100% and predator management needs to expand and increase statewide.

Bob,

Surely you're not so dense that you cannot see that there are many shades of gray between black and white. Trying to explain that there are different perspectives does not equal "talking out more than one side of your mouth." From a fisherman's narrow perspective, any predator that eats fish that might otherwise be caught by fishermen is a predator that needs to be controlled. From the perspective of an ecologist, predators that eat fish are parts of a natural ecosystem, and fishermen are just another group of predators. In the natural order of things, one predator is no better nor worse than another. There are likely other perspectives as well, and there is no one "right" perspective or point of view, even if we, as fishermen, are partial to the view that provides the most fish for us to catch.

Salmo,
I as I was trying to say early, man has altered the natural order of things, but tries to pretend we have not. The best example is probably Hersel and the other sea lions. They used a non-natural barrier to decimate a run. Because we hesitated to intervene, and the natural order of things took place, with the run basically bringing the run down to nothing. If the numbers were increased, the sea lions would be back. If we want the run to exist, we need to reduce the predators at the site. If we want the new natural order to take place, then we have ignore the fact that we have altered the site to produce a situation where the run will no exist.

Just because man has altered environments does not mean that we can't try to restore them. There is also a very big difference between you suggestion to "control Herschel at the locks" and simply kill pinnipeds. Surgical removal of problem animals should never be a problem, like stock-killing predators. But killing them all is not the answer.

Also, the predators we are trying to control don't have a choice. To exist, pinnipeds eat fish. They don't have a choice. Humans do.

I believe our efforts at salmon restoration, and likely many other species, will fail because society does not want to change/compromise/accomodate. It's my way or the highway.

I find it "funny" that all the negative responses I get about this are former employees of wdfw and all the positive responses I get are generally from non wdfw employees, i.e. rec fishermen. coincidence? I think not. Just because you worked for the state it certainly doesn't make your points more valid then ours. Just another "good old boys " club.

No one here suggested that we "kill them all." Great "quote" there,

nice way to make shi* up. It's my way or the highway is how the state

rolls, not us.

As a former WDF/WDFW employee I have an "ownership" of sorts to my alma mater. It pains me to see what could be done better, or another way. WDFW now has too short of an institutional memory, for instance the unfortunate "Ten Year" average. I was in enforcement, so I didn't manage the fisheries, although I did have input on some regulatory changes that I did manage to change. I think WDFW is plagued by an attitude in some divisions that "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care"

One of the big questions is: Is this a service agency or a conservation agency? Acquiring more property for the public to recreate is working. Not so on salmon steelhead conservation. Providing planted trout to harvest is a resounding success, I think, and is strictly a service to anglers, not conservation. Complex agency. When I get together with former WDFW-ers the talk is always how the agency could do better, and we don't understand why it isn't..

Seals are starving. Here in Des Moines they “rehabilitate”(feed) them and release them back into the wild. https://www.sealifer3.org/
From their Facebook page: “Many of our winter harbor seal patients come to our care because they are seen lethargic and coughing on beaches.”
We are artificially increasing the numbers beyond carrying capacity.
Cruel and unethical IMO.

Looked at that site. A picture shows a bunch of young do gooders eager to help. Bet not one of them have either fished or hunted. That is our fault. Those of us that are left are a dying breed on dwindling/dying resources. I don't think it can be turned around. All my grandkids are going to get are bunch of old pictures of what was.

You know that your back-handed insults about "fishermen's narrow perspective"

says basically that ALL fishermen have this narrow perspective about other fish

eating predators being needed to be controlled is total B.S. It's the kind of

response I'd expect from you and the other members of "the good old boys club".

I only feel that other predators need to be controlled when numbers exceed the

carrying capacity of the food source.

As far as "surely you can't be so dense " is a passive aggressive way to insult

someone who doesn't agree with you. "Shades of grey" is a pretty weak way to

justify saying two different things that contradict each other posted by the same

person in the same thread isn't just lying.

I have as little respect for how members of "the good old boys club" respond to

criticism as I have for your self serving arguments.

If man manages one species in an ecosystem he better manage them all or nature will manage them for him.

Problem is that man isn't as smart as mother nature despite what he thinks.

Amen to this!