The available spawning area is just one of the parameters to consider in determining the "carrying capacity" of a basin. For species like Chinook and coho it is rare that the amount of spawning area is a limiting factor. More typically it is the stability of the gravel used for spawning or usually it is the amount and quality of the rearing habitat that determines the "carrying capacity". That rearing habitat for species like Chinook, coho, steelhead, etc. often includes more than one of the following; early juvenile rearing, over-wintering, parr rearing, and estuarian habitats.

BTW -The idea of carrying capacity is not a single value but that varies (sometimes by a lot) depending on survival factors. The carrying capacity during good conditions (freshwater or marine) is higher than during poor conditions. Further consistently fully seeding the habitat (achieving carry capacity) would require that there be no fishing expect for those years that the run sizes are lager than the habitat conditions their offspring are likely to find; which of course can only be know after the fact.

Curt

I agree that there is more to carrying capacity than just spawning area. But when WDF, in setting Chinook goals for Puget Sound, said that they would not even try to put spawners in all the avaialble area it appears to me that the goals are more fishery-driven than biology driven.

Region 6 is under some pressure by PSC chinook technical team to calculate a biologically-based escapement goal for Grays Harbor. That was discussed by PA at the commission meeting and again by JS/RW at the last advisor meeting.

Official GH page on the WDFW website...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/

One on that page, pay particular attention to the link to "VIEW MEETING MATERIALS" listed for the Oct 21 meeting which already occurred. This includes notes, documents, graphs, and even audio!

To maintain transparency (a MAJOR goal of the policy), an ongoing list of materials will be web-posted shortly after the meetings as they occur.

I may be able to stop in on Sunday. What is expected from attendees? I haven't really done my due diligence when it comes to policy and numbers so I won't be the most educated/prepared person there. I will talk to the wife and see if I can get an extended hall pass that day.

Sunday???

Woops misread the date. I'm out in that case.

Just to get back to the economic argument AGAINST the NT gill net fishery in GH...

The slide present to the commission showed an average ex-vessel value of about 92K (in 2013 dollars) for active 20-30 boats. Let's call it roughly 90K spread over 20-30 participants. That's an average of roughly $3000-4500 for each boat. In other words, it's largely a hobby fishery.

In a January 2012 letter, Fish Program Director Jim Scott provided the following figures for the period 2005-2011.

Hatchery production for the fishery: $211,821
Management to plan/prosecute the fishery: $31,224
Enforcement: $9,684
Ex-vessel value: $80,194

That's over 1/4 million that the state spends in order to conduct a fishery worth 80K… over three dollars spent for every dollar the fishery returns.

Just a bit of food for thought.

This is a study for hatchery reared fish on the economics of the catch and was done for the agency by a consultant in a budget crunch. Now if disregard the rearing cost and just call value of the hatchery fish or natural spawned dead in the bottom of the boat same then you can multiply substantially the full value of the fisheries. Coho is a good example running at around 5 or 6 to 1 W/H mix in recent years. I highlighted Grays Harbor in Red.

TCW Economics
Economic Consulting for Natural Resource Management and Land Use Planning 2756 9111 Avenue Sacramento, CA 9581 8 916/45 1-3372 fax: 916/451-1920 e-mail : twegge@tcwecon.com

For hatchery produced fish that are harvested in commercial fisheries, the Puget Sound marine and freshwater net fisheries account for $10.9 million, or about 96 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of chum accounts for about 53 percent of the total personal income generated and hatchery production of Chinook accounts for about 38 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $11.4 million of the total $18.4 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in freshwater areas of the Puget Sound region. Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $6.5 million and ocean sport fisheries account for about $627,000 in local personal income. Hatchery produced coho caught in both marine and freshwater sport fisheries generate about $7.8 million annually , steelhead sport fisheries generate about $6.7 million, and Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.9 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Snohomish watershed contribute about $5.1 million annually in local personal income in the Puget Sound region and hatchery programs in the Payullup/White watershed contribute about $3.4 million annually. It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Puget Sound region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 532 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Coastal Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Coastal region is shown by watershed in Table 2. Local personal income from coastal hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $7.6 million in sport fisheries. Almost all of the local personal income generated by the harvest from coastal hatchery programs occurs in the State's coastal economic region.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, coastal net fisheries account for 97 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery coho production accounts for $1.0 million of the $1.5 million in annual personal income. Although not reported in Table 2, it is estimated that more than 80 percent of the local personal income is captured in the Westport area, which is the primary port associated with catch area 2. For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $6.8 million of the total $7.6 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in coastal freshwaters . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $821,000 and Puget Sound marine sport fisher ies account for about $25,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $4.2 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $876,000, and coho sport fisheries generate about $2.6 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Wynoochee watershed contribute the most personal income ($1.9 million), followed by hatchery programs in the Solduc/Quillayute and Humptulips watersheds ($1.3 million each). It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Coastal region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 277 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Lower Columbia River Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Lower Columbia River region is shown by watershed in Table 3. Local personal income from Lower Columbia River hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $27.9 million in sport fisheries. For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, the Lower Columbia River net fisheries account for about $974,000, or about 67%, of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of coho accounts for about 53 percent of the annual $1.4 million in personal income generated and Chinook accounts for about 47 percent. For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $14.5 million of the total $27.9 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity on the Columbia River mainstem and about $10.5 million is associated with sport fishing in terminal areas (tributary fisheries) of the Lower Columbia River . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $2.8 million and Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $74,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $13.7 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.7 million, and coho sport fisheries generate about $10.5 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Cowlitz River watershed contribute the most personal income at $14.8 million annually , distantly followed by hatchery programs in the Lewis River watershed ($5.7 million) and Kalama River hatchery programs ($2.8 million) .

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Lower Columbia River region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 1,108 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

I'm curious about an analysis of Gray's Harbor fishing with the NT gillnet fleet retired and the Satsop hatchery closed. Since the QIN's policy that a fish is a fish is a fish, hatchery production in the basin just rationalizes chronic over-harvests of wild salmon. If the only alternative is wild salmon management, and allocating between treaty commercial and non-treaty recreational (+ Chehalis Tribe), I wouldn't be surprised if the fish available to the sport fishery actually increased, on average.

The hatchery production in the GH watershed is small enough that the H+W=50% seldom comes into play. In the case of Chum yes but only due to the extrapolation across all streams of the enhanced numbers which is District 17 mismanagement of escapement. In the Hump yes as between 30% to 50% of the naturally spawning Chinook in any given year are of hatchery origin. Coho is thought to be worse but District 17 still does not care to turn loose of the numbers. Also in the Chehalis the 300k Coho hatchery smolt in the upper basin is Skook mitigation. The East Fork Satsop Chinook numbers the broodstocked Chinook releases are small enough to not be a factor unless you fail to break down the East Folk Satsop spawners and mathematically subtract them from the spawners of natural origin, which is not done.

Bottom line is the Chehalis side hatchery production is a problem due to the abuse by District 17. Now the Humptulips is totally different because if they managed only for the natural origin, and not combine the hatchery strays in the natural spawner escapement, then severe restrictions would need to be put in place.

Double post but .............................

Just found out Ron Warren is going to Oly as an Deputy Assistant Director for Intergovernmental Salmon Management. More to come.

Falling up.

Eyefish, do you know where the handout at the last meeting came from? The one that shows recoveries of coded wire tags is what I'm talking about. Bob and Melanie

I believe it comes from PSC. I'll try to remember to take a pic of mine and post it here.

Mind-boggling northern interception.... esp in the most recent 5-6 yrs.

It would be interesting to see a similar economic breakdown for WB. Whats the cost vs harvest value for the commercial fishery.

One topic I gotta give WDFW props for is that they at least had an advisory meeting on a weekend. Maybe they do actually want some public feedback this time.

The thing missing from the chehalis analysis on commercials is all the economic benefit rendered to the alaskans and candians. If you consider the money spent its not so bad for them, but sucks to be us. It'd be nice if the pacific salmon treaty provided for transfer payments to cover interception of hatchery fish (ie WA gets some money for hatchery operations to support the obviously benetifiting AK and BC chinook fisheries).

Obviously a pipe dream though.

This based strictly on CWT recoveries which means hatch fish releases. Most of these are obviously coming from the Hump with a smaller number of releases from Satsop Springs, Aberdeen Lake and Wishkah. The prevailing thinking is that the hatch population probably behaves a lot like their wild counterparts in terms of migratory patterns.

Northern intercept fisheries in the most recent 5 yr data set are obviously taking the lions share of the harvest.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Over the 40 yr database, northern intercept fisheries and inside gill nets snarfed up about 90% of the take. CWT recoveries from inside sport catch (MA 2-2 plus inriver) amounted to only 3% of the CWT's recovered. Talk about fishing for scraps! Only 4% was left for escapement!

Over the most recent 5 year span, northern intercept fisheries and inside gill nets claimed 96% of the take. CWT recoveries from inside sport catch (MA 2-2 plus inriver) is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Escapement represented 1.3% of the total CWT recoveries.

Is it any wonder we can't get fish to the gravel?

From the same document I quoted earlier…

Willapa 2005-2011:

Hatch production = $626,381
Manage (plan/prosecute) fishery = $32,721
Enforcement = $3,899
Ex-vessel value = $654,136

Almost pays for itself.

Many people realize that Chehalis/Humptulips Basins have major salmon problems......

What to do about problems is the $64 question???????

A solution I threw out at the last Montesano meeting...

Gillnets ---- 4 days a week, QIN and NT....Sunday 12:00 p.m. until Thursday 12:00 p.m.

No nets, 100%, Thursday 12:01 p.m. until Sunday 11:59 p.m.

The "no nets" 3 days a week could allow for better escapement, better "in-river" fishery. Better fishery for the working person.....would help get fish past all the netting.....

This should be on a trial basis.........6 to 10 years!!!!!!