Incidental catch of non-target species is a common occurrence in fisheries whether it is wild fish taken when targeting hatchery fish, chum when targeting coho, or Chinook when targeting hake.

What are folks thoughts on a standard level, not be exceeded, for commercial and recreational users.

For example, if mortality exceeds 5% (dead fish plus mortality of released fish) should that be the max, with no fishing if that can't be met?

Should the standard be "no more than 10% of the target species" which might mean that a coho net fishery could take 90 coho and 10 other species. Or, should the limit be no more that 10% of the species being protected?

Those folks involved in GH and Willapa have been up to their eyeballs in these questions and I would like to see some thoughtful ideas.

And, if we can agree how does one get this adopted into management?

A few thoughts:

One-size-fits-all won't work. But I don't think you're asking for that. The level of incidental take will likely vary among fisheries, species, gear type, and location. It could be fairly low for some species (1%) but much higher for others (10%). Not sure you could ever settle on something simple, like 5%.

But your second question is the bigger challenge. How does one get this into management? Implementing an incidental take restriction is fraught with peril. Look no farther than recreational fishing. When I'm fishing for spring Chinook, I also catch wild steelhead, which I am required to release. How does anyone know if the wild steelhead that I release survives to spawn? The fact is, nobody will ever know. So it has to be an estimate. That estimate will likely have confidence intervals (error bounds) that are huge. So, will we open and close fisheries based on estimates, with large margins of error, and no actual data? Yikes!

If not, then who has the $$'s to monitor the incidental take with enough accuracy to determine when the limit has been reached? Remember, WDFW operates on license fees and taxpayer dollars. Both of which are scarce, despite Fish Doc's recent rant on Washington State taxes.....

Lets frame a part of the discussion in this manner. Just what is the maximum by catch % for any fisher? Are we talking total for the run or by the week? As a example in Willapa the week of Oct 8th commercial Coho harvest is 3380 and has a Chum by catch of 2922 for almost a 1 to 1 ration of dead Chum for Crab feed on the bottom. Need another example? The weeks of Nov 1st through 10th the Willapa Commercial harvest has 4593 Coho harvested with a Chum by catch mortality of 1163 which is a 4 Coho taken to dead Chum again on the bottom for the Crabs.

To further buzz your brain Region 6 spruced the model to get a 90% compliance to the rules to achieve a 56% mortality. In English R-6 said 90% of the commercial fleet would adhere stringently to the rules so only 56% of the Chum encountering a commercial net perished. First off 90% compliance fleet wide? One needs to be void of any thought process to buy that one! Try this, 56% means only 44% survive.

So think of incidental in another way, think by catch. Not fish A or fish B but rather the totality of by catch mortality of other species. It is the first step in getting off the stool and walking the walk that conservation dictates and very few of us choose to do so.

Why not a fixed standard? A standard is there to protect a species/stock?

Are some fisheries "more important" than the bycatch?

With the springer question above is there another location for the fishery that would impact steelhead less or is the location of the fishery more important than the bycatch?

I guess that is the question, ultimately. Which is most important (fish or fishery) and why is this so?

Whiting already has a cap. The grey area is release mortality's and I'll bet it's going to turn around and bite the sports industry square in the ass.

The answer has 2 components

1) the level of acceptable exploitation on non-target species. A cap must be set on by-catch whether incidental outright mortality or release mortality or both. Fishing stops when the cap is projected to be met. I believe this is the "standard" you are looking for. It also happens to be a highly variable number depending on the stock in question.

2) an accounting of the kill rate of every gear type deployed in the fishery. Less fish fish-friendly gear types will obviously burn thru the exploitation cap faster… they should have limited if any time on the water

The relative "health" of the stock (as determined by WDFW) dictates the "acceptable" exploitation rate (impact).

As an example, Chehalis fall chinook = 10%, wild upper CR spring chinook = 15%, CR tules = 41%

Not defending these percentages, just the messenger.

SOP in region 6 = Standard Operating Propaganda. next thing you know they'll be dropping leaflets over the river telling us how good commercial fishing is for our health.

In this day and age of technology, there is absolutely no reason (other than cost) that non-lethal ways of catching any stock should not become the standard. We all know what happens under the current process, it does not protect the fish in any way only minimizes the destruction. Should not matter what the cost of fish in the market goes to, the fish and the environment they live in should be the first priority.
Until that happens, all these thoughts mean nothing other than slowing down the complete destruction of some species.
Goes for every user group, commercials, Indians and Sportsman.

Back to don't kill the messenger, don't as this is a tough subject.

Now how does a exploitation % get abused? Well here are a couple to chew on. Region 6 staff allow a targeted Coho fishery but catch more Chum than Coho as they were "targeting Coho" In fact one staffer inserted retain ( sell ) the incidental catch AFTER NOF was completed and was only caught when the harvest was posted. It is about management plans and avoiding compliance. With Monte staff one needs to ALWAYS read the CR 102!

Next up is when a cap is just say 10% for the season is it acceptable for a given week to have a by catch equal or greater than the targeted species if it fits in the 10% impact cap? I say no, in fact I say HELL NO! That folks is what they call "cookin the books" !!!!!!! We will not even take a run at conservation ethics with this one as any bio that endorses this bit is lacks any conservation ethics.

It might not. Part of Priest Rapids Fall Chinook management plan is to include wild fish in the broodstock. Last year was the second year for the live capture (which has now become a derby). Immediate mortality was just under 1% from sport handling. The fish stayed at the hatchery for about another month, and the long term mortality exactly matched the fish that swam to the hatchery on their own.

This is one example of one species in one specific location, but it's good data for sports.

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=534465

I normally fish the Kalama River in SW Washington. April is a great month for springers and early summer steelhead. They migrate into the river at about the same time. The steelhead are a mix of both wild and hatchery fish, but the target species are spring Chinook (when they have enough to open the season for springers, which has not happened on the Kalama since 2012). If you try to catch spring Chinook on the Kalama, you will also hook steelhead, both wild and hatchery. The only way to avoid that result is to close the river. Problem solved.

However, the bycatch rate/morality on wild steelhead is unknown, but can likely be derived by estimation and modeling angler success rate. The result would be that WDFW would be managing the fishery by proxy. That is, they would be opening and closing the fishery based on estimations, modeling results, and no date. Not sure that's the best way to manage anything.

Well maybe yes maybe no. It is site specific as a fish that has made it through transition from salt to fresh has a lower mortality but in transition it is much higher. ( Grays Harbor & Willapa Bay is 20% mortality for REC C&R ) A very good way to view it is the farther up stream the fish encounters humans the better the survival or another way of saying it is slimed is OK, really slimed up ( completed transition ) salmon are very hardy creatures. This is the rub as the highest mortality from contact with humans is in the estuary ( transition water fisheries ) and the least in river.

You haven't been watching Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay commercial and rec fisheries. That's exactly what they do there.

All fisheries are managed on assumptions/models/estimates. The best management uses in-season data to modify fisheries. The worst set a pre-season plans and put it on autopilot.

From the Advocay's Willapa C0mmercial CR 102 comments.

ISSUE:

The Department’s historical failure to properly monitor the season as it progresses and reluctance to utilize inseason adjustments magnifies the danger of setting a season using a flawed harvest model

The Department has historically ignored the landing reports coming in daily showing the harvest rate that is incurring on the water. Then, WDFW staff are reluctant to make inseason adjustments in Willapa Bay to prevent the season from overfishing the stocks. The result is the Department effectively reserves commercial inseason adjustments to honor requests from the commercial fleet that the season be modified to increase harvest by the fleet.

During the legal challenge to the 2013 season, Advocacy members outlined to the court our concerns that the season set (to the last available fish in the model) would result in overfishing of Chinook. The Department filed a declaration from District 17 Manager Kirt Hughes contesting the concern and implied assurance to the court by stating Hughes could use inseason adjustments if overharvest seemed underway.

Several weeks into the season, landings showed the harvest was well over the model’s prediction and the petitioners requested the Department consider an inseason adjustment. The Department’s response was it had told the court it could do an adjustment, not that it would. Management then stood idly by as the fleet landed 194% of the model’s prediction and undermined escapement goals once again.

The steadfast refusal of the Department to monitor the progress of the Willapa commercial season and use inseason adjustments in Willapa as it does throughout the rest of the fisheries it manages magnifies the problem of using an unreliable model to set a 2014 season that “fishes to the last fish”. Once adopted, history has taught all that we will have to live with it as written regardless of the damage to the stocks.

Then it's a management problem not a gear issue.

Standards are meaningless without management and management is meaningless without standards. Need both.

Way I see it if someone can't master a rotary dial up phone giving them a new smart phone won't help.

Oh like "ouch"!!!!!!!!