#971705 - 01/18/17 09:06 PM
Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 11/11/08
Posts: 147
Loc: Central Park
|
In my view the WDFW ignores pinniped predation by sea lions and seals. When I have asked if it is considered in harvest mortality or in run size estimates I get a vague answer. I do not think WDFW makes any effort to track it even when they have observers on the boats while it is occurring. My Grays Harbor observations of drift nets last fall and set nets recently indicates that from 10% to 50% of the fish that engage a net end up with a sea lion or seal. They do not show up in harvest numbers. Losses happen to recreational fishers as well but I have only lost one fish to a sea lion the past decade so in my view the percentage lost is low in the range of under 2%. Harvest data in the models now includes 2-3% net drop out and 56% release mortality as part of the allocated harvest mortality. The models do not include pinniped losses which I think are a direct harvest mortality due to the gear type. If these mortalities were considered in the harvest calculations it would more fairly penalize set nets and drift nets for the loss they directly cause. I think there is a need for good loss data and that it should be part of the model harvest calculation for both treaty and non-treaty fishers. Below is a picture of a typical race to a steelhead in a net. This time the sea lion won.
Edited by Soft bite (01/18/17 09:16 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971710 - 01/18/17 09:52 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
There was a time when it was included in management. I don't think it is any more.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971724 - 01/19/17 05:48 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1524
Loc: Tacoma
|
I believe according to the requirements I saw from previous court cases, the definition of drop out was written so as to include any fish that were in the net and likely died but did not end up in the boat. If I get a chance I will look to see if I can find the exact wording. If someone here has it, that would save me some time, though.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971725 - 01/19/17 05:59 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
Spawner
Registered: 01/22/06
Posts: 917
Loc: tacoma
|
Wouldnt pinniped predation occurring during sport harvest also need to be counted too then? Fish lost to seals while hooked would count the same, right?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971727 - 01/19/17 06:27 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1524
Loc: Tacoma
|
Actual wording...IT IS ORDERED that, for the purposes of equitable adjustment, the harvest of net fishermen should include an estimate of the number of fish which come in contact with the net and do not survive but are not actually taken by the fishermen. The net "drop-out" fish estimate for 1982 shall be negotiated by the parties. In order to reach a negotiated estimate, it may be necessary to present this issue to a Joint Technical Committee
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971728 - 01/19/17 06:52 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Post '82 a figure was added for net dropout (NDO) to all net fisheries. At least through 87. I know of salmon only, as the agencies were separate then. NDO was an add-on that was not included in the data bases. The data bases used at that time included the escapement and documented net catch (for salmon). Adding in NDO, then, provided a buffer that provided some protection for the escapement.
At that time, there was a file of studies (by other entities-including Russia) that had studied the size-selective nature of retention in a gill net and NDO.
From a political point of view, the impact of NDO fell more heavily soon the Tribes as they took essentially significantly more of their share in gill nets while the Cowboys used hook and line and seines.
Note that the order was pre Co-Management.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971733 - 01/19/17 08:26 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1524
Loc: Tacoma
|
It should be noted that I have no idea if they are actually following the directive of the court, or, if given the increase in predators the DPO needs to be increased. My only input is that it was included in the original formulas and should be included now.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971739 - 01/19/17 09:44 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I believe that it is not being included. Or, if anything is it is applied equally. I know a Tribe that was ordered to develop a seal impact and had, at least as far as folks have told me, never did.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971746 - 01/19/17 10:38 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4489
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
In GH & Willapa the modeled mortality rate includes drop outs and if I recall the tribal % is 4% in the model and Recs are 16% ( ? ) been awhile not being on the model bit. Bottom line is mortalities are modeled in and the drop out is part of it. Now the QIN net actual is running somewhere between 20 and 25% not 4% and frankly you can set on the bank and count how many the sea lions get. The NT Nets with the recovery box bit is a absolute joke as having broodstocked Chinook for many years and damn near did back flips to keep the adults alive. From my experience it is between 50 and 100 % on NT nets releases. Hell the QIN claim 100% on NT releases.
Bottom line for me is the simple fact that mortality on releases be it net or pole are nothing less than a fabricated best guess.
Edited by Rivrguy (01/19/17 10:38 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971758 - 01/19/17 01:01 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971781 - 01/19/17 03:37 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3336
|
In GH & Willapa the modeled mortality rate includes drop outs and if I recall the tribal % is 4% in the model and Recs are 16% ( ? ) been awhile not being on the model bit. Bottom line is mortalities are modeled in and the drop out is part of it. Now the QIN net actual is running somewhere between 20 and 25% not 4% and frankly you can set on the bank and count how many the sea lions get. The NT Nets with the recovery box bit is a absolute joke as having broodstocked Chinook for many years and damn near did back flips to keep the adults alive. From my experience it is between 50 and 100 % on NT nets releases. Hell the QIN claim 100% on NT releases.
Bottom line for me is the simple fact that mortality on releases be it net or pole are nothing less than a fabricated best guess. Thanks for the numbers, Rivrguy, which are probably pretty good for the rec dropout, but seem likely to be underestimated a hair on the Tribal dropout. Between predators and release mortality, that figure has GOT to be MUCH higher....
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971790 - 01/19/17 05:07 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12615
|
The point I was trying to make is that pinniped harvest from nets is significant now and is not considered in harvest allocation models. (Release mortality is a different subject.)
In my observation of gill nets there is often a problem with fish dropping out as the net leaves the water and rises into the boat. Some fishermen even hold a landing net under these fish for insurance. I assumed that this was what the 2-3% drop out referred to as it would be a reasonable estimate of those losses.
My understanding of the official run size is that it is the summation of harvested fish including NDO plus release mortality plus spawner counts. Net drop out was not accounted for in the models prior to the 2014 model year. In 2014 NDR was added as 2% for coho and 3% for chinook in both Grays Harbor and Willapa. This increased the harvest mortality and caused all the historical run sizes to increase. These values have been used for the past three years as well as a 5% drop off for sport catches. I doubt if any of these include pinniped mortality. When I look at the model for tribal harvest I cannot find any calculation for net drop out. It appears to me that only non-tribal harvests are charged with this loss reducing their allocation.
If I were a modeler trying to model harvest mortality (but not subject to politics) I would consider including pinniped losses to be critical for accurate run management. My first guess at numbers would be 40% of the fish that impact a manned set net are lost to pinnipeds. Unmanned set nets would be much higher. I would consider drift nets to lose 30% of the fish that engage the net and then request a research project be initiated to get better data. As usual Soft Bite is 100% on the mark. This is WAY more than just simple dropout. This is a BIG and underappreciated issue that NO ONE in the agency has been willing to tackle head on. Mebbe the new Fish Program Chief at Region 6 is willing to take a crack at it.
_________________________
"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
|
|
|
|
#971818 - 01/20/17 08:01 AM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4489
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
We getting close. The drop out rate IS part of the mortality. Just as with a pole that you release with or one hits and gets away to the ones that look OK but in the end fail to spawn successfully. The release moralities and drop outs are part of the same number so in the model it is accounted for. SB the thing I think it is about is simply that the number be it what you call is way underestimating moralities and staff knows it as do the RECS and neters both QIN & NT. Nobody seems to care much outside a few people.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971832 - 01/20/17 12:42 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
The devil is how you account for them and manage. If all the added mortalities are basically for accounting purposes to figure the split then they don't help the resource.
Say the forecast says that 3,000 fish are coming back and it is divided 1,000 to Indians, 1,000 to non-Indians, and 1,000 to escapement. You do the modeling of the various fisheries and decide that the I's have 200 morts, the NIs have 300. What it should mean is that the I's now take 800, the NI's 700, and escapement gets its 1,000. I suspect that the 2,000 harvestable will all be taken, with adjustments to each share based on mortalities. And the escapement then suffers.
The mortalities have to come off of the forecasted run size in order to put the conservation burden on the fishermen and not the resource.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971834 - 01/20/17 01:04 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3336
|
While we all agree that the current estimates appear low, it's probably further complicated by run size and run timing, not only for the target stock, but also for the non-target (sometimes ESA-listed) stocks. If a run comes in "on schedule" and in something close to forecast numbers, a gillnet fishery can be very efficient and cause little dropout. Of course, if the run arrives early or late, or in smaller than forecast numbers, it requires more fishing time to capture a quota, which likely means more encounters with non-target stocks and, subsequently, higher dropout rates, in a year where the fish can ill afford them.
I don't think this is a reason not to factor dropout, at a standard rate, into quotas, but I imagine a commercial gillnetter might feel differently. Of course, if they went to more selective gear, it would reduce dropout and assure them maximum harvest for their time on the water, which seems like a win-win....
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#971838 - 01/20/17 01:26 PM
Re: Should pinniped predation be included in harvest?
[Re: Soft bite]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I think one of the problems with at least some of the tangle nets was increased dropout in that fish encountered the gear and weren't retained.
Traps would probably be best, followed by fish wheels although dip netting can probably be selective. When I have seen seines (beach or purse used the problem arises when a modest number of fish are in the bag. Speed sorting is necessary and fish handling skills may give way to speed.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63822 Topics
646115 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|