Not new news.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...ys-study-finds/

Years ago, while I was working as a fishcop on the Columbia, I also volunteered to help spawning at the Kalama hatchery. Only the largest of the returning Chinook were selected. Some time later, the word came down from Olympia that all sizes of fish were to be selected for spawning. Some nit-wit decided to do this to maintain the average size of the species. What an idiot. Once again a person educated beyond their intelligence made a decision without living in the real world. So the hatchery system began the process of shrinking the average size of salmon. Look at the size of Coho. Same deal. In our world of the Northwest, and beyond, salmon are selected for the largest size in our fisheries, so genetically they are going to shrink since the leftovers are the ones that carry on. I have no idea what the hatchery practices are now as far as size selection goes. In nature we all know that it is the survival of the fittest, where larger male salmon get to spawn with the females.

The only way this changes is with directives from the top. I encourage you to write a letter to the commission. I did:


Dear Commissioners and Director,

I am writing to provide feedback on the ongoing management of chinook salmon in Washington. A lot of discussion has been ongoing about chinook management particularly as appertains to hatchery operations. WDFW operates a large number of hatchery facilities producing many millions of chinook fry each year. The goal of these operations are to largely compensate for habitat degradation and supplement natural production. Due to a lack of attention to hatchery operation and failure to compensate for harvest pressures, we see a continual shrinking of hatchery chinook in Washington. This situation is correctable.

See figure 1 of this article:
https://tidalexchange.com/2018/02/09/fisheries-management-for-dummies-1-bigger-fish/
The entire article clearly lays out the case for shrinking chinook. I am asking the commission for three things:
1. For the sake of transparency and accuracy please remove the factually incorrect statements about no change in chinook size (for instance last paragraph of p90 of the draft HMP https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01947/wdfw01947.pdf
2. Articulate a policy to consider chinook size in hatchery management practices. The size of hatchery fish should mirror wild fish. A minimal effort by hatchery managers could realize a major impact at low/no cost.
3. Consider the ramifications of chinook size on ESA listed Killer Whales. One hypothesis regarding the decline in resident Orcas is that the dramatic decrease in chinook size from historic average has negatively impacted the Orcas by decreasing prey size and increasing effort/calorie ratio (Whales have to catch many more fish to stay fully fed).

I appreciate that many conflicting concerns face the commission, but given that this concern heavily involves two ESA listed species, I believe your prompt attention is merited.

The primary historic problem reducing Chinook size is the hook and line fisheries on juvenile/immature fish from AK on down. The hatcheries spawn what they get. If the age-6 toads are removed before they get there then no amount of policy directives are going to get them into the egg-take.

Ideally, human exploitation ( and by extension, artificial propagation) of salmon should theoretically occur in proportion to sex and age composition of the population at a rate that does NOT threaten their viability.

We fail on all counts with all of our north-migrating chinook stocks.

By virtue of fishing the ocean pasture, fish genetically destined to become old and large are disproportionately exploited due to their vast spatial and temporal exposure to the fleets. There is no sanctuary water for these fish... they are pursued year round for their ENTIRE ocean life... at rates that are unsustainable.

Critics would argue that seasons and closures are in place for most areas... BUT... the migratory critter eventually swims into yet another area and jurisdiction which allows their exploitation, particularly so on their long journey back to spawn.

For those few fish lucky enough to evade capture in the marine killing fields to grow old and large, yet more hooks and nets await as they enter their home basins. Any fish that by the longest of odds managed to survive the hostile ocean milieu faces one last challenge.... virtually no one would consider releasing a large trophy fish caught with hook/line. If that fish is unfortunate enough to bite, it's literally dead meat.

The aggregate impact of these misguided harvest practices weigh heavily against the old/large phenotype. In the age old game of "survival of the fittest" the old/large life history has become a poor fit with the very unnatural selection pressures wrought by the hand of man. We are systematically selecting for smaller/younger fish... and that's what ends up returning on the spawning beds and the hatchery racks.

And while modern hatchery practices advocate for "diversity" in broodstock, spawning them "proportionally" across all ages/sizes only further cements the horribly skewed age-class composition of present day chinook populations.

Genetically speaking, we are harvesting AND propagating our way to ever smaller fish. The "big fish" genes are simply weeded out.

....

As to the wisdom of spawning ONLY the largest fish, I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate in a hatchery environment. First off, that strategy significantly limits the potential broodstock pool.... and may not be sufficient to meet the desired level of production. Secondly, it most certainly further reduces genetic diversity in the population. And thirdly, it may not even be effective in the eventual recruitment of the next generation of large adult spawners because the oceanic harvest machine is still out there selecting out the large/old phenotype.

The only plausible way out of this cycle is to reign in ocean harvest.

Good luck with that.

WDG tried the "spawn only the big ones" with Skamania summers a long time ago. They used the 3-salts, so that the fishery would have larger fish. Since saltwater age has a strong genetic component, it worked. What they got back was 3-salts. Just not enough to sustain the population because the extra year of marine mortality made the run un-suatainable. Went back to spawning all they had.

While I agree that fishing on feeding chinook is the biggest part of the problem. the other problem is that the hatcheries don't select for the success of the biggest fish that return. That's why wild PS chinook are considerably larger than hatchery PS chinook.

They only thing WDFW has direct control over is what they spawn. They have vast excesses of fish to choose from typically. Don't choose at random. Why not counteract the negative size selection by spawning the biggest fish first?

You don't think that mark selective fisheries on hatchery Chinook might have something to do with the unkilled wild fish being larger?

CM-
I think the reason that the wild fish are not shrinking as fast as the hatchery fish has more to do with the natural selection that the natural environment is placing on the natural spawning Chinook. Historically Chinook were the largest salmon because the habitat that they typically were most successful in selected for large body size; large spawning substrate, heavy flows, etc. That selection continues (though to a lesser degree because of habitat alternation) and helps to off set the selection towards smaller size the ocean fisheries on sub-adult fish that is occurring. At the same time the hatchery fish once they return are experiencing that selection back towards a larger/older body size. In fact they continue to see selection towards smaller/young adults.

If the future of Puget Sound hatchery Chinook isn't going to be one of pink and hatchery Chinook being of similar size there has to be major changes. The tidal Exchange article argues that in the hatchery environment that just like in the wild that the selection process work against that which is being seen while the fish are at sea feeding. The proposal is not to blindly breed for larger fish but rather attempt to re-establish a population that has the traits common say 50 years ago.

If we hope to ever see larger hatchery Chinook there really are two alternatives; confining all Chinook fishing to extreme terminal areas by eliminating all ocean fisheries or attempt to reverse the shrinking trend through careful husbandry. Somehow I don't think that former is likely leaving us with the second option.

In the case of supply more feed of the listed southern resident orcas we have only 3 options. The first is to once again close all ocean fisheries and hope at the same time that freshwater habitats can be restored quickly enough that between the two actions the numbers and size of Chinook increase to the point adequately feed the orcas. Again don't expect those actions to occur and even if they did I don't know whether the orcas have enough time to survive the decades likely needed to reverse the current conditions.

The second option which is more of short term fix would be dramatically increasing the numbers of hatchery Chinook released in Puget Sound. This would increase the biomass of Chinook available to the orcas but immediately compounds the problem of excessive hatchery spawners in the wild. An ESA win on one side and a loss on the other side.

The third option is to increase the size of the returning hatchery through intelligently using selectively breeding for a Chinook to restore the traits common decades ago. This option is doable, costs little money, makes common sense, and benefits the orcas as well as a variety of fisheries. To me the options appear to be to continue the status quo and what two icon species of Puget Sound continue to slide towards extinction or take proactive actions to reserve acknowledged selection we are exerting on both species. Some think the option is a no brainer!

Curt

How are you going to increase the size and age of Chinook without at least capping, if not significantly reducing, marine mixed stock catch? They can't grow large if they don't live long enough.

That idea to plant a lot more Chinook will work if the marine fisheries are capped at pre-increase numbers.

Well some of you knowledgeable people explain the reason WDFW wants to protects "jacks".

Oregon allows 5 jacks, no recording on punch card, 10 in procession ....I actually called and this was confirmed.

I go to the NOF meeting in Montesano....ask to have, the same regulation for Washington State. Thought maybe a indirect answer might be, filling punch card, need to buy 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. But was told the bio's want to have "jacks" left in the systems........Why?????

If jacks are used for spawning reasons......then what I was taught in junior high, mid 50's, "survival of the fittest"...doesn't mean the same today???

Agreed on all counts, but I still have grave doubts about the ability of such selective breeding to overwhelm the tremendous capacity of the ocean fishery to disproportionately exploit the older/larger phenotype.

Bottom line, old/large genetics are a POOR fit for the selection pressures in the killing fields. Smaller/younger is the winning strategy in the ocean environment we have created for chinook.

Who says jacks aren't fit? Size isn't everything, despite what some here will say.

The purpose of life is to reproduce. There is no other purpose. A jack, if successful, gets his genes in the mix. Provides genes from another brood year which offers the eggs more genetic options.

There are even some Chinook that spawn before going to sea. The more options you have for getting spawners the higher the probability that some will survive.

The best example of this that I know of is coho. Coho are (or were when I was involved) managed top optimize the yearling age-1 stream reared smolts. Allow only enough fish to escape to produce those smolts. We no know that coho have fry that smolt, fingerlings that smolt to estuaries in summer, fall smolts, spring smolts, lake-rearing smolts, lake and beaver pond over wintering smolts, and fish called nomads that smolt, then overwinter in FW (maybe in two successive winters in different areas) before going to sea. All of this results in more adults from different brood years, different sizes of adults, etc.

The stream I worked on had a capacity of about 15K spring smolts. The tributary lake produced, after it was cleaned out of bass, pike, and other stuff, 30K spring smolts. Among those spring smolts were age-0, age-1, and age-2. Lots of stability when we maximize the life history options rather than maximize the catch.

CM -
I agree that Jacks are an important life history and the diversity of the species. However the situation with Puget Sound hatchery Chinook has tipped things out of kilter. The smallest minimum size limit in most marine fisheries for Chinook is 22 inches. Virtually all the Jacks returning to PS hatcheries are now less than 22 inches. With very limit fishing impacts on those Jacks and the high exploitation rates on most hatchery stocks those Jacks are over-represented in the escapement.

To the question on how to select for larger fish. The first step would be to limit the number of Jacks used in the brood stock. With the significant surplus fall Chinook returning to most Puget Sound hatcheries it should be straight forward to select for larger 3 and 4 year old fish (and any 5 years one might encounter).

Last year the Samish hatchery escapement was 2.17 times higher than brood stock needs, the George Adams hatchery had an escapement that was 17.1 times higher than brood stock needs, the Hoodsport hatchery had an escapement that was 3.2 times higher than brood stock needs, The Issaquah hatchery had an escapement that was 2.27 times higher than brood stock needs, Soos Creek had an escapement that was 6.34 times the brood stock needs, Voights Creek had an escapement that was 5.7 times brood stock needs, and Tumwater hatchery had an escapement that was 9.73 times than brood stock needs.

Clearly there are fish to be worked with. It should be a simple matter to look at recent data (code wire tags??) to determine the size frequency of say 3 year Chinook might look like. That based on historical data (catch information from say pre-1960) what portion of the run should be 3 year adults. Use that size to cull all adults less than that size (keeping a few jacks). Take the remaining fish; age them and select for the appropriate number of 3 and 4 year old fish while culling the smaller 4 year olds. Based on the code wire data I have looked at on those hatcheries with 5 times the escapement over brood stock one could potentially make egg take needs with 3 year old greater than 28 inches and 4 year fish greater than 31 inches. The other hatcheries might require of second generation of selection to reach those target after which it should be just a matter of paying attention to the brood selection to maintain the desired size/age distribution.

Doable? you bet!
Take more work? Sure but well worth the effort!

The end result would be increase biomass of Chinook for the orcas, increased value of each fish in commercial fisheries; they are paid by the pound, and higher quality of fish in the recreational fishery all without increased rearing cost and not increase adverse hatchery impacts on the wild fish.

Curt

All the selective breeding in the world is not going to let a fish grow to age 4 or 5 at present fishing patterns. They have to live long enough. Regardless of size, what is the age distribution now vs. the 60s? They are getting younger.

Plus, there is a real problem in the ocean with food quality. Size at age is decreasing in recent years due to dietary issues. They need food to eat.

CM -
Without a doubt the Chinook of the region are getting younger. In the case of the Puget Sound hatchery fish the older fish (5 years or more) have all but disappeared. However we still have some 4 year old fish returning to our hatcheries.

For argument sake let's assume that 1/3 of the adults returning to the hatchery rake are 4 years old (and yes the data indicates it may be that low). Not can doubt that if we continue down the current path of non-selection in the hatchery protocols and have 2/3 of the brood being 3 years and 1/3 4 years the overall population will continue to get younger and in a couple decades we may well be looking at a Chinook population with an average age of 3. However we have adequate surpluses back to the various PS hatcheries most years to easily reverse that ratio to 1/3 3 years and 2/3 4 years and in many cases do some selection for the faster growing fish.

And yes I agree that food availability is important. While selective breeding the PS hatchery Chinook is an imperfect solution that only address the hatchery piece it is something that can be done this fall! Ultimately we both would like to see massive reductions in the fishing on the ocean feeding grounds not sure either of us will live long enough to see that. I have not heard how the new Pacific salmon treaty will address this issue but guessing it will not be adequate to reverse the size/age trends. That treaty will sit the standard for the next decade.

I refuse to sit on my hands and watch things to go south. Do you have any suggestions that might provide some benefit to these issues that might actually see implemented?

Curt

It will take action by Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd coupled with the non-fishing public's preference for mammals that will force a change. Fish managers are never going to save the whales.

If you breed for old adults it seems you will get just what WDG got with Summers. "More" big fish but less overall. And that was in the the absence of a marine fishery.

I haven't seen the models but if you applied the same survival rates by age at return it seems that logically the proportion of older fish goes up but the total number goes down as the fisheries still take their whack.

If we want the whales to survive they need food NOW. That benefits the whales immediately as some fish that would be caught now become whale food and the number increases annually. The next easiest way to do that is to cut fishing. The next easiest is to massively increase adult returns by increasing the hatchery plants. This will start to benefit whales 3 years post-stocking as that will be when the first adults come back. The way to pretty much guarantee whale extinction is to only work on habitat as that is decades before any meaningful new members will come back.

JEEBUS.... this thread is SO depressing.

It's kind of like a similar thread more than a dozen years ago lamenting the impending doom of wild PS steelhead. Lots of complaining and hand wringing about mismanagement and what to do. Lots of folks coming to the sad realization that it was truly the beginning of the end. By 2007, they were ESA-listed. With the singular exception of Skagit... and even that is debatable... over a decade later, they're still really no better off.

With chinook, the death spiral was very similar... only the timeline was just a bit more protracted. PS chinook were ESA-listed in March of 1999.... and here we are in March 2018 nearly two decades later, and the fish are still no better off than when first listed.

Chinook are under siege at every life stage from egg to spawning adult. Their spawning and freshwater rearing habitat either degraded, rendered inaccessible, or claimed by urban sprawl. The toxic soup of drugs and chemicals we pour into Puget Sound. Our relentless pursuit of meat for the box exploiting every age class in the big blue pond. And as this thread has so aptly highlighted, the disproportionate exploitation of the old/large phenotype in the ocean feeding grounds. All of these factors have taken their toll. We're unsustainably burning the critter's candle at both ends. It's a wonder that any wild PS chinook still exist!

ESA has been impotent in saving these fish because humankind is incapable of self-restraint. The very existence of our rapidly growing society and our modern lifestyle is incompatible with conserving water quality and habitat in Puget Sound. Despite all the habitat groups working with state and federal habitat agencies, there really is no effective/coordinated effort to save the salmon's home. And unfortunately those charged with actually managing the fish are far more pre-occupied with conserving the FISHERY rather than conserving the FISH itself.

Can we really save the fish from ourselves?

Sadly, the fish don't stand a chance against Pugetropolis.

Geeze, that is so depressing!!! I've been fishing MA11 this year for winter blackmouth, and the fish are SO SMALL!!! My wife Mary used to fish MA9 (Point no Point) with me, and about 1995 she said "I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of Chinook in Puget Sound. Sadly, she was right. It is significant that my largest fish were caught in Canada (Haida Gwai), not Strait of Juan de Fuca. We had nice fishing in the Strait from 2000 to 2012, then decreasing success for marked fish. Last year?? Lousy.
My 14 year old grandson loves to fish with me, but by the time he can buy a boat of his own, all bets are off that there'll be a season for kings in MA11.

The commercial troll fleet has been high grading for ever! They are only allowed so many fish per week. So, all the small ones usually go back dead, and all the big ones get caught! Doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you eliminate all the big ones from the gene pool, you end up with little fish. When they cut into the Kings and see that they are White, or Marbled (yes, there are a lot of Marbled Kings) they get thrown overboard as well, dead, as they don't get nearly as much money for them as they do the Jumbo Reds! Also, the Gill Nets and Purse Seine nets strain out the big fish, contributing to the demise of the larger fish! Sad damn deal!

I have to agree with Carcassman here. The idea of selective breeding came before we even had the hatcheries to do it. My own limited experience at hatcheries they took the biggest bucks in the pool and used those to spawn all the hens.
There is a cost involved with selective breeding as well, both in dollars and in numbers of fish. My Dad invented a self feeding system at a fish farm. Problem was 20% of the fish ate 80% of the food while most of the rest of the fish starved. Our hatchery releases would go way down if we only released 20% of the fish. Would these fish come back larger and have larger offspring? Perhaps. Or maybe they would return as jacks.

Enhancing the rapid growth of yearling releases and/or delaying their release til they reach a larger size DEFINITELY encourages "jacking up" among the males. Maturity and size at release are directly proportional to the rate of precocious puberty.

"Jacking what?????". They have found that some really rapidly growing Chinook males spawn before smolting. They are the only Pacific salmon, to my knowledge , that actually survive the first spawning and spawn again a year later.

It seems that we should have learned (just how many times are you gonna hit that thumb with that hammer?) that all the technological fixes don't, haven't worked for actual salmon recovery. They do allow us to not deal with the real problem. Like yelling "emails, Benghazi" it diverts us from dealing with the real problems because they are very difficult and the solutions are painful.