The next meeting of the Orca Task Force will be at the Swinomish Casino on Tuesday, August 28.

The following information was drafted by Ron Garner, PSA State Board President and a member of the Task Force.

As a member of the Prey Working Group, Ron raises valid concerns and input from the fishing community is needed.

Here's a link to an article about the Chasco report from the NW Sportsman magazine.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/seals-sea-lions-outcompeting-orcas-anglers-for-chinook/



Information on the Orca Task Force meeting Tuesday August 28.

We need your comments. Our voice is not being heard and the non- fishing folks are stating that fishing needs to be stopped to save the orcas. Stopping fishing will not save the orcas or the salmon. If you cannot make the Orca Task Force meeting in Anacortes on Tuesday, please comment using the links below. We also need you to comment to the WDFW Commission at the link below on hatchery production increases needed. This is one of those meetings that if you are not at the table you are on the table!
Meeting is from 10:00 am to 5:30 PM You may stay and see the entire meeting.
Public Testimony is at 4:30-If you wish to speak you need to sign in at the front desk. You will probably be limited to 2 minutes. They need to hear from you.

Issues we are not in agreement with:
1. No clear evidence that our presence (vessel noise) on fishing grounds are driving the orcas away-if you have ever had them chasing salmon around your boat while fishing, please mention that. One study says that the SRKWs use about 50-80kHz frequency. We can and will change our frequency to the 200 setting when Orcas are present. We have been present for most of the Orcas life on their feeding grounds. They don't know an existence without fishing boats.
2. Media is blaming fishing for the SR Orca demise and stopping fishing is their answer. When interviewed they omit our view.
3. There are studies including some by NOAA that show that stopping sport fishing is not going to recover the salmon/Orcas.
4. WDFW and leads are trying to say that through scat samples, harbor seals do not eat that many salmon percentage wise and downplaying dealing with Pinnipeds (seals and Sea Lions). They are not being addressed as a problem due to scat samples showing that salmon is a very small percentage of their diet. It's the massive numbers of harbor seals eating salmon that is the problem. Harbor seals in the Puget Sound are wiping out our salmon runs. Both when they are smolt coming through the river systems and out into the salt and when they return as adults. Think of locusts. In small numbers they are not very harmful but is swarms they have devastated huge amounts of crops and caused hardships on early settlers.
5. A tagged steelhead study was done in the Puget Sound with 5 rivers. 8-9 of every 10 smolt had their tags show up in scat. That Is 80-90% killed by seals alone!
6. Predation by birds and seals consume over 10 million smolt before they get to the saltwater, info backed by NOAA.
7. WDFW does not want to have to deal with the pinniped issue and is trying to keep it off of the table. It needs to go back on the table and the Chasco paper has to be used as it is a scientific study by scientists. Chasco Paper has to go back on the table.
8. We need to demand salmon hatchery production increases to save both the salmon and our SR Orcas. Save the salmon save the Orcas.
9. We have cut back our Coho and Chinook salmon hatchery production 160 million fish since 1992 in Washington State. Add the 30 Million cut in Oregon to it and that brings it up 190 million.
10. British Columbia and Alaska take approximately 60% of our salmon.
11. Pinnipeds, Northern fisheries (BC and Alaska), and hatchery cuts (ESA, HSRG, and funding cuts) have endangered our salmon runs to the point that we, tribes, commercials, and recreational, are hardly fishing any more. It took the starving Orcas for people to finally realize what we have been preaching is correct.
12. The WDFW Commission suspended 3 points of the Hatchery Science Review Group Policy to be able to take additional eggs for increased hatchery production. Voted 9-0, Next meeting they realized the harm that pinnipeds are doing and passed a policy to give flexibility to WDFW in Pinniped management.

Please bring this up. You may comment online to the task force here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/srkwtfpubliccomment

Please also send comments to Gov. Jay Inslee
https://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/contact/contact-gov-inslee

Also the WDFW commission needs to hear from you on their motion to increase hatchery production up 50 million Chinook smolts. We have done the opposite for 10 years now. It's time to try it the other way. The Orcas have to be fed. Please comment to the commission at commission@dfw.wa.gov and tell them you want to see the 50 million increase in the 3 safe areas that do not harm wild fish.

Letter Received from one of our respected colleagues that we have been working with Brett Rosson:

I'm concerned that those of us with an understanding of the fishery in Marine Area 7, and fisheries management in general, are being shut out. From what I have observed, we are up against for-gone-conclusions, and that the Prey Availability moderator/facilitator is unilaterally choosing which viewpoints to advance and which to disregard or cast aside. She does this regardless of the available science and well-reasoned group member objections. In a nutshell, I think we are being intentionally sidelined and it worries me.
Not being part of the task force or any working group allowed me to roam from room to room and listen to the discussions being held. The groups were attempting to distill the proposed action items and find agreement. I was taken aback by what I observed: Individually many of the group members have knowledge in their field, but the problem is many feel qualified to suggest actionable ideas of which they have no background or understanding. They weigh in on matters for which they have zero technical and scientific knowledge, and they often have no way of backing up some of the ideas or recommendations they put forth. It's nothing short of astounding.

To name just a few:

Outlaw downriggers to limit the ability of fisherman to catch king salmon.
A 5-year moratorium on all fishing, up to Alaska, in order to allow chinook to get to the SRKW.
Require fishing boats to use electric motors because they will be quieter and produce no exhaust.
Curtail recreational fishing not just in Marine Area 7, but in 5-11, because the salmon that the whales eat are everywhere.
Require all recreational fisherman to acquire limited entry permits allowing them to fish on certain days only.

One member (a San Juan County Commissioner) was mad at the commercial fishing going on at Eagle Point this past week. He stated that they were "taking all the fish." During a brief sidebar, I pointed out to him that they were tribal boats who were sockeye fishing and not targeting kings. He didn't care for my explanation and insisted they were catching fish that the Orca could eat! He got quite agitated and emphatically stated that '15 miles of no-go zone was not going to save the SRKW' and that much more was needed. To note, the best available science points to SRKW feeding on adult chinook, not sockeye, and the primary foraging grounds are no longer the west side of San Juan Island, as it has been in the past, but well to the west and other areas in the straight and sound.

Penny Becker led discussions on Prey Availablity but was far from a neutral facilitator. With each group, she introduced the idea of shutting down geographical areas to fishing that historically support SRKW foraging. She then would give a "for instance" and suggest the west side of San Juan Island. She would further add that this action would work in concert with vessel restrictions in the same area, but that the vessel working group was assigned this specific task. She makes no attempt to hide her agenda and is quite intentional in her 'steering' of the separate working groups toward her own goal of seeing the west side closed to recreational harvest and fishing boats. A point to note is that when one of the group members brought up the fact that this would require all user groups to comply, she suggested that if the recreational boats where kept from the area, and not the tribal, that somehow this would entice the tribes to do the same for fear of "looking bad." This shows she is either painfully naive or blinded by her own agenda.

Kevin Ranker's comments in the vessel working group room really concerned me. He openly stated that we should disregard Phil Anderson's assurances that 1. A higher number of migrating fish could be expected due new to Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements with the Canadians. And, 2.That a re-worked 10-year management plan would further restrict harvest throughout the Puget Sound marine areas. Further, Kevin went on to state that the task force should immediately move forward with harvest cuts, concentrating on area 7, because "we have been listening to Phil tell us for years that cuts to recreational harvest are coming, and yet nothing has yet happened'. Given that I have been involved in the North of Falcon process for the last 10 years and have been witness to nothing but annual reductions in harvest opportunity, I call BS on Kevin's point. What astounds me is that Kevin and many others refuse to acknowledge this point. We have 104 fewer days of Chinook fishing when compared to 5 years ago and yet this does not seem to register with folks on the task force. I heard on group member put it this way though, and I couldn't agree more. He stated 'why would we continue to go down the path of harvest reductions as a way to help save the SRKW when based on the last 10 years of reductions, it hasn't helped?" To expect different results from further cuts is lunacy and a waste of time, not to mention it will only serve to hurt recreational opportunity, industry, and businesses throughout Puget Sound.

I know that the design of the task force discussions is based on the marketplace of ideas. The intention is that good, reasonable, and workable solutions will rise to the top and be implemented, while others will sink to the bottom. What worries me first, is that some of these crazy suggestions, ideas, and notions will take hold, and second, that individual or group agendas will find their way to the governor's desk and be written into law.

This is a case of the snake biting its own tail.

The various "fishing organizations" have gotten so intertwined in the fishery management, and have created so many sub-committees filled with "experts" (commonly known as the "fish mafia") that we are seeing the results of all their in-fighting and grandstanding come to fruition.

This, combined with the absolutely inept and corrupt senior leadership in WDFW and the continued culture of secrecy in all the back room deals they make, it is easy to see that the fishery management, especially where sport fishing is concerned, is completely off the rails.

Instead of a united front, which is only accomplished through trust, transparency and true cooperation, WDFW as well as the sport fishing organizations have lead us into a "Us vs Them" culture, perpetuated by capitulation, appeasement and incompetency.

We will reap what we have allowed them to sow...

Comments submitted.
SF

It is really a simple question. What do we want? We know, or could calculate, how many SRKW are necessary to have a self-sustaining population not in danger of extinction. We could calculate how many adult, because that is what they eat, fish are needed. And so we.

We start from the premise that we need to change the management of existing operations. Fish differently, run hatcheries differently, restore habitat.

Just for fun (and using made up numbers) we want 100 SRKW is the Salish Sea. To get that, they need 1,000,000 adult salmon, divided up as 500,000 Chinook (spring, summer, fall, winter), and 250,000 each coho and chum adults. To produce these in the wild, Let's say the R/S is 2:1, for calculation sake. One spawner for each two recruits. That 500K Chinook would require 250K spawners if there was no fishing until after the SRKW were through with them.

We don't want SRKW's badly enough to remove the pinniped predators, eliminate the fisheries pre-SRKW access, and repair/manage the ecosystem so that the fish could be produced.

We want to save species if it is reasonably convenient. Salmon and SRKW are extremely inconvenient because of fisheries we have (including forage-fish fisheries), the desire to keep growing our population, and our rather total unwillingness to reduce our societal footprint.

This is the biggy. A predator that high in the food chain needs a lot MORE environmentally speaking than just its primary food. There are many many drivers for their extinction that are WAY outside the realm of the scope of this task force. It's all a bunch of feel-goodery and nonsense. I would say it is a band-aid except for the sad fact it is NOT EVEN a band-aid.

You want SRKW to survive? Lets fix the Puget Sound ecosystem for all species in the food web... that would be a start.

We want to save things when it is convenient. Used to have grizzlies in what is now downtown LA. Think the folks in SoCal want them anywhere near? The SRKW simply require too much. It will be interesting to see how the politicians scramble as more whales starve.

Another interesting tidbit is that the very first purpose of ESA, as condifoed by Congress, is the protect and restoration of the ecosystems the species depend on. Not to come up with bandaids to keep them alive, but to fix and retain the ecosystems they depend on.

And that certainly raises the question of whether the SRKW have a long term future as the population of the State and particularly the Puget Sound region continues to grow at a rapid pace.

Unless we deal with population of humans, locally, nationally, and globally we have already decided thefutuire of natural resources.

Not to decide is to decide.

It's not just the fish managers. It's all of us. The managers, though, have too clearly identify it as a problem.

So how was the meeting? Did anyone go?

It was interesting. Lots of attendees plus the Task Force proper. Lots of pressure from the public to remove the Snake River dams. Some discussion about pinniped consumption of salmon. Seems to be a reluctance from gov't agencies to give serious consideration about removal of some of the pinniped population in Puget Sound. Not sure the Columbia R federal legislation is going to make it out of the Senate this year. Lots of discussion about vessel impacts. Sen. Ranker wants to charge for vessel permits, both comm'l whale watchers and recreational vessels. Increase safe zone areas around whales. Possible safe zones for the whales. Request for SRKW to have dedicated amount of salmon before any fishing numbers set. Need to look at increased hatchery production. Lots of talk, but no decisions yet. Task Force has a couple of extra weeks to make their report. Going to be problematical for legislation to be introduced. It's going to be a challenging process on all fronts.

What does that even mean? Restrict how many kids people can have? Kill people? Make everyone live in North Dakota so the rest of the US can regenerate? Who is it that is not deciding? Those that chose to have kids? Seems like they made a pretty conscience decision.

In many parts of the world the population will start shirking in the coming decades and currently in the US we are below replacement level in reproduction, for the past 10 years. Historically, population declines are bad news, so, if you get your wish, how the fish are doing will be the least of our worries.

I too attended the Task force meeting.

The public turned out in large numbers and with them a lot of passion. Guessing that there were more than 250 from the public;; approximately 160 signed up to speak (only 30 or so had a chance to speak).

My notes basically distilled the discussions down to 3 broad topics.
1) How many orcas are needed?

2) A new ecological paradigm for recovery planning is needed.

3) Bold actions are needed.

The work sessions were interesting with a wide range of topics covered. However a common theme was looking at actions for the short and long terms. Unfortunate many of the short term actions seem to be those with little political or economic cost meaning that even though of the potential actions many of those with most likely benefits to the orcas are being kicked down the road.


To no one surprise that bulk of "bold actions" being advocated by those who would not be directly affect them. Classic it is the other guys fault.

It appears to me that process and its resulting reports will be producing a comprehensive list of actions that if implement would provide benefits to the orcas. It is obvious that the future of the orca is directly linked to the future of PS Chinook. The last couple decades of ESA recovery efforts has clearly illustrated that society as a hold is not willing to invest in meaningful recovery actions. It is hard to expect better success for the orcas. In the short term it seems to me that if those southern resident orcas are continue to persist they will have to become a coastal population with only infrequent visits to Puget Sound.

I think if I had been allowed to speak I would have used my two minutes to asked the following question. Clearly the future of the orcas is depended on societal support for the various "bold actions" needed. That does not currently exist and it is my opinion that it takes grass root efforts to build support for those actions and the associated costs. My question to the audience would have been proposing "bold actions" is easy what is hard is to modify our own actions (how we live, where we live, etc.) to have less impacts on the listed species. With the future of the orcas and the Chinook so closely linked my question is as each of look in the mirror every morning what have done to improve conditions for those Chinook.


It is with saddens that I have report that I'm no more optimistic about the future of the orcas and the Chinook than I was last week before the meeting.

Curt

The earth has a finite amount of available resources; water, land, minerals, and so on. It is a zero-sum game. As has been shown time and again over the millennia, as the human population increases natural resources decrease. Carrying Capacity.

So, yes, in the long term, IF you want certain levels of fish and wildlife, and trees, and deserts, and fish then there will need to be fewer people. Just look at places like India, Africa, and much of developed Asia. Resources doing well there? We in North America have not caught up, yet. But we're trying.

First, we have to decide what it is we value on this earth. IF it is natural resources THEN we take action to ensure their survival and the currently available solutions are societally unpopular.

I don't have a solution, but we do need to consider the topic.

Smalma

I remember while working that the reason for salmon and steelhead declines was always the other guy. Even within my circle of co-workers it was so. If you were in harvest management, the problem was habitat and poorly used hatcheries. If you were in hatcheries, it was poor harvest management and poor habitat. In habitat, the problem was those hatcheries and harvest.

Part of the whole issue with salmon is that there are a myriad of problems and no one is the silver bullet to solve the issue. IF, for example, we closed all the open fisheries would there be enough salmon going upstream to leave the dams alone? Probably. IF we took out all the dams would there be enough salmon to fish as we want. Probably.

Nobody is willing to let their ox be gored until all the other oxen are coverted to steaks and burgers.

Precisely!

Talk is cheap, action, especially on something that impacts you negatively is much, much harder.

Put the Orca on one side of the scale. Now, put all the special interests on the other.

Start to remove special interests like; commercial fishing, watershed conservation, non-select fishing in terminal area's, dams...well you get the idea.

Now imagine trying to wade through the MASSIVE AMOUNTS of committee meetings, election impacts, sovereign nations litigation, lobbying and it's very easy to realize:

The fish, and the Orca's are as good as extinct already.

Man will not change, until he has no other option. And in our current system, there are just too many decision makers and too many options to make any appreciable change before a collapse.

Really? No question in my mind that that statement totally ignores hits sport and NT commercial fishermen have taken in terms of reduced seasons and quotas on Chinook. Then there is the whole marked selective effort to protect and recover wild Chinook on top of the cost to produce those fish - at least in P.S. primarily paid for out of sport generated revenues to WDFW. I know I am preaching to the choir but those facts seem to be lost in the cacophony of the working groups and Task Force.

Having attended two of the Prey Working Group sessions I will second the opinion offered earlier in this thread about Government reps trying to move the discussion away from the need to reduce pinniped impacts. I will be more direct; it was WDFW staff. Given the huge impact of that predation the need to reduce pinniped numbers and thereby pinniped predation should have been given a higher "rating" even if there are acknowledged footnotes re: MMPA. Call that intellectual honesty.

The published matrix includes a recommendation for NOAA to study pinniped populations and come up with a number which can be removed. Only now?? Another study??? Not withstanding the MMPA this is a so-called emergency and they call for another study? Why not rely upon the information in Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-99 which cited a 1999 inland population of 13,692 seals and opined that there could be a reduction of 20% and still be above Maximum Net Productivity Level. Doing the math that would set a retention number of 10,954 animals. That paper further opined that "From our analysis, selective removal of harbor seals around river mouths is unlikely to affect the status of harbor seal populations in Washington State."

I will opine that reducing pinnipeds should benefit wild Chinook recovery as well as ESA listed rockfish recovery.

Finally, I found it painful to watch a TV interview of a woman in an Orca suit self-described as an "activist." Cute suit but absolutely no substance and she gets air time.

If you haven't looked at the matrix it is nearly 100 pages in length.

Larry

I have to disagree about fisheries being reduced "enough". Yes, they have been significantly cut back, beginning with Boldt (when half the fish were lost) and continuing into the present.

But, mark selective fisheries are meaningless to SRKW. They eat an ad-clipped Chinook just as well as a non-ad-clipped. Plus, until the SRKW are not starving, any human-induced mortality (fishery, land-use, dams, pollution, pinniped hugging) keeps them starving. If you can show me that every immature salmon that would survive a full marine mixed stock shut down does not make it to where the SRKW's have a shot at them, then I will agree that the fishery has been cut back enough. Even if the fishery on immatures were eliminated completely there would still be fisheries on adults once they have passed the whales by.

The rec side, especially, is getting the short end of many sticks. Primarily because they are out-lobbied and out-spent.

Carcassman, your post above is right on. We love to fish, we love to eat fish, the industry loves that we spend money on that we love. But, it is a choice we make. If the fishery was shut down, it would suck but I would not die. If there are not enough chinook the Orca dies. Reminds me of the old story about a bacon and egg breakfast, the hen is interested, the pig is committed! I can see a future where we only have fisheries in the terminal areas and the rivers. Because of the lower quality of those fish for eating, we likely will have more C&R. And so it goes......

That's kind of the conundrum we find ourselves in. With very minor exceptions, salmon fishing until little more than a century ago was on adults in terminal areas. They were what we ate, too.

Then, we changed our ways. Having been deeply involved in salmon management I know that the economic benefit to society is higher when we chase the fish in the ocean. More gear, more fuel, more travel expense. It all adds up to big money. That was why, even 40 years ago, that PS spring Chinook were rather deliberately overfished. They were a very minor component of the fishery on immature Chinook. May have been a big chunk of their own runs, but small potatoes in the big picture.

If we were to eliminate the marine mixed stock fisheries it would be economically devastating to BC and AK coastal communities. Are whales more important?