"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?" That is the fundamental question, I will undoubtedly come down on the side that WE can adapt, the Orca most likely cannot.

I agree. The whales, and pinnipeds, and terns, and cormorants, and and and have to eat fish. But, if we get rid of THEM there are more fish for US. Simple choice..........................

Getting rid of them is the opposite side of the same coin that we played in order to get the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Were there unintended consequences from that attempt for man to control nature? Mind you, there were some intended consequences that were achieved as well, but in retrospect, the unintended ones outweighed the intended.

There are a lot of unintended consequences; and they often appear years after the actual action.

Japanese whaling in the N Pacific post WWII led to Killer Whales eating Sea Otters in the 80s and 90s. There are a lot of things like that.

What has been the ecological change that has accompanied our fisheries on subtidal and deepwater shellfish, deepwater fin fish, oceanic pelagic fish?

There are so many of these things that have gone on that we haven't really looked at; we just assume no damage.

Let me politely say that you have added the qualifier of "enough" to the discussion. Other than fishermen exactly whose ox has been gored?

And while SRKW don't care whether a Chinook is clipped or not the burden of having produced those fish - particularly in P.S. - has been born by recreational fishers.

So, our ox is being triple gored. We provide the fish, we pay to have them clipped so that we can harvest them while minimizing impact to ESA listed Chinook, and then it seems we continually see our P.S. Chinook seasons reduced (well, MA 11 and 13 did pretty well this year). And now the activists and others perceive that the few fish we actually do harvest should be re-allocated to solve the Orca starvation phenomenon (which the numbers clearly tell anyone with half a brain will not solve the problem).

So, if a significant year around closure of inland P.S. Chinook fishing is implemented for the foreseeable future should WDFW simply quit producing Chinook for release into Puget Sound? And if the initial answer is to continue to produce them why should that occur with fish account monies??

Since one of the major causes of lower wild Chinook populations is development maybe there should be a State tax on property value and use it as impact money to fund habitat improvement and pay for any non-harvestable Chinook production.

I am sure that in one way or another that is a slippery slope but I am quite tired of being the low hanging fruit in this mess.

The primary marine mixed stock fishery to be closed is AK, BC, and ocean. Some serious investigation would need to be made, based known distribution, to see whether or not inland PS fisheries on juveniles catch SRKW food.

Yes, the recs provide lots of funding to produce the fish, as do ratepayers for mitigation production.

If you make the argument that "my" reduction is too small to notice then most of the actions will be similarly exempt as it is not one single thing that has put the SRKW in the bind they are in, it is a whole collection of cuts.

Closing the mixed stock fisheries gets them food NOW. The only other action that will get them food NOW is killing pinnipeds. All the rest, whether not be increased hatchery production, improved habitat, dam removal, pollution reduction will have benefits 5-10 years or more out. I don't the whales have 5-10 years.

Rec fishers already have plenty of skin in the game primarily in the P.S. region.

You apparently chose to not respond to my question about who else besides fishers have had their ox gored other than ratepayers tied to their direct impacts.

Look, I like to see Orcas and believe they need and deserve the support of all of those people who have adversely impacted them.

You mentioned pinnipeds and I simply shook my head at the TV news story this week of the harbor seal pup "saved" at Ocean Shores by well meaning folks who had it in a bathtub at a hotel. That pup was subsequently raised by a rehab facility and recently released with an entourage to include a seal volunteer who had earlier weighed and marked the pup. There he was in a yellow jacket with WDFW Volunteer on the back. Point being that with that type of visibility it is no wonder WDFW staff has been trying to minimize the undeniable benefits of lethal removal of pinnipeds. Oh the horrors! Well, that is a perfect example of a choice: pinnipeds or Orcas.

In my opinion we can't generate enough food for Orcas without reducing pinniped competition. And the most recent studies make that point with pinnipeds taking six times the P.S. Chinook than what all fishers harvest. And going back to 2002 there are findings in scientific articles that removal of pinnipeds (primarily seals) at river mouths would reduce impact on threatened salmon. I've beaten that drum several times and NOAA/Congress need to fix the MMPA to prioritize the ESA over the MMPA.

I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on whether all others who have adversely impacted Orcas have had their ox gored to the extent of rec fishers. From my perspective those others need to step up and bear their fair share of the burden.

Any property owner with salt or stream frontage has had their ability to use their property radically altered. Own property next to the water? Can't increase the footprint of whatever is already there. A 600 sq ft cabin, built in 1940 (which we had) can be rebuilt if the resultant footprint is not increased. Want to add an outside stairway to the house? Nope. Expands impervious area (happened to our neighbor).

Might as Rivrguy just how much his employers lost in foregone timber harvest, added costs of operation, due to salmon. Not that these are necessarily bad ideas, but they aren't free. Agricultural irrigators have lost water.

I agree that pinniped predation is excessive. And, unless it is dealt with even closures, expansion of hatchery production and such will not benefit the whales.

Perhaps because I am not a boat-based angler, really don't enjoy fishing (and chumming) from a boat that IF all the ocean mixed stock salmon fisheries that target immatures were closed the harvestable fish would simply pass through to rivers, where I would be perfectly happy to fish for them.

It will be interesting to see how "fair share" gets evaluated. I am sure that a lot of folks here would love to see, for example, the six Cowlitz and Lewis river dams removed to benefit wild salmonids, whales, the whole ecolsystem. Now, the folks who get electricity from those dams might not see dam removal as fair, the downstream land owners who get flooded might have a beef, and the folks who recreated on the reservoirs would howl (as they did on Elwha).

The problem with any meaningful recovery of wild salmon and SRKW, plus wolves and grizzlies in the Lower 48 is that such meaningful recovery will require significant changes to all our lives. Some obvious (no fishing) while others are more subtle (higher electrical bills, nuclear power, importing food from Mexico). Given the overall costs, we're not gonna do it.

I would add that most, if not all, the reductions in catch of salmon are related tp Boldt and ESA listings. SRKW's haven't been added in yet.

I have mentioned previously that one of the major problems with salmon recovery is the breadth of the problem. Terrestrial habitat destruction, loss of spawning and rearing habitat, loss of estuaries, loss of food in the ocean, changes in ocean conditions, changes in predator numbers, loss of genetic diversity, and the list goes on. Everybody can claim the "I've done enough, it's your turn" and be reasobably correct. So, in the end, we get where we are now which os nothing meaningful will get done because it too politically expensive to fix.

You are absolutely correct that timber land owners, both corporate and family operated, farmers, and simply land owners adjacent to rivers and salt water have been been impacted although those were not specifically for Orca recovery. My bad.

But when it comes to across the board acknowledgement that the development we have all participated in and enjoyed has had significant adverse impact on Orca health we will not see any willingness on our State citizens or legislators to effect a pivotal change. Rather, they will continue to peck at the most visible and least represented players.

And that perspective also applies to NOAA and our Federal government when it comes to the MMPA versus the ESA. Will they have an epiphany and take the necessary action to prioritize recovery of ESA listed species over those healthy marine mammal species protected under the MMPA?

Reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Unfortunately, ESA is a luxury item. We are all for it when the animal to be saved causes me no harm. I don't eat Great Whales, so stop killing them. I don't live in Africa or India so leave the lions and tigers and elephants and giraffes and gorillas and such alone.

I do hike the High Cascades (I don't but just for effect) so I don't want grizzlies there as they may eat me. Not that at least one of the Spring brothers, who wrote about hiking those areas, was opposed to grizzlies for just that reason.

The list goes on. We like deer, except in out gardens. We like geese, except in our parks.

I think the idea of saving species works when you can essentially wall off an area, preferably not really valuable real estate like beaches for sea turtles to nest on, and have them there. Wolves and grizzlies and bison are fine inside Yellowstone. Just keep them there, even if that is too small an area for a population to be sustainable.

We are rather schizoid, though, in that we are trying to have salmon wild everywhere; above dams, in downtown Seattle and Tacoma, and so on. We have some serious decisions to make IF we want these beasts around.

They (NOAA) will do nothing about pinnipeds (too many seal-hugger voters) until somebody, which will probably have to be the tribes, takes them to court with a kill them or pay us for our lost fishing rights case. It will be ESA vs. MMPA vs. Treaty Rights. Wonder which way the Trump Court will vote.

I'd pay for a seat at the Supreme Court to hear those arguments!

I have a feeling that the Tribes would never actually take a case to court. While the rewards of winning are great, there are great problems if they lose.

A guy that worked for old Simpson as a project added the cost of RMZ set backs on timber, farm, residential and lost production whatever limited to his life expectancy and it was about 500,000 million for the Chehalis Basin. You see the courts and congress got innovative and decided that enviro laws outcome are the landowners loss. If you read the federalist papers you will get the idea that ain't no way that matches the founders intent. So we argue on about such things that we should not. Simple fact is the government is not supposed to take people's stuff without compensation. Solve that problem and the opposition to needed enviro laws goes away. Folks get a little excited about others hijacking their money.

Rivrguy, I see it as slightly different. My upstream neighbor does something on his land that impacts my land negatively and I am not compensated for it. Landowners have value AND responsibility. That is the foundation of a civilized society.

https://www.goskagit.com/opinion/letters...e62a019c24.html

I hope you can all see what's in the link. Feel free to leave a comment, I did.

Unfortunately that is another example of folks spouting suggestions for which there is no supporting data. At the first Prey working group session one lady made the recommendation that seals should be given birth control. Scary.

Even if birth control worked, which it doesn't, that just leaves predation at the current level. Hear that about suburban deer all the time.

Yes, lots of practical aspects for which she had given no consideration not the least of which was could consuming treated seals adversely impact reproduction of Transient Orcas.

Now, about those suburban deer and their penchant for my tomato plants - some of which look like remnants of Mississippi Gulf Coast trees after Katrina. Had to chase a doe and twins off the back patio this afternoon. Yellow begonia flowers for dessert.

I my lot was a little larger................ We built an 8' fence around the veggies and apple trees. Deer ate the tomato plants to the stems. We have a herd of about 10-15 that pas through on a semi-regular basis. Would be tasty, no shoot zone.