Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#996987 - 11/16/18 11:52 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The SRKW have a caloric/nutritional need. If the PS fish are smaller, they will need to eat more. But, can they eat enough? Sea lions (in AK) actually got smaller due to shifting food source. AK Chinook are, apparently, dieing on the way back to stream because they lack the calories to sustain life and maturing gonads.

There are huge issues out there, from the ocean to the headwaters and we persistently refuse to look at the whole picture.

Top
#996991 - 11/16/18 12:26 PM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: Smalma]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Smalma
All this talk of feeding the SRKWs by planting ignore some basic biological facts.

Orcas are large animals with the fish eating populations actively selecting for large prey (big Chinook -say 30+#). In addition todays PS hatchery Chinook are quite small (average fish barely breaking the 28 inch barrier. Boosting the return of hatchery Chinook will barely move the needle on increasing the biomass of preferred pry for the resident orcas. In fact planting more hatchery Chinook over the next few years could actual result in fewer orca desired size Chinook.


As always society opts for the appearance of doing something rather than make the sacrifices needed to make desired changes.


Okay, I understand the line of logic that hatchery fish are smaller and arguably don't provide the same caloric benefit of a larger fish given that the level of effort to catch and eat that individual fish is the same. That said, I rapidly fall into my reality check mode.

There has been speculation that even without hatchery fish we have altered Chinook spawning habitat to such an extent that we have created smaller Chinook which can successfully spawn in the remaining, less demanding habitat.

So, without getting embroiled in a discussion about genetically "wild" fish versus mixed-genetics but born out of the gravel fish what is the current average size of hatchery Chinook versus non-hatchery Chinook? And maybe also ask the historic average size of out of the gravel fish versus today's from the same rivers of origin (say, Puget Sound rivers)?

If we were to halt all fishing for Chinook would that generate enough Chinook to meet the needs of SRKW all other factors remaining the same?

And if such a closure were to occur would it significantly reduce the amount of license dollars flowing to WDFW and, if so, would WDFW be forced to reduce or eliminate Chinook propagation and, if so, how would that impact SRKW?
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#997002 - 11/16/18 02:04 PM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4709
Loc: Sequim
...another issue that doesn't get discussed and ties into Larry B's question of "wild" are the actions of the WDF up to the ESA listing of Chinook when WDF was moving millions of eggs/fish out of basin....

From 1980 to 1987, WDF moved over 277,000,000 Chinook out of their basin of origin. These transfers beg the question as to the "wild" status of Chinook in our various river basins. Are the current populations now, for the most part, a locally adapted "natural origin" stock. These numbers are just for WDF facilities and don't include programs that WDF was participating in with federal, educational, and tribal facilities.


Allison Springs 789,295
Coulter Creek 4,363,586
Deer Springs 148,100
Deschutes 39,830,243
Elochoman 6,567,385
Fox Island Pen 1,433,025
Garrison 3,776,792
Geo Adams 18,484,946
Grays River 29,272,110
Green River 3,789,100
Humptulips 1,924,233
Hupp Springs 766,047
Kalama Falls 3,635,134
Klickitat 15,660,165
Lewis 2,116,759
McAllister 9,611,533
McKernan 6,357,796
Minter Creek 10,658,968
Naselle 10,813,359
Nemah 2,397,400
Nooksack 54,418,876
Pautzke Ponds 6,660,442
Puyallup 1,276,800
Ringold 2,950,999
Rocky Reach 1,169,730
S Puget Sound 63,080
Samish 602,777
Satsop Springs 3,692,712
Schorno Springs 9,324,318
Shelton 282,913
Skagit 8,971,152
Skykomish 1,256,659
Sol Duc 163,694
Speelyai 1,741,460
Toutle 902,400
Washougal 11,440,523

Grand Total 277,314,511

Top
#997029 - 11/16/18 04:07 PM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
LarryB-

If the PS resident orcas only needed fish and size did not matter one would think they would do just with sockeye. After all the 2018 forecast for Fraser river sockeye was 14 million fish or roughly 60 times more fish than the PS Chinook forecast.

Curt

Top
#997033 - 11/16/18 04:43 PM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
They need fish 24/7/365.25. Sure they can eat sockeye, from July to September. The early fish are not too common. We had Chinook returning from March/April on through September. Plus, eating one Chinook probably gave you 8 sockeye. Although we are working very hard to reduce the size of Chinook so that they can then be a creek fish and not need those big rivers we need for electricity and so on.

We know they eat other species as they really did a number on Dyes Inlet chum (November/December).

We know that they can identify and prefer Chinook. They evolved that way so there is some biological reason why they need big fat fish in spring/summer/fall.

Top
#997040 - 11/16/18 05:37 PM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: Smalma]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Smalma
LarryB-

If the PS resident orcas only needed fish and size did not matter one would think they would do just with sockeye. After all the 2018 forecast for Fraser river sockeye was 14 million fish or roughly 60 times more fish than the PS Chinook forecast.

Curt


From the several sessions of the Prey Working Group I attended it was clear that SRKW are to some degree opportunistic feeding on what fish are available but with a clear preference for Chinook.

And while I am not disagreeing with the concept that one thirty pound Chinook is better than two 15 pounders or for that matter six 5 pound reds none of this so far addresses the current day realities vis a vis size of hatchery generated Chinook versus out of the gravel Chinook and the associated questions about overall availability of those "wild" fish.

Bottom line is that I am a Doubting Thomas that:

1. The average weight of today's out of the gravel Puget Sound Chinook is significantly larger than its hatchery counterpart and

2. Elimination of hatchery Chinook would in the short run be an overall benefit to recovery of SRKW (or, conversely, that increases in hatchery output would be harmful in the short run to that recovery).

Now, the real question is whether increases in Chinook production will do anything but make for more and fatter seals, cormorants and sea lions.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#997078 - 11/17/18 09:10 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Another item likely not considered is if the Snake River dams are removed then the actual legal need for the Lyons Ferry Hatchery (and probably others) disappears. The hatcheries are mitigation for the dams. No dams, no hatchery. So, the Columbia pinnipeds have more wild fish to eat...

As Larry often says, unless we do something about pinniped numbers any "benefit" in increased salmon numbers gets eaten.

One other aspect, that springs from the SRKW population dynamics tables, is that we know today when the SRKW becomes functionally extinct. It is when the number of reproductive age females is zero. The SRKW modelers should post that date, annually, based on what has occurred over the year. We may have 80 animals, but if 3/4 are male......

Why has the Task Force not laid this out? We have a short time line to turn this around, regardless of what the total population is.

Top
#997080 - 11/17/18 09:44 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Bobber Downey Jr. Offline
Parr

Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 46
Loc: Bellingham, wa
give an orca a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to enjoy seals and feed him for a lifetime.

Top
#997095 - 11/18/18 11:23 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
5 * General Evo Offline
Lord of the Chums

Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6825
Southern residents spend much of the year in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea, and their primary diet is Chinook. The study found that the orcas consume about the same volume of salmon today as they did 40 years ago. It suggests that in today's ecosystem, competition with other marine mammals may be more of a problem for southern residents than competition with human fisheries.


if they consume the same volume of fish from 40 years ago (remember at one point over 95 of them were there), how is it a food problem?

anyways, its time to start shooting sea lions...

https://www.king5.com/article/tech/scien...tOZeDGsgpak5mk4
_________________________
BLM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
ANTIFA IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION


Top
#997108 - 11/18/18 06:15 PM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Jaydee Offline
2010 SRC Champion!

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 1002
Loc: Paradise City!
Harbor seal population is up 7-10fold in Puget Sound from 1970 to 2000. They were considered to be at their eniorments carrying capacity 15 years ago, and have continued trending up beyond that. Some estimates now say that their population is up to three times beyond their environment's (the Salish Sea) carrying capacity today. By comparison, SRKWs are at historical average population and trending down. Coincidence?
_________________________
RIP Tyler Greer. May Your seas be calm, and filled with "tig'ol'bings"!


Top
#997116 - 11/19/18 06:52 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Kind of another way to think about the SRKW. I have been pushing the idea that they need more food. At the other end of the spectrum is that the population balances with the available food. Again, the modelers can tell us just where this is. With, for example, half as many whales there might be enough fish for them to healthy and leave the toxic chemicals stored in the blubber.

The problem will be getting down to that number. Probably should harvest 25-50% of the surplus males.

By allowing them to starve, this is what we are doing.....

Top
#997117 - 11/19/18 08:18 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: Carcassman]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Kind of another way to think about the SRKW. I have been pushing the idea that they need more food. At the other end of the spectrum is that the population balances with the available food. Again, the modelers can tell us just where this is. With, for example, half as many whales there might be enough fish for them to healthy and leave the toxic chemicals stored in the blubber.

The problem will be getting down to that number. Probably should harvest 25-50% of the surplus males.

By allowing them to starve, this is what we are doing.....


Harvest 25-50% of the surplus males? From a biological perspective that may pencil out........beyond that, suggest it at your own peril. eek
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#997118 - 11/19/18 09:37 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
Again, let me emphasize the concerns with salmon fishing in saltwater.

When Pacific salmon are in the ocean, they are in their feeding/growing phase. They will continue to feed and grow until they reach their terminal size, or get caught/eaten by something else.

However, when they return to spawn, they’ve already reached their terminal size. The fish that we target in freshwater, or in the estuary (Buoy 10) as they return, are done growing and feeding.

But not so for Chinook in saltwater. If someone catches a 20lb Chinook, and tosses in the fish box, it ain’t gonna grow to 50lbs, even though it might, if it hadn’t been caught.

So, by fishing in the ocean, we are cutting off years of production by the salmon stocks since they would continue to grow until they reach their terminal size. That’s why we don’t see 100lb Chinook salmon anymore. They don’t grow that big because we catch them before they reach that size.

Okay, so what is the point?

The point is that ocean fishing reduces both the quantity and quality of the Chinook salmon that the SRKW rely on for the majority of their diet. Although our reliance on hatchery Chinook doesn’t help, ocean harvest is an important driver in reducing both the size and the number of Chinook that are returning to spawn (hatchery or wild).

That’s why I really disagree with the suggestion that reducing fishing won’t have much effect on SRKW. Seriously reducing ocean fishing for salmon would really help SRKW, and it would greatly increase the size and number of Chinook that return to spawn in our rivers.

Conversely, fishing in freshwater/estuary has none of these issues. By the time Chinook return to spawn, the SRKW will have already taken what they can, and the adult Chinook will have already reached their terminal size. The fish we target at Buoy 10 are not going to get any bigger. Not so for Chinook salmon in the open ocean.

Top
#997128 - 11/19/18 10:33 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
stonefish Online   content
King of the Beach

Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5203
Loc: Carkeek Park
Anyone know what roll blackmouth play in the Orcas diet versus adult chinook when they are in the sound and straits?

Back in the day when the south sound net programs were going full steam, there were tons of blackmouth to be had.
It seems that program continues to get scaled back for various reasons.

Could the reduced production of blackmouth lead to tougher feeding conditions for the Orcas during the winter months when adult chinook aren't readily available?
SF
_________________________
Go Dawgs!
Founding Member - 2023 Pink Plague Opposition Party
#coholivesmatter

Top
#997131 - 11/19/18 10:49 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: cohoangler]
GodLovesUgly Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1269
Loc: WaRshington
Originally Posted By: cohoangler

So, by fishing in the ocean, we are cutting off years of production by the salmon stocks since they would continue to grow until they reach their terminal size. That’s why we don’t see 100lb Chinook salmon anymore. They don’t grow that big because we catch them before they reach that size.


_________________________
When I grow up I want to be,
One of the harvesters of the sea.
I think before my days are done,
I want to be a fisherman.

Top
#997136 - 11/19/18 11:16 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7412
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
That pretty much sums up what a century of marine mixed stock fisheries did to Chinook and Coho. Made the Chinook smaller and younger, made the coho smaller.

I have seen some of the Tribes argue that the FW habitat can't support more spawners, so eliminating the ocean fishery won't help. Don't see how they can say that because the fisheries in the bays and rivers could take all the surplus, leaving current goals in place, but still giving the SRKW a shot at as many adult fish as possible.

I think, based on where we see them going after fish, that they go after adults, not immatures. The energy needed to catch five five pound fish is a lot more than to catch one 25 pounder. More calories for growth.

Top
#997138 - 11/19/18 11:18 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
5 * General Evo Offline
Lord of the Chums

Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6825
we dont see 100 pound fish anymore because all the genes of the big breeding fish are wiped out....

now we have whats left...

if people would stop killing 50-60 pound boots to stroke their ego, then we may continue to still see some fairly large fish, if not, then, well you know.....
_________________________
BLM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
ANTIFA IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION


Top
#997141 - 11/19/18 11:33 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
To a degree that is correct. The genetic risk is certainly a factor in the reduced age at maturity. But one of the reasons the genetic potential has been lost is that we’ve harvested the fish that carry those genes.

I agree that the habitat ain’t what it used to be, but the habitat risk to the genetic component is indirect. The risk associated with harvest is much more direct; and immediate.

Top
#997213 - 11/20/18 06:58 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: eyeFISH]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
A few months ago I took a look at the composition of the Chinook naturally spawning in PS rivers in recent years. For the years 2012 to 2016 from the Snohomish south (could not find recent escapement break-out for the Skagit and Nooksack) for the aggregate natural spawners 60% were hatchery fish. The majority of the fish being produced from the gravel have hatchery influence. Even more concerning for the same years roughly 20% of those natural spawning hatchery Chinook were Jacks (most less than 22 inches).


Yes the simplification of the river's habitats is reducing the selection for larger Chinook (smaller and more unstable spawning gravel) the fact remains the role of those natural spawning hatchery Chinook are is significant.


Given the recommendation that the whale watching industry be limited for the next few years it is hard to believe that Puget Sound recreational fishing; especially those in mixed stock marine waters will not be in the spot light. I fully expect that during the next NOF discussion serious consideration will be given to season reductions in at least MAs 4 through 7. That in combination with the impact reductions in the northern fisheries under the new US/Canada salmon treaty should provide a few more adult Chinook to the orca's feeding grounds.

The question regarding winter Blackmouth fisheries is interesting. The bulk of the hatchery blackmouth harvested in the fishery are smaller than the desired size by the orcas. The future of that fishery is not given; not harvesting those Chinook as sub-adults clearly reduce the number of potential adults available to the orcas.

I would remind folks we are now in arena where the agenda is being drive as much as emotion as science. Further folks (society) are looking for opportunities that are easier "fixes" rather that long term benefits from things like altering how we as a society continue to impact the habitats required by wild Chinook. Much easier to place the burden on smaller groups of dis-organized individuals like the salmon recreational fishers that attempt to taken on the political power driving for the status quo.

Curt

Top
#997223 - 11/20/18 10:10 AM Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH! [Re: Smalma]
the_chemist Offline
Parr

Registered: 08/18/16
Posts: 44
The parallels to the Atlantic cod fishery seem uncanny. This problem will only be addressed when commercial fishing interests (both native and non) run out of lobbying money. I see this only getting worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFmT8IXGhw&feature=youtu.be


Edited by the_chemist (11/20/18 10:11 AM)

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 1089 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645296 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |