#996987 - 11/16/18 11:52 AM
Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH!
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7441
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
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]
|
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]
|
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7441
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7441
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]
|
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]
|
Lord of the Chums
Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6829
|
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]
|
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7441
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
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.
_________________________
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]
|
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]
|
King of the Beach
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5207
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
|
|
|
|
#997136 - 11/19/18 11:16 AM
Re: SRKW's... the TRUTH!
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7441
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]
|
Lord of the Chums
Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6829
|
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]
|
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]
|
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]
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
271
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63783 Topics
645430 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|