BBC news article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19349265

Search for the culprit
“King salmon is Alaska's state fish, but the species thrives from the Bering Strait to as far south as Ventura River, California.
California saw healthy king returns this summer, leading some researchers to cite a cyclical change in ocean temperatures known as Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) as a possible culprit.

Unfortunately for the salmon fishermen, PDO can last up to three decades.

According to one theory, PDO has reduced king salmon's food supply in oceans off Alaska, while at the same time replenishing stocks in California, Oregon and Washington.”


Wouldn’t that be a twist of fate.

We catching Alaskan salmon feeding in our area instead of Alaskan and BC catching our salmon feeding in their area.

Thirty years would be just a crying shame.

If you look at the PDO data and scale samples taken from AK lakes, you'll see a correlation in population sizes over the 25/30 cycle. Good fishing in AK reflects no so good in lower 48 and vice versa.

Looks like we might be entering some good years. See links below:


http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm

I still think it is mainly a harvest problem.

The commercial guys just got bailed out by the Fed. Seems strange to me that the user group likely most responsible for the decline, gets financial help from the govt for a lack of the resource they (we) depleted.

The PDO will affect overall abundance. The number of fish on the spawning grounds is determined by the managers.

If it was a high priority to ensure that the subsistence users had their needs met first, then it would happen. Since that is not a high priority, it won't happen. There's no money or votes in making sure they get their fish.

Coley -
If indeed marine survivals are declining harvest is an issue. Declining marine survival means lower productivity of the stocks which equates to them being able to support less fishing. However even when harvest levels are adjusted the stock productivity will not change (lots of evidence of that here in the lower 48).

In other words while harvest is a short term problem it is not the underlying issue. If indeed we are looking at a PDO shift expect less fishing/harvest in Alaska.

Of course the flip side of that coin is that us here in Washington may be entering a period of more productive stocks - see comments on the Lake Washington coho thread.

CM -
The potentially good news is that if enter a period of more productive stocks keeping harvest rates at the same level (or even some minor increases) will automatically result in more fish on the spawning grounds.

Curt

HARVEST ALWAYS MATTERS!

MSY be dammed, there is never any point in allowing exploitation rates to EVER exceed 50%.

That is just human greed, pure and simple, and MSY is just a way to justify it.

Personally I'd like to see all fished populations managed for no greater than 33% exploitation of total adult production. One for man... two for the gravel.

Forever and ever amen.

Sustainable

PERIOD

FishDoc - You mean well, but an exploitation rate of 33% is enormous. And too simplistic.

There are some stocks in the Columbia where the exploitation rate is 2% (e.g., Upper Columbia springers). That is, of the UC springer adults entering the Columbia River, only 2% can be taken in the fishery (Tribal, commerical and recreation combined). In fact, the only Columbia River stock that I'm aware of that can withstand a harvest rate of 33% is hatchery tule fall Chinook.

I agree that we MUST harvest at a rate that is sustainable (which is the point of your post), but basing it on a single number is too simplistic.

The total exploitation rate must include the ocean harvest, not just the in river terminal fishery harvest. I'm guessing that the numbers on springers are a lot worse than 2% if we include the harvest prior to the entering our rivers.

I was referring to healthy fishable populations of salmon.

For the record... ESA-listed Upriver CR spring chinook are fished at a 15% exploitation rate... non-treaty share of that is 2%.

Note that I used the words "no greater than" and "NOT to exceed"... less is fine by me.

Sorry AK, its our turn...

awesome

Most "healthy" populations are exploited at rates of 60-80%.

The problem is that lots of unhealthy ones continue to be exploited at those same rates.

A chinook population w/ half ass decent habitat can be expected to produce 3 pre-harvest adult recruits per spawner. Right now, we take 2 leaving 1 for the gravel. That's EXACTLY how it works for the Queets, the index population for WA Coastal chinook in the Pacific Salmon Commission database.

Imagine what it would be like if we turned that around.... taking only 1 and leaving 2 for the gravel.

Dreamin.....

like compound interest. They keep stealing the principle.