Just received this in the email. Is this simply an attempt to avoid having other meetings be public or is this the start of some recognition that they can't stay behind closed doors?

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

March 27, 2018
Contact: Michelle Dunlop, 360-902-2255

State, tribes to host public discussion on salmon in Lynnwood

OLYMPIA – Anglers, commercial fishers, and others interested in salmon in Washington can take part in an informal discussion with state and tribal fish managers on April 3.

The public meeting is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the Lynnwood Embassy Suites, 20610 44th Ave. W., Lynnwood.

The plenary session takes place during the annual salmon season-setting process known as North of Falcon, which includes a series of public meetings involving federal, state, tribal and industry representatives as well as other concerned citizens.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will meet with the public earlier in the day on April 3 to consider proposals for potential recreational and non-treaty commercial salmon fishing seasons this year. Those discussions will continue in the late afternoon.

Representatives of the state's treaty tribes will join state fish managers after lunch to discuss with the public a variety of salmon-related issues including conservation objectives for Puget Sound chinook salmon, habitat restoration efforts and salmon fisheries. The public will be invited to ask questions after brief opening remarks by the state and tribal co-managers.

The annual process of setting salmon fishing seasons is held in conjunction with public meetings conducted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The council is responsible for establishing fishing seasons in ocean water 3 to 200 miles off the Pacific coast.

The PFMC is scheduled to adopt final ocean fishing seasons and harvest levels at its April 6-11 meeting in Portland, Ore. The 2018-19 salmon fisheries package for Washington's inside waters is expected to be completed by the state and tribal co-managers during the PFMC's April meeting.

Information about the salmon season-setting process, as well as a list of other meetings, is available on WDFW's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.

SeaDNA--the only way to know for certain involves attending the session yourself...and then, get back to us...so that we can all be enlightened.

FYI this is today. I was hoping to make it, but not sure if I can.

So, I was able to attend. Here's my summary:

1. Lots of talk about the need for different user groups (tribal, non-tribal, commercial, sport) to band together and show unity, including by pressuring the feds and Washington's congressional delegation to push against Alaskan/Canadian harvesters.

2. Lots of talk about how habitat is the biggest culprit, or at least the one culprit that all fishing user groups should be able to agree on.

3. A fair amount of agreement that there are too many non-human, non-Orca predators (e.g., seals, cormorants). The tribes' plan is to raise money to fund studies documenting this environmental imbalance so that we can have a solid evidentiary footing for dealing with it. Not a lot was said about how to actually deal with it, except for a recognition that selling the public on killing cute cuddly seals is a hard sell.

4. A conspicuous lack of finger-pointing among different user groups (unless you count pointing fingers up north or at the AG for fighting the culvert lawsuit).

5. There was a lot of recognition that this meeting seemed to have a lot more "let's work together" and a lot less finger pointing, but that it won't end up doing anything unless we can get the people with similar interests to *continue* working together in a sustained manner.

Overall, I think it was a very positive meeting, and shows how much better things can be when different groups get together and talk openly. The $64,000 question is whether sustained cooperation can actually get anything done.

Good report:

I suggest that the problems be listed in a manner, that one should see results before moving on to the next one....

I suggest dealing with the growing problem of "non-Orca predators". It should not take a plan to rise money to fund a study, clearly there is a growing problem, seals, sea lions, and "birds", have multiplied in and around all marine areas.

If you want to do a study....find a use for "dead seals, dead sea lions and other fish killing problems. There is a way to deal with the problem, just can't allow the "do-gooders" to slow down the process.

How about we take em up north and feed the polar bears starving because of the global warming. Seals are the food source they're missing. Could be a win-win !

I was there as well and was very encouraged by the plenary meeting discussion. As stated before, there was no finger pointing.....quite refreshing to say the least. Given the reductions in WDFW funding, collaboration with the tribes will put more money to work in a focused manner.

There was also an Orca discussion hosted by NOAA representative Lynne Barre. They are working on a model in an attempt to predict what further salmon enhancement will do to increase the health and number of the Southern Pod. Concerns were voiced regarding, more salmon increasing all predators and forage health in the sound to support the increased salmon numbers. Comments from the floor were all about reductions in predators (seals, sea lions, and birds) and a focus on increasing forage. When asked about any proposals on the books to use lethal means to reduce non Orca predation on PS salmon she said, "there are non at this time".

Did any of the local tribes traditionally eat seals? Someone I know is Makah and a few years back I was told that any seal found in a stream on reservation is immediately dispatched and that there were permits given every year to take some from the strait. Couldn't the tribes just start taking them again, claiming they have a historical right?

There's just too many. . .we need a big sustained hungry outlet for dead seals and sea lions. So far the best idea I've heard is feed the polar bears. But the seals down here in the sound have accumulated a lot of toxins, PCB's, etc. Poisoning a bunch of starving bears doesn't have that feel-good ring to it. What to do with a couple hundred thousand dead seals?

fb

For each river system having ESA listed Chinook runs which may cause Draconian restrictions/closures to P.S. fishing the NOAA/NMFS needs to establish a pinniped kill zone for seals and sea lions in said river(s) and within 5 miles of the river's entrance into P.S. More wild fish to the rivers and more hatchery fish to State fishers while opening the door to increased hatchery production. Yes, that is a very simplistic formula but the relationships are clear particularly if folks are looking for ways to effect near term changes.

I like it, Larry...but the numbers of all parties involved will likely out-distance our POV. Hopefully, the powers-that-be will come to realize that the only thing that makes sense re: leveling the imbalance is some sort of radical procedure or approach. If we wait for the necessary numbers of transient orcas to show up...some measure of success is very doubtful.

Once again NOAA/NMFS is failing to take the initiative to fulfill its responsibility under the ESA - in this case for both Orcas and P.S. Chinook. When the process degenerates into decisions by committee we ultimately end up in decision-making paralysis.

So what, because they didn't come to the meeting with "kill one pinniped, get outta jail free" tickets, at the first public meeting, they are already failing?

Jezus, some of these pinnipeds (stellars) were just removed from the ESA themselves. So, straight from recovery to the shotgun....that's what your plan is...Good luck with that!

Or, do you just like making unreasonable assumptions about what can and should be done, and then when it doesn't go that way, you just point and call out "Failure!"?

That is so true!

And JustBecause is just-on-a-troll, so I wouldn't pay to much attention to that.

fb

It would be sooo easy to just ignore his assertions......but I can't so where to start?

Hmmm, how about Herschel and his buddies at the locks and their collective impact on Lake WA wild steelhead while Federal "managers" did the Nero thing (fiddled while Rome burned or so goes urban legend)? Similar in the CR but at least there the Feds have taken some fairly serious action on avian predators. As to Stellars the eastern population was never threatened which is why the eastern and western populations were separated and the eastern population de-listed; in short, a paperwork issue rather than biological. The harbor seal population in P.S. is currently at about twice what NOAA has identified as a healthy, self-sustaining level. If his opinions are based upon such erroneous or mis-represented information he is a part of the problem in the decision making process.

Well Larry, there is another Fed law that protects these animals-MMPA, so I suppose that is the response for the Hershel debacle. Steelhead weren't ESA-listed until 2007.

As far as the de-listing of the Eastern DPS of Stellers, the DPSs were split out in 1997 and the Eastern DPS maintained its status as threatened until proposed for de-listing in 2012. That's....hold on...15 years, a long time if it was only that they were "mistakenly" grouped at the time of listing in 1990.

https://www.federalregister.gov/document...ment-of-steller

I'm certainly not a disagreeing that the significant increase in pinnipeds and their effect on salmon is not an issue. What I don't necessarily agree with is that, since we have identified the current "enemy" (which is conveniently not US), mostly and recently based on one research paper's modeling efforts, btw, we can immediately jump into action and start blasting holes in these guys like it's the 1930s-60s.

Btw, still looking for the NOAA assessment that the harbor seal abundance is "twice" what is needed for health. Can you help me out?

Thanks,

It seems that humans first and most favorite answer is to eliminate the competitor. It is true that the pinniped numbers are above some level set by the Feds that in all likelihood has little basis is ecological reality.

We don't know how many there were so we really don't know how many there should be other than a population large enough to "delist", which is the same for salmon.

Today's wild runs are probably 1/10 to 1/20 of what they were pre-industrial fishing (on all species) and human development. That number supported pinnipeds, whales, birds, grizzlies, humans, and who knows what else.

The problem, to me, is we have to decide first if we are willing to share this little blue ball with other animals. If so, how many of them? Which leads to how many of us. We also have to figure out that if we want, say, 100 SRKW then how many salmon of all species are needed to feed them. How many forage fish are needed to feed the salmon? Then, add in pinnipeds, birds, and all that. If there is anything left over then there is human harvest available.

Right now, the tail wags the dog. People need/take X. The ecosystem gets what's left.

A good write-up on the meeting:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/sport-tribal-f...ssues/#comments

You clearly ignore that WA fishermen have experienced substantially reduced seasons and increased reliance upon hatchery produced fish for harvest. I belief those actions are in recognition of impacts of our fisheries; that is, that we are a part of the problem.

You have also failed to acknowledge the recently published scientific paper which has identified pinniped predation as taking 7 times the (adjusted to) adult salmon than all fishermen and twice what Orcas require.

Eastern DPS Stellars? Well, I can only respond that the bureaucracy takes its own time as we have been seeing. If you are going to offer excuses for NOAA's delays in achieving timely reviews and decisions you may be in the wrong forum.

As to the Puget Sound seal population the first document I found in my messy filing (somewhat a system) was an article summary from NOAA Alaska Fisheries Center. The article they summarized was "Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-99" by Harriet Huber and Jeff Laake. That summary reads as follows:

"This report reviews data collected on the Washington State seal population between 1978 and 1999. At 1999, the seal population of inland waters was estimated at 9,000 (includes Straits, San Juans, Eastern Estuaries, Hood Canal, Puget Sound).

The NOAA report recommends Washington State could reduce and maintain the (inland waters) harbor seal population at 7,000.

The PSRCP plan estimates the present (inland waters) harbor seal population to be 14,000.

Harbor seal population at 7,000 would reduce present fish consumption by approximately 14,308,000 pounds per year. This will benefit endangered salmon, steelhead, and Orcas. (PSRCP identifies a single harbor seal consumes 5.6 pounds per day, on average)"

You can search for the original pub if you desire but it is apparent just by this summary that at the time of its publication the adverse impact of 14,000 harbor seals was huge and the seal population is now even higher; last I read it was around 16,000 and still heading up but at a decreasing rate. Pretty simple math to calculate the benefits to salmon by reducing the P.S. seal population by a minimum of 50%.