https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/04/03/us/ap-us-orcas-salmon-fishing.html

Hey Gov Inslee, jump on this bandwagon for a campaign boost and pull the gillnets too!

So far nothing about the 500 pound gorilla (well, the 250 pound harbor seals).

TV news today had a report that officials on the Willamette are declaring sea lion removal a success as something like 2,500 steelhead have returned to spawn.

Recovery of SRKWs and Chinook is, to my mind, going to take two very different tacks. The first is to get the whales food and the spawning grounds fish. This means we stop killing Chinook before whales get a shot at them. We also remove sufficient pinnipeds that the whales get some food. We also reduce the fisheries on forage species so they have something to eat. That's short term, to see if we can prevent extinction.

Then, we restore the marine and freshwater habitats so that the ecosystem produces enough to support the consumption we demand for whales, pinnipeds, and humans. This is the long term end of things where we get the populations to the chosen level.

Seems reasonable to me gotta be willing to give to receive. Just wish everyone could agree on giving equally.

Rhetorically, haven't we "given" by our significantly reduced seasons and quotas on Chinook and aren't we continuing to "give" via our license fees and Federal excise taxes which in part go to fisheries enhancements?

The "We have given enough, it's your turn" idea is why we won't fix the problem. There is no one single solution. If doing one thing worked, like reducing seasons, it would have.

When we hear "close fisheries" the first target here is tribal netting. Net fishing of salmon, by tribes and non-Indians, does little or no immediate damage to the SRKWs as the fisheries are generally behind the whales. The net fisheries can and do damage the future supply of fish, but that is more a decision of the managers than the fishermen.

The fisheries ahead of the whales are the problem. The food never gets to them. But even if we don't have the fisheries the fish need food, and that is now a North Pacific problem of global proportions as it is affecting southern hemisphere birds.

Ten or twenty years ago we had, maybe, the time to look only at the long term solutions (habitat) and so on. That boat has sailed. It all gets back to the whales need food today.

I will see if I can find my old PS salmon data bases (70s-90s) and just see what the total adult return to PS was (fish for nets and escapement as that was all WDF counted) when the SRKWs were more abundant. I bet it was a lot higher than now.

https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov...status/kope.pdf

This powerpoint on more recent Chinook abundance paints a different story than CM's assumption. Some stocks are down, but the last slide says that terminal escapements have increased by 37% over the 1979 to 2009 period. Wonder how the last 10 years have been if added on to this.

Imagine that! Now approval for an onslaught needs to begin on the cormorant population. Have noticed recently the spring traditional Puget Sound flock has moved upriver on the Puyallup , feasting on endangered outgoing smolts. Grrrr.

As the creatures travel and feed on time table the concept that restraining WA fisheries alone will have much of a impact is likely wrong. The condition of the animals ( right down to naming them ) is so well documented that there is no place for any agency to hide. Any recovery plan will need to start in AK & BC and come South. This the first of the great pain that is coming around mixed stock marine fisheries from CA to AK.

The jig is up so to speak.

CM - I understand your position but clearly have a different perspective at least when it comes to WA Chinook fisheries. I have heard some statistics thrown around to the effect that 80% of Puget Sound returns are hatchery fish. Close? And many of those are being produced using license and Federal excise tax monies. Do we WA recreational fishers pay for all of them? No, but we certainly pay for a disproportionate portion compared to our consumption.

Then there was the recently published study which concluded that seals take 6 times what all human fisheries take and twice that required by SRKW. Barry Thom can write his letters and WFC can sue but the underlying question is whether even a total suspension of Chinook harvest would provide enough food for SRKW in the short run which leads to my final point. And then there is the rule of unintended consequences tied to a complete closure.

The hand wringing public needs to recognize and accept that there are serious predatory factors in the wild which are having a far greater impact than our recreational fisheries let alone just the WA fishery. Also, that the goal of feeding SRKW will fail unless the public is willing to accept a reduction of those other impacts be they sea lions, seals, cormorants or/or terns. Consider that acceptance being the public's share of the burden.

Again, just my perspective.

The SRKWs need to eat. The fisheries that are the problem are the ones that are in front of them, especially those that take immatures. By the time the runs get to WA as adults lots have been taken. Closing just/only the WA fisheries will likely not put very many more fish in whale tummies. Killing pinnipeds that eat adult salmonids, like those killed in the Willamette, will not help the SRKWs as the food has already passed them by.

As Rivrguy noted, the place to start is BC and AK, plus all the fisheries on immature Chinook here.

But you are right, Larry, that if we are going to save the SRKWs that immediate and very unpopular action will need to be taken. Pinnipeds killed, fisheries closed, more intensive bay and river fisheries if you believe the current goals, more hatchery production where we can keep the adults off the grounds. All of that. And none of it will be done because it is just to politically painful to implement. So, we'll restrict whale watching and makes boats go slower so they can starve to death in peace.

The biggest obstacle to salmon recovery, and fat KW's is a Fu#$'d up co-management system that secures commercial over harvest in secret meetings, hidden away from public scrutiny.

To expand on the idea that the taking of immatures is a particular problem the study on harbor seal predation had their impact primarily on outbound smolt rather than returning adults. The issue on the Willamette was one of sea lion predation on wild steelhead rather than food for SRKW. However, by ensuring an improved (versus extirpation) population of that unique stock we also ensure increased returns available to SRKW.

From my perspective the Congress needs to immediately amend the MMPA so as to allow the various agencies to manage all of the resources with particular emphasis on recovering ESA listed species. If that means reducing the number of pinnipeds and avian predators then so be it. Failure to do that will doom any other efforts and let's not forget the aspect of unintended consequences particularly as it relates to funding.

As I have a example off of NOF Grays Harbor 2019 as to the marine intercept it looks like this for Grays Harbor Chinook. Terminal run size 25,656 and marine intercept harvest of 10,817. This does not include other impacts the this years run size done prior ( release / drop off / ect ) prior to reaching the bay. It would be interesting to see the numbers by stream of origin for all US & Canadian stocks. Oh on numbers past present, for the Orca it is about where and when the fish are in their migration route as a huge number available altered by hatchery production timing does not solve the problem.

Right now there are a variety of Sacramento Chinook stocks on the way back. So, they are out there feeding.

Right you are Carcassman! Started seriously fishing for salmon in the late 70's off Nor Cal and as you might know being a MC/Olema guy the Sacramento fish would start out in the early season in Monterey and head north from there. The schools of fish would end up off Deep Reef near Half Moon Bay to gorge on anchovies, some sardines and krill. On trips occasionally we would see pods of Orcas but never really put it together with SRKW till recently but it makes sense they're gonna go where the feed is. Regarding those Sacramento stocks they are on the rebound and if all goes well they get a season this year from mid April till early October. John Atkinson of "The New Rayann" out of Sausalito has been instrumental in dropping 1,000,000+ young salmon at Fort Baker near the north tower of the Golden Gate to give those fish a good head start which IMHO is pretty smart! SF Tyee Club used to have a net pen set up on the back side of the Tiburon peninsula too to help those fish get a nice start too! Ever fish that Carcassman? Those fish would lay in a slot before they moved and most were 20-35# range! :-) Sacramento used to hold some large fish along with the San Joaquin river too but pollution from farm runoff did that river in... Nice trip down memory lane tonight!

The Sacramento Chinook are way down, but there. Have a picture of my Dad with a Chinook he took in Monterey Bay in '56 when we lived in Santa Cruz.

The transient KWs are there a lot, especially since the return of the Grey Whales. The Killers nab calves on the way to AK. It was only recently that our SRKWs were actually identified there, and documented. But, this foray was observed (so far) on only one day.

There is also the idea that the whales are down there because there used to be food. There is nothing up here so memory gives them another place to go.

Only fished the ocean a few times, out of Morro Bay chasing rockfish (got rockfish, saw albatross, and mal-de-mer), and once out of Sauselito after rockfish and stripers. Got rocks, and a murre, under the Golden Gate Bridge. Me and boats simply don't mix.

The Sacramento still holds some huge fish. Seems that there are a few stocks of Chinook that still manage to feed at sea where the various hook and liners don't.

Had an opportunity to read Saturday's Everett Herald newspaper on Saturday and noticed an article touting the success of the sea lion removal on the Willamette (increased steelhead on the spawning grounds) and right below that article was one describing NOAA's efforts to amend the MMPA to allow for an extended Makah grey whale hunt.

That begs the question as to why NOAA is not apparently taking any action to address pinnipded predation on ESA listed salmonids which also along with hatchery origin salmonids help feed ESA listed SRKW?

Yes, I know I am preaching to the choir......

Nobody is asserting treaty rights to take pinnipeds. It is easy (easier anyway) to kill the pinnipeds that are seen eating adults and then seeing more adults go upstream. Kill the smolts-eaters and you give AK more to catch.

True, but that does not negate NOAA's role in recovery of ESA listed marine species.

Now, if our concern is not to "reward" Alaska maybe we should just stop all Chinook hatchery production then we can punish Canada which can punish Alaska while concurrently allow pinniped populations to naturally fall to the new carrying capacity. (And, no, I am not proposing that course of action)