#1061079 - 11/30/22 01:41 PM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Carcass
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 2432
Loc: Valencia, Negros Oriental, Phi...
|
Thanks Doctor!
_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"
R.P. McMurphy - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061093 - 12/01/22 11:56 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Carcass
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 2432
Loc: Valencia, Negros Oriental, Phi...
|
Fair questions Steve!
_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"
R.P. McMurphy - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061099 - 12/01/22 04:53 PM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4407
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
WA recreational creel? I am sure some hatcheries exist from old game that are Rec driven but WDFW is about marine harvest. Under Anderson the cost benefit ratio went down the tubes with production cut backs but staffing and operating cost stayed static . If Chinook to correctly gage the end benefit AK & BC must be calculated in. WA coast and terminal fisheries are just cleaning up left overs.
Even when you have a good year WDFW finds a way to screw it up as this year on the Chehalis.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061103 - 12/02/22 10:18 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
|
Salmo, Not state funded but many Mitchell Act stations are run by WDFW. In a gross sense, it looks like for the Mitchell Act programs, there is a 2-3.5x economic impact for the hatchery production (Chinook, coho, steelhead). So MA funds $15-25M/year and the econ benefit is roughly $53M (2009 $). Obviously not all of this accrues to the local fisheries or economy but much of it does. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-03/mitchell-act-fact-sheet.pdfAgain, not state funded programs and not at the station-level but the only recent reference I could easily find regarding your question...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061104 - 12/02/22 10:20 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
|
Agree with Carc.
The state's trout and kokanee programs are by far the best value for the license dollar.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061105 - 12/02/22 10:29 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13523
|
WA recreational creel? I am sure some hatcheries exist from old game that are Rec driven but WDFW is about marine harvest. Under Anderson the cost benefit ratio went down the tubes with production cut backs but staffing and operating cost stayed static . If Chinook to correctly gage the end benefit AK & BC must be calculated in. WA coast and terminal fisheries are just cleaning up left overs.
Even when you have a good year WDFW finds a way to screw it up as this year on the Chehalis. Yes, WDFW (the Washington Department of Salmon) is about marine harvest. My point however, is that salmon harvests in AK and BC are not benefits to WA taxpayers. And hatchery salmon harvested in commercial fishing in WA are more of a direct economic subsidy (welfare) than a legitimate ROI to WA taxpayers. It's even a bit of a stretch to call the recreational creel a ROI, but I'll take it since that's how we calculate the benefit of the trout hatchery program, which does seem to pay its way.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061108 - 12/02/22 11:32 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
As usual, Salmo g is asking good questions. Here are a few observations and opinions.
Much of the fisheries in SE AK are not composed of commercial folks from AK. Many of them are based in Seattle. Ideally, it would be better if those folks to wait for the salmon to migrate south to WA waters before harvesting them, but that’s not what they do. Low-holing them in SE AK seems to be preferred. Nevertheless, if we want to consider ROI, the origin of the fleet (e.g., Seattle) that is catching those fish should be considered.
Over the past two years, the Canadians have almost eliminated commercial harvest of Chinook off the BC coast. The intent is to help feed orcas (SRKW). This had the unintended benefit of putting a lot more fall Chinook into the Columbia River this past year. So, the ROI for Columbia River fall Chinook this past year would likely be considerably different than in years past.
Ditto for the fisheries off Sekiu. There was likely a lot more salmon originating from WA State hatcheries this past year because of the reduction in BC harvest.
As Carcassman has suggested, WDFW seems to have determined that fall Chinook salmon have the highest ROI. That should not be surprising. Fall Chinook can be raised by the millions for pennies. They have a sub-yearling life history, so the adults spawn in Sept/Oct, the fry hatch in winter, become smolt in early spring, and are released in April/May. So there is very little need to feed them before they are released. And they don’t spend the summer in the hatchery so densities are not an issue. Again, without the concern for fish feed or density-dependent issues (warm water/disease), fall Chinook are cheap and easy to raise.
And since fall Chinook are the target of the marine fisheries off the coast of WA, they have the highest contribution to the economy of coastal Washington communities. There is lots of $$’s wrapped up in boats, fuel, tackle, hotels, etc in this fishery. Not so much for bank anglers (such as I) who fish locally without spending much time or money doing it.
Edited by cohoangler (12/02/22 12:01 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061109 - 12/02/22 11:45 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
|
Yes, I disclaimed as such, re WA taxpayers. The numbers disagree with your statement about where the benefits accrue, with 2/3 of the harvest-related benefits accruing in the Columbia basin, which don't even account for the portion of the Puget Sound/Pacific ocean catch that occurs in our waters.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1061120 - 12/03/22 11:58 AM
Re: The Paradox of Salmon Hatcheries
[Re: cohoangler]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 04/04/10
Posts: 199
Loc: United States
|
As usual, Salmo g is asking good questions. Here are a few observations and opinions.
Much of the fisheries in SE AK are not composed of commercial folks from AK. Many of them are based in Seattle. Ideally, it would be better if those folks to wait for the salmon to migrate south to WA waters before harvesting them, but that’s not what they do. Low-holing them in SE AK seems to be preferred. Nevertheless, if we want to consider ROI, the origin of the fleet (e.g., Seattle) that is catching those fish should be considered.
Over the past two years, the Canadians have almost eliminated commercial harvest of Chinook off the BC coast. The intent is to help feed orcas (SRKW). This had the unintended benefit of putting a lot more fall Chinook into the Columbia River this past year. So, the ROI for Columbia River fall Chinook this past year would likely be considerably different than in years past.
Ditto for the fisheries off Sekiu. There was likely a lot more salmon originating from WA State hatcheries this past year because of the reduction in BC harvest.
As Carcassman has suggested, WDFW seems to have determined that fall Chinook salmon have the highest ROI. That should not be surprising. Fall Chinook can be raised by the millions for pennies. They have a sub-yearling life history, so the adults spawn in Sept/Oct, the fry hatch in winter, become smolt in early spring, and are released in April/May. So there is very little need to feed them before they are released. And they don’t spend the summer in the hatchery so densities are not an issue. Again, without the concern for fish feed or density-dependent issues (warm water/disease), fall Chinook are cheap and easy to raise.
And since fall Chinook are the target of the marine fisheries off the coast of WA, they have the highest contribution to the economy of coastal Washington communities. There is lots of $$’s wrapped up in boats, fuel, tackle, hotels, etc in this fishery. Not so much for bank anglers (such as I) who fish locally without spending much time or money doing it.
In terms of permit holders, only the Bristol Bay fishery has more nonresident than resident salmon permit holders. Permits for "power troll" in SEAK are held mostly by Alaska residents. Though it's unclear how the landings work out between nonresidents vs residents. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=29&docid=64890It's a bit of a stretch to say "Canadians have almost eliminated the commercial harvest of Chinook off the BC coast". Per the PSC Chinook Technical Committee report (TCCHINOOK-22-04.pdf) at least in 2021, the commercial Chinook catch was less than max allowable under the PST but definitely not eliminated. In 2021, the allowable sport and troll Chinook catch for Northern BC was 154K; actual catch was 91K with 65K in troll. For WCVI, the total allowable was 88K; the actual was 76K w 47K in troll. Per this report, season dates and areas were modified to reduce catch of "domestic stocks of concern"... notably WCVI and upper Fraser Chinook. Canada did come out with News Release for 2022 describing season and area closures to help ORCAs. It was unclear to what extent these season restrictions would reduce overall catch though and what it would mean compared to what was done in 2021. Covid has messed things up from 2020 onward too. https://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical-committee-reports/chinook/Regarding WA coast. Yes, Chinook is clearly the focus of the commercial troll fishery. For sport, Chinook is focus in Area 3,4. As move south and the charter fleet builds, Area 2 sport is both Chinook and coho. Area 1 is clearly coho emphasis. The private boat fleet is mostly Chinook in all areas. For sport, Area 3, 4 probably doesn't need coho, Area 2 probably needs some coho, Area 1 has to have coho to be viable.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
993
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63778 Topics
645361 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|