Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET

I am posting up a recent letter from the Advocacy on the situation with ocean harvest. For the purpose of full disclosure Tim is my brother and I have known Ron & Art for years. Now to say my brother and I agree on everything is a reach in fact we often disagree LOUDLY. That all said his letter on ocean intercept hits the nail on the head. We as citizens have poured tax payer & our own money into habitat restoration, property setbacks, blockage removal, sewage just plain everything. For what? In order to restore salmon runs you have to let them come home and that is the issue. Until ocean intercept fisheries are addressed nothing will change. I will shut up now.

I have a graph that was done that shows that only 3% of salmon harvest ( Chinook ) in South East Alaska originate in Alaska. Yell if you want it. Also several other graphs the show the impacts and values.

For you GH folks I can also send you a graph showing the values of both the Rec inriver and bay fisheries.



Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855
thfwa@comcast.net

January 8, 2016

Pacific Salmon Commission via: email in PDF format 1155 Robson St.
Vancouver, BC V6E 1B5, Canada

Re: Request For A Reduction In Harvest Impacts
on Southern Bound Natural Spawning Salmon Stocks

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy is a non-profit organization based in Washington State. The purpose of the Advocacy is “Provide education, science, and other efforts that en- courage the public, regulatory agencies and private businesses to manage or utilize fish, wildlife and other natural resources in a fashion that insures the sustainable of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations.” (www. thfwa.org).

Advocacy members and their family and neighbors have personally spent decades investing in salmon production through volunteer projects that have raised millions of Chinook, Coho, and Chum salmon that contribute to the pool of fish caught in the Pacific Ocean. Our members and supporters have joined with other Washington citizens and property owners in contributing billions of dollars in habitat restoration, state operated hatchery production, culvert replacements, property devaluation, loss of timber harvest, municipal or private sewage and storm water improvements, etc. under government mandates wherein the stated primary purpose is the recovery or sustainability of natural spawning salmon stocks in WA streams.

With all this effort and investment, salmon recovery has struggled to succeed. Instate fishing has declined and ESA listings have plagued the state from the Columbia on the south to Puget Sound to the north.

Over the last 4 years, the Advocacy and others have invested thousands of hours in assisting the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission in adoption of two new salmon management policies for the coastal terminals of Willapa Bay1 and Grays Harbor2. The policies prioritize conservation over harvest, install hatchery reform and place an increased emphasis on achieving escapement goals for natural spawning stocks. In simple terms, an all out effort is underway to avoid further ESA designations and return natural spawning production to numbers adequate to sustain viable fisheries in the future.

The effort underway went forth with the knowledge that harvest inside the terminal has to be managed in a manner that could often require reduction of harvest inside the two terminals in order to achieve escapement goals. Using 2015 as an example, tribal and non-tribal commercial


1 http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/
2 http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/


seasons were curtailed for Chinook in Willapa and Grays Harbor. Recreational fishers in both terminals were forced to forgo retention of un-marked Chinook. Then, the much smaller than expected 2015 Coho return forced closures of tribal commercial, non-tribal commercial, and recreational seasons within both coastal terminals.

Even with all these measures and sacrifices, we believe it is clear escapement goals for natural spawning Chinook in Willapa Bay in 2015 were not reached. The adjustments in non-tribal and tribal fisheries inside the terminal, combined with a recent lowering of the escapement goal, might have allowed us to reach escapement goal for Chinook in Grays Harbor. We further predict that Coho escapement goals will not be achieved in either terminal even with the closures as once again the conservation burden fell on the terminal fishers who waited patiently for their turn to fish as harvest continued on schedule on the ocean.

We recognize that the citizens who live on and around salmon bearing streams are stewards of those streams and will pay a significantly greater price than non-locals for the production of fish that are likely to be harvested on the open ocean. However, in providing this subsidy to fishers in other regions, the harvest rate applied outside the terminals by PSC should not make it nearly impossible to achieve escapement goals or threaten the locals with additional burdens from ESA listing of species resulting from a consistent failure to achieve spawning production at a rate that insures the viability of the stock for the future. Unfortunately, such was the case in 2015 for Chinook in the Willapa and for Coho in both coastal terminals.

As an example of the hardship placed on those inside the terminal, on page 51 of PSC’s annual report on Chinook harvest (TCCHINOOK15-1_V1, PSC.PDF) it states in 2014 “....on average 86% of fishery-related mortality on WA coastal stocks” results from PSC sanctioned fisheries located north of the Canadian/WA border. Relating that mortality to Willapa Bay, the returning runsize of Chinook natural spawners coming across the bar into the Bay was below the escapement goal. In simple terms, the number of natural spawning Chinook heading for Willapa Bay was reduced by harvest in AK and BC to the point the runsize into the Bay was well below escapement making achievement of the escapement goal impossible even if all fishing inside the terminal was canceled. It is important to note that this phenomena is not limited to 2014, but rather the norm in Willapa for over a decade. Neither is it limited to just Chinook as the same shortfall in runsize below escapement goal occurred in 2015 for Coho in both terminals resulted in season cancellations though seasons on the ocean proceeded forward on the initial schedule.

In accordance with the Advocacy’s purpose referenced earlier, it is our belief that the elected officials and citizens of Washington state should have the opportunity to fully understand all the reasons why the billions already invested by Washingtonians have not produced the anticipated conservation results and the list of threatened or endangered stocks continue to grow in Puget Sound and elsewhere. It is therefore our intention to engage all in a long over-due discussion regarding the reasons why the state is plagued by the failure to recovery natural spawning salmon stocks.

The latest indicator of the need for such a broad based public discussion is the overfishing notice recently published by NOAA in the federal register for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fall Chinook and Coho in the Hoh River further up the coast. We believe the citizens will quickly ask

“Where is all this fishing occurring?” With 86% of fishing mortality occurring north of the WA/ Canada border, we expect most eyes to then turn to the PFC processes. The question we expect to hear is “If we can’t get PFC to let enough back to the streams to meet escapement goals, where’s the incentive for Washingtonians to continue pouring billions of dollars in public and private resources into habitat restoration and hatchery production?” At this point, the Advocacy doesn’t have an answer that we are confident the majority of citizens of Washington would find acceptable. Especially when responding to the family living on Willapa Bay that recently lost a quarter of a million dollars in harvestable timber due to setbacks intended to protect habitat for natural spawners that have yet to materialized in the nearby stream due to harvest impacts.

As we move forward in our project to engage all in discussions about how we can restore natural spawning stocks in Washington, the Advocacy respectfully requests that the Pacific Salmon Commission consider seasons north of Washington’s border for 2016 forward that reduces the impacts on natural origin salmon stocks that have either struggled to meet escapement goals or noted under ESA guidelines. In the case of Willapa and Grays Harbor Chinook and Hoh River Coho, we are requesting a decrease in northern impacts on natural spawners of 10% per year for five consecutive years or until such time as the number crossing over from the Pacific is expected to be at least 110% of the escapement goal for two consecutive years.

In presenting this request, we recognize that the Advocacy is not accustomed to the processes used within the Commission to establish quotas and harvest rates and some might frown on our approach. In our defense, at this point a relatively small percentage of Washingtonians even know the Commission exists let alone understand the impact the Commission has on the economic well-being of the state’s citizens. Then, the closed to the public meeting processes used by the Commission when establishing seasons north of WA do not provide the normal regulatory transparency we are accustomed to in the U.S. leaving one uncertain how to participate.

If anyone in the Commission has recommendations on how to participate in a more effective fashion, we will give all suggestions offered due consideration. In the meantime, we will be moving forward with our plans to engage the public and elected officials in a conversation about the difficulties and obstacles that need to be addressed to insure recovery of natural spawning salmon stocks in WA streams.

Respectfully,

So, what is Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy take on ex WDFW director Phil Anderson’s participation in these matters?

Their take is to engage the key players (Chair Anderson included) in the respectful manner expected of any party wishing to address the PSC on these matters. The emphasis will be on becoming more educated about PROCESS, and how best to navigate uncharted waters to successfully bring about meaningful change to benefit the home team.

Having the backing of Director Unsworth and the Commission (our WFWC) will be important in moving the issue forward.

It sounds like well worth goals that others from around the state could back considering escapement goals aren't being met in other areas as well.


There was some discussion at the F&W commission conference call Friday about the upcoming PSC meeting in Portland, OR starting Monday Jan.11 where the director and some members of our state F&W commissioners are attending.

Here is the latest 11-yr dataset for marine harvest of West Coast chinook stocks visually presented as pie charts sized in proportion to actual catches.



This compares to an older 5 yr dataset I've posted in the past...



Take home story is the same, though....

WE GETTIN' LOW-HOLED, BOYS.... BIG TIME!

WA still has a choice. They keep asking/insisting/regulating that the landowners modify actions to "preserve" and "restore" fish. The Tribes sued WADOT offer culverts, asking even more money of the state. To what end?

We are not getting the fish back. Why produce hatchery fishing if they aren't coming back for the folks who paid for them to catch them?

I can see this getting right down to money. Money will not be spent just to make AK or BC have better fishing.

But I would have to disagree somewhat with Doc on "We getting' low holed boys" because we is catching a lot of those fish. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The part I find interesting is that Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea fishing activity is not accounted for in the PSC numbers. God only knows what the true exploitation rate of our north-migrating stocks REALLY amounts to.

It amazes me that salmon managers use fractional data sets to evaluate and manage the stocks. How can you evaluate a stock's productivity, proper harvest level, sustainability, and so on if you don't what is produced by a given spawn?

Since all those fisheries are "managed" the data has to be there.

One of the big issues is that "phantom" interception is occurring year round in so-called AK "winter king" fisheries... with virtually no sampling to determine stock of origin. Due to the statewide king crash of the past decade, recent efforts have been made to step up the sampling rigor... not so much out of a concern about how many BC/PNW-origin fish are being taken, but rather to see how many Cook Inlet-origin fish are being taken.

Example... right now, folks are paying hundreds of dollars to go charter fishing for dinker 10 pound and smaller "winter kings" in Homer with really no accounting for whose fish are getting low-holed.

When Cook Inlet spawners are potentially present (April 1 thru Sept 30) an annual limit of 5 chinook is enforced. But during the "off season" of Oct 1 thru Mar 31, a generous bag of 2 kings of any size daily with NO ANNUAL LIMIT just sort of reinforces this idea that it's OK for Alaskans to target these "winter" fish since they are NOT impacting stocks of local Cook Inlet origin spawners. Who cares.... take all you want all winter.... ain't hurting local stocks a bit. (Sorry, Rudy, just telling it like it is)

This press release is out for the meeting so I thought I would pot it up for those who do not receive them.



NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
January 11, 2016
Contacts: Joe Stohr, 360-902-2650, Michele Culver, 360-249-1211, Guy Norman, 360-906-6704

WDFW invites public to help identify
conservation and recreation priorities

OLYMPIA – State fish and wildlife managers are asking people in coastal communities to attend a public forum next month to share their views on the values and priorities that should guide the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

The meeting will take place from 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 4, at the Willapa Harbor Community Center, 916 W. First St., South Bend.

“We hope to hear from commercial fishers, charter boat operators, people active in recreation and tourism, and others who care about fish and wildlife management along the coast,” said WDFW Director Jim Unsworth. “This is a chance for the public to tell WDFW managers what we are doing right, where we need to improve, and where we should focus our efforts and our funding over the next five to 10 years.”

The meeting will be the seventh public forum conducted through WDFW’s ongoing outreach initiative, “Washington’s Wild Future.” More information is available online at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture.

Unsworth, along with senior WDFW managers and regional staff, will be available to hear residents’ views on fishing, including commercial gillnetting in the Columbia River, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay, and Pacific Ocean fisheries, and hunting, razor clam management, habitat protection and restoration, licensing, law enforcement, and other fish and wildlife issues.

The meeting will include a brief presentation about the importance of fish and wildlife management to Washington’s quality of life and the economies of communities throughout the state. Participants will then be invited to talk in small groups with representatives of the department’s Fish, Wildlife, Enforcement, Licensing, and Habitat programs, as well as Unsworth and his staff.

Comments will also continue to be accepted on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/form.html and by email to WildFuture@dfw.wa.gov.
Editors: A high-resolution photo of Jim Unsworth is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/.

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.

The whopper of whoppers...

That salmon conservation efforts on the part of the Home Team would pay future dividends in helping to bring the fish back home. That the folks making the sacrifices to be better stewards of the spawning/rearing habitat, the folks doing nutrient enhancement, the restraint shown by JoeQ fisherman to help WDFW make escapement goals would help to produce that next generation MEGA-run.

And there lies the essence of THE BIG LIE.

All that effort, all that sacrifice... for what?

To line the pockets of distant northern intercept fisheries that are reaping the lion's share of the benefits of conservation/restoration efforts here at home in the Great PNW.

We've all known about it for the past decade.... and more than a few (myself included) have b!tched about it on this board over the years. But what to do? We all ultimately shrug our shoulders with a defeatist "Oh well...."
.
.
.
.
.




WELL.....

All of that is about to change.

did you win powerball?

I hope you bring it Doc!

We need change.

Yikes! Doc's gonna go all Guns of Navarone.

We should probably go ahead and start that bail fund now...

'Twon't be me leading the charge, but I'll do my best to pitch in where/when I can.

The group to watch?

http://thfwa.org

The first step of this journey starts here...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3yTkx3dU1acUpSdG8/view

THFWA has taken this fight to bring the fish back home to a whole new level. It is deserving of its own thread so folks can see the genesis of international salmon reform from beginning to end.

I've asked Paker to extract the appropriate posts out of the FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET thread and move them to this thread.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty stoked about the prospect of what will be posted here by the time this thread reaches page 25.

This is great!
How does the normal working guy help out?

http://thfwa.org/ is the guys website.

The thing is folks that the FTC thread is about getting information to folks that is hid from the public view by the process and Grays Harbor. The Advocacy is about the fish. Early on when working the issues Tim coined the phrase " The Big Lie " to describe this massive push to save salmon by habitat restoration and just disregard harvest which means we as citizens have footed a bill in the billions now, for what? Habitat is critical but it is harvest as far back as when Teddy Roosevelt was pres that has time & time again driven the collapses in the last hundred years.

I think the last straw for the guys was when before any terminal harvest Willapa would not make Chinook escapement even with the new management plan. So for the Advocacy it is game on and my brother is going to drive the establishment right up the wall. His back ground of dealing with oil related regulations, feds & state, and fighting the oil companies tooth and nail has given him a set of skills that the fish establishment does not normally see in fish world.

The key for all of us that value fish is simple. We can not force the change and if we do try will likely fail. It is the Rec fisher, farmers, cities, land owners just plain ALL of us that can. When we all come together and put aside our differences and tell WDF&W and the other agencies NO MORE MONEY until this stops. It is really a WE THE PEOPLE thing that is the power and the Advocacy has that thought front and center.

You'd think the PFC would understand the fish are not THEIRS, but OURS in origin, and by helping US it actually helps them in the ocean harvest....

kinda common sense, isn't it?

If they harvest 86% of a given run of fish in AK/BC waters, what will their percentage be when there are zero fish?

You'd think the PFC would understand the fish are not THEIRS, but OURS in origin, and by helping US it actually helps them in the ocean harvest....

kinda common sense, isn't it?

If they harvest 86% of a given run of fish in AK/BC waters, what will their percentage be when there are zero fish? They gotta look upstream.

Excellent!

Just put my money where it can help! Donate.

The harvesters will move on to destroy another species.

One way we can help is through financial support. His web site has a place where one can donate money to the cause. Just click on the “HOW TO HELP” tab. Tim and his team are just a small group of retired guys on a mission to get more fish back to inland waters. It has mostly been done using their limited personal resources. Tim has a track record as a David taking on Goliath and winning time after time in a different arena. He was also a major player in actually getting both the Grays Harbor and Willapa management plans into and through the system. I think this effort is something all recreational fishermen and those interested in recovery of natural origin stocks should be excited about.

I have often wondered when the ownership of fish in the ocean is lost. If a tribe or individual was to tag fish so as to make it identifiable, would he loose ownership? I understand that harvest makes it impossible to distinguish before hand, but could the tribe insist on repayment? Could they put in transmitters that would prevent harvest if the majority of fish "owned" by another entity? Not having complete control of an animal does not necessarily result in a loss of ownership, as can be seen by free ranging cattle and the neighborhood dogs and cats. Just a weird thought. Has anyone ever got a court ruling or definite answer on this? With such high interception rates, I wonder if thing could be done to stop it with this rational.

Great question as I was wondering the same thing myself today. Used to fish CA waters for salmon when visiting my brother and a fish checker at the dock would wand our salmon catch for data. Does WA state plan to go to a wire style system to account for catch? On a boat in the north Pacific could or should a deck hand be tasked for wanding fish and do released fish count against allowable numbers considering mortality rates?? Boy,it does get complicated now doesn't it! Love the effort and thought in this and being at the tail end of the run certainly is not the place to be! Keep up the good work and Good Luck!

The problem would be, accountability. Or rather, the cost of it. Who would pay for the program? Certainly not the guys who will loose fish. If the tribes paid for it, then they would insist that they be the ONLY ones to harvest those fish. And if the state paid for it...well, we know that ain't going to happen.

Had a couple of questions come my way this morning. As to my brothers history with government regulators and fighting the giants of the oil industry for the independent gas stations small businesses that can be found at http://autowa.org/index.html

As to do I really think he can succeed ? Yup. It will not happen overnight but once the citizens be it a land owner or Rec fisher get their arms around the issue and realize that habitat protection & restoration means NOTHING if you do not address intercept ocean marine harvest nothing changes. In fact the burden will continue to grow on land owners and citizens as we try to save salmon. Without harvest reform nothing changes other than ESA listings that will continue to grow.

The proportion of impact levels is based on historical data. The predicted data set used.

Allowable impacts offshore need to be reduced to 25%.

Expected escapement include prespawn mortality?

Staff once told me if ocean harvest of stocks exceeds 30% slowly but surely one stream after another will slowly but certainly crash. That was 20 years ago and the answer is yup.



Escapement is the number of fish that successfully spawn not the number swimming up the river. The thing to remember escapement is terminally managed AFTER ocean harvest seldom before.



No argument on this or Doc's thoughts as both are right. You will not believe how many of Alaska's commercials are WA citizens who fish there particularly the Panhandle & Bristol. Many if not most of the processors are based out of Puget Sound also.

[quote][/quote]

Why did the Council allow offshore impacts beyond escapement???

I thought that was what you were getting at but was not sure. I suppose I could drag it up but the down & dirty definition is it would restrict the ocean both off WA & North to AK. Think of it this way Last year Willapa would not make escapement before terminal harvest. If one was to say all streams must make escapement regardless of size and circumstance nobody fishes.

Years ago they called a stream or stock not making escapement as the "driver" and reduced harvest to protect it. Not so much now a days. Sure we say this and that in setting harvest ( to restore salmon ) but to judge it go straight to results which is that now a days that is 100% USDA BS. Christ folks they lump dissimilar watersheds such as GH & Willapa in the same genetic units to protect them from qualifying for ESA.

The simple fact is to solve it a limiter on prior intercepts that apply to all salmon stocks regardless of origin must be applied. CA, OR, WA, and AK kick the crap out of stocks from other states. This followed by stocks crashing followed by calls for more money for habitat restoration to SAVE OUR SALMON. That is the "big lie" as habitat is only one leg of the stool and the cottage industry of habitat restoration off grants is the only thing that will benefit not the fish because they will most certainly be harvested before entering WA ST waters.

Some Rage against the Machine comes to mind. How long, not long...

The "driver " stock concept went out with Hoh v. Baldridge.

Simply put, AK will not cut back unless forced and enforced by the Feds. How much congressional pull does AK have. Ted Stevens used to control a lot.

The one group that really hasn't weighed in yet is the Greenpeace/Sea Shepard/ whale hugger/ grizzly fans/wolf fans. The resident Killer Whales need fish to survive. They're listed under ESA. Grizzly needs salmon to flourish. They're listed. Wolves do use salmon instead of ungulates. A month eating salmon saves how many ungulates for other (bipedal?) predators?

About 30 years ago the Fedarl Courts held, in Hawaii, that allowing sheep and goats to eat the seedling trees upon which an endangered bird fed was a take under ESA. That suggests that a court could decide that all the marine mixed stock salmon fisheries take Killer Whales and Grizzly. The neat thing is those fish can still be accessed in the rivers so no actual harvest needs to be lost, just some fisheries.

Along these lines, NMFS has written biological opinions concluding that a dam that "takes" ESA-listed Chinook salmon adversely affects ESA-listed killer whales, but does not jeopardize them. NMFS has also written biological opinions concluding that mixed stock salmon fisheries in WA state that harvest Chinook salmon adversely affect those killer whales, but also does not jeopardize them, all the while ignoring the take of Chinook by mixed stock salmon fisheries in BC and AK. If the US Government has determined that killer whales are endangered, then that same US government should use its influence to reduce the take of Chinook by those far flung salmon fisheries so that the killer whales forage base would return in greater abundance.

It should, but won't until forced and maybe not even then.

After reading all "this" >>>MSY, NOAA, NFMS, WFC, Boldt, ESA on in these circular firing squads and with all this on and on... All I can say tonight is: Glad my days are numbered as no one will be able to get any of this figured out before I leave the Blue Orb! Glad I enjoyed the Glory Days in many places!

Priority ONE is to secure the backing of the leadership at WDFW and the Fish/Wildlife Commission.

Moreover, the Commission should be tasked with creating its own blueprint to bring these fish back home with incremental goals for reduced northern intercept exploitation and its expectations for proportionately greater terminal run-sizes over a specified time period. Without knowing where we want to be, how can we ever craft a strategy to get there?

As it stands now, there is no formal mechanism or process to convey the wishes of Washington State's fish managers to the US delegation at PSC. Our PSC folks simply "wing it" on our behalf, and that we should be content with the agreements they negotiate for us without really representing any actual "wish list" from WDFW/WFWC..... it simply doesn't exist.

Next step would be to broaden and strengthen the "Bring Them Home" coalition to include the DFW's and Commissions of Oregon and Idaho.

This is do-able folks. It's just no one's had the cojones to take this big ol' bull by the horns.... UNTIL NOW.

Here's the supporting text for that graph....



Caught Far From Home:
Pacific Salmon Treaty Managed Fishery Chinook Catch Composition 1999 - 2010
January 18, 2012

The harvest of Pacific salmon throughout the Northwest has dramatically changed over time. We have changed where, when, and how we harvest, as well as how many we catch and even why we catch them. All of these changes combined have changed the salmon itself as harvest has altered the physical size of the fish and changed the age at which they mature. Harvest has reduced their diversity and abundance and may have even affected their ability to survive over time. It is urgent that we completely reevaluate how harvest is affecting salmon recovery and how harvest must be changed.

Historically, indigenous people of the northeastern Pacific fished for salmon when the fish returned to their natal rivers. Since they fished in or near the river, the impact of the fishery was confined to the river. If a river was over-harvested the local community would suffer the consequences when the next generation of salmon returned.

European settlers arrived and brought new technologies that helped fishermen expand how and where they could fish. Sail power, then gas and diesel engines and factory canneries forever changed the ability to exploit this rich new resource. Fishers were no longer confined to fishing the rivers near their communities. In the rich, new, ocean fishing grounds, fishers caught salmon that originated from many distant rivers. This shift to an ocean fishery represents the start of the mixed-stock fishery and the dilemma it poses for us and the international managers1 that are now in charge of the fishery.

At the beginning of this new fishery almost all salmon populations were healthy, which reduced the effect of fishing on any individual stock. Today, however, stocks from up and down the coast vary dramatically as to their health. While some are healthy and suitable for harvest, other stocks may be struggling to survive, recognized as a stock of special concern, or even protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Currently, the majority of harvested salmon are caught in this mixed-stock fishery, far from their rivers of origin. The pie charts in Figure 1 illustrate where Chinook are caught in relation to where they originate. It doesn’t take long before the dilemma becomes obvious. In this environment where healthy and weak stocks are co-mingled, the fisheries should be designed and implemented to protect the weakest stocks while harvesting the most abundant. But as hard as managers may try, they can’t do it. Even with highly sophisticated modeling and forecast predictions, these tools are just too dull to meet the needs of today’s recovery efforts, if harvest rates are to be maintained.

For example, imagine the Elwha River. Soon the dams will be gone, opening up roughly seventy miles of excellent habitat within the Olympic National Park, habitat just waiting to be re-colonized. But of the Elwha Chinook that are caught in the ocean fishery, 80% of them are harvested in the West Coast Vancouver Island fishery, where fishers may be targeting the more abundant Fraser River and Columbia River Chinook. This ocean fishery management strategy, as it exists today, cannot protect returning Elwha Chinook in this co-mingled fishery without significantly reducing the harvest of the healthiest stocks. The end result is that Canada’s fishery is harming Washington’s recovery.

Another example can be illustrated by the Chinook of the west coast of Vancouver Island. There, pristine old-growth rivers where wild Chinook can thrive still exist, yet some of these rivers have as little as 1% of the Chinook they did fifty years ago. These rivers cannot afford any harvest and may never recover without managers giving priority to their recovery. That can only be done on an individual basis, but unfortunately, hundreds of miles to the north, Alaska is busy harvesting Chinook to the degree that of all of the West Coast Vancouver Island Chinook landed in the ocean fishery, 68% are caught in Alaska. Some are very likely remnants of the highly depressed stocks.

Today’s fishery management is far more precise than it was even twenty years ago, but it still lacks the ability to manage at a scale that is necessary to recover individual salmon and steelhead stocks. Fisheries management needs to change, and ending the ocean Chinook fishery should be considered. This fishery impacts Chinook the most because of their complex life history. Living the longest, Chinook are exposed to the effects of this fishery for a long period of time. Closing the ocean Chinook fishery, while allowing fishing to take place at the mouths of respective rivers, would allow for more precise management with the greatest amount of benefit to the resource and the least amount of disruption to the overall fishery. Moving harvest to the local level, coupled with the implementation of selective fishing techniques which allow the safe release of wild fish, will maximize the harvest of hatchery fish while allowing wild fish the opportunity to return to their rivers of origin.

Fishing the Nursery is Shrinking Chinook
January 24, 2012

The life history of Chinook salmon differs in important ways from those of the other salmon species. Compared to all other Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon are bigger, they reach sexual maturity at a variety of ages (three and older for females, two and older for males), and they can attain older ages, up to eight years. Chinook salmon are, of course, well known for their relatively large body size. Historically, Chinook commonly attained weights in excess of fifty pounds and occasionally exceeded one hundred pounds. This characteristic is the result of not just longevity, but also a unique pattern of adult growth.

Chinook salmon grow relatively slowly during the first two years in the ocean and progressively faster in later years. This pattern indicates that Chinook “traded” the increased risk of dying before reaching maturity in exchange for the increased benefits of larger body size. Those benefits include not only more eggs to deposit, but larger, better quality eggs that give newly emerged fry a better chance of surviving early life in freshwater. Large-bodied Chinook can spawn in deeper, faster water, and build nests in larger cobbles that better protect eggs from scour during high flow events. Thus, Chinook salmon are potentially able to exploit spawning habitat that is simply unavailable to other salmon and steelhead, such as the spawning habitat in and above the steeper canyon reaches of the Elwha River.

These inherent attributes of Chinook resulted in large populations (in excess of one million in some large river basins) of large fish, at least until the intense commercial fisheries began in the last quarter of the 19th century. Up to 1920 or so in the Sacramento/San Joaquin and the 1930s in the lower Columbia River, the average weight of Chinook caught by the various in-river commercial fisheries exceeded twenty pounds (McDonald 1894, Rich 1940, Yoshiyama & Moyle 1998). By the 1960s, average weights coastwide had dropped below twenty pounds, and were closer to fifteen pounds in most areas. By 1975, the average weights of many stocks had begun to approach ten pounds (for the entire BC coast and Georgia Strait; Ricker 1981).

The average ages of Chinook declined in a corresponding manner. For example, based on tagging data conducted off the west coast of Vancouver Island in the late 1920s, Ricker (1981) estimated the spawning-age composition of unfished Chinook populations in this area to be: 12% of the population was three-year-old fish; 29%, four-years-old; 31%, five-years-old; 23%, six-years-old; and 5%, seven-years-old, yielding an average age of 4.8 years. By the mid-1990s, the average age of most British Columbia and Washington Chinook populations was less than 3.1 years. Significantly, the most common age of the majority of Chinook populations today is four-years-old, in contrast to five-years-old prior to the 1950s. In many of today’s populations, the second most common age is three-years-old, whereas prior to the 1950s it was six-years-old. This constitutes a huge decrease in spawning potential and life history diversity, and thus, in the resilience of Chinook populations to environmental challenges.

What caused this decline in age and size? Numerous factors have probably contributed to the current drastic condition of Chinook, including harvest, competition in the ocean from large hatchery releases, and large-scale changes in the ocean environment. However, the last two most likely only make worse changes that are fundamentally caused by harvest. For thousands of years prior to European colonization, Native Americans harvested salmon with traditional methods in or near the rivers as mature salmon returned from the sea to their natal waters. Generally, the descendants of Europeans used in-river gillnet fisheries during the first fifty years of commercial salmon fishing starting in the 1870s and targeted large Chinook. By the 1920s, when motorized fishing boats enabled fisheries to extend to the estuaries and the near ocean, the average size and age of many Chinook stocks within large rivers like the Sacramento/San Joaquin, Columbia, and Fraser had already been reduced, despite average catch weights that still ranged twenty to thirty pounds.

The consequence of developing the ocean troll fishery meant that immature, growing Chinook that were still one to three years away from maturity were subject to constant harvest pressures. This highly favored those fish that would have naturally matured at a younger age. With an ocean fishery, the longer a fish stays at sea, the greater the likelihood it will be harvested. Over time, this effect will reduce the average age and size of the population, as the portion that would have matured at an older age will now be harvested. In the case of Chinook salmon, older (and consequently larger) seven- and eight-year-old fish are disappearing from runs. These fish are the most productive within the population and their absence indicates a serious stock failure as well as an overall reduction in productive capacity. If the more productive older/larger and female fish were not targeted and released, the quality of the escapement would increase.

The net result of all of this is that today’s Chinook salmon populations are significantly less complex and diverse in life history than they were a century ago. They are younger and smaller, and growth rates of the majority of populations have been changed in negative ways. Those populations are less likely to have the growth and maturity rates required to produce fish that are five-years-old and older that mature at large body sizes in excess of forty pounds.

Can this trend be reversed? Yes, but it will require changes in harvest rates and practices, and unless selective fishing methods that harvest only hatchery fish are mandated, it will also require reductions in hatchery releases of Chinook and other salmon species. Ocean harvest rates will need to continue to be reduced and fisheries that directly or indirectly encounter immature Chinook, particularly troll fisheries, must either be terminated or become selective. Fisheries that select for larger Chinook, particularly gillnet fisheries, must also be eliminated or become selective. Then the proportionately few remaining older, larger, natural-origin Chinook will return to spawn in the immediate future and become the foundation for the slower, longer process of recovering the proportions of five-year-old and older age classes that were typical of most historic Chinook salmon populations.

This perspective is especially relevant to the recovery of Elwha River Chinook following the removal of the Elwha dams. The legendary large body size of Elwha Chinook was probably essential to the ability of the population to colonize the middle and upper Elwha basins where they were required to pass through several rough canyon reaches and make use of large spawning substrates in the deep, fast waters of the upper basin. The science on how populations respond to harvest indicates that the large-bodied Elwha Chinook will not be restored simply through dam removal if no other measures are taken. Restoring the Elwha Chinook probably requires a closer examination of how harvest has and will continue to affect the stock.

I understand the biology, but the politics less so.

This seems like a rare opportunity where the priorities of the citizens of the US Pacific NW and the coastal tribes should be squarely aligned. Even though there's competition for local stocks when they return between these two user groups, a rising tide would float all boats, so to speak.

Working in collaboration might be a rare chance for synergy here (or am I way off base?),

fb

I think your a lot more on target than you think. The interception fisheries cross user boundaries sorta a Churchill moment, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We are in this boat together like it or not and we can kick the crap out of each other ( and will do just that ) on WA fisheries but on this issue we must set aside our differences and quit fighting over what is left after AK butchers PNW salmon stocks.

But will the WA-based fishermen be willing to forego the immature Chinook to catch the mature? No more Westport unless the minimum size is like 36" and so on. No more PS Blackmouth.

Even some tribes will fight it as the Makah, because of location, primarily troll for immature Chinook.

The politics will we messy. It will have to come down to ESA and the Chinook listing. I can see that, coupled with WFCs desire to eliminate hatchery production, our need to keep the hydro dams, etc. that the God Squad will tell us that society does not need Chinook or Killer Whales.

Carcassman, I defer to your knowledge base on the politics here, but you must admit, that's a lot of "what-if". . .which is seldom a rational reason for avoiding action and continuing a doomed status quo.

That said, there might be a rare opportunity to work together here, which could lead to future collaboration (without which we're fvcked anyway),

fb

The base problem is that we as a species have no interest in controlling ourselves. Those who were in WA in 1970 can paint a very different picture of fishing and hunting than now. When we add all the millions coming here, what will happen to fish and wildlife? And, if we were so visionary to protect them here we still need food, water, fiber, minerals, and such from somewhere.

Just look at how well the US has done, truly, on environmental controls, clean air, clean water. Yet, we continue to consume goods. We just manufacture them in places with lesser controls. Like India and China. Nice environment there, isn't it?

Especially as climate moderates folks will move north. CA will become too hot so Seattle will be LA north and Anchorage can be Bellevue.

Of course you're right, Carcassman. My faith in humanity's sense of restraint is as dark as they come. In principle, I agree that the whole thing is headed down the crapper eventually (maybe soon), for all the reasons you mentioned, but if there's even a remote chance we can get AK to lay off our fish (which I doubt), it could prolong their demise significantly and give us better fishing in the meantime. Besides, if anyone's going to drive WA salmon to extinction, by right, it should be Washingtonians.

Yeah, I'm ashamed I wrote that last bit....

Any response yet?

Not so much but they went to the Portland PFMC and followed up with the bit below.

February 11, 2016

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855 thfwa@comcast.net


Pacific Fishery Management Council via: email in PDF format 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101
Portland, Oregon 97220-1384

Re: Request For Consideration In Ocean Harvest Impacts On Coastal Natural Spawning Salmon Stocks

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy is a non-profit organization based in Washington State. The purpose of the Advocacy is “Provide education, science, and other efforts that en- courage the public, regulatory agencies and private businesses to manage or utilize fish, wildlife and other natural resources in a fashion that insures the sustainable of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations.” (www. thfwa.org).

Advocacy members and their family and neighbors have personally spent decades investing in salmon production through volunteer projects that have raised millions of Chinook, Coho, and Chum salmon that contribute to the pool of fish caught in the Pacific Ocean. Our members and supporters have joined with other Washington citizens and property owners in contributing billions of dollars in habitat restoration, state operated hatchery production, culvert replacements, property devaluation, loss of timber harvest, municipal or private sewage and storm water improvements, etc. under government mandates wherein the stated primary purpose is the recovery or substainability of natural spawning salmon stocks in WA streams.

With all this effort and investment, salmon recovery has struggled to succeed. Instate fishing has declined and ESA listings have plauged the state from the Columbia on the south to Puget Sound to the north.

Over the last 4 years, the Advocacy and others have invested thousands of hours in assisting the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission in adoption of two new salmon management policies for the coastal terminals of Willapa Bay1 and Grays Harbor2. The policies prioritize conservation over harvest, install hatchery reform and place an increased emphasis on achieving escapement goals for natural spawning stocks. In simple terms, an all out effort is underway to avoid further ESA designations and return natural spawning production to numbers adequate to sustain viable fisheries in the future.

The effort underway went forth with the knowledge that harvest inside the terminal has to be managed in a manner that could often require reduction of harvest inside the two terminals in order to achieve escapement goals. Using 2015 as an example, tribal and non-tribal commercial seasons were curtailed for Chinook in Willapa and Grays Harbor. Recreational fishers in both


1 http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/
2 http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/


terminals were forced to forgo retention of unmarked Chinook. Then, the much smaller than expected 2015 coho return forced closures of tribal commercial, non-tribal commercial, and recreational seasons within both coastal terminals.

Even with all these measures and sacrifices, we believe it is clear escapement goals for natural spawning Chinook in Willapa Bay in 2015 were not reached. The adjustments in non-tribal and tribal fisheries inside the terminal, combined with a recent lowering of the escapement goal, allowed us to reach escapement goals in Grays Harbor. Coho escapement goals were not achieved in either terminal even with the closures as once again the conservation burdon fell on the terminal fishers who waited patiently for their turn to fish as harvest continued on schedule on the ocean. As an example, the Humptulips in GH achieved less than 20 percent of its goal.

We recognize that the citizens who live on and around salmon bearing streams are stewards of those streams and will pay a significantly greater price than non-locals for the production of fish that are likely to be harvested on the open ocean. However, in providing this subsidy to fishers on the ocean, the harvest rate applied outside the terminals by the PFMC should not make it nearly impossible to achieve escapement goals or threaten the locals with the potential of additional burdens from ESA listing of species in the future.

In a recent appearance before the Pacific Salmon Commission, the Advocacy pointed out a problem with seasons set to the north. An example of the hardship placed on those inside the terminal was pointed out by quoting page 51 of PSC’s annual report on Chinook harvest (TCCHI- NOOK15-1_V1, PSC.PDF) which states in 2014 “....on average 86% of fishery-related mortality on WA coastal stocks” results from PSC sanctioned fisheries located north of the Canadian/WA border. As a direct result, the returning runsize of Chinook natural spawners coming across the bar into Willapa was reduced below the escapement goal.

In simple terms, the number of natural spawning Chinook heading for Willapa Bay was reduced by harvest in AK and BC in PSC sanctioned fishers to the north and once again in PFMC seasons off the coast. As the result of those two regulatory schemes, the runsize was reduced to below the escapement goal making achievement of the goal impossible even if all fishing inside the terminal was canceled. It is important to note that this phenomena is not limited to 2014, but rather the norm in Willapa for over a decade. Neither is it limited to just Chinook as the runsize below escapement goal occurred in 2015 for coho in both terminals resulted in season cancellations though seasons on the ocean proceeded forward on the initial schedule.

In accordance with the Advocacy’s purpose referenced earlier, it is our belief that the elected officials and citizens of Washington state should have the opportunity to fully understand all the reasons why the billions already invested by Washingtonians have not produced the anticipated conservation results and the list of threatened or endangered stocks continue to grow in Puget Sound and elsewhere. It is therefore our intention to engage all in a long over-due discussion re- guarding the reasons why the state is plagued by the failure to recovery natural spawning salmon stocks.

The latest indicator of the need for such a broad based public discussion is the overfishing notice recently published by NOAA in the federal register for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fall

Chinook and coho in the Hoh River further up the coast. We believe the citizens will quickly ask “Where is all this fishing occurring?” With 86% of fishing mortality occurring north of the WA/ Canada border, we expect most eyes to first turn to the PFC processes. The question we expect to hear is “If we can’t get PFC to let enough back to the streams to meet escapement goals, where’s the incentive for Washingtonians to continue pouring billions of dollars in public and private resources into habitat restoration and hatchery production?”

The next point of reference will be the ocean harvest installed by PFMC off the coast. While of less impact than the northern fisheries, the PFMC seasons “piggy-back” onto the northern harvest leaving the citizens within the terminal a minor portion of the return even though they are the ones primarily footing the bill for the productions costs that feeds all on the open ocean.

At this point, the Advocacy doesn’t have an explanation that we are confident the majority of citizens of Washington would find acceptable. Especially when responding to the family living on Willapa Bay that recently lost a quarter of a million dollars in harvestable timber due to set- backs intended to protect habitat for natural spawners that have yet to materialize in the nearby stream due to harvest impacts, primarily on the open ocean.

As we move forward in our project to engage all in discussions about how we can restore natural spawning stocks in Washington, the Advocacy respectfully requests that the PFMC consider seasons that reduce the impacts on natural origin salmon stocks that have either struggled to meet escapement goals or already been noted under ESA guidelines. In the case of Willapa Chinook and Hoh River coho, we are requesting a decrease in impacts on natural spawners incurring in PFMC sanctioned fisheries. Same as the request made to PSC, a reduction of 10% per year for five consecutive years or until such time as the number crossing over from the Pacific is forecasted to be at least 110% of the escapement goal for two consecutive years.

We end by asking for personal consideration from each of the voting members of the PFMC. Specifically, when setting seasons off the coast, we ask each of you to simply ask yourselves two questions prior to voting. The first is “Will the seasons being proposed for the ocean create an incentive for the citizens who live inside the terminals to continue to invest billions into habitat restoration and hatchery production that supports ocean harvest?” The second is “Will
the number of fish allowed to return to the coastal terminals allow managers a reasonable ability to achieve escapement goals for natural spawning stocks?” If the answer is no to either, we ask each of you to soundly reject the proposal.

Respectfully,




Tim Hamilton Art Holman Ron Schweitzer
President Vice-President Secretary/Treasurer
cc: The Honorable Members of the WA Fish & Wildlife Commission Director Jim Unsworth, WDFW
Assistant Director Ron Warren, WDFW Fish Program

https://olyopen.com/2022/08/10/bombshell...recovery/?amp=1

Repeat... Now what? What may, can, or will happen from this? Hard to believe that AK's and Canada's commercial fleet is all the sudden gonna stop fishing. Is this just a symbolic decision? Or, something that has teeth to shut it down. Appeals? How many more years until something changes?

The Court will decide for US fisheries. They could order the closure of those AK fisheries, and maybe any Southern US fisheries that take immature Chinook.

My solution, which could still leave the criminally low escapement goals in place, is for NOAA/Courts to mandate that all Chinook fisheries occur on adult fish after they have passed by SRKWs. As a general rule, this would be in rivers. But, in PS it could be in bays or even the main Sound until a pod shows up.

That is correct. In his order accepting the recommendation, Judge Jones said the Magistrate Judge, Michelle Peterson, will submit an additional report with appropriate remedies for the violations of the defendants, which include the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce.

So the question of 'What happens next?' is still to be determined. But I find it hard to believe that the harvest of Chinook salmon in SE AK will continue has it has for many years. Seems like a drastic reduction in harvest should be a major consideration.

An appeal is likely being discussed, but it might be awhile before DoJ decides whether to appeal, or not. That might depend on the extent of the remedies imposed by the Judge.

The alternative, depending on who controls Congress (elections have consequences), would be convening the God Squad and writing off PS Chinook and SRKWs. To the dispassionate and considering the success that has been had in in Chinook and SRKW recovery to date that the decision for extinction has been made.'

CM, that isn't how the god squad works or what it decides on. Congress doesn't convene the god squad and decide to let species go instinct.

"The God Squad has the authority to exempt an agency action from the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA if the God Squad makes certain determinations. The God Squad is composed of seven members: the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of the Army, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of the Interior, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and one individual from the affected State, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior and appointed by the President. The God Squad process is initiated when a Federal agency, a Governor of the State in which an agency action will occur, or in certain circumstances, a permit or license applicant, submits an application to the Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of the Interior (the recipient of the application depends upon which species is being impacted). In order for the exemption to be granted, five out of the seven members of the God Squad must vote in favor of the exemption."

Some entity would have to request that a certain action be exempt from ESA constraints for ESA species. ....but other restrictions would remain. What action for exemption would be supported by the public, governors, tribes to not apply to those precious SRKWs? Someone gets a freebie while others take the burden? It sure won't be fisheries that get break if it's understood that the fishery has an effect on abundance or habitat.

The god squad has made 3 decisions since the ESA was amended in 1978. They denied exemption for the snail darter and Tellico Dam. They okayed the exemption for whooping cranes and Grayrocks Dam and the northern spotted owl and pNW national forest lands (exemption later overturned by 9th Circuit judge).

Darth - Exactly correct. The God Squad provides an exemption to the Federal agency action, not to the listed species. So if the harvest of Chinook salmon in SE AK is exempted from the ESA, the other actions that kill salmon would have to take up the slack (the incidental take) that was exempted by the God Squad. In other words, the 'conservation burden' doesn't go away, it just gets reallocated to other sectors of society (e.g., recreational angling, hydropower, habitat loss, etc).

That's why the God Squad will never be applied to Pacific salmon.

That is what is happening now. The incidental take has been exempted. Or the actually directed take in the winter troll fishery.

And, while Congress does not schedule or control the God Squad they do control the money. I doubt the current iteration of Conservatives are interested in saving species and if they gain control they'll exercise it. Just look at SCOTUS.

What the heck are you talking about? First you say Congress convenes the God Squad, then you say they dont. You mention something about
"they" exempting winter troll, then say its actually "directed take". "They didnt exempt winter troll and it isn't "directed take". The Biological Opinion is on the SEAK troll fishery. It isn't parsed out into bits and pieces of winter, vs spring vs summer. The
Biological Opinion that was attacked by WFC regarding the SEAK troll said this

NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed actions, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This is the Effect of the Take.

The BO said that the SEAK troll fishery would not jeopardize the likelihood of recovery for SRKWs and ESA Chinook stocks provided a number of Reasonable and Prudent Measures were taken. One of those was follow the provisions under the PST. The other main was increase prey availability for SRKWs by increasing Chinook hatchery releases.

THE WFC lawsuit objected to the approval of the fishery by saying that the Reasonable and Prudent Measures would not offset the loss by the troll fishery and that there was no evidence that increased hatchery production will help out or offset the fishery losses. They also dinged NOAA on a NEPA process violation.

Regarding Congress, do you really think that the West Coast delegation is going to spearhead a castration of the Dept of Commerce (NOAA) budget and take "credit" for the demise of SRKWs? They've got more important things to do like wrangle over gas prices and who to blame for inflation.

I have been around Gubmint long enough to know that folks that control the money control the agencies. Congress may not be able tp physically convene the GS but they do write law and control the purse strings.

The result of the action authorizing the troll fishery/approving/whatever allows it to occur. Analysis of the catch composition showed that they winter portion of the fishery took many more southern fish. The summer fishery catches more locals. But by aggregating catch into a lump sum the details of when southern stocks predominate can be hidden.

It's not the west coast delegation but the MAGA folks (should they flip Congress) who will look to save money from being thrown down a rathole. NOAA has had close to 30 years since listing to make improvements in the population sizes of the listed Chinook and SRKWs. How's all that "reasonable and prudent" **it working? Somebody who cares more about money than natural resources will look at that balance sheet.

You're backwards. Winter has more Alaska stocks as it is an inside fishery. Though Alaska stocks are still a small percentage. It's summer troll, the biggy, in outside areas .eg..Sitka that hits URBs, Col r summers, WA and OR coastal. Puget Sound stock contribution in SEAK is pretty minor.

The NOAA funding is barely a butt pimple. When Congress is scrutinizing the budget they aren't going to spend any time looking at or thinking about this pissant stuff. And maybe the ones that do will be west coast folks and are they going to go to try arguing for cuts?

There was once a chair of the state senate natural resource committee who repeatedly asked WDF for information but nope nada nothing. So he lined out all funding for harvest management and low and behold the concrete palace pretty much showed up at the next hearing! With any government agency local, state, or federal budget is not just important it is EVERYTHING! Take away or tie up funding it is almost embarrassing to watch the groveling that follows. Money always money.

Yes That! Get the trollers out of the ocean freeway lanes in the spring and summer!

Butt of course it will be the MAGA folks that cut off the money from saving the remaining fish, the last of our pristine environment, and polar bears.


Can it be a worse outcome as we now see it, than the folks that managed the fisheries for the last 40 years ?

I have never noticed any difference in policies for Pacific salmon regardless of the political parties. Words yup but not outcome.

Completely agree Rivrguy. One side may talk a good fight but they all head to the same result.

https://www.kcaw.org/2022/02/04/projecte...f-for-trollers/

How can they justify an increase in harvest?

This was an increase for this summer. Basically, fish management is about catching fish first and foremost. For some reason I believe that the PST does not fully consider the plight of WA Chinook or SRKWs. If memory serves the PST has not set escapement goals for the listed fish so there is no target that needs hitting.

Last time I checked the fish don't vote. Those SE AK trollers are economically hurting and they vote. Plus, AK is (despite some nice sockeye runs) digging itself a deep hole with their Chinook (see Yukon, Kenai, and elsewhere) and their subsistence fisheries. The whole damn Yukon is closed; recently Whitehorse ladder had counted 13 when a fully operational and properly managed treaty fishery would have put 1,000 or more past there.

C-Man

Question for you: What percentage of Puget Sound Chinook are caught in the Alaska fisheries? I've heard all kinds of numbers for years.

Tug 3-

According to the information in the draft 2022 co-manager PS Chinook management plan (table 2-9) for the majority of PS Chinook stocks less than 5% of the recent harvests of those fish have occurred in Alaskan waters.

Exceptions were the Nooksack springs (8.8%), Skagit summer/falls (19.4%), and Hoko (surrogate for the Elwha - 34.6%).

Curt

You guys in PS must be lucky. For GH with an ocean abundance of 2022 GH Chinook at bit over 31,000 of those AK & BC are to take 16250. AK takes the lions share.

Rivrguy -
Remember Tug asked about the catch in Alaska. For most of those same stocks the catch in BC waters is much higher. Typically, of the total harvest 20 to 67% of happens in BC waters. For example, the most constraining PS stock has been the Stillaguamish fish where the BC fisheries account for 55.6% of the total fishing impacts.

Curt

Gotcha but my fall back position is for years the unsaid thing has been that BC will get off our fish if we get AK off of theirs. No matter how we try to circumvent it the ugly truth is any change must start with AK.

An additional cog is this machine relates to Upriver Brights on the Columbia if I recall correctly. Given that some spawn in Canadian reaches of the river, and we fish on them most of the way to that point, we throw them a bone somewhere correct?

The URBs certainly used to spawn in BC but Chief Joe ended that. A few may go up the Okanagan. I think Canada traded electricity for fish when the dams were built. I think there was some sort of treaty.

Gotcha. Would be interesting to see what would happen when if there was say a 50% reduction in Alaska commercial catch. Personally I don’t think there should be ANY non-terminal commercial fisheries given that they’re entirely non-selective. Would be one thing if runs were doing much better, but it just seems like we’re doing this strange balancing act of trying not to teeter too far over to the side of total collapse.

One of the interesting things about salmon is we chase them all over the ocean and yet they return to predictable terminal locations at maximum weight and require a significantly lower investment in fuel.

Good way to look at it.

The Tribes have been telling us that for about 150 years (no exaggeration). We don't need to chase salmon all over the ocean. We can just wait until they return as fully grown adults.......

Their position on that hasn't changed.

The tribes are right about that and we should just let them grow big and no fishing in the saltwater then they can come back to the rivers and we will get those big 50 pounders again

Smalma,

Thanks for the info and numbers.