Is PFMC a cancer or cure for our state salmon

The Pacific Fishery Management Council kicks off their first of five meetings spread throughout the year starting with the council and its advisory bodies meeting March 7-13, 2017 in Vancouver, Washington. Their salmon technical team is responsible for the stock forecast with the preseason report link below.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_Preseason_Report_I_03MAR17_final.pdf

Off their website:
“The Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 with jurisdiction over the 317,690 square mile exclusive economic zone off Washington, Oregon and California…
The Council process is a bottom-up process, emphasizing public participation and involvement in fisheries management. Public input is encouraged and appreciated. Management measures developed by the Council are recommended to the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).”

Need to research;

It appears like PFMC is in the business of extracting our state wild but especially hatchery produced salmon for ocean fleets for the sake of US Commerce. If so to what extent and detriment to the salmon returning to their natal waters. Already have read some reports concerning this. Need more info.

Since our state legislature is looking to increase license fees on the backs of our state individuals and their families to support hatchery production, how much are these ocean fleets with direct salmon take or salmon by catch contributing to hatchery production costs? Not only in the PFMC council’s jurisdiction but up north in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) jurisdiction as well with NPFMC admitting ground fish fisheries catching 5 species of salmon but with their greatest concern being Chinook salmon.

Do all PFMC meetings share similarly traits as their #2 meeting-- the grand finale of the NOF process?

Are PFMC meetings as open to the public as they could be?

Comments? Answers? Suggestions to add to the list? thanks

PFMC has its own criteria and objectives for conservation. Season setting and harvest guidelines/quotas are intended to meet WDFW's conservation objectives each year.

There are other specific criteria that determine when there has been "overfishing" or when a stock has been "overfished" over multiple years that are not part of the states annual conservation objectives.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/StatusoFisheries/2005/finalSOS/Appendices_2-5_FINAL.pdf

Page 38-39 talks about "overfishing" on West Coast Salmon

on September 27, 2000, the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (PFMC) criteria for an overfishing concern are met if, in three consecutive years, the post-season estimates indicate a natural stock has fallen short of its conservation objective (MSY, maximum sustainable production (MSP2), or spawner floor as noted for some harvest rate objectives) as listed in
Table 3-1 of the Salmon FMP. It is possible that a failure to meet conservation objectives for three consecutive years could result from normal variation, as has been seen in the past for several previously referenced salmon stocks which were reviewed under the PFMC's former overfishing definition. However, the occurrence of three consecutive years of reduced stock size or spawner escapements, depending on the magnitude of the short-fall, may signal the beginning of a critical downward trend which may result in fishing that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock to produce MSY over the long term if appropriate actions are not taken.

Last year these stocks were deemed to be subjected to "overfishing"

Columbia summer chinook
Grays Harbor fall chinook
Willapa Bay fall chinook
Hoh River coho

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_e...cks_updated.pdf

Overfishing: A stock that has a harvest rate higher than the rate that produces its MSY.

Overfished: A stock that has a population size that is too low and that jeopardizes the stock’s ability to produce its MSY.

The three year definition appears to have been superseded at the last re-write of the salmon fishery mgt plan. A more recent document (Mar 2016) states:

Stock- specific overfishing determinations will be made annually and are based on exploitation during a single biological year.

What's supposed to happen when there is overfishing?

The Salmon Technical Team (STT) will report postseason exploitation rates in the annual SAFE document, and when overfishing occurs, the Council shall:
1) notify the NMFS NWR administrator of the STT’s findings;
2) direct the STT to assess the mortality rates in fisheries impacting the stock of concern and report their findings;
3) immediately take action to ensure Council area fisheries are not contributing to overfishing, and;
4) notify pertinent management agencies of the stock’s status and the contribution of various fisheries to the total exploitation rate.

While overfishing is deemed undesirable, there really are no "teeth" in the plan until a stock has actually become overfished down to its minimum stock size threshold (MSST).

So while a stock may be red-flagged for being subjected to overfishing, the overfishing is technically allowed to continue until the stock actually becomes overfished to that critically low level.

A stock will be considered overfished if the 3-year geometric mean of annual spawning escapements falls below the MSST, where MSST is generally defined as 0.5*SMSY or 0.75*SMSY, although there are some exceptions (Table 3-1). Overfished determinations will be made annually using the three most recently available postseason estimates of spawning escapement.

eyeFISH,

You are on a roll and I probably shouldn't interrupt.

Thank you for the link above, just skimming through it has answered some questions while producing others. I’ll take a more deliberate approach later this week while looking for answers to other questions.

Smalma on occasion has mentioned the ramifications of recreational salmon fishing over mixed stocks. Well, looking at the Ocean commercial fisheries off our coast and up north-- that looks like the mother of all mixed stock fisheries. As we know the pre-season predictions can be quite inaccurate but the ocean fisheries are formed and get first whack.

The ocean fisheries while fishing in mixed stock fisheries are quite wasteful considering that the fish caught can be as small as ½ their potential size compared to being caught later in the season at their terminal areas. But, PFMC and US Commerce must know best.

One of the eternal questions asked about the salmon fisheries, especially the ocean fisheries, is why do you chase something all over the place when it is going to come back to you. And, at a much larger size.

Would be interesting to evaluate fisheries based on the pounds of salmon harvested per gallon of fuel used. Especially since there is a finite amount of that fuel.

So here in Grays Harbor, the MSST is defined as one half the aggregate MSY spawner goal for the entire basin (no separation of Hump and Chehalis)

In the cited table, the MSY goal is listed as 11388 kings and the MSST is listed as half that number, or 5694 kings.

Interestingly, that does NOT reflect the co-managers' (WDFW/QIN) current aggregate chinook goal of 13146. Under that MSY spawner goal, the MSST should be 6573. I've got a call out to help reconcile the discrepancy.

....

So how does all of that shake out for a river like the Chehalis that has only met its chinook goal 4 times in the past 20 years?

Looking back at the last 8 years (data presented at first NOF meeting about GH) managers were overfishing GH chinook 5 of those years.

But because not one of those overfishing years has come anywhere close to reaching the MSST, PFMC will do nothing to improve the plight of Chehalis-origin kings.

....

Same story goes for Humptulips coho.... a stock that has NOT reached it's wild spawner goal but once in the past 20 years!

....

This aggregated mixed-stock harvest model really works AGAINST key natural populations. Their individual demise is simply masked from an aggregate perspective

As far as GH chinook, the Council can simply shed any responsibility because exploitation rates on GH-origin kings in PFMC fisheries is already VERY low (historically somewhere in the 3-4% range). PFMC could wash their hands clean and reasonably claim that the PFMC fisheries do not substantially contribute to the overfishing on this stock. By the PFMC's own conservation standard, there is no compelling reason to change.

Here's a more up-to-date link to the latest version of the Council's salmon fishery management plan.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FMP-through-A-19_Final.pdf


3.1 STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA

Any fishery management plan . . . shall . . . specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery . . . is overfished . . . and, . . . contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery
Magnuson-Stevens Act, '§303(a)(10)

Overfishing (to overfish) occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or annual total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis
NS1Gs (600.310 (e)(2)(i)(B))

Overfished. A stock or stock complex is considered ‘‘overfished’’ when its biomass has declined below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis.” NS1Gs (600.310 (e)(2)(i)(E))

Approaching an overfished condition. A stock or stock complex is approaching an overfished condition when it is projected that there is more than a 50 percent chance that the biomass of the stock or stock complex will decline below the MSST within two years.
NS1Gs (600.310(e)(2)(i)(G)

All good questions.

It's as if we plan to fail, and then pass regulations to assure it happens.

WTF?

Nice and concise but very disturbing.

It appears like a whole tribe of witch doctors have been exposed using voodoo pseudo-science to fill up the hulls of the ocean fleets when using a known failed management policy (MSY).

This published paper explains how MSY derives from government policy that is disguised as science while explaining the history of MSY.

Here is a paper written by Finley, C. and Oreskes, N. 2013. Maximum sustained yield: a policy disguised as science. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 245–250

https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss192

“Overfishing is most commonly explained as an example of the tragedy of the commons, where individuals are unable to control their activities, leading to the destruction of the resource they are dependent on. The historical record suggests otherwise. Between1949 and 1958, the US State Department used fisheries science, and especially the concept of maximum sustained yield (MSY) as a political tool to achieve its foreign policy objectives. While there has been much criticism of MSY and its failure to conserve fish stocks, there has been little attention paid to the political context in which MSY was adopted.”

Where did MSY come from?
“Chapman defined MSY as making “possible the maximum production of food from the sea on a sustained basis year after year” (Chapman, 1949). The basic idea was to harvest fish stocks until they showed signs of overfishing. At that point, restrictions to slow the catch could be applied. On the face of it, the policy was logical enough, but it rested on four assumptions: (i) that scientists were able to accurately estimate existing stock levels for the major economic fisheries, (ii) that scientists could accurately recognize when stocks had reached the maximum sustainable levels, (iii) that governments would act promptly to curtail fishing when those levels were reached, and (iv) that scientists could accurately identify the levels at which recovery was sufficient to permit fishing to resume. None of these assumptions was supported by a strong empirical base, and all four were subsequently shown to be incorrect (Pauly, 1994)...”

Sounds more or less like the reasoning behind my stance that the three biggest threats to long-term salmon survival are harvest, harvest, and harvest.

It should be obvious to anyone that MSY is not based in science, but it's good to see some scientific literature stating the same.

One of the problems, of many, with MSY is that when you fish (say) the salmon, herring, and whatever the herring eat at MSY you knock the spawning population down to about 20% of unexploited, on average. So, what eats herring and salmon now have a lot less to eat.

Then, we try and "recover" pinnipeds. Killer Whales, cormorants, terns, grizzlies, and all the other predators that eat salmon to historic numbers. Without the food base to support it.

It may make sense to fish the top of the food chain at MSY but the further down the food chain one goes, the less one can support at the upper levels.

What a waste on many different levels with salmon being chased and caught at much smaller size while leaving a carbon footprint instead of waiting for full grown mature salmon to come back to their natal terminal areas.

Looking back, the origin of commercial ocean salmon fisheries was to get away from rule and regulations protecting dwindling salmon runs on the Columbia river in the late 1800’s. As sail made way to engine powered ships a more reliable source of transportation would take the ocean commercial fleet even further away from port. The ocean harvest of salmon was an unregulated free for all until 1948 seems to come to mind but I’ll have to double check that.

The premise and reasoning of ocean fleets to get away from regulations was just wrong---not much different today by making rules and regulations to protect ocean salmon harvest or by-catch of salmon by other fisheries not targeting salmon, while leaving escapement goals in terminal areas barren.

There was an interesting article by the head of WA State Fisheries in the teens (nine-teens) decrying the catch of immature salmon in the ocean, particularly off the mouth of the Columbia.

Besides the small size and chasing them they actually looked at "food quality" of the fish. The comparisons were with adults at local hatcheries. They were looking at "quality" from nutritional aspects and not such things as skin color. The highest quality was a springer while the lowest were the ocean caught fish.

Made for an interesting read.

That is interesting, Carcassman. No mystery that springers are the finest of the fine, but it is a surprise (initially) to hear that the quality of small, ocean fish is less. After a little thought, however, it makes plenty of sense. Salmon put on the bulk of their weight while foraging in the waters off their streams of origin. Coho do most of their growing in just a few months. By that rationale, the longer the fish are allowed to forage, the more of the fat that makes them tasty is present in their flesh. Not only bigger, but better.

I think Lucky Louie has the motivation for fishing in the ocean nailed. Sport fishers like the ocean, too, because thete are more fish and the rules out there (although they're much more strict today) are much less restrictive, which means a better chance at catching a limit. Heck, I take every chance I can get to fish the ocean, even if that's not many.

An additional advantage of fishing the ocean and targeting immatures is that they are actively feeding, which makes them much easier to catch. Obviously, the highest food value, largest size, lowest carbon footprint would be adults taken in nets, traps, or fish wheels in a river or bay.

Which means, at some point, society has to decide if salmon are for eating or recreation.

We get sort of an idea how salmon are managed in the EEZ by PFMC when we can see some of the results from returning salmon stocks to their terminal areas. The worrisome part is about the other 118 species PFMC manages that are out of view for the most part.

We can be rest assured though that PFMC will continue to do their job to the best of their ability to attempt to keep the hulls of the subsidized ocean fleets full of fish. Why? Because that is their job and they do it well.

Spoke to a PFMC operative today. The discrepancy is simply a reflection of Table 3-1 not being updated since 2011. New escapement goals were agreed upon by the co-managers since then.

Yup. The habitat just can't make enough to keep the hulls full AND meet escapement, so something's gotta give. So long, escapement!

MSY seems like man’s way of saying that we know better than mother nature. I can see where that has gotten us and pretty sure how that story ends.


Another account of MSY explained by the Kenny Tao paper Fishing in the North Atlantic: What’s Left?
“The modern approach to avoid overfishing was to establish the amount of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (Hagler, 1995). It can be defined as the maximum rate of population removal without jeopardizing the stock for next season (Ricklefs, 1993).” Unfortunately, MSY is a form of gambling in which fishery managers’ attempt, as a matter of speculation, to extract maximum yields from a natural resource, on the assumption that, if they get it wrong one year, they will be able to get right the next. “It is by calculating the MSY that the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that 70 percent of the world's commercial fish species are now fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted (Helvarg, 1997). MSY is not the perfect answer, but it is the most commonly accepted one. It is subject to inaccurate data from reporting agencies, natural variables such as abnormal climatic events, and the lack of long-term historical data for the particular species (Hagler, 1995). It was very difficult for legislative bodies to set fishing limits. The uncertainties involved in estimating fish population led to abuse.”

There is another way to look at MSY similar to LL's.

MSY is not a biological model but an economic one. What is the minimum investment I need to make in order to maximize returns to me? This works if your $10 investment pays a fixed (say) 30% per year. But, say it doesn't. It pays only 25, but you still take your 30.

Alternatively, say I offer you a million dollars ( you can't touch it) but guarantee that you can have 10% annual return. Or, ten million but you are only guaranteed 1.5%.

Which do you want?

A friend modeled coho one time and showed that, if the coho carcasses actually benefitted coho production-as studies show, that fishing the run at 40% actually resulted in more fish in the catch than fishing at 60%. It's published in Restoring Nutrients in Salmonid Ecosystems..

Then you have Chair Blake introducing legislation if not last year then the year before asking for a yearly accountability to the legislature on every “wasted fish” that makes it back above escapement.

Between manmade models, manmade concepts(MSY), manmade laws, and manmade strategy in lowering the bar when runs can’t make escapement etc. leaves little wonder why the salmon runs continue to dwindle.

That definition of "wastage" is actually enshrined in the Boldt Decision and subsequent Court Orders. Any fish above the escapement goal is "wasted" and therefore available to be caught. That is why the State asked for Foregone Opportunity; can't waste those damn fish by letting them spawn.

PFMC is gonna have to take a LONG hard look at what to do off California...

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6745494-181/worst-salmon-season-in-eight?artslide=0

California isn’t the only state having problems.

Here is a NOAA study from 2013 regarding The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States in 2011.

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/econ...ates%202011.pdf

Of the 21 marine states in the lower 48, when it come to non-resident angler participation Oregon comes in dead last at 21st place, Washington once the salmon capital of the world fishing destination comes in second to last in 20th place and California comes in at 13 out of 21st place.

The common denominator of these three states is that PFMC manages salmon and 118 other species in the federal waters off these three states. This isn’t an indictment, but is PFMC the smoking gun—who knows?

But what I do know is what draws me to Florida, which is the state topping the list of non-resident marine anglers by head over shoulders of the other coastal states, isn’t the weather (too humid for my liking) but because of the variety, size, and quantity of fish available.

continuing on...

While trying to compare the differences between the success of Florida and Washington’s failure with out of state fishing tourism in one word, I could not believe the word came up as “hostile.” The hostile environment in Washington due to rules and regulations etc. has a direct impact regarding the availability, reliability, and quantity of fish while vying for the potential non-resident anglers dollars.

Hostile is unreliable marine and river seasons around Puget Sound and the state;

1) Hostile not only to both in and out of state sport anglers but the whole recreational industry itself affecting jobs /employment while manufacturing and selling boats and sporting goods etc.

2) Hostile to the many smaller moms and pop tackle shops and larger sporting good stores too that have gone out of business one-by-one.

3) Hostile to fishing guides and to their out of state or state clients that book reservations and put in for vacation well in advance just to find out the fishery is closed.

Hostile is allocation issues using Puget Sound halibut as an example where the Alaskan ground fishing fleet, managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and with the blessing of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), catches and dumps many times more dead halibut overboard as by-catch than the whole Puget Sound allocation--- where the PS season is measured in days.

Hostile is the state legislature cutting funding to WDFW by 10’s of millions of dollars over the past 8 years, and now wants to dump this biennium shortfall of $25 million on the sport angling citizens and their families with a major proposed increase in license fees. The 1987 legislative finding and intent found under notes of RCW 77.04.020 states adequate funding for proper management, now and for future generations, is the responsibility of everyone.

Then look what pops up along the Pacific coast recently putting another nail in the coffin with regulations reducing season length and harvest regarding rock fish and the like.

Apparently, subsidized commercial ocean fisheries must be protected by all cost, while at the expense of potential economic benefits to the state and local government through tourism and out of state fishing fees.

And the list could go on and on…

It sure would be nice if my home state would give us the ability to be able to live and fish in a much less “hostile” environment.

While LL is probably onto something with the hostile attitude towards anglers, perhaps the fish species we have and rely on are hostile to mega-fishing.

Anadromous fish require intact freshwater ecosystems. How many of these have we compromised, lowering the productivity/capacity? We could make more extensive use of hatcheries but that would require the same clean water, land, and food.

Rockfish are very long lived and probably way less supportive of large annual extractions. We could fish them sustainably at low rates; would that bring tourists?

Are the primary target fishes in the Atlantic and Gulf high productivity, short-lived? Plus, they have had quite a few issues with overfishing and pollution too. Just look at east coast Stripers. And, they haven't done well with Atlantic Salmon.

We here in the PNW may not have the species and stocks that can support huge fisheries. Not saying we can't make shifts in who catches them but the ocean just might be limitless.

My comment about putting another nail in the coffin with regulations reducing season length and harvest regarding rock fish and the like on the coast, the interpretation is when thrown on the stack of the other fisheries with restrictions, the aggregate contributes to the decline of the recreational industry. Where disappearance of the mom and pop tackle shops and possibly the poor results of nonresident participation just mirrors the health of our state fisheries in disrepair.

To answer your question there is already a good size bottom fishing niche fishery in the ocean by the Westport charter boats to compliment their salmon fishing income. Good thing for them since Westport looks like a ghost town in the summer compared to when I use to fish there as a teen. There is no reason to believe that there will not be more restrictions coming in the future to affect their bottom line because that is just how it works--- step by step taking dollar by dollar methodically away.

The last time I read about the world fish biomass I believe 66% of the biomass disappeared in the last 100 years with most of it (54%) disappearing in the past 40 year alone.

The common thread between the precipitous drop in the world fish biomass and anadromous salmon stocks is we ate them and we will continue to feed the world with salmon until it isn’t practical.

Of course, what practical means could be debatable considering over 20 years ago a 1995 report published by Carl Safina was noted, that the annual costs for the fishing industry worldwide to catch $70 billion worth of fish were $124 billion.

The red ink filled in by government subsidies.

Tough times for CA and Oregon really got hit.

NMFS Announces Inseason action in the 2017 Commercial Ocean Salmon Fishery

Effective March 15, 2017, the commercial salmon fishery from Cape Falcon, OR to Humbug Mountain, OR is closed March 15, 2017 through April 14, 2017. The Council will review this fishery at the April 2017 Council meeting regarding opening or remaining closed in April.
Effective March 15, 2017, the commercial salmon fishery from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon/California border (Oregon KMZ) is closed March 15, 2017 through April 30, 2017.
Effective April 16, 2017, the commercial salmon fishery from Horse Mountain, California to Point Arena, California (Fort Bragg) is closed April 16, 2017 through April 30, 2017.

Back to the WA home front....





PFMC should be looking VERY carefully at Willapa Bay right now, as that chinook stock is CLEARLY in that "APPROACHING AN OVERFISHED CONDITION" status as I type.

Last year's natural origin escapement of 1581 is BELOW the MSST of 1697. There is significant risk that the 2017 run is even smaller. If the 2017 escapement does not at least exceed 1513 chinook, the 3-yr geometric mean for 2015-2017 WILL fall short of the MSST threshold.

In other words, the stock has declined to a point that we are within 68 fish of triggering an OVERFISHED status.

SAD... friggin' sad.

The really sad thing is that you know what the escapement was, what you need, and what you need to avoid one of "overfished" designations. It should come as no surprise. Knowing that the Feds will look at trends it would seem that one low year would trigger conservatism the next.

And in WB you can't blame the Co-managers for a high forecast, fixed schedule, unwillingness to adapt, etc.

WB shows us how the rest of the State would be managed in the absence of Boldt.

AMEN! The ONE place where the state could possibly get it right.

There's a handful of us trying to hold their feet to the fire. Stay tuned.

Gonna have to burn more than their feet to get any response.

I know a lot of folks working hard to help WB.

eyeFISH-

During the late August September trips we found a higher than expected portion of unclipped fish in the catch. Of course that is a small sample size and does really tell us whether there more unclipped or less clipped fish than expected. The WB creel checks showed the same thing; out of 635 fish 153 or 24% were unclipped. This is roughly twice percentage expected from the forecasts.

That said I did notice that the latest hatchery escapement report (11/9) showed that the 3 WB hatcheries had handled and released a good number of "wild" fish. The total for the 3 hatcheries was 1,586 adults. Don't know what portion of the potential escapement those wild fish represent. However the numbers at a similar time had 864 "wild" fish released in 2016 and 1,013 in 2015. Could it be that there might be more than 2,000 NOR spawners?.

Curt

Good to hear that last part, Smalma. That will keep WB chinook off the "overfished" status for the 3-yr geometric mean, but it's still likely to make the overfishing category for the year as the aggregate NOR goal for the entire basin is 4350 (WDFW) and 3393 (PFMC).

It's very frustrating that the federal and state conservation benchmarks are NOT the same. The fish are basically f'd whenever the policy folks can't agree to play from the same sheet of music.

It's even worse in Grays Harbor where the QIN, WDFW and PFMC all have DIFFERENT conservation metrics for what constitutes when the run is "officially" in trouble.

It is an even bigger problem when they can't agree on what is a "healthy" run. Goals based on the needs of the ecosystem are in the neighborhood of 1-2 kg per square metre. Rivrguy has a spreadsheet with these goals applied to GH, based on the EDT estimates of summer low flow habitat. The escapements in the early 2000s for GH were similar to everywhere else. That is 5% or so of the ecosystem goals.

That means 20X what was allowed then. That would put WB at more than 80,000 Chinook and probably should exceed 100K. I should note that the situations where there have been escapements in the 1-2kg range that there were still some pretty good fisheries occurring.

Example... Grays Harbor Chinook

WDFW uses segregated sub-basin habitat-based goals of 9753 for Chehalis and 3573 for Humptulips

QIN uses the aggregate goal of 13326 for the entire GH basin... regardless of whether either of the sub-basins fails to meet goal.

PFMC uses strictly an MSY goal of 11388, and does NOT consider Grays Harbor to be "overfished" until the 3 yr geometric mean is HALF of the MSY goal (5694).... all the while allowing fishery exploitation rates of up to 78% before they think the fish are in trouble.

YOU heard it right! The feds believe that 78% exploitation is 100% A-OK until the spawner escapement falls BELOW 5694 basinwide.

J F C!

As the Twin Harbors Advocacy has shown, nobody at the table gives a rats ass about anything but dividing up catch. There are no advocates for the ecosystem as a whole. We piecemeal (silo) the whole process. Each stock of fish is independent of every other stock, each species is independent of every other species.

The Killer Whales are starving, aborting because of starvation, and the suggested management is to control boats and sound in the water. So they can starve in peace??

It's pretty sad that 90%-plus of salmon management resources is spent on gearing up for NOF.

That process has NOTHING to do about conservation. The conservation happens thru habitat protection and setting appropriate escapement goals.... NONE of which happens at NOF. It's all about who gets to do the killing, where, when, how many... and what gear type will be used to get the killing done in the appointed times and places.

As an advisor, I've yearned to have the serious conservation meetings about habitat and re-assessing e-goals... annual meetings about recovering/sustaining GH salmon that should occur LONG BEFORE the NOF discussions ever get started. Such discussions are SORELY missing... perhaps casually mentioned in passing at best.

Instead everything revolves around NOF... the perennial discussion on how we go about divvying up the kill!

Serious conservation of salmon has to look at the whole food chain, too. Just so sad. And the information is out there. "The truth is out there".

Besides, the oceans are getting screwed and we concentrate on FW habitat. I guess part of the problem is that there are so many pieces that few are willing to try and deal with all of them. Mo betta to just keep my eyes focused on the one little piece in front of me.


Keep hammerin' Doc, it is the only way change has a snowflake's chance in hell.

OH MY FREAKING DOG! EYE, You have finally pulled back the curtain and told the whole GD world that the King is Naked!!!!

Your post sums up exactly why we are pushing so hard to get the NOF Negotiations live streamed AND WHY THEY ARE FIGHTING SO HARD TO KEEP IT SECRET!, They don't want the truth of what CO-management REALLY IS TO BE SEEN!!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSERVATION OR RECOVERY!!

I OWE YOU A DRINK, HELL, I'LL OPEN A TAB FOR YOU!!

NOW we are finally getting somewhere!! In brief, Doc has his hand on the pulse of this convoluted mess, and put forward the most accurate and comprehensive assessment of where we are, and where we need to go... For God's sake! Aren't the fish themselves more important than Tribal, NT Commercial and Rec catch totals? When the Wolf taps out--I will keep the refreshments flowing. Hats off to you, Doc!

Just a crazy idea...but serious.
YOU should start holding these meetings you are talking about. Invite all the players and do it all very publiclyby also inviting newspaper,TV,ETC. When the meeting/s are done, very publicly, get the word out as to who was there, and more importantly, who was not there.

Shine the harsh light of publicity and public criticism on these folks and you'll find it goes a lot further than hoping some of them will do the right thing. You need to publicly shame them into it!

Stick with it. It'll be hard because few will come at first. But when they see their name in the media listed as among those who apparently don't care, they'll start showing up.

This lies at the very heart of RESPONSIBLE salmon management. ALL of the managers MUST subscribe to the same benchmarks.... the GOLD STANDARD by which success or failure is ultimately measured. As it stands now, each agency effectively manages in isolation, undermining the success of the other... and this virtually GUARANTEES the demise of our wild salmon populations.

Former WFWC Chair Miranda Wecker invited WDFW staff to deliver a high level commission briefing to explain the various conservation metrics used by all of the different managing authorities. Prudent action absolutely relies upon having a common indicator of when the fish are in trouble and how to avoid letting things get that bad in the first place anyway! It was a timely request as most of the Commission is completely clueless on this issue.

At that heart of the matter is this. It's the same dam critter with the same basic biological needs to sustain its population. Why are the conservation metrics all so different from one agency to the next? Why can't they all get on the same page? And what can we do to eventually get there.


"Department staff will provide the Commission a briefing on NOAA’s determining factors for considering a stock as overfished, and the interface between federal agencies and state fisheries management relative to conservation objectives."
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/09/audio/20170908_05.m3u

Listen for yourself, but I believe the presentation delivered by Michelle Culver was horribly fragmented and convoluted.... and never once addressed the issue of the agencies cooperatively working toward cohesive conservation goals.

If I might address this although it quoted EyeFish's post;

The truth and frustration is the principles involved won't respond, collectively. The institution is so insulated they have no need to worry. Believe me when I say, we have reached out to all the major news agencies. We have for the most part been answered by silence. Off the record we are told that there is:

1. Way to much advertising money from the Tribes to ever consider anything more than a 30 sec. spot about an issue, and it will always be slanted toward all the good work the tribes do.

2. The top executives of the local media agency most assuredly are receiving "privileges" with Tribal influence.

This train wreck appears to be heading full bore to the full collapse of many of our fisheries. Regardless of the finger pointing, it is a collective result of politics and greed. The result will be, once the collapse causes the Feds to finally step in and shut down the harvest, the Tribes and the Cowboys will sue the State for it's failure to properly manage the resources and for loss of income and violation of treaty rights. And who will PAY??? Yup,,,US!

We have for the most part been answered by silence. Off the record we are told that there is:

1. Way to much advertising money from the Tribes to ever consider anything more than a 30 sec. spot about an issue, and it will always be slanted toward all the good work the tribes do.

2. The top executives of the local media agency most assuredly are receiving "privileges" with Tribal influence.

Obviously the bright light of shame will have to originate outside the circle of the tribe's influence. With what you say about the local media, there is a pulitzer prize here waiting for somebody.

I heard it the same way, Doc. I'm not so jaded as to suspect that Co-Management was designed with the intent of eliminating management accountability for the resource, but I do believe that's what it's done. Without accountability, nobody gets penalized when the rules get violated or the fish get overfished. Absent any repercussion, we can just shrug and blame ocean conditions, then get back to the business of planning next year's slaughter.

And doing the business of agreeing to next years slaughter and making laws which impact ALL citizens are done in secret meetings, behind locked doors so WE cannot object, since we have no idea what the laws will be until the deals are done!

We believe cracking that secrecy is the first and most vital step in getting all the ugly crap of our fisheries out in the open. Only then can we, in mass, start working to fix some of these problems.

Something to remember about the number of fish passed above the rack is that generally, escapement is determined through spawner surveys. In my experience, surveyors will find maybe a third, or less, of the fish actually there.

On the Cedar, years ago, the escapement estimate for the river was less than the number passed above the rack.

I don't know how WB escapements are done, but I suspect that the number passed above the rack is not used. Meaning that there still may be an issue with the 3-year mean.

The spawning (gravel) survey is THE backbone of enumerating WB escapements. Just understand that some wild spawning takes place BELOW the hatchery weirs and these fish are added back to the total

An estimate of pre-spawn mortalities is also figured into reconstructing the run.

Not sure if they add the number passed because then it does not agree with years with only surveys.