Shakers...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281993%29013%3C0524%3AMOCACS%3E2.3.CO%3B2?journalCode=ujfm20

Mortality of Chinook and Coho Salmon in Their First Year of Ocean Life following Catch and Release by Anglers

Abstract

The mortality of chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and coho salmon O. kisutch in their first year of ocean life following catch and release by anglers was examined. Five factors were recorded for each landed fish: species, hook type, barb type, injury location, and mortality. For the first time, a recursive causal model was used to analyze hooking mortality data. The data suggest that hooking mortality is better described by a two-stage process than by traditional logistic models. Injury location is affected by hook type and barb type in the first stage, and mortality is affected by injury location and species in the second stage.

Overall estimated mortality following release from sportfishing gear was approximately 30% for chinook salmon and 14% for coho salmon.

Interesting (and timely with all the sorting in the BM fishery). I was talking to a friend yesterday about this topic, and we both thought the juvenile hooking mortality would seem to be even higher than either number in a troll fishery, where the fish often get dragged around unknowingly for awhile. Just a hypothesis, might be lots of killing going on right now.

fb

That is a much lower post release mortality % for Coho than what is currently being used. I believe CK is already at 1/3. Comparatively high rates for coho are the reason mark-selective coho fisheries have been a no-go in Puget Sound despite an ample hatchery surplus for harvest.

The lower coho number reflects the faster growth rate of coho compared to kings during that first year at sea.

A one salt coho is basically an adult fish.

A one salt king is still basically a jack.

This is a narrow study. They must have looked at C&R of post-smolts and looked at survival for the next year. This is good as we have to look at long-term survival and not just did it swim away.

The Chinook will be fished on for 2,3,4 years and will likely have different mortality rates based on the number of times released, age, etc. As Doc said, the coho jump from this studied year to adulthood which will reflect different stresses as they now mature.

Good start.

Is this an encounter and the survival rate number is lower due to pinnipeds in the marine area studied?

Hook location is still the key for me. I try to catch fish in the jaw area by keeping the bait moving or trolling artificials.

Barbless to minimize handling.

Release in the water along the boat.

I had to quit using a siwash on a barrel swivel behind a coho killer. Always seems to pith shakers right between the eyes.

There are times I choose to go to a larger 3.5 lite. I'm color vision challanged since a mishap in the service years.

80796 is described as glow, chartreuse, splatter back.

You might not get as much action. But you will encounter most are keeper size.

What with all the hand-wringing about depleted runs et al, seems like even a "low" mortality rate of 30% is unacceptable.
Not sure what the answer is overall, but for BM, perhaps several years of even shorter seasons or gear restrictions along the lines of mandatory use of larger spoons or plugs.
Perhaps it's time to really "bite the bullet" temporarily in hopes of a shot at a brighter future.
I know these thoughts are nothing new, but wanted to express them regardless.
Thanks for the opportunity.

Back in November their was a swarm of small shakers all over the common fishing grounds for BM - couldn't go 30 seconds without hooking one if using spoons. Switching up to plugs helped quite a bit and put keepers in the box. Since the reopening, shakers haven't been a problem allowing us to fish with spoons again. I liked the example of real-time management based on on-the-water conditions. Not fishing for hatchery BM created specifically for fishing opportunity is a loosing proposition in my mind. It's not like it will put more wild fish on the gravel (with dubious results per other threads).

Given the adult equivalent quota we can burn through in a winter/spring BM fishery, I'd much prefer limiting that fishery, and passing that impact to summer fisheries (if that's possible); fish are bigger, are more fun to pursue up in the column, easier to get at for more people, nicer weather, more people can do it and importantly much much better table fare with lower toxin content. I'm equipped to fish either way, I'd just rather do it in August. I know some BM fans disagree but that's what I think anyways.

fb

In concept that is fine.... but by this point we all know that if winter fisheries are “limited” to support “more” summer encounters our summer fisheries will still close by Aug. 1.

At this point in the fight to fish I’m not willing to give up even 1 small opportunity as it’s clear once they’re taken they’re never given back.

Wouldn't impacts on wild fish be much lower once those runs have out-migrated?

I doubt that the fisheries are on actual outmigrants. They would be smaller. The black mouth are on resident fish that stay in the Sound for the majority of their saltwater life.

It is a behavior that does occur in wild fish but is primarily supported by delayed-release hatchery fish.

Also, staying in-Sound allows them to accumulate more toxins (or did in the recent past) than migrating to the open ocean.

GodLovesUgly-

Just for the heck of it from WDFW's marked selective fishing reports I compared the winter info (2013/204) and summer info (2014). The were 4 MAs where there were comparable winter and summer info; areas 6,9,10,11.

In the winter for that year and those areas were there 4,721 Chinook harvested, an additional 8,484 fish released (wild and sub-legal) for a total of 13,205 encounters. In the process of catching those fish a total of 19,913 angler trips were made. Or to put it another way the impacts associated with those 13,205 Chinook encounters produced a harvest of 4,721 (0.35 fish harvested per encounter) and 19,913 trips (1.5 trips per encounter).

In the summer there were 12,870 Chinook harvested, an additional 13,856 fish released; a total of 26,726 encounters. During that fishery an estimated 116,010 angler trips were generated. During that summer fishery 0.48 Chinook harvested/encountered and 4.3 angler trips/encounter.

In addition the fish harvested during the summer were approximately 3 inches larger than during the winter.

While I realize all the above is just one year of "data" and as we both know the stock composition can vary with potential different limiting stocks the differences between the summer and winter season in the numbers of fish produced or angler trips taken are enough that the issue warrants more consideration (and analysis) if the goal is to maximize recreational benefits of those limiting impacts.

Curt

Carcassman - "I doubt that the fisheries are on actual outmigrants. They would be smaller. The black mouth are on resident fish that stay in the Sound for the majority of their saltwater life. It is a behavior that does occur in wild fish but is primarily supported by delayed-release hatchery fish."

That was my point. The winter blackmouth fishery is primarily a hatchery fishery without a lot of wild fish present. At least that was my assumption. If that's the case why are "impacts" a significant consideration for the fishery? Am I misunderstanding? Are there significant wild impacts in that fishery? And, if not, why do we care about impacts on hatchery fish? Overfishing hatchery fish seems a somewhat oxymoronic concept.

At the same time killing a numerical ton of shakers doesn't make a lot of sense - wild or hatchery - which is why I agreed with the shutdown of the fishery in November when there were swarms of them on the grounds.

Wild fish, at least some stocks, are also resident. At one time, the Elwha Chinook were often caught in the winter fishery. The cwt data Smalma referred to would show who was there.

As to overfishing hatchery fish, each one of the dead fish (retained or released) is part of the 50:50 sharing. Because of adult equivalency, it is not 1:1 but killing fish in the winter can reduce the summer catch so as to balance allocations.

OceanSun -

The mark selective reports I referred in my earlier post also includes information about the numbers of unmarked (wild?) Chinook encountered during those mark selective fisheries.

For that 2013/14 winter season of those 13,205 Chinook encounters 2,665 were unmarked fish. That means about 20% of the encounters were "wild".

In the 2014 summer season of the 26,726 encounters 4,490 were unmarked. That is a about a 17% of the encounters being "wild".

Bottom line those winter fisheries are not as "clean" as many anglers would hope. In addition often the wild stocks encountered in the winter period can be those key spring/summer stocks.

Curt

I would be interested to see WHEN (temporally) the bulk of the encounters have been occurring. As we well know many of those encounters come in the form of "shakers" released... We have seen good results in delaying the winter season, as it seems a good number of those small fish are moving on after November. I am all for shifting the season, if the number of allowable impacts remains the same, but I am not highly in favor of shaving winter encounters and adding them to summer quota. The reasoning behind that is not that I am not in favor of a longer summer season, rather, I don't believe we will get a fair shake at the bargaining table with the co-managers when the time comes to "extend" the summer fishery. My best guess is that we would shave our winter impacts, and receive the same "agreed to" share (what we are allowed to harvest, because lets face it we are at the mercy of the co-managers) that we currently have. Thus, our winter season would shrink, and our summer season would stay the same. Not based on science, but based on "negotiations" at the NOF table.

Thanks for the analysis Smalma. Given the level of angler effort in the winter (trips in your analysis), I agree it's reasonable to be concerned that if the winter season length were reduced, it wouldn't add much time to many of our already-meager summer seasons. Granted sometimes a week either way on the summer grounds can make the season if you're lucky enough to land on a pile of chinook for a week the way they move through in pulses that time of year.

fb

Remember that we are fishing to a number, whether it be impacts or retained fish. As Smalma alluded to, the stock composition becomes really important. The ideal fishery is one where there are few fish that can't be killed. Since stocks change over time, each fishery has its own issues.

WDFW probably manages the rec fishery with an eye on participation. The measure of the fishery is days on the water. So, looking at the participation data they might look at making a switch to summer.

Those in NOF negotiations should be able to tell us what the (modeled) impact would be of switching days from summer to winter or back. It will be some sort of trade. Give up A to get B.

It's kind of nice to get the boat out on the salt in the winter between driftboat trips, but it's kind of nicer to get it out at dawn in August when the bait's all over the surface. That said I'm OK either way as long as we still get to fish.

fb

The best part about having winter fishing options as a boat owner are the ability to take the boat out. With ethanol fuel letting the boat sit all winter is a no-go for me. I would much rather be out running the boat around. Just think of all of the gremlins that come up both mechanically, and with your gear during blackmouth season. It is a great opportunity to weed out and fix all of these small issues before they become large headaches and shutdown your Spring-Fall days on the water.

Recent months have brought into focus what to those that have been paying attention the last few years has been obvious - the future of Puget Sound recreational fishing is not what has been the status quo! That future will include reduced opportunities; especially in those popular mixed stock marine fisheries.

These changes are being driving by the continued decline of the ESA stocks; in large part driven by continued decline in habitat productivity. After nearly 20 years it should be clear to most that collectively we as a society are not willing to modify our behaviors or invest to meaningfully improve key habitats that would support increase Chinook production. The result is many of the key Puget Sound Chinook stocks have slipped closer to extinction. As many clear in their response to the proposed 2017 co-manager 10 Chinook management plan NOAA has little choice but to require reduction in allowable impacts (lower Recovery Exploitation Rates -RERS). This is likely more severe restrictions in fisheries to limit impacts on those key stocks. The increase efficiency of the angler community in catching Chinook also insure that those shrinking allowed impacts will be magnified.

The question of the angler community to consider is do we continue to allow year to year manage decisions to be driven by reactive responses to that years situations? Or do we attempt to get in front of the issue by establish our priorities for the use of those limited impacts?

I'm not optimistic about the future of marine mixed stock fisheries in Puget Sound; especially those in the Straits and north Sound.

Curt

So a survival rate of 1-2% and we want to use poor science to try and increase the impact of sportsmen contact with salmonid.

The reason salmon lay from 1000-10,000 eggs per spawning pair and only 1-10 return to spawn, survival rate is piss poor. I don't know how this study amounts to anything meaningful!

So how many encounters would end up fish food if we did not encounter them? probably most...

Lets take 10 spawning pair that make it back to the river that is 10,000 - 100,000 eggs laid that wipes out most encounter impact by sportsmen.

Sportsmen have made sacrifices already, almost entirely selective fishing, single barbless hooks, closures and shortened seasons and still we are trying to squeeze every little bit of impact from sportsmen. What have the others done to improvise their deadly techniques? 0.....

Meanwhile commercial harvest of ESA listed fish bought and sold for profit goes right on as usual.... when a handful of those fish release from the nets would offset our impact...

Why not focus on the most impactful, Commercial harvest of ESA listed adult salmon that made it to adult status both Tribal and non-Tribal....

Sportsmen are the best thing for salmon, we fish selectively, we spend the most money to fund recovery, and communities. The more sportsmen and less commercial harvest is a win win.

Some of you on this website I question your motives?

When Baywolf was trying for transparency you were silent but when it comes to putting the squeeze on sportsmen and ignoring commercial harvest your out front...
Some of you seem like the John Mcain of the Republican party.

I have heard rumors of Tribal and Commercials pretending to be sportsmen in hopes of influencing the herd.....IDK ..

One of the huge problems in salmon recovery is the tragedy of the comment. At once it bothe everybody's fault and nobody's. My fishing doesn't hurt Chinook nearly as much as his net. His net, of course, does not hurt as much as that strip mall. And the strip mall does less damage than the seals. And so on.

There is no one thing we can do, other than reduce the human population to zero and nature fix our mess. Unfortunately, this allows one group to (correctly) point top "them" as being more damaging. Wild salmon cross too many boundaries, affect too much of the human world, to be worth changing our lives for.

Thanks for the breakdown guys! So contrary to my previous guess/understanding, the summer impacts, as a percent, are actually lower than winter. Makes sense with more migratory hatchery fish in the mix in the summer which would lower the impacts, as a % of total encounters.

That said, I want to keep my winter season.

Well the tragedy is unless everyone comes to the table nothing gets better, unless there is transparency noting gets better.

When one group takes actions to save ESA listed fish and other groups do nothing and we are all suppose to take one for the team, except that rule really only applies to sportsmen...

Its like making strict environmental rules for US companies, so the jobs get shipped off to China where they are 100 times worse on the environment.
This actually is more harmful on the environment but it makes some people feels good.......