SRKW's... the TRUTH!

[video:youtube]http://youtu.be/9Zz8aEAg7dI[/video]

I made this into an easy-to-read, easy-to-share graph.

Please people, get this info out there. I have been beating the topic to death to anyone that will listen.

This media frenzy is based on BAD SCIENCE and has the potential of undermining a lot of the good that is being done in salmon recovery statewide by shifting much needed resources directly to SRKW priority projects.

Thanks! That's 1000 times more informative than the big splashy puff piece the Seattle Times published (which doesn't mention pinnipeds AT ALL).

It’s a good presentation but it doesn’t tell the whole story. So lemme make a few observations.

In the first several minutes of the presentation, the researcher suggests that the status of SRKW has not really changed much over the past 50 years or so. They go up and they go down, and this is just normal.

The implication is that we should not get too excited about their current status.

Wrong. The fact that the number of SRKW’s is somewhat close to the historic average does not reflect the circumstances they face.

As they discuss during the Q/A session, there is a huge concern about sex ratio, reproductive potential, condition factor, and prey availability. So even though there are 74 individual SRKW’s (which is close to the historic average), it’s a real problem when only 23 of those are female. And not all of those 23 are reproductively active. Some are older females who are well past their prime. So having a stock composed of 75% male is a real problem, even though their overall numbers are close to the historic average.

Further, many of the adults have low condition factor, which means they’re living just below the poverty line. And that’s not sustainable since it will certainly effect the ability of the females to reproduce, increases the probability of low birth-weight calves, and adversely effects the ability of any newborn calves to survive their first year. If you’ve been following the recent newspaper articles, this should sound familiar……

And I really disagree with their conclusion that reducing marine fishing won’t have a positive effect on SRKW’s. Fishing adversely effects SRKW’s in two specific ways. First, it reduces the numbers of their preferred prey, Chinook salmon (duh). Again, it’s not just a number game. When more Chinook are available, they’re easier to catch, and the whales don’t have to expend as much energy to catch them.

Second, marine fishing is usually done by boat. Boat traffic has a direct effect on SRKW’s by interfering with their normal behavior patterns, which is well known. But there also is another factor that nobody has considered. That is, fishing and boat traffic has a substantial effect on prey availability.

As many of us on this BB know, when boat traffic in the saltwater gets heavy, the fish disappear. Chinook salmon will dive real deep, real fast when there is a lot of traffic. If those Chinook salmon are not close to the surface, SRKW’s need to go find them. That means they need to dive deeper, and more often to find their preferred prey. In the absence of fishing and fishing boats, those Chinook would be much closer to the surface, and therefore easier for the SRKW’s to catch.

So I don’t agree with their hypothesis on the effect of reduced fishing. In fact, I can’t think of another factor that would help SRKW’s as quickly or as effectively as reducing Chinook salmon fishing in saltwater.

The ONLY way to get the SRKW's more fish in the short term is to quit fishing. Period. If you had a magic wand, or ore realistically a magic bank account, and fixed all the PNW salmon habitat to pristine in one year it would still be four years before the production of Chinook from the habitat came back.

We know we can't fix all the habitat at once, we know that even when "fixed" (like dam removal) it takes a few years for the habitat to stabilize, and we know that the predators will continue to increase it should be obvious that if we want to recover SRKW we have to kill a lot less fish, a lot more pinnipeds, and make significant investments in habitat restoration. Even then, climate change may blow it all away if (as is already happening) forage fish composition and quality in the ocean is changing for the worse.

https://www.epa.gov/salish-sea/southern-resident-killer-whales

Interesting, for sure. I'm pretty sure that's the most fact-based information I've seen/heard on the subject, but there were some familiar, suspicious assertions made, mainly to direct accountability away from human impacts. Being as those are the only impacts humans can control, and that the factors we can't control are exacerbating, it's not looking good for the SRKW.

The information about the northern pods (specifically that their numbers are increasing) is probably a very important piece of the puzzle. At the most basic level, it's reasonable to assume the growing population up north is consuming an increasingly large percentage of the chinook bound for Puget Sound. One of the panelists mentioned territory as a potential issue. As the northern pods grow, their territory will need to expand. When one much larger group of orcas competes with a smaller one, I doubt much is left of the smaller one before long.

Between natural processes beyond our control and our politically-motivated refusal to acknowledge just how significant ocean fishing impacts are, it looks to me like the writing is on the wall for the SRKWs (and, by association, Puget Sound chinook fisheries). We shall see.

I can. . .get the boat motors and sonars physically well-away from the SRKW's. This applies to fishing boats but more importantly to the whale watching fleet. Those whales don't get a moment of privacy during daylight hours from spring to fall. They are constantly harrassed by multitude of boats while they try to hunt. Have you seen it in action?

I'm not saying fishing has no effect, but 500 meter bubble zone allowing no boats nearby, will help them hunt more effectively, faster.

fb

fishing and whale watching boats are hardly the problem...

small boats only send out sound waves and such a couple hundred yards...

large vessels, like tankers, cruise ships, container ships, ferrys, ect, throw sound waves out 1000+ yards....

then you have prop wash from those boats going out the back for how far?

larger the power plant, larger the noise footprint, larger the prop wash footprint....

they could still keep the whale boats doing their thing if they mandated electric motors when in range, or in the area they closed... you can buy 150 lb thrust twin prop trolling motors that bolt to your cavitation plate, and can run and steer the boat just as if you were using the main motor...

that, and increase the hatchery production from the 20-30 percent it is now, to 80 percent, and watch what happens....

Yeah, making people stop driving boats and stop fishing is definitely the solution....

....I can't imagine what else might be harming the whales?

There are a couple different species (at least) of high-level predators in the Pacific that have been forced to eat fish that are less nutrient-dense. Full stomachs, fewer calories. This has had a detrimental effect on their populations. The SRKW not only need fish to eat, they need the caloric denseness. That is, flooding the sound with Chum just might fix the starvation problem.

Lots of interesting facts to consider, especially since they do not comport to the current hysteria about SRKW. NRKW are increasing in number, are in better condition, and are also fish, especially Chinook, eaters. Transient killer whales are also increasing in number, in response to increasing numbers of marine mammals (seals and sea lions). The transients are also the most polluted of the KW populations. So much for worrying about pollution in PS limiting the SRKW population.

I watched a Ch. 9 show about SRKW, Chinook, and PS pollution the other day, and people express concern about the effects of pollution on PS Chinook and the SRKW. I have to say that these folks either have very short memories or are very young. PS is extremely clean today compared to the days before the Clean Water Act, when B'ham, Everett, and Tacoma were known as the "armpits of Puget Sound." The pulp mills discharged mega-tons of sulphite waste liquor and mercury into PS, while other industries were dumping PCBs into the Sound, all while SRKW were about the same number and Chinook were 4 to 5 times more abundant. So I'm having some difficulty accepting the current concerns and explanations of effects on both Chinook and SRKW.

This presentation and Q and A corroborates the opinion I was already developing regarding PS Chinook and the SRKW. Thanks for sharing it.

REALLY! The solution is quite obvious I can’t believe everybody’s making such ass deal out of this. First we capture 2 healthy breeding pairs and bring them into captivity. It’s already been proven we can breed them successfully in captivity. Not sure what the gestation period is for the KW’s but let’s say 2 years. Within 10 years we got a 10 new whales. Now here’s the kicker. We make nisqually, Skokomish,puyallup, green, snobomish, and nooksack into major hatchery production centers raising healthy hatchery returns the likes we’ve never seen before. Start reintroducing the hatchery whales into a Salish sea plugged to the gills with tasty kings, damn it’s a win win. Year round salmon fishing in pugetropolis, rebounding whale populations, natives with a viable dependable source for commercial harvest. We all need to wake up and smell the rotting chums. Technology is the only way out of saving this planet we’ve FUBAR’d for the last 100 years😀.

One doesn't hear or read much about them but the population of Puget Sound's harbor porpoise has rebounded since the early 1970s. The linked NOAA page cites gill nets, competition from other predators, boat noise and water quality as possible causes in the decline but also attributes the rebound to better water quality and improved fishing techniques (meaning fewer gill nets). Here is the link: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2016/22_1228.html.

Thanks for throwing in some good news, Larry. We could certainly use some.

My point in recognizing the recovery of harbor porpoise is that they represent another marine mammal species which has recovered in Puget Sound in the face of the same conditions some say are contributory to SRKW's dire circumstances.

The SRKW not only eat our fish, they’ve used their long-range communications with the NRKW to arrange for a subset to secretly break off and join the northern group! Why do you hunk the SRKW population has gone down while the NRKW population has gone up?

WAKE UP!!!

#NeedOrcaHatcheries
#OrcasWillPayForTheirHatcheries

All this talk of feeding the SRKWs by planting ignore some basic biological facts.

Orcas are large animals with the fish eating populations actively selecting for large prey (big Chinook -say 30+#). In addition todays PS hatchery Chinook are quite small (average fish barely breaking the 28 inch barrier. Boosting the return of hatchery Chinook will barely move the needle on increasing the biomass of preferred pry for the resident orcas. In fact planting more hatchery Chinook over the next few years could actual result in fewer orca desired size Chinook.


As always society opts for the appearance of doing something rather than make the sacrifices needed to make desired changes.

We can all do ourselves a favor and watch the last two episodes of South Park.

They were pretty eye opening.

The SRKW have a caloric/nutritional need. If the PS fish are smaller, they will need to eat more. But, can they eat enough? Sea lions (in AK) actually got smaller due to shifting food source. AK Chinook are, apparently, dieing on the way back to stream because they lack the calories to sustain life and maturing gonads.

There are huge issues out there, from the ocean to the headwaters and we persistently refuse to look at the whole picture.

Okay, I understand the line of logic that hatchery fish are smaller and arguably don't provide the same caloric benefit of a larger fish given that the level of effort to catch and eat that individual fish is the same. That said, I rapidly fall into my reality check mode.

There has been speculation that even without hatchery fish we have altered Chinook spawning habitat to such an extent that we have created smaller Chinook which can successfully spawn in the remaining, less demanding habitat.

So, without getting embroiled in a discussion about genetically "wild" fish versus mixed-genetics but born out of the gravel fish what is the current average size of hatchery Chinook versus non-hatchery Chinook? And maybe also ask the historic average size of out of the gravel fish versus today's from the same rivers of origin (say, Puget Sound rivers)?

If we were to halt all fishing for Chinook would that generate enough Chinook to meet the needs of SRKW all other factors remaining the same?

And if such a closure were to occur would it significantly reduce the amount of license dollars flowing to WDFW and, if so, would WDFW be forced to reduce or eliminate Chinook propagation and, if so, how would that impact SRKW?

...another issue that doesn't get discussed and ties into Larry B's question of "wild" are the actions of the WDF up to the ESA listing of Chinook when WDF was moving millions of eggs/fish out of basin....

From 1980 to 1987, WDF moved over 277,000,000 Chinook out of their basin of origin. These transfers beg the question as to the "wild" status of Chinook in our various river basins. Are the current populations now, for the most part, a locally adapted "natural origin" stock. These numbers are just for WDF facilities and don't include programs that WDF was participating in with federal, educational, and tribal facilities.


Allison Springs 789,295
Coulter Creek 4,363,586
Deer Springs 148,100
Deschutes 39,830,243
Elochoman 6,567,385
Fox Island Pen 1,433,025
Garrison 3,776,792
Geo Adams 18,484,946
Grays River 29,272,110
Green River 3,789,100
Humptulips 1,924,233
Hupp Springs 766,047
Kalama Falls 3,635,134
Klickitat 15,660,165
Lewis 2,116,759
McAllister 9,611,533
McKernan 6,357,796
Minter Creek 10,658,968
Naselle 10,813,359
Nemah 2,397,400
Nooksack 54,418,876
Pautzke Ponds 6,660,442
Puyallup 1,276,800
Ringold 2,950,999
Rocky Reach 1,169,730
S Puget Sound 63,080
Samish 602,777
Satsop Springs 3,692,712
Schorno Springs 9,324,318
Shelton 282,913
Skagit 8,971,152
Skykomish 1,256,659
Sol Duc 163,694
Speelyai 1,741,460
Toutle 902,400
Washougal 11,440,523

Grand Total 277,314,511

LarryB-

If the PS resident orcas only needed fish and size did not matter one would think they would do just with sockeye. After all the 2018 forecast for Fraser river sockeye was 14 million fish or roughly 60 times more fish than the PS Chinook forecast.

Curt

They need fish 24/7/365.25. Sure they can eat sockeye, from July to September. The early fish are not too common. We had Chinook returning from March/April on through September. Plus, eating one Chinook probably gave you 8 sockeye. Although we are working very hard to reduce the size of Chinook so that they can then be a creek fish and not need those big rivers we need for electricity and so on.

We know they eat other species as they really did a number on Dyes Inlet chum (November/December).

We know that they can identify and prefer Chinook. They evolved that way so there is some biological reason why they need big fat fish in spring/summer/fall.

From the several sessions of the Prey Working Group I attended it was clear that SRKW are to some degree opportunistic feeding on what fish are available but with a clear preference for Chinook.

And while I am not disagreeing with the concept that one thirty pound Chinook is better than two 15 pounders or for that matter six 5 pound reds none of this so far addresses the current day realities vis a vis size of hatchery generated Chinook versus out of the gravel Chinook and the associated questions about overall availability of those "wild" fish.

Bottom line is that I am a Doubting Thomas that:

1. The average weight of today's out of the gravel Puget Sound Chinook is significantly larger than its hatchery counterpart and

2. Elimination of hatchery Chinook would in the short run be an overall benefit to recovery of SRKW (or, conversely, that increases in hatchery output would be harmful in the short run to that recovery).

Now, the real question is whether increases in Chinook production will do anything but make for more and fatter seals, cormorants and sea lions.

Another item likely not considered is if the Snake River dams are removed then the actual legal need for the Lyons Ferry Hatchery (and probably others) disappears. The hatcheries are mitigation for the dams. No dams, no hatchery. So, the Columbia pinnipeds have more wild fish to eat...

As Larry often says, unless we do something about pinniped numbers any "benefit" in increased salmon numbers gets eaten.

One other aspect, that springs from the SRKW population dynamics tables, is that we know today when the SRKW becomes functionally extinct. It is when the number of reproductive age females is zero. The SRKW modelers should post that date, annually, based on what has occurred over the year. We may have 80 animals, but if 3/4 are male......

Why has the Task Force not laid this out? We have a short time line to turn this around, regardless of what the total population is.

give an orca a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to enjoy seals and feed him for a lifetime.

Southern residents spend much of the year in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea, and their primary diet is Chinook. The study found that the orcas consume about the same volume of salmon today as they did 40 years ago. It suggests that in today's ecosystem, competition with other marine mammals may be more of a problem for southern residents than competition with human fisheries.


if they consume the same volume of fish from 40 years ago (remember at one point over 95 of them were there), how is it a food problem?

anyways, its time to start shooting sea lions...

https://www.king5.com/article/tech/scien...tOZeDGsgpak5mk4

Harbor seal population is up 7-10fold in Puget Sound from 1970 to 2000. They were considered to be at their eniorments carrying capacity 15 years ago, and have continued trending up beyond that. Some estimates now say that their population is up to three times beyond their environment's (the Salish Sea) carrying capacity today. By comparison, SRKWs are at historical average population and trending down. Coincidence?

Kind of another way to think about the SRKW. I have been pushing the idea that they need more food. At the other end of the spectrum is that the population balances with the available food. Again, the modelers can tell us just where this is. With, for example, half as many whales there might be enough fish for them to healthy and leave the toxic chemicals stored in the blubber.

The problem will be getting down to that number. Probably should harvest 25-50% of the surplus males.

By allowing them to starve, this is what we are doing.....

Harvest 25-50% of the surplus males? From a biological perspective that may pencil out........beyond that, suggest it at your own peril.

Again, let me emphasize the concerns with salmon fishing in saltwater.

When Pacific salmon are in the ocean, they are in their feeding/growing phase. They will continue to feed and grow until they reach their terminal size, or get caught/eaten by something else.

However, when they return to spawn, they’ve already reached their terminal size. The fish that we target in freshwater, or in the estuary (Buoy 10) as they return, are done growing and feeding.

But not so for Chinook in saltwater. If someone catches a 20lb Chinook, and tosses in the fish box, it ain’t gonna grow to 50lbs, even though it might, if it hadn’t been caught.

So, by fishing in the ocean, we are cutting off years of production by the salmon stocks since they would continue to grow until they reach their terminal size. That’s why we don’t see 100lb Chinook salmon anymore. They don’t grow that big because we catch them before they reach that size.

Okay, so what is the point?

The point is that ocean fishing reduces both the quantity and quality of the Chinook salmon that the SRKW rely on for the majority of their diet. Although our reliance on hatchery Chinook doesn’t help, ocean harvest is an important driver in reducing both the size and the number of Chinook that are returning to spawn (hatchery or wild).

That’s why I really disagree with the suggestion that reducing fishing won’t have much effect on SRKW. Seriously reducing ocean fishing for salmon would really help SRKW, and it would greatly increase the size and number of Chinook that return to spawn in our rivers.

Conversely, fishing in freshwater/estuary has none of these issues. By the time Chinook return to spawn, the SRKW will have already taken what they can, and the adult Chinook will have already reached their terminal size. The fish we target at Buoy 10 are not going to get any bigger. Not so for Chinook salmon in the open ocean.

Anyone know what roll blackmouth play in the Orcas diet versus adult chinook when they are in the sound and straits?

Back in the day when the south sound net programs were going full steam, there were tons of blackmouth to be had.
It seems that program continues to get scaled back for various reasons.

Could the reduced production of blackmouth lead to tougher feeding conditions for the Orcas during the winter months when adult chinook aren't readily available?
SF

That pretty much sums up what a century of marine mixed stock fisheries did to Chinook and Coho. Made the Chinook smaller and younger, made the coho smaller.

I have seen some of the Tribes argue that the FW habitat can't support more spawners, so eliminating the ocean fishery won't help. Don't see how they can say that because the fisheries in the bays and rivers could take all the surplus, leaving current goals in place, but still giving the SRKW a shot at as many adult fish as possible.

I think, based on where we see them going after fish, that they go after adults, not immatures. The energy needed to catch five five pound fish is a lot more than to catch one 25 pounder. More calories for growth.

we dont see 100 pound fish anymore because all the genes of the big breeding fish are wiped out....

now we have whats left...

if people would stop killing 50-60 pound boots to stroke their ego, then we may continue to still see some fairly large fish, if not, then, well you know.....

To a degree that is correct. The genetic risk is certainly a factor in the reduced age at maturity. But one of the reasons the genetic potential has been lost is that we’ve harvested the fish that carry those genes.

I agree that the habitat ain’t what it used to be, but the habitat risk to the genetic component is indirect. The risk associated with harvest is much more direct; and immediate.

A few months ago I took a look at the composition of the Chinook naturally spawning in PS rivers in recent years. For the years 2012 to 2016 from the Snohomish south (could not find recent escapement break-out for the Skagit and Nooksack) for the aggregate natural spawners 60% were hatchery fish. The majority of the fish being produced from the gravel have hatchery influence. Even more concerning for the same years roughly 20% of those natural spawning hatchery Chinook were Jacks (most less than 22 inches).


Yes the simplification of the river's habitats is reducing the selection for larger Chinook (smaller and more unstable spawning gravel) the fact remains the role of those natural spawning hatchery Chinook are is significant.


Given the recommendation that the whale watching industry be limited for the next few years it is hard to believe that Puget Sound recreational fishing; especially those in mixed stock marine waters will not be in the spot light. I fully expect that during the next NOF discussion serious consideration will be given to season reductions in at least MAs 4 through 7. That in combination with the impact reductions in the northern fisheries under the new US/Canada salmon treaty should provide a few more adult Chinook to the orca's feeding grounds.

The question regarding winter Blackmouth fisheries is interesting. The bulk of the hatchery blackmouth harvested in the fishery are smaller than the desired size by the orcas. The future of that fishery is not given; not harvesting those Chinook as sub-adults clearly reduce the number of potential adults available to the orcas.

I would remind folks we are now in arena where the agenda is being drive as much as emotion as science. Further folks (society) are looking for opportunities that are easier "fixes" rather that long term benefits from things like altering how we as a society continue to impact the habitats required by wild Chinook. Much easier to place the burden on smaller groups of dis-organized individuals like the salmon recreational fishers that attempt to taken on the political power driving for the status quo.

Curt

The parallels to the Atlantic cod fishery seem uncanny. This problem will only be addressed when commercial fishing interests (both native and non) run out of lobbying money. I see this only getting worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFmT8IXGhw&feature=youtu.be

This guy gets it. Fishing is never the problem until we've run out of misguided digits to point elsewhere. The most frustrating thing about history repeating itself is that we refuse to accept that's what's happening every time it does... Which is why it always does.

Herschel and buddies beginning 1981. Going on 40 years and we still haven't figured out that the MMPA needs to be amended to allow managers the ability to address the needs of (at a minimum) ESA listed species which includes P.S. steelhead, Chinook, Orcas and several rockfish species.

That's also history, and I think we should heed its lesson, too. I do think predation needs to be addressed, but I am confident that addressing our own impacts would do more to save salmon in the long run.

I believe that the problem is that there is no one single thing that will "save" salmon, "save" SRKW, and so on. So, one can say (rather factually) that "they" need to fix their thing but I don't. So, remove dams, remove culverts, remove bulkheads; anything but stop fishing.

But, doing only one won't work. If we don't fix the habitat, closing fisheries won't accomplish much. And, we never learn from the past.

Reducing pinniped predation probably offers the most bang for the buck in the short term for Orca recovery and, if maintained, would also have long term benefits to include allowing better utilization of any habitat improvements.

Outlaw commercial harvest and commercial processing of wild stocks like we did with market hunting a century ago (and what they ended up doing to the Atlantic cod fishery AFTER commercial fishing destroyed it). Problem solved for the next century at least...

All our seafood needs can be met with aquaculture.

Tribes will never willingly give up commercial fishing unless bought out (treaties). Further, if there are "harvestable" fish and the NI side does not take them the Indians will under foregone opportunity. Having tried to put NI fish into the escapement rather than fishing on them and being rebuffed.............

I'm pretty sure if the state had the will to, they could trade exclusive gambling for tribal commercial harvest. They could still catch all they want for recreation and ceremony just not commercial. I have a feeling their take would dwindle substantially if this were to happen.

You assertion that the state has any say in the matter is false. Tribal sovereignty is a federal matter.

That is correct. And Tribal sovereignty is not for sale, trade or barter.

The Feds tried to extinguish the Tribes in the past (e.g., the termination era in the 1940’s and 1950’s), but that failed. And won’t likely be repeated.

The Tribes will continue to fish in their usual and accustomed places as long as there are salmon to catch. However, the tribes target these fish only after they’ve completed their growth in the ocean. For the most part, they harvest salmon only after the adults have reached their terminal size, and have returned to spawn. That makes it much easier to manage these stocks, and protect them, if need be.

However, fishing in the saltwater is much more wasteful since it could be taking fish originating in tributaries where the adult productivity may be very low, and cannot take a lot of harvest. Given current technology, we cannot determine the origin of the salmon harvested in the ocean. So we’ll never know where these fish are coming from, or whether they can sustain any harvest pressure.

In other words, by fishing in the ocean, we may be catching fish from tributaries that do not have a harvestable surplus of adults. That’s a recipe for extinction in these tributaries. If that’s not wasteful, I don’t know what is.

Plus, since these fish are actively feeding and growing, ocean harvest cuts off any further growth that may occur, had they not been caught. After all, nobody throws back a 50lb Chinook hoping it will grow to 80lbs, even though it might.

Ding ding ding.

The chemist clearly spent too long sniffing around the glue bottle as a kid.

I guess the subtleties of English are lost on you ugly.

The state doesn't have the FINAL say in the matter. To claim the "state doesn't have any say" is just stupid.

If the state doesn't have any say why are we co-managers?

Whats the point of NOF? (Even though I've asked this multiple times in recent years)

We have plenty of say for setting escapement goals, carrying capacity, harvest limits ect. We don't have the final say.

Again if the state had the will power (which they don't) they could leverage gambling to get concessions on limiting commercial harvest.

Chem - My sense is that the original comment was directed at the prospect of the State taking a role in the future of the Tribes by asserting that sovereignty could be traded or otherwise extinguished by State authority. Clearly that can't happen. It has been attempted at the Federal level, as I stated.

But you are correct that the State has a very important role in fisheries management (escapement goals, carrying capacity, harvest limits, etc). Indeed, the role of the State is equally important as the Tribes. They are co-managers, which means they share jurisdiction and authority. It doesn't always mean the State and the Tribes are actually working TOGETHER. That remains a work-in-progress.

If management were truly "Co" then all fisheries would be agreed to, all numbers (forecasts/goals/catch) would be agreed-to.

Two things:

1. Your assertion that tribal fisheries only target salmon which have achieved terminal size and have returned to spawn is simply not accurate. For example, how about the Makah's winter troll fishery? One thing about growing older is that one has a fair amount of information tucked away such as recalling how in one season the Makah's took something like 20K winter (immature) fish - far over what was understood they would harvest and basically decimated the recreational blackmouth fishery. That and the fact that their fish tickets were being sent in and no one with the State was keeping a running total.....or was told to not keep track (as in, don't rock the boat).

2. We do have the technology to identify genetics but another reality is that most of our stocks have been altered genetically by massive out of basin relocations as BushBear has documented.

I doubt that the tribes would ever sell their rights to fish, even for an outrageous amount. However, I've wondered that if under the right conditions, weak runs, etc., that they might sell their treaty allotted catch, (to the government, of course) but leave the fish in the river to spawn and jump start successive generations. I've heard some suggest naively that we could "lease" their fishing rights, but that will NEVER happen because their right is too important to them.

Perhaps to give it some context, I think that Treaty Fishing is their Second Amendment.

It may be, but the states own strategy (voiced by Ron Warren and Mike Grossman is "Placate and wait". Ever since observers were thrown out of the NOF meetings, the state has taken the stand to give in to Tribal demands, to be non confrontational and appease, in hopes it will result in a return of good will.

It hasn't worked in years, and never will.

If one side has leverage over the other in a Co-managment system, you have defeated Co-managment. As long as the State is reluctant to take things to the Feds, the State (NI) will always be the suckers.

the tribes manage the fisheries that they want to manage, the state has already proven that they are willing to sit in the back seat rather than stand up for the rest of us.

There is one aspect of this whole thing that, from the start, has seemed odd to me. These whales are predators, and by all accounts intelligent ones at that. I find it hard to believe they would limit themselves to a single food source.

Evolution has split the ancestral Killer Whales into different food consumers. The transients are predators on mammals, and maybe Great White Sharks. The residents eat fish. That was how they split up the food resources.

It is likely that these actually represent different species of whale.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/

"Of course there’s far, far more to Inslee’s proposed budget, including proposed fishing and hunting license fee increases."

E- Message sent to Gov. Inslee on WA State Gov. Inslee website.

I noticed on your Orca whale interview on channel 13 you have "a one-two punch" submitted to the leg. for the upcoming session of
1) $1.1 billion proposal
2) some undisclosed proposal about climate change both to help the Orcas.

Regarding proposal (2) I certainly hope you are not proposing a similar tax that the people of Washington State voted against in 36 out of 39 counties just 5 weeks ago. If our representatives really represent their constituents the issue of carbon like tax should have been put to bed with the state vote and not some end around stunt in the legislature.

Shame on you!

A tax for the environment--whatever you want to call it should be considered a no deal according to our recent state vote.

Thank you,

Under the banner of Save the Whale portion of the budget there is $117MM for initiating conversion of the propulsion systems on two ferries and building two new ones. Not to say that those aren't valid and necessary but under the Orca recovery effort? Really??

As I tried to explain before the last election, the carbon tax is coming regardless. The initiative was a question on who should pay for it, the polluters or the taxpayers. The people of Washington have spoken. They want the taxpayers and people who don’t drive to pay for fixing the environment. What did you think would happen in a state run by Democrats?

How do you expect the polluters to pay for pollution? If it a government (sewage plant) they charge the users. If it is a business, it is a cost that passed on just like a tariff, shipping costs, and so on. The people who use the product or who benefit will pay. What other option are you proposing?

CC above to my three state reps. since I have called the governor and the legislative offices without getting answers of the second punch governor proposal regarding the climate change.

With note:

If a carbon or similar environmental tax comes into play in the upcoming session by the Governors proposals please vote no accordingly with the Snohomish County results of 60.73%-39.27% against I-1631in recent 2018 November election

I propose that any and all change in our governance be well thought out, slow and deliberate. I do not consider a carbon tax tacked on to reactionary feel good legislation to 'save the South Sound Orca' to meet any of my aforementioned parameters. And adding Ferry system funds into the mix supports my view. In fact it just goes to show that our government will use any excuse as a reason to raise taxes and increase the size and scope of Government. I do not consider any of those to be positive outcomes.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...red-population/

Losing two more, including a breeding-age female, to starvation is not the road to recovery. But it will probably embolden the voices to shut down whale watching and such.

The big blind spot in all of the Orca recovery is meaningful commercial harvest reform within the entirety salish sea.... On both Salmon and forage fish. Case in point, there was a massive fishery on Chum this year in area 9 and 10, like every year. Right alongside and amongst the SRKW populations, that were in the sound chasing their seasonal forage opportunity of Chum for well over a month
I watched their behavior from shore and sea, they were hunting all over the sound looking for prey. It isnt just a Chinook problem people!

Or more.

Personally, I'd like the Clipper taken a look at. I can't imagine the sound those boats put into the water is healthy for anything. I could be wrong though - IDK.

Ask anyone who dives in puget sound how loud the Clipper and Ferries are. I did my certification dives off Mukilteo and the sound of the ferry is totally deafening while its idleing into the dock...let alone underway. Imo. Its money well spent to drop the acoustic signatures of the ferries.

Another e-message to the governor and CC’d to my 38th district reps. With a note to not vote for the governor’s proposal of an environmental tax in accordance with the Snohomish County voters desire with results of 60.73%-39.27% against I-1631 in recent 2018 November election.

Governor Inslee,

I read that you may run for president which hopefully you do.

After the defeat of I-1631 carbon tax on the ballot that failed in 36 of the 39 counties in the state of Washington, now I see on your channel 13 interview you are introducing to the state legislature a 1-2 punch which sounds like another environmental tax before I-1631 has even cooled from the recent election defeat.

I don’t know why you would think that you would get different results across the U.S. than the Washington state county results when taking your unpopular socialistic New World Order agenda on the road for your presidency.

You do realize the French working class is now into their eighth week of rioting due to the bottomless pit of taxes that includes environmental/carbon tax leaving them penniless before the end of the month for food, gas, and discretionary spending just 4 short years after the 2014 inception of the seemingly never ending increases of the environmental/carbon tax. Their fuel price alone reflects a tacked on 60% of taxes.

This and more behind the French riots in the link below from Euro news since the US main stream media (MSM) has either done a poor job covering this story or have done a really good job of burying it.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/16/what...uronews-answers

I believe that we should learn from others mistakes like the French instead of jumping head first into this bottomless money pit and expecting different results.

Thank you,

[url=http://www.cbbulletin.com/441990.aspx][/url]

Finally. The Third-Party Hammer is dropping.

Yup, this should be interesting. Has WFC finally met the immovable object? Will it become mired in the complexity of managing salmonids on an international basis??

That lawsuit is the only way WA Chinook and SRKW's have a ghost of a chance.

It seems that WFC's position on hatcheries is in direct conflict with at least the short term efforts to stabilize and recover SRKW.

And NOAA/NMFS seems to have been on the sidelines on issues like predator control and deserves a kick in the pants.

As I wrote; it will be an interesting show.

I'm surprised WDFW was not included. The late run chum were hammered by commercials when orcas were actively feeding in the same area. I even noticed the commercial pressure on the Skunk Bay Weather camera.

For the SRKW's, every marches to the Feds drum because of the MMPA, ESA, Tribal Treaties, and conflicts with Canada.

WDFW could (note the "c" and not a "w") close down all NI fishing, ban all (NI again) boats from coming close, and so on and not accomplish anything for the whales.

The recovery of the whales is an interstate, international, and Treaty issue that puts the responsibility smack-dab onto Uncle Sugar.

https://q13fox.com/2019/04/03/groups-sue...orthwest-orcas/

Does this mean it's time to put the "For Sale" sign on the boat? Asking for a friend tonight.... :-/

Already sold mine...read the writing on the wall when the department created the Chinook harvest plan in secret and Unsworth was the only one held accountable. The senior leadership of WDFW (Ron Warren) are total incompetents and have been allowed to destroy the fishery through a culture of secrecy and cronyism.

I won't be selling our boat anytime soon,. great forecast for silvers this year. I guess if I thought kings were the only fish worth eating or catching I'd sell my boat , too. Lots of fishing opportunities out there besides chinook. ( and I think the current chinook situation sucks, but there are a lot of reasons for the decline besides WDFW). Bob R