Future restrictions for Ocean Salmon fisheries?

https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/D1a_Supp_NMFS_Rpt4_SRKW-Guid_MAR2019BB.pdf

Hopefully a drastic reduction in northern fisheries.

Given the warning shot fired across their bow by WFC, it's a good bet that Chinook salmon fisheries are going to get alot of attention in 2019, and likely for the foreseeable future.

https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D1a_Supp_NMFS_Rpt1_SRKW_MAR2019BB.pdf

Barry's letter to Phil (March 6, 2019) is a direct response to the WFC letter from Dec 2018.

Unfortunately, PFMC has ZERO jurisdiction over those northern intercepts... SE-AK, NBC, WCVI.

They do, however, have COMPLETE control over so-called SUS fisheries ... well, at least within PST obligations.

It will be interesting how the directive from Barry Thom (NMFS) to Phil Anderson (PFMC) will be received. Phil's response will be more than predictable based on the opinion piece he co-authored with Lorraine Loomis.

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/united-to-save-salmon-and-orcas/

Phil and Lorraine's argument may be close to right, if you only consider WA fisheries. And they muddle the discussion enough that one doesn't look too closely.

The only short-term chance the SRKWs have is closure of all marine mixed stock harvest of Chinook, coastwide. Prosecute Chinook fisheries after they have passed by the SRKWs (rivers and bays).

At the same time, pinnipeds need reducing, dams need breeching, habitat needs restoring, and the fisheries that affect Chinook food base need managing. Those are the longer term solutions.

But, starving fish need food now.

Say it's early April, 1945 and you are in the group liberating one of Concentration Camps. Are you going to tell them that you have provided the German people with farm equipment and they will be providing you food from there? Will you tell them that you will turn off the Nazi PA system that blared music about "Arbeit macho frei". Will you send in carpenters to repair (restore) the barracks? Or will the first order of business be seeing that they have enough to eat?

I would hope NOAA is giving the same message to those that manage AK and will pursue the same issues through the PST. Too optimistic?

OUTTA the ball park.... W-H-E-W ! ! !

Interesting to consider future fisheries around the SRKW. Attached is a range and diet report from NOAA.
https://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/Eve...071515MBHv2.pdf
One can look at the range graph and sighting map and guess where and when fisheries could occur. No coastal or strait fisheries would be economically devastating to those communities, but by looking at the maps if restrictions came down, those locations and the San Juans would be the hardest hit. Simultaneously, North, Mid and South PS could see a boon in numbers if seasons were allowed. Optimistically speaking of course.

The most important fisheries to curtail are those that take juveniles and immatures. The whales eat the maturing/mature fish. By focusing the argument in the Straits and San Juans, the real killers get ignored. Close the Starits and San Juans and leave the contiguous areas of BC open? That works how?

Providing for the SRKWs would benefit the fishers in the terminal areas. Perhaps this is how it would be. The terminal areas bear the burden of habitat restoration, protection, controls, and such. They should be first in line for the rewards.

That seems to be a quantum leap in optimism given that P.S. marked selective Chinook fisheries are primarily constrained by impacts.

What are the current impact numbers in the Straits/San Juans and how might those numbers affect inner P.S. fisheries if they were to be shifted to those inner Sound areas?

And I will throw into the mix the potential for increased hatchery production.

And since I don't have a Cray supercomputer the answers are outside my capability (ignoring my personal computer limitations, of course).

We’re talking about closures 2020 forward and we don’t even have 2019 seasons set???

Facepalm.

It's honestly more realistic to assume closures then open fisheries anymore

Each and every Chinook that is killed before maturity is a fish the is unavailable to the whales. Because the numbers are way down (Chinook) even closures may not now be enough. I mentioned earlier that in the 80s Nooksack and Samish had Chinook returns to the bay of 80-100K+ and now the whole damn Sound has how many?

We have gotten ourselves, of our own free will, down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a legal requirement to get out now.

Let us not forget that hatchery production has been reduced significantly since the '80s and seal population is up exponentially since then while actual harvest by WA fishers is way down and that reduced number includes adult fish taken in areas generally past the primary SRKW feeding grounds. Point being the "we" is all of us - not just recreational fishers.

So if NOAA-F/NMFS wields the Policy hammer on PFMC, would they not have similar influence over the NPFMC which has jurisdiction over Alaska's marine fisheries?

If the whole premise of all this posturing is that US-managed fisheries should not be LOW-HOLING the endangered orcas, then curtailing chinook exploitation in Alaska MUST be part of the overall package.

Is it safe to conclude that this could finally be the hammer that puts the northern intercept fisheries in Alaska on notice to make them accountable for their impacts on stocks destined for a migratory path thru the SRKW's feeding grounds?

Carcassman? Salmo G? Cohoangler?

Tsk, tsk. Come on Eyefish, you know the sovereign nation-state of Alaska does not yield to the SUS (southern US) over un-shared conservation issues. I say un-shared because AK does not have an endangered orca problem. WA and BC have an orca problem. The NRKW population segment is doing just fine (low-holing the SRKWs). Any global observer can see that the SRKW, like its SUS Chinook angler, is doomed to extinction. On the evolutionary pathway it is quite clear that low-holing is simply a survival adaptation. Darwin would no doubt approve!

It has been my understanding that the SE Alaska Chinook fisheries generally hammer fish bound for BC and that BC generally hammers fish bound for the SUS.

If that is generally the way it is relative to the SRKW primary food source I wonder to what extent NOAA/NMFS can wield the ESA club to protect Chinook bound for BC rather than SUS.

As for Barry Thom's recent letter to WDFW he seems to have finally emerged only to focus on the crappy, picked over low hanging fruit while ignoring the bright, shiny fruit at the top of the tree.

Nobody has a hammer to hit AK. Their view is that fisherman south of the AK/BC border have enough fish available to feed the SRKWs. If SRKWs are so important to us down here, we'd take the appropriate action.

Kinda like their interpretation of Hoh v. Baldridge. They will take conservation actions after everybody else has exhausted their options.

US-managed marine fisheries are controlled by eight regional "Fishery Management Councils" which include the PFMC and NPFMC.

http://www.fisherycouncils.org

If NOAA-F can legitimately push against one FMC, they can do so with ANY of them.

At its base, this has been framed as a LOW-HOLING problem. The SRKW's in Puget Sound are getting low-holed by these fisheries which stymie not only the total number of chinook available to SRKW's, but also the ability of the population to produce the older larger phenotype they prefer to eat.

If PFMC is gonna be forced by NOAA-F to swallow its lumps for chinook conservation, it should insist that NPFMC do likewise. I think Mr Anderson is plenty smart enough to articulate that position.

But will PA speak to that restriction?

I don't trust him further than I could throw him.

I brought my concerns to a direct NOAA-F source. Says they will be rendering an opinion on the matter later this month. He emphasized that the latest PST agreement saw AK cutting back their chinook exploitation by 7.5% and BC cutting back by 12.5%. SRKW's were a consideration in the discussion as these cutbacks were negotiated.

At some point AK and BC will ask why the pinnipeds are allowed to be as numerous as they are. The evaluation has to be holistic, cover all the fisheries even the trawling with by catch and the forage-fish fisheries. And, somebody will have to answer for the pinnipeds.

In the end, I am afraid that some fisheries will be restricted a bit. especially the politically weak and ineffective ones, and the the SRKWs will arrive at zero breeding age females and become functionally extinct.

The "BC cutting back by 12.5%" applies just to WCVI fisheries; not northern BC or inside marine.

Barry’s letter states clearly that NMFS will be reinitiating consultation under ESA for the PFMC fisheries, pursuant to the impacts on SRKW’s. They’ve been operating under a biological opinion written in 2009. A 10-year old bi-op is not likely to be very useful, given the new information on SRKW’s.

WFC knows this. That’s why they filed their Notice of Intent to sue. In my view, they have NMFS ‘over a barrel’.

The new bi-op from NMFS will get a lot of attention from WFC, and everyone else. My sense is that NPFMC (Alaska) is operating under the same 2009 bi-op as PFMC. Therefore, as goes PFMC, so goes NPFMC.

That is, the new bi-op will likely cover Chinook fisheries under both PFMC and NPFMC. The impacts from the various Chinook fisheries would need to be factored into the overall impacts to SRKW’s. A bi-op from NMFS must have a comprehensive analysis of all these fisheries, including those in BC (under the PST). If NMFS tries to “piecemeal it”, WFC will tear them limb-from-limb in court. And rightfully so.

The question now is whether, and to what extent, will 2019 Chinook fisheries be constrained by measures intended to help SRKW? I wasn’t able to get to all the PFMC discussions this past week, and weekend, in Vancouver, WA, so I’m not sure. But I’ll check.

My sense is that NMFS cannot escape imposing measures in 2019 to conserve Chinook (likely fall Chinook stocks) in the short-term while a new bi-op is being written. The troll fishery folks are likely facing more constraints in 2019, and perhaps beyond. And I would not be surprised to see recreational angling constraints as well, to the extent those fisheries occur in saltwater.

Gee whizz cohoangler, that almost sounds like any exploitation of critical CR chinook stocks needs to shift in-basin (estuary/in-river) in order to avoid low-holing the SRKW's.... imagine that?

I think any attempt to strongly constrain AK fisheries will be met with something along the lines of "Deal with the Pinnipeds". If it is already being shown that the pinnipeds take more salmon than humans the whole "why us, why not them?" argument will come up. Given the current mindset of the upper level Feds on money versus the environment questions I think it will make for lively discussions.

That would be correct. And it would be the simplest solution, although difficult (but not impossible) to implement because of political forces. Even the Tribes (Makah) have an ocean troll fishery, so NMFS needs to consider the implications of reducing harvest across the board.

But it would likely only apply to CR Fall Chinook, although perhaps to summer Chinook too. As I recall, PS Chinook, Lower Columbia tules, and Snake River URB's are major components of the SRKW diet. The focus would likely be on these stocks.