Interesting study on Orcas and Chinook salmon size

Resurgence of an apex marine predator and the decline in prey body size | PNAS


https://www.pnas.org/content/116/52/26682

Thanks ….. lots of information in the study.

Study stopped short, should have included "man" and the direct impact that affect the Chinook.

Years of gill netting also had impacts, too

Interesting reading, this should change the whole paradigm of how salmon management is looked at. Although it doesn't make any recommendations there are some parts of this that should be eyed closely. My two cents is that the whole debate over wild vs hatchery is mute as the orcas don't give a hoot as long as it's a chinook. I'll go further as to say if we try to make certain streams wild only, we will doom those stocks entirely.

Although it focused on how Northeast Pacific resident orcas have impacted salmon stocks, it was vague on why the orca population has expanded other than they focus their diet on chinook stocks. Just more reason all communities need to get away from the maximum sustained harvest model of management.

several weeks ago there was a discussion on this site regarding that cited paper .

Curt

Low holin' at its finest.

The southern resident orcas gettin' low holed by their northern counterparts.

Sounds just like the unfortunate local fishermen here in the PNW gettin' low holed by our counterparts in BC and AK.

...

And as far as that paper holding fishing impacts to chinook blameless.... YGTBFKM, right?

I speed-read through the article and have a few concerns. While the whales feed on Chinook, I doubt that the NRKWs and SRKWs feed on the same fish. The stocks of salmon go to different places in the N Pacific. For example, that is why some would say that removal of the Snake River dams won't help the PS residents as they don't encounter the Snake Rivers.

That doesn't change the fact that if the whales eat the largest fish that they can have a direct impact if we keep holding the populations down so there are fewer Chinook getting to the large size.

The current estimates are that runs are now 5-10% (at least escapements) of pre-industrial fishing. Wonder what the models would show if you increased the populations to at least 10x current, had no fishing, and looked at the whale's impact. Or, answer the question "At what Chinook population size could we have the current number of whales and current fishery removals?"

What the paper doesn't say is the that of the remaining fish the NRKW's don't eat are subject to commercial fishing before they reach the spawning beds. Rough 3/4 of those remaining fish are subject to Treaty and NT nets that greatly reduce a already depreciated fishery. Not to mention the commercials value the largest fish because they get more per pound. It's all about the Benjamins.

Lots and lots of creative theorizing being sponsored by our commercial counterparts these days.

What's the point of blaming the NRKW? It's not like we're going to start killing one population of orcas to protect the other. Just more distraction from the reality that unless commercial fishing is at least curtailed, things won't get any better for whales, salmon, OR COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN!

People have proven, time and time again, that they will pay A LOT for fresh salmon. Time to start charging a price/lb. commensurate with the state of the species, so they don't have to harvest so many fish to pay the bills. Why do fish markets seem to be immune to the priciple of supply and demand?

Because corporations fully support Socialism when it's their costs that are being socialized...they only believe in Capitalism and self-reliance for the income.

Fish on...

Todd

When the cost to hatch, feed, release, assess, forecast, set seasons, monitor and enforce fisheries is taken into account.... each harvested spring chinook probably adds up to ~10 grand on average. Trying to be conservative here, but that figure is at least in the correct order of magnitude.

When the average fish weighs 6-7 pounds, $500 per pound doesn't even begin to cover it.

Pretty messed up reality right there.

I'm not suggesting they charge what it costs to produce hatchery fish... Only the citizens of WA are fool enough to pay that price. Just suggesting that a higher price/pound allows commercials to make their money without killing so many fish.

If it's true that ocean fishing is among the leading factors in shrinking size at maturity among salmon (and we actually care about that), we ought not be harvesting so many salmon in the ocean. Or, we can just point fingers at other, less significant factors and watch them continue to shrink and, eventually, disappear. My money's on that option.

If we really wanted to protect ad restore salmonids we would, individually and collectively, support extreme terminal harvest, period. If you are going to fish, it is bay or river. If you are going to purchase it is (again, bay or river) with the caveat that the fish can be traced to the river of catch. It does mean to support your local Tribe in most of western WA.

As long as we support the ocean fisheries by either participation or purchase, we have met the enemy and he is us.

It's long past time to discontinue NT commercial salmon fishing in WA. We spend $93.7 million per biennium to raise hatchery salmong and steelhead, mostly salmon, so that over half of them can be caught in Canada and to a lesser extent, AK. The ones that return to WA are sorted between NT commercial, NT recreational, and treaty fisheries. I haven't been able to access enough current data to see just how much "short end of the stick" the sport fishery gets.

97% of WA residents don't buy either hunting or fishing licenses, but they pay state taxes, which is where WDFW's General Fund appropriation comes from. The 3% of us who buy licenses cough up the 27% of the WDFW budget from the Wildlife Account. The number I'm looking for is how many $$ does it cost to return one salmon to the recreational fishery. Updated values to WDFW's study of economic impacts of sport and commercial fishing places each angler day at just under $60. If it's costing hundreds of dollars to create a sport caught hatchery salmon, taxpayers and license buyers are being fleeced.

I like to fish for and eat fresh salmon, but I'm not willing to ask my fellow citizen taxpayers to pay rediculous subsidies so that I can catch a couple 7 pound coho like I caught this season down on the Columbia River. From a strictly dollars and cents perspective, it might be time for WA to retire from the salmon hatchery business.

If WDFW attempted to retire from the anadromous fish hatchery business the Tribes would have them in court in a nanosecond. Boldt II guaranteed dead fish in the boat. Mostly, that has been believed to be habitat protection.

But, eliminate hatcheries and they'll scream. The courts, then, should mandate that providing the Tribes with fish to kill is a state responsibility, of all citizens. In which case the habitat protections, hatchery production, nd maybe even international (BC and AK) negotiations are a statewide GF responsibility.

Oh, I don't doubt the tribes would sue the state. It's true that the various federal court decisions mentioned that the right to fish, but pull nets up empty isn't much of a right at all, and that hatchery fish are subject to treaty fishing,and that Phase II ruled everyone has a responsibility to protect habitat. However, the courts have never ruled that the state MUST stock hatchery fish in order that tribes may exercise their treaty rights. And the first order of business in such a lawsuit for the state would be to counter-sue the federal government since it is federal treaties that prescribe the treaty fishing rights. Those treaties are between the tribes and the federal government. If the federal treaties require that hatchery fish be provided to the tribes, then it is the federal government and not the state, that is obligated to provide them. Remember, it's local, state, and federal government agencies that continue to approve actions that degrade and destroy habitat every year. The Corps of Engineers alone issues 600 Section 404 permits every year. And since the US-Canada treaty is a federal product as well, then it's the feds that need to meet whatever responsiblities are promised to Canada and the foreign nation of AK.

Salmo g hits another one outta the park!

http://www.wildfishconservancy.org/noaa-...d-killer-whales

This intercept thing in AK and mixed stock marine fisheries that are root of this mess and restoration failures only stops when a Federal judge says no more / you shall stop. That simple as WDFW lacks any will to do it. In fact might mean they add more staff in Olympia.