PFMC puts NO FISHING option on the table

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/...rch-6-2020.pdf/

I have said it for years, the only way to deal with the harvest portion of the problem is to close mixed stock fisheries. There are very powerful forces that will make Option 3 difficult (if not impossible) but it is the right thing to do.

One of the other reasons for closing down mixed stock fisheries is that the people who protect the freshwater habitat get rewarded by having fish in their river to catch. They bear the day to day costs of habitat protection.


WDFW has been known to tell folks that if they will do habitat protection projects that any additional fish produced will be harvested before they get back to the project area.

They usually do not tell them. If jammed go into % / exploitation rate dance. Remember John M who worked with our team fencing and restoring the creek than ran through his property? 6 hrs after hearing the harsh truth he was done. I did not blame him a bit. In fact I would not recommend a property owner give up a damn thing until that agency starts to manage for a watershed health rather than how many fish it can kill.

Sad. I think we are seeing "bucket biology" that moves pike, walleye, and bass around because (for a lot of reasons, some of which are good) WDFW can't seem to get any other fish too fishermen. I suspect that fairly soon the LW walleye fishery will make folks forget sockeye. It will be a whole lot longer. There already is a great early-season small fishery in the lake. Anglers are taking stuff into their own hands. Or buckets.

Without a doubt the simplest and fastest way to increase the numbers of fish returning to the our rivers is by addressing the harvest piece of the 4 Hs. In the region of the State that I'm most familiar with (Puget Sound) there are a number of examples of where harvest has been reduced by lowering exploitation rates. I remember clearly discussions in the 1990s and early 2000s that the lower of harvest rates of Puget Sound Chinook would buy time for the hoped for habitat restoration efforts to kicking in leading to increased fish abundance and even recovery.

That approach has colluded full force with the harsh reality that at least to this point our society has proven to be unable or unwilling to take meaningful actions leading to an overall improvement habitat conditions that might ultimately lead to improved status of our salmon. There are examples illustrating collectively we have wasted that time reduced fishing bought recovery efforts.

It is now clear that any resource impacts gained by reducing fishing (harvest) and most cases has been merely converted to increased impacts used by the habitat and hydro impacts and not to produce more fish.

It should be clear to all that society view fishing to be a low priority use of any productivity that salmon stocks may have. It now appears that reducing fishing today only means that there will be less fishing in the future.

Curt

That. Plus, we shouldn't placate the Tribes' demands to fix culverts 20 miles from where any salmon has been seen by any living person on the public dime until the deal comes along with a corresponding increase in escapement goals in the system hoped to benefit. That's called skin in the game, and any party without it isn't a serious or trustworthy partner in a co-management strategy.

Not sure this is the right thread but I think it is a good discussion. So this, recognizing that all human activity harm the natural order and fish are very vulnerable just what part of this mess does harvest play? In other words if a judge shut down all OCEAN salmon impacts both directed and incidental what would the returns be? Twice or three times as large?

For Chinook it would take at least five years to get the true number as harvest would need to be removed on each year of the marine life cycle. Then the impact of incidental catch in other commercial fisheries which some say exceeds actual targeted harvest. A number thrown around is 84% of the harvestable Chinook are removed one way or another prior to entering WA waters. So I will throw out my guess based on the fact that I believe the harvest impacts in the ocean are vastly underestimated and say five years out the terminal Chinook run size would triple for a similar year environmentally. No other change but harvest.

So look at numbers from the past & present, good years and bad. Look at ESA stocks and how the numbers would change. Simply put the only way this mess is truly understood is to get marine impacts out of the picture. I think one would be amazed at what would happen. For GH guys think of it this way the high in years was a 40k year and low was around 6k with a something around 15k a average. ( bit of a guess but good number off the model ) Now times 3 and if the ocean impacts were removed our average returns would be around 45k terminal. Think about it.

Funny, Rivrguy. Back in the 80s, it was "known" that PS salmon stocks entered PS by way of the Straits of JDF. None come down inside Vancouver Island. Then, in a fit of conservation, Canada closed its chum fisheries in Johnstone for 4 years. The result? The Nooksack chum run exploded. From 20-30K to north of 100K and more. Maybe they had good survival. But, when Johnstone reopened the run declined.......

I can't remember where I heard it, but there are rumbles that the decline in Yukon Chinook is due to by catch in black cod (?) fisheries. The kicker is that the number of salmon in the fishery is minuscule (so the fishery is clean) it is just a majority of the run.

Interesting to consider but would all other factors remain the same?

If hatchery production remained the same would predator numbers respond by increasing their numbers?

If hatchery production decreased due to a significant drop in license revenue would there be a significant drop in numbers of wild (ESA listed) salmonids as they become more vulnerable (greater percentage of the population) to predators?

Would an increase (should that occur) in population of esa listed species result in delisting which could lead to less habitat protection/restoration?

I need more coffee.......

THIS!

An otherwise very conservation-minded steelhead flyfisher was once my host for a weekend on the Skagit. Turns out he was heavily involved in the pollock fishery. When the conversation came up, he talked about how "clean" the fishery was.... millions of pounds of pollock to miniscule numbers of kings in their trawls. "We're NOT the problem"

Yes, I could appreciate his point.... but I wasn't blind to the bigger picture.

Cook Inlet's gillnets are capable of taking thousands of sockeye for every king encountered. Seems "clean" enough for the gillnetter. But those sockeye-directed nets typically snarf up 25-30% the entire chinook return over the course of a season.

CLEAN?

While I don't agree that harvest has been cut back enough to bring on recovery, let's assume it has. Harvest is not the problem. The problem is habitat. We have had, with steelhead, Chinook, and SRKWs about 25 years or so to affect recovery.

WDFW just told us that the years of ESA coverage for Chinook have resulted in about 30% fewer wild fish than when listed. I thought the goal was more, not less.

So, harvest is not the problem, we have put all the money we are willing to into habitat, and we're losing ground. Time for the God Squad. Either we make progress (progress being more fish and whales, not less) or we move on. In which case we will need to re-open, rebuild, repair, and refund the hatcheries.

Would the God Squad first require a significant reduction in predators?

I don't know. I think they look at what has been going on and decide if restoration is possible in the current environment. Were I a God-squadder I would present the managers with a list of actions, a list of benchmarks to be met, etc. They would need to answer "yes" or "no" and would need to immediately meet the benchmarks. No meet, no more listing.

Good question. Since the amendment of the ESA in 1978, I believe there have only been six applications for exemption from the ESA made to the Endangered Species Act Committee (God Squad). Three were withdrawn, one was denied (Tellico Dam, TN), and two were granted (BLM Timber Sale, OR and Grayrocks Dam, WY and NE). The exemption for BLM timber sales in OR was later withdrawn.

Not much history to go on to figure out exactly how the system would work, and there has been a long time since the last action under this exemption process, close to 30 years I think.

Here is a good link describing the past exemption requests made:

ESA Exemption Applications - Congressional Research Service

Legal review of the exemption process, Notre Dame Law Review:

How the God Squad Works

Oncy T - Thanks for that information; makes for interesting reading.


Who may apply; as extracted from the first link:

"In either case, the following are the categories of potential applicants that can apply for an exemption for a federal action despite its effects on listed species or their critical habitat:

the federal action agency interested in proceeding with the action,

an applicant for a federal license or permit whose application was denied primarily because of the prohibitions of ESA requiring that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species or harm to their critical habitats,

or the governor of the state where the action was to have occurred."

So, who's willing to jump in and change the paradigm?

It is definitely a matter of perception.

Take the Makah Tribal whiting catch.
Year 2005, total whiting catch by catch was estimated at 3811 chinook.

Year 2005/2006 reported sports catch card numbers for areas 3 and 4 total
3061 chinook.

Of course, to be fair to the tribe, the total west coast by catch was expected to be over 11,000. It is just harder to break down by area.
( from the federal register--- Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51683)

Looks to me like the God Squad is not the answer to changing the paradigm. I haven't read both references fully, but one statement stands out from the Congressional Research Service document: "Because projects are exempted, rather than species, the ESA still requires that species affected by the exempted project must be conserved in their remaining habitat."

Not exactly what I thought the God Squad could do. I was under the impression that they could write off an entire ESU. That does not appear to be the case.

In that case, we'll recover them to extinction.

Although habitat is a primary necessity for recovery it is pretty clear that our current river habitats are well below their carrying capacities and estimated productivity capabilities, even in their degraded state.

It is becoming ever clearer that a marine survival bottleneck also exists, stemming largely from food availability and continued declines in forage fish availability and zooplankton prey items for juveniles. Of particular concern are the affects of ocean acidification on the carapaces of shelled species, especially post-larval dungeness crap megalopa which are a key component of outmigrant smolt diets entering the marine environment.

Point being, although fisheries and particularly fisheries by-catch and northern intercepts are a major concern the environment itself is likely at the root of the problem. A warming and increasingly acidic ocean as a result of climate change is a much much larger nut to crack. If we can't even make the move to stop killing fish to save fish, I doubt humans as a species will be able to make the much larger sacrifices necessary to stop destroying the oceans to save fish.

Well said. While not cheap politically (the reason the ocean closure option won't be used), it costs nothing to reduce ocean harvest, and whatever payoff we got would be evident within a few years of simply sitting back and watching, at zero expense. If we find the habitat can only support the measly scraps we leave to spawn today, we can easily go back to the maximum harvest model. I don't thonk there is much political will to find out the truth....

A few observations.

1) The ESA Committee (God Squad) can exempt Federal actions from the Endangered Species Act. The actions are something the Federal government either authorizes, funds or carries out. And there must be a situation where the ESA-listed species is being jeopardized by a Federal action, and there is no reasonable and prudent alternative that avoids jeopardy.

And more to the point, it is the ACTION the God Squad exempts, not the species (as OncyT correctly points out). So, if the action is exempted, the conservation burden falls on other sectors. For example, if a hydropower project is exempted, all the other H’s (habitat, harvest, hatcheries) have to overcome the unmitigated damage from the hydro project to ensure the species doesn’t go extinct. That’s great for the hydro project but really bad for the other H’s. So, in the end, an ESA exemption resolves nothing.

2) I would also note that virtually all salmon fisheries are mixed stock fisheries. Ocean harvest is the most obvious, and perhaps the worse, type of mixed stock fisheries. But the Buoy 10 fishery is also a mixed stock fishery. The salmon we’re harvesting at B-10 return to various parts of the Basin. Some of those stocks are strong, while others are ESA listed. And both return to the same area (B-10), at the same time (mid-August to early September), and it’s difficult (or impossible) to distinguish between healthy and weak stocks. That’s the exact definition of a mixed stock fishery. The best example is Fall Chinook from the Hanford Reach and the Snake River (both have wild adults).

So while I agree that mixed stock fisheries are a contributing factor in the decline of Pacific salmon, almost all of us participate in a mixed stock fishery whenever we put a line in the water. The only exception might be terminal harvest just below a salmon hatchery (e.g., Blue Creek on the Cowlitz, Drano Lake in the Columbia Gorge).

3) The Salmon Technical Team at PMFC has a ‘No Fishing’ option for North of Falcon fisheries. Under that option, there would be no ocean harvest of Chinook or coho from the Canadian border south to Cape Falcon (between Cannon Beach and Manzanita). That covers the entire Washington coast and about quarter of the Oregon Coast. In my view, that’s not a huge area, given the range of Chinook, coho, and SRKW’s.

However, if PFMC adopted a “No Fishing” option for SE Alaska, and the BC Coast (which they can’t do since they have no jurisdiction in Canada), that would be VERY helpful. Nevertheless, a “No Fishing” option in Washington and a slice of Oregon would send a huge and urgent message to the folks in BC and Alaska about the state of the salmon on the Pacific Coast.

Desperate times call for desperate measures……..

Rather broad description of mixed stock fisheries. Mixed stock is normally defined by rivers of origin. Terminal yes also for limiters but in a much scaled down version, localized and somewhat manageable.

BC has long said that if the US gets AK off their fish they will get off ours.

I agree. As the fish get closer to their natal streams, the effect of mixed stock fisheries become less. That's why ocean harvest can be both damaging and difficult to assess. Those salmon caught in the open ocean could be from anywhere. As the fish get closer to their natal streams (e.g., Buoy 10) , the effect of the mixed stock fishery becomes manageable, but it doesn't disappear completely (ask the folks in Idaho).

When (or if) the fish arrive at their spawning grounds, the effect disappears entirely.

PFMC 1 adjourned last night....

The options include the following quotas for state recreational fisheries off the Washington coast:

Option 1: 30,000 Chinook and 29,400 marked coho. This option includes an early season Chinook fishery from June 14 through June 28 in all ocean areas, followed by a Chinook and marked coho fishery from June 29 through Sept. 30.

Option 2: 22,125 Chinook and 22,500 marked coho. This option opens Chinook and coho fishing in all ocean areas from June 27 through Sept. 13.

Option 3: All ocean areas closed to salmon fishing.

Wonder if the Coronavirus restrictions are going to shut down in in-person NOF meetings. Or, conversely, give a great opportunity to spread the bug.

March 12 Willapa Bay meeting was the last for warm bodies to attend for the rest of NOF.

PFMC, needs to get in the real world.......more strict options need to "be on the table"

Option 2, has been the "go to option", over the past years....

IMO....the time "on the water needs to be added in, as a option"..... such as the following:

Open, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday......closed, completely, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Tough times calls for strict rules......shouldn't fall on the "in river" fishers to bear the blunt of "conservation".....

Thousands of hours are spent on Salmon: NOF, PFMC, meetings at all levels.....Even on Fishing forums..

What about Washington State, Washington designated steelhead trout (Salmo gairdnerii) as the official state fish in 1969. WDFW does not want to have any "general public" meetings on steelhead. There are major problems with "wild steelhead" are sportsmen the problem????? When you take a look at Oregon steelhead fishing and Washington State steelhead fishing.....I hear no closures in Oregon, mmmmmm, what's the deal??????

It'll be fun, watching NOF meetings, on my laptop computer but "cast on" to my 65" TV. Fixed cams, while they get the job done.......meetings would be much better if there was a way to have the cam fixed on people doing/asking questions.

Video of today's meeting here...

https://player.invintus.com/?clientID=2836755451&eventID=2020031000