Time to reconsider MSY

The concept of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) is but one construct that managers can rely upon to regulate our popular sport fisheries. An alternative construct that has received far less attention is the concept of Maximum Sustained Recreation (MSR).

From the standpoint of a purely recreational salmon or steelhead fishery, what matters most to participants is ensuring sheer abundance of fish so as to maximize angler-encounters with those fish. All other things being equal, the angler experience is maximally enhanced by having lots of fish in the river. Successful management by MSR is predicated upon putting the maximum number of fish in the river that are still capable of replacing themselves after spawning. If 19,000 fish spawn and later produce 20,000 returning adults, that would be considered a glowing MSR success.

In contrast, successful management by MSY means the ability to harvest all the “surplus” fish (the yield) that is not needed for maximal production, as measured by the ratio of returning adults per spawner (RPS). RPS ratios of one or less would be considered an utter MSY failure. Spawning escapements resulting in a RPS ratio approaching 1.0 essentially produce zero yield within the MSY construct. Using the same 19,000 fish example above, a return of 20,000 fish would be considered a very undesirable outcome in the MSY mindset, a dismal yield of barely over 5%. That 1000 fish “surplus” might only support a measly two or three days of fishing.

How then does one reconcile the fact that a return of identical magnitude can be viewed so positively in one construct and so negatively in the other? It really boils down to values; what we as a society and fishing community consider to be the highest and best use of the resource. Is it the medieval mindset of maximal harvest or is it the more modern mindset of maximal recreation? As some have so bluntly put it, are we fishing for food or are we fishing for fun? For many of our modern-day fisheries, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. This less dogmatic view of “highest and best use” should be taken into consideration in determining how to manage the resource more evenhandedly.

MSY and MSR are actually polar opposites in a continuum of management strategies that have their foundations in tweaking RPS ratios for different goals and outcomes. Theoretically, as long as RPS ratios are not allowed to dip below 1.0, the spawning escapement will replace itself, and the run will be sustained in perpetuity.

MSY is the “tried and true” strategy of harvest-based management that seeks to minimize escapements to produce the highest RPS ratios the available habitat can support. If the habitat is capable of producing 4 returning adults per spawner on an MSY escapement of 5,000 fish, then 20,000 fish would come back, resulting in a yield of 300% or 15,000 harvestable fish. As the fishing season progresses, there are fewer and fewer fish available to catch. The fishing gets tougher as more and more of them are harvested, particularly so for participants further upriver.

MSR boils down to abundance-based management that seeks to maximize escapements which result in RPS ratios hovering at or just above 1.0. If the habitat is capable of producing 1.1 returning adults per spawner at an MSR escapement of 19,000 fish, then 20,000 fish would come back, leaving a buffer of 1000 fish for hook and release mortality. The vast majority of the fish remain in the “catchable” pool of fish all season long to sustain maximal recreational opportunity.

I am not suggesting that either of these strategies is the right way to go about managing all of our fisheries. However, there must be some room for flexibility in management to reflect society’s changing values. For far too long, harvest-based management has ruled the roost. We’re due for a little change.

Well, it's an interesting concept. It would place too much reliance on too many to cooperate. Herding cats come to mind?

FNP -
Interesting policy. Nice to hear folks actually propose an alternative to MSY management rather than the generalized reponse that "MSY sucks" comments w/o an alternative.

However I feel for a valid comparsion between MSR and MSY you need to clear up the definitions. My understanding is that strictly speaking MSR is not max. fish abundance but rather a management structure that would maximize man-days of fishing recreation. That may or may not mean for managing for high fish abundance - maximum abundance likely means no fishing as there would no room for even hooking mortality. To minimize man-days of recreation the amount of harvest needed to attract anglers would likely vary from speceis to species.

For example MSR for a halibut fishery would likely rely on more harvest (closer to MSY) than say trout fishing in Yellowstone Park. Again it boils down to what anglers are interested in. If you example was apply to say chinook salmon fishing in Washington state the high hooking mortality in the salt (10 to 20% depending on the size of the chinook being caught) would likely mean no fish to harvest. While I could easily live with that my experience with a pretty broad cross section of salmon anglers in this state would tell that most would prefer to have chinook to harvest.

Strictly speak MSY escapement goals are not that level that has the highest recruits per spawner (RPS) but rather the escapement that produces the highest number of fish above the escapement goal (typically referred to as "harvestable fish"). The highest RPS on most spawner/recruit curves occurs at very low escpaements - right next to zero.

A hypothical population might have a carry capacity of say 10,000 and MSY level of 6,000 and a maximum RPS of say 100 fish. Because of the interest of anglers I would venture that the majority of salmon anglers would opt for something closure to MSY than carrying capacity where a growing number of steelhead would prefer something closer to carrying capacity.

Sorry but don't currently have more time for more detail comments.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma-

When you DO have time could you provide some reference/info on 'carrying capacity'.

I'm very curious as to where this idea originates, how it has come to be relied upon by the state of washington in its steelhead management, and whether or not there is any supporting data validating the idea in the first place...

....or is 'carrying capacity' just a theory?

Smalma-

I really dont think you and your friends know a darn thing.

It just makes me sick inside to know that we have been throwing away 30 years worth of tax dollars.

Rich G.,

I'll second that!

MSY is the antithesis of abundance-based management. It is rooted in the idea that the habitat has a finite carrying capacity, and that the best way to maximize production from that finite capacity is by limiting the spawning escapement thru intensive harvest. MSY seeks to manage fisheries for the smallest possible spawning escapement to fully utilize the available rearing habitat. Any excess escapement is viewed as "waste" in this capitalistic construct, the same way that spill over dams is viewed as waste since it does not contribute to maximum power production.

The MSY ethic does not mesh well with efforts to restore abundance. In fact, as habitat is further degraded by our ever-expanding human impacts, the MSY construct seeks ever smaller escapement goals in proportion to the reduced carrying capacity of damaged habitats. The MSY mindset does nothing to pro-actively encourage habitat restoration. Rather it is used as a reactive justification to continue maximum harvest on ever-dwindling runs of salmon and steelhead.

In contrast, the MSR construct defines its success on maximizing abundance. It too recognizes a finite carrying capacity for the rearing habitat, however MSR seeks to produce the largest possible spawning escapement for the available habitat.

The MSR ethic meshes much better with efforts to restore historic abundance. Because abundance is the primary goal, MSR encourages pro-active habitat restoration efforts. MSR proponents would designate conservation of existing ecosystems a top priority, and make reclamation and restoration of lost/degraded habitats a pivotal component of the management scheme in order to ensure that sufficient habitat was available for ever-increasing numbers of spawners to seed.

If fish managers are really serious about the task of salmon restoration, they must recognize that MSY is no longer the appropriate model for managing our fisheries. A paradigm shift toward the MSR approach is the only way to recover depleted runs to historic abundance.

Over the last century, a monolithic fish bureaucracy has evolved to worship the MSY doctrine, and we have paid the price. MSY is steeped in the misguided belief that we can have more for less, that smaller escapements are good for bountiful harvests, that an unharvested salmon is somehow a "waste" once abyssmal escapement goals have already been met. Never mind that unharvested salmon's contributions to the genetic diversity of its species or the nutrient biomass of its riverine ecosystem.

This capitalistic construct of maximizing "yield" with the minimum amount of invested "seed" allowed us to be lulled into the false security that we could continue to mine the rivers for free wealth without regard for the fish, their genetic diversity, or their nutrient-deprived habitats. When harvest abuses were synergistically combined with the rampant habitat destruction of human "progress", it was a formula for certain depletion of the runs.

Fish Doc, I like the way you think and believe many others on this board do likewise. And in a perfect world.......

That being said, if I am not mistaken, the mandate to WDFW is to preserve, protect and maintain sustainable fisheries, not necessarily recreation. You are correct in your comment about most people thinking that spawners exceeding escapement goals being considered a waste. That is how society looks at it. When society sees a million pinks coming back to the Skagit, they think everything is rosy and that the habitat can't be that bad. Society hears about record numbers of chinook in the Columbia and they think," hey, life is good." Society tells the politicians everything is great, break out the harvest pie. The politicians provide funding for WDFW....

Anyway, I haven't seen up to this point, that society is willing to pay the costs required for significant habitat recovery. It is difficult today to even try to save what we have left. With the general public's current mindset about habitat and harvest combined with the political clout of the non-treaty commercial fishers, then throwing in tribal views on harvest I think that trying to get management of our salmonid stocks based on maximum sustained recreation to be somewhat naive.

But hey Doc, I'm with Ya! In a perfect world.....

i think that smalma knows alot and i allways learn something from his input.

wdfw on the other hand...... is to fish depletion as the US forest service is to clear cutts.

WDFW- is an agency that does not have common goals with anyone who wants to save our wild fish resources. it is more imprtant for them to ensure that folks in foreign countries get our resources at a great price than it is to ensure that the NW will allways have WILD salmon/steelhead returning to our tables and economies.

NOAA- in the simpilist of terms is an agency that makes up whatever "science" george wants them to. they are a total crock of ****

PS> -all of you conservatives.... where is your open market solution you guys are allway touting? in fact what is an open market solution for anynatural resource issue we are facing?

FNP, Is your idea one that can work with the tribes? What road is Alaska and BC on with there sport fishing?

The MSR construct I described was presented from a recreational fisherman's point of view to allow readers of this board to digest it in familiar terms. Labelling it MSR was simply a way to differentiate it from the harvest oriented management of the day. I could have just as easily called it MSA or Maximum Sustainable Abundance. The idea being that abundance is what is required to support high-quality recreational fisheries.

MSY could just as easily be called MSH or Maximal Sustainable Harvest. It's just a name.

The implications of managing by either set of principles remains unchanged. Only one of them will set us back on a path of recovery. The other can at best maintain things the way they are. More likely, things will only get worse as we continue to manage for maximal harvest of ever-declining stocks of salmon.

I refrained from posting this earlier because I knew somebody would raise the question of how the tribal harvest fits into this whole scheme. I doubt the tribes would buy into it. The only way it would work in WA is if the nontribal share of the harvestable surplus were manged for MSR with a guarantee that any forgone harvest would not be forfeited to the tribal allocation. Without that assurance, we're toast!

No matter what you call it Doc I agree with you 100%. I really have trouble with the "Record" runs we have been having as they in no way mean anything. I would love to see the models adjusted to allow a much higher escapement goal. Even if it means we only get to keep 1 fish instead of 2 or we can only fish x days a week. Perhaps in 2 or 3 cycles of fish we would then see an increase in abundance as you stated.

I have always felt that the "Escapement" numbers were simply an arbitrary number that someone pulled out of a hat to make it sound like they knew what they were doing. After living on the Raging River for the last 5 years I can tell you that there are far to few fish going by my house to have enough fish in the river for good natural selection. The poor fish hardly have enough numbers to find a single possible mate let alone have the choice to help in natural selection of the fittest!

Rich & Headhunter,

Not that he requires any defense by me, but I’ve known Smalma for over 25 years, and I can vouch that he does indeed know a darned thing - and then some.

In this case, what Smalma is trying to do is help FNP by clarifying the meanings of MSY and MSR. FNP has the concept almost correct, but is off a bit. Although it often looks to us like MSY management is seeking lower and lower escapements, that is not the case. MSY simply sets the escapement goal at the level that produces the highest “sustainable” harvest. I put sustainable in quotes because that is part of the problem with it. As other variables change, MSY typically results in too high harvest rates, which in turn result in underescapement. However, it is the declining productivity and capacity of habitat that drives escapement goals downward. And that would happen under MSY, MSR, or an alternative between the two.

Further, MSR can only occur at slightly less than maximum abundance, as Smalma explained, because you have to allow some proportion of fish to be lost to the inevitable hooking and handling mortality associated with maximizing recreation.

H2O,

Carrying capacity isn’t a theory. Actual measurements of habitat can be made, and using the known productivity of similar habitats that have been measured, carrying capacity of the habitat in question can be estimated. However, I always expect estimates to be off by some amount, so I like to have a follow-up assessment of productivity to see how close it comes to the estimate. By that measure, the process of estimating both productivity and capacity are improved over time.

Lupo,

Fish management agencies serve a diverse constituency. Historically, the constituent pressure has been for sustaining high harvests. As the constituents have become more diverse, there has been an increasing pressure for improved conservation and preservation of fish stocks. If you think WDFW isn’t conservation oriented today, you really don’t know what it was like in the 60s or early 70s. Institutional change comes slowly, particularly when the legislative direction hasn’t really changed to account for what we know about fish resources today.

I’m biased, and I contend that NOAA doesn’t make up science for George. However, George is not allowing vacancies to be filled, which can be read as transferring the money to the war effort, or as limiting NOAA’s ability to generate the best available science where there are controversies about science, or it might be some other reason . . .

Linebacker,

MSR doesn’t work for treaty tribes whose interest is in commercial fishing. The philosophies are almost diametrically opposed, and the management strategies and methods conflict. There could be compromises made between them, but only if the parties, or the court, supported doing so.

Gary,

The Raging River would have small escapements of fish under either MSY or MSR or something in between because the productivity, and most likely the capacity as well, are severely reduced from what they were in, say, 1850.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

Very well stated.

As for the Raging. Well I would agree to a point. The fact is that when I moved into our house 5 years ago we were able to count about 10 coho spawning that year. The next it was down to 2. This year there was 1 fish. There weren't any last year or the year before. Given numbers like that I have to seriously doubt the validity of "MSY" due to the simple fact that there just aren't enough fish in the river for the gene pool any more.

I also realize that 5 years is not a long enough period of time to go by. But that is how long I have lived on the river so I could watch it daily. In truth I would like to see them close the Raging to fishing for at least the next 15 years or so.

FNP -
In discussing various management approachs I feel it is important that we have a clear understanding of what is being discussed - that is why I keep beating the definition drum.

In that light I believe that a review of definitions would be helpful. In this context Maximum sustainable would mean the greatest number that can be maintained.

Thus MSY/H would mean the greatest harvest that can be maintained - harvest in this case can mean dead fish that are taken home, the total mortality from all fishing impacts. Meaning it is possible to manage a fishery at MSY where all the mortality is from hooking mortaltiy (CnR season). However in todays world the fishing impacts are typcially the sum of harvest and other mortalities (hooking mortality, net drop out ect).

MSR would mean the greatest recreation that can be maintained. In this case recreation is typcially measured in man-days fishing. typcially the manager will limit gear efficency or bag limits to insure that more days of fishing will be produced from the same fishing impacts. A recent MSR example discussed here on this site was the suggestion that the bag limit on crabs be reduced from 6 to 4. This would spread the harvest out over more days of recreational crabbing.

MSA would mean the greatest abundacne ( in this case adult spawners) that can be maintained. Unless I'm missing some nuance it appears to me that MSA is essential the same as maintianing the population at carryiing capacity. To set some value for MSA management a decision needs to be made under what conditions are the number of spawners to be maximized? Average conditions? the best that have been seen?

Bottom line we have 3 different and interesting management options with different long term objectives that maximize - 1) the number of dead fish from fishing impacts, 2) the number of man-days of fishing and 3) the number of adult spawners.

Your management preference seems to have morphed from MSR to MSA which is certainly viable option. However I am interested in how you would suggest implementing such a management system for say Chinook salmon. Would you place a higher priority in wild or hatchery fish? Would there be any case where wild chinook would be allowed? How would you suggest managing mix stock areas (all marine waters) to insure that the weaker stocks would be able to reach MSA? To access hatchery fish how much impact (short fall of MSA - a failure to meet the management objective) on wild stocks would allow in the combined fisheries?

As you can see it is pretty easy to select a management option but to successfully implement such a scheme may be a little more difficult. As always the devil is in the detail.

Tight lines
S malma

H2O -
I didn't mean to duck your question regarding carrying capacity. Thought Salmo did a good job of addressing it. If you have additional questions or need for clarification I would be happy to take a poke at addressing them.

Gary -
Coho tend to be a small stream fish as result the Raging river itself is not prime coho spawning habitat. Apt to find them in much higher densities in tribs like Deep or Canyon. The Snohomish system as a whole has one of the more robust wild coho populations in the lower 48 states. The estimated MSY escapement goal for the basin is 70,000 adult spawners. Over the last 5 years (the period you have lived on Raging) the wild coho escapement has exceed the goal every year. The escapement in 2000 was 94,000, in 2001 it was 262,000, in 2002 it was 162,000, in 2003 it was 182,000 and this year it was 227,000.

The 5 year average escapement is more than 2.5 times the escapement goal. It would appear the local fisheries managers have failed miserably in harvesting every last fish. Those kinds of densities should be adequate to insure that at least some natural selection is still operating on the population.

Tight lines
S malma

Salmo G.... Did you mean "escapement goals" or "escapement"?

Smalma.....(in reference to the Snohomish Coho run) Are you trying to say that the over-escapement in the Snohomish system is a waste? Do you suppose all those wasted fish will (a) be unable to find a place to spawn (b) hatch offspring that will die due to lack of feed or (c) contribute to the ever increasing numbers of fish?

I have a real problem with the concept of capacity as interpretted by the powers that be. I grew up here. My dad grew up in Monroe. My mom grew up between Sultan and Monroe. My dad's folks grew up in Monroe. My mom's folks moved here from Montana in the early 1900's.

I think I have some idea of what constitutes a large run of fish.

I experienced First Hand the impact of Boldt. The availability of fish in off reservation rivers shot downward within very few years of the expansion of netting practices due directly to Boldt.

If there is anyone who knows of a link to data on any tribal-affected, off-reservation river showing fish numbers for ten years prior to Boldt to ten years following Boldt I would truely like to read it. Perhaps the numbers of fish prior to that dead Judge will be somewhat indicative of capacity? Certainly none after are.

For any who are interested....if you want to read a success story about stopping commercialing and replacing it with the benefits of a sports fishery, try doing a search for the history of the Redfish fishery in Florida. Now THAT'S how to manage! Rant over.

Fun5Acres -
The Spawner/recruit relationship of a salmonid population is a function of the capacity and productivity of the habitat. As we degrade the habitat the result is the sprawner recruit function flattens out. Meaning both the capacity and MSY escapement levels are greatly reduced. To put in context the summer chinook on the Skykomish MSY escapement level under current habitat and survival conditions has been estimated to be 3,600 fish. If the habitat were restored to what has been called properly functioning (about 80% of historic conditions) the same value would be roughly 30,000 chinook. While past fisheries management has played a role in the decline in the status of our populations those impacts pale to what habitat destruction has done.

REgarding the coho situation on the Snohomish. My comments about the managers failing in harvesting all the potential fish was a tongue in cheek commnet - sorry it it was misunderstood. The recent manage of the system coho runs has intentionally been structured to allow for those larger returns. While you did say what your age is I doubt that you seen many coho larger than those recent returns. In the last 40 years 4 of the 5 largest wild coho escapments in the Snohomish been since 2000.

In that same 40 year period the largest escapement of pinks (humpy) was 280,000 until 2001 when the escapement was over a million fish. The 2003 escapements was also over a million fish. In terms of wild salmon spawning the good old days may be now. Of to achieve those escapements fishing was greatly curtailed. The point of this was to illustrate that it is not universal that our wild salmonids have been managed to the fine edge of MSY.

I think many Snohomish anglers have recent seen what large wild salmon runs may look like.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma

Your emphasis on clarifying the definitions is indeed needed to keep us all on the same sheet of music.

Your version of MSR is quite different than what I was getting at with my original post. Your description of "rationing" the fishery by restricting methods and bag limits to stretch out a longer season for a limited amount of fish is not at all what I had in mind. My version of maximum recreation refers to maximum angler-fish encounters, NOT maximum angler-days fishing over paltry runs of fish. Personally I would much rather fish fewer days knowing I can predictably encounter 15-20 fish a day and harvest zero instead of an extra long season where I have to scrape and struggle each day to even get a bite, let alone put a fish in the box.

From the beginning of this discussion, it was always about maximizing abundance. More than anything, that's what's gonna make the sportfisher happy.... predictably having lots of fish to fish over, not necessarily having the privilege to kill/harvest them. So yes, by your definition, what I was describing in my original post more closely approximates the MSA model rather than MSR. No "morphing" from MSR to MSA was ever intended.

And as your analysis concluded, escapements should probably be managed right at or just below carrying capacity (CC), assuming that escapements significantly greater than CC will not replace themselves. Surplus would be defined as any excess fish beyond CC. Those fish would be made available for harvest, C&R mortalities, and/or hatchery broodstock needs.

As far as hatchery fish go, harvest them all. Isn't that what you make the damned things for? Just stop stealing wild broodstock fish from their natural environment where they can be just as productive if not moreso than if spawned in a hatchery. At least the recruits end up contributing to further wild fish recovery instead of being converted into a harvestable fin-clipped commodity. The only time hatcheries should be allowed to mine the wild runs for eggs is when escapements are certain to exceed CC.

All gear in all fisheries must be made selective, meaning the ability to release the vast majority of non-target stocks UNHARMED to spawn!

SalmoG stated:
That may be true, but it is only abundance-based management that will encourage restoration of habitat and expansion of CC. Since abundance is the ultimate goal, managers would be more inclined to preserve/restore habitat. That's the paradigm shift that past and present management doesn't seem to get.

The MSY mindset could give a rip about declining CC as long as there were still fish to harvest. And that is precisely the problem with a harvest-driven management scheme. The only tool in the box is.... you guessed it.... HARVEST! As you stated, it is much more prone to errors of overharvest than underharvest, and no matter how low the MSY escapement is driven by habitat loss, there is still a provision for harvest! Why do you guys cling so tightly to this construct when you see with your own eyes its propensity to further deplete runs rather than recover them? We have done it the MSY way for the last half century. Any damned fool can see that you're not going to harvest your way out of this crisis. Isn't it time we try something different?

Dr. Fnp.........wow! Well said!

FnP -
I think I'm getting what you are aiming for - thanks of having the courage to actually propose specific actions on which to base this "new management". So far I think we have:

1) Maximum numbers of wild fish - assume that marking all hatchery production the goal.

2) All fisheries wild salmon/steelhead release (apply to all species?). How about other species - halibut/ling cod etc?.

3) Gear would be limited to a single barbless hook with no bait or scents - selective gear.

I guess I assuming that to be successful that we would need to cap somehow the total fishing impacts on the wild stocks. In that light I would ask the following questions on what critieria the manager should use to accomplish this management shift.

1) Are you ultimately justed interested in having maximum numbers of wild fish in the fishery or on the spawning grounds?

2) Assuming that at least a partial goal is to have more wild fish on the spawning grounds. How much total fishing imapcts on wild stocks would you suggest while killing the hatchery fish and releasing the wild fish. In other words how much below MSA escapement are you willing to go to access the hatchery fish and have CnR on the wild stocks?

3) Assuming that we are to cap the fishing impacts on wild stocks would you regulate mixed stocks fisheries based on impacts on the weakest stock or an aggregate of the stocks?

4) In such an approach it is likely that fishing season would need reconstruction. Would you recommend that we build the new fishing structure from the rivers out adding additional fishing in more mixed stock areas if impacts are still available? or Would you build the fisheries from the outside in - opening the more inside fisheries and river fisheries only if additional impacts or available?

By the way the paradigm shift in management you are seeking has been and still is occurring. That kind of approach is very much what the co-managers had put forth in their fisheries management plan for the ESA listed chinook. That is limited directed fishing on the listed stocks with impacts from only the fishereies directed towards hatchery fish and/or other species. The goal has been to put fish on the spawning grounds to challenge the habitat capacity and productive while encouraging the restoration of the habitat. Fish are being put on the spawning grounds rather than killed in fisheries in the hope that society will make the needed changes to provide that additional habitat. While not exactly what you are shooting for I believe it is much closer to what you are proposing than the "old paradigm".

Again thanks for time to clarify for me what you are striving for.

Tight lines
S malma

F5A,

I meant escapement goals. However, as escapement goals are reduced, lower escapements usually follow. Smalma’s summer chinook example should help explain that.

FNP,

I think you need to acknowledge and understand the disconnect between fish management agencies and the actual managers of fish habitat. Fish agencies do try to influence habitat management in a positive way, and do realize some success. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority of habitat management decisions are made by agencies that permit and promote development of the natural environment in ways that degrade fish habitat.

Not all of us in the fish business cling to MSY. As Smalma illustrated, the Snohomish coho are being managed outside the MSY range, and the results appear quite positive. He has also illustrated in other threads that Puget Sound wild steelhead are managed above the MSY range as well. The results are not so good, but that’s because of other variables, that seem to be outside management control, that limit smolt to adult survival. I think the present barriers to moving well beyond MSY are some of the institutional advocates and the treaty and non-treaty commercial sectors, whose short term interests benefit most from MSY.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Hmmm, I just noticed something in this thread.

Carrying capacity is greatly diminished in the Snohomish system overall.

The largest wild coho escapements in the last 40 years have occurred in the last 5 years.

The decline of the wild steelhead run has reached a critical state, resulting in the ending of the popular Sky C&R season 4 or 5 years ago.

Could there be a correlation between the extreme abundance of wild coho smolts and apparent lack of wild steelhead smolts, (competition) considering the fact that they share a fairly similar early life history?

Great post FNP, and nice juicy thread from everybody involved. It looks like it is a landslide poll that MSY has overstayed its welcome from a recreational fisher's standpoint. "MSR" sounds like a great alternative on paper. Implementing change in this f%#*'d up political atmosphere seems like another thing altogether. . .

fb

4Salt,

I’d venture that capacity is significantly reduced from a benchmark time of, say, 1850. There remains a lot of capacity, reduced by the reduction of oxbows, side channels, backwater channels, sloughs, estuary, and lower summer flows due to land use changes. Next, I’d venture that productivity is far more significantly reduced than capacity. Productivity reductions come in the form of siltation that reduces egg to fry survival, reduced population of some of the benthic macro-invertebrates that fish forage on, and probably the smaller amount of marine derived nutrients in the form of fish carcasses. Productivity is further reduced by stream channel simplification - straightening, lack of LWD, etc.

That 4 of the 5 largest coho escapements of the past 40 years have occurred in the last 5 says that both productivity and capacity are large and have been underutilized for the last 4 decades.

I don’t think there’s much relation between large coho runs and smaller steelhead runs. As juveniles, the species partition rearing habitat pretty effectively, and it’s quite common for good coho rivers to also be good steelhead rivers. Remember, it’s not just the Sky. Every Puget Sound river basin is getting poor steelhead returns compared to the 80s. The puzzle we can’t figure out is why coastal steelhead have recovered from the downturn of the 90s, but the Puget Sound streams have not.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks Salmo! I figured the experts probably already knew the scoop.

4salt -
Interesting observation, I have actually thought about that situation some for the last several years.

Salmo is correct in that there is a fair degree of partition of the rearing habitats between coho and steelhead in the tributary streams. That is not to say that if one species was at low abundance the other would not use some of that habitat. In the case of the Snohomish I doubt that relative abundance of coho and steelhead have had much to do with the decline of steelhead.

On the other side of the coin for decades the biomass being returned to the Snohomish by the natural spawning salmon was typcially between 1 and 2 million pounds. In the last 4 years that has increased to between 3.5 and 7 million pounds of carcasses. If the amount of salmon carcasses is an important factor in over all productivity of the river we should be seeing benefits soon.

The situation with the wild steelhead on the Snohomish likely very little to do with the management of those fish. The last few years the over all fishing rate on the wild steelhead has been about 3.5% (hooking mortaltiy in WSR and tribal commerical catch) while the fishing rate on its chinook have been in the 20 to 30%, and for coho in the 30 to 50% range. The wild steelhead by far are being managed the more conservatively than all other anadromous salmonids yet they are the only ones not doing well.

Tight lines
S malma

So basically, it seems that perhaps the problem lies in the forage that the Steelhead use in the salt rather than in the river? Do they feed on different things in the salt than Coho or Chinook? It would seem likely to me since we rarely catch them in the salt.

Also, do any steelhead ever stay resident in the sound like Cutts and BM?

Gary -
Steelhead not only feed on different food items than coho and chinook they migrate to much different areas in the ocean. The steelhead seem to head offshore into the high seas directly. Steelhead are found throughout the north Pacific. The west coast steelhead have been found west of the international date line. In contrast the coho and chinook basically stay along the coast line and rarely migrate outside of the continental shelf.

There is little evidence of steelhead staying in the Sound rather than migrating to the ocean. Typically the only time one sees steelhead in the Sound is as they migrate to and from the rivers. That said rarely what has been termed "half-pounders" are see in our rivers. They are fish that returns to the river the same fall that migrate as smolts. With the fish returning within months of smolting it is hard to imagine them migrating very far off shore.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma

You are getting pretty close to what I would consider “ideal” management from the sportfisher’s point of view, but as you said, the devil is in the details. Simply said, I am interested in maximum numbers of fish (wild or hatchery) to support the greatest number of angler-fish encounters in the sport fishery, AND maximum numbers of wild spawners on the gravel.

Another aspect of maximizing recreation (completely independent of MSY/MSA/MS-whatever) that we have yet to discuss is ALLOCATION. I understand that from a biologic standpoint, a dead fish is a dead fish, and the only thing that matters is an accounting of dead fish equivalents (impact). I can’t imagine that a salmon or steelhead cares much whether it perishes as a gillnet harvest, net drop, sport harvest, release mortality, or sea lion lunch. However, the readers of this board have an obvious bias in their preference, me included.

Regardless of who is killing the fish, until all the players are willing to commit to and invest in wild salmonid recovery, we will face difficulties in achieving the management that best serves the fish. Here’s my preliminary wish list of features for the ideal management plan.

1) Manage at 90-100% of MSA, as you put it “challenging the limits of carrying capacity”.
2) Selective gear/methods for ALL participants. Hook-line, seines, weirs, traps to permit live capture and unharmed release of at least 90% of non-target stocks encountered. Any method with release mortality greater than 10% BANNED.
3) 100% marking of hatchery stocks.
4) Impact on weakest stock(s) determines when fishery closes.
5) Terminal preference for spatial allocation.
6) Recreational preference for user allocation.

To use your Columbia River spring chinook example, I too believe the paradigm is on the right track in its intent, but execution is far from ideal. Let’s look at each of the six criteria I listed above.

1) Total impact set at 2%... excellent. Most commendable part of the plan.
2) Selective gear/methods…. utter failure that makes 1) totally meaningless. How can you call it “selective” when two-thirds of the fish the nets encounter belong to ESA-listed runs and the vast majority of them do not survive release?
3) 100% marking of hatchery stocks…. only in your wildest dreams!
4) Impact on weakest stocks…. HMMM the wild steelhead debacle rages on!
5) Terminal preference…. OK no ocean fishery targeting springers.
6) Recreational preference…. Only on paper. Yeah we got a 60/40 split on the document, but when the in-season return gets downsized midway thru the run and the nets have already exceeded the combined commercial and sport impact, who gets shut down before we even have a chance at our decreed share?

Bottom line, we sports still take it in the shorts!


I should add that this “new paradigm” is only the result of having ESA protections shoved down WDFW/ODFW’s throats. It wasn’t until the listed runs were at risk of extinction that fish managers were coerced into prudent action. And even in the face of those protections, the MSY mindset lingers like some latent incurable brain infection pushing them to HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST…. irresponsibly proposing tripling of the wild steelhead impact to justify additional non-selective netting of hatchery springers.

On paper and in the media, the managers like to portray themselves as the clean white-as-snow saviors of threatened runs. But just like a brand new chrome “silverbright” salmon can deceive the unsuspecting shopper at Safeway, given enough time, the old chum eventually shows its stripes. Not surprisingly, they’re the color of harvest!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot this one that I mentioned in my earlier post:

7) NO WILD BROODSTOCK for hatchery egg-take unless wild escapement is clearly projected to exceed MSA.

Over and out!

FnP -
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions about the guidelines to implement management under MSA. You obviously thougth quite a bit about those details. As I understand your thoughts on MSA and the desire to error on the side of the fish I think your answers are spot on. If I were to answer those questions my answers would have been very similar.

I would agree that ESA has been a large factor in the shaping of current management (paradigm shift?). However I think it is more important to focus on the result and use the situation to build for future management rather than worry about the why.

As has been discussed a number of times the allocation problem is fixed by federal treaties (non-tribal/tribal) and the state legislature (mandate to maintian a viable commerical fishery). Hammering on the managers are not going to change those realities. That energy is better served directed at those that has the power to change the allocation formula.

Let's take the final step in building this new management pardigm and see what fisheries would look like. I'm going to stick with the chinook example and use Puget Sound chinook needs for resource protection (I'm more familar with those details than elsewhere in the state).

1) MANAGE TO ACHIEVE 90 to 100% OF MSA- Given the allowable take under US/Canada salmon treaty there would be no chinook fishing in Washington except under exceptional marine survival which would not be known until after the fact. Because the chinook imapcts have been used up by our neighbors to the North there would not be any Washington marine fisheries for any salmon species. Any marine fishing would be the escapements even further below the 90% minimum. Don't know if you are willing to and by how much you are willing compromize on that level to allow any marine fishing.

Freshwater season (salmon and steelhead) could be allowed and would likely be quite good as long there is complete separation between the chinook and the target species.

The treaty expires in 2008 so if their impacts are changed there may be room for additional fisheries in 2009.

2) SELECTIVE GEAR METHODS WITH A MAX. OF 10% -
For the recreational fishery we have all ready established that would require selective gear (barbless hook and bait ban). Given the high mortality of small "shakers" caught with down riggers it may require the banning of "riggers".

3) 100% MARKING OF HATCERY STOCKS -
Progress is being made in that direction but obviously there is much to be done. The "Dicks" marking requirement will help. Would you make an exception for the Double Tag Index (DIT) groups - the release of coded wire tag fish without a fin clip to evaluate selective fisheries?

4)WEAK STOCK MANAGEMENT -
Meaning that any mix stock fishery is limited by the status of the weakest stock in the fishery. This will limit any mixed stock fishery, once any stock falls to 90% of MSA no fishing where ever that stock may be.

5) BUILD THE FISHERIES FROM THE RIVERS OUT -TERMINAL PREFERENCE
Any substantial fishing in the terminal areas will use all the impacts so all fishing will be limited to the rivers and bays at the mouths of the rivers.

6) RECREATIONAL PREFERENCE FOR ALLOCATION -
see comments above

Obviously any major change in the management paradigm may require substantial changes in fishing seasons and opportunities. It is typical for folks to expect changes in fisheries other than those that they are interested in. However in a change as dramatic as you are proposing all our fishing will be restructed. The acceptance of these changes have always been the obstacle to changing management structures. I suspect that to achieve the paradigm you are suggesting requires no ocean fishing it is essentially dead on arrival.

Are the folks that voted for this option in the poll ready to change their fishing to achieve these goals? or Does anyone want to change their vote?

Has been an interesting discussion. Thanks all. I'm will be out of town for the weekend however if this thread is still alive when I return I will check back in.

Tight lines
S malma

Great thread Doc, some really interesting comments. Thanks to all who have participated.

Smalma

The strategy we are discussing was NOT what was asked in the poll. I chose the poll question rather carefully, knowing that there was probably widespread opposition to MSY.

I don't think ANYONE needs to change their vote... MSY has had ample opportunity to prove itself, and now it's time for it to go. It may have been a great concept on paper and Ricker was certainly a genius to figure out all of the subtle nuances of maximizing yield.... BUT.... in real-life application, the only thing it has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is that salmon can be maximally harvested toward extinction!

I thought this was a pretty interesting quote from 1977:

Like you said, it's tougher to come up with a palatable alternative that allows us to keep fishing and yet promote genuine wild fish recovery. Nearly 30 years have gone by since that quote, and we're still groping for a solution.