Bold action....

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

This is the first time I might agree with the WFC. Hopefully something changes for the better because of this because it always seems to change for the worse when the WFC gets involved.

Hmmm. Typically it seems theyre sicking NOAA on the WDFW. Now theyre just flat going after NOAA. Wonder how this will go in the long run.. while i agree with BK and WFC this time, they seem to be going after the hand that feeds them.. or has assisted anyway. Britches getting extra large.

I figured several more SRKWs would die before something like this came about. Hopefully the big money factory ships destroying our oceans for fish sticks and sandwiches feel the heat as well.

This I could support! Finally getting to the root of the problem!

And what is Governor Inslee's stance and action on this? And Oregon's Kate Brown? This is a multi billion dollar issue!

They need to team up and go at this issue. Instead, they defer to stopping vessel noise, and preparing for oil spills that have never happened.

Time to roll up the sleeves...

Done properly, if this suit is successful, it will be a boon to WA and OR salmon fisheries. What it will show, if successful is that the marine mixed stock fishery in front of the whales is damaging. Again, if successful, we will have more adult salmon here. That will mean bay and river fishing on adults.

It will also show that the marine mixed stock fisheries are not the way to go until we get massive rebuilding. There are, if memory serves, some issues with trawl fisheries catching salmon. I think those are AK stocks, but controlling them will be expensive.

Lastly, those salmon need something to eat out there. Putting more Chinook into the N Pacific means they need food, which will affect other fisheries.

Gonna need lots of popcorn to watch this unfold.

Oh my goodness do you mean they cannot harvest the food chain top to bottom? What a novel thought.

I know, it's novel. Let's keep those silos blast-proof.

Fingers crossed, would be nice to see an actual run for once, instead of the standard hatchery only msy fishery.

[quote=Carcassman]Done properly, if this suit is successful, it will ....

I didn't see it was a formal suit, just a letter at this point

It's a 60-day notice of intent to sue. NOAA has 60 days to respond and comply with the deficiencies noted. If they don't comply, then they go to court.

Fish management-by-lawsuit is rarely a good thing. This might be the exception.

The SE AK troll fishery has been hammering Columbia River fall Chinook for decades. It’s a bit surprising it took WFC this long to notice. Hopefully this action will enable NMFS to reassess this fishery, and its impacts along the entire Pacific coast, particularly as it relates to SRKW's.

And, of course, it would be great if the Canadians would also reduce their harvest of Columbia River Chinook as they migrate along the westside of Vancouver Island, and thru the Johnstone Strait bottleneck. But that would mean the commercial folks (tribal and non-tribal) along the north coast of Washington would have to lay off the Canadian sockeye salmon bound for the Fraser River. Not sure if they have the incentive to do that, but NMFS might be able to provide them with one......

BC has quietly said for some time that if US ( AK ) gets off their fish they will do the same with ours. Devil is in the details but it is the AK fisheries that are at the root of the problem. From trawlers to trollers the majority are WA ( PS ) based or residents of WA, OR, and ID.

All about money! Commercial fishing brings A LOT of money to Alaska. There is no way in hell they are going to voluntarily curb any fishing, let alone large commercial.

One thing that might help a little is to enforce international boundary zones, although I don't have enough knowledge to say if other countries are intercepting our fish out in international water, or if they are dipping into Alaskan waters to scoop them up.

I've seen videos of those huge factory ships and they devastate fish!

Many of the AK boats are headquartered in WA. Big money flows through here, too.

Probably most are, as are most of the guides and resorts that low hole Washington fish up in SEAK.

Fish on...

Todd

Yup. It's been largely Washingtonians taking those Washington fish. Some of those particular Washingtonians are associated with large seafood distributors that have bottomless pockets (lots of lobby power), and many of the others are recreational fishers on vacation, chasing the fish they can't catch around home anymore. Pretty screwed-up situation that is extremely unlikely to be resolved by anything shy of extinctions.

I’m not that pessimistic. NMFS certainly has the authority to regulate salmon fisheries in the U.S, including the SE AK troll fishery. And now that SRKW’s are threatened by a lack of preferred prey (Chinook salmon), NMFS has another incentive to emphasize conservation when those Chinook salmon are in their feeding phase in SE AK. The WFC Notice of Intent to Sue might be the incentive they need.

My concern is whether our conservation efforts (if they are successful) will be thwarted by an increase in Canadian fisheries in Canadian waters. NMFS doesn’t have nearly as much control when those fish migrate back home thru BC provincial waters. NMFS has influence thru the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, but it’s indirect compared to their control over U.S. ocean fisheries.

And it's complicated by the sockeye salmon fishery in the U.S. which is directed at Fraser Rv (Canadian) fish when they pass thru the Strait of Juan de Fuca.