A Statement from Billy Frank Jr.
NWIFC Chairman

Ninety percent.

That's the level of salmon harvest reductions the treaty Indian tribes and non-Indian sport and commercial fishermen have experienced since the mid-1980s. Tribal harvests have dropped from a total of about 5 million salmon in 1986 to about 500,000 in 1999.

Despite these huge reductions in harvest, wild salmon populations continue to decline. Why? Because the primary cause for the decline of wild salmon is rooted in one area: habitat.

Still, some say the answer to salmon recovery is simple: Just stop fishing, and weak wild salmon runs will rebuild. Clearly, that isn't the case. Harvest simply can't be reduced or eliminated fast enough to make up for lost wild salmon production caused by loss and degradation of spawning and rearing habitat.

It's unrealistic to expect that wild salmon habitat in the region can be restored to its historic high quality and quantity, but all of the low hanging fruit has already been picked in the effort to restore wild salmon. We, all of us, are left only with the difficult decisions about wild salmon, their habitat needs, and how we can balance our needs for growth. It's not about choosing one or the other. We can have both. But to have both, we must make better decisions.

Those who think it is a matter of choosing between salmon and people are missing an important point. Salmon are an indicator species for all life in the Pacific Northwest, including human life. To have healthy communities in the years to come, we must have healthy runs of salmon. As a species that swims through both fresh and salt water throughout the region, the salmon is a living gauge of environmental health, as well as a vital component of our cultural and economic strength and overall quality of life.

In addition to harvest and habitat, we must look at other factors affecting the health of wild salmon populations. Take salmon hatcheries, for example.

Once viewed by many simply as factories for producing salmon, now we are reforming hatchery practices to help recover and conserve wild salmon populations while providing sustainable fisheries for Indian and non-Indian fishermen.

While the tribes have made efforts over the past decade to reduce impacts of hatcheries on wild salmon stocks - such as carefully timing releases of young hatchery salmon into rivers to avoid competition for food and habitat with young wild salmon - a lack of funding has prevented the tribes from applying a comprehensive, systematic approach to hatchery reform.

Now, thanks to the efforts of Washington's congressional delegation the treaty tribes, Washington Department of Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service will share $3.6 million this year to conduct much-needed research, monitoring and evaluation of hatchery practices at the approximately 150 tribal, state and federal hatchery facilities in western Washington. Continued funding for this effort will be critical to its overall success.

Federal legislation has created an independent Hatchery Scientific Review Group to provide scientific oversight for tribal, state and federal hatchery practices reform and to provide recommendations for implementation of scientific goals and strategies. A top priority of the tribal and state co-managers under the hatchery reform initiative will be to complete Hatchery Genetic Management Plans for each species at each hatchery on Puget Sound. The plans, due in late June, will provide a picture of how stocks and hatcheries should be managed, and will serve as a tool for implementing hatchery reform. The plans are especially important in light of efforts to respond to Endangered Species Act listings of Puget Sound chinook and other salmon species in western Washington. In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service is expected to rely on these plans for its decisions on whether hatchery practices could constitute a "take" of salmonids listed under the ESA.

Already, some salmon enhancement facilities have been switched from producing hatchery fish to restoring wild fish through broodstocking and supplementation. Through these programs, wild salmon are captured and spawned at a hatchery. Their offspring are then reared in the facility and later released in various locations within the watershed to increase their chances for survival. Such efforts help preserve and rebuild wild salmon runs that might otherwise disappear.

Hatchery reform is part of an integrated strategy for salmon recovery.

The tribal and state co-managers are also responding to declining wild salmon populations through improved planning processes like Comprehensive Coho and Comprehensive Puget Sound Chinook, which seek to protect and restore adequate freshwater habitat and to ensure that enough adult salmon reach the spawning grounds to recover the stocks. The goal is to restore the productivity and diversity of wild salmon stocks from Puget Sound and the Washington coast to levels that can support treaty and non-treaty fisheries. As part of the effort, recovery goals and comprehensive recovery plans are being developed for all salmon species in western Washington. Specific recovery plans are being developed for each watershed to guide how harvest, habitat and hatcheries will be managed.

Treaty Indian tribes in western Washington already have made significant harvest reductions to protect weak wild stocks. This has come at a great cost to our spiritual, cultural and economic well-being.

This year the tribes will conduct conservative fisheries that are even more restrictive than last year to protect weak wild salmon stocks, especially coho. While recognizing there are some strong hatchery chinook returns expected, tribal fisheries will be designed to contribute to the rebuilding of wild Puget Sound chinook, which have been listed as threatened under the ESA.

Tribal fishermen are literally at the end of the line when it comes most salmon fisheries. Under treaties with the United States government, tribes are required to take their share of the salmon in traditional harvest areas, mainly in bays and at river mouths. These are called terminal areas, and they allow for highly selective fisheries by tribes. By the time returning adult salmon reach these areas, strong and weak stocks are no longer mixed. This allows tribal fishermen to target only healthy runs that can support harvest.

Fisheries are carefully planned and monitored to ensure that biologically sound harvest levels are not exceeded. Tribal net fisheries are strictly regulated, from the net's length and size of mesh, to the amount of time a fishery is opened. These time, place and manner restrictions are used by managers to concentrate harvest effort on strong stocks that can support harvest.

Habitat protection and restoration projects, hatchery reform and improved salmon management planning, are just some of the ways that the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington are working to protect, enhance and restore wild salmon populations.

Wild salmon recovery in western Washington is a biologically simple, but politically difficult task. All the fish need is clean, cool water, adequate spawning and rearing habitat, and adequate numbers of returning adult salmon to spawn, and they will take care of the rest.

Providing for those needs is the hard part.

Today, salmon recovery in western Washington is being played out against the backdrop of the ESA, the filter through which all salmon recovery plans must pass. The ESA isn't the starting point for salmon restoration - the treaty tribes and state have been working on restoration efforts for decades. Nor is the ESA the end point. Tribal salmon restoration efforts won't conclude until there are healthy wild salmon populations that can support harvest by both Indian and non-Indian fishermen. Any other measure of success should be unacceptable to everyone.

Wild salmon populations did not decline overnight, and it will take decades for us to restore their numbers. We are confident, however, that by working together - all of us - through a shared strategy for salmon recovery, we can achieve the goal of returning wild salmon stocks to abundance

Pretty much sums up my feelings!

Finally...a positive statement!

Thanks for sharing GP2. 19 more days!

What is that old tub doing ? 2 knots?

Grandpa

I have been looking into these issues for the last few weeks, and I would like to point out a few things I have found.

First off, I want to say that I believe Billy Frank Jr about as much as I believe the WDFW, they both have an agenda, and it is more than possible that it is not what is best for our fish runs in either case.

Yes, many of the problems can be traced to habitat. However, even if this is the primary cause of wild fish population decline (I am not agreeing with you , just making a point here) you cannot ignore all other causes. If we are going to help the runs we have to try to make changes in all the problems, and not ignore small things that might make a difference just because we are zero'd in on one large thing. What I find myself thinking here that it is an eco"system" we are talking about, and as such we can make a difference by many small things, not just one large thing. If we put all our eggs in one basket the failure of it due to one small thing will be devastating to the runs.

In reading many pro and con arguments about hatcheries one statement has stood forth several times. Researchers have found that when wild fish are supplemeted with hatchery fish they tend to become a different stock, in my understanding it means that just as hatchery fish can establish themselves as a self propogating run in a system, the wild fish can also become dependent on a hatchery over a few generations.
from BPA\'s Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers

You said and you are correct, but I keep thinking we need to look at this as a system, and make moves on all fronts, and not concentrate on only one. These wild runs have had so many things decimate them over the years, habitat, over harvest, ocean conditions, introduced diseases, mismanagement, we are running out of time to help them, and I am afraid if we concentrate on one thing we will lose them all together.

I don't think closing all harvest is a viable option, mainly because as time passed people would lose interest in the fish just by not being exposed to them, and then it would become politically feasable to let them die.

I do think major restrictions on commercialization of the runs will have to be implemented. Whether this be the commercialization of sports harvest by guided trips or the commercialization by Indian and Non - Indian interests.

The ability to selectively fish by commercial interests HAS to be a part of the recovery plan. Even if it means that WE, as state citizens will have to supplement other fishing methods for the tribes and others, such as fish wheels for example, or another method of selective fishery.

I am afraid that using hatcheries to supplement sustainable fish levels is unatainable in the long run. Disease, continual accruing loss of fecundity in hatchery and in wild runs supplemented by hatchery fish, changing conditions in harvest and ocean conditions will add up to drop the seed recovery rate of Hatcheries below the current 58% , which is the last rate I read on seed recovery.

I wish I could say that I thought the WDFW had the ability to oversee our states salmon recovery plan, but historically they have been politically driven by the commercial fishing industry, and I do not see how that can be changed in just a few years.

Regarding Native Fishing Restrictions. I overheard a group of Indian fishermen on the Nisqually river the other day talking while I was anchored next to a net within 1/4 mile of the mouth of the river. Another boat of Indians with two in it showed up and one Indian started to pull his net to move it, all the while complaining to the two who had just showed up " you got your 20 fish already why are you back?" The answer was "no one said how many trips we could make, just that we had to stop at 20 fish per net". This same Indian fisherman has many times held up wild steelhead while passing Chum sports fisherman on the river , evidently caught as bycatch and held up to taunt. There are those kinds in every type of group of fisherman, and it all hurts the resource.

I will agree that most of the treaty tribes have been working on restoration for decades. Starting with the Quinalts I believe. However, the state has been working on one thing only, keeping the harvest levels high for the commercial fishing industry, and while it may be changing, it is changing too slowly.

One quote I read by a Queets Indian named Jim Harp has stayed with me, " We are fisherman, we can't survive without fishing, if that means planting Chinook Salmon then so be it".

I am glad you are confident of returning the wild fish to abundance, personally I think that unless major changes are made in hatchery and commercial fishing practices, and perhaps sport fishing you will only see a steady decline.

I posted Billy Frank's statement not because I agree with him but to help the debate along on many levels. You are right on in saying that it is a huge problem with many factors needing repair. Concentrating on one thing is ok as long as the other things don't get ignored in the process.

Finally...a positive statement!

I have been hearing words much like that for 40 years. Nice thought, but it will never happen without actions that are politically unpalatable.

We know how to bring back the salmon. We lack the will. Until we take major steps to protect the habitat, dramatically reduce netting by whatever source, make major hatchery reforms, dramaticaly alter the way our dams operate and do whatever else sound science dictates, the wild slamon runs will continue to go extinct as so many have in the past.

The trouble is each greedy user group, i.e. loggers, shippers, cattle ranchers, wheat farmers, electric utilities, commercial fishermen, Indians and yes even sport fishermen, want to blame any other group, and no one seems willing to make any real sacrafice for the fish. Unless we can change human nature, the wild salmon are doomed.

The current admninistration seem bent on removing whatever small protections we have gained for salmon. We are making good time, but we are headed in the wrong direction!

GP,

Trolling speed until this afternoon. Then it's 28kts! One brief stop down south to fly off the "birds" and their crews..

A little under a 10000nm track to get home..

Did you say 10 thousand NM??? WOW and gas is $2.00 per gallon .

Grandpa, No S**t!!!!

But DR's boats fuel has a 10000 year half life

Grandpa

Exactly we need to give attention to all reasons for salmon decline.

We have altered commericial sport and tribal harvest
we have restored habitat and pur in regulations that protect remaining habitat

we have done a signifigant amount of work to create fish passage at hydro dams.

The only thing we haven't done anything at all about is our hatcheries!!!
There is all this talk about reform but none is taking place hatcheries are largely opperating the same exact way they have been for decades and there is no plan to change anything.

I think Rob is pretty much right. I wouldn't say there has been no hatchery reform, but there has been much less reform than talk of reform. Thanks to Washington Trout for forcing them to take real action. Otherwise they would be dragging their feet forever.

I agree with the need for real hatchery reform. I agree that the process is taking too long. I do not necessarily agree that all progress to be made is due to WT suing WDFW. There have been many reforms initiated in the last year aside from the suit. No question there is much to be done.

Grandpa

Would you please list for me the reforms that have occurred at hatcheries that benefot wild salmon in a meaningful way?

Myself i don't know of any..

As for the tribe here on the Columbia all they care about in my estimation is creating fish for harvest more specifically for tribal harvest. Thats why they are really opposed to mass marking of hatchery fish.. More fish for them less for sporties.. They say it's about honoring the fish by not Mutilating them but thats just bogus.

The Yakima nation is poised to destroy my favorite river by pumping it full of hatchery fish that don't belong there.. but the tribes are the ones with the money so WDFW is more than happy to let the tribes have at it.

The tribes do not care about salmon, i am sure just like WDFW there are biologists who care deeply but as a political entity the tribes view fish as money for furthering growth of the tribe. They are in my estimation quickly becoming an enemy of the resource.

Ps. Grandpa i want you to know my question above is a serious one. I do not know of any hatchery reforms that have been implimented. do you?

Headscratcher- grandpa agrees with hatchery reform. He than attacks and unsuccessfully tries to discredit ANYONE who puts out the effort to try to get the department going on reform issues

no you are wrong....do not discredit those who wish to reform only those bent on all out closure as the solution. Spin it how you will.

I do not think that gpa is against hatchery reform.The need is common sence.Somewhere though this WT thing went personal though.It does not matter what they say or do.

I do agree that someone,something has to spur this proccess along or it will not happen and if it does,not in our life time.

Unfortunately I do believe that the supreme beings bandaid put on mother nature is going to have to be removed more often then not or there will ultimately be no fish.


I am weary of anybody science when it comes to controlling mother nature.It is as biased as a developers enviromental impact statement.It is too easy to swing it whichever way you want.

Grandpa,

Thanks for posting Billy Frank’s statement. I have great respect and admiration for Billy although I don’t share his confidence in salmon restoration. Billy has been at the center of the fish wars more than most of the rest of us combined, and he understands that politics are a major influence with whatever happens in the fish world, and he’s learned to play the politics of the game well. That shared strategy for recovery that he refers to doesn’t mean the same thing to all the influential players involved. It’s a “shared” strategy to maintain the status quo of development, population, and economic growth. It’s a strategy to recovery some chinook populations and not others. It’s a strategy to permit 10 to 50 habitat degradation actions for every 1 habitat restoration action. It’s a strategy to hearts and minds of fish advocates and the votes of politicians to fund salmon recovery, and innumerable “recovery” actions, without ever recovering them. Society says it wants to recover salmon. But society lacks the will to recover salmon. Recovering wild salmon requires giving up too much of what nearly every citizen wants: single occupant vehicles on uncongested roads, a 5-acre hobby farm in the suburbs with a salmon stream running through it, impermeable surfaces on a high % of his property, flood protection, federally subsidized irrigation water, cheap electricity, and cheap disposal of tons of waste per citizen per year, to name a few.

That sounds grim, so here’s what I believe is the upside. I believe recovery is possible for many salmon and steelhead populations. That recovery is and will always be limited to the capacity and productivity of the habitat. That productivity and capacity will not support significant harvests of wild chinook or steelhead. It could support some harvest, but not at the level I envision these folks imagining. In my opinion, achieving significant harvestable levels of chinook and steelhead would require scaling Washington state’s human population back to about 2.6 million people, or at least to the level of environmental impact that a population that size would have. I believe that because that is about what our state’s population was the last time we actually had significant sustainable harvests of wild chinook and steelhead.

I’m all for recovery. Recovery is our long-term fishery savings account. And it will benefit harvests, although probably in a small way. If we desire significant numbers of salmon and steelhead to harvest, then we have to find a way to make hatchery production compatible with recovery of wild salmon and steelhead. I think it’s possible, but it will require more sacrifice than we really want to make to maintain our environment, and it will limit us to less hatchery production than we would really prefer. But I think it’s possible.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

My beef with Ramon VB and WT is that they simply cannot just come out and state their obvious goals. If they say they do not favor closing most or all hatcheries they are simply being disingenuos. The constant volumes of fluff spewed out trying to dispel that goal are only designed to sway audiences like this, certainly not an audience of their environmental extemist supporters. Like a politician WT says what the audience wants to hear. What they are selling I am not buying...period.

Hatchery reform is essential. Restoring healthy salmon runs is essential. Doing both from only one extreme view point is not essential and not smart.

grandpa, do you think that the regulations that the the esa system has written regarding hatchery impact on wild fish are extreme ?