I have to say that while I am not trying to be a "tree hugger" or anything of the sort. Plug in your own moniker for whatever you wnat to call it. There definitely has to be some dramatic and maybe even radical changes to the way that business is handled. Like I have said time and time before. We need to eliminate that variables that could change the results. And by that I mean the commercial side of anything. The recreational portions of the fisheries may also have to be added to the list too. Taking the state and dividing it up into sections, zones within a section or what have you and closing that whole area for five to six years just to see what would happen to the runs when left alone and nothing more is done to inhibit the fish or their habitat. The only access that is granted to the area is for the habitat recovery efforts, and that is it.

As for the commercial side of things, the lost income can supplemented by a fund that is set aside from a grant or something to that effect that will allow the fishing families that rely on the fishing for income and putting food on the table. I know that this maybe a little far fetched but something as dramatic as this I feel maybe the only way that we can achieve positive results. Ofcourse, there are plenty of ways to fix this but we all have to be willing to take a hit on this somewhere. We have had no problem sacrificing the fish our causes, now we have to be able to make a sacrifice for the fishes cause. Otherwise we are all sheet out of luck sooner or later.

I have a problem with buy-outs for commerical fishing licenses. If you draw a sheep license, you could re-sell it for a sizeable chunk of change if you were permitted to do so. You can't. Why should a commerical fisher be allowed to benefit from the sale of his/her license over and above what hte state gets for a transfer?

It would take time (years) but eventually the non-tribal commerical net fisheries would go away.

For a review of the commercial fishing license portion of the Revised Code of Washington, take a look at the following link. Of particular interest are sections .020, .030, and .070

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.65

NWP,

Glad you enjoy the discussion. If you're following it closely, you'll see that nets are not a part of this equation. I'm not aware of ANY net fisheries targeting or even significantly incidentally catching Stilly chinook.


GBL,

I've lived in WA 59 years and have been working in fisheries since 1976. The difference I see between us is that you seem to let your feelings about certain fishing activities color your interpretation of facts. I try to let the data speak for itself.

Sure there are net fisheries in the Straits and terminal areas, but they are not 24/7/365. The Straits and PS have been closed to net fishing when the preponderance of Stilly chinook are passing through since the late 70s or early 80s. While gillnetting certainly contributes to some conservation problems, I can't point my finger at any gillnet fishery as either a proximate or secondary cause for the declining abundance of Stillaguamish chinook. If you some data other than your emotionally enhanced general observations, I'm completely open to a different interpretation of how Stilly chinook arrived at their present status. If you examine data, rather than your feelings, I think you'll find that Stilly chinook harvests occur primarily in BC sport and commercial fisheries that WA and the Stilly Tribe have no control over. The only practical way to extend further harvest protection to Stilly chinook in WA waters is to close all sport and commercial fishing in salt water, and frankly, that is not a practical solution - at this time.

Pug,

The public shows repeatedly that salmon are an important icon of the PNW. And in support of that icon, WA citizens and politicians express the highest quality lip service and even millions of $$ toward salmon recovery. Unfortunately, the vast majority remain unwilling to accept the kinds of hard choices necessary to actually recover salmon. People don't want to give up urban sprawl or single occupant vehicles or Walmart supermalls. People want to fund one habitat improvement project for every nine or ten state, local, and federal gov't. approved habitat degradation projects and believe they are making a positive difference when it isn't. Virtually all hard data, exclusive of emotions like GBL and others express, point to habitat as the variable most limiting the natural production of salmon and steelhead.

That is exactly the case with Stilly chinook. Massive erosion from forest practices has degraded and in many cases eliminated the habitat conditions chinook require to successfully hold as pre-spawners, spawn, incubate, and rear in freshwater prior to emigration to Port Susan. There is no quick fix. Stopping sport and commercial fishing for 5 or 6 years is meaningless, as few Stilly chinook are harvested in such fisheries in WA anyway. The habitat of the Stilly will stabilize and improve over time. I haven't a clue as to how long that might be.

The commercial bailout you suggest is unnecessary, as the non-treaty commercial fisheries that used to target returning PS chinook have been closed for many years, and are unlikely to ever resume. No one in WA makes a living commercial fishing for salmon in WA anymore and most likely never will again. You needn't worry about taking the food off a commercial fisherman's table. He's doing something else these days and fishes part time or as a hobby.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

At the risk of saying it not as politely as Salmo g., anyone, and I mean anyone who thinks that commercial fishing over Puget Sound stocks makes even the tiniest dent that habitat degradation makes is fooling themselves...and contrary to what GBL says, all available data points directly to that conclusion, except of course the made up data.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks for the clarification of the commercial industry and how it affects the runs locally. However, the point is more towards the theory of it and not so much the actual industry itself. The elimination of all the variables that negatively affect the salmon population is more the point. While I do appreciate the data that is, there are alot of emotions pointed toward the salmon and if you take away all the access to the fish then there is no one that can gripe over any one group getting access to the harvesting of the fish. This way there is no one or anything that can affect the fish but the habitat itself. So aside from good old fashioned natural selection there wont be anything that can be a contruibuting factor to the degradation of populations. This is something that is aimed at the whole of the problem and not just the Stilly.

Think of this more as an idea to the solution. I am not actually suggesting that this is what needs to be done. Just a thought really. It is nice to get input back on the matter though. As you have suggested, or rather stated, the habitat is the prime issue. I think that we can all, atleast most of us, agree that there inlies the issues. By not allowing that access to the fish by ANYONE then we can be allowed to focus on the one serious issue at hand that is the one singular contributing factor to the degradation of the salmon populations. That means noone and I mean noone gets access to the areas. No logging companies, who seem to be a huge factor in the destroying of habitat with all the slides and silt deposits in the streams as a result of logging practices, commercial fishing, which is obviously not as big a factor as the habitat, both tribal and non-tribal. Recreational fishermen and women to be included in the group of unallowable users too. These would be considered extreme measures by many, but sometimes extreme cases require extreme measures.

Pug,

There's no doubt that the existing habitat has to be protected... but the decades of severe habitat loss that is already out there needs to be addressed, too, espeically in situations like the Stilly where the stream's productivity is almost eliminated due to exising problems.

Protecting the bit of habitat that is left needs to happen, but reversing the severe habitat destruction will take some serious political will that I think is probably absent right now. Lots of lip service paid to it, but even the most draconian restrictions on development and resource extraction do nothing but slow down the destruction of the existing habitat, and do nothing to reverse the destruction that has happened.

Like Steve said above, so long as the population is growing and considers Wal-Marts and strip malls, apartment complexes, and giant subdivisions a good idea, then it's all just delaying the inevitable extinction of most species that rely on rivers...especially Chinook and steelhead.

Fish on...

Todd

Sad but true, I see what you are saying.

Salmo-
I guess you think I am targeting Puget Sound or Strait nets or Indians with my "emotionally" charged responses? I am not, I only want everyone to understand there are way more influences that have a bigger impact than what is being preached here.
One trawler in the right place can and will wipe out a whole run of fish and all we do is sit here and say "another bad run" blame it on habitat.
My brother in-law has been a Biologist for the WDF for years and contradicts much of what you are saying, Bycatch and netting are the single worst event to a run of fish, it does not matter where the netting is done (Alaska, Russia, Japan or Indians), but until you admit it is a problem, your whole discussion about habitat is meaningless, yes habitat is real important and should be worked as a high priority, but our fishery in this state has proven through time that anyting we do to help the fish has not worked so you must come to a conclusion that you have to attack it from a different position. My main problem is everyone including the state of Washington has decided to put commercial fishing on the back burner and get everyone to believe it is all "our" fault for over populating the region and hurting the habitat. It is true, logging and people have hurt habitat, but what goes on in the bays, oceans straits and outside of our region is much worse.
If you have been here 59 years, I am surprised you do not agree that what goes on from the river mouth out to sea is the biggest problem?

read this one
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/analyses/BSAIsalmonbycatch205disc.pdf

RIGHT FROM THE WDF-and you do not really know what the bycatch is, only what is reported! And this is only GROUND FISH bycatch! (Hake) It goes on and on every year.
Limits to bycatch of Chinook salmon were set in 1991
under the NMFS initiation of the Biological Opinion for groundfish management (NMFS
1991). High numbers of salmon bycatch in 1995 resulted in a reinitiation of section seven
of the 1996 Biological Opinion (NMFS 1996a). The bycatch rate is now limited to 0.05
Chinook salmon per metric ton of Pacific hake with an associated total catch of 11,000
chinook for the coastwide Pacific hake fishery.

Permitted vessels are not penalized for
landing prohibited species (e.g., Pacific salmon, Pacific halibut, Dungeness crab), nor are
they held liable for overages of groundfish trip limits.

And more on over fishing without fines---remember bycatch numbers?
As of September 25, 2003 the mothership, catcher/processor and tribal fisheries continue
to harvest the allocations. The mothership fishery has completed 89.4% (26,021 mt),
catcher/processor fishery 89.7% (36,981 mt) and the tribal 89.0% (22,274mt).
(Preliminary Report #7, NOAA, Seattle; http://www.nwr.noaa.gov). It is expected that the atsea
sectors will harvest their full allocations. Even though the shoreside allocation was
increased, the 30-day shoreside season is the shortest since 1992 or program inception
(Table 1). The shoreside directed fishery closed on July 14th at 12:00p.m. and harvested
51,061 mt (0.31% over the allocated amount) (Table 1).

No one was looking and think of what went on in Canada and Alaska!
Salmon
A total of 425 salmon (all Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)) were taken as bycatch
in the 2003 shoreside hake fishery and turned over to state agencies by processors: 209 in
Oregon, 12 in Washington, and 204 in California (Table 3). The low number of salmon
reported in WA may be a symptom of lack of observer presence in Ilwaco in 2003. The
shoreside component as a whole was well below the 0.050 Chinook salmon per mt hake
cap. The shoreside rate represents an incidental catch rate of 0.008 salmon per metric ton
of hake for the entire EFP fishery (Table 5). Rates for individual salmon species can be
found in table 6 for 1992-2003.

Chinook salmon bycatch in 2004 was much higher
than the long-term average from 1990-2001.
BSAI Salmon Bycatch:
Chinook Chum
1990-2001 average 37,819 69,332
2002 36,385 81,470
2003 54,911 197,091
2004 62,493 465,650

It just does not get any planner than this--What happened then is affecting us now.
Problem statement:
In the mid-1990’s, the Council and NMFS implemented regulations to control the bycatch of
chum salmon and Chinook salmon taken in BSAI trawl fisheries. These regulations established
closure areas in areas and at times when salmon bycatch had been highest based on historical
observer data. Unfortunately, these regulations did not appear to have been effective in 2003 and
2004, when record amounts of salmon bycatch were taken. Information from the fishing fleet
indicates that bycatch was exacerbated by the regulations, as much higher salmon bycatch rates
were encountered outside of the closure areas.

The 85% or so loss in productivity on the Stillaguamish system due to habitat destruction could produce many more fish than that every single year, were it still around, both chums and Chinook, not to mention steelhead, coho, pinks, and sea run cutthroat.

Fish on...

Todd

"The 85% or so loss in productivity on the Stillaguamish system due to habitat destruction could produce many more fish than that every single year, were it still around, both chums and Chinook, not to mention steelhead, coho, pinks, and sea run cutthroat."

"Chinook salmon bycatch in 2004 was much higher
than the long-term average from 1990-2001.
BSAI Salmon Bycatch:
Chinook Chum
1990-2001 average 37,819 69,332
2002 36,385 81,470
2003 54,911 197,091
2004 62,493 465,650 "

In my above post when I was talking about the lost productivity of the Stillaguamish River, I meant that the entire amount of bycatch that is noted in your post, GBL, could be more than made up by the historical productivity of the Stillaguamish River.

That's just one river.

Add in the historical productivity of the other seven or eight major river systems in inner Puget Sound, all of which are larger systems than the Stilly, and I bet you could have 50 times the amount of fish that are represented by the commercial bycatch.

Almost all of that lost productivity, that would be measured in terms of tens of millions of salmon and steelhead, is lost due to massive losses of spawning and rearing habitat.

Combine that with the fact that those bycatch numbers represent bycatch of fish from a much, much wider range than just the inner Puget Sound, and the lost productivity due to habitat destruction is likely tens of thousands of times higher than that caused by current commercial bycatch.

Most every stream in Puget Sound has multiple fish stocks that are limited by their habitat, not by fishing...commercial, tribal, or sport.

Fish on...

Todd

GBL

What are your solutions? Trying to Shut down a 300 million dollar a year commercial trawl fishery seems futile at best. At this point in time what we can do is try to improve the habitat for the remaining fish that we do have. I am a firm believer that we are never going to see hstorical numbers of King Salmon, Coho, and steelhead again. Hopefully providing better habitat will give them a stay of execution of sorts and hopefully save what we have left. Hopefully we are not to late.

GBL,

I don't presume to know what fuels your apparent emotional responses. You're way off base if you think the haul of a single trawler wipes out an individual chinook run with its bycatch. There is far too much variability in ocean distribution - tho it certainly is not random - to be accounted for that way. I'm not defending bycatch, but the total coastwide catch, ranging from 37 to 62K chinook, is worth noting, but it's also worth noting that bycatch isn't wiping out any chinook runs, including the Stilly.

Since your brother-in-law is a biologist, and I'm a biologist, shall we take a vote of all the fish biologists as to the proximate cause of declining Stillaguamish chinook runs? Yeah, that's real scientific, altho maybe more scientific than taking an opinion poll of sport fishermen.

Bycatch and netting are only the single worst event to a run of fish if those actions are responsible for limiting the production and productivity of the population in question. Sorry, but blanket statements like that are an indicator of ignorance, not of being informed. I'd estimate that more Stilly chinook are taken along the coast of BC on sport and commercial hook and line than are taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries. It seems like you're using the trawl fishery as a handy scapegoat because the chinook taken therein are not allocated among specific rivers of origin. It's easy, but pointless, to debate that which cannot be verified. The allegation that Stilly chinook may be taken as trawl bycatch is offset by the equal and opposite allegation that Stilly chinook are not taken as trawl bycatch.

If the habitat in the Stilly basin were suited to chinook production, the issue of bycatch would be less relevant than it already is. However, I expect that you'd be complaining that the Stilly Tribe was exercising its fishing right be netting chinook because they were abundant enough to support a fishery. I say that only because you've repeatedly blamed Indian gillnetting for a host of fishery problems, real and perceived, regardless of any correlation between the gillnetting and the status of the fish population.

Todd,

With respect to the Stilly and the severity of the habitat condition, I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer to a 95% reduction in productivity. Unfortunately, it's bad. But your point is on the right track, at historic productivity, the coastwide bycatch would be less than a drop in the bucket, but it would probably exceed the Stilly chinook run. But not by an awful lot.

Sg

Salmo-
Again you miss my point. The trawler is just one example of hundreds of tribulations the salmon go through in their life, but, the commercial interests are all the same, take as many fish as they can in a given time frame regardless of what it is doing to the resourse.
I have fished the Stilly for 40 years, yes I know the habitat is screwed up, but back in the 80's and 90's when there were still fish coming back, there were netters all over the san Jaun islands (both Indians and non-Indians) and in the straits taking fish with no intervention, you cannot tell me that did not have an effect on todays dismal returns.
I have never argued that trying to fix a great river like the Stilly is not the right thing to do, but you got to get to the source of the problem and unfortunatly the state has pretty much given in to the commercial intersts over the years. It has become better, but the damage has been done.
Our coutry should be pushing foreign interests out of our waters, forcing Canada and Alaska to change their way of managing the commercial interests.
As a Biologist for the State, you know well how good we have been at predicting runs in any system, we just cannot do it with any consistancy. There are to many outside influences. Yes, ocean enviroment has much to do with it, but I contend, the hidden things going on out of our sight is probably doing more damage than anything.
As I travel a great deal in Asia for business, I can tell you as a fact that I have seen Big Chinook, Coho and once in awhile Steelhead in Fish markets all over Asia. Japan and Korea being the two biggest. Every time I see it I stand there wondering what river those fish would have spawned in.
I am not looking for a fight with you or anyone wanting to help our resources but after years of watching what has gone on around here, I want to make sure people focus on ALL the problems and solutions.
I know you will never get rid of the commercials and don't want to, but I do want the State and our government to acknowledge that the commercial interests need to be number 3 in line for those fish. 1-river returns, 2-sportsman, 3-commercial fishing

GBL, again you offer up no solutions. Habitat restoration is a piece of the puzzle and is something that is an acheivable goal, we need to take care of our problems in our back yard first. The issue's that you bring up are out of most of our control.



In Washington state the commercial interests are already last in line behind sportsmen. In Puget Sound King Salmon, Coho, and Sockeye are managed for recreational use. As such you don't see any gillnet or sein fisheries until chum are present. If you had your choice which ones would you have them target?

Before the items below, remember Salmo, Todd, JoJo and Pug and anyone else that thinks it is all about habitat-----Alaska has been experincing some of the lowest run levels in years and yet they have the most prestine habitat and spawning grounds anywhere in the world.
I own a lodge in Alaska and the river is protected from the top to the bottom and has never seen logging or habitat destruction, yet the runs of Chinook and Coho have decreased every year. Even the Sockeye runs have decreased.
The only run that has increased and is the best in the world is the Steelhead which has virtually no commercial fishery. They get back to the river un-molested and the sportsman release them all. Those fish have the best spawning grounds you have ever seen, so habitat is real important once you get fish into the river!

Now--for starters
Initiative 659

More pressure on the Canadians who have admitted they take up to 150,000 Chinook that were heading for Washington and Oregon
The pacific Whiting fishery results in about 11,000 Chinook as bycatch but is concidered acceptable. There are many "fisheries" out there all with "acceptable" bycatch. I don't accept "acceptable" anymore.

Force Alaska to limit licenses and fishing times to better protect Chinook and Coho for that matter. They have their own problems with over fishing now not to mention all of our fish they take!

Buy out the Indians gill net rights and give them Salmon from where it can be taken without hurting any one system. They can still sell it and make money or use it for "Ceremonial" uses

Stop clear cut logging and repair the damage, the Stilly and Sauk would be very happy

Make the WDF more accountable, they make way to many back room deals with special interest groups and have for years

Keep the pressure on the power companies to help pay for Habitat where required which is anywhere there is a damn

Force the Feds to kick the foreign fleets out of our waters

Severly limit the herring, Anchovie and Sardine commerical fisheries

And JoJo---Please don't simplify what I am saying, it is all commercial interests not just the ones in our back yard. They should always be number 3, problem is, they were number 1 for 40 years, the damage has been done.

Oh, and Happy New Year!!!!!
This is exactly what needs to happen on these boards, good open discussion.

GBL,

I'm trying very hard to not miss your point, if you have a point beyond emotional ranting. I kid you not.

"hundreds of tribulations" Really? Please list them. I'm pretty good at following this and will review each and every one.

Yes, I know very well, and have written repeatedly that the job of commercial fishermen is to harvest fish, not conserve them. Conservation is the job of management, which BTW, the state and feds have been less than half-assed if one examines the track record.

At least we agree that it is important to get to the source, or root cause, of the problem on the Stilly. And while commercial fishing causes problems, it isn't the root cause of the declining Stilly chinook run. If you can figure out how to stop the CA interceptions of WA salmon, I'll nominate you for conservationist of the year, no make that decade, award.

Our country weighs multiple interests in negotiations with other countries. Salmon are not the highest priority. Biased as I am, I might wish it otherwise, but I know it's not realistic. If you travel internationally on business, you probably know that even better than I.

BTW, I haven't been a biologist for the state in decades, but I have worked for WA, OR, tribal orgs, and fed agencies. I think the diversity has allowed me a fairly broad perspective.

Again we agree on identifying all the problems and solutions. You might agree that some solutions are more doable than others?

I don't want to get rid of commercial fishing any more than I want to get rid of recreational or treaty fishing. I only oppose fishing that doesn't make ecological, biological, economic, or social sense, so yes, some commercial fisheries I'd close in a heartbeat. Just make me King and consider it done. BTW, I don't disagree with your allocation priorities, but you should know that they are at odds with state law. At law conservation and harvest are given equal weight. What that means is, legislators are capable of talking out both sides of their mouth and passing laws intending the same.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"hundreds of tribulations"
OK, I exaggerated a bit!! Maybe not hundreds right off the top of my head but--

Bad spawning beds
Preditors in the river like Mergansers
Open sea
Peditors like seals, whales, other fish
Lack of feed during their growth cycle
Polution
Gill nets (both Indian and non-indian)
Trawlers
Purse Seins
El Nino
Foreign fleets
Interception on their way home, you get the picture
They just do not have much of a chance.

We should limit the fish take and protect them first, let the price of Salmon go up like gas and the users like the Indians will still make money, which is what it is all about.

And please--
Tell me why in your world of habitat restoration and protecting the rights of Indians and commercial interests, (which is fine)
Why is Alaska suffering some of the lowest returns on record and yet the Habitat is perfect in the rivers for spawning?
Some of what you are saying just does not support the reality of what is going on out there. Alaska should be returning record runs every year based on what you have been saying above!!??