Salmo, have you ever read a stock assessment survey that listed over harvest as a limiting factor for recovery?
How about one that listed lack of spawner abundance as a limiting factor?
Personally I have not.

Under the ESA, unfortunately, the standard to be reached by the fisheries is that they don't "appreciably increase the chance of extinction" of the critter in question...which is why there are allowable ESA impacts on the LCR, impacts which inhibit recovery but are perfectly legal under the ITP's...which, incidentally, is why "more selective" commercial fishing won't really do $hit for recovery, and will just put more hatchery fish into the commercial totes.

In the LCR, harvest is an issue...but more selective harvest isn't the solution. Less dead wild salmon is the solution, and until there is some massive shift in paradigms, or a massive increase in habitat productivity, the wild stocks will be fished right down to maintenance level, which will never allow for directed harvest or recovery.

Fish on...

Todd

Well here is a thought. In GH the escapement numbers are court mandated / approved with Boldt & then Hoe V Baldridge. So if with a magic wand habitat would be as in 1860 when my family settled near Elma, what would happen? Not much as any increase in salmonids due to the now pristine habitat beyond the what we currently have will be harvested. Not one fish more would on paper be allowed to spawn.

To the commercial thing on harvest. In GH it was the QIN that got several sport fisheries open. Why? Well you had tribal catch, then commercial, and trib sport and harvestable paper fish remained. One year we had numbers not jiving so QIN told WDF that non treaty take them or they would, so we got mainstream S. Monte and eventually the bay. So around GH it boils down to the the court mandated escapement numbers and then anything above that is harvested. Period, it is not open to discussion. When say Steelhead went to C&R this was supposed to be a real gain for fish. Not exactly as all it did is lower sport impacts that the QIN then used to cushion the over fishing by tribal fisherman. The argument among locals was will / did C&R help? My thoughts is did zero as the tribes just picked up the impacts. Everything above the numbers agreed to in court will be harvested thus any gains though enhancement or so called restoration will be harvested. By somebody!

Rivrguy, in rivers where the run is forecasted to make the escapement goal, then you're right, every effort will be made to make sure not one more than that spawns...but that's not what we're talking about if we're talking ESA fish on the LCR, none of which are anywhere near escapement, and aren't likely to ever be without significant improvements in habitat/hydropower...salmon, at least.

Fish on...

Todd

Before I forget Chinook are moving in the Chehalis. Most likely they are upper basin summers and not a lot but they put on a show at dawn today.

Yep T I don't disagree. You see the C is totally different from the coast as both are from PS. Different habitat, circumstances, law, and tribal obligations. That is why when you start in on the hab / harv thing it becomes bloody near site specific. Add to it if your in the Willapa or GH watersheds then you have tree farms and the habitat thing really runs in a circle.

Yet two stocks of wild steelhead are listed as threatened on the LCR, in spite of the fact neither has any in river harvest for over two decades.
Which leads me to believe that harvest isn't the limiting factor for recovery.

OK Aunty, I'll ask you to produce a stock assessment survey that lists over harvest as a limiting factor for recovery.
It seems many are calling for measures to limit harvest, but they can't produce any evidence that it is in fact a real limiting factor for recovery.
Now add the fact that wild steelhead, for the most part, haven't been harvested for over 25 years, yet there seems to be little to no recovery associated with this policy.
So again where's the science?

Freespool,

Some of the BRT reports include over harvest as contributing to the current ESU or DPS status, but none ever single it out as the limiting factor. Again, those reports covery multiple watersheds, so lack of specificity would be expected. It would be easy to pick apart any of the status reports and indicate specific river populations that are depressed more by over harvest than by habitat, but that's not the purpose of those reports.

Todd,

You're right. There are allowable impacts to ESA populations, and as long as proposed actions don't appreciably increase the risk of extinction, those actions are approved, usually with some conditions. With so much hatchery fish harvest at stake, and low habitat productivity to be demonstrated, I foresee a lot of "maintenance" populations, particularly in LCR tributaries. I suppose that will also apply to PS Green, Puyallup, and Skok chinook. Ah hell, and all PS steelhead.

Rivrguy,

But in pristine habitat conditions, an escapement of today's escapement goal would produce a heckuva' lot more fish than it does now! That is precisely how Alaska rivers can get such good escapements while still supporting significant harvests. Good habitat!

Freespool,

When it comes to LCR wild steelhead, I don't think anyone's make an effective argument that anything other than habitat is limiting. L Louie says it's over harvest, but he's said that generically, across all species, stocks, river systems, hell, even Kamchatka, Russia. But he hasn't proven the point for many, if any, specific cases.

Sg

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Newsroom/Current/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=45517


Louie here's NMFS take on smelt not CCA's propaganda, if you want to read about impacts to smelt, Bradwood Landing had about 2000 pages of ways they were going to impact smelt..Of course not a peep out Gary's gang about that..

Harvest is more than catch of that species. In systems where productivity will increase with increases in escapement of other species then fisheries on that stock are holding down the recovery of the listed species.

They showed this on the Keogh. When escapement of pinks (or fertilizer when they used it) was up, the number of SH smolts went up and population went from one in decline to one on invcrease.

In this case, harvest of those pinks directly affected the status and long-term stability of the steelhead.

As long as we insist on managing within narrow confines and definitions then harvest is not a problem.

A steams lack of nutrients, or lack of dead spawners isn't in it's self a factor for recovery, but rather it's a result of other way bigger limiting factors.
To be more clear, you can stuff as many carcasses as you see fit in any stream, but until the real limiting factors are addressed, recovery isn't going to happen.
The only way recovery in going to happen is to raise the river's carrying capacity, and depositing carcasses and limiting harvest isn't going to raise that capacity one bit.


Again Aunty can you produce a scientific stock survey that specifically states that over harvest is a factor for recovery?

So you can't produce any data, so I'm supposed to take your word for it?
Seriously if harvest is one of the 4H's, then it shouldn't be very hard to produce some scientific data that shows that harvest is in deed a factor for recovery.

SBD,
I sense a little hostility.
Just wait until the rainy season -- OCT-MAY.

Must be a pretty good gig representing the commercials.


WDFW stated that the smelt were being considered on being listed and so WDFW knowingly set a season for commercials and sports after their regional public input meeting in Kelso area last winter.

I will reiterate----- dumber than rocks.

The endangered steelhead on the pristine Russian peninsula that were overharvested would be equivalent to a MSY here in WA. If the steelhead are going to have a hard time reestablishing on one of the most pristine places on earth ----good luck in the PNW.

Restoring Nutrients in Salmonid Ecosystems, and AFS book, would be a place to start if you are looking for published results.

The most recent Pacific Coast Steelhead Management Meeting website as abstracts and PowerPoints that show ongoing studies/data.

Northwest Science has some papers from the mid 90s by Michael, i believe, that show direct benefit of increased escapments of thos fish that deliver nutrients.

There have been a series of papers in Fisheries (AFS's monthly magazine) dealing with the question.

The recent AFS book on Modeling Salmonid Ecosystems touches on the question and how to model it.

The AFS book on Diadromous Fishes has one of the best summaries of how salmonid delivered nutrients drive the whole ecosystem; not just fish.

And, there is a lot of stuff in the "almost submitted" and "still collecting data but can you believ what this shows" out there.

I think you can say two things FS. One, steelhead are more affected by habitat losses than salmon are, I tire of people always interjecting them into every habitat discussion knowing full well they don't support the conclusion they're inferring.


Two, you can't be serious.....

the columbia is in the tank because of habitat loss, not harvest.

FS I sometimes just want to . All human activities are take. Dams, net incidental, C&R mortality, whatever. They are habitat but they are also harvest. A stream with diminished rearing capacity on the C will not do well with out targeted harvest due the number of mortality issues in the C itself and as this nation heads to loan default the billions to fix habitat, IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, are not going to be around.

Call it what you will but this is the fact. IT AIN"T GOING TO CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HURL VERBIAGE OUT AT OTHERS. The growing needs of the human condition will outstrip the needs of salmonids every time. By the way many aspects of ESA are administrative and can be redefined without the agreement of the courts. So do not bet your beliefs on the US congress as those whores will sell you out in a heart beat.

Freespool, as Salmo g. said, overharvest has been identified in numerous status reviews by numerous BRT's. That would only suggest that past (and not current) harvest has had an effect on populations viability. I have no idea what a "stock assessment survey" that you refer to is, but I will assure you that you will never see any report from any salmon manager or NMFS that specifically states that current harvest rates are limiting recovery. There would be a couple of reasons for this. First, the managers would never admit that any of the actions they have control over (harvest or hatchery) have any impact on the status of natural populations, and that the entire issue is habitat. Additionally NMFS could never admit that it allowed harvest that impaired recovery or it would get its socks sued off. You will however see changes in harvest that is "suggested" in various NMFS documents such as guidance documents to the PFMC. I will give you an example of these from one of the ESU's that have been referred to already, the lower Columbia and Willamette Chinook ESU. When the LCR Chinook were first listed in 1999, harvest rates on LCR tules was "reduced" to 65%. That was the harvest rate allowed from 1999 - 2002. In 2002 through 2006, the maximum allowable harvest rate was reduced from 65% to 49%. Harvest was reduced further to 42% in 2007, 41% in 2008, and 38% in 2009 and 2010. The NMFS "guidance" for 2011, suggests a maximum harvest rate on tules of 36%. The guidance letter states that these reductions are "a necessary part of an overall strategy to achieve recovery."

So, will you find a specific stock assessment survey that says that recovery of LCR tules is limited by harvest? Absolutely not! However, by reviewing the harvest rates allowed since listing in 1999, versus the current guidance for harvest, it appears that NMFS has concluded that the harvest rates since listing have not been consistent with recovery. Who knows if the current suggested harvest reductions will be low enough. This is only one example. I could certainly give a few more examples from Puget Sound where managers have applied (and NMFS has allowed) harvest rates from 50% - 80% on populations deemed necessary for recovery when the best available biological information suggests that those populations could sustain harvest rates in the 20% - 30% range. I again assure you that you will never see this mentioned in any status report, but it does occur to the detriment of recovery.

Oh so it's a conspiracy deal? Ya right, all I'm asking for is some scientific data that says over harvest is a factor for recovery.
But I already know that that data doesn't exist.