Andy Appleby made an excellent point about the wisdom of simply making more hatchery fish to feed the orcas. How effective would it really be?

As it stands now, we see surpluses of hatchery kings at many facilities. Hatchery fish are swamping hatchery racks and the spawning gravel with unwanted pHOS.... kings that manage to skid by uncaught by our fleets and uneaten by the endangered orcas.

Will making more hatchery clones actually do anything to help the orcas plight? Or will it simply create greater problems for fish managers to deal with even bigger surpluses of unwanted hatchery fish? In many cases, we can neither catch... nor the orcas eat... enough of 'em at current levels of production as it is. How does making more really help?

Brian Blake wants to save the orcas... Uh-huh.

Pretty sure the plan is for every one of those chinook that doesn't get eaten by orcas to be eaten by humans, after being purchased in commercial markets, supplied by the Willapa Bay Gillnetters' Association (and company).

While not supporting Blake's idea too much, just how many Killer Whales feed inside Willapa? If the answer is none, then that is where fisheries on Chinook should be. AFTER they pass by the whales. Not before.

Which means that Chinook that come through the Straits (Juan de Fuca and Johnstone) and through the San Juans are probably where the numbers should be bumped.

OK, I'll be the one to bring this question to the table...but not to hijack the thread, more just for consideration:

Is it possible that by egging and raising fish that HAVE made it back to the hatchery, that we have somehow genetically engineered fish that are not prone to "bite"?

See the following for another option to increase the biomass of PS Chinook for the orcas and other uses.

https://tidalexchange.com/2018/02/09/fisheries-management-for-dummies-1-bigger-fish/

Curt

Selecting for large hatchery broodstock seems like a good idea. I doubt it would have the desired effect, however, because regardless of genetics, chinook take several years to mature, which requires them to survive multiple fishing seasons. I'd argue their ability to survive 4 and 5 years of relentless fisheries is a bigger factor in shrinking average size relative to genetics.

Still, I like the approach of proposing simple solutions that won't require controversial policy changes. The cumulative effect of trying all the quick and easy solutions should amount to at least something at the end of the day. I wish we could do more, but for now, I think this is the best approach.