I was watching a video with the new head of WDFW and he was asked about hatchery production increases and he said they would work on improved efficiency but said no to increased production.

That is not consistent with the preliminary analysis of the Governor's proposed budget. There is money there for increased production. Now, how to do that without them becoming seal food is another challenge. See this morning's briefing to the Commission: https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/12/dec1418_06_presentation.pdf.

I just don't understand how none of the actions that are being proposed solve today's problem of starvation. 5-10-15-20 years down the road they will be a big help. But, but not feeding them today, we rather ensure that the rest of the activities won't help the SRKW.

Are SRKW's being used as the "next" Big Thing to get salmon recovery to work? Obviously, what we have done since listing hasn't.

I looked through the action item list for the Governor's $1.1 billion orca proposal. I agree with Carcassman that none of it will serve the immediate problem of inadequate forage for SRKWs. And I don't think most of it will ever provide more than a token or very modest increase in effective Chinook forage for the orcas. It's not enough to just produce Chinook, they have to be Chinook, preferably large ones, that are in the right place at the right time in order to feed the orcas. PS hatchery Chinook means Green River fall Chinook. That is the only major hatchery Chinook stock throughout PS. All the new hatchery Chinook will be available in the same places and same times as the existing hatchery Chinook production. And they now average 12 pounds at maturity, and they are relatively concentrated in time and space such that they are available to the SRKWs for a short time, relative to their dietary need.

The Governor's proposal is a feel good product, more about political optics than saving orcas.

You have certainly focused on the practical consideration - thank you!

Despite all of the sniping it has remained apparent to me that the most effective way to put more Chinook in front of SRKW in the shortest time frame is to reduce the pinniped population.

While waiting for the start of yesterday's session of the WDFW Commission meeting turns out I was sitting next to a person who was there to testify against culling of pinnipeds. She was adamant that such action would not solve the problem and stated that there numerous instances of cullings that did not achieve the underlying goal. When I asked her what she recommended she said removal of the Snake River dams. Well, that simply won't feed the bull dog (or in this case SRKW) in time. If the SRKW are truly in the dire distress as purported then timeliness is a critical factor.

Now, is Orca recovery actually a ploy to achieve salmon recovery? I don't believe it is that overt but efforts to achieve Orca recovery can certainly have positive impacts both in the short term and long term and the further out on the time line the more blurred the goal and results (habitat restoration). But in the short term if reducing pinniped numbers and their predation impacts results in more wild origin smolts surviving to adulthood and returning to spawn that is a good thing for the fish and prospectively for our recreational fisheries. Think of the Stilly returns and how that impacted the initial salmon management plan (edit) which is now under re-write.

And he included $750K to study aspects of Snake River dam removal. Time for a reality check....what are the chances of that happening in the first place let alone in a time frame to "Save the Whales?"

Interesting your observations about Green River stock. I think it is Bush Bear who has Dept of Fisheries stocking records indicating Green River fish were stocked for years throughout Puget Sound rivers so those genetics are not just tied to current hatchery production. Oops, "Houston we have a problem."

Do you have any suggestions to get around the realities you presented especially in the shortest practicable time frame? White River spring Chinook? Or???

Larry. Are you saying that increasing smolt prroduction will just feed an ever increasing population of pinnepeds without reducing their numbers? Will increased smolt production further the proliferation of pinnepeds too then? Therefore ultimately increasing the competition of the SRKWs.

I will reiterate that the absolute fastest way to get food to the SRKW's is for humans to stop killing the food they eat and stop killing the food of the food they eat. The second fastest would be removal of the smolt-eating pinnipeds. Kill them, and in 3,4,5 years more adults might come back if fisheries don't kill them first.

Although the most obvious, pinnipeds eating adult salmonids may not be a great issue for the SRKW's because the salmon have passed the whales by; the pinnipeds eat fish that the whales don't/won't access.

But, getting the Save the Whales group onboard for habitat issues brings more power to the battle. Won't save the whales, but may get rid of reasonably useless dams.

There is no doubt that predation by an increasing number of pinnipeds in Puget Sound has had a significant impact on returning Chinook. The most recent scientific studies bear that out. It was interesting that yesterday's presentation to the Commission included a PowerPoint slide showing two scenarios related to an increase in smolt production - one where all of those made it past the gauntlet and returned and a second where other predators simply ate up all of that additional production yielding no increase in Chinook for the SRKW. I point that out to show that even the experts don't have a firm answer; what we got was a range of numbers (a SWAG).

But to your question. My layman's opinion is that any modest increase in production (all other factors remaining the same) will be subject to the same pinniped mortality rate currently being experienced. Yes, there would probably be some improvement to SRKW but when you crunch the numbers the increase will be minimal compared to needs. It is also possible that increased production could result in an increase in all predators over time. Conversely, in that presentation there is another slide which shows the number of seals that would have to be removed (both one time and then annually) to effect certain increases in returns. Unfortunately, all of that is academic given the limitations set forth in the MMPA - unless Congress were to pass an amendment to the MMPA to make it easier for managers to deal with pinniped issues currently being experienced or like at the Ballard locks starting in 1981.

Here is the link: https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/12/dec1418_06_presentation.pdf.

+1

It sounds like Orcas could be a gateway to a carbon tax?

Here is an interview with Gov. Inslee about the $1.1 billion orca proposal and only a hint of climate change proposal to help the orcas. He calls it “the one-two punch” being introduced to the legislature this next session to help orcas.

https://q13fox.com/2018/12/13/inslee-proposes-1-1-billion-plan-to-save-southern-resident-orcas/

It is going to get very, very expensive if passed.

Politically, I am not sure that the salmon predators (pinnipeds, birds) will be meaningfully controlled in the short-term.

I may have brought this up before, but if the Snake dams come out the justification for the Snake Mitigation Hatcheries disappear. So, fewer smolts and more predators so even if they get out of the Snake.........

One of the unintended consequences of reducing hatchery releases (for whatever reason-budget, genetics, religion) is that predation on the remaining ning wilds goes up.

I am not really convinced that society wants to save the SRKW's or salmon.

Using the as presented assumed marine survival rate of smolts on the additional 18.6MM smolts we would see a range of additional returns between a low of 93,000 (.5%) and a high of 186,000 (1.0%). Is that meaningful in terms of augmenting the current number of Chinook smolt (wild plus hatchery) and meeting the immediate needs of the SRKW?

Crunching the numbers the current Chinook smolt number used in the presentation was 46.1 million (41.6MM (90%) hatchery and 4.5MM (10%) natural) with a median seal predation at 12.2MM or 26.5%. Pretty dramatic numbers from my perspective.

If one combines the current 46.1MM current smolt number with the proposed 18.6MM the total rises to 64.7MM. Assuming all other factors remain the same and applying the 26.5% predation rate on smolts by seals we lose 17,145,500 smolts.

Again, using all of the presented rates if one were to decrease the number of seals by half the number of smolt lost to seal predation would drop by 50% or to 8,572,750 thereby saving 8,572,000. Applying the presented current range of marine survival (.5% to 1.0%) the return on investment (that is, 50% decrease in seals) would be 42,864 to 85,728 adults. Would that reduction in number of seals also raise the marine survival range? I'd think so.

There were lots of concerns expressed about unintended consequences of reducing the numbers of seals (and other pinnipeds) but one needs to continue to ask how much risk is society willing to entertain to save the SRKW? An additional 85,728 each year seems significant to me. Now, whether those additional fish really augment the SRKW needs given the concerns expressed by CM and SG is another matter.

One more observation. I noticed that the budget proposal tied to Orca recovery includes a line item for WSDOT ferries:

$117 million to begin converting two of the state’s Jumbo Mark II ferries from diesel to hybrid-electric and to begin constructing two new hybrid-electric ferries.

Are those going to be used to transport smolt past the Hood Canal bridge and the Tacoma Narrows? It is that type of apparent abuse which taints the whole recovery initiative.

I am discouraged to the extent that I have to agree with SG's final comment.

Larry asked, "Do you have any suggestions to get around the realities you presented especially in the shortest practicable time frame? White River spring Chinook? Or???"

Like Carcassman I think the short term need for forage can only be fulfilled by AK and especially BC backing off the marine water interception of Chinook. The other fast action (would require a Congressional MMPA exemption) that would boost Chinook abundance is to reduce pinnipeds by 50%. Smaller removals just don't offset enough Chinook loss. As the presentation to the Commission illustrates, seal diet is only 1% Chinook, so the only way to make a significant difference is to remove a large number of seals.

The next step was suggested a while ago by Smalma. Hatchery fish culturists need to spawn the largest returning Chinook in hopes of cultivating the fastest growing members of the stock. SRKWs prefer larger Chinook, so selective breeding might bring about a fairly short term improvement.

Culturing more White River springs could probably help. They too have become smaller, but increasing the supply of PS and Salish Sea Chinook certainly won't hurt the orcas.

I should point out that the PSF presentation linked in "the truth" thread, indicates that if the Harrison and SF Thompson Chinook, mainstays of SRKW forage, don't rebound, the SRKWs may be screwed, regardless of any other actions taken by any state or provincial or federal authority.

To add to what Salmo said, enhancing Fall Chinook, especially Green Rivers, to benefit SRKW's is close to a waste of time. They need Springs and Summers, probably more than Falls as there are a reasonable number of Falls around. In order to reduce impacts to wild Springers and Summers we would need to concentrate in areas where they aren't. Samish Hatchery, Quilcene, Bernie Gobin, even the Cedar River Sockeye facility might be options. They each have terminal areas where uneaten fish could be harvested.

It is my understanding that age at adult is inherited, so if we selectively bred the toads we would still have to not fish on them to let the kids reach the older ages.

A fly in the ointment of going bigger fish is that in AK, size at age is going down. This is not a fishery-related size reduction but food related. And, the larger fish are dieing on the return migration as, with warmer water, they can't consume enough calories of the lower-quality food to maintain life. They starve on a full stomach.

Thank you both for your responses. I specifically asked you in light of the emergent Task Force recommendations, Governor's related budget items (but ferries???) and Friday's Staff presentation to the Commission.

I specifically mentioned White River springs because their existing recovery efforts will be consolidated at the renovated Puyallup hatchery with a publicized production goal of 800K fish and they represent a significantly different return timing. Feasibility of increasing that number at that location? It seems that WDFW has a space limitation at its current, operational facilities. What facilities do they currently have in mothball status which could be brought on line with minimal investment?

New production facilities? There is roughly 5 million gallons of ground water available daily at Pierce County's property at Chambers Bay (north side) and an unspecified amount at the site of the former paper mill on the other (south) side of Chambers Creek estuary. That property is current for sale.

Anyway, just thinking via keyboard.

Edit: Rhetorically.....where is NOAA/NMFS on the pinniped predation issue and conflict between MMPA and ESA? Is Barry Thom leading from the rear???

They could do White Rivers at Icy Creek in the Green and perhaps Palmer. Nice cold water. They used to do Springs (WR) at Hupp Springs (on Minter) so that is another option. There are lots of options.

Springers seem to show the best results on yearlings, so you are going to need a water supply that is very strong in the summer in terms of both flow and low temperatures. Springs were also done at Hood Canal. I don't think it was a big program and I don't know just how successful it was but you could reduce the chum program to do Springs.

We'll never achieve a substantive increase in the large fish phenotype without curtailing the rape of the nursery in the northern killing fields. The fish genetically programmed to become older larger chinook never get there because they are disproportionately exploited by the marine harvest machine.

Well, yeah. It keeps getting back to BC and AK marine mixd stock fisheries which is one place that managers really don't seem to want to go.

I think the Nisqually could also support spring Chinook. Cold water, etc. Also, a beefed up late release for blackmouth might help. The very south of Puget Sound used to have a good blackmouth supply years ago. Now, not so much. Percival Cove stopped their program, and McAllister closed.