The dramatic recovery of many groundfish species along the West
Coast is a testament to the innovation, cooperation and persistence
by fisheries managers and fishermen alike under the landmark
Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976.
Pacific whiting, sorted by
size
Photo: National Marine Fisheries
Service
One of the latest innovations, formally approved last month by
the National Marine Fisheries Service, is “electronic monitoring,”
which allows the use of video and other equipment in place of the
human observers needed to ensure the accuracy of harvest
reports.
The faster-then-expected recovery of depleted populations —
including canary rockfish, bocaccio, darkblotched rockfish, and
Pacific Ocean perch — has led to dramatically increased harvest
limits this year. NMFS estimates that increased fishing will add
900 jobs and $60 million in income this year alone. Recreational
anglers are expected to go fishing an additional 219,000 times,
mostly in California with some of those outings in Oregon and
Washington, according to a
news release.
Going from a federally declared disaster in 2000 to today’s
recovery of most stocks was the result of a monumental change in
fisheries management and fishing culture. One of the biggest
changes was a shift to “catch shares,” in which each commercial
fisherman receives a percentage of the allowable harvest each year,
an issue I first wrote about a decade ago
(Water Ways, Dec. 11, 2009).
My mind is unable to grasp, in any meaningful way, how much
death and destruction was caused by fishing nets that were lost and
abandoned through the years.
Filmed in 2007, this KCTS-9
video describes the problem of ghost nets and a project that would
eventually remove nearly 6,000 nets.
Nearly 6,000 of these so-called “ghost nets” have been pulled
from the waters of Puget Sound over the past 17 years. Until
removed, they keep on catching fish, crabs and many more animals to
one degree or another.
We can support responsible fishing, but those of us who care
about Puget Sound must never again allow lost nets to be forgotten,
as if “out of sight, out of mind” ever worked for anyone.
The latest concern, as I reported last month in the Encyclopedia of
Puget Sound, is that 200 or more ghost nets are still lurking
at depths below 100 feet, which is the level considered safe to
operate by divers with normal scuba gear. Remotely operated
vehicles (unmanned submarines) are being developed to go after nets
remaining in deep water, where they are killing crabs and many
other deep-water species — including rockfish, some of which are
listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Fishermen in the San Juan Islands are being asked to make
sacrifices this summer to help Puget Sound’s fish-eating killer
whales. Whether the voluntary actions will make much difference is
open to speculation.
A voluntary “no-go zone” for boats cruising the western
shoreline of San Juan Island has been announced by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Boaters are asked to stay
one-quarter mile offshore for most of the island’s west side. A
half-mile protective zone around Lime Kiln Lighthouse is part of
the voluntary no-go zone. (See map.)
“This voluntary no-go zone is a good step in helping to reduce
human impacts in an important foraging area for Southern Resident
killer whales,” Penny Becker, WDFW’s policy lead on killer whales,
said in a news
release.
Years ago, the western shoreline of San Juan Island was a
primary hangout for whales, which eat mostly chinook salmon during
the summer months. In recent years, however, declines in chinook
runs have reduced the time spent by the whales in any one location,
so the effects of the voluntary closure are likely to be muted.
As state and tribal attorneys faced off yesterday in the 20-year
battle over culverts, justices for the U.S. Supreme Court drilled
both sides about numbers.
A coho salmon tries to leap
into a culvert on Gorst Creek where water discharges from
fish-rearing ponds. // Photo: Meegan M. Reid, Kitsap
Sun
The culvert case is not about the 50-50 sharing of the annual
salmon harvest. The courts ruled years ago that treaties with Puget
Sound tribes guarantee Indians half the total salmon harvest, to be
shared equally with non-Indians.
The culvert case is about the environment, specifically the idea
that culverts are capable of blocking the passage of salmon,
reducing the salmon population to a meaningless number and making
the treaty right worthless.
From the transcript of today’s Supreme Court hearing, I’ve tried
to pull out the most interesting and legally relevant
questions.
Opening the hearing and speaking for the state, Assistant
Attorney General Noah Purcell said the lower courts have
essentially established a new treaty right with the ruling under
appeal. If culverts must be replaced as a result of the treaty,
then consider what could happen to dams and virtually any
development that has ever had an impact on salmon runs, he
said.
In legal briefs, state attorneys have argued that the treaties
work both ways, that tribes gave up the right to manage the lands
they ceded to the U.S.
Justice Samuel Alito noted that the treaty describes the right
of Indians to take fish. “What do you think that means?” he asked
Purcell.
Three rights come from that language, Purcell said. They are the
right to fish in historical places, the right to a fair share of
the available fish and a “right to be free of certain types of
state actions that are not justified by substantial public
interest.”
The tribes, he added, need to show that state culverts
specifically are responsible for a “large decline” on a particular
river. There are many other causes of salmon declines as well, and
the state is trying to work on all of them, he said.
Alito said he doesn’t understand the meaning of “large decline”
or even “substantial decline,” the term used by the federal
government, which is a party to the case on behalf of the
tribes.
“Well,” Percell said, “it has to be more than a fraction of 1
percent of historic harvests or 5 percent of recent harvest. We
think, for example, certainly a decline of half the salmon would
certainly easily qualify …”
Asked Justice Elena Kagan, “I mean, do you have a number in your
head?”
Justice Neil Gorsuch wanted to know whether a 5-percent
reduction in the salmon runs would be adequate to support the
tribes’ position. “If they could show that 5 percent is
attributable to the culverts, would that suffice to satisfy you?”
he asked. “And, if not, I guess I’m where Justice Kagan is. What’s
your number.”
Purcell said he thought that half would obviously quality but
not 5 percent.
“Suppose,” said Alito, “that there were more than salmon than
anybody knew what to do with, and then the state did something that
caused a decline. Would that be a violation of the treaty?”
“I don’t think that would be a violation even under the
respondents’ (tribes’) theory, Your Honor,” Purcell replied. “… and
that recognizes the crucial other piece of language… The treaties
ceded control of the off-reservation land to future government to
regulate in the public interest. And so the government has to have
the ability to make some types of decisions, even if they affect
the treaty fishing right when there are substantial interests
involved.”
Gorsuch said he is struggling with that concept, the idea that
state government could pursue other public interests and balance
them against treaty rights.
“The point of a treaty, I would have thought, would have been to
freeze in time certain rights and to ensure their existence in
perpetuity, regardless of what other social benefits a later
municipality might be able to claim,” he said.
Purcell said the treaty must recognize interests other than the
fishing rights of the tribes, and that includes actions to protect
natural resources and public health.
“But where does this public interest theory come in in the
treaty?” asked Kagan. “I thought this was an agreement. I give you
my land. You give me the right to take fish. And — let’s make it
narrower here — I have the right that you will not put up
obstructions on these streams such that I can’t take fish.”
“Well, Your Honor,” said Purcell, “if the rule is narrowly
limited like that, it’s much less problematic for the state, but
the findings would not support that rule and it would outlaw every
dam in the Northwest. So it’s inconsistent with the parties’
long-standing behavior.”
Alito asked federal prosecutors in the case whether federal dams
also violate the treaties.
Assistant Solicitor General Allon Kedem of the U.S. Department
of Justice said that issue was never part of the case and the legal
issues have never been developed. Still, he added, many dams are
built with fish ladders. In other cases, the U.S. government has
compensated the tribes monetarily.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the original language of
the treaties, which “gives the tribes the right to take fish in
common with all citizens.” One could simply interpret that to mean
that nobody should discriminate against Indians, she said.
Kedem said the state had argued that point years ago, but the
courts considered representations made by federal officials to the
Indians when the treaties were signed. The conclusion, upheld by
the Supreme Court, was that the tribes have access to fish in
perpetuity.
Justice Kagan returned to the issue of numbers, asking Kedem if
he has an idea how much habitat damage constitutes “substantial”
degradation — the term used to define a treaty violation.
“So we don’t have a number,” Kedem said, adding that the lower
courts used a habitat approach, the idea that loss of habitat would
reduce the salmon population.
Later, Justice Alito turned to Attorney William Jay,
representing the tribes.
“I hate to keep asking the same question,” he said, but does
‘substantial degradation’ mean a number or “significant
degradation’ mean a number?”
“I don’t think it means a hard and fast number,” Jay said. “I
think it is something that you would look at in context, in context
of the particular species, in context of the strength of the
species at a particular time.”
Without giving a number, Jay said, the court found that the
state’s culverts are so numerous and reduce access to such a large
spawning area that the impact on the fishery is significant.
“I just don’t see how that can mean anything other than a
number,” Alito said, “and I still haven’t gotten an answer that
seems to give any substance to this.”
Jay said the idea that the local, state or federal government
could disregard the intent of the treaty while balancing their own
perceived public interests is not consistent with promises made by
the president of the United States and ratified by the Senate.
“If the promise made by the United States in exchange for
millions of acres of the tribes’ land means anything … it protects
against a threat to the fishery like these, a threat that obstructs
fish from getting to the usual and accustomed fishing grounds where
the tribes have a right to fish.”
Higher standards of “sustainability” for salmon — recently
developed by the Wild Fish Conservancy — are designed to put salmon
on people’s tables with virtually no impact on depleted salmon
runs.
The new standards, which could become part of a certification
program, are built upon the concept that fishing should take place
closer to streams with abundant runs of salmon. The standards call
for fishing methods that can take a portion of the fish from the
abundant runs while allowing fish from depleted runs to pass on by
and spawn naturally.
“We want to get away from open fisheries, where you are
capturing multiple populations all at once,” said Nick Gayeski, a
scientist with Wild Fish Conservancy whose studies have raised the
bar for sustainable fisheries.
“If you fish much closer to the estuaries, the fish will sort
themselves out,” Nick told me, “and you can fish with much more
confidence about taking fish from a specific population.”
This idea of “placed-based fishing,” as described by Wild Fish
Conservancy, would surely be good for the wild salmon, including
Puget Sound chinook and steelhead, which are listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. It would also be good for a dozen
listed species in the Columbia River system. But, if carried out to
its full extent, the idea would just as surely create an upheaval
for fishermen and fishing communities from Alaska to
California.
“Most Puget Sound Chinook stocks are subjected to very low or
zero mortality in Southeast Alaska,” the report says, “but there
are notable exceptions. On average since 1999, 48 percent of the
fishery-related mortality of Hoko, 7 percent of Stillaguamish, and
23 percent of Skagit summer Chinook occurred in Alaska.”
Those last numbers are significant for the listed Puget Sound
chinook, considering the distance that these fish are from home.
Although salmon managers have taken significant steps to reduce the
take of listed chinook, the fish are still caught in significant
numbers along the coast and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Despite the ongoing harvest of threatened and endangered
species, many of the fisheries taking these fish are certified as
“sustainable” by the Marine Stewardship Council, an international
group. Most are also listed as “good alternatives” by Monterey Bay
Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program.
Nick Gayeski acknowledges that the “placed-based fishery” he is
promoting cannot be accomplished overnight. Much of the salmon in
Puget Sound are caught in fairly long gillnets, which ultimately
kill the mixture of salmon caught in open waters.
Key criteria for place-based fishing include an assurance that
essentially no fish are killed except for the target stock. If
fishing close to the stream cannot offer that assurance, then the
fishing gear must allow the non-target fish to be released without
harm, according to an article by Nick along with Misty MacDuffee of
Raincoast Conservation Foundation and Jack A. Stanford of the
University of Montana. The paper, titled “Criteria for a good
catch: A conceptual framework to guide sourcing of sustainable
salmon fisheries,” was published this week in the scientific
journal “Facets.”
Carefully managed set nets, which are gillnets usually attached
to the shore, may allow for survival if the fish are removed within
an hour or so, Nick told me. The big purse seines may also are able
to save the non-target fish from harm if the net and the fish
remain in the water while the crew removes and releases the
non-target fish. Obviously, these aren’t the most efficient methods
from a fisherman’s perspective.
Fixed gear that catches fish with little handling, such as reef
nets, work well to protect the non-target fish, Nick said. Reef
nets harken back to a time when fixed gear along the shore was more
common. (See the first video above.)
Wild Fish Conservancy has been working with Patagonia, the
sustainable clothing manufacturer, to find fishing operations that
meet strict standards of protecting non-target fish. Because of the
huge impact that food production has on the environment, Patagonia
decided to go into the business five years ago with a line of food
products called Patagonia Provisions.
The video below is a short preview for a longer
video called “Unbroken Ground.”
The first product sold was sockeye salmon caught with a set net
in the Situk River estuary in the Gulf of Alaska, where nearly all
of the sockeye are associated with the river. Other species are
released unharmed.
More recently, Patagonia Provisions began buying pink salmon
from a company called Lummi Island Wild, which operates a reef net
on Lummi Island in northern Puget Sound. The reef net allows fish
to be lifted gently out of the water. Any chinook or sockeye caught
during the process are returned to the water unharmed.
The pink salmon taken in the operation are bled out immediately
and placed on ice to produce the freshest fish possible.
“We think this is a good place to begin the educational
process,” Nick said. “The fishers are handling the fish less and
getting more money. We hope that restaurants and other retailers
will see the value.”
Other fishing operations are under review by Wild Fish
Conservancy to see if they can meet the stricter criteria.
Even if the fishing industry does not change overnight, when
enough people purchase fish caught in place-based fisheries, it
could reduce the pressure on endangered salmon trying to make it
home to spawn while also providing some chinook to feed Puget
Sound’s endangered killer whales.
“This is part of a transition,” Nick said. “It’s not only a
down-the-road reconfiguration of West Coast salmon fishing but it
involves long-term recovery of the wild runs.”
Salmon harvests in Puget Sound have been shared between Indian
and non-Indian fishermen since the 1970s, when the courts ruled
that treaties guarantee tribal members half the total catch.
Now a third party — Puget Sound’s endangered orcas — could take
a seat at the negotiations table, at least in a figurative sense,
as their shortage of food becomes a critical issue.
It isn’t at all clear how fishing seasons could be structured to
help the Southern Resident killer whales, but the issue was
discussed seriously at some length yesterday, when the 2018 salmon
forecasts were presented to sport and commercial fishers. Thus
began the annual negotiations between state and tribal salmon
managers to set up this year’s fishing seasons.
General areas, in blue, where
fishing closures in British Columbia are planned to provide extra
salmon for Southern Resident killer whales.
Map: Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Penny Becker, a wildlife manager with the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, said a steady decline in the body mass of the
Southern Residents has been observed, as the population fell to a
30-year low of 76 animals. People are calling for emergency
measures, she said, noting that both Gov. Jay Inslee and the
Legislature are working on ideas to protect the whales. See
Water Ways Feb. 23 and
Water Ways Feb. 17 and the
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, Nov. 2, 2017.
Concerns are running equally high in British Columbia, where the
orcas spend much of their time in the Strait of Georgia. The
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has proposed an
experiment with fishing closures this year in four areas frequented
by the orcas:
Mouth of the Fraser River
West side of Pender Island
South side of Saturna Island, and
Strait of Juan de Fuca
“The primary objective of the proposed measures is to improve
chinook salmon availability for SRKW by decreasing potential
fishery competition, as well as minimizing physical and acoustic
disturbance in key foraging areas to the extent possible,” states a
“discussion paper” (PDF 1.9 mb) released Feb. 15.
The closures would be in place from May through September this
year, with increased monitoring to measure potential benefits to
the whales. Comments on the proposal are being taken until March
15.
Canadians also are working with ship owners to see if noise can
be reduced significantly by slowing down large vessels moving
through the Salish Sea. Previous studies have shown that noise
reduces the ability of whales to communicate and to find food
through echolocation. Experts are compiling the results of the
“Haro Strait Vessel Slowdown Trial” conducted last year.
One bill in the Washington Legislature would require boaters to
slow down to 7 knots when in the vicinity of killer whales.
Limiting fishing in specific areas of Puget Sound, such as the
west side of San Juan Island, could be implemented through
state-tribal negotiations, Penny said. The closures would occur
during summer when chinook salmon — the orcas’ primary prey — are
in the area. One option would be to implement the closures on
certain days of the week.
Some people have talked about giving the orcas a clean break
from whale watchers, and that could involve excluding whale-watch
boats from salmon-rich areas at the same time as the fishing
closures.
“We’re looking for creative solutions to make this work within
our constraints,” Penny told the group.
One fisherman at the meeting said every person on the water
should automatically turn off his motor and sit still when whales
are approaching. It’s a courtesy to help the killer whales find
fish, he said, and anyway the fish are not going to bite on one’s
line while whales are around. Generally, they don’t stay long in
one place.
One bill in the Legislature would help the Southern Residents by
increasing hatchery production of chinook salmon in Puget Sound.
Reaction to the idea has been mixed, because hatchery salmon have
been known to affect the fitness and genetic makeup of wild salmon.
If approved, the boost in hatchery production would likely be a
temporary solution.
Sport fishermen generally like the idea of increased hatchery
production, because they would be encouraged to catch all the
hatchery fish not eaten by killer whales.
The hatchery bill, HB
2417, was approved unanimously by the House Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee. No further action has been taken so
far, but its provisions could be attached to the supplementary
budget with funds specified for hatchery production.
Tuesday’s meeting in Lacey launched the beginning of the
negotiations between state and tribal salmon managers, a process
known as North of Falcon. The name comes the fishery management
area from Cape Falcon in Oregon north to the Canadian border. The
full schedule of
meetings and related documents can be found on the WDFW
website.
Forecasts approved by WDFW and the tribes predict poor returns
of several salmon stocks this year in Puget Sound, the Pacific
Ocean and the Columbia River, resulting in limited fishing
opportunities.
“We will definitely have to be creative in developing salmon
fisheries this year,” Kyle Adicks, salmon policy lead for WDFW,
said in a news
release. “I encourage people to get involved and provide input
on what they see as the priorities for this season’s
fisheries.”
Warm ocean conditions and low streamflows in recent years
affected several salmon stocks returning this year. As ocean
conditions return to normal, experts hope for improved salmon runs
in years to come.
A total of about 557,000 coho returning to Puget Sound is about
6 percent below the average over the past 10 years. Extremely low
numbers predicted for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Snohomish
River are expected to force managers to limit fishing in those
areas.
While hatchery chinook returning to Puget Sound are expected to
be 38 percent higher than last year, the need to protect
“threatened” wild chinook could mean ongoing fishing restrictions
in many areas.
Next month, NOAA, which oversees threatened and endangered
species, is expected to provide guidance for managing this year’s
fisheries, including possible discussions about protecting Southern
Resident killer whales.
Plans for protecting Puget Sound chinook and Southern Resident
killer whales have begun to overlap in major ways, as saving one
involves saving the other.
Fishing, which I hear was fairly straightforward in days gone
by, has grown more and more complicated in today’s modern world,
with growing concerns about fish extinction, poaching and the
protection of natural resources.
Technology cannot return us to a simpler time, but there is an
event scheduled for next weekend that is designed to make life
easier for those interested in fishing, research or environmental
protection.
Known as Fishackathon, the two-day event brings together
thousands of designers, software developers and fishing experts.
Seattle is one of about 40 locations throughout the world where
experts will put their heads together to invent technological
solutions to some fishing-related problems.
Seattle
Fishackathon, which is Saturday and Sunday, Feb. 10 and 11, is
still looking for developers who can design and code/build a
project, mentors who have expertise in fishing and outdoor issues,
and volunteers who can help run the event. Teams can organize in
advance and bring any hardware if they plan to build a device.
On Sunday afternoon, spectators are free to watch the
demonstrations of projects developed during the weekend. The
location is Epicodus vocational school, 1201 Third Ave., in
downtown Seattle.
Among the 11 formal “challenges” are these problems looking for
solutions:
Easy access to rules: With all the regulations
governing fishing today, it is easy to get confused. Wouldn’t it be
nice when you’re out in a boat to pull out your smart phone and
obtain the fishing rules for that exact location? To meet the
challenge, designers are expected to use GPS to map the location on
the phone and link to local rules. Among other things, the app
would be capable of sounding an alarm if the boat drifts into a
closed area.
The worldwide winner of the
2016 Fishackathon was a team from Taipei, Taiwan, which developed
an inexpensive sensor that can alert authorities to spawning
activities by invasive Asian carp.
Fish identification: For people who have
trouble telling one fish from another, this proposed app would use
“facial recognition” technology to convert a picture from a smart
phone into a positive identification. By stamping the time and
location onto the photo, volunteer observers or anglers themselves
could help build a database to assist fisheries managers.
Illegal fishing detectors: The goal is a
network of small, unobtrusive and inexpensive floats containing
electronic equipment that could be deployed over large areas where
poaching is suspected. The equipment would include a listening
device and software able to distinguish the sound of fishing
activity. It could make an audio recording and transmit its
location via satellite. A network of such devices would allow for
triangulation to the location of the fishing boat, allowing
enforcement officials to determine whether the fishing is legal.
The equipment could make ocean patrols by authorities far more
efficient.
Condition alerts: Fishers and other outdoor
enthusiasts would have access to an app for sharing environmental
information with authorities and each other in real time. For
someone who wants to make a report, the app would call up the
location on an interactive map for the person to mark the extent.
One could report environmental problems, including algae blooms,
fish kills, oil spills, invasive species, and high wind and waves.
It could also be used to report conditions at boat ramps, crowded
parks, availability of restrooms and poaching activity. The app
could also receive reports from others.
Teams may come up with their own concepts, provided they follow
the guidelines spelled out on the Fishackathon
website.
In 2016, a team from the
Monterey Bay Aquarium developed a basic app for helping fishermen
follow local regulations in the Philippines.
Fishackathon is coordinated by HackerNest, a nonprofit
organization of 75,000 technically inclined people in communities
throughout the world. The event was originally supported by the
U.S. State Department, which turned it over last year after three
annual events, according to Colombe Nadeau-O’Shea, an organizer for
HackerNest.
The event is run entirely on donations, and the group is always
looking for sponsors, whether it be for the national program or
local events, she said.
Amazon Web Services, a primary sponsor, is offering $5,000 to
the top winner in each city and $25,000 to the global winner
selected among all the city winners. Other prizes are offered at
the global level and in some cities.
Robert Earl Woodard, an Alabama farmer and retired football
coach, has spent 40 years perfecting his technique for catching
bass by hand.
As you can see from the first video, his careful procedure
involves dangling some bait in the water and waiting for a fish to
strike. He then grasps the fish by inserting his thumb into the “V”
at the bottom of the mouth and waits for the fish to calm down.
The large mouth bass that Woodard caught in the video weighted
in at 16.03 pounds, just half a pound less than the Alabama
state record of 16.5 pounds set in 1987.
Fishing seasons for coho salmon in Puget Sound are expected to
be cut back severely this year, as the latest forecasts of salmon
returns predict that coho runs will be less than a third of what
was forecast for 2015.
Salmon managers faced some tough facts recently when they read
over results from a computer model used to predict the effects of
various fishing scenarios. After they plugged in last year’s
fishing seasons and this year’s coho forecast, the computer told
them that essentially no fish were left to spawn in Stillaguamish
River in northern Puget Sound. Things were hardly better for the
Skagit or Snohomish rivers or for streams in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and Hood Canal.
“With last year’s fisheries, you will catch every fish out
there,” said Doug Milward, who manages salmon data for the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “All the fisheries will
have to change to protect the Stillaguamish (coho) — from the ocean
fisheries to inside (Puget Sound).”
Last year’s fishing seasons are not even a good starting point,
as negotiations begin between salmon managers for the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington tribes.
Under federal court rulings, the two sides must agree on fishing
seasons, and the goal remains a 50-50 split of the various stocks
that can be safely harvested. NOAA Fisheries plays a role in
setting seasons for chinook, which are listed as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act. Coho are not listed, although some
people argue that they should be.
By April 14, if things go as planned, the two parties will reach
agreement on when and where salmon fishing will take place — for
tribal and nontribal, sport and commercial fishers.
“Unfavorable ocean conditions led to fewer coho salmon returning
last year than we anticipated,” John Long, salmon fisheries policy
lead for WDFW, said in a news release. “We expect to
see another down year for coho in 2016 and will likely have to
restrict fishing for salmon in a variety of locations to protect
wild coho stocks.”
It seems the tribes have a slightly different take on the
situation.
“There likely will be no coho fisheries in Western Washington
this year, as returns are expected to plummet even further than
last year because of poor ocean survival,” Lorraine Loomis,
chairwoman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, stated in
a column
published online.
She said that when last year’s coho returns are finally tallied,
they may be as much as 80 percent below preseason forecasts. The
Nisqually Tribe last year canceled its coho fishery when less than
4,000 of the anticipated 23,000 fish returned to the area, she
said.
Tribes fish at the end of the line, after all the other
fisheries — from up the West Coast to the inside of Puget Sound.
Because the treaties require tribes to fish within their “usual and
accustomed areas,” agreements on fishing seasons must allow for
salmon to return to their natal streams with numbers large enough
for tribes to take their share, Lorraine said.
“Every year we must wait and hope that enough fish return to
feed our families and culture,” she said. “Faced with low catch
rates last year, however, most tribal coho fisheries were sharply
reduced or closed early to protect the resource. The state,
however, expanded sport harvest in mixed stock areas last year to
attempt to catch fish that weren’t there. That’s not right. The
last fisheries in line should not be forced to shoulder most of the
responsibility for conserving the resource.”
The annual negotiations between the state and the tribes were
kicked off Tuesday at a public meeting where the salmon forecasts
were discussed with sport and commercial fishers.
In addition to a poor return of coho to Puget Sound, the
forecast for Puget Sound chinook also shows somewhat lower numbers
than last year.
One bright spot is for people who like to fish in the ocean.
About 951,000 fall chinook are expected to return to the Columbia
River. That’s higher than the 10-year average but lower than last
year’s modern record of 1.3 million. About 223,000 hatchery chinook
are expected to return to the lower Columbia River. These fish,
known as “tules,” make up the bulk of the recreational harvest.
Another bright spot is the prediction of a fair number of
sockeye returning to Baker Lake on the Skagit River, possibly
allowing a fishing season in the lake and river.
Norm Reinhardt, who heads up the Kitsap Poggie Club, has been
involved in advisory groups on salmon fishing and participates in
discussions about the seasons.
“This year, we have a significant challenge in the coho fishery,
and we will have to base decisions on conservation needs,” Norm
told me following Tuesday’s meeting.
Despite lower chinook numbers, there could be ways to work out
some opportunities to fish for hatchery chinook, he said.
Catch-and-release is one option on the table, but it is not popular
among sport fishers.
Anglers are still smarting from last year’s sport-fishing
closure in Area 10, a designated fishing area between Bremerton and
Seattle. Fishing for chinook was prohibited in that area at the
insistence of the Muckleshoot Tribe to protect hatchery chinook
returning to the Issaquah Creek hatchery.
Fishing should have been allowed at some level — with the
release of wild chinook — under an agreed management plan, Norm
says, but state managers yielded to the tribe at the last minute in
order to hasten a final agreement. On Tuesday, Norm told state
salmon managers that he doesn’t want to see that happen again.
“In area 10, our argument is going to be that if we have
adequate chinook, we should be allowed to fish on our fish — unlike
last year,” he said.
The reduced number of coho returning to Puget Sound has been
blamed on ocean conditions, including higher water temperatures off
the coast and a mass of warm water called “the blob,” which stayed
around for two years. Studies have shown that warmer water alters
the species of plankton available for fish to eat. The result is
that the fish are consuming a plankton lower in fat content,
causing coho to be thinner and fewer.
The 2016 forecast of about 256,000 Puget Sound coho is about 40
percent of the average return over the past 10 years and 29 percent
of the number predicted for 2015 — a prediction that turned out to
be too optimistic. Because of the failed coho forecast last year,
everyone is expected to be more cautious about aspects of the
computer modeling this year.
Charts on this page were presented during Tuesday’s meeting. The
new charts make the presentation easier to understand, compared to
the tables of data discussed at previous meetings. The data tables
are still available when one needs to dig into the finer details.
The new maps use colors to describe how streams are doing. Poor
(red) is if the run or forecast for a stream is less than 75
percent of the 10-year average. Good (green) is if the run or
forecast for a stream is more than 125 percent of the
10-year-average. Neutral (blue) is if the run or forecast falls
between 75 percent and 125 percent.
Anyone may attend the meetings where the ongoing negotiations
and possible tradeoffs are discussed. Allowing more fishing in one
place often results in less fishing somewhere else, and there’s
always the question about whether enough salmon are being left for
spawning in the streams.
“We’re going to have to be creative in order to provide
fisheries in some areas this year,” John Long said. “We would
appreciate input from the public to help us establish
priorities.”
Information about the salmon forecasts, the meeting schedule and
methods of commenting are available on WDFW’s North of Falcon
website.
On March 14, various parameters for ocean fishing will be set by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council, a group empowered by the
federal government to manage fish in the ocean. The PFMC will adopt
ocean fishing schedules and harvest levels during its April 8-14
meeting, at which time state and tribal salmon managers are
expected to approve fishing seasons for the inland waters.
I’m not a big fan of compilation videos that show a series of
accidents in which people get hurt and are obviously in pain. I
tend to wince and just want to know if the person involved is OK.
I’m sure I could laugh if only I was assured that the person didn’t
die or get laid up in a hospital — although this kind of video does
not normally convey this kind of information.
Getting wet is quite survivable, which is why I get a real kick
from videos showing mishaps involving boats. I keep returning to
the blooper videos by TV fisherman Bill Dance, who I blogged about
in
Water Ways two months ago.
America’s Funniest Home Videos put together a nice compilation
of minor incidents involving people on the water. The pacing is
just right, and the accompanying music, “Somewhere Beyond the Sea”
by Frank Sinatra, couldn’t be better. This video is in the first
video player on this page.
I don’t know if a person is more or less likely to be hurt on a
large ship than a small boat when things go awry, but property
damage from a ship can be enormous. I can easily forgive myself for
laughing about terrible property damage as long as nobody gets
hurt. Don’t ask me why. Check out:
Shifting gears a little, have you ever wondered what it would be
like if Weird Al Yankovik were performing on the Titanic at the
time the historic ship went down? I find this video funny, despite
the human tragedy that occurred. I think it is because the story
itself has become nearly a cliché. The video is called “Weird Al
Yankovic On A Boat (And The Band Played On).”
Finally, there’s a commercial for Nitro boats featuring a
fisherman guy who finds himself choosing between his boat and his
new girlfriend. His answer to the question is simple, as you can
see in the video below.
