West Coast Salmon News

....
Feds warn entire salmon season could be halted
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 12, 2008

(03-12) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - --
So few salmon are living in the ocean and rivers along the Pacific Coast that salmon fishing in California and Oregon will have to be shut down completely this year unless an emergency exception is granted, Pacific Fishery Management Council representatives said Tuesday.
It would mark the first time ever that the federal agency created 22 years ago to manage the Pacific Coast fishery canceled the coast's traditional salmon fishing season from April to mid-November.
Such a move would jeopardize the livelihoods of close to 1,000 commercial fishermen from Santa Barbara to Washington State and would significantly drive up the price of West Coast wild salmon.
A decision to shut down the fishery also would kill recreational salmon fishing for some 2.4 million anglers in California, an activity that the American Sportfishing Association has estimated is worth $4 billion.
The council is expected to make a recommendation in April to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which will make the final decision about what to do about the collapsing salmon fishery.
"This is unprecedented," said Dave Bitts, a commercial salmon and crab fisherman based in Eureka. "The Sacramento fish are our bread and butter, and there are not even any crumbs. It's horrible. It means half or more of my income is not going to be there at all this year."
Why season can be closed

The prospect of banning fishing came up during the first full day of presentations about the salmon crisis during the council's weeklong meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Sacramento.
The council's salmon management plan, first adopted as part of the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and amended several times since then, requires the council to close ocean fishing if the number of spawning salmon do not reach the conservation objectives set for the fishery.
There are many ways to count fish, depending on what rivers and tributaries are included, but only 63,900 fall run salmon were documented spawning in the Sacramento River in 2007, far below the 122,000 to 189,000 objective the council had set.
The doom and gloom brought on by the poor run was made worse by news that the number of jacks - 2-year-old fish that return to the river a year early to spawn - is the lowest ever recorded in the Central Valley fall run. Scientists use the number of jacks that return as an indicator of what next year's spawning season will look like.
Fisheries experts expected 157,000 jacks, but counted only 6,000.
What it means is that all fishing where the fall run chinook are caught must be closed unless there is an emergency rule allowing an exemption, said Chuck Tracy, a staff officer for the council. Chinook from the Sacramento and its tributaries are caught in California, Oregon and Washington, but the catch in Washington is historically small enough that it might not fall under the rule.
"Washington could be exempted, but California and Oregon will definitely be affected," Tracy said.
Cape Falcon, in northern Oregon, would likely be the boundary for a fishery closure, said Peter Dygert, the fisheries management chief of the sustainable fisheries division of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "Any fishing south of Cape Falcon will have to be implemented under emergency rule. There are going to be relatively few fish in the ocean overall."
Federal disaster possible

The situation is so bad that there have been discussions during the meetings about declaring the salmon fishery a federal disaster, Tracy said.
The Klamath and Trinity river run, another major salmon run along the Pacific Coast, was declared a disaster in 2006 after a similar collapse, freeing up money to help those who are financially dependent on the salmon industry. The Klamath and Trinity crisis led to a dismal commercial and recreational salmon catch last year.
"This is the same situation we were in two years ago in the Klamath," Tracy said. At that time, "they did allow some fisheries in the ocean through an emergency rule."
But, in many ways, the situation is even worse now. Peter Lawson, of the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Marine Fisheries Science Center, told the council that five different salmon stocks in the three states have failed two years in a row, including chinook and coho salmon.
The emergency exemption allowed some fishing along the Pacific Coast after the salmon crisis on the Klamath, but Fisheries experts were hard pressed to come up with any excuse the council could use this time to justify an exception, given the dire circumstances.
"The California, Oregon and Washington coastal stocks are all depressed," Tracy said. "The Sacramento fall chinook are in the worst shape. Is it a crisis? If you are a commercial fisherman or someone who relies on the fishing industry, yes."
The Sacramento River fall run, the San Francisco Bay's biggest wild salmon run, was the second worst on record for spawning chinook. The worst year was in 1992, but the fishery recovered and as recently as 2002 there were hundreds of thousands of spawning salmon in the Sacramento watershed.
At its peak, the fall run, which essentially means fish that are at their spawning peak in September and October, exceeded 800,000 fish. Over the past decade, the numbers had never fallen below 250,000 - until this past fall.
Nothing to catch

Fisheries experts say even if the salmon fishery remained wide open there would not be any salmon left to catch.
The collapse is especially troublesome because the recreational and commercial fishing industries all along the Pacific coast depend on fish born in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The Central Valley chinook, or king, salmon pass through the San Francisco Bay after hatching in the river and roam the Pacific Ocean as far away as Alaska before returning three years later to the place where they were born.
The fall run - named for the time the fish pass through the Golden Gate returning to their native streams - is, in fact, the last survivor of dozens of teeming salmon runs up and down the Pacific coast. The Central Valley's spring run may once have been the largest, but most of the habitat is now behind dams.
The scientists, fishermen and tribal representatives at the meetings this week are trotting out various theories for the decline, including global warming, diversions of freshwater in the delta, pumping operations, a lack of nutrient rich deep ocean upwellings and exposure to pollutants. One document lists 46 possible reasons.
Dygert said the death of so many salmon "is suggesting a broad-scale ocean survival problem."
"One thing we know is that these fish had plenty of parents," said Bitts. "Something has happened since then."
The council, which will propose three options for managing the fishery by the end of the week, asked staff scientists Tuesday to investigate a variety of possible causes, including hatchery operations and ecological changes in the ocean and fresh water environments.
Fisheries in crisis

What's next: The Pacific Fishery Management Council, meeting in Sacramento, will consider recommendations by conservationists, biologists, tribal interests and fishing industry representatives. The council will propose three options Friday for what to do about this year's fishing season.
Input: The public can comment over the next month in writing or at hearings in Oregon and Washington on March 31 and in Eureka on April 1.
More information: links.sfgate.com/ZCRE and links.sfgate.com/ZCRF.
End Quote.
Doug

wow,,,,,,,,,,

Not being from the west coast I have to wonder, could the decline be due in part to offshore netting by international fishermen who are not regulated by our laws? I've heard that they contribute heavily to the catches just outside the international boundry where they cannot be touched.

Joe

Joe; as I'm sure JC, who also lives near these waters can attest........... "We", (meaning those that fish for recreation and those, whose income depend on the Salmon runs), have been up in arms in protests for YEARS on end, over the offshore netting of our Salmon, not to mention MANY commerce dependent ocean fishes, both shelled and scaled.
One of the biggest beefs and contentions about off shore "over netting" is the countless times, (the Japanese in particular), these "boundary invaders) have been caught WELL INSIDE our 12 mile off shore legal boundaries is to date, the MOST severe punishment handed out, has been; "Please don't do that, anymore, okay?"
In December of 2006, a Japanese commercial FLEET, (that's 15 fishing boats), was found by the US Coast Guard, nine miles off the Oregon Coast and the other half, of their fleet, (another 15 boats), were found 7 miles, off of the Northern California coast.
The holds of all of these craft, when boarded and inspected, were found to be "near full capacity" of Salmon, Steelhead and assorted shell fish".
Their "severe punishment"?? "They were made to stop fishing", and then were "escorted out to the legal boundary waters off our coasts". Period.
Of course, they got to KEEP their already near full to capacity holds full of fish!??

It doesn't surprise me how these invaders were handled. Our government often has a problem distinguishing who is our enemy. They are quick to point the finger at our own people as being the problem (remember Al and his GW crapolla? We're the problem and the ChiComs are cub scouts at a cookout in his opinion.), yet these weak kneed bottom feeders lack the manly hardware to deal with the real problem, for fear their oppressors might get upset and cut back on their trinket allocation. And who suffers in the end? Who is forced to stop fishing commercially and recreationally? Who has to fix the problem and pay for it? Who will suffer the next time a trawler fleet gets caught red handed? And who keeps voting for the same people who continue to do nothing?

I digress before I get into trouble.

Joe

Well, Joe, I'm REALLY GLAD, that I didn't upset you any further by also adding in the fact............ that our coastal port city of "Astoria", has a very nice, large, and ultra modern hospital and health facility.
Whenever a seaman, from ANY foreign nation, becomes either sick, and/or, injured aboard a ship at sea, within our International Water's Boundaries, they will render any and all, first aide, health care, whatever is needed to "cure or repair" that seaman, AT NO COST to the seaman themselves, OR the shipping/FISHING boat owners".
(quote); "It's an act of goodwill and our chance to spread that act of goodwill, too all our fellow seamen/women, regardless of their native origins". (end quote)

And, naturally, at the expense of the Coast Guard, whoever needs this care is also air lifted by one of the CG choppers,from aboard ship and directly to the roof pad of Astoria General, again of course, at no charge.

Now, if a RESIDENT TAX PAYER and PROPERTY OWNER of Astoria, or the surrounding area, needs medical attention at this same hospital, how'd ya' like to guess the "rate per hour, for emergency room care" we're charged, in order to offset this "goodwill free care" given to those very same, that are robbing us of our fisheries!?
Yep, glad I didn't bring that part up, earlier!! You seem upset enough about this as I am, already!

I've wondered about this several times, but admit to being mostly ignorant about it. My question is this: can boats even 10 miles or so offshore really cause that much of an issue? Seems to me that leaves quite a bit of open space, though maybe the salmon/steelhead key on fairly narrow currents that go out a long ways. It's always seemed to me that the loss of all that upstream habitat/spawning grounds would be the much large issue? Dams, silt, runoff, etc?

Quote;Rising populations, increasing consumption of fish and expanding markets have
made the fisheries a target for ever-growing numbers of nations. New
technologies that allow the fish to be vacuumed out of the sea have brought
hundreds of fish species close to exhaustion. As fish stocks decline around the
world, competition and conflict increase. International efforts to provide
solutions, such as the Law of the Sea Treaty and Agenda 21, set the framework
for negotiation and cooperation but, so far, few nations have responded by
limiting their fishing industries. Without international action, millions of people
whose prime source of protein is fish or who depend on the fisheries for their
livelihood, face a bleak future." End Quote.
Doug

As someone a little closer to the issue than most... Close personal friends hold various titles/positions of import in AK fisheries management... I get to speak with them in very frank terms about much of what goes on. They know what causes the problems, just have difficulty getting all the vested interests to buy off on reasonable fixes.

I have been offered huge garbage cans full of fresh feeder king salmon (2-3# range) caught by a trawler. They were mixed in with pollock and there is no reprisal if they kill enough fish to bankrupt several huge river runs in a single drop of the bag. And they are required to throw them overboard, dead.

Follow the money there. If they CANNOT keep proof aboard it is hard to prove they actually did it. The observer program would work if they paid enough to attract folks with clues or experience. Watched video of a dragger deck covered with halibut, dead and being shoved overboard. Cute little lady observer is asking on video if the crew will wake her up and show her what a halibut looks like, if they catch one...

With halibut they instituted Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) about 9 years ago. Longliners used to spread out because crossing other gear was a huge, dangerous and less productive thing because everybody fished during the same 24 hour opening. Now they fish when and where they want. The price of fuel has made it an easy decision to stay closer to home.

Try catching halibut in traditional areas close to harbors... Then go just a little farther. It is insane. Problem is the managers compound the problem by test fishing in traditional waters and set quotas based on those higher numbers without using the real populations close to town.

Late in the season of '06 a friend had just about 1,000# of quota to catch and decided to fish close to town in areas he has fished for 35 years. With longline gear and tons of experience including well into the 6 figures in quota already landed that year, he was unable to catch the last half-ton in a week of fishing in prefect weather. Twenty tons a day is a usual good day and five is poor on his boat...

All of that is on the bad news side... Despite their best attempts to ruin the resource and kill all runs ;) most AK salmon runs are at or near all-time highs. Susitna Valley silvers are a big exception because of pike and overfishing, but sea temperatures have been shown to be the bigger issue with AK salmon and also a big part of West Coast populations.

There is a warming and cooling cycle in the ocean waters off AK. In the high cycles salmon do much better and king crab and shrimp struggle. When our temps go up it is due to even warmer temps to the South. The Japan Current is the primary culprit. That warmer water is tough on salmon South of us. That is why west coast and AK salmon tend to be countercyclic.

Kenai river king salmon get lots of press and represent a huge economic tether for many communities. When they go to C&R they affect a lot of lives... But then they use great logic such as one fish over 50" may be kept. My idea woudl be to keep those monster fish to spawn and let them kill a little one if they must. Selecting the biggest fish out of the gene pool is criminal, IMO...

Well, off the soap box...
art

Always easiest to blame overfishing, but that might not have been the problem this time. Another article suggests the problem may have been a change in ocean currents.

From The New York Times, March 17: "Fishermen think the Sacramento River was mismanaged in 2005, when this year's fish first migrated downriver. Perhaps, they say, federal and state water managers drained too much water or drained at the wrong time to serve the state's powerful agricultural interests and cities in arid Southern California. The fishermen think the fish were left susceptible to disease, or to predators, or to being sucked into diversion pumps and left to die in irrigation canals."

"But federal and state fishery managers and biologists point to the highly unusual ocean conditions in 2005, which may have left the fingerling salmon with little or none of the rich nourishment provided by the normal upwelling currents near the shore."

"Bill Petersen, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research center in Newport, Ore., said other stocks of anadromous Pacific fish - those that migrate from freshwater to saltwater and back - had been anemic this year, leading him to suspect ocean changes."

"After studying changes in the once-predictable pattern of the Northern Pacific climate, Mr. Petersen found that in 2005 the currents that rise from the deeper ocean, bringing with them nutrients like phytoplankton and krill, were out of sync. "Upwelling usually starts in April and goes until September," he said. "In 2005, it didn't start until July.""

"Mr. Petersen's hypothesis about the salmon is that "the fish that went to sea in 2005 died a few weeks after getting to the ocean" because there was nothing to eat. A couple of years earlier, when the oceans were in a cold-weather cycle, the opposite happened - the upwelling was very rich. The smolts of that year were later part of the largest run of fall Chinook ever recorded."

The entire article can be viewed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/sc...=salmon&st=nyt

The article also includes a very dramatic chart showing numbers of the fall Chinook run, which clearly highlights what Mr. Petersen said about the largest run ever recorded, which was only a few years ago, and which corresponded with a different ocean cycle. It is certainly possible that commercial fishing increased substantially in the last few years, but it is highly unlikely that in the few years before that, when the chinook runs were skyrocketing to levels three times what had been seen from 1970 through 1995, there was less commercial fishing than at any time in the previous 30 years.

Thanks Hap, Gill net sizes have proven exactly how to 'selectively' eradicate any given sized fish.

"Start big, 'jest git the big' uns". When they is gon, make thur mesh a leetle smallur. Wurks evertime". "When they is gone... move on!"