Preliminary 2018 salmon outlook/Forecast/Management Measures

Clarification please... What do the initials ISBM AND AABM actually stand for. I understand these are "outside" and "inside " fisheries

*The 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) defined certain Aggregate Abundance Based Management
(AABM) and Individual Stock Based Management (ISBM) chinook fisheries in both Canada and the US.

Under the Treaty, there are two main Canadian AABM regions and fisheries for chinook:
• Northern BC - commercial troll catch in Statistical Areas 1-5 plus sport catch in Statistical
Areas 1 and 2
• WCVI - commercial troll catch in Statistical Areas 21, 23-27 and 121 to 127 plus sport
catch on the outside WCVI (Areas 25 to 27 between October 16 through June 30, and the
catch outside one nautical mile from July 1 through October 15 plus all the catch in Areas
21 to 24 between October 16 through July 31 and outside one nautical mile offshore from
August 1 to October 15)
Recreational catch inside the one nautical mile (Surf Line) and outside AABM time periods is
included in ISBM fishery catch.
1.3 ISBM fisheries also include fisheries that catch chinook salmon in BC regions that lie under PST
jurisdiction but lie outside areas governed by AABM fisheries, including FSC (Food, Social,
Ceremonial) catch and catch in WCVI Inside, Juan de Fuca Strait, Fraser River and other areas
 
ISBM = Individual Stock Based Management AABM= Aggregate Abundance Based Management. Here is an explanation:

The 2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) describes an Individual Stock Based Management (ISBM) fishery regime that is abundance-based and constrains to a numerical limit the total catch or the total adult equivalent mortality rate for specific stocks within a jurisdiction’s fisheries. ISBM management regimes apply to all Chinook salmon fisheries subject to the PST that are not AABM fisheries or terminal exclusion fisheries. Several fisheries within British Columbia (BC) are under ISBM fishery management and all PST fisheries south of the border between BC and Washington State are under ISBM fishery management.

Here is the URL for the entire doc:

www.psc.org/download/35/chinook-technical-committee/2125/tcchinook11-4.pdf

As you can see SEAK & BC get AABM fish, south of the BC border we get SOL as more WA/Northern Oregon fish are caught up north than we are allowed to take. Southern Oregon & CA fish tend to stay close to their home rivers.

What is not shown above are the SEAK AABM Chinook catches which are fairly equal to the NBC AABM catches.

See the picture:
http://wildfishconservancy.org/imag...ome2011journalchart.jpg/image_view_fullscreen
 
The SEAK are not shown because it’s up to the country where the river is originated to make the cuts first. They asked for A 35% reduction to Fraser river stocks. Fraser river is in Canada so it’s up to us to make the cuts.

Washington state used to get a much better deal when the Fraser river had sockeye and they mostly migrated though the JDF and same with pinks.

Since Fraser river pinks and sockeye has been **** there really haven’t been anything left for Washington state to fish for. Also the diversion rate has been threw inside colder waters in the SOG not though the JDF.

The reality is we’re in a down cycle and everyone is just trying to get the last scraps.

If the Fraser river has a good run of sockeye this year and they divert through the jdf Washington state wil be able to get a nice
Chunk of it.

I don’t want to turn this thread into a Canada vs us debate but rather use it to give information to everyone so they can be informed.
 
Preliminary AI (Abundance Index) published today from the PSC Chinook Tech Committee indicates the forecasted AI are: (sorry bit of trouble formatting tables, but you get the drift - vertical instead of horizontal)

Of note the sharp decrease in pre-season AI when comparing 2017 to 2018. WCVI for example dropped from 0.77 in 2017 to 0.59 in 2018.


Table 1. Preseason AIs and associated ACs for the 2018 AABM Fisheries.


SEAK

NBC

WCVI

Abundance Index

1.07

1.01

0.59

Allowable Catch

144,500

131,300

88,300



Table 2. Post-season AIs, associated ACs and observed catches for the 2017 AABM fisheries.

Preseason


SEAK

NBC

WCVI

Abundance Index

1.27

1.15

0.77

Allowable Catch

209,700

149,500

115,300

Actual

Observed Catch

178,348

143,330

108,588

Post-Season

Abundance Index

1.31

1.14

0.64

Allowable Catch

215,800

148,200

95,800
 
Here's a little interesting reading. We are in real trouble on the Chinook front. Too early to see how the 2018 Management Measures are going to shake out, but the early AI (Abundance Index) is looking weak for some areas. Particular concern is Skeena/Nass and Fraser bound Chinook. In Alaska they are putting in place some very strong restrictions and asking Canada to do the same.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pressreleases.pr&release=2018_03_29
 
Here's a little interesting reading. We are in real trouble on the Chinook front. Too early to see how the 2018 Management Measures are going to shake out, but the early AI (Abundance Index) is looking weak for some areas. Particular concern is Skeena/Nass and Fraser bound Chinook. In Alaska they are putting in place some very strong restrictions and asking Canada to do the same.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pressreleases.pr&release=2018_03_29

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out to see if DFO does coast wide reductions to protect fraser stocks or if it does area specific management as area 20 accounts for a lot of the fraser river chinook sport catch.

"Canada has agreed to share the Chinook conservation burden. Reductions in Canada could include time, area, bag limit, and gear restrictions to sport and commercial fisheries. An allowable catch reduction and nonretention are also being considered."

As you said "BOHICA"
 
My view is coast-wide blanket restrictions will not be a good option as we have mixed stocks, some of which are doing fine. The real trick is finding the sweet spot in terms of the right measures applied in the right areas and times. We should be using DNA evidence from area/time data to find ways to create local area fishing plans that pass through the weak stocks while allowing reasonable access and opportunity to stocks where the run is doing better.

For example, Area 23 and 25 have a fairly healthy hatchery return. Very few of the fish are marked (clipped), but DNA evidence from these fisheries shows a very high (70 - 80%) stock composition comprised of hatchery origin fish. So it would make sense to customize management measures where it is possible to do so without impacting stocks of concern. Similarly, we know that WCVI fish tend to stick close to shore, whereas Fraser fish are usually further off shore. We could apply zone management strategies where it makes sense that are timed to pass stocks of concern, then lift those once we have passed them through an area. Sort of like running a train with certain box cars of cargo that you want to pass safely by a point on the track.

Also bear in mind that when there are restrictions in one area (for example North troll fishery), the Fraser fish that would be saved would then pass through that area heading south. By the time they reach other areas where we know they are intercepted more heavily by sport fisheries, the numbers of fish passed through and the local fishery impacts will be so minimal that employing additional management measures are pretty much pointless. So for example, Area 20 and 19 already have strict management measures. It would make no sense to ramp up measures there, if other management measures further up the coast pass through enough Fraser fish. Particularly because the exploitation rate on Fraser Chinook in Areas 20 and 19 are already very minimal.

Just a few random thoughts.
 
I have data that shows that from a sample from 2007 - 2010 24% of the Chinook catch at Langara was from the Fraser.

The Origin of Chinook salmon caught at Langara

2007 to 2010 random catch samples:

Stikine-Taku 1.3% QCI 2.1%
QCI 2.1%
Nass 0.9%
Skeena 9.5%
NOMN 6.9%
WCVI 14.0%
ECVI 1.3%
SOMN 0.9%
Fraser 24.5%
W ashington 8.4%
Columbia 16.3%
Oregon 13.8%

Be interesting to see if the high-end lodges get impacted.

Last fall I was having a conservation oriented discussion with the local Tackle Shop owner who used to be half owner in a Sitka based charter. Out consensus was that for conservation purposes, the Sitka & Langara Chinook sport fisheries should not exist.
 
Those are pretty "blunt" instrument numbers. Given we are looking at a few specific stocks of concern, what is necessary is to drill down to DNA evidence and back out the time/area data to determine a more surgical approach to management. Those Fraser fish pass Langara at a specific time window, which can be established through DNA analysis.

Similarly, in other fisheries we need to be capturing more DNA samples. WCFGA and SFI have been advocating to guides the need for DNA sampling in order to develop more precision in establishing run timing and stock composition. Its been a hard sell because it does take a fair bit of additional time to collect data, however, like most things in life...the hard things are usually the right things to do.

In this case DNA evidence is our friend when trying to more precisely develop a management strategy. Of course the alternative is to close the whole coast down until the weak stocks rebuild. Choices.
 
Those are pretty "blunt" instrument numbers. Given we are looking at a few specific stocks of concern, what is necessary is to drill down to DNA evidence and back out the time/area data to determine a more surgical approach to management. Those Fraser fish pass Langara at a specific time window, which can be established through DNA analysis.

Similarly, in other fisheries we need to be capturing more DNA samples. WCFGA and SFI have been advocating to guides the need for DNA sampling in order to develop more precision in establishing run timing and stock composition. Its been a hard sell because it does take a fair bit of additional time to collect data, however, like most things in life...the hard things are usually the right things to do.

In this case DNA evidence is our friend when trying to more precisely develop a management strategy. Of course the alternative is to close the whole coast down until the weak stocks rebuild. Choices.
There’s data somewhere Pat. I used to do 3 trips a year with scientists spread out over the summer collecting DNA samples from 3 different zones.... 10 miles out, 5 miles out and the Surfline.
 
Those are pretty "blunt" instrument numbers. Given we are looking at a few specific stocks of concern, what is necessary is to drill down to DNA evidence and back out the time/area data to determine a more surgical approach to management. Those Fraser fish pass Langara at a specific time window, which can be established through DNA analysis.
Very true, not good data for managing stocks; my point was I'd expect impacts up in NBC
 
Yes quite true that there will be "savings" from Management Measurers up in NBC, and some of the Fraser fish will pass down the coast. The real tricky part will be coming up with a way to estimate the "pass through" savings, and adjustment area by area as they pass down south. For sure there is DNA, I know I have something like 300+ samples - never seen my results as promised, but as long as they processed the samples we should have some data.
 
Preliminary AI (Abundance Index) published today from the PSC Chinook Tech Committee indicates the forecasted AI are: (sorry bit of trouble formatting tables, but you get the drift - vertical instead of horizontal)

Of note the sharp decrease in pre-season AI when comparing 2017 to 2018. WCVI for example dropped from 0.77 in 2017 to 0.59 in 2018.


Table 1. Preseason AIs and associated ACs for the 2018 AABM Fisheries.


SEAK

NBC

WCVI

Abundance Index

1.07

1.01

0.59

Allowable Catch

144,500

131,300

88,300



Table 2. Post-season AIs, associated ACs and observed catches for the 2017 AABM fisheries.

Preseason


SEAK

NBC

WCVI

Abundance Index

1.27

1.15

0.77

Allowable Catch

209,700

149,500

115,300

Actual

Observed Catch

178,348

143,330

108,588

Post-Season

Abundance Index

1.31

1.14

0.64

Allowable Catch

215,800

148,200

95,800

I wonder how they plan to make reductions to these fisheries


upload_2018-4-3_14-36-27.png

The 2017 WCVI AABM deviation was conspicuously larger than deviations observed for the other two AABM fisheries. While several factors likely contributed to this deviation, one significant influence on the magnitude of the deviation for the WCVI AABM fishery was a notable over forecast of the
stock. The observed return was only about 31% of the fore cast, a difference of about 109,500 Chinook.
 
Just a reminder on the 1999 allocation policy. I believe this policy is still in effect

Recreational Priority to Chinook and Coho


The recreational priority to directed fisheries on chinook and coho salmon will
operate only after conservation needs are met and First Nations priority, as outlined
in Principle 2, has been addressed. Implementation of the priority will also:

• take into account that sport and commercial fisheries operate very differently,
and
• be consistent with needs of the recreational fishery where fishing time and the
opportunity to fish are more important than an explicit amount of fish.

Where conservation goals cannot be met, recreational fisheries for all salmon will
be closed. Where abundance is sufficient to meet conservation goals but
insufficient to address First Nations needs, recreational access will be restricted to
selective fishing only including non-retention of chinook andlor coho salmon as
appropriate. Where abundance is greater, directed recreational fisheries will be
permitted, however, the recreational limits for these fisheries will be determined by
relative abundance. Even in high abundance scenarios, recreational limits will not
exceed 2 per day with a possession limit of 4 for chinook salmon and 4 per day with
a possession limit of 8 for coho salmon (e.g., in terminal areas or harvest of
hatchery-produced salmon).
 
Also Just a heads up First Nations are coming after our fishery in the ocean. see attachment

· Can you clarify the term “prey availability”. What’s the reason for finfish or salmon closures? How will DFO account for a shift in effort from closed to open areas? Has DFO modelled how much more prey will be available?

· DFO: 1) Availability means abundance and accessibility (protection from vessel disturbance). A recreational finfish closure would have more impact than a salmon closure (these are the two tools we have available). Anglers can move so we will use overflights to monitor how much of that is going on. Modelling prey quantum is very difficult to do in practice, but monitoring can help track hunting behaviour. We are still working on the experimental design questions and can follow up with JTWG.

· Closing those areas will just shift recreational effort inside, putting more pressure on Fraser chinook, including 41s. It’s just a band-aid solution. What measures are planned for inside?

· DFO: That will be addressed in the presentation.

· It feels like DFO is giving them an allocation before First Nations. Maybe that’s important but it feels like DFO is taking action without considering First Nations impacts. We have an allocation for chinook that we have yet to take in Campbell River. The impacts are primarily from a recreational industry that reaches around the world. We are managing our fish to extinction. If there are not enough to go around, you have to stop something. Is it commercial, recreational or First Nations fisheries? Our rivers and streams in Northern Vancouver Island are being lost in all this.

· DFO indicated yesterday that the only feedback is what is written in the Forum letter. What about feedback here? What feedback is considered?

· DFO: We welcome letters, and also the direct feedback that we hear at this table and that is captured in meeting notes.

· We are hearing about more involvement and consultation with First Nations and consent-based decision-making, but we’re frustrated that DFO’s actions are not consistent with those commitments, while our fundamental right to the fish is being destroyed. There has been no mention of dollars. If we’re protecting chinook, what’s the bottom line? It will require major investments if Canada is serious about restoring our rivers and the rights of First Nations.

· Proposed chinook management actions will allow recreational anglers to move around and continue taking our fish. If DFO is unwilling to shut them down entirely, reduce their limits. The current measures create inequitable access to chinook, with anglers allowed to catch far more relative to our communities. Question... about CWTs. The Province was still allowing recreational catch and release fisheries last fall despite the extreme conservation concerns. These fish are being managed into extinction. DFO needs to shut down all catch and release fishing for steelhead. It’s politics, colonialism and another form of genocide.

· DFO: We will be looking at all fisheries and we can look at reducing recreational catch limits, among other tools, to achieve reductions. CWT recoveries for some populations such as Nicola are limited, which creates some uncertainties. Re steelhead, we are discussing proposed measures with the province.

· Does DFO propose time and area closures, reduced limits or restricting the number of licences sold? DFO tells us to reduce the number of vessels fishing when there is not enough fish. The Avid Angler program shows large numbers of fish being caught and there are far more rec licences than Aboriginal.

· DFO: We will be looking at inside waters, using available management tools, and at all fisheries, including northern fisheries. DFO is looking for feedback on the draft IFMP and those fisheries will be considered for proposed reductions.

· At a Victoria meeting, anglers discussed moving their boats up the coast if local fishing was closed, whereas we can’t move our fisheries. It’s a concern that many of the fish they’re catching are the ones, like chinook 42s, that we are trying to conserve. I’m also concerned about reports of livestock wandering through salmon spawning grounds so I hope DFO makes a serious effort to stop this. Additional concerns include recreational anglers being allowed to fish for steelhead and having their fisheries open by default, unlike ours.

· DFO: It will be important to craft measures that allow us to track their effectiveness.

· An important question in the chinook and coho reductions is how DFO will implement Aboriginal priority and questions about whether catch and release mortality is really incidental mortality. This kind of joint First Nations consultation is essential to meet the test set by the courts in earlier cases, which would require having another meeting like this one before the end of March.

· DFO: We can look at how best to address that and how to share technical information.

· Matsqui has a protected right that is second to conservation, and it’s very difficult to watch recreational fishers chasing our fish. It hurts to hear that killer whales may get more fish than my grandchildren. We need recreational closures until we rebuild these stocks, not more band-aids. It’s

easy for DFO to just shut us down and there is a conflict of interest regarding recreational fishers.

· We are at the gates so we can see what’s happening to the fish as they return, including hundreds of sea lions taking our fish. We can’t compete with them, especially in low years. We need to do something about both sea lions and sport fishermen.

· I want to commend DFO for considering reductions (Slide 14). This, along with changes to the Fishery Act, provide a glimmer of hope. When you consider allocation priorities, DFO should reference industry first when referencing cuts. We need a unified approach with DFO to secure the funding needed to implement the necessary actions. The IFMP should include a section about values relating to Aboriginal rights vs access privileges for other sectors.

· We need to start regulating the sports sector like the US does. They catch their limits and then come up here and fish some more. Recreational access needs to be capped. First Nations should also be allowed limited harvest for seals and sea lions. DFO should also address high-grading in the recreational fishery by anglers looking for trophy fish.

· DFO: Tools include daily and possession limits, gear restrictions, etc. We will review options and make recommendations as we proceed.
 

Attachments

  • 2018March12_FRAFS Letter to DFO February 27-March 1 2018 FORUM.pdf
    1 MB · Views: 26
What a pile of B.S. ( if true)
blame everything on the rec. sector without even mentioning commercial fisheries
of which they are a big part of.

:mad:
 
I have data that shows that from a sample from 2007 - 2010 24% of the Chinook catch at Langara was from the Fraser.

The Origin of Chinook salmon caught at Langara

2007 to 2010 random catch samples:

Stikine-Taku 1.3% QCI 2.1%
QCI 2.1%
Nass 0.9%
Skeena 9.5%
NOMN 6.9%
WCVI 14.0%
ECVI 1.3%
SOMN 0.9%
Fraser 24.5%
W ashington 8.4%
Columbia 16.3%
Oregon 13.8%

Be interesting to see if the high-end lodges get impacted.

Last fall I was having a conservation oriented discussion with the local Tackle Shop owner who used to be half owner in a Sitka based charter. Out consensus was that for conservation purposes, the Sitka & Langara Chinook sport fisheries should not exist.
I work at a lodge in the summer so I see it first hand. The lodges up north definitely have an impact, as most guests will take home their limit of halibut and salmon. Some guests wont take any fish home at all, but theyre in the minority. It makes sense on some level, as theyre paying thousands of dollars for these 3 and 4 day trips, that they would want to take home a full tub. Many of them will only fish that one trip per year, and many more may never fish again. Im not exactly sure how all the other lodges operate, but at ours we encourage guests to release the larger fish so that those genes have a chance to stay in the gene pool. Our lodge goes as far as offering prizes for fish released over a certain size - tyee pins, jackets, islander reels, artwork, etc. We also run a raffle geared towards raising money for the Yakoun River hatchery program, and our lodge matches the money raised.

What goes on at the lodges, however, pales in comparison to the commercial troll fleet slaughter that goes on up there. The day the commercial fishery opens, theres a noticeable dip in the availability of these migratory fish. Before the opening, you might release 5, 10, 20 fish on any given day... but once the commie season starts, all that comes to a screeching halt. Bear in mind that these are second-hand numbers, but just to give an idea of the scope of the commercial slaughter that goes on up there... Picture 100-150 commercial trollers, all with 1, 2, maybe even 3 chinook quotas of around 800 fish each, as well as coho quotas, fishing from sunrise to sunset, shoulder to shoulder, from the starting gun to the final whistle. Some of these trollers are killing upwards of 100 chinooks in a day, which is likely more than any lodge kills between all their guests on any given trip. As I understand it, there isnt a lot of meat on the bone for these commercial fishermen in terms of making a profit, so it makes one wonder why theyre being slaughtered in such a manner in the first place.
 
Holy. They are a delusional bunch aren’t they? Read the actual document and everything is recreational fisherman’s fault and we are ruining their way of life :D:rolleyes: Literally delusional. When there’s one finger pointing out there’s four pointing back.
 
Holy. They are a delusional bunch aren’t they? Read the actual document and everything is recreational fisherman’s fault and we are ruining their way of life :D:rolleyes: Literally delusional. When there’s one finger pointing out there’s four pointing back.

It’s because our fishery takes presidence over their economic fisheries. So they want us off the water so stocks can rebuild to the point where they get economic opportunity back.

That’s pretty much their logic. The reality is these bands just are not making money anymore with out economic sockeye opportunity.

It’s sad that it’s reallt had to come down to this point I just hope stocks naturally recover in the years to come.
 
Back
Top