Preliminary 2018 salmon outlook/Forecast/Management Measures

It sucks, but if it's in the name of conservation I'm willing to do my part. I only hope it's not so painful a guy can't bring a couple fish home to cherish during the winter months. But when it comes down to it, the trill of the catch & screaming of the reel is the reason most of us do it.

But honestly, our fish need a chance to recover & they are resilient,,proving they have the right conditions.

(Of course we all hope to see the same management efforts done at the rivers..)

I saw a DFO piece showing the exploitation rate of Fraser fish...the large majority of the exploitation happens in the river.
 
I saw a DFO piece showing the exploitation rate of Fraser fish...the large majority of the exploitation happens in the river.

This one? it's in the report i just attached a few posts back. This just shows 3 stocks of Fraser River Chinook the only exploitation that happens in river is from the FN fisheries and they have constitutively protected FSC Fisheries. So If reductions are going to happen they definitely are not coming from in river.

If you look at the Report you will also see that the South East Alaska Fishery actually takes the large portion of the Lower Shuswap Chinook. However they do not have to make reductions as I was told its the way the PST is written it's up to the rivers origin country to make the majority of the reductions.

upload_2018-3-23_19-32-34.png
 
Last edited:
Lol....i will bet the house more get taken within the Fraser...hard to document things accurately when fish are poached and numbers are manipulated to get more FN opening !!!
 
This one? it's in the report i just attached a few posts back. This just shows 3 stocks of Fraser River Chinook the only exploitation that happens in river is from the FN fisheries and they have constitutively protected FSC Fisheries. So If reductions are going to happen they definitely are not coming from in river.

If you look at the Report you will also see that the South East Alaska Fishery actually takes the large portion of the Lower Shuswap Chinook. However they do not have to make reductions as I was told its the way the PST is written it's up to the rivers origin country to make the majority of the reductions.

View attachment 37083

That wasn’t it.

It was a couple years ago as there was retained Rec fish and a breakdown between FN catch between FSC and economic opportunity.

The above lumps all FN catch together.

But looking at that data - the easy fix is shut down the commercial fishery and we have greatly reduced the exploitation rate on the stocks.

Some people may dislike that but the reality is that there shouldn’t be a commercial fishery for chinooks.
 
Last edited:
That wasn’t it.

It was a couple years ago as there was retained Rec fish and a breakdown between FN catch between FSC and economic opportunity.

The above lumps all FN catch together.

The above is just for 3 stocks of chinook and theirs has only been FSC fishery’s in river targeting them and the rec guys in river have been shut down while these stocks migrate

These are stocks of concern as they are the stocks the whales feed on.

If your talking about coho or sockeye or chum that’s total different.
 
NBC AABM = Northern BC Aggregate Abundance Based Management. Not SEAK.

http://wildfishconservancy.org/imag...ome2011journalchart.jpg/image_view_fullscreen

Not that SEAK isn't guilty as hell; only 3% of their catch comes from Alaskan fish.

Eric I was referring to the report I attached a few post back not the one graphic that only shows the Canadian catch of the run. I know the difference between SEAK and NBC. As you can see the SEAK mortality and the Canadian Mortality for the Shuswap chinook is about the same some years. Keep in mind this is only one run of Fraser River Chinook. There are others that stay in the SOG and don't have any caught in SEAK fisheries.

upload_2018-3-24_9-36-29.png
 
Last edited:
Thanks for setting me straight!! FYI couldn't find this in an earlier post.

FYI are people complaining about the FN's percentage (looks to average around 4%)? Down here the tribes on the saltwater get 50% of the TAC.
 
Thanks for setting me straight!! FYI couldn't find this in an earlier post.

FYI are people complaining about the FN's percentage (looks to average around 4%)? Down here the tribes on the saltwater get 50% of the TAC.

Like I said all fraser river chinook runs are not treated the same. For example the Nicola run the FN make up the majority of the catch. Also in most years the only ones that get to fish for things like sockeye are the First Nations.

upload_2018-3-24_16-54-58.png
 
The reality is that the Native Food Fishery is not fully observed.
It's partially based on an honour system of reporting. Fact is, they report A when in fact the catch is more like "L" (which is like A x L in some cases.

I'd like to know how the f there are still trucks driving the Lower Mainland going door to door selling Fraser River Chinook in March? Primetime Seafoods was on my block again yesterday.

My neighbour paid like $90 for like 2 small fillets. Based on the skin, I saw a net marks on the fish. They were commercial gillnetted or FN fished. I told them they got hosed.
 
They have been illegally netting since the first week of March above Rosedale and below the mouth of the Harrison.
Luckily they have been mostly only getting wild steelhead.....:mad:
 
See attachment for full report, Keep in mind it's a DRAFT so subject to change. Also I converted the PDF into Word so I could post it easier, so their might be some other errors.

SCIENCE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CONSULTATIONS ON BC CHINOOK SALMON FISHERY MANAGEMENT MEASURES

IN 2018

Context

The 2018 draft Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMP) for Pacific Salmon include a number of proposed fisheries management measures for Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in 2018. Fisheries Management has requested that DFO Science provide information (trends in abundance, productivity and current exploitation) for key Chinook Salmon management units to support consultations on potential additional BC Chinook Salmon fishery management measures in 2018.

This Science Response (SR) represents the best available science information on Chinook Salmon at present compiled on a short timeline. Therefore, the data and interpretations presented here are subject to change as new analytical results and information become available.

Background

The wide variation in early life history, age of maturation, ocean distribution, return timing, and other characteristics make Chinook Salmon among the most resilient salmon. However, large-scale patterns of environmental change and increased environmental variability have resulted in broad declines in productivity1 of Chinook Salmon across their range in recent decades. Potential effects of recent events, such as the persistence of the warm ocean water ‘blob’ which formed in the North Pacific in 2014 and moved onshore in 2015, and El Niño conditions in early 2016, have lowered expectations for returns of Chinook Salmon in 2018 (PFMC 2018), and reduced returns are expected for several years.

The decline in productivity and abundance of many southern Chinook Salmon stocks started with consecutive large El Niño events in the early and late 1990s. Stock groups such as West Coast Vancouver Island and Strait of Georgia experienced dramatic declines in marine survival rates and resulting productivity. Other stocks such as South Thompson ocean type summer run timing Chinook Salmon showed higher resilience to these changes, but even these stocks have recently shown signs of decline in abundance and productivity. The most recent integrated biological status assessment of Southern BC Chinook Salmon identified 11 out of 15 conservation units (CU) as ‘red’ (i.e. spawning abundance is likely below the lower biological benchmark) out of 15 CUs for which consensus was reached on an integrated status

*Productivity is the intrinsic rate of growth of a population, estimated from the observed relationship between spawners and adult recruits over time.

designation; an additional nine CUs were designated as data deficient and status could not be evaluated for 11 CUs (DFO 2016).

Northern Chinook Salmon stocks, which in the 1990s and 2000s appeared to maintain a higher productivity, are showing more recent declines in abundance and productivity. Recent declines are also apparent for the South Thompson Chinook Salmon and other Fraser stocks, especially the stream type spring and summer timing stocks. In contrast, Southern BC coastal stocks, which had the greatest initial decline in productivity and remained at low levels, have recently exhibited some increases in abundance and marine survival rates. Marine survival rates have increased in east coast Vancouver Island Chinook Salmon, but remain well below average historic levels. Similarly, while recent marine survival rates of West Coast Vancouver Island stocks appear to be near average historic levels, low abundance of local populations remains a concern in areas with relatively minor hatchery supplementation such as Clayoquot Sound.

Dorner et al. (2017) associated the broad pattern of declines in Chinook Salmon productivity, from Alaska to Oregon, with unfavourable large-scale climatic change in the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation and the North Pacific Current as well as increased frequency of large scale events such as El Niño, and in 2014-15, the persistence of warm ocean waters in ‘the blob’. Other researchers such as Ohlberger et al. (2018) suggest that the biological mechanisms behind the decline in productivity also include changes in population demographics, such as younger age-at-maturity, reduced size-at-age, and reduced fecundity of female spawners. Some of these demographic effects are now being observed in BC Chinook Salmon populations (Table 1). Fishery removals of large Chinook Salmon is likely a contributing factor to these demographic changes, as is predation by marine mammals such as seals, sea lions, and killer whales. In addition, degradation of freshwater spawning and rearing habitat likely contributes to the apparent declines in productivity observed across many BC management units.

Key observational data in British Columbia are derived from ‘indicator’ stocks distributed throughout BC. Spawning abundance is estimated for each indicator stock using methods ranging from high precision fence counts to lower precision escapement indicators. Coded Wire Tag (CWT) indicator stocks, generally associated with hatcheries, provide information such as marine survival, fishery exploitation rates, and ocean distribution information. These data are tracked by the Pacific Salmon Commission and results are accessible through the publications of the Chinook Technical Committee. The key Chinook Salmon management units under consideration and associated indicator stock data are summarized in Table 2 The information from these indicator stocks shows regional variation in escapement abundance and marine survival rate trends (Figure 1 and 2). At finer spatial scales, local habitat and ecosystem factors may explain some variations in abundance. In some cases, such as the Cowichan River Chinook Salmon stock, watershed and habitat restoration may be important factors in recent increased productivity and abundance.

Productivity is directly related to sustainable exploitation rates (EMSY); when productivity declines fishery exploitation should be reduced2. Chinook Salmon productivity is estimated to have declined about 40% since the early 1980s across all the BC indicator stocks (Riddell et al. 2013). The associated reduction in sustainable exploitation rate depends on the initial productivity of the stock. In response to declining productivity, marine area fishery catch and exploitation were reduced starting with the first Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985. In southern BC, total Chinook Salmon catch was reduced by 78% from the early 1980s (Table 3). In northern BC, total marine Chinook Salmon catch was reduced by about 47% from the early 1980s (Table 4). Resulting annual exploitation rates were reduced by an average of 44% for BC CWT indicator stocks (Table 5 and Figure 3). However, for some BC stocks, Dorner et al. (2017) suggest there have been further declines in productivity (i.e. over the last 5 brood years) ranging from about 15 to 66% (Table 6).
 

Attachments

  • DRAFT_AMENDED_SR_Chinook_reductions23Mar18-for dist%27n.pdf
    284.8 KB · Views: 12
Analysis and Response

Fishery Managers requested DFO Science provide and organize available data and other information to address the questions outlined below. These responses will facilitate consultation with First Nations, Industry and other stakeholders in the development of additional fishery management measures that may be required to address declines in Chinook Salmon stock productivity.

Q1. Provide information to determine which stocks require a reduction in fishery exploitation.

Criteria that may be used to determine which stocks may require further management measures to adjust fishery impacts include:

· Recent average exploitation rates relative to estimates of sustainable exploitation (EMSY) given current stock productivity (Table 6);

· Level of recent escapement relative to management goals (Table 7);

· Evidence of recent declines in marine survival rate (Figure 2);

· Identification of other fishery related impacts, such as selective fishing practices, that may be contributing to declines in stock productivity.

A significant issue for these preliminary analyses is that most of the data used to estimate these management parameters are from data-rich stocks. In all cases, there are significant sources of uncertainty with the available data and analysis of management parameters. Further work is required to develop and evaluate stock assessment methods that can be applied to more data limited stocks. Science is currently developing these methods and more complete information to inform data limited assessments and risk-appropriate management responses will be available through future work.

Q2. What tools and information can Science provide to inform trade-offs associated with a range of potential reductions in fishery exploitation rates?

clip_image001.gif
Reductions in fishery exploitation rates to achieve stock rebuilding objectives and fishery objectives inherently involve management choices such as rebuilding times and risk tolerance (i.e., the probability of achieving those objectives). Appropriate tools to inform decisions regarding the trade-offs are not currently available; however development of these tools is already underway within DFO Science. For example, simulations or retrospective analyses can identify benefits and costs associated with a range of fishery reductions and management strategies. Retrospective analysis or simulations will require management input in the form of development of target objectives for evaluation, and the identification of potential management strategies to achieve those objectives. Co-management processes, such as the Southern BC

Chinook Initiative, are recommended as appropriate venues to conduct such management strategy evaluations due to their inclusivity and broad representation.

Q3 What information can Science provide to inform development of management measures if it is determined reductions are required?

Declines as described in the Background section may warrant either reduction in exploitation rates and/or measures to reduce fishery related impacts that may contribute to negative demographic changes in populations (e.g. harvest practices that selectively remove older and larger fish). Strategies for reducing fishing impacts on stocks of concern may include implementing measures such as reductions in total allowable catch or fishing effort; area closures in times when stocks of concern are prevalent; bag limits; size limits; and other gear restrictions (e.g., net mesh size). Once the stocks and targets for potential reductions are identified, more specific input can be provided by Science to inform development of specific management measures. Methods used to assess proposed fishery measures on a by-fishery basis will depend on how proposed reductions are implemented. Science can use data including historical fishery impacts, stock distribution and timing, size at catch and fishing effort to model expected reductions in fishery impacts. However, these plenary models are limited by the available data and information. This limitation is particularly important for data-limited stocks or CUs because the scale of reductions that can be modeled is directly related to the quality of the data inputs; the data are generally inadequate to model finer-scale or incremental reductions in fisheries associated with data-limited management units.

Q4 What are the potential metrics/indicators that could be used to assess whether or not objectives have been met? Provide commentary on strengths and weaknesses of proposed assessment methods.

Metrics/indicators that could be used to assess whether or not objectives have been met should be similar to the criteria used to set targets for reduction. That is, for the management units in which management actions are taken, performance metrics could include:

· A reduction in observed exploitation rate to a level consistent with EMSY;

· An increase in escapement of indicator stocks within the management unit (i.e., observe

rebuilding towards a target);

An observed reduction in size-selective fishery impacts.

In all cases, the sources of uncertainty associated with potential metrics and data deficiency should be considered and targets set accordingly. The ability to assess the achievement of specific reduction targets post-season on a by-fishery basis is dependent on catch monitoring and sampling programs conducted during the fishing season. Current sampling programs in many fisheries are inadequate to evaluate incremental reductions in fishery impacts and it may be impractical to increase sampling in order to assess incremental reductions. Therefore, the choice of performance metrics/indicators identified on a by-fishery basis that are inconsistent with current stock assessment and catch monitoring frameworks (or highly sensitive to the uncertainty of the available data) may require additional monitoring and sampling programs. As well, many escapement programs produce relatively imprecise estimates of spawning abundance. Finally, detecting measurable improvements associated with fishery actions on annual basis may not be possible given inter-annual variation in environmental conditions that influence marine survival rate and stock abundance.
 
Conclusions

1. Information and work required to support recommended actions has not been completed. While sources of uncertainty are identified in this preliminary response to inform the decision-making process, these uncertainties have not been presented with sufficient detail to fully understand their impact on the decision-making context. Further work is required to describe uncertainties the data, and evaluate how sensitive the analysis is to the uncertainties.

2. Science, working with other DFO sectors and through various joint technical processes involving First Nations and stakeholders, is currently completing work that will more adequately inform the decision-making context. This work includes developing stock assessment methods that can be applied for more data limited situations, developing robust methods for estimating sustainable exploitation rates, and developing evaluation tools that can be used to inform management trade-offs when setting fishery and stock objectives for rebuilding. There is also a technical review underway to evaluate management actions implemented in 2012 to reduce fishery impacts on Fraser River Chinook Salmon. As this work is completed, the information that Science can provide to managers will be more comprehensive and robust.

3. Ultimately, a more strategic and integrated ecosystem response to address conservation for stocks of concern and inform rebuilding plans is needed. Such a response involves assessment of all potential factors limiting stock productivity, including impacts in freshwater habitat. Particularly when exploitation rates are already reduced and near or below sustainable exploitation rates and stock productivity is low, rebuilding times may be relatively insensitive to reductions in fishery impacts. Efforts that may be directed towards implementing and assessing relatively minor changes in fishery impacts may distract from broader stock assessment activities related to understanding and explaining why stock productivity has declined.
 
Clarification please... What do the initials ISBM AND AABM actually stand for. I understand these are "outside" and "inside " fisheries
 
Is there any real catch data to support these numbers ?
where do they come from and how do they know sport caught numbers ?
 
Last edited:
Is there any real catch data to support these numbers ?
where do they come from and do they know sport caught numbers ?

*Estimated catch year annual exploitation rates (20011-2016) for Transboundary and BC Chinook management units relative to historic levels (1980-1989). Annual exploitation rate estimates represent total mortality (i.e. include estimated release mortality). For some management units, estimates are modelled outputs form the Chinook Technical Committee coast-wide model. All estimates include Age 2 fish.*

Some of the Data has come from Coded Wire Tags (CWT). I'm not sure where the Chinook Technical Committee gets their data from. Id really have to go dive into The Pacific Salmon Commission website.

I am sure we can pick the Data apart a million ways but that's not gonna change the fact that Marine Sports fishermen are not in the cross hairs of DFO. They have shut down in River fisheries (sport and Commercial), They have cut back on Commercial Troll Fisheries. First Nations will only see a reduction after all other fisheries so That pretty much leaves us ocean sport fishermen.
 
Back
Top