Puget sound Fishery

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by Derby, Jan 4, 2018.

  1. Derby

    Derby Well-Known Member

  2. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Well-Known Member

    I have always wondered if there was a point of no return of systems. That if it makes it to a big enough number the smolts have ample protection in numbers however if it dips below that number that the system will death spiral into an almost extinct number.

    While this news piece does not answer that question it did remind me of it.

    That said harvest committee only have so many tools in their tool belt that they can use and that is reducing fishing. As you are well aware they are usual governed by some sort of escapement number.

    What this fails to say is that what it really wants is for the escapement goal to change to a percentage of a run and not a static number. This would always allow a number to be harvest from every run.

    AS for the habitat issue, Humans have to get used to living in high rises and not in suburbs.
     
  3. Derby

    Derby Well-Known Member

    your not going to get me to move back into the city :)
     
    wildmanyeah likes this.
  4. chris73

    chris73 Well-Known Member

    And I say it again; for those compromised near-urban watersheds with limited potential for habitat rehab to produce any number of salmon it requires a hatchery. Look at the many empty streams we have already. They are not coming back without artificial help. Totally agree with this article, if there is habitat potential left this is where you want to focus long term efforts. Sadly, many urban streams will never be turned back in a significant way. By the sounds of it the Stillaguamish would probably be void of Chinooks today if it wasn't for the lifeline of the hatchery operations. 98% degradation doesn't leave much.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  5. ericl

    ericl Active Member

    Here is the plan that resulted in the above article:

    https://tidalexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PS-CHIN-RMP-FINAL-12012017.pdf

    According to the above plan, about 40% of mortalities for the Stilly fish occur in southern BC. Don't think that only curtailing US harvest of these fish is gonna make much difference. The plan indicates this & similar interception issues are currently under negotiations.

    FYI most of these endangered Puget Sound runs are not in an urban environment by any means. Farm run-off, logging damage & failed septic systems are bad news as well.

    From my interpretation the article posted by Derby & the plan contain "alternative facts", but from the plan implementation details our "bad for sportsfishers" situation in Puget Sound looks to be headed for getting much worse somewhere where the 2 sources agree on.
     
  6. terrin

    terrin Well-Known Member

    Wow thats a very comprehensive management plan document. To bad the DFO couldn't step up to the plate and offer a similar document with all the relevent graphs and charts for us to educate ourselves with.
     
  7. bones

    bones Well-Known Member

    Thought they were? Numbers and pictures next year as bulk of research is finished. You could look it up only a few studies from 2017 available as most I think is in review
     
  8. ericl

    ericl Active Member

    It is a good document - but not the first cut at it; there has been a puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan in place for many years, but it was not working. I think the big focus in the near future will be interception & mixed stock fisheries. DFO in BC has plenty of data for many Chinook runs about where, when ,who & how they are being caught to negotiate/manage the runs. The missing link (as in WA) is implementing any solutions beyond the easy/no cost one's (reduce fishing/mortality of returning fish).

    The title of the article posted by Derby - "WDFW gives up Puget Sound fishing for nothing" has made me think; just what is there to get in return? There are no fish to trade.
     

Share This Page