Here we go again, by Bob Hooton .

[OldBlackDog]

The latest notification from our Department of Fisheries and Oceans arrived in my in-box today. It was their heads up on the process leading to yet another Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, this time for the 2021 fishing season. My question to DFO – how do you pass the red face test this time?

To begin, the message is addressed to “First Nations and Stakeholders”. That order alone speaks volumes about DFO’s agenda. It gets better. The notification is ten pages worth of process descriptions. Nine and one half of those pages deal with southern BC. The northern half of the province doesn’t warrant more than honourable mention. Northern coho and chinook each garnered a brief paragraph. I guess the fact that Skeena chum, acknowledged decades ago as a conservation concern, showed the lowest abundance, by far, ever recorded in 2020 doesn’t matter because there isn’t a roe fishery for them like there is for the (enhanced) Fraser stocks. Those steelhead that have done nothing but follow a similar trajectory in recent years were never mentioned either. All the non-enhanced sockeye (i.e. the other 90-95% of Skeena sockeye that don’t originate from the Babine Lake spawning channels) also escaped DFO’s radar again.

Ah, but there was much ink attached to Interior Fraser Steelhead. We were reminded of processes and results, already well publicized, that govern the foreseeable future of those endangered fish. Thanks DFO. I’d almost forgotten that all those learned scientists who participated in the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) had recommended listing of Interior Fraser Steelhead (IFS) as endangered under Canada’s Species at Risk Act two years ago and that the federal Minister of the Environment had decided against doing so. Noticeably absent was any reference to DFO’s unilateral “adjustments” to the COSEWIC recommendations central to the the Minister’s decision. Now that COSEWIC has reviewed the IFS scenario again (what did anyone thing was going to change in the intervening two years?) and reiterated its earlier recommendation to list, DFO’s notification reminds us of the process now to be repeated. Lest I be accused of making things up, here is a cut and paste from DFO’s message:

“Addressing declines in spawner abundance of Interior Fraser River (IFR) Steelhead (the management group that includes Thompson and Chilcotin River Steelhead) requires a precautionary approach to reduce incidental fishery mortalities and allow as many of these fish as possible to reach spawning areas. For many years, a window closure approach has been used within the Fraser River to reduce bycatch of Steelhead during commercial fisheries targeting salmon. The window closure approach was expanded significantly starting in 2018 to all fishing sectors, and to all areas within the migration corridor of Interior Fraser River Steelhead in marine waters and into the Fraser River and tributaries.
Expectations for IFR Steelhead in 2021 are for continued extremely poor returns, requiring ongoing measures to reduce impacts in salmon fisheries to maximize the number of potential IFR Steelhead spawners. As we await additional analyses that will be developed as part of the next SARA Listing Process, the Department is committed to maintaining minimal impacts on IFR Steelhead. At this time, we anticipate that measures applied to the Chum fishery in 2021 to protect IFR steelhead will closely follow those implemented in 2019 and 2020, and significant changes to existing IFR Steelhead measures are not expected. Consultations will occur on all fisheries management measures taken to protect IFR Steelhead in the coming year as part of the Department’s preseason planning and associated management measures for management of chum salmon.
In addition to the measures taken to reduce incidental fisheries mortalities of IFR Steelhead in salmon fisheries, DFO continues to work with the Province of BC to address other threats to IFR Steelhead. As part of this process, DFO will be working to ensure that all our programs, including hatchery and habitat management, are aligned to support IFR Steelhead recovery.”
Think about this. An initial COSEWIC process that undoubtedly cost taxpayers deep into the six figure bracket, if not more, resulted in mere tokenism in terms of addressing a conservation concern that is worse than any that confronts Fraser River salmon stocks. Now we’re about to repeat that performance with the condition that measures applied in past will not be altered until the process is complete. That will not be until at least the conclusion of yet another commercial and First Nations fishing season. And, those measures will mirror the ones that have seen zero improvement in the status of either the Thompson or Chilcotin steelhead spawning populations. The only measure of any detectable consequence was closure of the recreational fishery. That would be the one with negligible influence on the status of Interior Fraser Steelhead but also the one with the least political consequences associated with elimination.
I’m seeing reference to habitat issues that have impacted IFS. Forest fire related degradation of rearing habitat, migration obstructions, flow abstraction, etc. No one seems to have noticed that the forest fires of the recent past had no bearing whatsoever on the steelhead returns of the past several years. In fact the jury is out on what influence they may have in future. The DFO author(s) of this latest covering letter might want to review the recent Thompson steelhead focused session sponsored by the BC Wildlife Federation in which the province’s technical expert dismissed the prospect of habitat manipulations having any significant hope of improving stock status. Besides, there is no case to be made habitat issues limit Chilcotin steelhead recovery. The Bonaparte fishway obstruction is another frequently cited contributor to the Thompson steelhead demise. Managers of the day apparently haven’t noticed the historical Thompson steelhead abundance had nothing to do with an obstruction on the Bonaparte. There were thousands more steelhead returning to the Thompson when the fishway didn’t exist and therefore no access to upstream habitat now considered critical to the status of Thompson steelhead. Then there is the reference to fish culture intervention. That begs a host of questions, most of which the science community has already answered in multiple times and places. The simplest summary is that fish culture has no hope of “saving” IFS. Look at DFO’s decades long efforts to restore Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye for evidence. Ask the COSEWIC participants for their opinion. Google “biodiversity” and consider the emerging understanding of its significance in a conservation context. Ask what sense it makes to ante up for a stupidly expensive fish culture exercise that would do nothing more that sentence anything that did materialize to death by gill net.
On with your show DFO but please remind me again how “public” comments will be considered in the preparation of your final IFMPs. I seem to recall sending extensive comments your way in previous years but I just don’t remember ever receiving any acknowledgement or response. Process is the product, though. Pay no heed to how the fish are doing.
Last point to keep firmly in mind – DFO keeps on saying this and I quote from their latest notification again:

“Conservation of salmon populations is the primary objective in managing the resource. After conservation requirements are met, the Department is committed to respecting Constitutional and Treaty obligations to provide priority access for First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) harvest opportunities.”
Tell me one more time DFO. How does this apply to a couple of dozen lower Fraser First Nations whom you have sanctioned to soak gill nets for 75% of the run timing window for endangered Interior Fraser Steelhead? While you’re at it perhaps you could offer us a refresher on that time immemorial fishery targeting chum roe from populations enhanced in your own facilities (the ones that us taxpayers support so our opportunity to fish for IFS can be eliminated). Some of us would believe this is clear evidence that economic opportunity fisheries supersede conservation.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Last point to keep firmly in mind – DFO keeps on saying this and I quote from their latest notification again:

“Conservation of salmon populations is the primary objective in managing the resource. After conservation requirements are met, the Department is committed to respecting Constitutional and Treaty obligations to provide priority access for First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) harvest opportunities.”

 

[searun]

Oh boy here we go again is right. Blame FN's for the downfall of IFS - OMG.

Even Rob Bison's research points to pinniped predation as the main factor to address if we want to see the most recovery benefit for energy expended. Those are the facts. Not making it up. Yes, it would be great if we could transition towards more selective harvest practices. Yes, I would love to see gill nets in rivers banned. But, if I was to choose just one thing to address, it would be to significantly reduce pinniped predation in-river and also in the near-shore early ocean entry period where smolts are highly susceptible. Especially smolts that are larger in size which represent a tasty meal. The larger the out-migrant smolt, the poorer they are performing when it comes to early ocean entry survival. Steelhead are the largest out-migrant smolts of all the pacific salmonids, so little wonder we are seeing coast-wide challenges for steelhead - even on remote rivers where there are no active fisheries.

Oh boy, time to shift the narrative to something that matters......, and the DFO hate spin is getting a tad tiring.

 

[agentaqua]

As usual searun - yet another one of your posts that is balanced, informed, nuanced and fair. I very much appreciate your input on this forum

 

[searun]

As usual searun - yet another one of your posts that is balanced, informed, nuanced and fair. I very much appreciate your input on this forum

Ya, and I will probably get some hate mail for expressing my honest views on the topic - been down that road already. Getting the facts and prioritizing where we spend our energy is a way better approach.

 

[terrin]

Oh boy here we go again is right. Blame FN's for the downfall of IFS - OMG.

Even Rob Bison's research points to pinniped predation as the main factor to address if we want to see the most recovery benefit for energy expended. Those are the facts. Not making it up. Yes, it would be great if we could transition towards more selective harvest practices. Yes, I would love to see gill nets in rivers banned. But, if I was to choose just one thing to address, it would be to significantly reduce pinniped predation in-river and also in the near-shore early ocean entry period where smolts are highly susceptible. Especially smolts that are larger in size which represent a tasty meal. The larger the out-migrant smolt, the poorer they are performing when it comes to early ocean entry survival. Steelhead are the largest out-migrant smolts of all the pacific salmonids, so little wonder we are seeing coast-wide challenges for steelhead - even on remote rivers where there are no active fisheries.

Oh boy, time to shift the narrative to something that matters......, and the DFO hate spin is getting a tad tiring.

DFO deserves all the criticism it gets. Do you think telling them they are doing a great job would give better outcomes?
Addressing pinniped predation is very important and I think most agree but it is not an either or the gill nets need to be dealt with as well. We have all seen the carnage these nets have not only their intended target but also all the bycatch of sturgeon, steelhead and endangered runs of sockeye and chinook.
Not at all against First Nation getting their FSC fish but it has to come after conservation numbers have been met.

 

[onefish]

What do pinnepeds, homeless camps, anti vaxers, and a host of other issues have in common? They are all unsolvable problems.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Oh boy here we go again is right. Blame FN's for the downfall of IFS - OMG.

Even Rob Bison's research points to pinniped predation as the main factor to address if we want to see the most recovery benefit for energy expended. Those are the facts. Not making it up. Yes, it would be great if we could transition towards more selective harvest practices. Yes, I would love to see gill nets in rivers banned. But, if I was to choose just one thing to address, it would be to significantly reduce pinniped predation in-river and also in the near-shore early ocean entry period where smolts are highly susceptible. Especially smolts that are larger in size which represent a tasty meal. The larger the out-migrant smolt, the poorer they are performing when it comes to early ocean entry survival. Steelhead are the largest out-migrant smolts of all the pacific salmonids, so little wonder we are seeing coast-wide challenges for steelhead - even on remote rivers where there are no active fisheries.

Oh boy, time to shift the narrative to something that matters......, and the DFO hate spin is getting a tad tiring.

The notion of eliminating thousands of seals from the Salish Sea is certain to be rejected by the large majority of British Columbia’s population that resides on the perimeter of that water and has been conditioned to love seals, sea lions and all they represent. The pinniped advocates will be quick to exploit uncertainty expressed by the experts. For example, consider a couple of recent quotes:

“There is obviously no proof one way or the other about pinniped impacts on salmon and steelhead; we have correlative studies, along with simple calculations of potential consumption over periods of risk exposure to check whether the correlations are even biologically possible.”

“There’s not enough evidence that seals and sea lions are to blame for poor salmon stocks. Reducing seal and sea lion numbers could impact transient killer whales, which feed on them.”


The first is from Dr. Walters, the ultimate proponent of pinniped harvest. The second is from Dr. Andrew Trites, the acknowledged expert on marine mammals in British Columbia. How much more ammunition do pinniped lovers need to counter arguments advanced by those who contend those same pinnipeds are “the” problem?

A last issue I bring forward for consideration by all those who have satisfied themselves absence of major reduction in the seal population eliminates any prospect of recovery of Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead is the Coquihalla summer steelhead stock. That stock has been monitored annually over the same period as Thompson. The respective figures raise serious doubts about cause and effect.

Clearly the Coquihalla (a small coastal summer steelhead stream tributary to the Fraser about 160 km inland) has not experienced the same unidirectional trend as the Thompson over the past two decades. Then consider the relative amount and quality of steelhead producing habitat in the former is a tiny fraction of that available in the latter. In fact the Coquihalla was subjected to serious habitat abuse by both highway and pipeline construction. There was also a major slide event between 2014 and 2015 that limited the ability of a large proportion of returning adults to access normal reproductive habitats (light blue in the figure). There is absolutely nothing to suggest smolts from the two systems are different in size, that they emigrate via different routes or at different times or that they pasture in different areas of the Central North Pacific. As returning adults one can only assume they travel the same routes and are exposed to the same commercial fisheries and suite of predators.

The only difference between these two stocks is their immigration timing. Coquihalla fish immigrate at or near the peak of the annual Fraser freshet when water velocities and debris are at seasonal maximum and limit gill net fishing effort. Coquihalla steelhead have not been subjected to anywhere near the same in-river gill net pressure as have their later returning Thompson cousins whose timing mirrors major increases in First Nations gil fisheries primarily targeting hatchery supported chum salmon.

Those who support computer models that point accusing fingers at seals have never acknowledged the Coquihalla contrast. In fact I’m not convinced any of them are even aware of a data set that flies in the face of their models. I need them to explain that contrast and why eliminating gill net fisheries is not the one and only factor directly under our control that would produce an immediate increase in the abundance of Thompson (and Chilcotin) spawners. I’m not naive enough to believe eliminating the gill nets responsible for the demise of those endangered steelhead is politically acceptable but I am convinced model outputs based on major uncertainty and even greater political opposition are not the hill to die on.

Pinnipeds – Models and Realities

Two events of the past week prompt me to offer some observations on advocacy from some prolific voices convinced that ridding the Salish Sea of a substantial number and proportion (half?) of the es…

steelheadvoices.com

 

[Dave]

Just like fish farms, pinnipeds are a scapegoat for the far bigger picture ... overharvest and poor ocean survivals.

 

[part time]

Just like fish farms, pinnipeds are a scapegoat for the far bigger picture ... overharvest and poor ocean survivals.

OMG -- fish farms and pinnipeds.. It's too early in the morning for such nonsense

 

[searun]

Contrasting summer run steelhead survival with winter run fish is a poor example. Summer run steelhead have actually performed far better than their winter run cousins in many areas across the coast. A potential reason (as noted in the post) is run migration timing. Both out-migration smolt timing and in-migration adult timing are different with summers vs winters.

Other researchers are starting to conclude predation is a more significant factor in salmon declines than once thought. The tide of academic thinking is shifting. The challenge now is designing a framework to address predation. If predation is the limiting factor to what we observe as "ocean survival" there are 2 pinch points where migrating smolts or adults must traverse the predator trap. Timing places them at significant risk, especially if that migration timing coincides with when other target salmonid species are present in numbers that are attractive to predators gathering to take advantage. We are just starting to learn more about playing tricks on predators - some of the net pen projects are proving that point with much higher survival returns than the regular hatchery releases. Holding those smolts a few weeks to feed them and delay release timing into the near shore predator trap certainly has produced improved "ocean survival."

 

[onefish]

Good try on the winter run vs summer run angle, Coquihalla and Thompson steelhead are both summer runs, so the case being made is totally valid. The other point of interest is the Coquihalla fish don't have to run the gauntlet of Fraser Canyon nets, just the nets from Hope downriver.

 

[Whitebuck]

He is bang on with the Coquihalla summer run comment and high water.
Same with the Silver hope. Peak migration always has coincided with the freshet on the Fraser.

 

[searun]

Good try on the winter run vs summer run angle, Coquihalla and Thompson steelhead are both summer runs, so the case being made is totally valid. The other point of interest is the Coquihalla fish don't have to run the gauntlet of Fraser Canyon nets, just the nets from Hope downriver.

Run timing is way different, sorry. You can't be seriously trying to suggest these stocks have identical life histories? A few clips from the COSEWIC paper documenting Thompson Steelhead recovery - they are significantly different in life history, genetics and run timing:

"Steelhead Trout in the Thompson River and Chilcotin River are discrete from other Canadian Steelhead Trout based on genetic data, and also differ from each other. Thompson and Chilcotin Steelhead Trout likely evolved from fish isolated in the Columbia refugium during the last glaciation while other Canadian Steelhead Trout may have arisen from the Haida Gwaii refugium"


Here's some data on run timing for Thompson Steelhead:


Here's some historical info on run timing for Coquihalla Summer Runs:

"The Coquihalla River is one of a few rivers which supports both a "summer run" and a "winter" run of steelhead trout. The summer run of steelhead are in the river between mid June and late September, and the winter run is present from December to April."

Again, Thompson Steelhead are not genetically similar to lower Fraser steelhead - more info:

TCS = Thompson Chilcotin Steelhead MFS = Mid Fraser Steelhead

"In fact, the TCS (and MFS) were more similar genetically to Steelhead Trout from the upper Columbia River than they were to Steelhead Trout from the lower Fraser River (e.g., Chilliwack and Coquihalla rivers, Fig. 2 of Beacham et al. 2004). Furthermore, the TCS are part of the admixed south coast/interior phylogenetic group as inferred from mtDNA that is unique in BC (Fig. 9, 10 in McCusker et al. 2000; Fig. A2, A3). In addition, the Thompson River component of the TCS are discrete from the MFS as well as from the Chilcotin River Steelhead Trout (CRS) when assayed using these same microsatellite loci (98% bootstrap support). Allele frequency tests based on the microsatellite DNA data of Beacham et al. (2004) and four polymorphic allozyme loci studied by Parkinson (1984, Table 1), however, both indicate that the Chilcotin River Steelhead Trout are also significantly distinct from all three MFS samples (all P < 0.001, E. Taylor, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, unpublished results)."

Another interesting comment on the oft cited rescue effect faint hope that somehow trout populations will recover Thompson Steelhead - the current thinking is not likely.

Rescue Effect As noted earlier, freshwater-resident Rainbow Trout may produce offspring that become anadromous (e.g., Zimmerman and Reeves 2000). The same literature, however, also indicates that the phenomenon is a watershed-specific characteristic, and the extent to which this occurs within the Thompson and Chilcotin watersheds is not well known. Regardless, given the observed declines (Figure 1 and Figure 2), there is no evidence that any potential contribution of resident Rainbow Trout is mitigating the recent precipitous decline in Steelhead Trout or that it might do so in the future.

 

[onefish]

Run timing is way different, sorry. You can't be seriously trying to suggest these stocks have identical life histories?

You have to keep up. That is exactly the point he is trying to make. The one significant difference between the two runs is the Coquihalla summer runs come up the Fraser in the late spring/mid summer vs the Thompson summer runs which come up the Fraser late summer/fall ( yes the run timing is different ). They spawn at the same time and their smolts out migrate at the same time. The major difference is the timing of their respective migrations up past the wall of nets in the Fraser river.
Just spelling out his point again, gillnetting conditions in the spring/mid summer are lousy compared to the gillnetting conditions late summer/fall meanwhile both sets of smolt out migrate in the same area, at the same time, and are subject to identical predation pressure from seals/sea lions. Hence the case he is making about the gillnets being the major factor in the demise of the Thompson/Chilcotin steelhead not seals/sea lions.
I have no doubt those damn fur bags have an impact too but the point Bob is making is hard to refute.

 

[agentaqua]

well, attempting to change the narrative by trying to refute that seals dont take substantial numbers of salmon (particularly Chinook and coho) is pretty unsupported both with data and real-life experiences. His assertion that seals can't find salmon in the turbid waters of the Fraser is similarly not supported. Lots of watersheds on this coast that are turbid with seals and those seals find salmon pretty easy.

 

[OldBlackDog]

well, attempting to change the narrative by trying to refute that seals dont take substantial numbers of salmon (particularly Chinook and coho) is pretty unsupported both with data and real-life experiences. His assertion that seals can't find salmon in the turbid waters of the Fraser is similarly not supported. Lots of watersheds on this coast that are turbid with seals and those seals find salmon pretty easy.

So, do you actually think that DFO will allow a cull that might have an effect on salmon in the next 10 years?
Do you actually think the greens would allow this?

“There is obviously no proof one way or the other about pinniped impacts on salmon and steelhead; we have correlative studies, along with simple calculations of potential consumption over periods of risk exposure to check whether the correlations are even biologically possible.”

“There’s not enough evidence that seals and sea lions are to blame for poor salmon stocks. Reducing seal and sea lion numbers could impact transient killer whales, which feed on them.”


The first is from Dr. Walters, the ultimate proponent of pinniped harvest. The second is from Dr. Andrew Trites, the acknowledged expert on marine mammals in British Columbia. How much more ammunition do pinniped lovers need to counter arguments advanced by those who contend those same pinnipeds are “the” problem?

 

[Dave]

well, attempting to change the narrative by trying to refute that seals dont take substantial numbers of salmon (particularly Chinook and coho) is pretty unsupported both with data and real-life experiences. His assertion that seals can't find salmon in the turbid waters of the Fraser is similarly not supported. Lots of watersheds on this coast that are turbid with seals and those seals find salmon pretty easy.

agent, Bob is talking about predation on juvenile salmon. Do you honestly believe pinnipeds are targeting wild juvenile steelhead and chinook in the lower Fraser? Do you think that would be an efficient use of energy to acquire a mouthful?

 

[steeler]

The likelihood of increased predation on prey in serious decline defies natural logic, predation has stayed the same basically but numbers of prey have declined to the point at where those impacts are now being noticed. Salmon have always been preyed upon and likely in much higher numbers from seals and other natural predators the difference is our impact has brought numbers to an unsustainable amount and brought light to the other salmon eaters. Killing seals wont bring salmon and steelhead back if the rivers are now in longer and worse drought followed by who knows what in the winter, blowout or drought because of climate change and logged out watersheds.

 

[agentaqua]

Don't ask me that question, Dave - ask the seals.

There is substantial science/data as well as so-termed anecdotal (aka real-life) evidence that seals (esp. harbour) do take substantial numbers (upwards of ~50%) of outmigrating smolts (esp. Chinook & coho) from the tidal sections of rivers out to and including the coastal areas. They are also capable of zeroing-in on the larger smolts - which are most often the hatchery-reared ones. And steelhead smolts are among the largest (heaviest) outmigrating smolts.

Those published data on seal predation on juveniles include:

Impacts of harbour seals on Chinook and coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia

Historically, Chinook and coho were two of the most valuable commercial and recreational salmon species in western North America, particularly in the Salish Sea. However, marine survival rates of these species have declined dramatically since the 1970s as numbers of harbour seals increased. This...

cedar.wwu.edu

Harbour seals responded differently to pulses of out-migrating coho and Chinook smolts

Canadian Science Publishing

Canadian Science Publishing

In addition, I believe that the reason that pen-reared hatchery outplants (e.g. Chinook) do ~twice as well wrt ocean survival rates verses freshwater-released hatchery stock is because they get to avoid many of the predators in the lower river - including seals. And gill nets do not intercept juveniles, neither.

Those published data on preferential smolt sizes as prey include NELSON ET AL. 2019 - see Figure 8 on Page 13: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecs2.2922

Instead of reading someone's blog w unsupported assertions - I would recommend going back to the published science available.