WDFW seeks comments / PS Rockfish Plan

[Pipe Dream]

If anyone was doubting the ability of ling to take large fish take a look at this video! Chinook as bait?

YouTube - another way to catch Salmon

[Plus1]

Would anyone else like to hear WDFW weigh in on this seal issue ? The number of seals and sea lions has increased significantly since this report was written.

More info from NOAA, available at this web-site;
NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-45: Approaches to Evaluating Risk of Extinction

The WDFW fishing regulations have reduced human exploitation rates to low levels, however, pinniped exploitation of herring may have increased. Herring-survey biologists have observed increased nocturnal occurrences of harbor seals near schools of herring and concurrent changes in herring schooling behavior (West 1997).

Two species of pinnipeds, California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), that are common in Puget Sound and British Columbia exploit herring. Schmitt et al. (1995) estimated that herring comprised 6% of the diet of California sea lions in Puget Sound during the 1986-1994 period. Total fish consumption by California sea lions in Puget Sound was estimated to be 830 mt per year (NMFS 1997). Thus about 50 mt (0.06 X 830) of herring were consumed by California sea lions per year in Puget Sound during the 1986-1994 period. Large aggregations of California sea lions were not reported in Puget Sound until 1979 (Schmitt et al. 1995), numbers increased through 1986, and then fluctuated without trend (Schmitt et al. 1995, and J. Laake6). California sea lions also occur in British Columbia waters but estimates of their consumption of herring were not available.

More data are available on Pacific harbor seals in British Columbia waters than for Puget Sound. Olesiuk et al. (1990) estimated that harbor seals consumed 3,206 mt of herring in the Canadian Strait of Georgia (CSG) during 1988, which represented 9.6% of the herring spawning biomass (Table 5). They estimated that herring comprised 32.4% of harbor seal diet in 1988. NMFS (1997) estimated that harbor seals consumed 14,997 mt of prey in Washington inland waters during 1993. If herring comprised 32.4% of the diet of Washington harbor seals, they would have consumed 4,859 mt (5,356 tons) of herring in Washington's inland waters in 1993, which represented 34.9% of estimates of spawning biomass of herring for 1993 (Table 6). While herring biomass was not estimated for all areas and harbor seals consume immature as well as mature herring, it appears that harbor seals could be a significant source of mortality for Washington populations of herring and could account for some of the increases estimated for non-fishing mortality (Bargmann 1998). NMFS (1997) estimated that harbor seals in Washington waters increased at 7.7% annually between 1978 and 1993. They did not provide rate of increase for inland waters alone. Herring are also reported to be an important prey item for harbor porpoises in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Gearin et al. 1994).

[Pipe Dream]

So this raises the question of whether increased pinniped populations have significantly reduced herring populations and to then address whether this has:

1. Threatened some of those distinct populations (I believe one spawning area in the Anacortes area (Cherry Point?) is almost gone.

2. If there has been a reduced herring biomass has that caused a significant reduction in the food source for rockfish therefore reducing growth rate and consequently delaying achievement of sexual maturity thereby inhibiting reproductive growth potential (fecundity rate) over time?

3. If, as suggested by the literature, seals are at or near carrying capacity has a reduction in availability of herring caused seals (and other pinnipeds) to place more emphasis on alternative food sources available year around (such as rockfish)?

And they gave "Food Web" a Stressor rating of "Moderate" in the draft plan!

Given the uproar over removing a few identified problem sealions at the Ballard Locks (resulting in the decimation of native steelhead in Lake Washington tribs) and at Bonneville does one have to wonder why NOAA has had this building crisis in rockfish populations on its plate and done noting despite its own researchers' recommendations about the growth of seal populations and its impact on other species. No, easier to avoid that political hornets nest and dump on the State and (since the State doesn't want those same hornets) on fishermen.

We need some intellectual honesty represented in a revised draft plan to be resubmitted for review and comment with adequate time for the public to meaningfully review the draft plan and underlying literature/data.

[Plus1]

Originally Posted by Pipe Dream

We need some intellectual honesty represented in a revised draft plan to be resubmitted for review and comment with adequate time for the public to meaningfully review the draft plan and underlying literature/data.

I totally agree. Why would NOAA accept the proposal when it does not identify conservation measures recommended by NOAA that will protect declining populations of rockfish, herring, salmon, steelhead, and Orcas.

Here is an interesting statistic derived from the NOAA reports, assuming that harbor seal diet is 12% rockfish as reported by WDFW and each rockfish weighs in at 2 pounds (easy math).

35,325 rockfish were encountered by recreational fishermen in Washington State 2009, draft PSRCP page 24.

187 harbor seals eat the same number of rockfish each year.

I would be happy to go through the math with you, if anyone is interested.

[Pipe Dream]

Another way of looking at these same numbers:

For comparative purposes the plan includes an annual sportfishing rockfish C&K figure of roughly 11,500 rockfish (not including C&R mortality). The plan suggests a goal is to reduce the opportunity for sportfishing encounters with rockfish. That sounds innocuous but the devil is always in the details as well as future interpretations (this plan needs a lot more details of what will and will not be promoted in discrete projects). If each seal consumes 123 rockfish per year (calculated using the data in the draft Plan) the sportfishing rockfish C&K of 11,500 represents the annual rockfish consumption of 93.5 seals.

The seal population is growing at 12% per year calculated using the 1999 P.S. population of 8,949 (Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-99 Huber and Laake) and 14,000 for 2007 as stated in the plan. Applying the 12% growth rate to the plan's documented 2007 population of 14,000 seals yields an increase of 1,680 seals. Compare that to sportfishing's C&K of 93.5 seal equivalents. Any rockfish "savings" eeked out of the sportfishing community will be merely a burp at the seal dinner table.

By the way, the plan also identifies 800-1000 Steller sea lions (a species listed under the ESA) as occupying the San Juans in the fall and winter months. If half are females @ 660 pounds and the other half males at 1230 # (avg of 1300-2500 # range) total Steller poundage is 1,107,000. Applying the .04 daily consumption of body weight (the plan for seals) equals 44,280 pounds per day X 365 equals 16,162,200 per year. Apply the .083 figure for rockfish in Steller skat yields 1,341,463. Divide that in half since they are only there fall and winter (6 months) yields 670,730 pounds of rockfish or 335,365. There are some shaky factors in this but in any case Steller predation is still large and may be more of an impact on the deeper water rockfish due to the Steller's deep diving capabilities. Is this where the Endangered Bocaccio, have gone?

Consequently, any plan which fails to recognize and address the huge and growing impact of seals (and other pinnipeds) not only is flawed (intentionally??) and doomed to also fail in its goal; in this case rockfish recovery.

[KeyWest]

Interesting.....

I read section 6 - the "Stock Assessment" section. Using that same logic, if rock fishing is disallowed in Puget Sound, and thus the recreational catch goes to zero - then it proves rockfish have gone extinct.

Hard to believe someone would even publish something like this.

[Plus1]

All, thanks for attending the meetings, representing sport fishing interests, the reports, and sharing information. I really appreciate everyone's comments and getting to meet some of the good people concerned with this issue, working together to make positive changes.

A lot of data and information available to get into those letters for WDFW. I could use more time, holidays coming and life continues.

I really appreciate WDFW presentation by Greg Bargmann and Wayne Palsson. It is good to know that these incredibly knowledgeable folks are wrestling this issue. An amazing amount of work done by those gentlemen for the Washington state fisheries. They put out extraordinary efforts to get the meetings done on short timetable and deserve a lot of credit for their professionalism. No doubt they could use a weekend off to get a break from the job.

THANK YOU !