Saving Seafood

Washington’s Anti-Gillnet Bill Draws Strong Support, Opposition in Committee Hearing

February 14, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Washington Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks held a hearing Tuesday on SB 5617, the anti-gillnet bill, and testifiers on both sides of the issue had strong feelings about the bill.

As introduced, SB 5617 would mandate the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife develop a three-phase program for purchasing and retirement of nontribal salmon gillnets by Dec. 31, 2022. However, no appropriations for buying out the permits was included in the bill. It would effectively eliminate gillnet fisheries in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Washington side of the Columbia River.

Chief sponsor Sen. Jesse Salomon, a Democrat and vice chair of the committee, introduced the hearing by saying gillnets are the only non-selective gear allowed in Washington waters and said they are not the best management tool for managing salmon, particularly ESA-listed species.

Sport fishermen were the primary supporters of the bill. The arguments and tensions surrounding the issue mirrored controversies and arguments heard on the Columbia River about the reforms put in place six years ago designed to move gillnets off the main river.

Sport fishermen and guides said their fishing and business was dropping and that the only solution was to eliminate gillnetting. Furthermore, recreational fishing is big business and that should count toward support of the bill.

“Our industry is a transfer of wealth from urban to rural Washington,” said Mark Bush, an northwest guide and angler. Furthermore, some guides have had to reduce their rates or start guiding on inland fisheries to make up for business losses, he added.

Commercial fishermen and processors countered that idea.

The problem is not with gillnets, they said, but with hatchery production. More hatchery-produced salmon would benefit both sport and commercial fishermen. And, they said, it would benefit the southern resident killer whales whose main diet is salmon.

“Our delegation, our association in Bellingham is against this bill, …” said Shannon Moore, a Puget Sound gillnetter. “This bill will not accomplish anything expect putting families out of business.”

Moore also noted a letter from Ron Garner, president of the Puget Sound Anglers, that was posted on SquidPro Tackle’s Salmon Chronicles website, mentioned the unintended consequences of banning gillnets. SB5617 would stop hatchery production increases, Garner wrote.

“It does not address the ESA requirement of commercial clean up or commercial netting to stop the excess hatchery fish on spawning beds. This state bill removes the tool in the tool box that allows those increases to happen. There are ways to work with the commercials to adjust but this is flat out to remove them and going to stop hatchery increases dead in its tracks.

“Our commercials are the ones tasked to clean up excess hatchery fish, allowing us to make more fish for our Orcas, communities, and fishers of Washington. This is law in today’s world that cannot be ignored, until newer science is adopted, which is being working on. While the general public thinks it is the right thing to do, they do not understand the full dynamics and end result it will be bring,” the letter continued.

The letter also showed a graph of orca populations trending down at the same time salmon hatchery production dropped off over several years.

Shortly after Moore’s testimony and mention of Garner’s letter, committee chair Sen. Kevin Van De Wege said Garner sent him an email rescinding that letter.

Some of Washington’s tribes also opposed the bill. The Lummi Nation representative, Lisa Wilson, said it would negatively impact the tribe, despite the bill’s wording of “non-tribal” gillnets. The Quileute Tribe also opposed the bill based on four premises: it did not acknowledge the status of tribes; it was written on the false premise that gillnets are non-selective; it also included the false premise that mark-selective fisheries would always protect wild stocks; and that it’s time for all fishermen — sport, tribal, commercial — to come together to work on the real issues affecting salmon management and orca declines.

Salmon For All’s Jim Wells, a gillnetter, made the point that there is “… no biological reason for banning gillnets.”

The committee room was packed, with several audience members seated in a nearby overflow room. More than 67 people signed up to speak. Due to time constraints, each person was limited to one minute of testimony. The future of the bill is uncertain and it may not move out of committee as it is rumored some of the co-sponsors are re-considering their supporting position.

This story was originally published by SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Killing Sea Lions to Save Salmon

January 31, 2019 — The following is excerpted from a story published today by The Atlantic:

Let us first establish that sea lions are supposed to live in the sea.

Since the 1990s, however, male sea lions—a handful at first, now dozens—have been captivated by the attractions of the Willamette River. They travel all the way from Southern California to Oregon and then swim up 100 miles of river to arrive at an expansive waterfall, the largest in the region. Here, salmon returning to spawn have to make an exhausting journey up the fish ladders of the Willamette Falls. And here, the sea lions have found a veritable feast.

“[They’re kind of sitting ducks,” the wildlife biologist Sheanna Steingass told me, describing the salmon. She paused to consider the metaphor. “Or sitting fish.” Every sea lion eats three to five fish a day.

In another world, this could just be a story about the intelligence of sea lions and their adaptability to river life. But in this world—where salmon populations throughout North America have plummeted, and where the winter steelhead run at Willamette Falls has fallen from 25,000 fish in the 1970s to just hundreds in 2018—it’s a dire story for the fish. After spending years trying and failing to deter the sea lions by nonlethal means, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, where Steingass leads the marine-mammal program, started “lethal removal” of sea lions in December. As of mid-January, they have trapped and euthanized five sea lions at Willamette Falls.

Killing animals to save other animals is always controversial. Animal-rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States denounced the sea-lion killings, calling them a distraction from the salmon’s real problems. And it’s true that a long chain of human actions—overfishing, destruction of salmon habitats, dams blocking their migration, hatchery mistakes—have led to what everyone can admit is this nonoptimal situation.

“In a perfect world, in an unaltered world, this wasn’t a problem, because historically there were 16 million salmon in the Columbia River,” says Doug Hatch, a senior fisheries scientist at the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. The sea lion’s appetites would have barely made a dent. It’s only because humans have so unbalanced the natural world that as drastic an action as culling sea lions could appear to be the fix.

Read the full story at The Atlantic

 

U.S. Senate passes bill making it easier to kill sea lions on Columbia River

December 10, 2018 — A bill that would make it easier to kill sea lions that feast on imperiled salmon in the Columbia River has cleared the U.S. Senate.

State wildlife managers say rebounding numbers of sea lions are eating more salmon than ever and their appetites are undermining billions of dollars of investments to restore endangered fish runs.

Senate Bill 3119, which passed Thursday by unanimous consent, would streamline the process for Washington, Idaho, Oregon and several Pacific Northwest Native American tribes to capture and euthanize potentially hundreds of sea lions found in the river east of Portland, Oregon.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at KATU

Brad Warren & Julia Sanders: Washington’s Initiative 1631 will help fight ocean acidification

November 2, 2018 — We write today to announce our support for Washington’s Initiative 1631. As businesses who rely on healthy fisheries for a significant portion of our income, we believe this is a well-designed policy that offers us – and our customers – the best possible chance against an uncertain future fraught with the threats of changing ocean conditions.

It’s become clear that our fisheries need a lifeline. Here in Washington, we are experiencing the worst ocean acidification anywhere in the world. Research has firmly established the cause of this problem: emissions from burning coal, oil and gas mix into the ocean, altering its chemistry. The consequences loomed into headlines a decade ago when the oyster industry lost millions and nearly went out of business during the oyster seed crisis. Temporary and limited adaptation measures in hatcheries are keeping them in business, but in the rest of the oceans, fisheries that put dinner on billions of tables are at risk. Here in the Northwest, harvests are already being eroded and even shut down by the effects of unchecked carbon emissions.

The “warm blob,” an unprecedented marine heatwave off the West Coast, reached its height in 2015 and caused mass fatalities. In the Columbia River, a quarter-million salmon died. The largest recorded toxic algae bloom shut down the Dungeness crab fishery for months. The food web crashed, and marine creatures were spotted farther north than ever before. Sea surface temperatures never returned to their previous norm, and new research indicates another blob is forming.

Summers have become synonymous with a smoky haze from wildfires causing poor visibility and poor health – this summer the National Weather Service warned even healthy adults in some Washington areas to stay indoors due to hazardous air quality. At the same time, our iconic orca whales are starving from a lack of Chinook salmon. The Chinook in turn are suffering from a lack of the zooplankton that juveniles eat.

Research has made it clear that some of our most lucrative fisheries are vulnerable to ocean acidification: king crab, Dungeness crab, and salmon. Scientists also warm that combining stressors – like warming with ocean acidification – makes survival in the ocean all the more precarious.

Read the full op-ed at Seafood Source

 

WASHINGTON: Columbia River commercial fishery could hinge on century-old method

October 30, 2018 — A series of nets strung between pilings just off the Columbia River shore may offer a glimpse of the future of commercial fishing in the river, even though it harkens back to the fishing practices of a century ago.

But some gillnetters say that the experimental fish trap, also known as a pound net, is just another unworkable idea for catching salmon that threatens their livelihoods.

One morning last week, researchers from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Wild Fish Conservancy worked the fish trap set in the Columbia a few miles upstream of Cathlamet, near Nassa Point.

“There is no other site like this in the lower river,” said Adrian Tuohy, a biologist for the Fish Conservancy. “It’s a great scientific monitoring tool.”

One net blocks adult fish from swimming near the shore, steering them through a series of other nets that trap them. Then workers tug on lines and pulleys to dump the fish into a submerged sorting box about the size of a refrigerator.

Aaron Jorgenson, a biologist for the Fish Conservancy, donned waders and hopped into the box to identify the fish. Tuohy netted hatchery coho and dumped them into a box with ice — those fish are sold to a fish buyer. Wild fish are tagged and allowed to swim upstream. Tiny radio transmitters are implanted so the fish can be tracked as they swim past upstream dams.

Read the full story at The Daily News

Judge rules EPA must protect salmon from rising water temperatures in Washington

October 29, 2018 — A U.S. Federal Court in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. has issued a ruling that is intended to protect salmon and steelhead trout in the Columbia River basin from rising water temperatures.

In the mile-long lakes created by hydropower dams on the rivers, the water temperature has often exceeded 70 degrees Fahrenheit for days at a time, though the Clean Water Act bars the temperature in the river from exceeding 68 degrees. Cold water species such as sockeye and steelhead become stressed at temperatures over 68 degrees and stop migrating when the temperature exceeds 74 degrees.

The ruling instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the species. The EPA will, within 60 days, come up with a “comprehensive plan to deal with dams’ impact on water temperature and salmon survival,” according to Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brett VandenHeuvel, one of the plaintiffs of the case, which was initially filed in February 2017. Other conservation and fishermens’ groups were plaintiffs in the suit as well: Idaho Rivers United, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Snake River Waterkeeper, and The Institute for Fisheries Resources.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

OREGON: Kitz for the kill: Ousted gov. back to fight gillnets

October 26, 2018 — Oregon’s former Gov. John Kitzhaber apparently loves to hate Columbia River commercial fishing.

In 2012, the Coastal Conservation Association successfully wooed Kitzhaber, convincing him propose that the state ban salmon gillnetters from the main stem of the Columbia River with the hopes that despite years of testing to the contrary, they would miraculously find seine nets to be more selective than gillnets in taking wild salmon (as opposed to hatchery salmon).

Before he resigned from office in 2015 (an investigation led to citations from the Oregon Ethics Commission for using his office for personal gain and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest), Kitzhaber championed a ban and struck a deal in 2013 with the joint commission that has managed the river with Washington’s fisheries counterparts for 100 years.

In 2017, the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission threatened to withdraw from the joint agreement but ultimately compromised to bring the states back into co-management.

Five years after the 2013 agreement, the joint commission is conducting a comprehensive review, and Oregon officials are threatening again to make a (gasp!) data-based decision to allow the use of gillnets on the main stem of the Columbia River.

Enter Kitzhaber: drumming up support for his ill-advised and poorly implemented plan of old with PSAs on gillnetskill.com.

The flip side of the Kitzhaber deal — as is often the case with CCA plans — was to transition the commercial quota to the recreational fleet. The result was a high mortality rate among the fish they had hoped to conserve by reallocating those “protected” fish to the sport sector. Imagine that!

Data gathered over several years indicate that gillnets do not have the effect on fish that advocates of the Kitzhaber plan estimated, or that other types of gear were more selective.

Yet here we are again, dodging the mudslingers in another fish fight. Science is on our side, but the lobbying dollars may not be.

This story originally appeared on National Fisherman, it is republished herewith permission.

HEATHER HANSON: Fish-friendly development is cost effective for taxpayers

October 24, 2018 — As Alaskans are faced with the question of whether or not to support Proposition 1 in the upcoming election, I want to share my experience working as a civil engineer in the salmon habitat restoration field. I started my career working on projects in the 1990s to retrofit the dams on the Columbia River in Washington state. We poured hundreds of millions of dollars into floating fish passage structures, drilling tunnels and trucking fish around the dams with very little result. It is now widely accepted that dams have a pretty negative impact on salmon runs.

I now live in Alaska and work on stream restoration and fish passage here. The undersized culverts on many of our existing road stream crossings act like small dams that make it difficult for adult salmon to get upstream to spawn. They are an even bigger problem for juvenile salmon that spend up to four years in fresh water before heading out to the ocean. Juvenile salmon need to move between their summer and winter homes in the small streams and lakes that make up their habitat in order to find food in the summer and avoid ice packed streams in the winter. Culverts are such a problem that the Department of Fish and Game has been assessing culverts around the state since 2001 for their ability to pass fish. On the Fish and Game website, you can see if there are undersized culverts in your neighborhood that are blocking fish passage.

Another problem for salmon in Alaska has been the destruction of vegetation in the riparian areas, or the areas along the banks of rivers and streams. This vegetation provides shade, hiding places and food for fish and helps protect against bank erosion. Many landowners who live along Alaska’s rivers have also discovered that removing vegetation leads to accelerated bank erosion and are now investing in replanting these banks to protect their land with the help of state and federal tax dollars.

Habitat restoration is a slow, expensive process that is largely funded by federal and local taxpayer dollars. We have learned a lot about how to build fish friendly infrastructure during the past 30 years, and this infrastructure has also greatly reduced maintenance and flood damage costs. For these reasons, the municipality of Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough and the Kenai Borough have passed ordinances to protect salmon habitat. In areas of the state without adequate protections, there are still undersized culverts being installed that prevent salmon from getting to their habitat and changes to riparian areas that reduce habitat quality. A recently published article in the Alaska Business Magazine has some good information on the long-term cost benefits of doing it right the first time when it comes to building roads over streams.

Read the full opinion piece at Anchorage Daily News

RAMONA DENIES: Should Oregon Kill Sea Lions to Save the Salmon?

October 18, 2018 — Used to be, they’d show up at Willamette Falls around late November—beefy males here to bulk up and loll on the docks. Call it sea lion winter break; time off from California’s Channel Islands rookeries, beaucoup steelhead to eat, zero problems. (No pups, no ladies, no predators.) When it was time to head back south, a 400-pound sea lion might have doubled in size, having chowed down on, at minimum, three 15-pound Pacific Northwest salmonids a day.

Nowadays, these party boys are arriving earlier and staying later. And they’re not just loitering in Oregon City. They also mob the Columbia River, particularly around January, for chinook on their way to spawning grounds—eating, by one report, as much as 45 percent of some salmon runs, a feast season that now draws out through June.

“They’ve learned that in April and May there’s a pretty good buffet,” says Robert Anderson, a fishery biologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Particularly over the past four to five years, there’s been a good uptick in the California sea lions that go to Willamette Falls.”

The result, warned Oregon’s Department of Fish & Wildlife in a 2017 study, is a 90 percent chance some of the Columbia River’s already struggling salmon populations will soon go extinct. And that’s causing some Northwest legislators to take aim at sea lions.

The irony here? Both species are protected by federal law—salmon (steelhead, chinook) by the 1973 Endangered Species Act and sea lions (California and Steller’s) by the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. That means state, federal, and tribal agencies’ hands are tied when it comes to lethally removing hungry sea lions from river systems—like the mid-Columbia—where historically they’ve never been. According to Charles Hudson of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, that’s the choice we have to make: do we kill one species to save another?

Read the full opinion piece at Portland Monthly

OREGON: State compensation for gillnetters trickles down

October 11, 2018 — Money local commercial salmon fishermen will soon receive as compensation after reform policies pushed them off the Columbia River is “not nothing.” But it’s not quite something, either.

“It means a little bit of a paycheck,” said David Quashnick, a gillnetter who has been fishing since he was a teenager and now has two sons who run their own boats. “It’s not enough. I would rather be fishing and not having to worry about free money.”

Clatsop County informed 129 commercial gillnetters in September that they were eligible for a cut of the $500,000 set aside in the state’s Columbia River Transition Fund to compensate them for direct economic losses and reimburse them for gear.

This month, county officials said 124 fishermen had responded and applied for around $460,000 worth of the pot as of last week.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will give final approval for how the county intends to distribute the funds, but Theresa Dursse, executive assistant and clerk for the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners, said the county hopes to start cutting checks to fishermen soon. Fishermen who applied for compensation for economic losses will receive checks ranging from a mere $56 to the maximum $8,750. Fishermen who applied for reimbursement for gear will receive up to $2,750.

Gillnets, which hang vertically in the water and catch fish by the gills, were phased off the Columbia River main stem after former Gov. John Kitzhaber introduced a harvest reform plan in 2012. The plan, commonly referred to as the Kitzhaber Plan or Columbia River Reform, was pitched as a way to protect wild salmon and steelhead runs by replacing gillnet gear with more selective types of equipment.

The remaining gillnet fishermen were shifted to off-river, or “select areas,” like Youngs Bay.

Read the full story at The Daily Astorian