1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
| |
1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program |
| Council document 94-55 | |
|
|
Contents
8.1 Develop Harvest Goals and Escapement Objectives
8.2 Adopt Exploitation Rates and Regimes
8.3 Develop Alternative Harvest Opportunities
8.4 Stock Identification
8.5 Pursue Other Harvest Measures
Because of the critical status of some salmon stocks and the need to realize the
benefits of changes in hydropower system operations and other restoration
efforts, the number of salmon harvested must be further limited to allow a
sufficient number of adult fish to return to spawn. In addition, the status of
some populations is unknown. Until more information is available for these fish
populations, conservative harvest strategies are needed. Those salmon that
return, called the ?escapement,? must do so in large enough numbers to
rebuild the populations, not just to sustain current low numbers.
Control of harvest, therefore, is a critical component in building a long-term, sustained increase in runs. That simple concept is the only thing that is simple about harvest. Harvest control is complicated by the fact that regulations fall under a number of jurisdictions, that there are mixed-stock fisheries and that the demand for harvestable salmon generally exceeds the supply.
Harvest has been shaped by decades of negotiations between the United States and Canada and by extensive litigation that has involved ocean, inriver, treaty and non-treaty fisheries.
A 1985 treaty between the United States and Canada provides for international management of stocks that migrate through the waters of both nations. The Pacific Salmon Commission, formed under that treaty, makes recommendations to both nations on the conduct of salmon fisheries. The treaty reduced interceptions of salmon returning to Northwest rivers. Stocks of chinook salmon, particularly upper river bright fall chinook from the Columbia River, benefited from the overall ceiling on chinook harvested in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries.
Importantly, the interception of Columbia River salmon by British Columbia is directly related to the interception of salmon of Canadian origin in U.S. fisheries (Alaska and Washington). Further reductions in the Canadian interception of Columbia River stocks will require northern Washington and Alaska fisheries to reduce interception of Canadian salmon stocks. Parties to the treaty met in 1994 to discuss revisions. An opportunity to further reduce the interceptions of weak stocks of Columbia River chinook salmon was lost due to a failure to agree on mutual reductions.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council manages salmon fisheries from three to 200 miles off the coast. State regulations that extend to three miles offshore must be consistent with Pacific Fishery Management Council regulations. Since 1980, commercial and recreational fisheries have been constrained in both season length and allowable harvest. Salmon seasons off Alaska are regulated by the State of Alaska and must be consistent with Pacific Salmon Commission recommendations.
The Columbia River Fish Management Plan, developed as part of the agreement reached under U.S. v. Oregon, established a process that the Columbia River Treaty tribes and state management agencies use to regulate tribal and non-tribal fisheries in the river. The state of Idaho, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and others are not signatories to this agreement. The plan sets specific goals, timetables and methods for cooperative management of salmon and steelhead stocks, including both natural and hatchery fish production and allocation of harvests.
The Columbia River Compact is the forum used to set commercial fishing regulations in the river. Congress ratified the agreement between Oregon and Washington for the regulation, preservation and protection of fish in waters over which the states share jurisdiction. The state of Idaho and the Indian tribes are not members of this compact. While the individual states set their own sport fishing regulations for the river, these regulations must complement previous agreements for conservation and allocation of other fisheries.
All the tribal governments involved in salmon and steelhead harvest have regulations to control and manage the harvest in tribal commercial, ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. These regulations are coordinated with state regulations and must also be consistent with conservation and allocation agreements.
In this harvest section, the Council makes no claim to regulatory authority. It clearly recognizes the fishery managers' jurisdiction and tribal treaty rights, and no measure is intended to affect or modify these rights. The Council also acknowledges that there has been substantial progress in harvest management over several decades, and that declines in harvest levels have come at considerable economic cost to tribal, coastal and inland communities.
Nevertheless, additional measures are necessary if the region is to meet its long-term goal of biological diversity by rebuilding weak runs and if it is to provide sustainable and adequate harvest levels for tribal, sport and commercial fisheries.
One of the major challenges harvest managers face is that the fisheries in both the ocean and mainstem Columbia River are mostly mixed-stock fisheries (see Section 8.3 for additional discussion of mixed-stock fisheries).
Another difficult and related problem is that there are more demands for salmon for harvest than there are harvestable fish. The fishing capability of commercial fleets is much larger than necessary to take the harvestable surplus of salmon each year. The recreational fishery also has grown over the years and is capable of harvesting large numbers of salmon. The large demand for salmon to harvest puts a great deal of pressure on the management systems to deliver the maximum number of fish for harvest. Inadequate information and budgets, and the variable nature of salmon, the environment and the fishing fleets -- all make it extremely difficult to precisely manage harvest impacts on weak stocks.
In the Columbia River Basin, the problem associated with mixed-stock fisheries results partially from operation of an increasing number of hatcheries. The mixed-stock fishery problem cannot be resolved without implementing a harvest management program that coordinates harvest of production from different areas and also is consistent with both hatchery and natural production. The solution also requires the development and implementation of complementary programs to increase the productivity and survival of wild and naturally spawning stocks throughout their life cycle. It is the Council's belief that progress in improved stock identification and in technology that permits selective fisheries has the potential for allowing greater harvest of strong stocks and greater protection of weak ones. Regional fisheries interests are particularly urged to press for additional gains in both areas.
The Council has developed measures in this section that call for:
The Council believes the measures in this section can and should be implemented by the Pacific Salmon Commission, Pacific Fishery Management Council, Columbia River Compact and other existing state and tribal management entities.
The Council also believes that the state of Idaho and the appropriate Columbia River Basin tribes, if they believe their membership is appropriate, should be included in the Columbia River Compact.
