I received this info via email today from help@coastsidefishingclub.com ........
"Coastside Fishing Club
Board of Directors Meeting
March 13, 2006
The Coastside BOD had an emergency meeting this evening to discuss and formulate our strategy for the current salmon crisis. In attendance were Chris Hall, Mike Giraudo, Bob Franko, Darrell Ticehurst, Don Lopker, Dan Wolford, Ben Sleeter, Marc Gorelnik, and Dick Poole from ASA. I want to first give you a recap of the discussion and then later address our strategy to deal with this very fluid situation.
Review of PFMC actions:
Many of you have seen the updates on the action taken by the PFMC at their meeting last week. Darrell started the meeting with an insiders perspective and I think it is important to review this material.
There are a couple major issues driving the current situation:
1. Endangered Species Listings of coastal Chinook (not the fall-run Klamath fish we have been hearing so much about) and fall-run Coho salmon.
2. The Floor for natural spawners of Klamath fall-run Chinook.
In 2002 there was a massive fish kill that resulted in the loss of between 60-70 THOUSAND adult fall-run Chinook. These fish did not get the opportunity to spawn.
The fish kill was a result of a parasite and virus that thrive in the river when water conditions are deteriorated (low flows result in warm water temps resulting in algal growth resulting in the spread of a host worm which the parasite and virus thrive in)
Mortality for fish infected with the parasite/virus is 100%
A study in 2004 showed that 90% of the out-migrants were infected.
A similar study in 2005 showed that 80% of the out-migrants were infected.
2006 shows good potential for the river as there are high flows and a good snow-pack.
Because of the infected fish in years since 2002 we are looking at a situation that will impact fishing until at least 2008-2009.
The agreement under the ESA listed fish calls for measure to be put in place by 2010. This means that no changes are expected in terms of water management until 2010 which will result in the situation not likely to change until 2013. Unless major changes happen before 2010 it is likely that our first return to a normal run would not be for another 7-8 years!
A very helpful table was presented that shows the relationship between recruits and spawners. This table focuses on the time period 1979-2000. In 12 of those years the Floor of 35,000 returning natural spawners was not met. In 10 of the years the Floor was met. What is very interesting about this data is the following:
In years where the Floor was not met the recruit to spawner ration was 8:1 (meaning for every spawner that went up the river 8 fish came out).
In years where the Floor was met the ratio drops to 1.3:1
The reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that a large run of spawners is not needed to have a larger number of juvenile fish. This is very important. Many factors are at play here but the fundamental conclusion is reasonable and is supported by the DFGs very own data.
Perhaps the most important factor in all of this is the way we use certain words. The Floor that we keep hearing about is referred to as a conservation objective. This is really a false statement. The Floor value is really a tool to achieve Optimum Yield (OY). This is a fishery management tool and not a traditional conservation tool. However, when people hear that the conservation floor is not met they assume the worst case scenario when in fact that is not remotely the case. The main point here is that even though the floor was not met (and has not been met in well over 50% of the years since 1979) the stock is still in decent shape. This is by no means an endangered species or even a threatened species it is a species that is having trouble but is by no means in danger of disappearing. With that said some fundamental changes must take place if we ever want to get this run back to its historical potential.
As if the situation is not bad enough we also have another problem the coastal Chinook (listed under the Endangered Species Act). The real problem here is that because there is no way to accurately count these fish, the Klamath fall-run Chinook is used as a proxy to determine their harvest rates.
The ESA allows for up to a 16% incidental harvest of these fish.
Over the past three years it is estimated (again based on the Klamath proxy) that the harvest was between 20%-38%.
This is a MAJOR fallacy because the model used is based on only the last three years on the Klamath because the model does not seem to work when previous years are incorporated (due to the fish kill in 2002 the model just does not work with the most recent data)
The conclusion here is that in addition to the troubles we face with the Klamath fall-run Chinook we also face a potential road block with regards to the ESA listed coastal Chinook.
NOAA is the official final authority on this matter. Our first step was to have the PFMC consider the Ticehurst Plan. We were successful in this regard as we have that as Option 1. Now we need the PFMC to adopt this plan and have NOAA approve it and this is where we face our biggest challenge. NOAA presented a letter to the PFMC and said we do not believe [any season] can be justified. Obviously we face an uphill battle here and this is where Phase Two of our strategy comes into play.
It is believed that the final decision on this matter will be made by the White House. Several months ago President Bush made it clear that salmon issues in the Pacific northwest would fall on fishermen not agricultural or industry. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1542100 The thing I hope you all take to heart here is it makes no difference if the administration is on the left or on the right. Partisan differences between fishers must be put aside if we have any chance at getting back this years (and future years) salmon seasons. The current administration has made it very clear that fishermen, both sport and commercial, will pay the price for the current salmon situations along the pacific coast and our job will be to convince them otherwise. It is our ONLY chance of getting anything back. I want to emphasize that this is not an attack from the environmental community or anybody else. It is based on the policies put in place over the past several years.
Our Plan
A. There will be two parts to this. The first will be a continuation of our letter writing campaign. However this time it will not be letters that we ask you to write and send via mail, but rather phone calls, faxes, and emails. The targets of this campaign will be:
President George W. Bush
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez
Local state congressional/senate representative
Your individual Federal Congress representative
We will be asking you to contact all of these individuals again by email, fax, and most importantly by phone. We will have a brochure printed and available for download that will highlight the major points we want to get across to these individuals. This will include both economic and conservation objectives. This should be ready in electronic format by Wednesday and in hard copy on Friday. We are going to need all of your help on this grassroots effort to get the word out. We will be urging you to get the literature in the hands of as many people and businesses as possible.
ASA is committed to working this issue from Washington D.C..
B. The other half of our effort will be a massive public showing at two upcoming meetings. The first will be at a public hearing in Santa Rosa and the second will be the PFMC meeting in Sacramento the first week of April. We will be coordinating busses to shuttle people to the PFMC meeting and will be encouraging as many of you as possible to spend as much time as you can in attendance. I realize this will be difficult for many but it is crucial that we make a major impact here. There will be national press attention throughout the week-long event and it is our hope that we can provide the added pressure to convince the PFMC to adopt Option 1.
This is just an outline for now of the strategy but I thought it important to let you all know what the overall strategy will be. The details are being worked out right now (times dates, literature) and we will be posting them in the coming days and weeks.
Please have some patience as there is just a ton of work that we have to do. I realize that everybody has ideas as to how they think we can fix the situation on the Klamath. While many ideas are useful they are not realistic solutions to the current problem Right now we need to focus on what is right in front of us and not get side tracked on issues of Indian fishing, ag interests, or sealions. Our primary goal at this juncture is to convince the White House that there is no reason to destroy our rich tradition of salmon fishing and cause a cascading economic catastrophe in light of the data available. What we are talking about is shutting down an entire industry both sport and commercial at the expense of a couple hundred Klamath fish. The literature I am putting together will synthesize this point and provide good talking points as to just what the real impacts will be.
Stay tuned."
"Coastside Fishing Club
Board of Directors Meeting
March 13, 2006
The Coastside BOD had an emergency meeting this evening to discuss and formulate our strategy for the current salmon crisis. In attendance were Chris Hall, Mike Giraudo, Bob Franko, Darrell Ticehurst, Don Lopker, Dan Wolford, Ben Sleeter, Marc Gorelnik, and Dick Poole from ASA. I want to first give you a recap of the discussion and then later address our strategy to deal with this very fluid situation.
Review of PFMC actions:
Many of you have seen the updates on the action taken by the PFMC at their meeting last week. Darrell started the meeting with an insiders perspective and I think it is important to review this material.
There are a couple major issues driving the current situation:
1. Endangered Species Listings of coastal Chinook (not the fall-run Klamath fish we have been hearing so much about) and fall-run Coho salmon.
2. The Floor for natural spawners of Klamath fall-run Chinook.
In 2002 there was a massive fish kill that resulted in the loss of between 60-70 THOUSAND adult fall-run Chinook. These fish did not get the opportunity to spawn.
The fish kill was a result of a parasite and virus that thrive in the river when water conditions are deteriorated (low flows result in warm water temps resulting in algal growth resulting in the spread of a host worm which the parasite and virus thrive in)
Mortality for fish infected with the parasite/virus is 100%
A study in 2004 showed that 90% of the out-migrants were infected.
A similar study in 2005 showed that 80% of the out-migrants were infected.
2006 shows good potential for the river as there are high flows and a good snow-pack.
Because of the infected fish in years since 2002 we are looking at a situation that will impact fishing until at least 2008-2009.
The agreement under the ESA listed fish calls for measure to be put in place by 2010. This means that no changes are expected in terms of water management until 2010 which will result in the situation not likely to change until 2013. Unless major changes happen before 2010 it is likely that our first return to a normal run would not be for another 7-8 years!
A very helpful table was presented that shows the relationship between recruits and spawners. This table focuses on the time period 1979-2000. In 12 of those years the Floor of 35,000 returning natural spawners was not met. In 10 of the years the Floor was met. What is very interesting about this data is the following:
In years where the Floor was not met the recruit to spawner ration was 8:1 (meaning for every spawner that went up the river 8 fish came out).
In years where the Floor was met the ratio drops to 1.3:1
The reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that a large run of spawners is not needed to have a larger number of juvenile fish. This is very important. Many factors are at play here but the fundamental conclusion is reasonable and is supported by the DFGs very own data.
Perhaps the most important factor in all of this is the way we use certain words. The Floor that we keep hearing about is referred to as a conservation objective. This is really a false statement. The Floor value is really a tool to achieve Optimum Yield (OY). This is a fishery management tool and not a traditional conservation tool. However, when people hear that the conservation floor is not met they assume the worst case scenario when in fact that is not remotely the case. The main point here is that even though the floor was not met (and has not been met in well over 50% of the years since 1979) the stock is still in decent shape. This is by no means an endangered species or even a threatened species it is a species that is having trouble but is by no means in danger of disappearing. With that said some fundamental changes must take place if we ever want to get this run back to its historical potential.
As if the situation is not bad enough we also have another problem the coastal Chinook (listed under the Endangered Species Act). The real problem here is that because there is no way to accurately count these fish, the Klamath fall-run Chinook is used as a proxy to determine their harvest rates.
The ESA allows for up to a 16% incidental harvest of these fish.
Over the past three years it is estimated (again based on the Klamath proxy) that the harvest was between 20%-38%.
This is a MAJOR fallacy because the model used is based on only the last three years on the Klamath because the model does not seem to work when previous years are incorporated (due to the fish kill in 2002 the model just does not work with the most recent data)
The conclusion here is that in addition to the troubles we face with the Klamath fall-run Chinook we also face a potential road block with regards to the ESA listed coastal Chinook.
NOAA is the official final authority on this matter. Our first step was to have the PFMC consider the Ticehurst Plan. We were successful in this regard as we have that as Option 1. Now we need the PFMC to adopt this plan and have NOAA approve it and this is where we face our biggest challenge. NOAA presented a letter to the PFMC and said we do not believe [any season] can be justified. Obviously we face an uphill battle here and this is where Phase Two of our strategy comes into play.
It is believed that the final decision on this matter will be made by the White House. Several months ago President Bush made it clear that salmon issues in the Pacific northwest would fall on fishermen not agricultural or industry. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1542100 The thing I hope you all take to heart here is it makes no difference if the administration is on the left or on the right. Partisan differences between fishers must be put aside if we have any chance at getting back this years (and future years) salmon seasons. The current administration has made it very clear that fishermen, both sport and commercial, will pay the price for the current salmon situations along the pacific coast and our job will be to convince them otherwise. It is our ONLY chance of getting anything back. I want to emphasize that this is not an attack from the environmental community or anybody else. It is based on the policies put in place over the past several years.
Our Plan
A. There will be two parts to this. The first will be a continuation of our letter writing campaign. However this time it will not be letters that we ask you to write and send via mail, but rather phone calls, faxes, and emails. The targets of this campaign will be:
President George W. Bush
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez
Local state congressional/senate representative
Your individual Federal Congress representative
We will be asking you to contact all of these individuals again by email, fax, and most importantly by phone. We will have a brochure printed and available for download that will highlight the major points we want to get across to these individuals. This will include both economic and conservation objectives. This should be ready in electronic format by Wednesday and in hard copy on Friday. We are going to need all of your help on this grassroots effort to get the word out. We will be urging you to get the literature in the hands of as many people and businesses as possible.
ASA is committed to working this issue from Washington D.C..
B. The other half of our effort will be a massive public showing at two upcoming meetings. The first will be at a public hearing in Santa Rosa and the second will be the PFMC meeting in Sacramento the first week of April. We will be coordinating busses to shuttle people to the PFMC meeting and will be encouraging as many of you as possible to spend as much time as you can in attendance. I realize this will be difficult for many but it is crucial that we make a major impact here. There will be national press attention throughout the week-long event and it is our hope that we can provide the added pressure to convince the PFMC to adopt Option 1.
This is just an outline for now of the strategy but I thought it important to let you all know what the overall strategy will be. The details are being worked out right now (times dates, literature) and we will be posting them in the coming days and weeks.
Please have some patience as there is just a ton of work that we have to do. I realize that everybody has ideas as to how they think we can fix the situation on the Klamath. While many ideas are useful they are not realistic solutions to the current problem Right now we need to focus on what is right in front of us and not get side tracked on issues of Indian fishing, ag interests, or sealions. Our primary goal at this juncture is to convince the White House that there is no reason to destroy our rich tradition of salmon fishing and cause a cascading economic catastrophe in light of the data available. What we are talking about is shutting down an entire industry both sport and commercial at the expense of a couple hundred Klamath fish. The literature I am putting together will synthesize this point and provide good talking points as to just what the real impacts will be.
Stay tuned."