A Copper River king salmon just back from the sea/Craig Medred photo
NOAA to consider listing Alaska King Salmon
The decision drew immediate fire from the state. Alaska Commissioner of Fish and Game Doug Vincent-Lang blasted federal officials for making “a positive finding based on cherry-picked data to support a pre-determined viewpoint. I am concerned that this decision will encourage more frivolous petitions in the future.”
The Wild Fish Conservancy, a Seattle-area group, in January asked for consideration of the listing of the big fish Alaskans call kings. It has been concerned about the interception of Canadian and Pacific Northwest Chinook in the Southeast Alaska troll fishery and with the hatchery-augmented explosion of pink salmon that have taken over the North Pacific Ocean.
Canadian in researchers in 2020 reported a 65 percent decline in the productivity of king salmon in rivers from the northern end of the Alaska Panhandle south to Oregon. They suggested Cook Inlet kings seemed to be in a similar decline, but they lacked enough data to fully make that claim.
Still, the Kenai River – once famous for its bounty of monster-size, late-run kings – hasn’t seen many of the big fish in decades and has failed to meet spawning goals for the fish for four years in a row despite the closure of the in-river sport and personal-use fisheries and much of the commercial set gillnet fishery.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is this year forecasting a return of 13,639 of the fish this year. The minimum escapement goal for fishing escaping harvest to enter the river is 15,000. The low return has forced another closure of the sport fishery, a ban on harvest in the personal-use dipnet fishery, and forced stiff restrictions on commercial fisheries aimed at sockeye salmon but prone to harvest Chinook as bycatch because nets are indiscriminate.
Elsewhere in Cook Inlet, the plight of kings also looks dire. Fewer than 6,700 kings are expected to return to the Deshka River, once the hotspot for king salmon fishing in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley north of Anchorage. The minimum escapement goal there is 9,000.
NOAA indicated it has seen enough from the file put together by the Conservancy to open an investigation into an endangered species listing.
In a statement today it called this “a threshold determination based mainly on the contents of the petition itself. It triggers a more in-depth review to determine whether a listing is warranted.
In line with what the Conservancy requested, NOAA said it is going to consider all “populations of Chinook salmon on:
- The southern side of the Alaska Peninsula, including Kodiak Island, Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound
- Along the Gulf of Alaska coastline
- And in the inside waters of Southeast Alaska to the United States/Canada border
The agency did note that its review of the Conservancy petition “found that the information present in the petition contained numerous factual errors, omissions, incomplete references, and unsupported assertions and conclusions.”
Vincent-Lang agreed with federal biologists on that, but not on their conclusion that “missed escapement (spawning) goals in recent years for many stocks in the petitioned area, and evidence of decreasing size and age at maturity. We concluded that the petition contained enough information for a reasonable person to conclude that the petitioned action may be warranted.”
He conceded a downturn in Chinook salmon across their range apparently due to changes in the marine environment as Canadian scientists reported, but argued that “the ESA is the wrong tool to address a downturn in Chinook productivity, and this group is using it as a weapon to further their own interests.
“Simply failing to meet an escapement goal that is calculated to meet maximum sustained yield does not mean a stock is at risk of extinction. As the resource manager, ADF&G is both constitutionally obligated and committed to sustainable fisheries management. The state has taken aggressive management measures to conserve
these stocks which have been proving successful.”
Vincent-Lang’s argument that Alaska stocks are not at risk of extinction is biologically sound. Alaska populations, at this time, are in a condition that would best be described as low but stable with Kenai Chinook a prime example.
Current escapements are not returning the number of fish they once did, but the returns have remained amazingly stable. The difference between the best returns and the worst over the course of the last five years has varied by only about 10 percent above or below the mean for that time.
Still, there is no doubt the state fish – the biggest and longest-lived of the Pacific salmon – is going through a rough stretch the reason for which scientists – state or federal – have not been able to adequately explain. And the state has largely done what it can to protect the stock.
Vincent-Lang has taken extreme heat from commercial fishermen on the Kenai Peninsula for shutting down set gillnet fisheries for sockeye salmon to eliminate king salmon bycatch, and the Alaska Board of Fisheries declared late-run Kenai kings a “stock of management concern” which forces state managers to prosecute fisheries in ways that avoid harvests to see that as many of the fish as possible make it to their in-river spawning grounds.
The state now has a significant number of those streams listed as of “conservation concern,” a status similar to the federal standard for threatened species under the ESA in that it establishes a “sustained escapement threshold…below which the ability of the salmon stock to sustain itself is jeopardized.”
This is a developing story
Vincent-Lang is an idiot.
We all know they have “managed” the king into extinction.
It needs endangered species protection if it is going to survive for future generations.
The fish board is a joke…how many have any higher education on sustainable fisheries management.
#AKgov
If considering “missed escapement goals in recent years for many stocks in the petitioned area, and evidence of decreasing size and age at maturity” were actually what drove this review and based upon a “petition [that] contained numerous factual errors, omissions, incomplete references, and unsupported assertions and conclusions” then this isn’t a scientific fact finding mission. Escapement goals are a financial consideration of a common resource, they are set in place as a measure of how many fish can be taken for commercial purposes, they are not a measurement of a critically imperiled species that is in danger of going extinct. Decreasing size and age at maturity is also not a measurement of a critically imperiled species that is in danger of going extinct. The fact that the petition is fundamentally flawed with filled with incorrect information, and yet it is allowed to go forward speaks volumes about the process being corrupted.
The size of cold-water fish is shrinking in the north Atlantic as well as salmon in the north Pacific: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg6006
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12514
They don’t have pink salmon to blame in the North Sea but they do have a reasonable mechanistic theory to put forward. Check it out. It’s been publicized in the Washington Post, Guardian etc. Something to think about. Cheers.
Actually, Ed, they do have pink salmon in the North Sea now thanks to Russian hatchery efforts. https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/pink-salmon-atlantic-invasive-uk-north-sea-fishing-2276105
There would not seem to be enough of them to cause the sorts of problems encountered in the Pacific, but it still has the Europeans considering the fish a dangerous “evasive species.”
And in case you haven’t read the study you linked, you should probably know it doesn’t make the case for Alaska pink salmon hatcheries stronger; it makes it weaker in that it suggests the smaller fish are naturally enjoying an advantage over the bigger fish. Supercharging the ecosystem with the smallest of the salmon when the largest of the salmon appear to already be having trouble obtaining enough food to grow and survive would only make the situation worse for the larger fish.
I know they have pink salmon in the North Sea but certainly not in the numbers that would link them to smaller fish across the North Atlantic. Yes, I have read the studies, rather than just the media coverage of the studies. I’m not trying to “make a case” for Alaska hatcheries. Simply pointing out that the giant increase in pink salmon is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Yes, there is an additional influx of hatchery fish but the media coverage of this is disproportionate to the actual issue. For example, the data from Ruggerone and Irvine (2018), show that the largest relative increases in pink salmon by region (post 1975) occurred in southeast Alaska and south Alaska Peninsula, with increases of approximately 380% and 300%, respectively. The hatchery contributions in these regions are less than 2% for the period (0% hatchery fish in the south Alaska Peninsula) and the majority of the 2% hatchery contributions ended about 20 years ago.
In reference to your comments below, the data from Ruggerone and Irvine (2018) where they provide their best estimate of pink salmon numbers across the North Pacific suggest that 12.85% of the pink salmon are of hatchery origin. Alaska’s hatcheries contribute 7.44% of the total hatchery pink salmon. The overwhelming majority of hatchery pink salmon in Alaska originate in PWS (5.5% of the total from Alaska). Note that your comment below conflates Alaska hatchery harvest (all species) with the proportion of hatchery pink salmon in the Pacific.
Oh, if only there was a natural system. Then we could talk about “naturally occurring phenomenon.”
We have a hugely manipulated system thanks to hatcheries and MSY, which is its own issue because it’s impossible to have an MSY of everything given interspecies interactions.
That said, I agree with you that there has been a big increase in natural pink salmon production since the 1970s. No doubt about that. But where you set the lower bar for SE makes a big difference in what the percentages there looks like. The Panhandle harvest averaged but 11 million humpies per year from the ’50s through the ’70s, partly due to cold GOA waters and probably partly due to past overfishing.
It grew to 46 million per year in the 1980 – 2000 period, but for the past two decades is around 33 million. You can work up just about any percentage you want by playing with these numbers. And if you use 33 million per year for the last two decades and compare it to the almost same average for 1930s and 1940s, you get an increase that is near zero.
It would be really nice if we had a naturally functioning system so we could tell how much of what is happening now is a natural phenomeon and how much a manmade phenomenon, but we don’t have that. But if this is mainly a natural phenomenon, as you argue, that accounts for most of our massive increases in low-value salmon harvests by commercial fishermen, why have we set up a whole new industry – the hatchery business – to boost the numbers of low-value salmon by any percentage when this increases food competition – and surely in some cases predator massing – shown to decrease the numbers of more valuable wild salmon?
Where is the logic in that?
And yes, you are trying to “make a case” for Alaska hatcheries. And there is a case to be made. It is the same case to be made for salmon farms, where there is actually a better case to be made. They produce a much more valuable product.
Whatever it takes to guarantee the healthy survival and genetic diversity of the king salmon.
Also so all human generations can eat the mighty king and benefit from it financially.
Protect our chinooks !!
“Whatever it takes”? That leaves open a lot of possibilities, all of them actually. Should we relocate all humans and remove all sign of humanity from the entire range of king salmon, including the watersheds they are reared in?
Steve o
Your straw man argument is so foolish.
Remind me why anyone should put any stock in your opinion? Your opinions always age poorly.
Why don’t you make a legitimate argument regarding why kings don’t need endangered species protections?
Rather just making an embarrassing attempt to smear other commentators?
Or we can play the fool’s game.
Masks – strike!
Covid vaccines Are safe – strike!
Covid vaccines are effective- strike!
Ivermectin is ineffective- strike
Covid cause of deaths were accurately recorded- strike!
Remind me again regarding anything that you said that’s proven useful?
Hahaha, speaking of strawman arguments…your entire post is nothing but. Maybe next time you should try and defend your statement instead of taking part in text book strawman argument and doubling down with some good old fashioned gaslighting. But you do you since you can’t defend your statement or it’s logical conclusions.
As far as a reason they don’t need to be listed on the endangered species list the chief among them being that they aren’t in danger of going extinct.
“Hatchery driven explosion of pink salmon” is a statement that clearly disingenuous. A large majority of the increase in pink salmon is due to natural production (85% or greater).
You’re right. Bad choice of word. I edited it to correct. But note that the hatchery fish count for about a third of the harvest, not 15 percent. Or at least what the hatchery advocates claim: https://www.nationalfisherman.com/alaska/ranked-by-region-hatcheries-produced-a-third-of-alaska-s-salmon-catch-in-2021.
That said, there’s no doubt natural production is way up from what it was historically.