CCA Misconstrues Bristol Bay Study
February 24th, 2010
A recent study published by Matthew Baker and Daniel Schindler of the University of Washington has been the subject of much discussion by members of the Northwest Chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association. In the study, the authors posit that substantial numbers of dropouts from commercial gillnet gear in Bristol Bay have been observed in the spawning escapement population of sockeye salmon in Wood River, one of the watersheds feeding into Bristol Bay. Fish displaying obvious signs of past encounters with gillnets have lower rates of survival and spawning success than those fish not showing such signs.
Comparisons of Bristol Bay fisheries to Columbia River fisheries can be misleading. The Bristol Bay fishery is compressed into about a three-week time period. Most of the commercial fishery is conducted under what often can be extreme weather conditions on Bristol Bay itself. And Bristol Bay fisheries are managed by the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game for extremely high harvest rates, and managed fully sustainably as such for well over a century.
Columbia River fisheries, on the other hand, are managed extremely conservatively under the constraints caused by multiple ESA listings. The Columbia River commercial fishery catches only a small percentage of the various stocks of Columbia River salmon, as compared with the Bristol Bay fishery. While Baker and Schindler 2009 is an interesting study in and of itself, it has very little applicability in the context of Columbia River fisheries.
Appended below are three documents posted as PDF files: 1) a Salmon For All paper on the significance of the Bristol Bay Study to Columbia River fisheries; 2) the Alaska Dept, of Fish & Game 2010 Bristol Bay sockeye run forecast; and 3) an interesting op-ed from the Anchorage Daily News that fishing rules should be science-based.
Significance of Bristol Bay Study Overstated
ADFG 2010 Bristol Bay Sockeye Forecast
Fishing Rules Should Be Science-based
