Alaska legislators worry that killer whales and a federal judge may doom a key fishery (Homer: attorneys, house)

[AKStafford]

https://www.ktoo.org/2023/03/03/alas...a-key-fishery/

The Alaska House of Representatives voted 35-1 on Wednesday to approve a letter urging state and federal officials to fight a lawsuit that could shut down a major king salmon fishery in Southeast Alaska.

“This fishery has come under attack,” said Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka, and the sponsor of the letter, House Joint Resolution 5, which now goes to the Senate.

The resolution has broad bipartisan support in the Alaska Legislature, where lawmakers view the issue as one about an outside group attacking Alaskans’ way of life.

“This resolution is much more than about Southeast Alaska fisheries … it’s about defending our state resources and our right to our own fishery,” said Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, speaking in support of the resolution on Wednesday.

Since 2020, the Washington state-based Wild Fish Conservancy has been fighting the National Marine Fisheries Service in court, arguing that the agency acted illegally when it approved a 2019 document that provides Endangered Species Act coverage for all of Southeast Alaska’s salmon fisheries. That document allows fishermen to catch salmon also sought by endangered species.

The Wild Fish Conservancy wants to preserve killer whales that live in or near Puget Sound; that group of whales, known as Southern Resident Killer Whales, was listed as endangered in 2005.

Those whales consume king salmon in Southeast Alaska waters, and king salmon are highly prized by fishermen. Commercial trollers, mostly in small boats, use hooks and lines to catch kings to sell.

McDowell Group, now known as McKinley Research Group, has estimated that 1,450 fishermen — including crew and boat owners — participate in the Southeast troll fishery, which has an economic impact of $85 million.

About 44% of that economic activity is from the king salmon harvest, McDowell estimated.

In court, attorneys representing Wild Fish Conservancy have argued that the amount of king salmon taken by commercial fishermen is so large that it impacts the survival of the whales and prevents their population from growing.

After a preliminary ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in 2021 favored the Wild Fish Conservancy, a magistrate judge was assigned to conduct further analysis. The resulting report, released in December, reached a similar conclusion and recommended voiding the document that provides Endangered Species Act protections for the winter and summer Chinook salmon troll fishery.

That would leave only a two-month spring fishery, which fishermen say is too small to make a living and would result in the effective closure of the fishery.

The district court judge in charge of the case has yet to make a final determination.

The state of Alaska and various fishery groups have sided in defense of the federal fisheries service, and in late February, Gov. Mike Dunleavy said on statewide talk radio that he would appeal a negative decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

The resolution passed by the House this week offers legislative support for the cause and calls on the state’s congressional delegation to work to keep the fishery open, even if the judge rules it closed.

Cities across Southeast Alaska have passed similar resolutions of support, and the city of Sitka went so far as to approve a $25,000 donation to the Alaska Trollers Association, which is fighting the lawsuit as well.

In a visit to Wrangell this week, Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said it’s possible that a closure of the fishery could turn into an economic disaster, but he hopes it doesn’t come to that.

“This lawsuit is ridiculous,” Sullivan said in comments first reported by KSTK-FM in Wrangell. “Think about what they’re trying to do: shut down this fishery. Estimates are that it could impact Southeast by $100 million for orca problems in Puget Sound. They’re not asking for the fishery in Puget Sound to be shut down. They’re not asking about the pollution in Puget Sound. They’re looking at shutting down our fishery here. Idiotic, and an abuse of the Endangered Species Act.”

[Metlakatla]

It's way more complex than these politicians understand. And nobody in SE has ever made a living solely from king salmon.

[OneDawg]

All laws created by non elected pols are illegal.

[Arktikos]

Some may be pleased to learn that “them greenies” at SEAAC oppose the lawsuit.


Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Dear (Me)

SEACC's staff and board have been reading up on the Wild Fish Conservancy's lawsuit seeking to end the Southeast Troll fishery over the last week, and after carefully examining the situation we've come to a unanimous conclusion. Our mission has always been to protect the special places of Southeast Alaska, including its wildlife. Our origins are deeply intertwined with Alaskan’s desire to protect healthy salmon runs and we have dedicated decades to safeguarding wild fish habitat and to supporting strong and healthy fish populations and the communities that depend on them.

We value and advocate for many species that make up Southeast Alaska’s marine ecosystem, from tiny herring all the way to giant humpbacks. So it’s not lightly that we oppose the Wild Fish Conservancy’s lawsuit concerning the Southern Resident Orca pod. We agree that wild salmon, orcas, and a great deal else in the ocean are in urgent need of protection. But we object in the strongest possible terms to this lawsuit.



The Wild Fish Conservancy’s case rests on an implausible and misguided premise, that King Salmon harvests here in Southeast Alaska are the main driver of the decline of the Southern Resident Orca pod.

The flaws in this argument are too numerous to list completely here, but they include that Southern Resident Orca populations have declined and risen with little to no relationship to Alaskan King Salmon populations or harvests, that Southeast Alaska trollers catch very few King Salmon headed to Puget Sound or the Salish Sea compared to more local harvests, and, most egregiously, that it ignores the massive environmental degradation happening in Seattle-based Wild Fish Conservancy’s own backyard — the actual habitat of the Southern Resident Pod — in favor of fighting a far off technicality. Our friends at Alaska Longline Fisherman’s Association have created the most comprehensive resource to understand the issue, and we encourage you to read directly from ALFA if you want to learn more.

Throughout our organization’s history, SEACC has worked to protect wild fish habitat, and we know that not only is the Southeast troll fishery sustainably managed, but that its fishermen are some of the most informed and effective advocates for wild fish conservation and habitat restoration.

We stand with them in advocating for sustainable management of the Southeast troll fishery. We join our voice to the many others calling for the National Marine Fisheries Service to hold the Southeast troll fleet harmless and find a way to continue the 2023 troll season as planned. And we urge the Wild Fish Conservancy to reconsider their misguided litigation.

From,
The SEACC Board and Staff

[Metlakatla]

The last I saw, the Stikine and Taku River runs were even more dismal than Puget Sound and Columbia River (which are what the Wildfish Conservancy is trying to protect with this suit). In other words, Alaska doesn't have any room to talk. There's a lot of finger-pointing going on, but king salmon all up and down the North Pacific coast have been in trouble for years, and the usual suspects are running out of places to kick the can.

Restoration of the Puget Sound runs is one of the priorities of the 2019 update of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which Alaska willingly entered into, so...we'll see. Alaska would serve itself well to concentrate on restorations of its own runs, because there wasn't even enough for allowable catch in many districts due to extremely low returns on the rivers I mentioned. Might also help to put a little of the effort it takes to point fingers into addressing the Pollock trawler problem.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

The last I saw, the Stikine and Taku River runs were even more dismal than Puget Sound and Columbia River (which are what the Wildfish Conservancy is trying to protect with this suit). In other words, Alaska doesn't have any room to talk. ..

But the numbers are not down due to "massive environmental degradation", or overfishing locally, correct?

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Arktikos

But the numbers are not down due to "massive environmental degradation", or overfishing locally, correct?

They were overfished, and deforestation in the watersheds didn't help. Alaska put some effort back in the 1980s to restoring the runs in SE, the Stikine included. It was pretty successful until the king salmon simply stopped coming back.

Puget Sound and the Columbia River Basin are doing a lot with restoration these days, but the salmon have to be able to make it to their natal grounds.

As usual, the elephant in the room is the out-of-state sports fishing industry. They're already trying to bully their way into breaking the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Edit: I'm not necessarily for this lawsuit; I just think it's more complex than the us v them narrative that being promoted. I don't know that SEACC's claim about Puget Sound and Columbia River salmon being only a fraction of SE's commercial catch is true.

[OutdoorLover]

It would appear that overfishing, as well as destructive methods of fishing are degrading the Alaskan fisheries, just as they did in New England and Atlantic Canada in decades past. The problem in these regions has been decades long, and the ecosystem won't recover for at least decades more. Alaskans would be wise to learn from history.

One might naively think that fishermen might safeguard the fishery, since it's responsible for their livelihood. But that's not what happens - you can make huge sums of money from aggressive exploitation of fisheries, it's kind of like a gold rush, and the fishermen simply deny that anything is happening, even after it's very clear that the fishery is crashing, and they just completely wipe it out. Stubborn insistence on maintaining catch levels, even as they decline, only hastens the demise.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...blame-00066843

[Metlakatla]

The above article is specific to groundfish trawling in the Bering Sea and has no relevance to SE's Alaska's king salmon fishery. They really do catch those kings by hook and line; one fish at a time instead of dragging the ocean with huge nets. It's also worth noting that the vast majority of those who make money in the Bering Sea are not Alaska residents. Let's keep in mind that there isn't one "Alaska fishery;" there are dozens of them, and what's true in one isn't necessarily true in the others. Alaska's salmon has been managed better than most; 2022 had historically high runs in some areas.

[OutdoorLover]

Agreed that hook and line fishing is much more targeted than trawling and poses much less danger to fisheries. Regarding trawling though, they're not distinguishing the salmon species the trawlers are killing as bycatch in this statement, but " In 2021, when subsistence fishermen were prohibited from fishing for chinook and chum salmon on the Yukon River, pollock boats swept up more than half a million individual salmon from the Bering Sea."

This image shows the course of events on the Grand Banks - over 37,000 fishermen and fish processing plant workers lost their jobs in Newfoundland alone. They did it to themselves.


Trawlers are very destructive because they are such a blunt instrument - they sweep the bottom and take everything - any species of fish, plants, sponges, sea worms, crustaceans - pretty much anything that's alive is swept clean of the bottom and the sea floor doesn't recover quickly from that... you're wiping out the whole food chain from top to bottom with those nets.