NFS
N A T I V E  F I S H  S O C I E T Y
Conserving biological diversity of native fish and protecting their habitats

COMMENTS ON THE ISAB REPORT ON HARVEST
MANAGTEMENT OF COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON AND STEELHEAD

July 12, 2005

By Bill Bakke, Director

Harvest Management has a specific role to play in conservation and rebuilding salmon and steelhead runs because it has an impact on spawner abundance and the future productivity of naturally reproducing fish.  

Following the annual Council review of harvest management provided by the states in 1994, I spoke with Dr. Harry Wagner of the Council Fish and Wildlife Program staff about the inadequacy of the harvest review process.  In a memo to the director of the Fish and Wildlife Program he said: “We identified the problem that existing escapement goals may not be adequate and tend to aggregate stocks- this problem will have to be addressed when escapement goals, rebuilding targets, etc. are developed.”

Eleven years after this staff memo was written we have the first scientific review of harvest in the Columbia River Basin. It is a major accomplishment and, as you can see from the size and detail of it, harvest is a complex and difficult issue.  The primary question for me is whether harvest management is supporting recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead and is not likely to be a factor in further listings in the basin.

In 2004, I asked NMFS to publish an annual harvest accounting summary for ESA-listed salmonids and provide data on impacts of harvest by species in each subbasin in the Columbia River.  NMFS agreed that harvest accounting should be done.  It does not exist at this time.

The ISAB recommendations on harvest would do the following:

1.  Monitor all production units for productivity and trends in abundance over time.  They recommend defined recovery goals and monitoring progress in order to develop a credible harvest management program.

2.  Document assessments on individual production units.  These would form the basis for harvest management, but they found very few examples of it.

3.  Account for uncertainty in harvest management.  They say there are very few examples of actually estimating uncertainty or accounting for it in harvest management.

The ISAB recommendations are sound; they are based on data, verification, and precaution in harvest management.  However, they found very few examples of this kind of approach to harvest management on the Columbia River.

Changes in harvest management so that it is aligned with the recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia should be framed as the ISAB has recommended.  This will be up to the state and tribal fish management agencies.  The Council has no authority over harvest management, but it can expect harvest reform.  I recommend the Council initiate a schedule for harvest accounting and publish a progress report annually.