Subject: I 640
Date: Oct 31 16:31:38 1995
From: "W. Edwards" - drew at u.washington.edu









I would encourage interested persons to write to the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife for a copy of "Biological Assessment of
the Affects of the Puget Sound Area non-treaty commercial salmon net
fisheries on the Marbled Murrelet" dated March 3, 1995. The street
address is 600 Capital Way North, MS-43150, Olympia, Wa 98501-1091.

Page 21 has data from the 1993 Observations.In table 7 is the notation
on the dead harbor porpoise, on page 14 the overall observer coverage is
6.2%. So, how many dead porpoises were there? This is the same
paragraph where the 188 dead birds were noted.
In table 13 there is a notation of a dead seal, entangled in the bottom
of the net. These observations were in Areas 10/11 and 12/12B, maybe,
it is hard to tell. In this case the overall observer coverage was
approximately 10.8%! How many dead seals were there?
I understand that
there is a tentative meeting on Nov. 17, 1995 where
the Department of Fish and Wildlife will be discussing death rates for
seabirds. Does anyone know the population numbers for the common murre in
Washington State from 1979 to 1993?

The porpoise issue was discussed in the Vancouver Sun, August 3. This
story was also supposed to have been in the Seattle and Tacoma papers, I
must have missed it, does anyone have the dates of the article so I can
look up the articles? Thanks.

Concerning the research fishery at Apple Cove Point. There was a
clarification in the Reel News, either October or November 1995. This
gives an idea of the catch in that area, true. The overall catch is
about 43% coho, 31% chum and 26% blackmouth-chinook. (data 1990 to
1994). This is useful bycatch information for all. However, the real
issue is the blackmouth bycatch by gill nets and purse seiners during
their regular seasons. Gill nets are incapable of catch and release!.
The purse seines could catch and release alive. The recreational fishermen
pay a $10
enhancement fee to fish Puget Sound, along with their regular license.
Much of that is for blackmouth enhancement for sportfishing and not for
the enhancement of a netters pocketbook.

The causes of fisheries decline in Washington are varied and not always
so obvious. Dams are clearly responsible for the total loss of some
salmon runs (i. e. those above Grand Coulee, Mayfield, Elwha and
others) and partial loss of other runs (i. e. Snake River). Forestry
and farming practices have decimated various runs over the whole state.
Water quality and effects of urbanization have also contributed. One
can clearly see the impact of clearcuttting and dams without fish
ladders. However, it is exceedingly naive to ignore the pervasive
effects of commercial fishing practices on fisheries in the State of
Washington. Nets of all forms (i. e. gill, trawl nets ) are exceedingly
indiscriminate on what they harvest and the bycatch of of juvenile fish
and nontarget species often exceeds the catch of targeted species. For
an excellent discussion on the effects of bycatch and poor fisheries
practices on the viability of fisheries please see the November 1995
issue of Scientific American. Nets cannot discriminate between species
of salmon nor can they tell if the fish is from endangered or threatened
salmon run, everything gets caught. Threatened runs would have chance to
rebuild if those fish got through to the rivers. Gill nets also have a
significant impact of the composition of salmon runs. They
preferentially remove the larger fish from a run and the smaller fish
become a larger fraction of the total run. There is a reason for the
larger fish. They have a higher fecundity and they are more successful
at spawning in the rivers with larger rock bottoms. The long term trend i
n decreasing size of salmon has been clearly evident. Moreover, this
loss of size can diminish genetic robustness of a race of salmon.
Bottom trawls are hard on the juveniles of groundfish. Puget Sound
was closed to trawling because the fishery resource had crashed.
Georges Bank off of eastern Canada was closed because netting practices
had cleaned the Bank of the adults and juveniles of commercially
valuable species. Because of the political clout of commercial netters,
they have been invariably allowed to overharvest fishery resources past
the point of no return and then they complain when they finally get
closed down. Why is it that people can get so outraged when they see a
clearcut and the associated logging practices and yet I don't see a
similar level of rage when faced with obscene bycatch waste associated
with commercial netting practices. It must be that clearcuts are so
easy to see whereas the nets and their effects are effectively out of
public scrutiny. Why is it acceptable that 5, 10 or 50 times the
biomass be discarded as bycatch. Is it because it is generally not
visible to the public. The November 95 issue of National Geographic has
some excellent photos of commercial fishing bycatch waste. I-640 is
about sensible harvesting practices and putting end to the irresponsible
looting of fishery resources. It is not a stalking horse for power
companies or timber interests as a few tweeters responders would have
you believe (the manner of their comments suggests to me that they have
strong commercial fishing affiliations). Commercial nets can kill a
fishery as effectively as any timber company. Its just that there is no
visible clearcut left behind. The real issue is improved management of
all our fishery resources including all other species along with salmon.
So what if big timber supports I-640. The fact is that anything that
improves fishery resources will probably have a positive image impact on
one of the big villains involved with the decline of our fishery
resources. However, that would be an irrational reason for being
against I-640.