Learning from History for Tomorrow’s GenerationsThe study should be a collective wake-up call.
Despite spending 9 billion over forty years, in terms of adult passage at Bonneville Dam, not much changed since Nehlsen et al. penned their seminal paper in 1991,
Wild Salmon and Steelhead at a Crossroads.
As Winston Churchill said, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Hard to argue with Winston.
If all the King’s money couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again, what might?
Pragmatically, there is no silver bullet. The legacy of impacts is too great to recover salmon to their former abundance in our lifetimes, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better. There are dials to turn; and opportunities to better align management and recovery in ways that would benefit the fish and fishers in the Columbia River basin in this generation and those to come.
If granted rulership for a day, TCA would start by closing mixed-stock ocean fisheries that have the greatest impact on immature Chinook salmon, allowing them to rebuild age and size at maturity. We would focus fisheries on terminal areas in freshwater where returning fish are mature and harvest is more simply managed. This would immediately provide greater and more consistent fishing opportunity for Native American tribes and recreational anglers in the Columbia River basin, while also increasing the size and number of adults on the spawning grounds.
Next, we would greatly reduce pink salmon hatchery production in Alaska, many of which were originally established to mitigate adverse impacts from the Exxon Valdez. Instead, those hatchery fish
replaced the wild stocks and have contributed to
a myriad of density dependent effects on organisms from plankton to birds, whales, and salmonids – including biennial patterns in abundance of populations of Columbia River Chinook salmon and B-run steelhead.
TCA would also remove the four lower Snake River dams, period. They were a mistake in the first place.
Last, TCA would significantly reduce the production of hatchery fish in the Columbia River basin to ensure their total ecological and genetic footprint is not so overwhelming to ESA-listed wild salmonids. Closure of mixed-stock fisheries in the ocean would help offset reductions in hatchery releases of Chinook salmon, both reducing impacts from hatchery fish and increasing harvest for those in the Columbia.
Expansion of hatchery production in the Columbia River was based on the premise they could mitigate for harvest in the short term, and over the long term, with improved genetic and breeding protocols, science could develop hatchery salmon that were sufficiently equal to wild fish in survival, diversity, spatial distribution, and productivity.
Given the amount of habitat restoration and number of fish released, if even a fraction of the hatchery promise had come to fruition the rivers would be awash in salmon and steelhead.
More likely, a combination of hatchery fish and high harvest levels on Chinook salmon have limited potential benefits from habitat restoration. A
meta-analysis of 32 habitat restoration projects in 28 rivers in Finland found habitat restoration had a small, overall positive effect on brown trout and/or Atlantic salmon density, but fishing mortality tended to obscure positive effects of restoration and stocking of hatchery juveniles negatively affected wild fish’s response to restoration. The authors concluded that further benefits depended on a better balance between restoration, harvest, and hatcheries, which is consistent with recommendations in the
ISAB 2015 report on Columbia River hatchery and harvest practices.
Big changes would require a short-term sacrifice, something that is particularly difficult to ask of Native Americans who have already lost much of their land and culture. The unfortunate reality is that we are now in this together, and while recovery of salmon and steelhead may seem impossible, history offers examples of hope.
Over 100 years ago (late 1890s to early 1900s) Roosevelt Elk on the Olympic Peninsula were on the verge of extinction due to over-hunting, and in turn,
Washington state enacted a hunting moratorium on Roosevelt elk from 1905 to 1933. Then, in 1909, President Roosevelt permanently protected 615,000 acres of their habitat (the foundation of Olympic National Park).
Would Roosevelt elk persist on the Olympic Peninsula, and would hunters still be able to pursue them and citizens enjoy their presence if conservation efforts didn’t focus both on habitat and harvest?
What if – to recover Wood Ducks – we released millions of maladapted ducks each year into their compromised habitat, allowed them to interbreed and compete for food and habitat, and continued to harvest, often at high levels?
Or had done the same for cod, striped bass, canvasbacks, or sandhill cranes?
And repeated the process each year for four decades.
For Chinook salmon, which are now substantially smaller in size, would Shaq have been a dominant NBA center at 5’ in height? Could blue herons maintain their resilience as a species if we reduced the length of their legs, neck, and beak by over 50%? Or would they go extinct, nothing more than a glorified sandpiper?
Would any person honestly expect recovery in those instances?
No. Because we know from history that rebuilding animal populations requires strong alignment between harvest, habitat restoration, and potential use of captive breeding and/or relocation.
Transplanting animals from other areas, typically for a short duration, has contributed to the recovery of other species (e.g., turkey), but those actions were not taken in isolation. They also greatly curtailed or eliminated harvest. What humans have attempted in the Columbia River basin is quite different and we aren’t aware of any instances where it has worked.
Fortunately, not all salmon and steelhead populations are in complete dire straits, and in those cases, more restrictive fisheries could be sustained through recovery.
Again, this is where history provides a path forward.
For recreational anglers, Oregon historically implemented conservative regulations that many would scoff at today. In 1959, for instance, they closed nine rivers to boat fishing to curtail catch where salmon were too vulnerable, and closed fishing at several river mouths to protect adult salmon that aggregated in the nearshore areas or lower river when streamflows were too low for upstream migration.
The Oregon Fish Commission argued that “many special regulations are necessary if proper management of this magnificent resource is to be sustained in the face of increased use.”
We agree. Recreational anglers have the privilege to fish, and we must take that privilege seriously. We also need to remember these magnificent fish are not just here for fishers, they are here for all citizens – present and future. Too often, the debate centers only around those who fish, when it should encompass the overall trust responsibility for all people. This isn’t an idea we take lightly. Changing fisheries, modifying hatchery releases, and removing large dams are contentious and generate passionate missives from both sides of the debate.
Nonetheless, climate change isn’t waiting for those in charge to figure it out. Time is of the essence if we are serious about recovering salmon and steelhead. TCA is willing to shoulder the criticism that comes with positing a different path forward. It’s part and parcel with any changing of the guard.
Just as Billy Beane found out in
Moneyball, “…the first guy through the wall, he always gets bloody. Always.” If we take one on the chin, speaking up for wild fish and raising questions about the status quo, so be it. It’s the least we can do for animals that have given us so much.
And it’s our responsibility for the generations to come.