Most rivers will keep the same low end, but raise the upper end and midpoint of escapement.
The sockeye escapement goals for most of Bristol Bay’s rivers are changing. Members of an 18 month study recommended widening the ranges rather than just raising them, and the Department of Fish and Game has now adopted those ranges. Then the Alaska Board of Fish added language requiring management for the low end of escapement on small run years, and the high end during years with bigger runs. KDLG’s Dave Bendinger has more:
Last week the Department of Fish & Game adopted a wider range with raised upper ends for sockeye escapement goals in most Bristol Bay rivers. These new Sustainable Escapement Goals are accompanied by regulatory language that recommends Department of Fish & Game manage for escapement proportional to the size of the run in a given year.
These changes are the result of a study carried out by fisheries biologists and economists following the 2012 Board of Fish meeting in Naknek. At that meeting, the Department put forward new Sustainable Escapement Goals (SEGs) which would have raised the lower and upper ends of escapement for several rivers in the Bay. This worried industry representatives, who were concerned that large increases in escapement would not produce additional catch and might increase variability in the catch from year to year.
Due to this pushback, Fish and Game agreed to not act on its proposed goals for a couple of years, allowing the industry to go away and study the economic implications of raising escapement goals. The industry was to report back to the Board to recommended Optimum Escapement Goals (OEGs) prior to the 2015 fishing season.
Michael Link, a fisheries scientist with the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute and LGL, an Anchorage-based consulting group, led the 18-month study. The study team also included scientists Ray Hilborn and Curry Cunningham of the University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, and UW economists Jocelyn Wang and Chris Anderson.*
The researchers were assisted by an Advisory Panel consisting of fishermen, processors, an independent economist, a Department manager and an industry representative. The panel met five times to review the study’s methods, provide feedback, and finally to present a set of recommendations to the Board.
The study examined the biological and economic impacts of various escapement goal policies. Link says the team used computer models to simulate the day to day operations of Bristol Bay’s short, dynamic fishery under four different escapement goal scenarios. They compared the pre-2012 escapement goals, the Department's proposed goals, even higher goals that would allow a "theoretical" maximum yield, and finally, an approach that would allow a "sliding scale" of management based on the size of the run in a given year.
From a biological standpoint, higher escapements generally translate to larger salmon returns across most stocks. What the study found, Link says, is that it’s difficult for the industry to actually capture the economic benefits of those suddenly abundant fish.
That difficulty, says Link, has a lot to do with year-to-year variation. He says it is hard for the industry to absorb the fluctuations between the small-run and big-run years. Processors have limited capacity to deal with huge runs, and the market value of the salmon becomes less certain.
Bristol Bay fishers saw an example of this during the large run in 2014; many set catch restrictions for days while processors struggled to keep up with huge catches.
According to Link, the study identified tradeoffs between variability in the escapement and variability in the catch. The Panel suggested allowing the escapement numbers to vary more from year to year, which could in turn stabilize or reduce variability in the sizes of catches.
To allow that greater range in the escapement, the panel recommended maintaining the lower end of escapement from pre-2012 goals, and raising the upper ends to the numbers the Department had proposed in 2012. As per language adopted by the Board, the Department will be directed to manage for the lower end of escapement on low run years, and higher end on big run years. As Link explained, it makes economic sense to aim for the higher end of escapement when the fish are plentiful – that’s when prices are lower and those escaped fish aren’t worth as much to fishermen.”
Tim Sands, a management biologist at the Department of Fish & Game, says this management directive is business-as-usual for the Department. “We’ve always tried to manage proportional to the run,” he explains. “In a bigger run, we put more fish in the river, and for a smaller run, fewer fish in the river.” In his view, the language adopted by the Board simply formalizes this well-worn management strategy.
Perhaps the most significant part of these changes for fishermen, Sands said, is the fact that the escapement goal midpoints will go up for some of the rivers. Depending on the timing and the size of the run, this could directly impact the waiving of the 48-hour transfer restriction.
Link also acknowledged that the increase in midpoints might lead fishermen to believe they’ll be less able to transfer late in the season. But he says it’s debatable whether the actual midpoints will be affected.
Both sides seem to agree that putting aside OEGs, in favor of revised SEGs, is a good thing. “The Department should really be in the escapement goal-setting business,” Link said. “There’s no need for the Board of Fish to set them.”
If the new SEGs prove beneficial for both the biology and the economics, Link hopes the study results could set a far-ranging precedent for fisheries management: “If someone disagrees with an escapement goal, don’t immediately run to the Board of Fish,” he said. Instead, “see if these SEGs can be implemented in a way that is good for both the industry and the fish stocks.”
What’s more, Link says, he hopes the study data and results might reduce ongoing tension between the Department, which is mandated to pursue maximum sustained yield, and the industry, which generally favors bigger harvests. For Link, the most significant implication of the study is that pursuing that theoretical maximum yield is not the best for increasing average runs in the long term. He says the results indicate that stocks are best managed by keeping the escapement a little lower but providing more consistent catches year-to-year.
According to Sands, run records in recent years indicate that the sockeye fishery is healthy and sustainable. Out of all the salmon runs since 1893, Sands said, eight of the top ten run years for Bristol Bay have occurred since 2003. The largest three runs of all time were in 2006, 2010, and 2007. Sands expects the revised SEGs will continue to support this long-term sustainability.
With the raised upper end of escapement goals, Sands said, the fishery could possibly see an increase in average long-term runs within a few life cycles.
Link presented the research results and Panel recommendations at the March 17-20 Board of Fisheries meeting in Anchorage. The Department adopted the new escapement goal ranges, and the Board voted 6-0 in favor of the added regulatory language. Both will be in effect for the 2015 season.
The study was led by the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute with financial support from BBEDC and the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association. The study reports will be available online.
KDLG's Dave Bendinger and Hannah Colton contributed to this report. This article also appears in the Bristol Bay Times newspaper.