Proceedings 2008/013
Proceedings of the PSARC Salmon Subcommittee meeting; June 13-14, 2007
Chairperson: Hyatt, K.
Summary
The Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) met June 13-14, 2007 at the Coast Bastion Inn in Nanaimo, B.C. Two working papers were reviewed.
Working Paper: Conservation Units for Pacific Salmon under the Wild Salmon Policy
There was a general consensus that results from applying the methodology should be “reasonably” repeatable if applied by others independent of the authors. To facilitate such future use, a flow chart identifying each of the methodological steps in sequence along with a concise text rationale for each should be included in the revised paper.
There is a lot of new terminology introduced or developed in the current paper so assembly of a glossary of terms and acronyms was suggested to improve readability. Further, several variants of conservation terminology (CU, DU, ESU, etc.) used in the document should be clarified as to their similarities and differences.
Given data limitations regarding the use of phenotypic information (i.e., principally salmon run timing information) and genetic information serving as a basis for Conservation Unit (CU) identification, the authors were requested to add 1 or more paragraphs indicating which additional types of information or traits (e.g., life history, genetics) might be usefully assembled and applied to future analyses using the general methodology developed here. Once identified and assembled, this new information should be applied in analyses and future reports that build on the foundation of CU delineation developed here.
Key recommendations from the paper should be brought together in a short set of summary recommendations regarding the utility of information to applied resource managers.
A list of CUs was deliberately not included by the authors. As the method has been accepted by the Salmon Subcommittee, subject to the successful completion of revisions, a list of the CUs should be added to the final version (i.e., the list arrived at after systematically applying the general method).
Meeting participants acknowledged the importance of Aboriginal Traditional Environmental Knowledge (ATEK) to further define wild salmon CUs and that the current paper lacked appropriate information sources or informants to satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, the Subcommittee noted that a portion of future Wild Salmon Policy consultation effort with First Nations groups should be expended to this end.
Given completion of key revisions, further independent application and testing of the CU methodology and its outcomes is possible and desirable.
Working Paper: Comparison of the Fishery and Conservation Performance of Fixed- and Abundance-Based Exploitation Regimes for Coho Salmon in Southern British Columbia
The papers were accepted by the Salmon PSARC Subcommittee pending changes to the model inputs and structure and additional simulations recommended by the reviewers and the Subcommittee. There was general agreement about the following:
- In the papers, the authors present a valid methodology for examining reference points for coho Conservations Units (CUs).
- Once reference points are established for coho CUs and these can be used as inputs to the model, the modeling framework will provide a means for assessment of CU status.
- The methodology can also be used to explore alternative management strategies (e.g., abundance-based vs. fixed or stepped harvest rates) and recommend specific strategies with respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
- Additional simulations are required to test the sensitivity of the model results, especially concerning the long term measures of conservation status, to particular inputs and stream structure before more specific management advice is warranted.
- When the model can be modified to represent specific CUs with CU-specific data, specific management recommendations will be possible.
- Subcommittee discussion resulted in the strong recommendation that management targets for coho should not be based on recruitment forecasts. In addition, management targets should not be based on a projected total allowable catch that is not adjusted by in-season information.
Accessibility Notice
This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.
- Date modified: