How "Humpy" PS populations have changed.

[Smalma]

Pretty clear that 2023 has developed into another great pink year. For those of us that track pink abundances the 2000s are dramatically better than the previous 50 years.

As interesting as the shift in abundance is the shift in distribution. Based on historic abundances escapement goals were established in the 1960s, below is a comparison of those escapement goals with the 2023 wild forecasts

Nooksack escapement goal is 50,000 and the forecast is 25,000 or 0.50 times the goal.
Skagit escapement goal is 330,000 and the forecast is 552,000 or 1.67 times the goal.
Stillaguamish escapement goal is 155,000 and the forecast is 200,000 or 1.29 times the goal.
Green river, no escapement goal (prior to 2001 rare to see pinks in the basin, the forecast was 821,000.
Puyallup escapement goal is 19,000 and the forecast is 397,000 or 20.89 times the goal.
Nisqually escapement goal is 6,000 and the forecast is 454,000 or 75.67 times the goal.
The Straits populations escapement goal is 95,000 and the forecast is 365,000 or 3.84 times the goal.
Hood Canal populations escapement goal is 125,000 and the forecast is 493,000 or 3.94 times the goal.

I wonder what the changes in the environment of south Sound have occurred that contributed to the dramatic increases in those populations.

Curt

 

[Millsfly]

MEGA INCREASES in hatchery output throughout the entire north pacific...

 

[Stonedfish]

Being an old south sounder and the Puyallup being my home river, I don’t remember much humpy talk as a kid on that system and the current mania that goes with it. Same goes for the Green and Nisqually.
Of course we focused on steelhead rather than salmon back then. Salmon was primarily a saltwater game for us.
It is interesting how pinks colonized the Green, which now contributing to a good portion of the population forecast.

It’s been interesting watching the pink forecasts over the years. If I recall correctly, the really big runs started in about 2005 or 2007, reaching something like 11-13 million then dropped down to about 600K in 2019.
People got spoiled by the big runs and easy fishing, which of course caused many folks to blame WDFW for the decline.
They are guilty of a lot of things, but not the humpy population decline unless WDFW also controls weather and stream conditions.
Just because you have big returns doesn’t guarantee you’ll get them in the future.
The only WDFW hatchery program I know of that produces pinks had a very good return this year as well.
SF

 

[the_chemist]

When pinks are going for less tha $0.5/lb there isn't a lot of commercial pressure.

 

[G_Smolt]

MEGA INCREASES in hatchery output throughout the entire north pacific...

Are you suggesting increasing returns in PS rivers are being driven by hatchery production from outside the state?

 

[Josh]

Nooksack escapement goal is 50,000 and the forecast is 25,000 or 0.50 times the goal.

Sigh. Such an abused river.

 

[Pink Nighty]

A word on the nooksack. In 2021 it experienced catastrophic flooding in November, when all the pink eggs were in the gravel. The run that year was 250k, and the river was absolutely choked with pinks. The 25k projection reflects that. If it had grown in line with the other systems over 201, we would be looking at 300k-400k fish for the system.

Mind boggling to see how it has changed.

 

[Salmo_g]

The Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually have either flood control dams or hydroelectric dams with considerable flood storage capacity, reducing peak flows. This attribute can significantly increase egg to fry survival for a shallow redd depth species like pink salmon. That could have environmentally "encouraged" pink salmon colonization and population increases greater than historical levels. One that surprises me is the Stillaguamish. The Stilly sediment load won't allow the native Chinook population to even replace itself, yet its pink population thrives if flooding doesn't produce redd scouring flows. This one is a head scratcher for me.

The Nooksack is so dynamic hydrologically that it isn't surprising that the pink and chum populations would bounce around like ping pong balls.

 

[Smalma]

Across the North Pacific a billion or more hatchery pinks are being planted; the vast majority of those releases are in Japan, Russia and Alaska. Doubt many of those contribute to PS pink runs. As SF mention there is one pink hatch program (Hoodsport) in PS. That program is 1/2 million release and had a forecast of 6,417. Those Hoods port pinks are an early returning fish with most already in the hatchery (return of 10,600 fish). The Nooksack pinks are also an early fish entering the river in July/early August. Of all of our salmon the PS pinks have by far the highest portion of wild fish in the population.

The success of the PS pinks in face of the large hatchery releases in the north Pacific is all the more surprising. Other the survival of the eggs the pinks have little dependence on freshwater -typically in the salt within days of hatching and they move quickly through the estuaries migrating along the shoreline beaches for a few days before moving into deeper water continuing their migration to the ocean.

Not sure having dams is the biggest driver in the recent success of central/south sound pinks. Prior to 2001 pinks were virtually nonexistent in the Green and on the Puyallup between 1959 and 1999 the pink escapements was typically between 10,000 and 20,000, varying from a low of 2,732 in 1997 and 49,850 in 1989. Since 2001 the Puyallup escapements have typically been in the 1/2 to 3/4 million range with a low year of 85,000 and a high of 1.2 million.

Curt

 

[Pink Nighty]

So most of my life has coincided with this large increase in pinks, to the point I find it shocking it hasnt always been this way. If I can engage in conjecture here, I see several reasons for their increase, or at least reasons why they have increased while other salmonids decline.

Pinks utilize the freshwater environment less than any other salmon, with only chums in their neighborhood. Couple weeks at the beginning and end of life, that's it. The massive issues with fish rearing that our PS rivers have does not hit them nearly as hard.

Much like the rivers, they use the estuary less than other salmonids, another broken and degraded habitat that pinks escape relatively cleanly.

A warming ocean blooms more algae and plankton, which drives pink growth. Their every other year nature helps protect them from the trophic chain collapse, until it doesn't (I see you, Blob.)

Commercial pressure has always been limited on them compared to their numbers.

They do not need access to the upper reaches of these streams that are blocked by dams.

So Habitat, Hydro, Harvest and Heat are in their favor, at least relative to their brethren.

 

[Eastside]

Across the North Pacific a billion or more hatchery pinks are being planted; the vast majority of those releases are in Japan, Russia and Alaska. Don't many of those contribute to PS pink runs. As SF mention there is one pink hatch program (Hoodsport) in PS. That program is 1/2 million release and had a forecast of 6,417. Those Hoods port pinks are an early returning fish with most already in the hatchery (return of 10,600 fish). The Nooksack pinks are also an early fish entering the river in July/early August. Of all of our salmon the PS pinks have by far the highest portion of wild fish in the population.

The success of the PS pinks in face of the large hatchery releases in the north Pacific is all the more surprising. Other the survival of the eggs the pinks have little dependence on freshwater -typically in the salt within days of hatching and they move quickly through the estuaries migrating along the shoreline beaches for a few days before moving into deeper water continuing their migration to the ocean.

Not sure having dams is the biggest driver in the recent success of central/south sound pinks. Prior to 2001 pinks were virtually nonexistent in the Green and on the Puyallup between 1959 and 1999 the pink escapements was typically between 10,000 and 20,000, varying from a low of 2,732 in 1997 and 49,850 in 1989. Since 2001 the Puyallup escapements have typically been in the 1/2 to 3/4 range with a low year of 85,000 and a high of 1.2 million.

Curt

Curt, do the pink salmon compete with steelhead in the ocean? I have heard that complaint from a fishing guide. Interested in knowing your opinion. Thanks.

Mark

 

[Paige]

I find it interesting that with such dramatic increases with the odd year pinks that we don't see the same with the even year pinks in the Snohomish system.

 

[Smalma]

Eastside -
While there is overlap in forage between the pinks and steelhead in the critical early salt water period the steelhead are significantly larger (6 to 8 inches versus 1inch) thus tending to feed on larger items which I suspect limits competition between the two. More of the pink diet would be zooplankton and krill while the steelhead eat more capelin (a smelt like fish) and squid).

Pink Nighty -
Historically, say 1880 to 1950 local on odd years the pink dominated the commercial harvest. The huge volume of pinks were the money fish for the canning industry though they took a second seat to sockeye on the even years. Chinook and to a lesser extent coho just were not abundant enough to meet tonnage desired by the canning industry. It is interesting in looking at historical north Puget Sound Chinook spawning ground information the earlier data (to the mid-1950s) was available only on odd years. Chinook spawning counts were made incidental to the pink counts (the more valuable fish at the time).

Curt

 

[Smalma]

Paige -
The case of the Snohomish even year pinks is interesting indeed. In the early 1980s counts were in the 150 range and began building in the mid 1980s reach a little over 12,000 in 2000 growing to 44,000 in 2002 jumping to 139,750 in 2004 then crashing to zero in 2018.

I might speculate that with the huge abundances of odd year fish the forage base for the even year forage was largely depleted.

Curt

 

[Pink Nighty]

Eastside -
While there is overlap in forage between the pinks and steelhead in the critical early salt water period the steelhead are significantly larger (6 to 8 inches versus 1inch) thus tending to feed on larger items which I suspect limits competition between the two. More of the pink diet would be zooplankton and krill while the steelhead eat more capelin (a smelt like fish) and squid).

Pink Nighty -
Historically, say 1880 to 1950 local on odd years the pink dominated the commercial harvest. The huge volume of pinks were the money fish for the canning industry though they took a second seat to sockeye on the even years. Chinook and to a lesser extent coho just were not abundant enough to meet tonnage desired by the canning industry. It is interesting in looking at historical north Puget Sound Chinook spawning ground information the earlier data (to the mid-1950s) was available only on odd years. Chinook spawning counts were made incidental to the pink counts (the more valuable fish at the time).

Curt

Fascinating curt! Do you believe the relative scarcity of of pinks from 1950-1990 (if I've understood the history correctly) is related to rebuilding/recognizing populations that had been damaged by the canning industry?

 

[Uptonogood]

Man, I LOVE this thread! So much has been gathered on salmon life history, spawning/rearing needs in fresh water, marine fishery needs and variations. I was a creel clerk in LaPush in 1967. Coho made up 60-70% of retained salmon by private boat anglers and pinks were 50-60% of charter fishing harvest. It was an absolute banner salmon harvest that year with charter boats making three trips daily, limiting every time. The salmon schools were about four miles offshore, easily located by the “circling line” of charter and private boats.

At the same time, the commercial trollers were hammering the fish, joining in the banner year. There was also a great Chinook run up to early July for non resident kings and then again in September for kings running up the Quilette River. I weighed five sport caught chinook over 50lbs on certified scales that September. What a year.

I know nothing about salmonids like you professionals who post here. But I loved fly fishing the Sound and also rememberthat incredible summer in Lapush. I’m also remembering working as a “bait boy” (no pay involved, just catching a limit of salmon!). I was working it on Capt. Clyde Majestics boat, the Linda Ray. One memory was six fishermen on the charter, five salmon hooked up at once. I netted two in one net on the port side, Clyde took the other three in his net. What incredible fishing, a real circus!

 

[G_Smolt]

Pretty interesting review of pink salmon trends on many levels in the Northern hemisphere.

https://npafc.org/wp-content/uploads/Technical-Report-21.pdf

 

[G_Smolt]

Also of note - the 2023 preseason commercial harvest forecast for SEAK pinks was 19 million. The total catch as of the last full reporting period (aug 24) is over 45 million, with an anticipated end-of-season total around 49 million.

Favorable conditions for AK BY21 may be extending to PS pinks as well.

 

[speedbird]

When pinks are going for less tha $0.5/lb there isn't a lot of commercial pressure.

$0.08 per pound according to my Seine Fisher Friend in Cordova.

 

[speedbird]

The Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually have either flood control dams or hydroelectric dams with considerable flood storage capacity, reducing peak flows. This attribute can significantly increase egg to fry survival for a shallow redd depth species like pink salmon. That could have environmentally "encouraged" pink salmon colonization and population increases greater than historical levels. One that surprises me is the Stillaguamish. The Stilly sediment load won't allow the native Chinook population to even replace itself, yet its pink population thrives if flooding doesn't produce redd scouring flows. This one is a head scratcher for me.

The Nooksack is so dynamic hydrologically that it isn't surprising that the pink and chum populations would bounce around like ping pong balls.

How are the Stilly coho so robust?