Impacts of the US West Coast salmon ocean fishery closure on salmon troll vessels

Transcription

1 Impacts of the US West Coast salmon ocean fishery closure on salmon troll vessels Kate Richerson Dan Holland Northwest Fisheries Science Center

2 Hello!

3 What happened to salmon fishermen during a historic ocean fishery closure? Exited fishing? Increased participation in other fisheries? Who was most vulnerable? Can this inform us in the event of another closure?

4 1. The salmon ocean fishery closure What happened?

5 Collapse of the Sacramento River Fall Chinook (SRFC) Record low returns attributed to poor ocean conditions Complete closure of the ocean fishery south of Cape Falcon, Oregon

6 Review of 2015 Ocean Salmon Fisheries 128 FEBRUARY 2016 Millions of Fish Fishery declared a disaster 3.0 Coast-wide federally-declared disasters 2.5 Coho : $29 million in disaster aid 1998: $11 million 1.5 Chinook : $170 million Year Figure IV-1. West Coast ocean non-indian commercial Chinook and coho harvest.

7 Another closure this year? Catches have been declining since 2012 The Blob, drought, switch to positive PDO predicted to result in low returns

8 Another closure this year?

9 2. The West Coast salmon fishery Who might have been affected?

10 Focal vessels Fished at least 3 years during Averaged >$1,000/year in salmon troll revenue Salmon troll accounts for >5% of total annual revenue

11 Focal vessels 1,236 vessels Diverse in terms of location, revenue, target species Groundfish Crab Salmon Coastal pelagics Shrimp Highly migratory species

12 Number Number Number Number Number Number Vessel characteristics 400 Revenue Diversification Location , ,000 Mean annual revenue (USD) Mean inverse HHI Mean latitudinal center of gravity ( N) Dependence on salmon 300 Years fished 750 Range Mean percent of revenue from salmon troll Number of years fished Mean latitudinal inertia ( N 2 )

13 3. Impacts of the closure What happened to these vessels?

14 Modeling the vessel-level impact of the closure Does a vessel fish in a given year? If so, how much money does it make relative to its long term average? How did the closure affect 1 and 2? Did vessels exit permanently? Can vessel characteristics predict responses?

15 Modeling the vessel-level impact of the closure Choice to fish: logistic mixed-effects model Choice to exit: logistic model Revenue: linear mixed-effects models Effects of year, vessel characteristics, and presence of closure

16 Number of vessels Modeling the vessel-level impact of the closure Vessels less likely to fish at all during closure, particularly if they were: More dependent on salmon Less diversified Further south Higher revenue Year

17 Modeling the vessel-level impact of the closure Many vessels returned after closure, but ~17% exited permanently. They tended to be: More dependent on salmon Fished fewer years Lower revenue Less diversified

18 Modeling the vessel-level impact of the closure Vessels made less money relative to their long-term mean, particularly if they were: More dependent on salmon Higher revenue Fished fewer years

19 Impact on total revenue 5-year average before closure: $55 million : $32-36 million Overall loss: ~$43 million Salmon loss: ~$35 million Revenue from focal vessels

20 Predictions Current salmon vessels are slightly less dependent on salmon, less diversified no closure closure Models predict similar impacts if there is another closure this year no closure closure

21 4. Impacts on other fisheries Did vessels divert their effort into other fisheries?

22 Proportion Participation in other fisheries Little evidence that vessels were more likely to participate in non-salmon fisheries in Management group Salmon Crab Groundfish Highly migratory species Year

23 Total number of trips Participation in other fisheries Little evidence that vessels took more trips in non-salmon fisheries in Number of trips by vessels that fished during closure Management group Salmon Crab Groundfish Highly migratory species Year

24 Share Share Share Share Participation in other fisheries Little evidence that vessels altered their seasonal fishing patterns. Crab Groundfish Time Highly migratory species Time Salmon Time Time

25 Conclusions 1. Many vessels didn t fish at all during the closure, and some never returned. 2. Vessel characteristics influenced response to closure. 3. Little evidence of increased participation in other fisheries. 4. Another closure predicted to have similar effects.

26 Thanks! Any questions?

27 Focal vessels Characterized by: Revenue (mean annual revenue) Dependence on salmon (mean percent of revenue from salmon) Location (mean latitudinal center of gravity) Range (mean latitudinal inertia) Diversification (inverse HHI) Years fished

28 Latitude Community-level effects (48.1,49] (47.3,48.1] (46.4,47.3] (45.5,46.4] (44.7,45.5] (43.8,44.7] (43,43.8] (42.1,43] (41.3,42.1] (40.4,41.3] (39.6,40.4] (38.7,39.6] (37.8,38.7] (37,37.8] (36.1,37] (35.3,36.1] (34.4,35.3] (33.6,34.4] (32.7,33.6] Total revenue from salmon troll vessels Year Revenue (millions USD)

29 Community-level effects Mean % of total port revenue from vessels that participate in salmon troll Annual revenue anomaly Latitude R 2 =0.07, p=0.01 R 2 =0.20, p<0.001 R 2 =0.20, p<0.001 R 2 =0.07, p=0.01

30 Models logit(p yi ) = a + b 1 y + b 2 closure y + b 3 mean.revenue yi + b 4 mean.hhi yi + b 5 mean.percent.troll yi + b 6 mean.lcg yi + b 6 mean.li yi + b 7 years. fished yi + b 8 closure y mean.revenue yi + b 9 closure y mean.hhi yi + b 10 closure y mean.percent.troll yi + b 11 closure y mean.lcg yi + b 12 closure y mean.li yi + b 13 closure y years. fished yi + a i z yi = a + b 1 y + b 2 closure y + b 3 mean.revenue yi + b 4 mean.hhi yi + b 5 mean.percent.troll yi + b 6 mean.lcg yi + b 7 mean.li yi + b 8 years. fished + b 9 closure mean.revenue yi + b 10 closure mean.hhi yi + b 11 closure mean.percent.troll yi + b 12 closure mean.lcg yi + b 13 closure mean.li yi + b 14 closure years. fished yi +e logit(p) = a + b 1 mean.revenue+ b 2 mean.hhi + b 3 mean.percent.troll + b 4 mean.lcg + b 5 mean.li + b 6 years. fished