[EricM]

Finished reading the minutes from the first workshop and thought I would post some clips from the conversation of the scientists trying to make the decision on the eels- pretty interesting reading, hope these are of interest in broadening the discussion. Seems like there could be some room for anglers to get together to promote measures to improve conditions for eels- such as pushing for ladders so that they can get around dams and turbines- turbine mortality and barriers to previous freshwater habitats is one factor that comes up over and over again.

Also noteworthy was that they didn't feel that use of eels as bait was much of a factor at all in the perceived decline in the overall eel population. Right, just putting it out there for the record...

John Casselman noted that they had been monitoring the eels passing the St. Lawrence, and assessed the turbine mortality, in comparison to the yellow eel fishery, and found they were about of equal magnitude, at 40 percent. Bill Richkus noted that his recollection was correct, about the EPRI study, which found that turbine mortality was most often in the range of 20-30 percent...

Steve Gephard noted that he was concerned about the long-term impacts of downstream turbine mortality. Up until the 1900's, there were many dams, but they were low-head, and didn’t use much water. After WWII, we saw an increase in the construction of really large hydro projects, that take much of the flow of larger rivers, and run them through turbines. So, we might just be beginning to see the impacts on a panmictic population. He noted that if we build a complete barrier to an anadromous run, we see the impact in one generation. For American eels, say on the Housatonic, we kill all the silver eels coming down, we won’t see a cessation of recruitment, because of the panmictic nature of the species. He asked if the decline we’re seeing now is the result of the post-WWII dam construction, and the decline will continue slowly. He noted that our modelers can simulate when the population will crash, for other species. His concern is whether we are in one of those modes, where the American eel population is in the process of a long-term crash. He noted he wouldn’t use the “extinct” word. He asked if the hydropower operations already present could represent a threat to long-term sustainability?

Rob indicated that Steve had said what he had been trying to say, for four months now. When you add the cumulative effects of fishing on top of that, it is a real issue...

Rob noted that he had heard reference to the eel decline, several times, and asked if there was a decline? He stated he thought there is some debate about that issue. Heather noted that it has been on people’s minds, and asked how important it was to have information on that at the next workshop? She noted that we didn’t have time to address it at this one. She asked if it was easy to have a threat conversation, in the absence of information on any decline? Rob asked about the time frame for the ASMFC stock assessment. Heather indicated that she has to have her work done on November 18, 2006. She asked if it would be essential to have the stock assessment before she could complete the Status Review?
Jake didn’t think that we had to have the stock assessment, before we did a threat analysis. He noted that the human population was clearly not in decline, but was clearly threatened by nuclear warfare. So, he noted that the threats analysis could be completed. He did note that the stock assessment would influence his opinion regarding whether the species should be threatened or endangered...

Heather noted that she was left with certainty, and uncertainty, and we were faced with making a decision that had a high level of uncertainty. She noted that things may change next year in terms of recruitment, but that any response in terms of production might take years. She noted there was a lot of speculation today about factors that may be influencing things, but she has to make a decision regarding the status of the species...

Brian Knights noted there had been a lot of discussion in Europe, and the precautionary principle had been applied. He suggested that if the decision was made not to list, that application of the precautionary principle was an option. John asked if that was happening in Europe. Brian indicated that more restrictive regulations are being applied. He noted that they are stopping short of listing it as an endangered species...

John Casselman asked to speak before he left. Their modeling suggested that there were in the past 9-11 million eels in Lake Ontario. They were big eels. Now, they have only about 100,000, with 10,000 leaving each year. That means that up to 10-15 percent of the entire spawning stock biomass could have come from that one basin, so it represents a major loss...

Sheila asked why, if they had figured out six years ago that the eel was overfished, why weren’t management regulations changed then? Jim stated it wasn’t that easy. Julie noted that ASMFC has to work within the multi-state FMP (Fisheries Management Plan). The fishery extends across state lines. Sheila noted that a state can be more restrictive. Julie noted that was not likely to happen in MD. Sheila noted that it was still of interest that they reached this conclusion six years ago. Julie noted there were other factors...

Jim noted that three years or so ago, they did a survey of bait dealers in MD, and Harley Speir could say what they did. Jim didn’t recall what they measured. He didn’t believe it was much of a threat...

Julie indicated that the bait eels used for striped bass cost a dollar apiece. She felt that the numbers would be fairly small. She didn’t believe it was anywhere near the scale of the commercial landings. She didn’t believe that anyone would go out and buy 100 eels for recreational fishing. Jim noted that a lot of this was speculation.