Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Response: As discussed above, we did not have time to implement such approaches, thoughwe have now expanded our description of alternative modelling approaches in Appendix 3.We agree with the reviewer that simple in/out selection criteria to identify the so called‘best’ model is not a good approach. We used a weight of evidence or support approach tointerpret the alternative candidate models rather than simply presenting the ‘best’ modeland assuming this was correct.Most interpretations in this report are re-statements of conclusions/observations drawnin other reports. However, here are two examples from this report of incorrectinterpretations of stock dynamics that make me doubt their "best" scientificinterpretations:a. On page 39, that authors incorrectly state that cyclic variation in abundance is acondition for delayed-density-dependence. In fact, cyclic variation is one potential resultof a delayed-density-dependent process, and not all delayed-density-dependentprocesses show cyclic variation in abundance.Response: This is a helpful clarification. Peterman and Dorner (pers. comm.) confirm thatdelayed density-dependence doesn't necessarily have to lead to a cyclic dominance pattern.It all depends on whether the mechanisms involved combine with life history traits in a waythat generates and maintains a persistent cycle. The absence of regular wide-rangingfluctuations makes it less likely that delayed density dependence plays a strong role, butdoesn't completely preclude the possibility that it is having an impact. We have rephrasedthis part of our report to say:Peterman et al. (2010; Section 4.7) noted that stocks outside of the Fraser Basinusually do not have such strong and regular fluctuations in abundance; theytherefore concluded that delayed density dependence was not a likely mechanismfor observed declines in non-Fraser sockeye stocks.b. Trends in stock productivity are incorrectly described in Appendix 4 figure captions.Declining ln(R/S) over time does not indicate that a "stock has been in decline" (FigureA4-3) or that there is "a non-zero trend in the L. Shuswap stock" (Figure A4-4), and soon. This is pretty basic knowledge that will confuse readers who are looking fordeclining trends in stock abundance – these are actually trends in indices of stockproductivity. In some cases, the actual stock abundance has been increasing.Response: The errors in the figure captions for Figures A4-3 and A4-4 were oversights, andhave been corrected. However, we have decided to summarize these results in tabularformat rather than figures, so the original figures have been removed.3. Are there additional quantitative or qualitative ways to evaluate the subjectarea not considered in this report? How could the analysis be improved?As noted above, a Bayesian approach would allow most, if not all, the data to be utilizedmore in characterizing, and possibly explaining, the shared productivity patterns among140