Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Not knowing all the facts this thought. First it is not about numbers coming in but rather low flows and the fact that the fish staged up hard low. That mob of fish was huge and unlike the last few years where the fish got into safe reaches with rain this year they did not. They came in without rain early and stuck in close to tidewater areas which is not good.

This summer weather has not been around for a few years but it is a normal pattern. For many years the high risk area was below the South Elma Bridge to Fuller Bridge for Chinook. What is different is all of us. When I was younger it was locals and some sportsman and that is again the difference. Sure we had crowds then but nothing like now. To add to the misery the manner in which people conduct themselves shall we say has deteriorated more than a little bit. A lady I worked for when I was 16 used to say " most persons are decent but people are a quarrelsome, destructive, ill mannered thing". Then we have and ever growing bunch of guides crowding themselves into a already small area to fish.

So unless the preseason forecast was and is total garbage it is not a numbers thing. It is about the fish and the fact they staged up low with little water in the tribs. The bay and lower tidewater the fish have water and acreage to use. Above South Monte it gets dicey but they do have water, tides and room for now. The tribs and mainstem above fuller hill the fish are trapped and it was proper to do this. I do worry that if the fish keep stacking up in the Fuller Hill to South Monte we could loose that reach also.

One final thing this and other years the area few miles down stream below Schafer Park it has been a real problem with fishers snagging and harassing Chinook, just saying.



I know the justification isn't based on actual numbers in the tribs, but I also know I don't need to tell you of all people that every policy decision WDFW makes on salmon is about numbers (mostly on paper) at the end of the day. Someone crunched some numbers to decide what needed to be done here. In this case, I think the calculation is about how many assumed fish from each tributary managers think they can transfer to the lower river and bay allocation without endangering escapement (another number). Rather than letting people try (and mostly fail) to catch them in the tribs, they are essentially allocating the catch that would normally be occurring in the tribs to the mainstem. From an angling perspective, if you have a boat, that probably sounds pretty good, and I don't begrudge anyone for taking the opportunity; I just think an honest assessment can only arrive at the fact that upstream opportunity has been traded to allow for more harvest on the mainstem. I think the QIN, who are probably benefiting handsomely from the fish staying where they gillnet, might have had a rather solid hand to play in that game.

There should be no question among us that during times of low water, many more fish are caught and killed every day in the lower river and bay than in all the tribs combined. Simple function of number of rod hours concentrated in the area that has the most fish (yeah, more numbers). There should also be no question that when the water's low, the same fish cycle in and out of the river with tide changes (or else pile up below river mouths) until conditions in their trib of choice become suitable for them to make their move. These factors, combined, make time staging in those areas the most perilous time these fish face in their lives (after surviving smolthood, I suppose). That means it's the place that makes the least sense to fish right now if we're trying to "protect" fish, as the emergency regulation clearly states we are. That's the hangup for me. I think they're sacrificing all opportunity upstream to allow for more harvest down below, plain and simple, motivated by politics, and yes, supported by somebody's numbers.

One last thought: I hate fishing around snaggers as much as anyone. They shut down a bite quicker than anything else. That said, as ugly as it is to see (and illegal as it is), how much harm does snagging really do in modern times? Those who still do it generally abide by gear restrictions that make it hard to snag in the first place, and when they "hook up," I have observed that they lose most fish rather quickly, and those they do land are almost always released, either because they're boots, have too many fins, or (the majority) aren't fair hooked. For sure, the harassment is poor form and probably not great for fish, but hardened-off salmon are pretty tough, so even that probably has a relatively small impact at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong; not looking to legalize snagging, and I think it's despicable. Just putting it out there that snagging might not be the threat to salmon we assume it to be. I guess I'm saying it's poor justification for closing fisheries, in my opinion. Poaching is obviously another matter, but that goes on whether the river is open or not (maybe more when it's closed), so....

How much any of this matters? One last number: zero. Hope the fishing is good for those who still can. Be careful out there; I may be jealous of you downstream guys right now, but I don't want to see anyone hurt!