Twodogs -
Thanks very much for joining in the disucssion here. While the comments you read may not always reflect it most of the folks here appreciate having some factual information injected in these discussions.

Good to hear from you even if indirectly!

Skyguy's original comment/observation -
"In the last 5 years, friends I fish with and myself have noticed a dramatic decrease in the numbers of Chum in the northern Puget Sound rivers."

is important. Taking the time to evaluate managment, especially in face of conflicting information is part of a healthy management paradigm. It is not uncommon for some sport angler's on the water observations (Skyguy's) to fly in the face of escapement data (Twodogs data) or even other angler's obseration (ondarvr's obseravtion). The trick as always if ferret out what the fish are really doing. Again as suggested by some improved data is always helpful. It is clear that chum management would be improved with better catch accounting and escapement estimation. However that needs immediatley comes into conflict with age old management bug-a-boo - "are those improvements worth the increased costs and are those funds available".

A couple of comments than may help put some things in prespective.

1) As the Twodog's data indicates we can expect to see fewer fish on odd years than even years (recent year averages 52,000 versus 120,000).

(Twodogs - it is interesting that the significant even/odd difference remain in spite of the fixed exploitation management. Seems to indicate that difference may be real).

2) It is clear that over the last decade or so we have seen a period of "good" marine survival of chums (reflected in near record run sizes through out the sound). It is unlikely that we'll always see runs of those magnitudes. It is the very natural of salmon to see year to year variation in run sizes with extended periods of different survival conditions.

3) Not uncommon to see not only year to year variation in run sizes but also variations in run timing. It remains to be seen whether this year's run (as measure in the river) is smaller than expected or later than expected. We should be reaching the point of the run the commercial catches to date may provide some insight into the timing question and whether in-season management adjustments are needed.

4) As suggested by some perhaps the best "test" of various management paradigms are how many fish are making it to the spawning grounds. Again the escapement estimates seem to indicate that the current Snohomish "guess-estimation/fixed exploitation management has been successful in the last decade in putting more fish on the spawning grounds - most would think that is a good thing.

5) There is no doubt that there has been a dramatic increase in angler interest and pressure on local waters directed towards in-rive chum fishing. I have fished local rivers long enough that I can remember targeting chums on the Skykomish river in the Elwell to Wallace reach of the Sky (25 yeara ago) where the number of anglers I would see this time of year during a day on the water could be counted on my fingers (often one hand). I have to wonder if the pressure has not reached the "saturation" point. That is the number of anglers have increased to the point that we collectively are affecting our catch rates even though the number of avaiable fish is constant.

Tight lines
Curt