Dave et al -
I certainly recognize that the real value in a recreational fishery ($$ spend) is the numbers of man days fishing rather than the number of fish killed/harvested. Have argued that point for decades.

However to make the point with folks like our legislators we need hard estimates of those man days of fishing. That usually requires some sort of creel surveys which of course a pretty expensive.

It appears to me that at least until this season (more about that in minute) the Catch and releasing of chums on the Snohomish systems has been pretty darn good. Based on comments by Todd, Ondarvr, and Sebastes it would seem that folks are expecting to have at least double digit days pretty consistently. There is little doubt in my mind that at least part of that success is due to increase numbers of fish in the river/on the spawning grounds (result of local management changes?).

I was suggesting that if folks wish to take on the case for increased recreational opportunity that other fisheries/ areas might be of more value/higher priority. Somehow if we are going to the mat with the decission makers for those opportunities I would think the recreational community would benefit more if that effort was directed to say the Columbia spring Chinook or if the interest is so great for increased chum fisheries maybe looking for wider application of breaks with past management paradigms (thinking outside of the old box) such as the current Snohomish chum management paradigm. Again I think that either option would be of wider interest than say modifications to the Snohomish chum model so that recreational anglers would expect to catch and release twice as many as they do now - but hey that just be me.

Regarding this year's Snohomish chum escapements.

By far the most significant statement in all of these 9 pages of discussion was by Twodog where he said.

"If people on this board are interested in the facts and interested in talking to managers, I'd be happy to oblige. But in return, I expect that I, my tribal fishermen, the non-tribal commercial fishermen, and all of us who work hard to manage this resource will be treated with respect. It only seems fair to me. Thanks. "

(Twodog - again thanks for generous offer and taking the time to bring additional information to our discussions.)

With that offer you have access to one of the key fisheries managers who as this discussion has shown has been more than willing to think "outside of the box", and who in my experience is vitally concerned with wild fish conservation and more than willing to listen to "new ideas".

Clearly the number of chums in the Snohomish system so far this year has been less than we all would like to see. The reality is that down years (for a variety of reasons which may include overfishing) are going to happen with virtually every wild salmonid run in the region. I suppose that we can use that as an excuse to rant and rave about real or previced issues or as I suggested earlier we can use this year to examine what has happened, what role management played and finally if needed how can management be adjusted to address any new insights.

Or to put it another way - I have always maintained that monitoring each year's escapement is essentially the correction of the test of that year's management. Given the variabilities of that year's runs did management put the desired number of fish on the spawning grounds (some call that putting the fish first)? If indeed it turns out that this year's management fails the "test" I would suggest that the managers do just as they did in school - That is if you fail a test review the information so that you can learn from that experience so that you reduce the likelyhood of future failures.

It is really up to you guys - you can use discussions such as this to vent (and Ican understand we some may want to do so) or (as many have done so far) as an opportunity to be proactive and roll up our collective sleeves and attempt to understand the nuances of management and get our concerns to the managers in a positive discussion that may actually influence future management decissions. I for one have no interest in the first but and more than willing to invest considerable effort in the later.

Tight lines
Curt