https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/summaries

Not the best w/ more restrictions this season. Hopefully the Virus issues will subside by then to provide any opportunity at all.

Those are last years seasons, 2019 & 2020.
They haven’t posted the 2020 and 2021 agreed upon seasons yet.
SF

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: WDFW Public Affairs <do.not.reply@dfw.wa.gov>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:00 PM
Subject: WDFW News Release: Washington's salmon seasons tentatively set for 2020-21


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

April 10, 2020
Contact: Kyle Adicks, 360-902-2664
Media inquiries: Ben Anderson, 360-480-4465

Washington's salmon seasons tentatively set for 2020-21

OLYMPIA – Continued low returns of some key Chinook salmon stocks are expected to limit numerous Washington salmon fisheries in the upcoming season, state fishery managers announced today.

The state's 2020-21 salmon fishing seasons, developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and treaty tribal co-managers, were tentatively set today during the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (PFMC) meeting, which was held via webinar due to concerns related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

"These seasons were determined with the goal of meeting conservation objectives while offering opportunities whenever possible, but we had some tough decisions to make this year," said WDFW Director Kelly Susewind. "We appreciate the hard work of co-managers and everyone else who sat through long teleconferences and webinars to determine these seasons."

"This was another difficult year with so many depressed stocks as a result of lost and damaged habitat," said Lorraine Loomis, Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. "I am especially encouraged by efforts this year to include habitat recovery in fisheries planning. Salmon continue to decline because their habitat is being lost faster than it can be restored and protected. Working together to change that trend is the most important thing we can do for salmon recovery."

Season recommendations now move forward for approval by the National Marine Fisheries Service and final rulemaking, including additional opportunity for public comment and consideration of those comments.

Puget Sound

Low returns of Stillaguamish and mid-Hood Canal Chinook, as well as Snohomish coho limited a number of Puget Sound fisheries in 2019, and created even greater constraints in 2020. That includes closing fishing for winter Chinook in East Juan De Fuca Strait (Marine Area 6), the San Juan Islands (Marine Area 7), Deception Pass and Port Gardner (areas 8-1 and 8-2), Admiralty Inlet (Marine Area 9), Tacoma-Vashon Island (Marine Area 11) and Hood Canal (Marine Area 12), with some exceptions for Chinook non-retention in Hood Canal in November and December. Summer seasons in Deception Pass and Port Gardner are also closed to protect coho.

Susewind said the department recognizes that many of these fisheries have seen continued declines in opportunity in recent years.

"This is never the outcome we hope for, but until these stocks rebound, this is an unfortunate reality," Susewind said. "We continue working alongside the public and tribal, state, and federal partners to address all the factors impacting these critical runs."

This summer, Chinook fisheries are expected to be largely similar to last year, with most Puget Sound marine areas opening for Chinook retention beginning in July or August. Summer Chinook fisheries are expected to begin July 1 in marine areas 5, 6, 7, and 11.

Columbia River

The summer salmon fishery will again be closed to summer Chinook retention (including jacks), though stronger forecasts allow for sockeye retention in 2020, a change from last year. That fishery will need to be closely monitored in-season if returns come in lower than expected, said Kyle Adicks, salmon fisheries policy lead for WDFW.

Fall Chinook fisheries will be open under various regulations. Waters from Buoy 10 upstream to the Puget Island will be open Aug. 16-27 for Chinook, and will remain open for coho afterwards. Most of the waters upstream will open Aug. 1, but Warrior Rock to Bonneville Dam will open Fri., Sat., and Sun. from Aug. 7 through Sept. 6.

Steelhead fisheries in the Columbia and Snake rivers this season will again be very limited and additional protective measures will be in place due to continued low returns of steelhead.

Washington's ocean waters

Initial ocean fisheries reflect a reduced coho quota due to significantly lower projected returns in 2020. All four of Washington's marine areas are scheduled to open June 20 for a Chinook-only fishery, then transition to a Chinook and coho fishery beginning June 29. Daily limits and days of the week open to salmon fishing vary between areas.

More information

COVID-19 remains a factor going into the upcoming summer and fall fishing seasons, with the potential to continue impacting fisheries as the year continues, said WDFW Director Susewind. Many of the conversations during this week's PFMC meeting included consideration of ongoing coronavirus impacts.

"The coronavirus remains the biggest unknown as we move ahead in the 2020 and 2021 fishing seasons," Susewind said. As with every aspect of life these days, we'll have to be flexible to respond to any public health concerns."

Additional information about this year's sport salmon fisheries and the North of Falcon process can be found on WDFW's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/nof.

For information on tribal fisheries, contact the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (http://nwifc.org).

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting, and perpetuating fish, wildlife, and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing, hunting, and other recreation opportunities.



Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.

This message has been sent to the WDFW All Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html

My bad! When will these be officially posted?

Not sure. Still not on their website this morning.
Keep checking back on the link you posted.

Funny how you can get a good summary on various websites nearly immediately after the seasons are agreed upon yet it takes WDFW way longer to post it on their own site.
SF

The new website and corresponding internal controls now make it a bureaucratic process to post something whereas previously a manager (for example, Shellfish Manager) could make the posting.

So in other words, another great step in the right direction for WDFW getting info out in a timely manner.
I personally think the new website sucks.
SF

Got an email from CCA this AM. They say that winter Blackmouth is completely closed apparently forever. I started fishing Blackmouth when I moved to Seattle in 1980 and really enjoyed it but its done.

I sold my 2005 Seahawk last summer. That was my third boat since I moved to Seattle. Great boat but around here there just didnt seem to be any reason to own it anymore. I might go out on a charter now and then.

Text of CCA email:




The annual salmon fishing season-setting process known as “North of Falcon” has once again gone south for anglers. While there may be some modest increases to a few Puget Sound fisheries this summer, WDFW has agreed to drastic new cuts, including the complete closure of the winter Blackmouth fishery. Columbia River fisheries will also see reductions under the proposal.

While we can expect the usual co-manager spin about how the closures were based on “conservation” and “mutual sacrifice” and will likely place blame on factors like lost and damaged habitat, the true culprit of the Puget Sound reductions is WDFW’s acceptance of arbitrary, one-sided policies demanded by Puget Sound treaty tribes. If left in place, these policies will drastically curtail Puget Sound recreational fisheries for years to come.

Puget Sound Winter Blackmouth Fishery Eliminated
In a historic new low, the popular winter Blackmouth Chinook fishery will be closed across northern Puget Sound’s areas 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12. This unique fishery has provided much-needed winter fishing opportunity through mark-selective fisheries focused on hatchery Chinook with minimal impacts to ESA-listed wild Chinook.

WDFW’s elimination of the winter Blackmouth fishery was driven by a new 12% exploitation rate limit on fin-clipped Stillaguamish hatchery Chinook agreed to by WDFW as part of a 10-year state-tribal Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan (PSCHMP). WDFW had options to avoid this crippling new constraint, including simply not marking Chinook from this conservation hatchery program. CCA Washington sent a letter to WDFW back in 2018 warning of the consequences of this arbitrary policy. George Harris, President of the Northwest Marine Trade Association, addressed this troubling provision in remarks before the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission earlier this year. WDFW ignored these warnings.

It is now clear that this arbitrary policy is not about conservation. In fact, under the agreement this season, two tribal fisheries with relatively high impacts on Stillaguamish hatchery chinook are expected to match or exceed their recent average harvest levels. What’s worse, according to one analysis the complete closure of the winter Blackmouth fishery won’t increase the escapement of wild or hatchery Chinook to the Stillaguamish.

Limiting Anglers’ Access to Hatchery Chinook, Greater Inequity in Puget Sound Harvest Sharing
Puget Sound sport fisheries were already constrained by weak “wild” ESA-listed Chinook populations. Through the adoption of mark-selective fisheries, we’ve reduced our mortalities to these ESA-listed stocks, only to have these conservation savings absorbed by tribal fisheries.

The restriction on Stillaguamish hatchery Chinook is a powerful tool for limiting sport fisheries’ access to hatchery Chinook across northern Puget Sound. Is it any surprise that tribal gillnet fisheries will reap the benefit? In fact, according to WDFW data, the overall tribal share of available Chinook is expected to increase from 56% in 2019 to at least 62% in 2020. Left unchanged, you can expect this inequity to increase as recent hatchery production increases begin returning to Puget Sound and recreational anglers are forced to sit on the banks.

Columbia River Fisheries
Columbia River fisheries will also see reductions under the North of Falcon agreement. Our popular Buoy 10 fishery will see the largest reduction, going from a 20-day fishery in 2019 to just 12 days in 2020. The rest of the lower Columbia River will see limited fishing opportunity during the peak of the run.

CCA is also monitoring the continued closure of recreational fisheries in Washington under Governor Inslee’s stay home order. We will keep you posted on any developments there and with additional analysis from North of Falcon.

Thank you,
CCA Washington

So this is the best WDFW could come up with to post on their website about the seasons?
SF

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon/summaries#puget-sound

There seems to be a discrepancy between the Outdoor Line and WDFW fishery summaries. Outdoor Line says that Area 12C (S. of Ayock) will have a minimum size limit of 20". WDFW doesn't mention that for Area 12, but says there is a 20" minimum size limit in Area 13 July through September. I wonder which is correct.

"The coronavirus remains the biggest unknown as we move ahead in the 2020 and 2021 fishing seasons," Susewind said. As with every aspect of life these days, we'll have to be flexible to respond to any public health concerns."

Not to be a conspiracy theorist - chuckle - but count me as unsurprised when recreational fisheries that remain closed due to coronavirus shift unharvested salmon to "essential" counterpart commercial fishing.

WDFW, the state agency that bites the hand that feeds it, and gets away with it. A perfect crime?

"In fact, under the agreement this season, two tribal fisheries with relatively high impacts on Stillaguamish hatchery chinook are expected to match or exceed their recent average harvest levels."

"Is it any surprise that tribal gillnet fisheries will reap the benefit? In fact, according to WDFW data, the overall tribal share of available Chinook is expected to increase from 56% in 2019 to at least 62% in 2020."

Am I correct to assume these tribal gillnet fisheries will be estuary specific? Or, will a new tribal PS winter troll, or PS gillnet fishery develop with no rec. fishing going on?

Will they help us with our boat payments under the stimulus plan?

What other Hobbies are there where people spend so much money and get nothing in return except a good ARS FU$&ING?
Hundreds of Millions spent, helping local economies.... 50,000.00 boats, 30,000. trucks , thousands in gear, Gas, Lodging.....

What would this state look like if they managed the resources correctly?

Snowmobiles, race cars, hot rods, motocross, 4 wheeling, etc.

How do these examples compare?

then vote out the governor in November. Only possible way to get changes.

While I don't think Inslee is all that great, and not exactly a sporfisher friend...but what, exactly, do you think would be different with a different Governor?

Fish on...

Todd

Probably nothing will be different because all the special interest groups will crawl out of their holes and fill the next governors pockets too. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Until the Governor is granted Kingship over the treaty tribes, Canada, and Alaska, then he literally can do almost nothing at all that has any effect whatsoever on anything involving fishing for salmon or steelhead.

One thing the Governor could do, however, is push for and sign (if the Legislature sends them to him) laws that would greatly restrict any development, pollution, or activities in salmon-bearing watersheds...though I suspect the same folks that think he is the King who can change salmon seasons would call him a Fascist Dictator if he did.

Fish on...

Todd

I do understand that you toe the party line but you don't have to be so transparent.

Different topic...you don't have to be so predictable, and hack-ish.

Fish on...

Todd

Perhaps he could stop taking money from the tribes so that he does not owe them.


Really, so Gov. Inslee gives the tribes exclusive right to a revenue stream from online sports gambling. You know (I think that you do?) that a healthy percentage of those moneys go into the Democrat party coffers.

Coming from you that's a hoot.

The End of Blackmouth in the Puget Sound.... This saddens me as this was my favorite fishery in the last years Hatchery fish in the winter how can they take that away?

The Democrats have had a 30 year one party rule in this State.

The Tribes have been a huge partner to the Democrats, the more power the Casino's get the more power full the Democrats get...

To say any party in charge would do the same is insane!
So if your boss was stealing money from the company The next in line would steal money as well because that's what people do?
So stupid!

Gregior accepted money from the tribes for favors. Corruption!

Inslee gave favors to the tribes in sports betting monopoly. Corruption!

Obvious examples are there for all to see, but what about the secrets dealings, what happens in the North of Falcon? I will not assume the same people that act corrupt in the open are honest behind closed doors!

Besides the Sanctuary state status Inslee declared, I know 2 Social workers one from pierce county and one from King county. Illegals are getting social services, welfare. Even though it is also the law that illegals shall not receive state benefits hey have well known work arounds.
So again Social Justice warriors, the end justifies the means....

I think there will be a special place in Hell for Jay Inslee and the Democrats!

Blackmouth makes a pretty solid point +1

Blue Frank 0

All I asked is what the Governor could have done to make those seasons different...still no answers, because the answer is "nothing".

Carry on with the rest of the drivel.

Fish on...

Todd

That is not true. You did not ask anything in your rant of a post. You simply made ridiculous claims that I doubt even you believe. But being that you think you asked the question I will give you an answer. He could have vetoed the bill giving the tribes exclusive rights to online sportsgambling.

Tood toes the party line again.

I just want to fish the Skagit for steelhead again. The least he could do is push WDFW to fully fund the Skagit C&R season and maybe make it permanent. What do we have left on the agreement, 1 or 2 years?

What the Governor could do, and should have done back in 2016 is to get off his AS$ and tell the AG to challenge the tribal fast track permit process. That is what the tribes use to bend WDFW over and coerce agreements like the 12% cap on stilli fish, knowing full well it will kill puget sound rec. fishing.

EVERY SINGLE REC FISHERMEN WHO CARES ABOUT OUR SPORT SHOULD BE STORMING THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND DEMANDING AN END TO THE INEQUALITY IN THE NORTH OF FALCON.. THAT IS ROTTON TO THE CORE AND IS KILLING OUR SPORT!

1. The Governor doesn't tell the AG to do anything. That's not how our state government is set up.

2. The tribes have had all of us by the shorthairs since 1974. There is no telling them what to do, or how to do it. None...including telling them that meetings they are at have to be "open". They can just say "no", and there you go.

Fish on...

Todd

From the AG web site. There are more, but for simplicity I just put the ones that looked pertinent.

Roles of the State Attourney General

What the Attorney General's Office DOES do:


Represents the State of Washington before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and trial courts in all the cases involving the state’s interest and defends in court state officers or employees ethically acting in their official capacities.

Investigates and prosecutes persons accused of crimes at the request of the Governor or a county prosecutor.

Advises the Governor, members of the Legislature, other state officers, and county prosecutors on legal issues.

Gives formal written attorney general’s opinions on constitutional or legal questions at the request of designated public officials.

So, can the Governor ask Ferguson to look into the issue to not?

Sure. So can you. But neither you nor the Governor can make him do it, nor can you either of you make him do it in the way you'd like.

The Governor definitely can't "make him get off his a$$" and do anything.

Fish on...

Todd

And why would sleepy Jay want Ferguson to kill the goose that lays golden eggs?

Your wrong! Back in the day the Dept. of game used to swoop in and remove nets and close tribal fishing when quotas were met. I witnessed it! They have no balls to bump heads and enforce no, anymore is the problem.

What I was driving at is having the AG start looking at the inequality that results in the NOAA permitting process. The BIA's pass through of the tribal permits allows the tribes an unfair advantage over other state citizens. That's all, just work on getting the State and the Tribes to be processed in the exact same manner. That way, the state can have its own permit and remove the leverage.

....never mind.

Before Co-Management, the State (WDF and WDG) had sole responsibility for conservation. I think that is still the way Boldt is worded but the state decided to share conservation responsibility when they agreed to Co-management.

Back then, the State could and did enact closures (e-regs) when either allocation or conservation required it. Most of the time (and this is from the WDF side) the issuance of the reg was pro-forma as both sides generally agreed where we were vis-a-vis harvest as data and updates were real-time.

Salmo and CM know this stuff backwards and forwards, but for those that would like a little history lesson, the following put together many years ago by Fronda Woods of the AGs office gives a nice run down.

https://www.fws.gov/leavenworthfisheriescomplex/who_in_charge_fishing%20(1).pdf

Is this the same Fronda Woods?

Attorney General Bob Ferguson recently honored Senior Assistant Attorney General Dave Stolier and Senior Counsel Fronda Woods with the Attorney General’s 2015 Steward of Justice Award. The award recognizes assistant attorneys general who further the cause of justice through exceptional legal work and extraordinary contributions to the people of Washington.

yes.

It was a rhetorical question.

I was just illustrating that they are denizens of the same swamp, and that a person should not take their words, thoughts and opinions as necessarily correct or true. I do not imply that they are intellectually dishonest, but I do believe that it is a long term job hazard.

People rarely bite the hand that feeds it.

Jeeze. It was written in 2005 well before Ferguson's time. Its not a legal document. Its simply a summary of court cases related to state and treaty fishing for the lay person.

And this is the prime reason that we have Boldt. Not just "enforcing" tribal quotas but barring the Tribes from fishing at all. What an interesting world we would live in if the State actually worked with the Tribes rather than confronting. That whole Boldt thing has really worked out well for us, the sports fisherman!

1.Just what tribal quotas are you referring to?
2.The State was not barring the tribe from fishing at all.
3.I can only assume that you meant that the Boldt decision has not worked out well for the sportsman.

Some form of truth to that. The state permitted Indians to fish under state rules. So some Lummi tribal fishermen had state issued purse seine, gillnet, and reef net licenses and fished commercially in Puget Sound under WDF regulations. And the state permitted Indians to purchase recreational fishing licenses to fish recreationally in freshwater rivers. However, the state prohibited treaty Indians from fishing commercially in freshwater rivers or without state licenses, except on reservations. Basically the state treated treaty fishing the same as non-treaty fishing, with on reservation fishing being the only exception. And that resulted in Boldt.

Some might say that the Tribes were fishing "In common with" the other citizens.

Funny you should mention that, because that was the state's defense. History shows that the feds and the court saw it differently.

So put on some big boy pants and repeal "Co-management"! IT AIN'T WORKING!

Well now that is interesting because actually In the mid-1800’s, the United States entered into a series of treaties with tribes in what is now the State of Washington. Those treaties contained language reserving the tribes’ right to fish “in common with the citizens of the Territory.” and that is why I put the phrase in quotes. So it seems that you are telling me that the Feds and the court did not agree with their own treaty. I lifted the underlined section from, https://www.justice.gov/enrd/us-v-washington

"Boldt interpreted the words “in common with” to mean the tribes were entitled to up to 50 percent of the harvestable catch, an almost inconceivable change considering tribal members made up less than 1 percent of the state population and non-Indian fishermen routinely were taking 95 percent of the fish."
I lifted the entire above paragraph from, https://www.nativetimes.com/90-news/wildlife/9575-boldt-decision-has-rippling-effects-40-years-later

When the treaties were written it is likely that the tribes got 95% of the fish. The interpretation of the treaty language was based on what was understood at the time.

The State has recently made the argument to the Supremes that they could entirely destroy a run of fish and still be in compliance with the treaties. The Supremes didn't see it that way.

Well I suppose if you say so it must be so.

The treaties were written in 1850s. There were damn few non-Indians in the whole state and they had more important things to do than fish. The Indians provided the fish and they (Tribes) also fished for subsistence.

At the time of the signing of the treaties I seem recall that the non-Indian population was around 10,000. It of course has grown a bit since then.

curt

The Bpldt Decision is pretty much cast in stone. What has happened is our salmon have disappeared for reasons most of us know, but disagree on a fix. If we reverted in a mythical time machine back to 1974 I think that most of us would agree that we were in a salmon bonanza.

Looking back on Boldt, I think I remember that the decision was upheld by a 5 to 4 slim majority. So, four learned' supremes didn't agree with the final decision. Curiouusly, some years back the 111th U.S. Distirct Court (I think) in Wyoming decided the exact opposite of Boldt. Indians were denied a right to hunt off reservation because their "Rights" were extinguished when the congress made them U.S. Citizens. This was done after Boldt.

What we need are more fish, then everybody wins. Given the state of our management at both the federal and state levels, I don't have much hope for rebuilding salmon/steelhead populations. Drastic political moves may be more important than the status quo biology.

Blackmouth,

You know it's not a matter of what we informed Piscatorial members say. It's a matter of federal case law. You lifted one paragraph from a 2014 news article that doesn't provide sufficient context to thoroughly explain the ruling. I'd be one of the first to admit that the outcome of US v WA is anything but intuitive. I was initially confused and taken aback when it came out in 1974, but I got a copy, read it, studied it, and then read the cited case law going back to 1895, and was personally involved in post-ruling court hearings as the state and tribes were figuring out how implementation would look like going forward.

When I posted that ". . . the feds and the courts saw it differently" I wasn't about to try and explain it completely. It simply does not fit a 20 second sound bite or single paragraph format. It's a complex set of history and federal case law. Don't take my word for it; there's plenty of reading that you can inform yourself with if you wish. But cherry picking a couple or a handful of paragraphs from the record will only keep you misinformed.

Salmo g.

I have been studying and reading about this case since before it was initially decided. We, you and I, have debated it ad nauseam. I know where you stand on this issue and I would hope that you know where I stand on it. I would never have brought it up however when a post is made that is nonsensical I sometimes choose to illustrate that posters errors. Not just for the sake of the poster but for the entire board. After I had shown the posters errors for some reason you chose to join the party, and then one thing lead to another.

I am so pleased that you chose not "to try and explain completely" as I have heard it all before. I also choose not to explain it all to you completely as you have heard my side before. Now as far as my quotes go if you or anyone wanted to read the context in which they were originally used that would have been easy to do as I posted links to the essays from which they came. But as we know some people find it easier to simply read a couple of paragraphs from a post and remain misinformed.

Tug,
We need fewer intercepts in Northern fisheries.

I volunteered for years to help restore the riparian zone here in the South Sound. Fed chum, used as a biological filter, above a chinook pond until they were moved.

Harvest Management is to worked up over paper fish. PA is the Chair @ PFMC. No wonder very few return.

None of that take was there when the Treaties were signed.

The closed, Winter/Spring chinook are funded by a 10 dollar increase rolled in the license fee. At an earlier NOF meeting Staff said there would be no make up season for the closed fisheries.

Time to make fishing in terminal areas a thing again. When stocks self sort.

And apart from some orcas, there was nobody in the ocean low-holin' ALL the kings, either.

Has anyone found the Coastal River seasons? Queets, Hoh, Quileute etc? I don't see them on the NOF site. I tried Montesano a few weeks ago but they were closed.

I do see the Tribe schedule.

Thanks

Slabhunter,

I totally agree with you about major reductions in the interception of our salmon. I think it's ironic that our own state citizens can go to SE Alaska and harvest their own state's listed species for profit. If I were king, I'd also vastly reduce the pinniped numbers plus the over populations of some sea birds.