Should it be limited to fishing the afternoon to catch more retuning adults?

I fished for years out of Gig Harbor. Mooching over at the Point, Clay Banks on the ebb, and Dalco on the flood.

This was where my grandpa retired out of Ft Lewis for a reason. The opportunity to fish and hunt.

The LOAF does not reflect increased hatchery released fishes out there to provide salmon for the orcas.

Because everything else is closed, WDFW puts over the top pressure in Area 11 before the bulk of mature fish arrive. Who thought that 3000 something mature fish would be caught before 3000 sublegal encounters fishing in early July?
This stinks. Again.
Over 80% of sublegal encounters in 8 days. That leaves less than 2 more days by my math. Way to be on the ball WDFW. You had fish checkers, on the water surveys, LE and test fishers out most everyday. You could have closed it after a couple days of data to preserve a real chinook season in a terminal area. Especially after the June fishery was closed for the same reason. Maybe closing early was plan all along? Some inriver harvesters will definitely benefit from the 2700 mature fish left on the table.
I'll be interested to see how they try to keep it open for the humpy masses so they can sell licenses. Hundreds of more people in boats and on the beach using small terminal tackle catching more shakers. Hard to imagine that's going to fly.
A mess of their own doing. I hope they choke on it.

Choke I doubt it but more like well crap, oh well. Failure is an acceptable outcome to government in any resource management in this state.

If you report encounters at the dock you get what you deserve. Only thing we ever encounter is in the box. The way the co-managers and WDFW are running things, it's the only thing left within our control.

When you complain about how WDFW manages remember that management is based on models and models are based on data. The worse the data, the worse the model estimates. And the worse result for the resource.

I fish almost everyday in Area 11 when it is open. The fish checkers never ask me about wild or sublegal encounters. Just what time I started fishing and then take a scale sample. length and check for a coded wire tag if I have a legal chinook(or coho). WDFW is using the catch data from the WDFW and tribal test boats which are fishing the area. Also, my observation from my catches and those of other fishermen I know is that 80-90% of the legal size chinook are unclipped. The word on the street is that most of the hatchery chinook during the pandemic year were not clipped because the hatchery workers stayed home and no one was available for clipping. The vast majority of the maturing chinook have adipose fins.
The reason for the small harvested chinook numbers is not because of a low catch. It is because so many of the larger fish have to be released because they are unclipped.

Excellent analysis, Lifter. Interesting that the fish checkers don't ask about encounters, eh......? There are thousands of fish planted out of hatcheries that are unclipped.

I no longer trust the FBI, and I no longer trust WDFW salmon managers. They pulled numbers right out of their anal orifice last year when they abruptly closed Area 13.

I see this as the same sort of thing.

Tug, I have had a boat at Pt. Defiance for close to 50 years (My dad before me) and have never seen anything like this as far as unclipped fish. I know one of the people for many years who fishes on the WDFW test boat. He said that his boat has caught a total of three sublegals since Area 11 opened on June 1. And they fish on days when it is closed to the sport anglers. It was open 4 days/week for sport anglers (4 days on/3 off). Sport angling was open a total of 16 days in June and July (8 days in June and 8 days in July).
I don't know what the tribal boat catch was or what kind of gear, lures and depths they were fishing. But WDFW owes the sport fishing public an explanation of where their catch number data are coming from. When you ask WDFW theses kinds of questions their answer is always that this is the catch and just accept it.

Are the Orca enrichment chinook marked? I had, fore sure seen an increase in jacks, under the 22in. Had the boat kicker in gear to be able to gauge the length without handling the fish. A quick look and removed the light wire hook at the surface.

If they were truly meant as enrichemnt for SRKW food then they should not be marked so that they would not be caught in selective fisheries and should survive to adulthood and be eaten.

Since they are of hatchery origin it seems they would need either a different external mark or return to a terminal area lacking wild Chinook so they could be harvested.

yeah, less fishing opportunities because WDFW has to supplemental no data with guesses. Lying about sublegal encounters to WDFW is just so stupid and counterproductive.

Back in the mid-80s WDF proposed closing all of the approach waters for Fraser sockeye except areas 7 and 7A because the proposed areas had lots more US-origin fish for bycatch. At a public hearing on the proposal on commercial guy noted that one of the proposed closure areas was his favorite spot to fish. I pointed out that in the last 5 or 6 6 years there had been one landing for about 5 fish from that area. He was "smart" enough to know that the bycatch he caught, and there a lot of Chinook there, would not count against the NI share if reported from waters dominated by Canadian fish.

Like I said, the quality of management is directly related to the quality of data.

Yes, D needs to know the jack rate. Is it better ocean conditions or a hatchery food issue.

I believe the increased encounters were jacks. Perhaps some in river fishers will get some more fish to catch.

Carcassman,


In an ideal world this would be the case. The illusion of fisheries management would like people to believe the system in place of gathering and utilizing data to formulate models and estimates. Truth be told, the agenda of WDFW is to limit and restrict recreational fishermen as much as possible with the most minimal of push back from the community. The numbers are all fabricated and quite possibly made up entirely. As much as I would like to agree, we all know (and deep down I bet you know) that your comment is complete bullschit. I do wish it were true, however.

I keep my own data and log in quite a bit of time in the water every year. While I notice more smaller coho in the mix this year, I have not had any more sublegal encounters than usual. I have a pretty large network of fishermen who also document their own catch data and have similar results. This year, sublegal encounters was the most convenient strategy by WDFW to get fishermen off the water because it is a different reason than what has been used in the past. There is a less likelihood of pushback than if the same excuse was to be used every year to get fishermen off the water.

This can only go on for so much longer until eventually there is no opportunity at all, or the whole fraud of “fisheries management” in Washington state is exposed and we return to a state of more minimal corruption in wildlife management.


Streamer

Bingo.

This was the plan all along. I do not recall seeing any in season updates on the sublegal encounter quota. This was intentional as it would only raise suspicion. Suddenly, we were at 83% when the data was first released. There will definitely be a surplus of ocean returning fishing that will maximize tribal harvest. This was the plan all along.


Streamer

Lifter99,


Good analysis as well per usual and good point about wild/unclipped encounters. This year has yielded the highest catch ratio of wild:hatchery that I have ever seen. I would not be as cynical had the wild encounter quota been the justification to get fishermen off the water because that would be consistent with my own catch data and reflective of what other fisherman are also experiencing. This is only further evidence to prove how inaccurate the data is and how much of a facade the idea of “fisheries management” is in Washington state.


Streamer

I found it also interesting that in June in Area 11 there was a wild encounter quota (901 chinook), a harvest quota and a sublegal quota. WDFW closed the June fishery because of the wild encounter quota being reached (by their data). In July, however, there was only a harvest quota and sublegal quota but no wild encounter quota. WDFW used the sublegal quota to close the fishery. Interesting and highly questionable. As Streamer said, they look for any way to get the rec angler off the water as soon as possible. Do the local tribes demand this and WDFW wants to keep them happy?
Also, when the mature chinook return to the local rivers in the South Sound, there will not be a great harvest of hatchery chinook by the rec anglers because the vast majority of the hatchery fish are unclipped and only clipped chinook can be retained. The tribal gillnetters will do very well and there will be lots of surplus chinook at the hatcheries.

Curious if the covid lack of fin clippers theory holds truth? I thought automated fin clipping had taken over most of that. If so, could the co-managers be smart enough during negotiations to use that as a boon for there fisheries? Sad that I am always suspicious of them and ther activities.

Decades ago WDF made a concerted effort to fully and clearly explain management to any sport or commercial user who asked. That action defused a lot of the mistrust flowing then. It would appear that WDFW needs to reprise that effort.

I know that the users still did not always agree with what was done but they knew why it was done. I do believe that there are drivers of management that the managers don't want users aware of.