On the Cowlitz River, WDFW apparently now has 2 different set of rules on how they define what a chinook "jack" is. According to there own rules on page 13 of there 2000/2001 pamphlet, WDFW defines a fresh water chinook jack as a "chinook less than 24" in length". They do not say that its may be 12-16 or 14-18 inches in length, they just define chinook jacks as anything less then 24".

I would like to ask this BB for their opinion on WDFW's policy concerning a "jack fishery", or maybe I should say the "lack of a jack fishery" on the Cowlitz River below Mayfield Dam. The current WDFW policy does not allow fishermen to keep or harvest any spring chinook jacks below Mayfield Dam on the Cowlitz. Why is that? Since these "jacks" don't contribute much, if anything at all to the hatchery needs or production, why not allow them to be harvested in the lower Cowlitz by fishermen? Currently, we have a good fishery going on for summer run steelhead on the Cowlitz and lots of these jacks are being caught in that fishery. Last week, over 459-spring so-called chinook "mini-jacks" was trucked from the lower river up to Riffe Lake for fishermen to harvest. In the lower river, fishermen are not being allowed to keep or harvest these same exact fish that are now being trucked to Riffe Lake and the upper Cowlitz for harvest! What is WDFW's logic for doing this?

So why hasn't WDFW been honest with us and told us the truth about this "jack trucking fiasco"?
If you read WDFW weekly escapement reports at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hat/escape/escape.htm you will notice what WDFW total jack count for the Cowlitz River is only 55 fish. When you read Tacoma's News Release, they report that over 203 jacks have already been passed into the upper Cowlitz where they can be legally harvested. Last week (6/21) Tacoma's weekly News Release stated that WDFW had taken over 459 "mini-jacks" up and released into Riffe Lake for a sport harvest. According to the rules pamphlet, these "jacks" and mini-jacks" can all be harvested behind the dams?

Currently, WDFW are taking all the spring "mini-jacks" up to Riffe Lake for harvest under WDFW's "Landlocked Salmon Rules". In the Lower Cowlitz, these same "jacks" and "mini-jacks" are being "protected" from harvest. WHY? None of these jacks have originated from Riffe Lake, so why is WDFW making Tacoma truck these harvestable "jacks" up to the upper Cowlitz and Riffe Lake to be harvested? The trucking of these jacks are costing thousands of dollars, which Tacoma could be better using in promoting a better and healthier sport fishery in the lower river. If WDFW were trucking these fish into the upper river above Mayfield or Riffe Lake for natural production or for adding "bio-mass" enrichments, we could understand their actions, but they are not doing it for that reason, its being done only for harvest! WDFW's current actions cannot be supported by any logical fishery management plan and should be stopped immediately! If there logic was to keep it closed to protect any possible accidental catching or possible shortfalls of adult spring chinook escapement retuning to the hatchery, then why have they allowed the current fishery on the summer runs? Are we going to face this same problem again this fall when we have tons of fall chinook jacks returned back again like last year? What do think the answer is? Should we have an open fishery for jacks or not? What's your opinion? What are the Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC) opinion about opening up a sport fishery for spring and fall jacks on the Cowlitz?

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]

Couldn't agree with ya more Cowfish!!! We fished the Cow yesterday and RT picked up one mini-jack. Would have made a great dinner for two!!! No sense to this at all!!! Just shot an e mail to the fish program managers and the director. Don't know if it will help, but it doesn't hurt to try.
Good luck and tight lines, Jeff

After reading such a literate, well thought-out, passionate pleading I am unable to come up with a single reason why this harvest is not allowed.

I'm afraid that I need to be dumb here. What happens to a salmon jack? Does it die with the mature adults, or does it drift back out to sea? Sorry I don't know myself.

i also see know reason not to have a jack fishery on the cowlitz.especially when i'm getting low on eggs and they keep eating them.probably caught 15 or so in the last 2 weeks.thet certainly are small, some i have caught have only been 10 to 14 inches.scott

Fobbman

"Jacks" are immature males that never will develop to an adult salmon. Not all jacks are males, once in a great while you will get a young female that is undersized and will be considered a "jack". Jacks attempt to spawn with female adults but don't add much to the gene pool. Large returning numbers of jacks usually indicate to the fishery managers that there will be large returning runs of adults the following year, but not always does that happen. Fish managers use these same numbers when they run their programs along with other factors to determine the run size each year. Hope this helps you understand what happens to a salmon jack when he returns. The best thing that jacks are good for is to end up in somebody frying pan! Neither chinook or coho Jacks ever return to sea once they inter fresh water, they always die. So why not eat them?

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????


[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]

Where I come from we refer to female jacks as Jennys. I've only seen 1 caught in 45yrs of fishing. What ever thats worth. Duck

Duck In The Fog

You are right. Female jacks are not real common in most places, nor are they here! When I was guiding and fishing everyday on the Cowlitz, I saw my share or small female jacks on the Cowlitz. This especially true when you get back over 15,000 or more jacks like we see on the Cowlitz during our large coho returns (i.e. 50,000 adults). Not to many others rivers in our state support large run of coho such as the Cowlitz does. On years like that, it not uncommon on the Cowlitz to see several "jennys" Several years ago, a large numbers of "jennys" were being caught in Riffe lake. The Biologists were never sure if this land locked coho successfully spawned or not. Most of them were caught going through the area, which is now known as Cowlitz Falls Dam and the 108 Bridge. They believed that these "Jennys" were headed up into the Cispus and upper Cowlitz in an attempt to spawn. No one that I know of has ever observed these jacks actually spawning on redds. So that's a bit of history about jacks and Jennys on the Cowlitz.

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

So if the jacks don't spawn or contribute to the gene pool, why aren't we allowed to keep the wild ones in the fall like on the north fork lewis, etc.

The only real problem that I see is that by opening a targeted season on spring chinook jacks, it creates that grey area for unscrupulous anglers to target the depressed adult run, using the excuse "hey, we were fishing for jacks." It seems that by trucking them over the dams, (which I don't believe they do with springer adults?) and only targeting them in the lakes, it removes the possibility of the mobs coming down to the Cowlitz for the jacks, and hooking and keeping springer adults. Maybe if they had an incidental catch rule or something along those lines, especially for the fall Coho jacks, a resolution to this problem could be reached.

Ok, I kind of thought that they died with the rest of them but wasn't sure and therefore didn't wanna stuff these size 12's of mine down my gullet.

My irrational thinking would follow that as long as there is an adult fishery opened that the jacks should be a fishery as well. Possibly allowing the retention of jacks not going against the bag limit of adults, up to maybe three to six? However, as soon as you bag your limit of adults you are done.

They're gonna die. They're not going to contribute to the gene pool. I say we eat them!

4Salt,

I am having a little problem with your logic. I am not trying to get to you, or make you look bad! But think of it this way. Lets say you have a hunting season for late bucks only (no does), some poachers decide to kill a-none legal deer, including some does. Even though it's been a hard winter and the "herd" is not as healthy as it should be, does that justify closing the entire hunting season because a few "hunters" MAY not abide by the rules? I think not! If you look at the entire history of the Cowlitz Spring Chinook runs and the problems that it has, you will realize the current run size down falls are not from over fishing by sport fishermen.
They are directly related to Tacoma's continued failure to make the needed improvements to the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery. Tacoma has known for many years what they have needed to do to correct the spring chinook problem, but has held off until they negotiated a new license. The current Salmon Hatchery is a cesspool; it's also a disease incubation center. I personally have never seen "mobs" coming to the Cowlitz to fish for "jack"only. There no reason why we can't keep jacks in the lower river be it falls, spring, or coho jacks! Thanks for your reply.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Krome Brite : Jacks do fertilize eggs that do hatch. There for they do contribute to the gene pool. The Duck

Like Duck just said, jacks do spawn with the rest of the salmon. From what I've learned they don't usually have a female to themselves; they just dart in and fertilize the eggs before the normal sized male runs them off. I'm not sure what the rules are on the Cowlitz, but in my opinion, there shouldn't be a jack only fishery. Think what would happen down the road if there was a jack only fishery. The jacks presence in the gene pool wouldn't be there and pretty soon you have genetically altered this run of fish; especially if each fisherman could retain 6.

With hatchery stocks there are more mini-jacks than in native stocks. This is because young hatchery fish are raised to a smolt as soon as possible. Since they have such a good growth rate, this is an environmental cue for the fish to return and spawn. The fish barely make it to the saltwater before they turn around and come back.

I'm kinda rambling on, but I don't think they should open it up for a jack only fishery. It is a part of the salmon run and it shouldn't be pounded. WDFW should also use a portion of the jacks when fertilizing eggs.

~ Dr Pepper

Duck In The Fog

You are right Fog. Jacks do contribute to the "gene pool". Like I said earlier, there contribution is very, very LIMITED! Have you ever seen much effort from any restoration group ("i.e. wild steelhead groups") out trying to either save or recruit wild jacks for their brood stocks? I have not, but maybe you have. Most hatchery managers and fish raisers don't want to "mix" to many jacks into their gene pool stocks because they are very concerned that they are encouraging more of the same (jacks). Do you have the same opinion as they do? If not, how many jacks do you think a system the size of the Cowlitz really needs?

Maybe some expert like Salmo G can in-light us both!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitzfisherman,

I'm not a part of any group as you have assumed I am. Jacks are a limited, yet important part of the gene pool. If the hatchery managers really wanted to cut down on jacks, they would slow down the growth rate of young salmon to a more nature curve. But that would cause production to go down. I'm not saying that I think every jack should be used. I'm saying that "a portion" of the jack population should be used in fertilization.

~ Dr Pepper

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Dr Pepper ]

Dr Pepper,
My comment was not address to you…sorry! Your posting came after mine! It was addressed to Duck in The Fog.

It has been strongly suggested by numerous biologists (including Salmo G) in a process called Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT), during the Tacoma relicensing process, that the massive returns of "mini-jacks" were directly cased by, and from, the salmon hatchery holding and rearing spring chinook smolts way to long. These "mini-jacks" do nothing to improve or add to the Cowlitz Spring Chinook gene pool. That is why WDFW is trying to harvest all of them! So why not allow them to be harvested in the lower river? These jacks are not "wild stocks" and the hatchery only needs a hand full for gene pool purposes!

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Sorry Cowlitzfisherman, I thought you were taking shots at me and saying I was in a wild steelhead group through your post to Duck. Yeah I think it would "ok" to open up a jack fishery as long as they got enough to use in fertilization of eggs. I've never tried to fish just for jacks. Is there a way you can target just jacks? If it is closed for the large mature fish and open for jacks, I think it would be best if it was restricted to a fishing method that usually catches only jacks. If those two things were met, fish on!

~ Dr Pepper

Dr. Pepper,

The people that fish for jacks pretty much fish them all the same way. They use small baits of eggs or shrimp tails! That way, very few adult salmon are ever taken.


Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitzfisherman, all I said was that they did contribute to the gene pool. As far as the rest of it does'nt matter if they did or didn't have a fishery for the jacks, I would'nt fish for them anyway. The Duck
P.s thank you for your work on the Wallace Pit issue.

Nah, but jacks or better have been targeted by Vegas blackjack players for years.

A jacks-only fishery is not the way to go. Let them be retained at the same time as mature adults.

Cowlitzfisherman,

No offense taken, although I'm not quite sure if we're on the same page. I wasn't advocating the closure of taking jacks in the Cowlitz. The point that I was trying to make, was that if there was a targeted season on just jacks, people could use it as an excuse to fish for the depressed adult run.

Case in point, The snagfest known as the Carbon river. The regs state that it opens for the taking of salmon on Sept. 1. They also state that the river opens June 1 for summer steelhead. There is no significant run of summers in the Carbon, but it opens the door for the snaggers to go in and use the excuse "Hey, I was fishing for summerruns."

I realize that right now there aren't any mobs fishing for jacks. My point there was if the regs. stated an open season on any salmon during the springer run, the same mentality could appear with people using the "Hey, it's open for jacks" excuse.

I'm not defending the WDFW's position on lower river closures for taking jacks in any way, just trying to maybe add some insight as to why it is closed. We all know that WDFW management policies follow no discernable logic. If a regulation, allowing the take of incidentally caught jacks could be worded, so that the grey area was removed or significantly reduced, I would fully support the taking of jacks on the lower Cowlitz river.

Cowlitz,

Though your arguments are generally sound, here is another possible reason we can't harvest them that hasn't been addressed yet.....run prediction.

I'm guessing on this and acknowledge it is not the strongest argument but WDFW needs accurate jack counts as part of the their formula for predicting future runs.

If jacks are taken before they are counted at the barrier dam it's harder to get an accurate idea of their numbers and that too has to then be guessed.....which is bad. Once the jacks have been counted, WDFW has them on paper and they can then be harvested.

Again, this is all theory on my part but the friends of mine who are fish biologists have all said in the past that accurate jack counts are crucial for prediction of future run sizes.

Food for thought.

I think 4salt has hit it on the head here, strictly an enforcement issue to keep people from targeting the kings. Another dumb thing that I've seen anglers do is "stretch" the length of a jack. So a 28-29 inch king is a jack (sorry officer, my tape measure was off, it sure looked like a jack to me).

It's really too bad, because the little bait stealers do go well under the broiler.

Most anglers are honest, but there's something about 'nook fisheries that bring out real eye rolling behavior. So much so, that there may be impacts since they bring out the crowds and the seasons are short. With a lot of nook fisheries, there can be significant numbers of "those few bad seeds"

Eric,

Good thought, but I am still having a major problem with the scenarios that you have given. For example, if it was so important for the WDFW fish management to keep an accurate count of all the "jack" returns on the Cowlitz, then answer this one!
When you go to the WDFW weekly escapement at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hat/escape/escape.htm, you will see that WDFW only have counted 55 jacks at the rack. Tacoma weekly newsletter says that over 203 "jacks" have already been passed into the upper Cowlitz! In addition to that, Tacoma states that WDFW trucked an additional 459 "Mini-Jacks" into Riffe Lake, all which came from the lower Cowlitz. Remember a jack is a jack!

So to me, it sounds like WDFW is not counting all the jacks because they are NOT LISTED in their own weekly escapement report! This report is used in there projection program.
As usual WDFW fish managers on the Cowlitz couldn't do their job right even if someone else had already did it for them!


Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook?????

Cowlitz,

I have no idea. Like everyone else, I am clueless as to WDFW's real agenda. Doesn't it seem like it's been a REALLY LONG TIME since we had faith in the department? I know a big sticking point with me is lack of forthright communication.

I genuinly believe they are afraid of backlash if they make much of their agenda available to the public. What strikes me funny is their lack of communication does even more damage and they seem oblivious to this. Amazing!

It would just be refreshing to get some direct answers to some direct questions for a change.

Hears another thought! I hear a lot about the need not to open the chinook fishery on the Cowlitz…right? So WDFW closed the Cowlitz early this year to "protect" the Cowlitz chinook runs because of the low numbers that were projected to return. So, OK, we can live with that one, but stop and think about it for a minute. Cowlitz spring chinooks are among the very first to return each year into the Columbia. WDFW thinks nothing about allowing an early net fishery in the Columbia for chinook and sturgeon. Guest whose fish get hit the hardness? WDFW's concerns about "saving" our spring chinook runs are nothing more then a smoke screen. When it comes to fish management on the Cowlitz, think of commercial fishery! Watch what will happen this year when our coho return. You will be able to walk on the nets all the way across the Columbia!

And when it's all said and done, you will hear the fish managers say; "the run was not as strong as we thought it would be!" That way, they won't have to worry about the 80,000 projected coho returning to the rack at the Cowlitz, and trucking all those wasted fish up into the upper Cowlitz for natural production. God, if they did that, what would they do for there jobs at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery??? The game goes on and on!

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook?????

cowlitz fisherman,you hit the nail right on the head.the wdfw gives the sporties a big oulook,gets everybody excited,buying liscenses and what not,then they net the crap out of the rivers, and tell the sporties a big bull**** story.all the wdfw cares about is revenue that is it.scott

I think Eric is right on with the WDFW needing accurate jack counts. They take the number of jacks and put into account ocean conditions etc. and form their estimate to the size of return they get the next year. A mini-jack and a jack are different. A mini-jack is a year younger than a normal jack. I'm not sure why WDFW's numbers are not correct. Who knows with them.

~ Dr Pepper