As posted by Leland Miyawaki on a couple other boards...

"Fellow flyfishers,

Yesterday, I submitted public testimony at the North of Falcon meeting where the salmon seasons for Washington, including Puget Sound, are set.

At a previous meeting, it was decided to close Area 9 to all fishing. This includes fishing from the beach for the month of July, which was open last year. I tried to get them to reverse the decision yesterday.

There is still time to voice your opinion. They will begin finalizing the rule changes this coming monday.

It appears that the WDFW does not have a model that includes beach fishing. In other words, they don't know how many people fish the beaches in July for early coho in an area that includes: Point No Point, Eglon, Salisbury Park, Marrowstone Island, and all the west shore of Whidbey Island. Area 9 affords the most opportunities in Puget Sound for catching coho from the shore.

I thought the closing was terribly unfair to people who: prefer to fish from the beach; don't have or can't afford boats; vacationing families at the State Parks (Casey, So. Whidbey, Flagler etc.) spending a summer vacation, including the 4th of July, during a down economy fishing from the beach; and definitely those of us who catch and release while flyfishing.

If you would like to voice your opinion while letting the WDFW know how many people fish from the beaches of Area 9, email:

Pat Patillo at: PATTIPLP@dfw.wa.gov

Phil Anderson at: ANDERPMA@dfw.wa.gov

Tony Floor at: floortaf@dfw.wa.gov


Thanks,
Leland."

And follows is a reply sent out by the WDFW so there is time!!

"I received this today. We should be pushing for C&R from the beaches yearlong with exceptions for hatchery harvest.

Leland.


Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 17:07:14 -0800
From: "Pat Pattillo" <PATTIPLP@dfw.wa.gov>

Subject: Area 9 Salmon fishing in 2003

Thank you all for the messages in support of Area 9 July fishing opportunity. Its quite amazing to hear so many voices of support for this fishery after more than one public meeting has been dominated by voices for closing that fishery in favor of a April chinook catch&keep fishery. I guess that show us at WDFW again the in spite of our attempts each year to notify the public that fishing seasons are being discussed and debated at our "North of Falcon" public meetings, we are really not hearing from all the diverse viewpoints of participants in our fisheries.

We are not finished with our meetings until next Friday, April 11. We have put up a "preferred" set of regulations for fisheries that includes the closure of Area 9 in July. We did consider the possiblity of some beach access fishing but since we have no data describing the impact of beach fishing alone, we have concluded that when a marine area is closed, shore-based fishing is also closed. We hope to gather information on the relative amount of effort associated with shore-based fishing during those times when fishing is opened (August, September).

I would appreciate you keeping in touch about this and other fish and fishing issues. We have attempted to reach out to more people who represent the diverse types of fishing that include catch & release as well as keep fisheries. It really helps to have you participate in our public meetings. Usually people who participate in this process don't get everything they want in fisheries, but if you don't participate, its far more likely that your point of view will not be represented. This year could be a wake-up call for you to attend future discussions.

Thanks for your providing me with your opinion.

Pat Pattillo
Salmon Policy Coordinator
Intergovernmental Resource Management
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
360-902-2705"

Here's my contribution.

This email is in regard to the proposals for setting of fishing seasons, mostly in Area 9.

I'd like to say that, from the outside, it seems that this year's season-setting process seems to be trying to balance science and fishing opportunities. In that regard, I'd like to bring some "local knowledge" into your season setting process.

I support the proposal to keep fishing open through April by closing boat fishing in July. I can assure you that even when trying NOT to catch chinook, and trying to target coho, at times it is futile-- there is no way to selectively fish for coho when fishing from a boat.

I can also assure you that shore-based fishing is completely different. The shore fishing is amazing in that it is effective for coho but hardly any chinook are caught. The catch rate probably exceeds 15 coho per incidental chinook, based on my non-scientific observations. It might even be higher.

Furthermore, unlike boat fishing, fishermen from shore can release fish unharmed much more successfully. I fish both from shore and from a boat, depending on the fish and the time of year. I've seen a lot of native coho released from the beach and I can tell you from experience it is much healthier for a fish than to be released after being caught in a boat. Think of the success that steelhead fishermen have releasing wild steelhead. That is because you are in the water with the fish, able to land it without a net, and revive it.

I also strongly support restrictions on fishermen in boats to not allow to them to net fish that must be released. Fish that are to be released should not be netted, brought on board, or handled any more than they have to. It has been a continual frustration in the selective coho fisheries that I would see people net the fish first, check for the adipose fin later.

I understand that you might not be able to model the impact from beach fishermen since you do not know the fishing pressure, success rate and rate of bycatch of chinook. I disagree. You have the data from previous years that show you both the fishing pressure and catch rate. I would assume that you also collected data on the variability, because the catch rate seems to vary a lot between years.

It seems that you could provide the season, monitor it, and have your fish checker on the beach (who is at Marrowstone Island and Point Wilson a lot, based on my experience) keep tabs on bycatch. Allow a very small number of chinook for bycatch mortality. If for some reason, people begin to catch chinook, then close it. It could work just like on the Columbia River, where things are monitored based on pre-season assumptions (in this case, very low to no bycatch), and if the assumptions are not met (such as chinook are being caught from the beach), you close it.

To summarize, this letter is being written in support of the original proposal, as I understood it--to close boat fishing in July, to keep fishing open in April for blackmouth, and to leave beach fishing open in July while the boat fishing is closed. If this cannot be done this year, I hope you communicate just what information would be necessary for upcoming seasons to improve your models.

Thank you

i agree with you a 100% sea claire

So Sea Clair,

Just how do you propose we land fish if if we cant reach the water from our boats. Though there not keepers I have caught just as many blackmouth from the beach as I have caught coho!

I also disagree with your saying there is no way to selectively fish for coho. Evidently you have never fished coho flys on top, our thrown 1/4 ounce marabou jigs into bait balls.

I have also written a letter to keep area 9 open since I hate any closures. But I did it without ranking on other sportsfishermen.

I'm just speaking about what I've seen. I wish it weren't true, but salmon don't deal well with netting them and from what I've seen most people net their fish before releasing them. Because of this, I don't personally support catch and release salmon fishing from boats. And the letter was about impacting wild chinook.

Anyway, it looks like it's mute--the fishing will be closed for everyone in July. And, it probably should be closed in July because there IS a substantial impact on these native chinook. And the bottom line is that this impact should be the basis for whether fishing is open or closed.

And these are my opinions and everyone should write those people with their own. I received a response back within 4 hours on a Saturday.

I just hope that they balance impact to threatened fish with the desire to allow fishing opportunities.

I've done lottsa fishin fer salmon (and steelhead) from shore and I strongly believe that the regs should be liberalized for shore fishermen. This should happen due to the difficulty (bet I get lottsa arguments bout that) of catchin salmon from shore, vice from a boat.

I strongly believe, and have fer years, that shore fisherman should have greater opportunity to angle fer salmon.

Shore fishermen are severely handicapped due to bein limited in their methods and in their mobility.

I also believe that salmon tend to throw a barb-less hook more when being landed on a beach than being brought to a boat.

Like I said, it is more difficult to consistently catch salmon all year from the beach, piers are a lil easier but not much.

Luv ta hear from anyone that echoes mah sentiments

As always,

Sincerely,
Roger

Nice accent RRR, you better come home
I went to the NOF meeting at the Mill Creek office and spoke for the area 9 beach fishery in July, but the charter guys [Gary Krein and others] were greater in numbers and wanted a longer blackmouth season in April and gave up the useless[??] July fishery. If you want to have an impact you have to participate in the process------- kind of like voting.

RRR summed it up nicely. However, I'd like to add that most people at Point No Point don't even wear boots of any sort so it's hard for them to land and release any wild fish or chinook without pulling them onto the beach to avoid getting wet feet. We all know that sand and salmon don't mix very well. Once the sand gets on the fish, it doesn't come off that easily due to attachment to the mucuous layer on the skin.
I personally exert a greater impact on juvenile chinook rather than adults since i've never jigged a keeper size chinook off any beach. Also, I've seen atrocious handling of smolts by other fishermen over the course of last summer. Smolts would be caught by fishermen without boots and simply dropped in front of their feet with the expectation that the waves will carry them back out. However, in the process, they get sand on the fish. Not to mention I forgot to state the worst offense: grabbing the smolt with your bare hand, rubbing off scales, and unhooking it. For those fish that were foul hooked, they may get carried out by the waves and current, but it doesn't mean that the gulls can't get 'em later. The way to deal with these juveniles is to grab the line above your lure with your thumb and index finger, slide it down til you get to the hook, hold the fish over the water, grab the shank or bend and unhook. Done deal, less harm.

trebles are killers on those little things

Siwash hooks can be fatal at times as well, esp on smaller salmon.

I've seen alot of baby salmon with every treble in the mouth, then I've used 1/o hooks oct for smaller spoons and 2 inch buzzbombs with alot of smaller fish hooked thru the brain, siwash on bigger spoons have not hooked alot of baby salmon for me from shore but I generally dont cast to large of spoons from shore. just got some saltwater plugs for casting to bluefish/stripers from shore to see how they do this season for salmon. I fish from shore/piers about 5 days a week and still believe 1/4 oz 3/0 jigs and flies are the most fish friendly and productive anyway. small single hooks that can't gaff them little fish are alright too.

I sent my reply to DFW this morning. It seems a tad rediculous to trade away a July beach and boat fishery that hundreds if not thousands (during a pink year) participate in for a April blackmouth fishery that only a few anglers target?

I've always thought how harmful could it be if salmon harvesting was always allowed on beaches all year around. This would take alot of the pressures off of overcrowded piers like Seacrest in July/August.

I encourage everyone who reads this to e-mail DFW and let them now your thoughts.

Thanks Jerry Garcia and Sparkey for keeping us aware of this issue.


BD