Run size estimates for the July run of Sockeye into Lake Washington have varied from maybe upwards of one million fish to a low of 350,000 or so. Now WDFW is looking at maybe 500,000 and they are exploring a possible non-indian commercial fishery in area 10 outside the entrance to the locks. Lots of email has been received by sports people in opposition to this plan. The following is my email to Pat Patillo and Pat's prompt response.


I must say that I find Pat to be very open and ready to listen. He may not always do what we want but he is a stand up guy and should be respected for his job balancing all interests.

Here is our exchange today:


"Pat

I have been following the discussions concerning possible sports and commercial seasons this July for the Sockeye returning to Lake Washington. In the beginning it appeared that the run prediction would approach 750,000 fish. That would most certainly result in a quality sports fishery in the lake. Then we heard that the budget was a concern and that without additional funding for monitoring of the fishery WDFW would not be able to allow a sports fishery. Then a supplement to the budget was introduced in the legislature where it appears to be passing pending the governor's signature. Then we hear that the $120,000.00 would only allow a short season. During the first NOF meeting in Mill Creek you spoke of a run size much smaller than the 750,000 you are alluding to now. Predictions of a week long sports season were mentioned.

Now we hear that WDFW is entertaining a commercial net fishery outside in area 10, I presume near the entrance to the ship canal. This area is already fished by the tribes. My question is this, why does the sports fishery remain relatively small and yet you entertain a net fishery which would , no doubt, harvest much more in a shorter time than the predicted short sports season? Is the commercial fishery being contemplated monitored and if so at what cost to WDFW? Will you demand observers be onboard all the commercial boats and enforce the rule? I think what you might say is that you don't have enough money to monitor a sports season longer than one week but I will await your answer. Not many would argue that the sports fishery in Lake Washington does not generate the most stimulus to the local economy so I suspect the argument will be that you are "obligated" by legislative mandate to provide a "viable" commercial fishery. I think that is how the line goes. That same legislative mandate provides for a "quality" sports fishery. I suspect there is probably an argument brewing to find a way around the potential bycatch of ESA Chinook that are heading to the same lake as the Sockeye

I look forward to your response which I will pass along to our membership.

Thank You"


Steve,
Thanks for the note. I've had a lot of fan mail the last few days and have tried to send a consistent message out to people who have expressed concern for what we are doing. I hope you can help spread the word on this issue of commercial fishing with the follwoing messages.

First, the reason we are considering commercial fishing for non-Indians this year is that our Fish & Wildlife Commission policy for Lake Washington sockeye use states clearly that although the priority is for sport fishing, if the run is very large (greater than 750,000) we are to consider some level of commercial opportunity. The current forecast for the sockeye runsize is less than 500,000, but we are reviewing possible commercial fisheries as a contingency plan, should the runsize turn out to be much larger than forecast. If a commercial fishery did occur, it would be conducted in marine waters of Area 10, adjacent to the entrance to the Lake Washington Ship Canal. We are quite concerned with the potential for bycatch of chinook in a commercial fishery, given the status of Puget Sound chinook under the Endangered Species Act and our strict limits to allowable impact for sport and commercial fisheries in 2004 that are directed at healthy stocks of sockeye, coho and chum salmon. We are also concerned with how to pay for a monitoring program for this possible fishery. We have sufficient funds to conduct the necessary monitoring of the sport fishery in the Lake, even one that might go for several weeks with a run that is much larger than predicted.

In summary, we won't know if the sockeye run is big enough to consider a commercial fishery until mid-late July, after we've probably already begun a sport fishery in the Lake. We are evaluating the impact of a small commercial fishery in Area 10 to determine if we can justify the cost given the remote possibility of an unexpected large run. We will discuss this topic more at our North of Falcon public meeting to be held next week, on Tuesday, March 30 at the SeaTac Holiday Inn. If you can attend that meeting, your opinion on this matter would be appreciated. If you cannot attend, be assured that we have heard quite clearly that the sport fishing community does not support the commercial fishery for Lake Washington sockeye.

And Steve, thanks in advance for helping distribute this message. I really don't think I can answer all the e-mail I've received.

Pat Pattillo
WDFW

That sounds like mostly good news to me.



Especially the part about having the funds to support a sustained sport fishery.

Good Job G'pa.

I guess I knew from the outset that the scare tactic about not having funds to support a fishery was just another chess move in the big game of Olympia politics....We'll see whether we see a multi week season...that would make putting up with a commercial net fishery in area 10 almost palatable. Not that the tribes won't score big on this run too...