FishStalker,

I think what he is saying if you read the previous posts that regarding Puget Sound Chum that numbers are on the rise based on the way they have been managed.

As long as escapements are being met and bycatch on steelhead and chinnok are kept at a minimum I have no problem with these fisheries.

I have contacted the state to try and get the bycatch numbers i will pass those along if thet are available.

JoJo your right what you are saying makes sense..however who gets decide those #s? for some reason the rivers I fish are either way late in the run or just not seing the #s they usually do...

Not dissagreeing with the facts you guys have..the reason they are netting the #s that they are is because the fish are in the #s that permits that according to the state...

Tribe and state get to decide those numbers. I understand your issue, there is a major trust issue when it comes to the way the co-managers managage these fisheries. I would agree that I think the run is not as big as forcasted so at this point all we can hope for is that there is enough left to seed the river. But as long as there is a market for Roe and the price is as good as it is this year we will continue to see these types of fisheries. And I will continue to call the state to make sure bycatch is kept at a minimum.

Right on , I should of read more clearly what was going on with the thread just pretty much wanted to state a few things that I new that werent based off of state #s....Thanks for the help!

I'm very interested, thank you. I have had a question, for quite some time now, that perhaps you might be able to answer Two Dogs. It pertains to tribal fisheries. Why are they not operated under a quota?

For instance, let's say the CryMeA River has an escapement goal for King Salmon of 3000 fish. The tea leaves and crystal balls project a return of 5000 fish. That leaves 2000 fish as a "Harvestable Surplus." If the tribal fisheries are entitled to 1/2 of that surplus, or 1000 Kings, why aren't the fish counted, and why doesn't fishing stop when that number has been reached, rather than doing the 3 day a week gig through the whole season regardless of catch rates?

Thanks for your time. Also one more question:



What is the main difference, scientifically, between Tribal Biology, and Other Biology? Agendas?

Respectfully,
LoweDown

Great questions Lowedown.



That's what i'm trying to say too. Facts, numbers, and percentages aside, the general observation "in the river" over the last half decade is that the numbers of fish are going straight downhill. With wild stocks especially, When do we start looking at how many fish are really in the river instead of some fancy guestimation of what's expected to be there?

I think it's plainly obvious to sportfishermen and commercials that, in some rivers, the Puget Sound Chum runs are at the brink of collapse.

Good Question Sky-Guy, I agree that is a favorable way to manage for maximum escapement, though it makes it very difficult to set both recreational and commercial fisheries when you manage this way. The way it is done now is not always very accurate but it does allow the co-managers to set seasons based on pre-season numbers. Saltwater seasons would be impossible to set if you managed this way. Certain rivers it is nearly impossible to know exact counts before fish are spawning.

The way pre season forcasts are derived now is the best approach we have to set seasons. I just wish the co-managers can do a better job of not cutting it so close and making sure if a run comes in under estimates that they have left enough to meet escapement.

In my opinion a run should never be under escapement if a sport and commercial fishery takes place. the managers need to error on the side of the fish to make sure lean years are not overharvested, and do in season updates and curtail seasons if need be.

so are the escapement #s related to the $$$ flow in that general area? because I would think without knowing shiat that to have more fish return each year creating more $$$ for everyone..they would let more fish return then just the certain amount...which who knows what could happen to the eggs after they spawn. But why set such low required return #s just so the commercials can make there bucks?

Tribal biologist works for and is paid by the tribe and isn't necessarily a tribal member, other biologists work for other entities such as WDFW, NOAA etc.

To address some of the above:

I trust the harvest numbers from the fisheries that I am responsible for managing because one of our jobs is to get the numbers. We work with the fishing community and the buyers. We have staff monitoring boats as the come in to sell. Of course there are some errors, but all in all the system is a good one.

Tribal fisheries, like non-tribal fisheries, are managed by a variety of quotas, seasons, etc. This has been the case for a long time for tribal and commercial fisheries, but recently as sport fisheries have been required to move away from just a season everywhere,there has been a lot of kicking and screaming. Where you see net fisheries managed for number of days per week throughout a season , it is likely that one of two things is happening. Either the quota has not been reached or the fishery is in some place like a hatchery terminal area where hatchery fish can be harvested with minimal impact on non-local fish. It is very important to understand that we closely monitor the impacts of even hatchery terminal fisheries on all stocks, and we account for those impacts in setting seasons.

"Tribal biologist" is shorthand for a biologist who works for a tribe. The tribes as comanagers employ scientific staff just as the state does. We work together with our counterparts at the state and federal levels to develop stock assessments, forecasts, inseason updates, and the many other tasks necessary to implement a fishery as complex as the one for Pacific salmon. It concerns me that people are so distrustful of the numbers and so forth, but I'm sure collectively that we all could do a better job of communicating the basis for salmon management. Suggestions would be welcome.

One thing is for certain regarding harvest numbers -- the decisions that will be made in our office today and tomorrow regarding next week's fisheries will be based on this week's catch numbers in the net fishery, among other things. One frustration we all have is that we cannot see catch estimates for most recreational fisheries until a year or so after the fact. In some cases, it would help to have those numbers much earlier. For example, maybe the poor returns some are reporting would e reflected in lower than average sport catch numbers, which we could use for inseason management if we had those numbers. I would also welcome suggestions on improving recreational catch reporting.

Finally, although we mainly manage by the numbers available to us, there is some room for considering non-quantified factors, such as what people say they are seeing in the Sky and elsewhere. I will get this information into the mix as inseason updates are discussed this week. in fact, that's why i lurk here anyway, to get a sense of what you all are seeing. So whether you know it or not, and whether you appreciate it or not, your observations and ruminations have already been incorporated into management. Face it, we are all in this together, and it to our mutual benefit to work together.

Cool. I'll check with our shellfish staff regarding the online catch reporting system. Maybe it is something we can do for salmon. Anything to get those numbers sooner.

I'm sorry you aren't willing to accept the fact that we work hard to document all catch of salmon. If this is merely a matter of faith and belief, then we have no basis for further conversation on the subject. If you have suggestions for how catch can be better documented, I' m all ears. The goal is for all catch of all salmon and steelhead to be reported on fish tickets.

Regarding bycatch and selective fisheries, that's another source of frustration. When fish are kept they can be counted. When they are released, we have a hard time estimating the mortality, not to mention the number of fish encountered and released. What suggestions do you have there.

I've lived on the water here in the NW on either salt, fresh, or river for most of the last 52 years and currently live on the Sky. I am on, or around the water almost every day and know where and when these chums ( we can limit it to chums for now) spawn. I also see the fish counters fly over, or on the river, if they're reporting higher numbers of fish in the Snohomish system, then there is a big problem in how the data is collected or calculated.
I can tell you for a fact that there were far more fish in the system ten years ago than now, and this year is dismal. There was a push of early chums that are mostly spawned out now and since then very few fish have entered the system. This early push was mixed with the Coho and I assume not targeted by the nets. When I became alarmed at how few fish I was seeing, I checked around and found out how many nets were in the water and how successful they were. That explained the problem, not too hard to figure it out either. At this time of year the Sky should be so full of chums that you should have no problem spotting hundreds in very short amount of time, this year even spotting ten can be difficult. Most years (recent past) catching 20 chums per day on a rod and reel is normal, this year I will most likely catch more steelhead than chums, only not early ones, as they will be in the nets.

TwoDogs, I do thank you for discussing this here, more input and sharing of info is needed.

Is "two dogs" the escapement goal? sorry about that.

TwoDogs


I would also like to offer you private access to the river, a jet boat, fuel, an under water video camera and a tour of the spawning areas.
Just send me a PM and we can set it up.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Jody Wyse

Well, I guess that would be the minimum escapement, if you had the right kind of dogs.

One thing to consider, if our inseason expected escapement number of 58,000 is correct, this is still way lower than the 180,000 postseason estimate from 2006 but higher than the 21,000 postseason estimate from 2005. In fact, if this is the final escapement number, 2007 would be the second highest odd-year escapement since 1983. Typically odd year chum runs are smaller than even year runs in north Puget Sound.

I'm not saying that our inseason number is right on. We have been wrong in both directions in the past. It is quite possible that the wild runs are below forecast this year, and the escapement will be lower. However, if that is the case, then I'm pretty sure it will turn out that the bulk of the large catches we have seen in the saltwater in the past week or two will have been made up of hatchery fish that are not returning to the river. The local hatchery chums have a later timing than the wild chums. I remain confident that our management system is set up to pass a large fraction of the natural run through to escapement. If the run is small, as odd-year chum runs can be (2003 was an exception to that with an estimated escapement of over 100,000), then the escapement will be down, but so will the catches of that run.

One other thing, although I'm not a strong believer in relying on density dependence in salmon management, the Snohomish chums do seem to show this fairly consistently. In other words, large escapements seems to beget smaller run sizes four years later. We may be seeing a relationship of that sort with the large 2003 run begetting a smaller 2007 run. In hindsight, we probably should have taken that into account in forecasting the 2007 return.

Twodogs -
Thanks very much for joining in the disucssion here. While the comments you read may not always reflect it most of the folks here appreciate having some factual information injected in these discussions.

Good to hear from you even if indirectly!

Skyguy's original comment/observation -
"In the last 5 years, friends I fish with and myself have noticed a dramatic decrease in the numbers of Chum in the northern Puget Sound rivers."

is important. Taking the time to evaluate managment, especially in face of conflicting information is part of a healthy management paradigm. It is not uncommon for some sport angler's on the water observations (Skyguy's) to fly in the face of escapement data (Twodogs data) or even other angler's obseration (ondarvr's obseravtion). The trick as always if ferret out what the fish are really doing. Again as suggested by some improved data is always helpful. It is clear that chum management would be improved with better catch accounting and escapement estimation. However that needs immediatley comes into conflict with age old management bug-a-boo - "are those improvements worth the increased costs and are those funds available".

A couple of comments than may help put some things in prespective.

1) As the Twodog's data indicates we can expect to see fewer fish on odd years than even years (recent year averages 52,000 versus 120,000).

(Twodogs - it is interesting that the significant even/odd difference remain in spite of the fixed exploitation management. Seems to indicate that difference may be real).

2) It is clear that over the last decade or so we have seen a period of "good" marine survival of chums (reflected in near record run sizes through out the sound). It is unlikely that we'll always see runs of those magnitudes. It is the very natural of salmon to see year to year variation in run sizes with extended periods of different survival conditions.

3) Not uncommon to see not only year to year variation in run sizes but also variations in run timing. It remains to be seen whether this year's run (as measure in the river) is smaller than expected or later than expected. We should be reaching the point of the run the commercial catches to date may provide some insight into the timing question and whether in-season management adjustments are needed.

4) As suggested by some perhaps the best "test" of various management paradigms are how many fish are making it to the spawning grounds. Again the escapement estimates seem to indicate that the current Snohomish "guess-estimation/fixed exploitation management has been successful in the last decade in putting more fish on the spawning grounds - most would think that is a good thing.

5) There is no doubt that there has been a dramatic increase in angler interest and pressure on local waters directed towards in-rive chum fishing. I have fished local rivers long enough that I can remember targeting chums on the Skykomish river in the Elwell to Wallace reach of the Sky (25 yeara ago) where the number of anglers I would see this time of year during a day on the water could be counted on my fingers (often one hand). I have to wonder if the pressure has not reached the "saturation" point. That is the number of anglers have increased to the point that we collectively are affecting our catch rates even though the number of avaiable fish is constant.

Tight lines
Curt

The typical spots you would find them in years past are ghost towns this year. I had seen a WDFW release saying the commercials were fishing them for 3 days in 8-2 and 9, but that was 3 weeks ago. I didn't know they were fishing them til they were extinct.

Smalma

As to the number of fisherman on the river targeting chums this year, the number is down dramtically. The number did peak a few years ago and many people were braving the bad weather at this time of year because you could actually catch fish, even if you weren't very good at it. I see very few boats on the water this year and I try to talk with every one of them that passes my place. Only a few have caught chums, until recently (this week) more coho were being landed than chums, now it's no fish, or very few. Typically the people fishing this year are the more experianced hard core types, that for the most part know how to catch chums. The plunkers on the Snohomish never even had much luck, if you check out the areas on the Snohomish where normally the banks are packed with people, there are no fisherman and no fish rolling. I expected that after some of the recent high water there would be an influx of new chums and things would get back to a somewhat normal number of fish, but I saw no new fish enter the system.

What I find most interesting in this discussion is the even/odd year variation in run size and the apparent 4 year density dependent relationship. It seems that the chum management model needs a parameter related to pink run size. It has been shown that large number of juvenile pinks in the straits of Georgia reduce the survival of juvenile coho in the area at the same times. I think that a comprehensive management scheme has to look at wild escapement and hatchery plants for pink, chum, coho, and chinook as well as near shore marine conditions. First summer marine survival is important for all four species and all four spend extended time in Puget Sound and near shore waters to the north. Competition from large numbers of pink salmon may well reduce survival of the other three. Management on an ecosystem basis may be much more important than bycatch concerns in maintaining runs of all salmon. Hatchery plants and harvest/escapment are the factors that we can control, we need to look at the big picture.

Ondarvr -
I think this discussion has two aspects - the chum run/escapements in recent years and what is happening this year.

I'm not doubting your observation about the number of chums and fishermen targeting them this year on the Skykomish. Rather I merely suggested that that situation may change; it would not be the first time that an anadromous salmonid run was later. Further if indeed the worst case happens and the returns are well below expected I'm sure that most of us would hope that management would respond to that situation. In fact in the last 15 years or so the evidence is that at least on most North Sound Rivers that would will be the case.

WN1A -
The old chum model did attempt to account for the pink "influence" with different odd year (pink) and even year (non-pink) escapement goals. As Twodog mentioned on the Snohomish the chum escapement goals prior to the switch to capped exploitation management were 10,300 on odd years and 28,000 on even years. The other north Sound Rivers also had much higher goals for the even years.

An interesting observation is that over the last dedade or so both pink and chum run sizes have increased dramatically for most systems. It maybe that the ocean survival conditions for both species is very favorable and that outweights the competition factors you have speculated about.

Tight lines
Curt

I have some friends that own property off a trib to woods creek and their culverts have good numbers of coho. Normally they are packed with chum. But so far mr purple river zebra has yet to make his appearence.