"It maybe that the ocean survival conditions for both species is very favorable and that outweights the competition factors you have speculated about."

Might it also be that river habitat sucks so bad that due to the relatively short time they spend in the river as juveniles they are able to exploit areas that are not of sufficient quality to support coho, Chinook, and especially steelhead anymore?

"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."

And when would management respond? By curtailing harvest rates four years from now? Fat lot of good that would do this year's run...

One of three things is happening...

1. The commercial fishers in the Sound are catching waaayyy more than expected, resulting in a showing of fish in the river that is very low.

A good response would be to end the fishery now, then, if they are experiencing higher success rates than expected. It looks like anecdotal evidence cited above shows that this may be a possibility, depending on who you ask.

2. The commercial fishers in the Sound are catching waaayyy fewer than expected, and the reason that there are so few fish in the rivers is that there are very few fish...period.

A good response would be to end the fishery now, then, if the run is apparently way below forecast. Again, depending on who you ask, anecdotal evidence may point to the possibility that the run is 2/3 less than forecast.

3. The fish are late...so no response.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the "management response" that we will get...nothing. If the fish are late, which conclusion there is absolutely no evidence to support, then perhaps things will be fine. the earlier portion of the run will be wiped out, but at least overall abundance will be there.

What if the fish aren't late, but just aren't coming at all? By the time we find out, since our management response was "nothing", it will be too late, and escapement will be missed.

Missing escapement is part of the vagaries of run size variation...everyone knows that.

Missing escapement due to overharvest when the run size was sufficent to make escapement is par for the course, unfortunately, when the first goal of both agencies involved, NWIFC and WDFW, is to harvest first, ask questions later.

Yeah, we pay lip service to "resource first" management, but it's bogus, and most everyone already knows that, too.

That will be our "management response"...do absolutely nothing, and hope for the best.

When "the best" doesn't materialize, then we'll shut down fishing four years form now...maybe. Maybe we'll just average the run sizes for the past five years and call that the "next generation's run forecast", and just go out and overharvest them again.

Until "mangement response" includes in season management, we will always err on the side of overharvest.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

well put, the mentality of Harvest first ask questions later is one of the reasons that has got us to where we are today. It is unexceptable for a system to not meet escapement when both a comm. and rec fishery take place. We'll just have to wait and see what happens here in a couple months to see whether or not enough fish will make it back.

I think it's time for the state to invest in some sonar equipment like you see in alaska in hopes of getting some better in season data.

Uh, yeah, thank you. I am aware of the professional differences. Which is why I asked about the scientific differences, as from what I've seen, the two types of "Biologists" seem to arrive at different conclusions from time to time. That lead me to believe perhaps they had different agendas. If not there must be a fundamental difference in the sciences? Is there some sort of tongue in cheek face I should be making for this?



Which of those scenarios do the Hoh and Quillayute Rivers set and drift gill net fisheries fall under? These are taking place at the river mouth, and upstream to about RM 10 on the Hoh. If it's the "quota has not been reached" gig, where can one find numbers to support that conclusion? Where can we find the quotas? Where can we find the catch rates? WHO's COUNTING THE FISH?? How are they doing it? When are they doing it? Where are they doing it?

Perhaps this should be it's own thread.

I have been giving this a lot of thought as well....

All I can say is what I know, and that is the numbers are way down. We took a boat out today(the big white 3 rivers boat) and fished all the common runs from the mouth of the Wallace to Thunderbird. Talked to a few guys and saw 2 fish caught, we got one and a guy at the mouth of the Wallace got one. No other boats had a thing nor bankies. I work at 3 Rivers Marine and talk to a few anglers every day, and the chum are almost non existent. EVERYBODY says the same thing "whats going on" ??? And I know they let the commercials back in on Monday(19th)-Friday, yet it really doesnt look like we are getting escapement. And Curt i was on the river and there really wasnt a lot of guys out. Go figure, no fish no anglers.

I live by Carkeek park and the last few years Pipers ck has had fish the first of November. I went down Friday the 16th and walked the whole thing and never saw a fish...

Honestly Curt, its kinda scary.

Todd -
I think you need to slow down a minute and think about what you just said.

You and others have long been vocal critics of MSH management and the need for alternate management the better serves the fish.

Twodogs attepted to explain how the management of the Snohomish chum represent a break with the past management that you have take such an issue with.

Rather than continue status quo management it appears that the Tribal and State folks came up with an approach that reduced over all fishing rates (exploitations) and resulted in greatly increased escapements of Snohomish chums. According to the data prsented by Twodog over the last 8 years there has been 4 or 5 times as many chums spawning than would have been called for under the previous management paradigm. To my simple mind that would seem to me to be an improvement. Not only do the sport anglers have more fish upon which to fish in the river the increased escapement this approach represents a much more resource risk adverse system.

While this approach does not provide for maximum escapement that some seem to want it does represent a huge break with the past and I would have expected those that took a minute to think about it to have support these kinds of changes. While the paradigm prsented by Twodog may not be perfect it does represent a significant shift risks away from the fish.

BTW - with management for maximum escapement there would very rarely be any fishing of any kind.

I strongly discagree with what appears to be your position in regards to absolute need to have in season management. It seems to me that having a method of changing harvest rates/catches in season will result in over harvest pretty often due to the lack of timely updates. In virtually every case that I'm familar with reliable updates require information from well into the run. As a result an in-seaon update that indicates a larger than expected run allows for adjustment to fish the run down. However when the update is for a smaller run it may be so late that over fishing may have all ready occurred. The result is that the long term average escapements are below goals.

Consider the difference in the current Snohomish chum model. With the cap on the exploitation on large runs very large escapements are seen (witness what has happend with Snohomish chum, pink and coho) and the long term average will be likely be much larger - in the last decade the average escapements are severall times higher than the old goals. In addition those larger escapement should help buffer down turns in the various survival factors. That seem to me to be responsive to concerns that I have heard you and others expressed about "MSH" management.

I'm sure that if Twodog opts to can address your concerns more eloquently than I have.

Regardless I was some what surprised that rather than casting stones at the current paradigm you were not more supportive with such out side of the box think and breaks with past management practices. Is the current paradigm perfect? - of course not. However it does appear to me to be significant improvement with the past and with support provides for the potential of continued developement of "enlighted managment options.

Tight lines
Curt

Sure, let's net the snot out of them. Then when numbers are down the sporties can pay with reduce seasons and opportunities. Why should this fishery be any different than any other salmon in this state?

As far as biologist , well they kind of seem like statisticians.
They can find the data they need to back up any outcome they wish to achieve. So you get the tribes saying we have plenty of fish, we can net 5 days a week. The state saying there are plenty of fish, the tribes can net 5 days a week and the sporties well you guys catch too many fish you should only fish 3 days a week. When the runs are not meeting escapement the sportis get the shaft, we'll be the ones forced to curtail fishing. Oh sure the commericals will have to stop but the damage is done.

On the bycatch. If you think the numbers reports are correct and accurate (tribal or commercial), I have a bridge up for sale, CHEAP.

Tight Lines,

MJ

Twodogs Can you tell me what the blackmouth by catch is for the commercial chum fisheries is.And how much do you think the commercial chum fisheries impact the blackmouth. Thanks

Curt,

My initial responses in this thread dealt with steelhead bycatch in the chum fisheries, but I did take on the current harvest regime for the chums, as well.

I don't see how a set exploitation rate is a better thing for the fish than MSH. MSH aims at an artificially low number, and aims to kill everything over it. Exploitation rates may underharvest during years when run size is well over the old MSH number, resulting in greater escapements when the run size is high, but are just as likely to overharvest (relative to the old MSH/MSY number) during times when the run size is low.

For the Snohomish chums, I can speak to the numbers anecdotally...the numbers are not there, and have not been for several years. Since 2002 the fish have been showing up in lesser and lesser numbers. On a river like the Skagit there have been several years when there weren't even enough chums to have a fishery at all.

Go up and look at the typical gathering areas for chums on the Skykomish right now...they are barren of anything but a few old spawners, and some soup can coho...and when I say a few, I mean a few...like three or four.

It's Thanksgiving almost, and there are no chums in the Skykomish.

Where are they? Overharvested, or didn't show up? Either way, the exploitation rate, no matter what it is, is going to overharvest by a large factor this year.

Expressing disdain for MSH/MSY in no way means I have to accept the first alternative that the harvest managers try.

As always, when the fish are plentiful the management errors are buried in piles of fish, and they don't show up. By the time they do, and the fish runs are in the crapper, it's too late.

There has to be a middle ground where fish runs are not overharvested due to small run sizes that get over-exploited...because by the time we find out that there are not enough fish, it's when we are counting the remnants on the spawning grounds.

Right now, right this minute, there is perfectly good evidence to show that the chums are being overharvested...there are no fish in the Skykomish.

This doesn't requrie a billion dollar sonar system, or a dam with a fish ladder...all it requires is a sled ride up the river, a pencil, and a piece of paper...and right now, all it will take is a small piece of paper.

In this case, it's not that it's hard to go up and see that there are no fish, while the fishing is going on unabated and hardcore out in the salt...what's hard is anyone having the political will to just go up and look and see that there aren't any fish getting to the spawning grounds.

No one, and I mean no one, who is in harvest management at either NWIFC or at WDFW wants to be the one to make that call...they want to just point at the pre-season forecasts and justify what is happening now by what they did eight months ago, changing situations be damned.

Fish on...

Todd

Exactly what Todd said!!!PEACE

If they changed the method of managment 8 years ago and there are fewer fish now than ten years ago, it doesn't seem all that successful to me. I don't disagree that this year could just have a bad return unrelated to management, but numbers have not increased overall during those 8 years.

I know they somehow count more fish in the river system, but I have no idea how they come up with that number. I see it first hand everyday and I know for a fact that no matter how they count em and tally the number, there are actually fewer of them. Are they counting fish returning to the Wallace, are they counting fish on the beds, maybe a fly over and estimate? I think Twodogs mentioned a 1% per year increase, if you put in 20% more effort to count them, and only count 1% more fish, I can see how on paper it looks like an net increase (no pun intended).

If the run was as predicted, then one scenario is that during the Coho run when the river was up, a few early chums came in, as the coho tailed off and the chums should have been coming in in very good numbers, there was no rain and the river was low and clear again. This was when the netting started and no fish were entering the river, they were just hanging out in the salt, as a result they got scooped up and never made it upstream.

I don't normally get involved in these conversations, I leave it to those that know much more and are better connected, but this is a river and fishery that I know very well. I know when the numbers reported aren't in line with what's actually going on in the system.

Thanks, Curt, your insights are astute and your information is copious, as usual.

I think I was a bit too defensive on a few points. Just let me repeat that I really do lurk here because there is good information, and that your information does enter into management. And believe it or not, many WDFW employees do the same. So thanks to all of you for the feedback on what's happening in the river.

You know, it is sometimes difficult to deal with the pressures to keep fisheries open that come form the fleets, but us resource managers are sometimes successful at doing that. And sometimes, more than you may think, the politicians, both state and tribal do back us up.

Finally, I am in fact both a biologist and a statistician. I guess that combination must be as bad as a lawyer, in some eyes, worse maybe. I won't try to defend my credibility or that of my colleagues. Most of us are happy to share all our information, hear your critiques and suggestions, and keep learning what we can. I don't appreciate the innuendos about our competence or honesty, but I am willing to stand on what we have accomplished rather than try to debate the issue. I certainly understand the frustrations of many in the fishing community, both sport and commercial, because I hear the complaints every day. That's why I and my colleagues always try to do the best we can for the resource and for our fishermen. Obviously we don't always get it right, but we always do our best.

I will be busy with meetings (ecosystem-based management related, if you must know) and family time over Thanksgiving, so I won't be checking in for awhile. But I wish everyone a good holiday.

A partner of mine at work reports his friend operates/owns a commercial vessel that fished that chum fishery in 8-2 & 9 and said they are done for the season as of today. He said his friend told him the nets came in full for several days and that they stopped when the numbers in the nets dropped significantly. He said they had never seen those kind of numbers before from fish destined for the snohomish system. Like someone else said they were right about getting $15/lb for the eggs which is what his friend said to him they were primarily netting chum for. BTW the eggs are enroute to Japan.

Biologist or not, fisherman or not...regardless of the #s that the state and tribal's say they are harvesting because of the potential # of returning fish is just not right...once again Blue Jay stated it along with how many others including myself...the Snohomish for example hasn't see shiat for chum yet this year..a few sure but the majority are already bought up by cannery's

The Skagit historically known for huge runs of big chums down from this time last year when they weren't even going to open it.

Maybe the the fisheries are doing a good job..a good job at making sure both commercial (tribal and non tribal) get there fish and then the rest is left over for us sportsman (some who make a living at this) to fend for..by this time 90% of the fish are way off the bite from the heavy netting and half of the 10% that actually bite have scars from nets all over them..

It isn't like WA is the only place where they don't have a grip on this ,,, I guided on the Nushagak River in Alaska this summer...was supposed to be a 300k plus run of adult kings..ended up less then half of that due to the # that were caught in the nets out in the bay...the # of jacks were at least 15 to one.

Something has got to change to get more of a sustainable fishery all the way around, I'm not against everyone getting fish, commercial, tribal and sportys but when we are last on the totem pole and get treated how we do in this state and we bring in so much $$$ something is up...

I do not know much, am fairly ignorant, BUT, I've got an older (63) friend who owns several permits here, but mostly fishes Alaska. The last couple years he fished those permits a bit due to the high price of chums. This year it started out at .85 cents per pound, now it is .90 cents. The previous two years they caught tons of fish, this year they have been greatly dissapointed in the north areas of the sound, but happy with the canal and south sound. Last week, in three sets they caught( by their words) over 300 in the first set, next two sets les than 20, with one steelhead and a few coho, the coho were wild, extremely dissapointed they were They did pretty good in the canal, and said a couple gill netters did good in the Everett area, but overall a down year. I can tell you usually we see them jumping all over from early Oct. through now in front of the island, hardly any this year, seems to be an ocean problem, or they are late, ignorant I am, but not stupid enough to know there are just way less fish right now than there should be, maybe they are all in the Quilayute.

I have been on the Snoho 4 out of the last 7 days and I'm on the river a couple of days a week for the last few months and recently I have seen no chums to speak of ?????......Very Scary!!.....I have friends that fish all over the entire Snoho system and I have a friend or two at 3 Rivers and the topic of our discussions has been " Where are the Chums " The last chums that I have seen caught was a the end of the main coho run last month but since then there has been NO CHUMS to be seen at all in the Snoho system.....Every Fisherman I have talked to says the same thing " where are the chum "???....talk to the plunkers on the Douglas Bar and they will ask you " where are the chum "??....talk to every guy coming in at any boat launch on the Snohomish system and they will ask you " where are the chum "???.....I hope that some chum make it in the river to atleast seed it for the future......Chum eggs are all being sold to Japan??...


Twodogs, thanks for your info on your end. This has been educational to say the least. You should take a tour of the Snohomish system and talk with the fisherman and look for yourself in the river like Todd said it would take a very small piece of paper to write statistics on. I hope that the reports on this site about the chum in the Snohomish system can help you with your reports and again thanks for chiming in on this topic....


Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!!.....

BINGO!

Different place same frickin' story.

Bastards... dirty bastards!

Well my partner said he talked with his commercial friend and the final total was well over 1,000,000 lbs of chum from 8-2 & 9. He also said there are plenty more fish out there to go around that will hit the river soon, so don't worry.

Where can we get the latest numbers on commercial chum harvest in the state? Also where do we go to get recreational harvest data on chums?

Dave -
I don't have the numbers handy but think you can find some of them (probably dated) on WDFW's web site.

Do know that in Puget Sound that for the priority of non-treaty harvest of chums and pinks and Canadian sockeye is for the commerical fleet.

Conversely in Puget Sound the priority for Chinook, coho, and Lake Washignton sockeye is directored towards the recreational fisheries. (an exception would be the Samish hatchery Chinook).

The results of those policy decisions is the for chum and pinks the bulk of the non-treaty catch is commerical and for Chinook and coho the bulk is recreational. That situation doesn't exist elsewhere in the state (Columbia, Willapa Bay and Grays harbor).

tight lines
Curt

This is all fantastic information and debate.

Back to my original question:
Does anyone know at what rate the commercial Chum fishery has increased in the last 5-10 years?

Has there been an increase in commercial licenses?
Have the license amounts remained the same, and commercials started fishing harder because of market demand?
Does anyone know what the total commercial take has been in pounds or number of fish for each year over the last 5-10 years?