Guess we need spell check, that first sentence should say "makes" ,

Dave et al -
I certainly recognize that the real value in a recreational fishery ($$ spend) is the numbers of man days fishing rather than the number of fish killed/harvested. Have argued that point for decades.

However to make the point with folks like our legislators we need hard estimates of those man days of fishing. That usually requires some sort of creel surveys which of course a pretty expensive.

It appears to me that at least until this season (more about that in minute) the Catch and releasing of chums on the Snohomish systems has been pretty darn good. Based on comments by Todd, Ondarvr, and Sebastes it would seem that folks are expecting to have at least double digit days pretty consistently. There is little doubt in my mind that at least part of that success is due to increase numbers of fish in the river/on the spawning grounds (result of local management changes?).

I was suggesting that if folks wish to take on the case for increased recreational opportunity that other fisheries/ areas might be of more value/higher priority. Somehow if we are going to the mat with the decission makers for those opportunities I would think the recreational community would benefit more if that effort was directed to say the Columbia spring Chinook or if the interest is so great for increased chum fisheries maybe looking for wider application of breaks with past management paradigms (thinking outside of the old box) such as the current Snohomish chum management paradigm. Again I think that either option would be of wider interest than say modifications to the Snohomish chum model so that recreational anglers would expect to catch and release twice as many as they do now - but hey that just be me.

Regarding this year's Snohomish chum escapements.

By far the most significant statement in all of these 9 pages of discussion was by Twodog where he said.

"If people on this board are interested in the facts and interested in talking to managers, I'd be happy to oblige. But in return, I expect that I, my tribal fishermen, the non-tribal commercial fishermen, and all of us who work hard to manage this resource will be treated with respect. It only seems fair to me. Thanks. "

(Twodog - again thanks for generous offer and taking the time to bring additional information to our discussions.)

With that offer you have access to one of the key fisheries managers who as this discussion has shown has been more than willing to think "outside of the box", and who in my experience is vitally concerned with wild fish conservation and more than willing to listen to "new ideas".

Clearly the number of chums in the Snohomish system so far this year has been less than we all would like to see. The reality is that down years (for a variety of reasons which may include overfishing) are going to happen with virtually every wild salmonid run in the region. I suppose that we can use that as an excuse to rant and rave about real or previced issues or as I suggested earlier we can use this year to examine what has happened, what role management played and finally if needed how can management be adjusted to address any new insights.

Or to put it another way - I have always maintained that monitoring each year's escapement is essentially the correction of the test of that year's management. Given the variabilities of that year's runs did management put the desired number of fish on the spawning grounds (some call that putting the fish first)? If indeed it turns out that this year's management fails the "test" I would suggest that the managers do just as they did in school - That is if you fail a test review the information so that you can learn from that experience so that you reduce the likelyhood of future failures.

It is really up to you guys - you can use discussions such as this to vent (and Ican understand we some may want to do so) or (as many have done so far) as an opportunity to be proactive and roll up our collective sleeves and attempt to understand the nuances of management and get our concerns to the managers in a positive discussion that may actually influence future management decissions. I for one have no interest in the first but and more than willing to invest considerable effort in the later.

Tight lines
Curt

Don't get me wrong, I'm not venting, I'm trying to communicate what actually is happening and not what it may look like on paper. The best years for double digit hook ups were 95,96 and 97, from that time on it has slowed down at a steady rate, not a sharp dive, just a few less fish every year. The last few years the fishing has been poor when compared to the late 90's and that's with a supposed second best return in 2006. There's also a different timing to the run, more fish are returning earlier with the coho and spawning higher in the system, the numbers of fish that spawn below Sultan in late November and December have been reducing at a faster rate.

I've been in touch with TwoDogs and we have some things planned, and I have no doubt that he is accurately interpreting the numbers he receives. The problem is, those numbers my not be all that good and I know they don't tell the whole story.

I agree with ondarvr's last post...it hasn't been great up until this year, it's been slowly getting worse and worse for a decade, and the past two seasons have been downright miserable for the amount of chums in the river on the Skykomish.

As I've pointed out a few times above, I'm not necessarily contending that the chum net fishery has caught a zillion fish this year so that's why there are no fish in the river...that may be the case, but my argument was going more to the point that if, for whatever reason, there are no fish in the river, why are they still be subjected to an intense commercial fishery?

Fish on...

Todd

Fished with my family on our Thanksgiving fishing derby. We have been chaseing the dogs at Potlach for a few years now. This has become one of my kids favoright fisheries. There have been times when we have hooked and released alot of fish. Last year on the day after turkey day we hooked about 35 fish with the seven of us. This party is a big thing for the whole family. Yesterday we arrived at odarkthirty eagerly waiting for first light. As we scaned the water for the first signs of the big schools of fish that we were used to seing swiming down the shore line We were dismayed to not see any thing moving. We thought that it was just the tide and the fish would soon show up. As the morning fog lifted we were soon able to see the vast numbers of nets that were in the water. They seem to start just north of potlatch park. We fished the whole day and saw only 1-2 fish go by. Caught nothing. We could see the guys working in the fish trap with the binocolars. It did not look to me that there were many fish in the trap either. I hope that they are able to get enough to keep that run established as my family and alot of other people enjoy the fisherie. I hope that the high prices that the fish are bringing now will not endanger the fish for the future thanks Jay Pea

Ondarvr, Thanks for letting us know that you and Twodogs are in touch and making plans...My hats off to Twodogs if he is going to look in the river for him self......

Robert.

Did another float on the Snoqualmie today...first winter run of the year in the box, and a coho for SkyGuy, too...

The good news...spotted three chums under the Fall City bridge...

The bad news, those were the only chums spotted from Fall City to Neal Rd., where there should be hundreds, if not thousands, spawning right now. The water is low and clear, so it's easy to see everywhere, and there was not one chum on any of the spawning flats, side channels, or river banks, at least not any that we could see.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

As I said in the other thread, I had the exact same results when out looking for spawning chums on the Sky today.

I launched at the Douglas Bar on the Snohomish this morning and rowed up river to the other side below Thomas Edy to fish my chum hole and as usual for the past three weeks I saw nothing!...The plunker's at the Douglas said the same for the last few weeks, where are the chums?

i was going to bring the nutrients thing up, i was wondering myself?

What should be a time of plenty for the birds along the Sky, is a time of hunger this year. There were some old pinks on the beach until a couple of weeks ago, now there's nothing, just a clean beach, without that old familiar fall riverbank smell. It makes it a little easier on me because my dogs don't come in and throw up old stinky fish guts on the carpet, or need a bath 3 times a week, but I would rather have the good run of fish.

I think this could have a widespread negative effect on everything form eagles to salmon fry. There is a problem and our fisheries managers need to know about it. I think we need a few calls to TV investigative reporters. Yes I do plan on a column on the issue.

Aunty,

I don't know the specific answer, but generally speaking, it has to be an awful lot of marine derived nutrients that make it in to the upper watersheds thanks to chums...I mentioned it way back in my first post on this subject.

Fish on...

Todd

Good idea on writing the article Dave.
Another Chum absence this year is on North creek and Swamp creek draining into north Lake Washignton. I can walk North Creek by my office and there are no chums where there have been several in the past. Swamp Creek is by a place I eat lunch at from time to time, and there were none in a hole I checked last week.

Also went through the locks and saw not one fish roll last friday.

Steelhead and coho benefit the most from the nutrients as they are in the river the longest before they put out to sea.

Twodogs, how long is your net season for the chum?.....When are you going to stop netting for he chum this year?.....Have you been to the river to have a look at all the chum in it?...

Dave Vedder should be able to fill you in on the details of the river trip with TwoDogs at tonights CCA meeting, it went well, they were a very nice group of people.

Come to the CCA meeting tonight and I will report what the tribal biologist said and did. They strike me as very concerned people working hard to keep sustainable numbers of salmon in the rivers. Remember it was the Tulalips who gave us the bubble fishery, and according to their biologist I met today it was the Indians who suggested a new management philosophy for chums that has resulted in the big runs beginning in the 90's. I believe they are concerned about the low numbers in the Snohomish and Stilly systems, and I believe they will work hard to see what went wrong.


Come to the meeting if you want more info.

Dave please give an update to those of us that can not make this important meeting tonight..

Scott and Dave from Three Rivers provided a boat for ondarvr and myself and three tribal biologists form the Tulalip Tribe to do a quick and dirty survey of the chum run in the Sky Between Monroe and Sultan. We took the biologists to several areas where Scott and ondarvr said they typically see hundreds of chums. We saw a few, but very few. The biologists seemed very concerned and promised to try to find out what happened.

He explained that the tribe and state work together to set run size estimates, and from that harvest amounts. The runs size estimates are based upon smolt counts from nets placed in several beaches over a period of time. They believe this is the most accurate way they have to estimate run size and believe it has been relatively accurate.

One problem, at least as I see it, is they can do a much better job of determining the health of the chum in a given region, better than in a specific river. (The nets are placed in salt water where, the fish from various rivers may intermingle.) Right now the biologists are not willing to postulate a theory of what happened to the Sky chums, but it seems to me only two choices are possible. Either they overestimated the run size or over harvested Sky chums, while remaining within the harvest levels they had established.

Two Dog, please help me out here and correct me if i have any of this Wrong.