Yup, more sockeye for the commies and tribes to net.

From my prespective if you are concern with wild fish I'm not so sure that is all great of news.

The singled mindness of the co-managers and Puget Sound energy focusing on increasing Baker sockeye has resulted in Baker Chinook and steelhead becoming functionally extinct.

If they are successful in increasing the sockeye run (I believe that folks are hoping for as many as 75,000 returning adult sockeye) there will be a significant issue in how those fish will be caught.

There will be a strong push for tribal in-river gill net fisheries which in itself is not a problem however I have concerns about that fishery as well the recreational fisheries "incidental" impacts on the ESA listed Chinook (both spring and summer), steelhead and bull trout. The timing of a main stem sockeye fishery would be right on top of the upstream migration of the Chinook and bull trout with some over-lap with the winter steelhead as well as the downstream steelhead kelts.

Tight lines
Curt

As a ringleader for restoring and enhancing Baker River sockeye, I share Smalma's concerns. The attitudes in commercial fishing management are not keeping up with the changes to the status of our fishery resources. In the case of the Baker sockeye, mainstem gillnetting to the detriment of Skagit chinook (shouldn't be many steelhead kelts in late June and July when the sockeye run) is fundamentally stupid. The new adult fishway and trap being constructed by PSE on the Baker will make fish sorting, handling, and transport almost better than immaginable. No sockeye runsize forecast is needed. Surplus sockeye can be taken from the fish trap to satisfy the treaty fishery, without a single mortality to ESA listed chinook or steelhead. To not take advantage of the technology is either irresponsible harvest management, or simply caving in to out-dated and dangerous harvest demands (kinda' like LCR spring chinook gillnetting), or both.

Personally I hope the sockeye program is successful, altho I doubt the runsizes some folks are anticipating will actually be realized. A healthy sockeye population will facilitate healthier populations among the other species. Witness the number and size of Baker bull trout benefitting from improved sockeye numbers. More sockeye spawners will increase river and tributary productivity in the sub-basin, benefitting potential reintroductions of chinook and steelhead if those life histories are suited to today's environment.

Sg

Salmo g. -
With peak wild winter steelhead spawning in the Skagit basin happening around mid-May many years there will still be substantial numbers of winter kelts in the system during June.

If my memory serves correctly at the last PFMC meetng in 2008 the Skagit tribes proposed and later I believed mounted in-river gill net fisheries targeting sockeye beginning during the month of May. Such fisheries would clear catch winter steelhead; both un-spawned adults and kelts.

Tight lines
Curt

I would like to see the treaty portion taken from the traps......but can we stop the nets??? That is the question. My guess is that the Tribes are not going to be willing to get their nets out of the river.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

"I would like to see the treaty portion taken from the traps......but can we stop the nets??? That is the question. My guess is that the Tribes are not going to be willing to get their nets out of the river."

Why can't something like that be negotiated right from the start? Maybe let them get a certain percentage of their quota before it even opens for us ?

Smalma,

We both know that fishing the Skagit in May for sockeye isn't really fishing for sockeye. There are statistically zero sockeye in the Skagit in May. I understand and agree there are steelhead kelts in the river in June, especially the first half. I never found many, or what I would consider significant numbers in late June or July, which is not to say there are none.

A fishery honestly targeting sockeye wouldn't begin until the last week of June at the very earliest. Since the Skagit Tribes did an extensive spring chinook tagging study that I remember pretty well, they know quite well that a mainstem sockeye fishery in late June and all of July will take spring and summer chinook at much higher than incidental levels. Prosecuting a mainstem gillnet fishery during that time period with ESA listed chinook in the river is irresponsible, and especially so when the Baker trap already is, and certainly the new one will be a completely selective fishing alternative.

There is precedence. The Tribes have taken sockeye from the Baker trap for more than a decade when the run was abundant and distributed them to the respective reservations for ceremonial and subsistence use. I couldn't think of a better way to manage that fishery.

Slab,

No, we can't stop the nets. The tribes can, should they choose to harvest selectively, conserving ESA listed chinook and steelhead, while harvesting sockeye when they are abundant. The tribes may strive to make a case that their gillnet fishery is selective. Negative publicity that that isn't the case couldn't hurt. The Skagit Tribes have done many good things for salmon and steelhead, but that doesn't mean they should get a pass when they make choices that have adverse results for those same fish.

Sg

Sg -
I agree that taking the returning sockeye at the trap is by far the soundest biological method to harvest those fish. And I further agree that few sockeye show up in the Skagit until late June or early July (as you mentioned the earlier tagging studies as well as returns to the Baker trap both indicate that timing). However I base my concerns on what I have seen and what I think the impacts might be.

The very first year that large sockeye returns were expected was 2008 with a preseason forecast of more than 20,000 sockeye. During the salmon season setting process (at PFMC after NOF) the Skagit tribes announced that they were going to target those sockeye with a fishery beginning in early May. Maybe you can check with your contacts to see if they indeed folowed through with that fisheries

I also agree that presecuting such fisheries that early in the year is irresponsible however to date that is the track record we apparently have on how the Tribes seem to be going to fish for sockeye which explains my opinion that having lots of sockeyes is not good news for the ESA listed slamonids that will be in the river at the same time.

tight lines
Curt

Smalma,

Part of their rationale from what I heard is to target those hatchery spring chinook returning to Clark Ck. Frankly, there's not many in May. They migrate mostly in June. At any rate, the hatchery springers share the same timing as the wild ESA springers. It seems like harvest management has gone a bit sideways since the coop broke up, altho I'm not sure of the connection.

It will be a bitter irony if sockeye restoration and enhanced, that I worked hard on for a lot of years, ends up undermining chinook and steelhead recovery. What a reward, eh?

Sg

Smalma, Have you read Ralph Wahl's book, "One Man's Steelhead Shangra La" ? Ralph fished for summer-runs (steelhead) starting in I believe the 1930's in a large side channel of the Skagit that is long since washed out. There was a small creek with a canyon stretch that was said to house the summer spawners. My question is; are there any remnants of a native summer-run left and if there is the possibility of a remnant run wouldn't they be affected? I know alot of us catch summers in the P.S. rivers that are "wild" every now and then but I would hope such delicate runs wouldn't be affected.

but can we stop the nets???

Used to have no problem getting rid of the nets late a night!
It took a team, but it happened many times. Of course the Federal government would just buy them new ones! But it did slow them down.

Same sort of management or the lack there of thats going on in the Skeena system. The government inhanced the sockeye run a hundred fold through artificial channels in the upper Babine (fulton spawning channel). Everyone is now getting a piece of the pie netting the mouth of the Skeena while coho and summer steelhead get the shaft. Money does walk, or swim in this case.

cobble cruiser -
Yes I have read Mr. Wahl's book; in fact during the 1970s I had a number of conversations with Ralph include a couple very enjoyable evenings in his basement reviewing his flies and photos from by-gone days. A wonderful fisher and photographer but a better gentleman.

Yes there remain some wild summers in the basin. I doubt that they ever very numerous a few can still found here and there in the basin.

Salmo g -
Hopefully the Tribes will accept that the sockeye just aren't in the river unitl late June which would take the pressure off the winter steelhead; at least in that fishery. Though the issue of by-catch will remain for the EAS listed summer Chinook, bull trout and summer steelhead. I think cobble cruiser nails it - the situation will likely be much like the Skeena - that has worked well don't you think.

I wonder how this will play out in regards to the new US/Canada salmon treaty and the obligation to pass their savings by reduced fishing to the spawning grounds.

Tight lines
Curt

Cobble,

It's been some years, but tributary surveys for summer steelhead usually produced counts in single digits. Yeah, I suppose a very few native summer runs are still around, but the in river gillnet fishery for salmon takes a rough toll on fish that have to spend many months in the river. Ralph's side channel former sanctuary has been gone for more than 20 years, and the side channel it used to run into has been regularly netted since the 1970s.

Smalma,

Ah the law of unintended consequences . . . Baker sockeye enhancement will be very bad for Skagit chinook and steelhead if the tribes insist on mainstem gillnetting for the sockeye. Pretty rediculous with a new $25 million fishway and trap and sorting facility being constructed this year.

Sg

Thanks guys, always a wealth of insight. Another interesting race of summer run used to exist in the old days up woods crk according to Bob Heirman! Always dreamin about what once was.

If they net in May, or even the first half of June, I'd be happy to see the nets, along with all the "enhanced sockeye", take a flying leap...that bull$hit "spring Chinook" fishery for what are actually summer Chinook and were nowhere near the river was only there to catch steelhead...if this ends up being yet another made up reason to net those steelhead, I could see myself going vigilante.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Most assuredly "NOT T.I.C".

Pair of pliers and a blowtorch dude.

If it makes anyone feel any better the Indians are only allowed to net 3 days a year on the Baker river for Sockeye. They have only had maybe one good year of netting. Last year they only got like maybe 100 fish in all 3 of those days because the run was so bad. On the upside there netting is heavily monitored by fish and game. There netting is also monitored by local citizens that do not like them netting up there. On the down side if a steelhead ends up in there net it is doomed regardless of whether they throw it back or not. It's not like the fishermen are any better then the Indians up there. I saw to natives caught and kept up there last year. So no matter what you do, any steelhead that travels up that river is doomed during Sockeye runs.

As far as the Springer s go...I have not seen any caught or harmed up there.

I like the sockeye run up there because the run gives my family and friends a opportunity to get away from town and catch some fish when the run is good. It also helps the economy in Concrete/Skagit Co. because fishermen come from everywhere to fish and spend money.

Great...

$50 million for sockeye that will allow nets to make the current horrible situation even worse. This is the OPPOSITE of "Good News".

Also, I really don't think the sockeye runs are bringing in much to the local economy.