I have been talking with some people and have been examining the prospects of raising chum at Humptulips. The cost is minimal to raise them so that isn't a huge factor. I think a larger factor is what would be the draw if it was to happen? Personally, I like to eat them, even a barred up buck tastes good to me.

So I guess the question is would there be a draw if there was a Chum plant in the Humptulips? Or would it just be a waste to consider it a draw and a useful fishery?

The other aspect is the price that can be gotten for Chum. The money could be used to support hatchery operations and possibly help get planting numbers back up in the future. The impacts are unknown but they should be even lower now that the intake is money has been approved and should help get more hatchery fish out of the river.

And yes, the tribes would welcome the extra income and since SF has already been able to get them to pitch in some money, maybe the addition of chum could lead to some more for planting them in the future.

Just looking for all around feedback on the idea.

fish_4_all -
Might want to take a look at or think about the impacts on coho stocks while the various gill nets access hatchery chum.

Mixed stocks fisheries can get dicey for non-target stocks.

Tight lines
Curt

That says it all...

why waste a perfectly good concrete pond on the hump when chum can spawn right on the concrete pond that is highway 101 in skokomish

theres enough dogs already!!!!

I'll take 1000 coho over 100,000 chum, and I'll pass on the damage the commercial fishery in the estuary would do if said chums were around.

No dice.

Fish on...

Todd

You can't just go around dumping whatever fish you want wherever you want to do it and just expect it to make everything "better".

You mean the last 65 years of hatchery policy has been wrong?

Fish on...

Todd


P.S. You don't have to answer that...sorry for asking

I am not for against it yet. Just getting opinions for now.

Cost wise to raise, pennies for chum, dollars for Coho. Return in carcass sales, 2-3x for chum than coho. Raise chum for pennies, sell carcasses, raise more Coho, Chinook and steelhead. Good deal assuming negligible impacts on native fish stocks.

I will be the first to admit it I hate it when the Chum are in and I am not fishing for them. They get in the way of target species and are a pain in arse when they are everywhere. They are fun to catch but with regs the way they are now it isn't worth the chance of getting a ticket for Coho or Chinook and hooking nothing but Chum.

Fight, hmm, interesting opinions on that one.

Pinks/humpies draw thousands to them every other year and everyone says they are basically not good for anything but cat food, fertilizer and eggs. Fight for 30 seconds and roll over?

Oh and insulting a perch comparing a chums taste to any perch is just wrong, just saying. I know that comparison wasn't made, intentionally anyway. Perch taste better than almost anything caught in the river.

As far as netting and target species, don't have a clue the impacts but the nets were in most of the year on the Humptulips anyway. Could it have netting impacts on Coho and Chinook, maybe but only if the netting schedules change from what they are now or have been. Will definitely have to find out what impacts it might have and what the timing is for Chum returns and non-target species on the Humptulips.

Keep the posts coming. Want to hear from everyone.

As was already mentioned, the biggest concern I'd have is the new commercial pressure to get at those chums putting even more impact on the non-targeted coho & chinook. They take enough of a hammering already.

Those chum carcasses you'd be selling don't swim to the market...they get netted, along with whatever else is around at the time...

Fish on...

Todd

They netted chum in the estuary this year anyway and there are no hatchery chum plants in Grays Harbor.

I agree that any changes to netting that would impact other species as a result is a major reason not to plant chum. Didn't see any change in netting schedule this year compared to last year because of the chum fishery in Grays Harbor. I will have to look closer to see if there was one.

As for room at the hatchery, capacity of Humptulips hatchery, 6 million plus. Current plants 1.5 million. Regardless of what is planted, the hatchery will not see capacity anytime soon if ever again.

There were an amazing amount of chum in the Humptulips this year....I don't think they need anymore.

This was creative thinking on your part, which I think deserves some credit. I applaud you for thinking outside the box instead of spouting the same ideas that either haven't worked or are politically/economically impossible. That said, I don't favor hatching chums, for many of the reasons already stated, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate them. I think chums are cool, and I think more needs to be done to protect what's left of the wild ones.

Thank you Fleaflickr, I try.

Just ask a legion of sportsmen and you'll get 6,000 (even though I agree with FleaFlicker in this case).

Other user groups may speak with forked tongue, but we'd much rather speak with forked opinion.

I ask for individuals to state their opinion and what they think, not what they have been told by some user group. Is a lot more important to me than simply going out and doing something.

Is why I will be working as much as I can on a bill for the endorsement that is regional and all funds go to that region instead of a state wide everything that dumps into the Pacific plan. No one supported a blanket plan like that whom replied so why would I pursue it or support it?

IF there is support somewhere, IF it won't result in excess netting impacting wild stocks and IF it won't have any other negative impacts it may be worth pursuing. Right now, it doesn't seem like it will be.

Believe it or not but Chum are the most valuable fish around. People around here may not like to eat or catch them but that isn't the type of value I speak of. Once Chum hatch, they migrate out to river almost immediately. No rearing is actually even necessary, many places will just plant them out right away straight from incubation and then other places may hold for a minimal time.... Anyway, they take almost nothing out of the system when migrating out but they bring so much more back with them when they spawn and die off. Other species (not just fish but wildlife as well) chow down on these rotting carcusses and what do we have? Ding Ding! Nutrient enhancement. So many species rely on these carcusses for food. They are very very valuable to the system. Not fisherman.

Also, Chum roe is wayyy more valuable than coho roe. Hatcheries could generate much more funds selling chum than coho. Around here people would pick a coho over a chum (don't get me wrong, I would too) but most of the market for these fish aren't even around here, it is in Japan and parts of Europe.

Can't wait to hear the negative feedback on this post but believe it or not, it is very true.

!

Cue in Stones, "you cain't always get whatch you waa-aunt, but if you try sometimes, you might just get, get whatch you nee-ee-eed".

We need less impact on wild stocks of ALL fish in the Humptulips/Chehalis area...........when the non-tribal gillnetter, goes to 100% selective fishery, then we MIGHT think about a plan B. Chum salmon, just gives the the non-tribal, additional days to fish......while the "target fish" might be chum, what they really want are the Coho that are there at same time.......so why would we want to enhance any run of fish, that would allow more gillnetting, and futher deplete wild stocks????????????