An interesting observation on a Alaskan coho run, fished for the last 30 years or so at 60% withruns varying from about 1,500 to to12,000.

Coho productivity was NOT related to coho escapement, coho productivity was NOT related to marine survival, coho productivity WAS directly related to pink escapement.

We keep the chum numbers down low and we can ensure that we need those "extra" coho for harvest.

Thanks!

Just an aside.

WDFW was more than a bit displeased about that proposed gillnet schedule leaking onto this forum less than 24 hrs after the fact.

Rebuilding burnt bridges ain't always easy. Mutual trust and respect must be earned. It shouldn't be carelessly squandered.

Maybe the Chehalis river sport fishermen will be able to keep "wilds" until end of January, if the big river stays fishable???????

That would be a nice bonus for the "up river boys"....

Was not aware that it was a secret to be kept to the few that participated in the advisory board as I assumed when it was given to me that as in all government processes it would be open and so called transparent not back room deals. But I will e mail Mr. Warren today and apologize for putting forth information that the agency wanted kept hidden.

The text of the E mail:

Good Morning Mr. Warren,

I am writing to apologize for putting forth the GH Gillnettters proposed schedule in a public forum prior to the NOF meeting at Montesano City Hall.. As it had been presented to the GH Advisory Board I simply assumed it was public information and not a secret that was to be kept from the general public with only selected individuals made aware of the content of the proposal. A member of the GH Advisory Committee, in a public forum stated that:

" WDFW was more than a bit displeased about that proposed gillnet schedule leaking onto this forum less than 24 hrs after the fact. Rebuilding burnt bridges ain't always easy. Mutual trust and respect must be earned. It shouldn't be carelessly squandered. "

You have my sincerest apology as I truly thought that WDF&W was presiding over a open public process and I was not aware of a need for secrecy that WDF&W has brought to Mr. E ---------- attention.

Sorry.



CC: Phil Anderson Jim Scott

id like to see what the new proposde schedule is..

Doc mentioned "Ricker Curve"....had not heard of it........maybe others in same boat....so here it is....:


Ricker curve

Ricker curve
named for William Ricker, a Canadian fisheries biologist, this is a mathematical model of fish population dynamics. A graph of mature progeny and spawners is used to determine average maximum catches for a fishery. One line on the graph is the line of natural replacement where spawners are replaced by an equal number of progeny. The natural equilibrium point is where spawners equal progeny without fishing. Past this point crowding is a factor depressing the numbers of fish through egg loss on spawning beds. A curved line shows the maximum sustainable catch (see Ricker (1975) for details)

what???????????

fish4brains....

Well my take on the past 3-4 years is a little different than yours.....On the Chehalis side, I would say that 85 % of the fish, in October, are caught before the sports group at the Mall, gets a shot at them.

Many days, small boats and bankies from Chehalis mouth, 101 Bridge, clear to Porter are doing the "cast, cast, cast" or sitting on the hook, 6-7 hours with not many biters. These sportspeople have every right to have the same opportunity, as the gill netters and the in bay sports group.....just because your 1st in line, doesn't give you the right to "pull off many of the biters" before the "in river fisherman does or even gets a chance".

In river being from 101 bridge, which is defined as the Chehalis River mouth, to the Chehalis tribe and waters beyond.

So let me get this straight.
Before the "Ricker curve" Salmon must have just been on the brink of extinction as too many were getting to the gravel.
Then man comes along and begins to "manage" Salmon.
So now we have robust runs like we see on the Nooch?

Makes sense to me.......

Bingo

Without Quality Human Management we would have catastrophic over escapements followed by a few fish spawning in a cycle of continuous boom and bust.

I have seen a State/Tribal management plan where they state that the goal of fish management is to provide a fishery. The measure of success is how well they provide that fishery. The effect of those fish in the ecosystem is not a consideration. If I can refind the document I'll post the exact definition...

Wynoochee is not a good example....they have a "fish trap", 2 miles below the man made dam.....all Coho, many wild steelhead are trucked above the dam.....spawning for those fish is about 2 miles of river....then a natural dam stops them from going further....

Smolt from these spawning fish, have to go "thur the out flow tubes", been a few studies done but in general....not very many smolt make it.

I gotta agree with fish4brains. I think the weather affects the fishing in the river more than people fishing the bay, unless of course they are using gillnets.

Ok, then lets try the Chinook run on the Satsop? The chum?

I am just saying that for whatever reason, to me, letting more fish spawn is a good thing. Crazy I know.
The idea that "too many fish hit the gravel" just doesn't make sense.
One would think ole ma nature kind of had a plan till we thought we knew more.
How is that working out?

TF..........while many would agree with you.......gill netters and others, WDFW, feel that "if the numbers are there, kill'em"....

Last year, At NOF in the Olympia the guys from the G.H. sports group, because the number of catchable Chum was low...said "Chum should go back to the gravel".... Wow, that was a mistake...gill netters jumped all over that one...."said, they would like to have them"....WDFW, said "you got them".....what that did was give the GH cowboys, another 2 days of netting.....while it was for Chum, of course they got to keep and sell, any Coho they got........so.......

I'll never sit there and allow any salmon that are making escapement numbers, to not have a sports fishery on them.

At some time, WDFW might realize that the value of a sports caught fish..........far exceeds the value of a "in-river" gill net caught fish...

hagd

Treefarmer,

Allowing more fish than the escapement goal to spawn, on average, doesn't increase subsequent run returns. The reason is that every habitat has a finite carrying capacity. Biologists and others understand that, and because carrying capacity is finite, that fact was used to define Maximum Sustained Harvest (MSH) which is a close relative of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) as the treaty and non-treaty co-managers' court approved and ordered salmon management policy.

Getting Region 6 WDFW to deliberately allow one more salmon than the escapement goal reach the spawning grounds will require more than a change of management philosophy. It requires a change of the WDFW legislative mandate to provide for commercial fishing. For reasons the Department cannot or will not explain, the QIN commercial fishery is not interpreted by WDFW as fulfilling the commercial fishery mandate.

Sadly, after last year's experience with Region 6, with every sport fisherman in the room agreeing that the paltry few chum forecast above escapement (between 300 and 400 I think) should be allowed to escape, DrifterWA is right. The error bound of the runsize forecast was larger than the estimated runsize. Still if Region 6 can twist the interpretation in any way to allow more gillnet days, and more impacts to under-escaped stocks, they will do it, because that's exactly what they did.

It's hard to imagine what force is driving over-exploitation of GH salmon. It makes one think that one of the gillnetters has secret photographs of the Director screwing a goat or something. But continue to expect high quality lip service to conservation.

Sg

Meeting the conservation objective in GH on any given year is attributable to blind luck as much as it is any pro-active management by the agency.

Current practice patterns are much more prone to errors of over harvest than under harvest. Chronically understating the harvest efficiencies of both fleets and underestimating the true impacts to non-target stocks isn't doing the fish any good. The number one factor that allows the basin to ever make escapement goals is actual (post-season) run-sizes that exceed the pre-season forecast.

Perception is reality....

But in the agency's defense, I should set the record straight here.

There were harvestable chum last year ... NON-treaty share = 6335. (I believe the 300-400 fish SG referred to was the "harvestable" spring chinook.)

Yes, we did say let the rec share go to the gravel. But let's be clear here.... doing so DID NOT allow more gillnet days in 2A/2D.

We could have asserted our right to take those fish, but it would NOT have made a difference in the number of gillnet days.

We spent less than half of the available chum in the forecast on the gillnets. Without rec claiming theirs, there were actually enough chum to fuel another 3 days of netting. But that didn't happen. The limiter was NOT available chum (there were plenty), but instead having the fishery slam up against a chinook impact cap of 5%.

This sounds like a question that needs to start getting asked. Would this be something for the commission?