I agree with this statement......but that said, after going to NOF, in Region 6, things that sportsmen want or feel should be done....JUST DON"T GET A HIGH PRIOTY.....

Bottom line....WDFW doesn't want more fish in a system, that the system can handle.....hatchery Coho that end up at a hatchery, are considered a waste of the resource......so in Region 6....more days are allowed/given to the NT gillnetters and of course the QIN sets thier own netting schedule...

I've posted many times, on what looks like a "super sports fishing schedule"...be aware, that most of October will be netted and the Marine sportsmen will be fishing.......so the chance that "lot's of salmon" will be available to the bankies, small boat, Wishkah, Wynoochee, Satsop, and Chehalis above 101 bridge.....just aren't going to be there.

No easy answer but if you want to try and make any changes...NOF is about the only way it can get done.....

Pray for lot's of high water.....maybe get some fish past the lower parts of a river system.......

Best wishes for a good 2012 salmon season....

Side Note:

Commission policy trumps NOF process.

Well for sure.....Phil Anderson trumps NOF progress in Region 6.....Olympia meeting was going "good", PA showed up.....we broke for lunch......after lunch the "good" got bad and there was NO give, on the situation......

I'm thinking that "sportsmen" get whats leftover, after the powers that control the process get thier say and what they want the end process to be..........Model, model, model.......funny how a model can change in 30 minutes.....but we watched it happen!!!!!!!

FYI. I found this last year. It is the "List Of Agreed Fisheries"..basically the state wide agreement between WDFW and the tribes over the fisheries. Sno/Stilly part starts on page 19.

This one expired 4/30/12. I havent tried to find the new on yet.

Makes for interesting reading.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2011-12agreement.pdf

Rotten Chum,

Now I'm wondering if you really understand this. I agree previous under-escaped runs are unhealthy by definition. But since the health of the run in any given year isn't known until AFTER the fishing season and the spawning fish have been counted, you appear to be advocating that we never again fish for chums. It's empirically impossible to know if this year's or any future year's chum run is healthy before it gets to a place it can be counted. The only way we have for counting the runs is via catch records and spawning survey counts. Since the health of the run is uncertain, you are saying we not plan or schedule any fishing for them. That's OK with me, but I thought you like to fish for chum? I can live with no Snoho chum season for the next 50 or 100 years.

Sg

Salmo,
I understand every part of what you are saying...understanding why we continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over and over again is not worthy of understanding...our state has mismanaged this chum run now for about 8 years now and counting. Yes...chum are allocated more for commercial harvest then sporties...I get that...yes... the tribes fish on them too...I get that...NO...I do not get why we are allowing any fishing group to catch and kill these fish until we have proof that the run has recovered. You ask me if I like to fish for chum? Hell yes I do but have you personally gone out to the river in the past few years to fish for them? I have and it's a damn shame how few you can actually find...the few you do find are on their beds in 2 feet of water trying to keep the species alive. Oh and that was a quality fish snob statement at the end of your last post by the way...good on you for being too cool for the chum.

John, I think you're missing his important point...

Even if there have been 100k returning and spawning the last four years, the forecast for this year will always be a forecast based on a model, a prediction...you will *never* know if any year's run is "healthy" enough to fish on until after the fish have already spawned, so if going fishing is only allowed on runs that have been proven to be healthy, then there will never be any fishing.

Fish on...

Todd

Using policy C-3608 as an example of what I’m saying, if you don’t like what is happening at NOF, then work on changing commission policy because commission policy dictates what happens at NOF.

North of Falcon Policy

This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual, salmon fishery planning process known as “North of Falcon”. When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure that decisions are made consistent with the Department’s statutory authority, U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, the Endangered Species Act, the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan, pertinent state/tribal agreements, and the applicable Fish and Wildlife Commission policies.

With the large commercial catch and no sport catch, department staff didn’t adhere to the intent of the policy and they know that along with the commission. There is plenty of wiggle room with allocation to have a sport season and hopefully more nutrients in the ecosystems as well.

My opinion is that NOF staff corrected that problem “good for them” and life moves on.

Actually didn't miss his important point...I get everything you just mentioned and the things salmo mentioned...I just don't believe we need to be harvesting them via net or hook...I put money on the fact that the sporties will not have a season this next fall due to the lack of fish.

Here's the point...if the escapement goal is, for instance, 50K...and the run size is forecasted to be 100K, should anyone be fishing for them?

If yes, then you may very well fish over a stock that will not make escapement that year, as the model may very well be wrong...as a matter of fact, it is almost certain to be wrong, it's only the degree of "wrongness" that changes year to year.

To avoid possibly fishing over a stock that won't make escapement (even if the forecast says it will)...then there will never be any fishing.

Salmo's not arguing that there should be a fishery this year...he's saying that if you will only agree to fish over a "healthy" stock, i.e., one that you are certain will make escapement after the fishery, then you will never get to fish for anything, as you will never be certain until after the season is over and the spawning counts are done.

Fish on...

Todd

Chum, chum, chum......Region 6 rivers used to be "jammed" with Chum.....I remember after a high water, in the mid 80's.....going from Decker Creek(Satsop) to West Fork...the smell was so bad that it wasn't enjoyable to be on the river. Chum bodies were everywhere, gravel bars, in trees close to the river.....wish I'd have had a digital camera or a iphone but technology, wasn't there yet.

Oh....by the way NOF had no sport or NT fishery on Chum, in Region 6, when we left Olympia......guess what??????? somehow the NT gillnetters get a day, in which Chum are included.........funny how xhit happens......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

What I wonder about is that the PS runs were all updated (Chinook, coho, pink, chum, sockeye) a couple times a season. We now have much better computers and so on and yet we can't do what was done 30 years ago?

There is no reason to be stuck fishing on a forecast unless the fishery is more important than the fish.

OK John, I take your statement at face value that you understand what Todd and I are saying, so we now agree there will never again be a chum fishery, since no matter how healthy the run is, it is impossible to know if the next run is healthy until after it migrates, spawns, and dies. It just seemed contrary to your interest in fishing for chum when they are abundant.

I didn't mean to seem elitist and above fishing for chum. I'm not above it; I just don't happen to do it, but I don't begrudge those who do. I know from plenty of accidental hookups that they are very strong and gamey fish.

Sg

Carcassman,

What I've been told by harvest managers is that a lot of the in-season update models are even less accurate than the pre-season forecasts. I'd think they'd keep trying to improve the update models, but maybe the size of the terminal fisheries anymore just isn't worth it.

Sg

Rotten Chum -

In attempting to read between the lines that those concern about a chum fishery this year on the Skykomish concerns center around two issues.

The first of course is the current escapement goal. As I recall that goal has been in place for approximately 25 years. In the late 1990s and early 2000s there was a series of years with escapements well in excess of the goal. For some those large escapements would have been considered a mis-management of the run. The recreational fishers that target chums during the that period enjoyed fishing on populations well above the escapement goal and developed the sense that situation should be the norm.

The second issue of course is how potential catches should be allocated (with the rub being the take of chums in the commercial catch).

If folks want to see either management paradigm there is going to have to be some serious work done. The first step would working towards changing State law and WDFW commission policies. Whether folks would be in such an effort for the long haul is doubtful - much easier to rant away on discussions like this one.

Tight lines
Curt

As explained to me by Annette Hoffman PhD. Mill Cr. office the problem with in season forecasting is that even though commercial fishers are required to report those fish, compiling the data takes time and so if the paper fish are overstated the fishery gets hits very hard.

She also told me that because we sporties send in our catch record cards after the season there is little room for adjustment during the season unless they completely miss the mark.

The commercials were never that interested in these fish until they secured a contract to sell the flesh to India and Pakistan, so instead of nutrients for future generations these get sold down the river.

It is complete hubris that WDFW does not see how important these carcasses are for our marine resources survival.

The wheels move slow, this is not unlike our asking WDFW to TEMPORARILY shut down the sturgeon fishery in 2010 when the extreme low tides stranded all of those fish and so many were taken including some illegally.

Fishy

Really?

Where did you get that information. If I recall the numbers from Seafood business Majority of the Chum meat goes to restaurants here in the USA.
The only Chum I know going to Pakistan is to feed our troops.

All I know is that back in the 80s the updates were, with only a couple of exceptions, more accurate than the forecasts.

As to catch, again back in the 80s, more than 95% of the commercial catch was in the computer within 3 days of the fishery. And this was based on summaries from the individual fish tickets.

There were a number of high chum escapements from the mid 80s to 90s. When WDFW ran these through a Ricker Curve MSY model the results were uniformly that the larger escapements produced larger runs, so the goals should have been increased.

A good thing to do if you personally feel a run is in danger is to begin by not fishing it. Then work to convince others of the same.

Step 1 of course, is to walk the walk.

-S

In all the years of Skykomish Chum fishing I've done...I can count on my hands and toes how many I've bonked for myself and for my clients...good advice though.