WOW! Over 13,000 Sockeye at Ballard locks now!It's gonna be a huge run...or there just coming early?

160 at Baker lake.

Huge? Looking at the historic numbers this would be on a pace to meet, or slightly exceed, the goal.

This is what should be a "poor" return. Nice to see the rebound, though.

SG.
This seems so simple. Why can't an allocation based system be utilized with the traps? Just like in AK where historical catch for the bad [Bleeeeep!], big catchers established quotas. The highest catchers historically get the highest quota allocated per season, whether crab, halibut etc. On the Skagit and out in the the bay it may take a few seasons to establish historical catch. The bottom line is livelihood/money, right? Take them out of the trap, allocate, one for you, one for me, one for the river, etc. These are high quality market available fish at the trap! The notion of being out and battling nature to get the most individually, has to change if we are to manage these resources effectively. Tribal life has come as far as casinos, so I have trouble with the idea of " Historical lifestyle". Same should occurr @ Bonneville on the Columbia. Trap, separate, allocate, is the ultimate in management! This discussion never seems to come up because those who commercial fish want their cake and eat it too at the expense of finite resources. This is what needs to change! Don't want derail this thread, BUT. Interested in your knowledgeable comments on a state wide allocation based system for ALL commercial fishers where there are traps available to accurately count, separate, and allocate harvestable fish.

R&G,

You're preaching to the choir here. Most biologists I've ever known would prefer the use of selective fishing methods. But what is simple in concept is so far impossible in practice. Fisheries management occurs within our system of pluralism. In addition, where tribal treaty fishing rights are involved, the tribes can manage as they wish up to the point of risking extirpation of the resource. Rediculous as that seems to those who wish to preserve intact ecosystems, it is the political and management reality that we live in.

While you may have trouble with historical lifestyle, most tribes value that, along with that rugged individualism of outfishing their competitor. That and the fact that the burden of conservation falls first upon you, and last upon them. What's not to like about that from a treaty tribal point of view?

Sg

Thanks for your input! I guess envy plays a role. Sad that maintaining cultural identities has to trump conservation/preservation. I guess the cost is continual resource decline. Even sadder is that after the Tribes wipe out runs, you and I will be paying, both in dollars and in lost opportunities. I do have future hope that politcally things may change in my lifetime.

One of the guys that worked to get this fishery going.(He's on my other forum)


Sockeye logic

Thanks for posting that Jeremy. Good info there! the bankies have been doing well from what I hear. Does anybody know how many fish were in the lake when it opened mid July or so last year? I love that lake fishery and hope it could be at least close to as good as last year.

Did any one catch what my buddy said about the people north of Seattle paying for sockeye improvements at the dam/hatchery by you paying your electric bill.

Kinda wierd how we pay to improve the #s so the natives can catch more than historical fish numbers. In turn we get better numbers to catch but we made it possible.

so the natives don't pay a dime towards the fishery?

Nope.


My buddy is building the new fish trap. All payed by you turning your lights on. But they get half the fish and did nothing for it.


It's a Obama world now. I guess we better get use to this kinda of stuff.

They were doing that before Obama...

Yeah I know. But it's getting worst(people wanting even more for nothing)

No, not really...now the jackasses just have someone to blame it on other than themselves, or the ones who have been doing it for generations.

Fish on...

Todd

welp...as shittee as that is, it is the way it is for now. I'd like to see them contribute with their own hatchery or something. Look at the quinault for example. I don't know much about that river and honestly have yet to fish it but it seems like the quinault tribe puts a lot of work into it insuring a good fishery. Granted a large chunk of the river is closed to us but...why don't the swinomish start their own hatchery. Maybe I'm outta bounds here?

Quinault is a federal hatchery

You forgot the upper Skagit and Sauk Tribes. They all could chip in a few bucks since there eating the pie.

Oh really. well, like I said, I don't know much about the quinault. So would a tribal sockeye hatchery on the skagit not help? Would that not make it easier to set escapement goals on both ends? I'm not knowledgable on these things. Just curious. Salmo G? What do ya say?

As a PSE customer way down south in Thurston County, I'm also paying for the Baker fisheries mitigation and enhancement. And all the buildings I've been in, including houses, on the Swinomish and Upper Skagit reservations also had electric service. So I suppose they're also paying like any other PSE customer for the Baker mitigation and enhancement. Plus, the Upper Skagit Tribe was instrumental in securing a significant piece of the sockeye enhancement that is in the FERC license for PSE's Baker project. So even though the treaty tribes are entitled to half of the harvest whether they do anything or not, yeah, they must not do anything, and you guys who think you do it all, do what besides pay your electric bill?

SteelieDrew,

A sockeye hatchery on the Skagit wouldn't make any sense given that significant sockeye production is dependent on lakes for juvenile sockeye to rear in prior to their seaward migration. True, there are riverine sockeye in the Skagit. Populations of less than 100 adults spawn in a tributary of the upper Skagit and the Sauk Rivers, but that isn't a fishery of anything more than ecological interest. A sockeye hatchery on the Skagit without a lake system would be a greater liability than a benefit to fisheries.

Jermz,

I suspect that you mean that your buddy works for the contractor who is building the new juvenile fishway for Lake Shannon at Lower Baker Dam. This will increase total Baker sockeye and coho production by having both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon (roughly 5,000 and 2,500 acres respectively) in the Baker salmon production loop. Yes, and paid for by PSE's customers, whether they are white, Indian, Mexican, black, anyone who buys their electricity from PSE.

Sg

PS: and if the runsize pans out, I'll be up there in a few weeks for a slice of pie myself.

thanks salmo. Makes sense. I'll be up there as well.

Wow, we got a real genius on our hands don't we??