BAKER SOCKEYE WORKSHOP – SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1
10 A.M. TILL NOON
MILL CREEK REGIONAL OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
16018 MILL CREEK BLVD, MILL CREEK, WA



We need to show the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Fish and Wildlife Commission, that we are serious about the department insuring that sports anglers get a fairer shake on Baker Lake sockeye harvest opportunities. Sports anglers fishing Baker Lake for sockeye this summer were very disappointed with the inequity in the 2014 harvest of Baker sockeye as it now appears that the tribal harvest share may have approached 80%. Preliminary data suggests that the tribes harvested 12,000 to 13,000 sockeye with the recreational harvest being in the range of only 3,000 to 4,000. The strong public blow-back has led to an agreement with the department to hold a public workshop, scheduled for Saturday morning, November 1, 10 a.m. till noon, at the WDFW Mill Creek Regional Office (16018 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98012), to discuss how this unfortunate problem can be avoided in future years. The pre-season 2014 Baker forecast was 35,377 sockeye. The actual run estimate is expected to have come in near 27,000. This is the second year in row that the pre-season estimate of the Baker sockeye run was much too high, resulting in another harvest inequity because the lake anglers are the last in line to fish for the sockeye. As sockeye not harvested in Skagit River tribal fisheries enter the Baker River trap at Concrete, an in-season update of the run estimate can be made while it is still possible to make adjustments in fisheries. Tribal harvest numbers are available relatively soon after each of their fisheries. No in-season run update was made this year until it was too late to avoid the overharvest of sockeye by the tribes. A buffer in the pre-season run estimate could mitigate the problem to large degree with last minute adjustments made in both tribal and sport harvests in either direction based on a timely in-season run update. if used in conjunction with a pre-season buffer as is now done with Columbia River spring Chinook fisheries. The workshop will allow the public to help the department develop a better harvest management model that would still allow the tribes to get their fair share of the harvest, but also provide more equitable sharing by the sports. Interested Baker Lake sockeye anglers are encouraged to attend the workshop. We need to get a good turnout to validate this special time with the department or there might not be another similar opportunity. Encourage your Baker sockeye fishing friends and relatives to show up. Contact Frank Urabeck at 253-208-7323 or urabeck@comcast.net, or Michael Bakke, at 360 – 510-1427 if you have any questions or thoughts.

Is just the lake fishery going to be discussed or will this apply to the only 2 week season that a portion of the Skagit River was open for sockeye fishing?

I will be there and will drag others to the meeting. This happens all too often in so many fisheries that it should not surprise anyone.

There should be no problem in getting a more accurate counting, tell the tribes they need to report the catch at the end of each day or they don't fish...period. Or tell them they get an even split from the capture tank, they can fight over how the fish are divided between each tribe on their own.

This way run estimates don't play into it and will have little to no effect on harvest.

The split is even more lopsided than what is reported here, they only put 6,800 fish in the lake, 13,800 were captured. The entire escapement comes from the sport catch side. This was done from the first year because the tribes wouldn't agree on a number, they wanted a very low figure, I think the WDFW number was almost 3 times what the tribe would agree to. WDFW decided that since sportsman can't catch 100% of what's put in the lake the escapement would be met by what we aren't able to catch. So the tribe doesn't contribute at all to escapement. This is how it was explained to us the first year it was discussed at the NOF meeting in Millcreek.

A workshop among anglers and WDFW is a good starting place. The real issue is what will the treaty tribes bring to the table? Unfortunately most tribes are stuck in an obsolete harvest management model that is a poor fit with ESA mixed stock fishing. While the tribes could effectively remove their sockeye harvest at the Baker fish trap, no tribes wants to make that kind of harvest change because of the internal difficulty in dividing the money. With a gillnet fleet made up of low cost outboard powered skiffs and 35 fathoms of gillnet, each tribal fisherman holds a franchise to participate in the harvest of treaty share fish. And there is no doubt as to who gets how much money; it goes to the fisherman who harvests the fish.

I think the tribes need to feel pressure to move a significant percentage of their sockeye harvest to the trap. Not only would that improve catch sharing between the treaty and non-treaty fishing fleets, it would increase the treaty share over the long run because sockeye taken from the trap do not include any mix of ESA limiting chinook salmon or steelhead.

The Baker sockeye population is likely to experience an even more significant increase in average run size, so the importance of catch sharing and avoiding ESA impacts is an issue that will never get easier as long as the tribes rely on the old harvest model.

Sg

Agree, While the tribal split is an issue to be dealt with, it should be of no concern to WDFW and the sportsman, let the tribes figure it out on their own.

Seems to me that in the past such inequities from the non-tribal side were made up in the next years allocation. So, what are the chances of the state going to bat and insisting that the numbers be made up next year with less tribal harvest.

Same chance as that snowflake in Hell.

SAME THING WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN WITH STEELHEAD AND I AM STILL WAITING

gfn

Salmo,

I think you missed one of the major motivations to avoid harvest at the trap. The harvest of those ESA listed chinook is very lucrative for the tribes.

Geoduck,

The tribes are allowed some level of ESA chinook take. While each chinook caught and sold produces some revenue, I think it would be more than offset by being able to harvest more sockeye. As it is, sockeye fishing can be limited by the allowable take of ESA chinook.

In the long run, it's impossible to argue that trap fishing doesn't result in more precise salmon harvest management and is therefore better for the resource. The conflict is with the harvest management model where the fisheries revenue goes to the fisherman who reduces the fish to personal possession.

Recovery of PS or Skagit chinook to harvestable levels is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. But an increasing supply of harvestable Baker sockeye in the very near future is all but a given. It seems stupid to even say this, but it's in everyone's interest to employ harvest management models that maximize treaty and non-treaty benefits while ensuring the sustainability of the resource. PSE spent $25 million upgrading the upstream fish passage facilities at the Baker trap to safely and efficiently sort and move fish past the dams. It seems silly to me to not exploit its potential benefits to fish management at no additional cost, except to the flawed harvest management model employed by the tribes.

Sg

Skagit is getting ruined.....I got some buddies with serious fishing mojo they can't catch a coho.

The tribes got em in the bay...spud shack...the wall of death at hiway 9 and then up at cockerham..

Not any left for the sporties....some day there will be a revolution..but who knows how long that'll be.

Skagit is getting ruined.....I got some buddies with serious fishing mojo they can't catch a coho.

The tribes got em in the bay...spud shack...the wall of death at hiway 9 and then up at cockerham..

Not any left for the sporties....some day there will be a revolution..but who knows how long that'll be.

Skagit is ruined? Fished it Thursday on the drop as it was a bit colored but up high it was "easy" fishing" for limits from 7:30 AM to 9: 15 AM for two guys and 2 wild and 2 hatchery a piece! Nothing big yet 5-9 # but the recent rains surely helped!

Frank got us the hatchery on the Cedar River (which should have been named after him) I hope he is as successful in the Baker Lake endeavor.

They should name it "Biggest Fuckin Waste of Money Yet"...and I hope to God that no one wastes that kind of money or political capital on the Skagit.

Fish on...

Todd

Just got back from the meeting.

Well....the short story is nothing will change, and there's not much we can do about it.

The harvest number split is of course initially set by the forecasted return, there is no harvest buffer built in, the number is what it is. WDFW says that while they are gathering more data on the returns (short history on this run, so not much data to work with), the dramatic fluctuations that take place in Sockeye runs makes it difficult to forecast much better than what's being done now, which is in the +/- 25% range, but could easily be off much more in any particular year. They are reluctant to try to put in a buffer because the tribes may not agree to it, and have no incentive to do so.

Right now the tribes are guaranteed to get their number of fish (50%) based on the forecasted return, with the possibility of more if the return is better than forecasted and they take fish from the trap.

The reason is no matter how much the tribes may over harvest the actual run, the escapement number will be taken from the sportsman's share, as it was this year. So there is no incentive for the tribes to alter their current methods of harvest. All they need to do is make sure 7,800 fish make it back to the trap, if that number returns then escapement will have been met, even though it means there will be no fishery for the sportsman.

The in-river fishery for the sportsman is partially based on ESA Chinook impacts, so while they would like to offer more opportunity, they are somewhat limited, but are trying to offer a longer season, or adjust the timing for better opportunity. The lake fishery is the primary focus though, because far more people have expressed an interest in it than the river. This is based on NOF meeting input plus other contact with sportsman.

The first two years the economic contribution from the fishery was estimated to be in the $750K range, and much more in the following years, but there is no hard data on recent years yet.

WDFW was looking for input, but really there wasn't much they said could be done other than possibly alter the regulations on the lake to allow for more fish to possibly be caught. They said they aren't in a position (no leverage) to influence how or when the tribes fish.

While WDFW did cover many details of what's being done, and how the numbers and actual harvest split is calculated, plus the history of the run. They didn't offer much hope in any changes being made to come up with a more reliable and/or equitable split between the two parties.

About 45 people attended the meeting.

[u][/u][i][/i]

That says it all right there!


Fishy

Short data set? They have the trap and haul record back at least to the 60s, if not longer. Daily counts over runs that ranged from damn few to a whole lot. They have the commercial and rec catch back decades or more.

Baker should be one of the best data sets available as it is based counts (one-fish, two fish) rather than expanded estimates which almost every other run data base is.

The current data is from returns after the changes and improvements at the dam, these returns started to show an increase in 2010 and 2011. Prior data was under very different conditions.

The one positive thing they said was that the three tribes involved in this fishery are easier to work with than some other tribes, communication is better.