Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#909782 - 10/16/14 02:08 AM Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4709
Loc: Sequim



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.

Top
#909788 - 10/16/14 10:13 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: bushbear]
Waterboy Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 07/25/06
Posts: 471
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?

Top
#909792 - 10/16/14 10:48 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Waterboy]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
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.

Top
#909794 - 10/16/14 11:27 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
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

Top
#909795 - 10/16/14 11:36 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Salmo g.]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
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.

Top
#909808 - 10/16/14 02:01 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
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.

Top
#909893 - 10/17/14 10:13 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Same chance as that snowflake in Hell.

Top
#909901 - 10/17/14 11:42 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Carcassman]
Greenfishnut Offline
Parr

Registered: 07/04/01
Posts: 73
Loc: Okanogan County
SAME THING WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN WITH STEELHEAD AND I AM STILL WAITING

gfn

Top
#909915 - 10/17/14 01:36 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Greenfishnut]
Geoduck Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 08/10/02
Posts: 437
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.
_________________________
Dig Deep!

Top
#909919 - 10/17/14 01:51 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Geoduck]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
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

Top
#910175 - 10/19/14 02:18 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Salmo g.]
Saundu Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/25/08
Posts: 590
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.

Top
#910176 - 10/19/14 02:22 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Salmo g.]
Saundu Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/25/08
Posts: 590
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.

Top
#910238 - 10/20/14 12:04 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Saundu]
OLD FB Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 09/05/14
Posts: 196
Loc: Stanwood WA
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!

Top
#910248 - 10/20/14 09:09 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Salmo g.]
Phoenix77 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/04/06
Posts: 4047
Loc: Kent, WA
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.
_________________________
I fish, ergo, I am.

If you must burn our flag, Please! wrap yourself in it.
Puget Sound Anglers, So. King Co.
CCA SeaTac Chapter

I love my country but fear my government

Top
#910270 - 10/20/14 02:24 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Phoenix77]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Phoenix77
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
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#911824 - 11/01/14 06:32 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
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.

Top
#911826 - 11/01/14 06:42 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Somethingsmellsf Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 4022
Loc: Ahhhhh, damn dog!
Originally Posted By: ondarvr
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 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
_________________________
NRA Life member

The idea of a middle class life is slowly drifting away as each and every day we realize that our nation is becoming more of a corporatacracy.

I think name-calling is the right way to handle this one/Dan S

We're here from the WDFW and we're here to help--Uhh Ohh!




Top
#911838 - 11/01/14 07:55 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
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.

Top
#911860 - 11/01/14 10:41 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Carcassman]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
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.

Top
#911861 - 11/01/14 10:43 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
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.

Top
#911879 - 11/01/14 11:27 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The timing of the fish arrival and the shape of the return curve should be the same unless they made conscious decisions to change run timing.

They should be able to update the run, they should be able to make comparisons of in-river harvest to what shows at the trap, and so on.

It seems that WDFW actively tries to discount and not use any "old" data. That way, there is never enough data to make changes based on.

Top
#911898 - 11/02/14 05:18 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Carcassman]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
One question I should have asked would be how will ESA listed Chinook impacts effect the future harvest #s for the tribe.

WDFW expects the run size to increase significantly over the next several years due to increased plants, Shannon lake will be planted in the same way, and Baker plants are expected to increase. If the tribal harvest is limited by ESA impacts then some of the problem may be taken care of. But I have no clue as to how close they currently are to maximum impact, and how much they can increase harvest using their current methods.

They used lake Washington as an example of a Sockeye return not increasing, or going as planned after supposed improvements that they expected would help. (yes, a complete topic on it's own)


They also said there was talk of using up to 25% of the eggs from Baker to jump start another run in either the south sound or Hood Canal (it's 2:15 AM and I can't remember at the moment). So plants may not increase as quickly as they scheduled if this other plan is approved.

Top
#911899 - 11/02/14 08:13 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
First I was unable to make the meeting due to another commitment. Wish I could have been there.

CM -
It is my understanding that it still is the case the needed broodstock for the Baker sockeye protocol calls for weekly goals in the number of fish taken at the trap. Those goals are based on historic timing considerations. With that protocols in place the run timing curve should remain much the same. Some of the recreational proposals that I have heard discussed; namely no fishing until the brood stock is collect would insure that there would be dramatic changes to the run timing. Not sure that is a desirable goal.

Yes they can update the run; with the best information for such an exercise be based on the returns to the trap. Unfortunately that trap is located will upstream of the mouth and all the tribal fisheries. By the time sufficient Skagit specific information is collected for a reasonable update it would be sometime in mid-July (at least 10 days later than at the Ballard locks on Lake Washington). By that time much of the run will have passed the tribal fishing areas. I can see the appeal of such an update to the recreational community but somehow don't see the tribal folks agreeing to such a move. There is some potential for alternate methods of updating the run size but any of the methods that I can think of would be based on either out of basin information or as you suggest the tribal landings. Unfortunately to date I doubt there is enough consistent information in that fishery upon which to develop a reliable update (it is a new fishery that has lacked consistent fishing patterns). Such an update may be possible in the future but suspect that is some years away.

Ondarvr -
The increased numbers of smolts leaving Baker is more due to the increased trapping efficiency than increased plants. That last couple of years have yield high numbers of smolts being trapped. As Shannon trapping is updated there could be another jump in smolt production levels.

Regarding the potential ESA impacts allowed for the in-river sockeye fishery and it effect on future tribal harvest. There is a total cap on those allowable impacts for the various races of the Skagit Chinook. Those impacts are spread across all the fisheries (in-river and the salt). If the tribes can catch the same portion of the run in the same days of fishing (for example if the run is twice as large as average will the daily catch be twice the average? if so there would be little change in the ESA impacts). In addition there is some opportunity to move those impacts from the various fisheries. In short I don't see a lot of relief in that arena.

I believe that the talk has been using Baker eggs to potentially jump start a sockeye run for Lake Cushman (Skokomish system).

Curt

Top
#911906 - 11/02/14 10:10 AM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Smalma]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
As I recall, though, WDFW more or less supported a tribal sockeye fishery in the river in May, even though all the available data suggested they might not even be there.

What's the use of collecting data if you aren't going to use it.

While Baker trap might not give an ISU that one is conficdent in until mid-July the fisheries below the trap should be configured so as not to be front-loaded.

Further, Hoh v. Baldridge held that prior fisheries could not create a conservation need for the later-in-line fisheries. Although the case was ocean fisheries taking Hoh coho, this situation is the same if the Tribal fishery corks the recs.

Or is management a on-way street?

Top
#911920 - 11/02/14 01:47 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Carcassman]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
So I'll add a few comments.

Based on the Baker trap, Baker sockeye run timing is very consistent. However, this is a salmon run in nature, so consistent can still vary by up to 10 days some years. 50% of the Baker run reaches the trap by July 15, except when the run is slightly early or late. By the time a good in-season runsize estimate is available, over half the run is upstream of many tribal fishing areas.

I think the above is why the tribes prefer to front load their fishery. If they don't, they could miss out on a lot of sockeye unless they take them from the Baker trap. We've discussed before why they don't like that alternative.

The increases in Baker sockeye began with a new Floating Surface Collector on Baker Lake in 2008, with a significantly larger adult return beginning in 2010. A new FSC was added to Lake Shannon in 2013, so another bump to the adult return is expected this summer, in 2015. Over one million smolts were collected by the two Baker FSCs in 2014.

On the subject of negotiating leverage, WDFW does have the flip side of Hoh v Baldridge and one other piece. Who says the escapement has to come out of the non-treaty share if the tribes over-harvest? Seriously. Baker sockeye are an artificially maintained run, with a very small % resulting from natural reproduction. If the tribes' strategy is to rely on subtracting escapement from the non-treaty share as a result of choosing the higher risk front loaded fishery, WDFW could choose to go ahead with the planned recreational fishery and short the escapement. It's not like it would result in an irreplaceable loss of an irreplaceable resource. There would still be escapement, and there would still be Baker sockeye. There would just be a lot fewer than there could have been with more conservative management by both WDFW and the tribes. If the fishery is that important to the tribes, then maybe it could become worth it to the tribes to exercise a pro-active interest in the recreational fishery as well. Share the gain; share the pain.

Sg

Top
#911921 - 11/02/14 01:59 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Salmo g.]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Salmo

One only needs to look at Willapa to see that WDFW has no problem restricting recreationals if there is a conservation issue but won't touch the nets. Apparently, nets used by anyone are sacred. Hooks are evil.

Top
#911924 - 11/02/14 02:50 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Carcassman]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
The subject of the much higher return estimates for 2015 came up briefly, but the subject was changed quickly by WDFW (Ron) and moved in a different direction and was never raised again. There really wasn't much time to discuss anything in detail after they gave their presentation and it didn't come up again.

I assumed at the time he didn't want to discuss just how many fish the tribes wanted to harvest up front next year, and that if the estimate is wrong the inequity between tribes and sportsman could be considerably greater than 2014.


They also tried to justify the inequity by showing the total take from each party since 2010. Sportsman are up slightly in total fish count. The first three years there was a 5,000 fish difference each year going to the sportsman's favor. I asked why that was, I said I had never seen a net not catch every fish allotted to it, or more if the effort was made to actual get the fish. So I asked if it was lack of effort on the tribes part. The response was yes, the tribes didn't really go after the fish like they could have, which resulted in a reduced catch. If I remember correctly they did take some from the trap, but not in the numbers they could have because they didn't want them.

Another thing that came up was that the tribes were given 600+ fish out of the trap this year, so I asked why that would be approved if there was such huge discrepancy in the split and the entire escapement came out the sport portion. That question was put off and I was told it would be explained later in the presentation, it wasn't.

Top
#911929 - 11/02/14 03:55 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The make-up could be part of salmon management called equitable adjustment. BUT, there is also foregone opportunity. If one side chooses not to pursue their share, the other side can claim them and there is then no adjustment.

So, if WDFW knew the tribes were not aggressively going after the baker sockeye it is their responsibility to protect the rec share. Or drop the ball.

Top
#911931 - 11/02/14 04:10 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Carcassman]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
One thing I intended to include in my previous post is that the tribes' in-river net catch is greatly influenced by river flows and slight variations in the way the run migrates. Apparently even if the tribes time their fishing opening correctly according to the long-term run timing records, the sockeye migrate in pulses. When the pulse and the net opening coincide, they make very good catches, and when they don't coincide, they don't catch many at all. Just another complication to managing that fishery.

Yet it could be the most easily managed fishery, near perfect, if only the tribes would collect their catch, or most of it, at the trap. Not often you have such a perfect set up. Smolt counts within 95% accuracy. Adult counts within 99% accuracy. And fish bound for either escapement or potential harvest all pass through the adult trap.

Top
#911933 - 11/02/14 04:44 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: Salmo g.]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
The issue of distribution amongst the tribes and tribal members could be achieved by allowing the initial season of netting to take X% of the expected return up front. Then distribute fish from the trap to each tribal member at the same ratio of what they originally caught. This at least allows for an actual effort and performance related distribution from the trap. And more motivation to report all catches.

There is no perfect solution for the tribes that will make everyone happy, but the harvest and split could be controlled much better using this method.

Top
#911985 - 11/02/14 09:15 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
That sounds like a workable idea Ondarvr.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 1083 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645291 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |