Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#911879 - 11/01/14 11:27 PM Re: Baker Lake Sockeye Workshop [Re: ondarvr]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
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 Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
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. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
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 Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
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 Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
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. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
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. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
That sounds like a workable idea Ondarvr.

Top
Page 2 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
3 registered (Carcassman, Salmo g., 1 invisible), 1070 Guests and 3 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. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645299 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 |