It's not official yet but the word on the street is that MA7 is over quota and will be closing. Likely Feb 1.

The fishing is too good and that is apparently unacceptable.

Update:

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/reeltimeno...-than-expected/

I don't understand why it closes thursday and reopens friday. But whatever, it's devastating news.

ALWAYS follow the money.

Money > Fish

This warms me in the cockles of my heart.

Mark Yuasa's article referenced the idea of a Puget Sound aggregate methodology tied to the idea that blackmouth follow the forage fish, as extracted:

"Another issue surrounding this has been a push by the state Fish and Wildlife sport fishing advisory board to create the winter seasons into an aggregate type similar to what is used on the coast during summer salmon fisheries."

Of concern is that an aggregate approach not allow a "hot" season in one area of Puget Sound to cause another area to be closed leaving fishermen there and the businesses they support to suffer.

Seems that fisheries management is more about managing people than the fish......

Larry, can you tell me where to get more info about this methodology? Or just explain further? I want to know more about the different types of management.

Chasin' Baitman

Lots of good info throughout the Piscatorial Pursuits website and various fisheries topics.

Here's a link to a WDFW website that should help you get started:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/

There are other links in the WDFW website to look at. Go to their home page and pick a topic.

http://t.co/WIRiQQ55Iz

Going to three days a week.

Bushbear has made a great suggestion for you in terms of researching this site and WDFW's website.

As I understand it In a very short version WDFW sets wild fish impact limits by management area even for the blackmouth fishery. Hit the limit and that area closes even though fishing may be gangbusters because the majority of blackmouth have followed the bait to that area and/or simply had better survival than releases elsewhere. That allows other management areas to remain open even if the fishing there is far less successful - but it is still an opportunity to fish.

From the article it appears that there is discussion about an aggregate impact approach allowing the fishery to continue throughout P.S. until the impact is hit. Then the entire fishery would close. That would be great for the fishermen and businesses benefiting from recreational fishing in that area while leaving other areas to suffer. Not sure that is a fair trade off.

For example, would it be fair to the guys who keep their small boats at Pt. Defiance boathouse to see their (lately very pathetic) fishery closed because the entire impact was gobbled up in MA7?

That is the abbreviated version as I understand it.

Edit: It also appears that the Thursday closure was to cut out one day of fishing before getting into the now three day a week schedule. One would have to ask the managers if that one day closure was worth the angst it may have caused.

Good to see an actual formal release from WDFW. This is exactly why I avoid posting rumors. I heard 3 different versions of what was "going to happen".

I think the 3-day a week is a good compromise. At least it works for ME.

I'd support a change to delay the opener until Jan 1 if that was ever presented as an option. Fish would be bigger and we'd deal with the quota issue a month later. Shutting it down in Jan or Feb sure makes July seem far away, especially with no local steelheading.

OK - thanks for the info guys.

Yeah, the 3-day-a-week opening is a very good compromise. I am actually quite surprised. Hope it's not a "kick the can down the road" solution and they're just gonna close it in a couple weeks (after the roche harbor derby) as the Yuasa article suggested.

Yes, rumors can sometimes be annoying. But they do get the brain juices flowing on a particular topic so that we're not caught unawares. And, what's the internet good for if we can't throw around some unfounded speculation? Plus, rumors can be true (or close to it) at a given point in time, even if the ultimate narrative changes. This happens when stories develop rapidly as this one did. And, the rumor also got me in gear to fish, which I've been every day this week and it's been GREAT. So I guess I'm saying I'm a fan of rumors. And this is a fishing discussion board. Rumors are what fishing is all about.

On that very subject...I did hear an industry organization (I think charters) threatened to sue WDFW if they closed MA7. If that's true, I'd find it somewhat distasteful if WDFW agreed to keep it partially open because of the threat of a suit. That'd be twice in a year they caved due to threat of litigation. Even though it works in my favor this time, I still think a regulatory agency should have a spine. Again, speculation.

Larry B -t hanks for your synopsis. I am wondering if anyone knows the answer to this question...what about the fact that they don't clip their kings in Canada? How does WDFW account for that, do they just assume antyhing unclipped is wild? MA7 is probably unique in that it sees alot more unclipped canadian HATCHERY kings than any other marine area.

Having fished for "winter springs" in canada, whenever they catch a clipped king at least 24" (which they catch alot of) they whack it and say, "thanks, America!". They can whack any king 24" or greater, whether it has a fin or not. So basically, we're supplying them with alot of their winter fish while we're not allowed to touch theirs. Something doesn't seem right about that, though I fully admit I may not be aware of all the facts/issues.

I can confirm as sitting WDFW Puget Sound Salmon Commission member that there were no falsely spread rumors,. The commissioners all conferenced earlier in the week with a decision to close, which was later overruled by the new Director. While I feel we have to trust the Director's judgement, it's concerning that the commission was not consulted in the over-ruling of the jointly made decision.
I do believe that we have consensus amongst the commission to begin managing all marine areas as a single entity, aggregating the impacts and encounters across areas, versus closing a specific area when it happens to reach it's predetermined impact percentage. This management technique allows fishing to continue when all of the fish congregate into a specific area on any given year due to bait fish concentrations, their inherently transitory nature, or other conditions. I expect this to be a major topic at the upcoming NOF.

The issue at hand in my mind is, how does this scheme fly when it hasn't been etched in stone yet during an annual cycle?
Time will tell.

I can appreciate your comments LarryB and will certainly echo them in our next meeting. Good feedback. Keep it coming.

I believe that the first day on the job for the new director will be February 2.

Lots of discussions ahead for the PS Sport Fish Advisors and the WDFW staff about how to get the most fishing possible with the least amount of impacts. Will be an interesting North of Falcon process.

Two immediate observations:

1. If the commission to which you belong made a recommendation which was "overruled" without explanation that should be of concern to us all as you opined. This seems to go to one of my concerns about the Advisory Group concept as utilized by WDFW in that recommendations go to the Group's agency liaison and supposedly up the chain rather than there being written minutes/recommendations with originals to the Director and Commission.

2. As to the issue at hand It might be reasonable to establish predetermined impact percentages by MAs and adjust as seasons progress if it so happens that impact levels in some MAs do not occur as anticipated. But as I indicated earlier to have a great season in MA7 result in an early closure in mid and south sound MAs will simply not be acceptable for obvious reasons.

Will he come in the door, take one long look, and head back to ID?

Sky-Guy - thanks for your comments. We're lucky to have an insider participating on the boards.

When you say the commissioners conferenced, do you mean the main commission or the puget sound salmon commission? If just the latter, do you know if the main commission has a stance on this? And did the new director give any reason for overruling? It's not clear from your post. Apologies if I am misunderstanding. Also, is there an audio transcript from mondays meeting?

Finally, do you have any comment on my question regarding canadian unclipped hatchery chinook?

Larry B-
While not a fan of this recent MA7 decision I do recognize that the Director has a very difficult job that at times will require making decisions that may be counter what many would like. Those decisions are often tempered by what I have often referred by political science rather than science. That is the reality of today's world. However if the Director is making those decisions (his job) with all the information; biological assessment from his staff and user input from the appropriate advisory group then I don't consider system broken.

Like many I do have some issues of lack of communication of what was going on (other options being considered) which lead to way too many unnecessary rumors and uncertainty, how the information got out, etc.

Chasin' Baitman -
I believe that the group Sky-guy is referring to would be more correctly called WDFW's PS sport fish advisors. That is a group that has taken on the task of trying to represent the diverse interest of the region's angler community in NOF and other venues. In effect the communication link between we anglers and the agency.

Regarding BC salmon in MA 7. In the last couple weeks my fishing partner and I have discussed MA 7 blackmouth fishery in detail. As part of those discussion he pulled together the recent code wire tag information from MA7 (thanks Eric!). One of the interesting things from that CWT information was how many BC tags were found. In the last two years available (2011-12 and 2012-13) out of the 252 tags recovered from the recreational fishery 50 or 19.8% were from BC hatcheries. I don't what portion of the BC hatchery fish are clipped but clearly there are some. While collectively there are lots of BC in MA 7 the dominate contributor to the Blackmouth fishery continues to the Skagit with 25.8% tags recovered.

Curt

Bushbear -
I agree that the NOF will indeed be an interesting event and potentially for the recreational angler as important as any since 2007.

And you are correct the task that folks have to wrestle with how best use the limited allowable impacts on listed fish to produce/maximize desired fishing opportunities. The difficulty of that task is compounded by the fact we all have different priorities on where we want to fish. If we as a group want to maximize the numbers of fish we kill we would use those impacts only in extreme terminal areas (rivers and near-river bays) where the fishing would be limited by only to local stocks. However collectively we have a desire to fish outside of those terminal areas where the fishing will be on complex mixed stocks.

Those mixed stocked fisheries will always be limited by the weakest stock's allowable impacts. Which means that by opting to fish those mixed stock areas the recreational community is in effect agreeing to leave harvest fish on the table. We given up catching maximum numbers of fish harvest for the type of opportunities we enjoy and often the kind of opportunities that have the greatest economic value to the local and State economies. Always a difficult balancing act that will almost assuredly leaving many dis-satisfied or shaking their heads.

With the importance of the next few months in shaping our fisheries I encourage folks to get involved in the North of Falcon (NOF) process. I understand that most folks just can invest that time needed but that should not preclude them from contacting one or more of the PS advisors with their concerns or ideas. The are also a number of clubs/organizations that are options for getting involved.

Curt

However if the Director is making those decisions (his job) with all the information; biological assessment from his staff and user input from the appropriate advisory group then I don't consider system broken.

Like many I do have some issues of lack of communication of what was going on (other options being considered) which lead to way too many unnecessary rumors and uncertainty, how the information got out, etc.Curt [/quote]

First, I recognize that the position of Director is in flux at the moment so this is hopefully not representative of how such emergent issues will be handled at least in terms of feedback to the advisory group(s) who apparently were provided an opportunity for input.

My concern is that after having been involved as a citizen and club spokesperson in a minimum of three long term issues (PSRRP, new crab policy and dogging the Point No Point project) I have seen in each process incidents whereby grossly inaccurate information pertinent to the decision making was not only introduced but continued to be promulgated after having been pointed out to the liaison. Those incidents have caused me to have concerns about the integrity of some individuals as well as the process. That is, does the current process allow for what is being discussed and recommended by the individual Advisory Groups to be available to upper management/Commission to ensure they are seeing and hearing the recommendations from the Advisory Groups?