They scheduled a little extra time for this meeting, and it ended early.

It was a good meeting and there was a good deal of agreement on most subjects, there were a couple of people that couldn’t, or wouldn’t understand how the agreement with the tribes works, and still think they should be allowed to harvest an equal number of fish. The fish are split between the two groups by opportunity, not harvest, although the tribes do get their 50% counted in the net, ours is counted by numbers in the lake (and harvested in the river). Whether you agree with it or not, it’s the rules we need to live with, and it’s not going to change anytime soon no matter how people “feel” about it. These people became angry at times about how the split is determined. This discussion took up a great deal of time and went nowhere.

One group asked for a 30% buffer in the escapement number, which seems good, but it may complicate many other fisheries if something like this is proposed. If this would become more common it could shut down many fisheries in other locations, so WDFW was reluctant to go in that direction. They do agree to shoot for a low return estimate though.

The returns have varied from less than 2% to around 25%, so predicting the next run from smolt output can be sketchy, this further complicates predicting the return. WDFW continued to remind people that Sockeye returns are harder to predict and vary far more than other types of salmon, so there WILL be more inequities in the split in the future. When they over estimate the number the tribes may benefit, when they under estimate the sportsman may, so don’t expect it to be close all the time.

There were several discussions on the river/lake harvest split. What was finally agreed upon was a river season starting June 16th and not ending until the quota of 20% of the sportsman’s share is caught. This season may also be limited by funds to monitor it, plus ESA impacts. Locations and times to fish will need to be looked at to limit tribal and sportsman encounters.
Below a certain number of fish they may not allow a river season.

One concern about this unique fishery is that this run consists of a very high % of biters, which is uncommon. The current lake harvest method helps to ensure this continues by taking brood stock before any hook and line fishing weeds out those biters and only allows non biting fish to spawn. Having too many fish harvested by sportsman in the river could lead to poor catch rates in the lake and declining harvest numbers even if more fish are placed in the lake.

Retention limits will vary depending on return forecast, lower than 30,000 =2, up to 45,000 =3, up to 60,000 =4, over 60,000 =6. This can be changed at any time because it only needs the consent of the sportsman, WDFW wasn’t that concerned about the limits because we need to harvest as many as possible.

They will try for opening on July 1 for the lake, the only concern is the 4th of July camping at the lake, the Park Service doesn’t want to deal with complications from overcrowding. Some were also concerned that people may become discouraged because currently there are very few or no fish in the lake on July 1, but if the run increases as they predict there may be fishable numbers at that time in the future. The idea was to set a date so people didn’t need to wait until the regs came out every year before reserving a camp site. People can decide for themselves if they want to fish early, and they will be instructed to check the fish counts in the lake before going if the goal is to only catch fish. Some people just want to camp in a less crowded part of the season and still have the opportunity to fish, even if fishing is poor.

These things aren’t set in stone, and WDFW said they would inform concerned people (groups) of what their planned approach was going to be when negotiations start with the tribe. This would be presented at the NOF meeting in Mill Creek. Some groups were very concerned that WDFW would not seriously take these matters up with the tribes during negotiations and we would end up with something totally different than what had been discussed at NOF meetings.

I probably left out many things, so others that attended can fill in more details or correct anything I got wrong.

ondarvr,
Thanks for the thorough overview. I was there, but had to leave and dismissed myself about 1:15. Additionally, I agree completely with your opening paragraph. I didn't get the chance to clarify, the "proposed" river quota was defined as 20% of 70%. Did you understand that? Is that 20% of 70% of the anticipated sports quota? Which would correlate with the 30% "buffer"?

The only thing I can add is that the sportsmen actually get "opportunity" at an additional 1500 fish that is not considered part of the sportsman quota. This is brood stock for natural reproduction in Baker Lake. Just throwing that our there because I think it gets overlooked.

The 1,500 fish part is a little confusing, and so have many of the other answers I've gotten over the last few years at these meetings. (My notes go back to 2011 on Baker Lake meetings.)

In the beginning we were told they tried to negotiate with the tribes on that escapement number for the lake, but the tribes wanted 1,500 or less (I think 0 was their suggestion) and WDFW wanted 3,000 or more. Instead of setting a number they decided that since we wouldn't be able to catch all the fish in the lake, they would just rely on what we didn't catch for the lake escapement, so no fish were set aside for escapement. In other words, the tribe didn't contribute any fish from their 50% towards lake escapement. This current explanation is either a new program, or not accurate. They also didn't show this number anywhere in the graphs and charts of total fish trapped and either taken for hatchery purposes or released into the lake.

The next is moneys for monitoring and enforcement, the first years they said there was very little money available for monitoring the river fishery, and that this was a major concern in opening the river, it would greatly influence where and when it could be opened. Then last year when I asked about it they said, what do you mean, money isn't a problem, never was. Now this year they said it will cost X amount to do creel checks and for enforcement, so this could limit the time and locations sportsman could fish.

For the river I think they settled on just 20% of the total sportsman’s half of the fish, I think they did away with the 30% buffer portion of it because it complicated things.

My understanding is that the tribes don't support managing for natural sockeye spawning escapement because reproductive success is low, or poor, in the river delta area. This is a mistake because it places too much reliance on the hatchery being successful. The hatchery is very well managed and is very successful. But the fish health experts have been unanimous in urging spreading the risk by putting sockeye eggs in as many "baskets", if you will, as possible. This means using the spawning beaches, the hatchery, and natural reproduction. Sockeye reproductive success is always one epidemic outbreak of IHN away. Managing some of the fish for natural escapement is just smart insurance. And if this is done consistently, more and more sockeye will venture upstream beyond the upper Baker delta and colonize more of the suitable spawning habitat and experience higher reproductive success. However, natural spawning will never be as successful as the artificial spawning beaches or the hatchery, except when a major epidemic strikes. And the history of sockeye culture says it's inevitable.

Sg

Both the 1,500 sockeye allowance for natural spawning escapement goal and the showing of the number of sockeye taken to Baker Lake on the department's web site were a result of suggestions by stakeholders. Because the department placed constraints on the Baker Lake sport fisheries and other factors, anglers typically have only been able to harvest 55% or less of the sockeye released into the lake, thus leaving nearly 8,000 sockeye for natural spawning in each of several years (2011 and 2012). What Tony Bakke and Frank Urabeck attempted to do at the January 31 workshop with their comprehensive proposal for a new management approach for 2015 was to improve fairness and equity in the harvest split for both treaty and non-treaty fishers -- in 2014 the tribes secured nearly 80% of the harvested sockeye -- and to allow recreational anglers to harvest a higher percent of their allowable catch. The buffer concept -- an adaption of that used for Columbia River spring Chinook harvest management -- is worth discussing with the tribes. If tribes reject the idea, so be it. At least we have tried something new. Buffers can only work where there is capability for in-season updates (ISUs). That requires facilities like the Ballard Locks and the Baker River trap at Concrete where sockeye can be counted. Buffers can not be used in regular Puget Sound fisheries as there are
no viable means for an ISU for these.

The B/U proposal of allowing 20% of the recreational share of harvestable sockeye to be available for Skagit River sport fishing makes good sense. Using a possible 2015 pre-season run forecast of 60,000 sockeye would result in a little over 5,000 sockeye for a quota river fishery and more than 20,000 sockeye released into Baker Lake -- if the run came in at or above the forecast. In 2012 harvest by the sport fishery amounted to 3,064 sockeye on a run of 48,846, with 17,509 released into Baker Lake.

Clearly, stakeholders are seeking to collaborate with the department to improve the Baker sockeye recreational fisheries. The two workshops (November 1 and January 31) came about because of stakeholder demands as the media has reported. Stakeholders are even trying to secure additional funds to support an expanded creel census to make the quota fishery work. Right now the Baker fishery is a slimmed down substitution for the fabulous and very popular Lake Washington fishery that last took place in 2006. Baker sockeye is the only game in town for the Puget Sound Region this year. Let's make the most of it. Stay tuned. This is still a work in progress.

I question the statement that there aren't viable ISUs for other Puget Sound salmon stocks. I know that in the 80s WDF was able to update (weekly, in-season) the Nooksack-Samish Chinook, coho, and chum, Skagit Chinook, coho, pink, and chum, Stilly-Snoh Chinook, coho, and chum, South Sound coho, fall chum, and the Nisqually tribe did their winter chum, Hood Canal coho and chum, Green River and deschutes Chinook. The runs could be updated, shares determined, harvest to date, and harvest left.

Now, maybe WDFW no longer collects the catch data in a timely manner or chooses to put its resources in auto-pilot management but I would like to know, biologically, why the can no longer update.

Also, because it was checked, the ISU's were consistently better that the forecasts at estimating what the return was.

Lots of good thoughts above.

ondarvr, if you still have the handout from the Nov. meeting, in the preseason summary it listed that the 1500 fish for natural Baker Lake reproduction were part of the total 8296 (including test fishery fish) required for escapement.
This total number is deducted from the "anticipated" run, before deciding on harvest surplus.

The challenge with natural lake production as I understood it, was that the draw down of the lake coincides with the spawn and potentially leaves many reds high and dry. The timing and extent of this draw down is in the agreement for dam/power operation and is non-negotiable.

I'll go back and check it, I could have missed it. But unless the tribes go along with 1,500, and they wouldn't before, it will be back to coming out of our share.

Yes the draw down of the lake was the issue with the natural beach spawning and river mouth spawning, but didn't affect spawning further up river and in the creeks around the lake. They didn't have much information on exactly how many fish spawn in the river and creeks, or how high up they go, but they hope this number increases.

Carcassman,

A lot of those old in-season run size updates turned out being not so accurate after all. That explains dropping some of them. I think others have been dropped because real-time soft data collection was sacrificed in budget cuts quite a long time ago now. WDFW depends on tribal catch data, and it isn't timely or complete enough to use that way any longer. At least that's what I was told.

More to the point regarding Baker sockeye in-season updating, you can almost take to the bank that 50% of the run (minus pre-trap catch) enters the Baker trap between July 12 and 15. If reliable river harvest data were available on July 15, the total run size can be very accurately updated.

Camo,

The 1500 sockeye for natural production could all fit in Channel Creek, which was restored for the Forest Service under the Baker license over the last two years. Channel Creek fed the old artificial spawning beaches that were used since 1962 to maintain the Baker sockeye run. PSE built new spawning beaches in the 1990s that were upgraded recently, also as part of project re-licensing. Other natural spawners do tend to spawn along the upper river delta where it enters Baker Lake, and that area is dewatered as the reservoir is drawn down over the winter. The artificial spawning beaches are mitigation for natural spawning that is lost to drawdown, so it's hard to complain about that impact. The issue, if any, is that those spawners are fish that might just as well have been harvested from the fishery harvest managers perspective. They have no love for ecosystem function and marine derived nutrients when it means fewer salmon harvested.

Sg

well, with few exceptions (south sound coho being a glaring one) the ISUs were more accurate than the PSFs in predicting the actual run. But, I am sure you are right about the data. Back in the day of soft data something like 95-99% of all the net catch was in the system three days after the day of landing.

So the reason why we manage on forecasts, and make no changes (like WB and GH) is to save money?

I'll dig out an old quote from a State/Tribal management plan that speaks to management goals.

From a joint State-Tribal draft management plan (1990-an oldie but what's changed?)
"Escapement. A purpose of fisheries management is to ensure achievement of a desired level of catch. In order to maintain this level, it is necessary to prevent the capture of a certain portion of the run, so that these uncaught fish can spawn and producce fish for future use. An escapement allowance must be evaluated primarily according to whether it achieves the catch objective."

Salmo, you have a great concern/argument. My mention of the 1500 was to demonstrate additional "opportunity" that gets overlooked when people start comparing quotas relative to how they are defined, between tribal and recreational fishermen, as Ondarvr explained. As long as hook and line remains as inefficient as it is, there should continue to be a significantly higher number of natural escapement fish than the predetermined 1500. To your point, I would hope somewhere down the road, we reach an established balance between that "higher number" and what is not impacted by the draw down.