Lucky -
Two of the major considerations in any potential "shaping" of Puget Sound opportunities are the total impacts of Puget Sound Chinook and upper Fraser coho. Both of which are caught in Washington coastal fisheries. Which options are selected and that options respective impacts will limit potential options for PS fisheries.

Just one example would be the coho fisheries off the north Coast/Neah Bay area for tribal, recreational and non-treaty troll fisheries. That area is a major staging/feeding area for those upper Fraser Coho which is limited by the US/Canada treaty to no more than a total of 10% impacts in Washington waters. The higher the coho catch (more upper Fraser fish)in that area the more restrictive inside fisheries (more and longer mark selective fisheries) will likely have to be.

Curt

Thanks Curt,

It seems worth exploring with WDFW to find out exactly what options are available to catch those “perceived inequities” other than the 20 inch min. size option.

Most recreational opening seasons at the Tulalip bubble for Chinook was somewhere in early June, except for the 2012 season that opened May 4, 2012, then reverted back to June openers again.

Curt, do you know why only the May 2012 opener in the bubble. Something happened at NOF? The tribes still fish that area in May?

And/Or there could be an early Chinook fishery in MA 11 on the resurgent White River strain being produced in the State hatchery.

Why would Frasier R coho limit inside PS fisheries. MA 4-7 I could see but not 8+ Any insight?

OceanSun-
You are correct that Fraser Coho are not an issue for MAs 8-13. However since MA5, 6 and 7 are considered to be part of the Puget Sound and whose seasons are discussed during the Puget Sound NOF discussion how many (% impact) are a significant issue in the PS discussions.

curt

Monday March 23, Puget Sound NOF meeting at WDFW Millcreek--6-8PM.

I'll be there.

I have not participated in any of the NOF meetings before. Is there any public input or is it strictly an informative meeting regarding what and why policies are being set forth?

Both.

Please attend if you can. Folks need to know the process to be able to effect change.

These meetings seem to be taking a different track than before, at least on the subjects discussed at Mill Creek.

Up front the limitations and restrictions are discussed in as much detail as required for those attending so they understand what effects the ESA listings and tribal practices have on how sport fishing can be allowed or not allowed in certain regions based on the forecasted return (yes still paper fish). There were many handouts with the details, plus graphs, charts and spreadsheets to show how and why certain decisions, actions or opinions came about.

Then several options and suggestions are presented by WDFW for discussion and opinions, they also let everyone know what subjects and fisheries we could control or influence by giving them our likes and dislikes. After that people can make their own suggestions if they have other plans or ideas. Several of the agreed upon seasons, limits, areas and gear regulations from the Mill Creek meetings have made it directly to the rule book. Others need to still be negotiated with the tribes, but WDFW will move it in the direction the sportsman would like it to go if possible. Again, the limitations of what they can do are explained up front so if it doesn't go exactly as the sportsman would like, they know about it beforehand, not after the fact when the rule book comes out.

With a better understanding of the laws and run size limitations (ESA) there was less arguing and discontent, it was a very polite and cordial meeting. Maybe the free coffee, cookies and soda helped too.

All WDFW people in attendance did a very good job, they were well prepared to discuss just about any subject in detail if needed.

You can now express your opinions directly to WDFW online at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/ they requested sportsman do this as often as needed.