So I received an email notification that as of Oct 19 the Skagit will close to all Salmon Fishing until further notice, WTF? Here is the reason for said action:

"Reason for action: The rule is necessary to protect returning coho runs to the Skagit (permanent regulations are already in place requiring release of chinook and chum salmon, and the pink salmon returns have nearly concluded). In-season run size assessments conducted by state and tribal co-managers indicate that coho run sizes are significantly below pre-season forecasts in these rivers."

The preseason forecast was for approxiately 140,000 Coho so how did we get from that number to now a complete closure? Does this mean the managers again allowed the cowboys and Indians to run wild with netting everything they could even though the numbers were not adding up during their fishing schedule? I am getting so sick of these so called managers managing our fish into extinction. As a river fisherman I use to be able to fish local waters about eight months a year. Now it's down to a few months of Coho fishing and the managers pull this crap. Yippie, I've gotten to fish almost a month and now it's closing with not much of a Steelhead season a head for me. Where do I go to get a refund on my license?

My sentiments exactly! Stilly is my home river just 10 minutes away from my door and I absolutely love to fish the Skagit in the fall. Fished the upper Skagit on Sept 29-Oct 2nd and just recently on Oct 9th. While it was difficult sorting through pinks initially there were a few Coho around. The Oct 9th trip yielded a nice limit of 2 wild and 2 hatchery Coho. Insider info from yesterday said fantastic fishing on the upper river too. Tired of losing opportunity to fish in this state too. Just another case of Cowboys and Indians and recreational fishers are on the losing side again! No Chinook, No Chum, No Coho what a SAD state of affairs!

Yup, it sucks

I can only recommend that you go to the North Of Falcon meeting held every year in Mill Creek (March-April) and hold them accountable. Most of the attendees are Salt Water people. Very few River interests there. You can bet Sparks Will Fly over the Area 10 mess. Might as well add the Skagit to the mix. WDFW needs to hear it. It is a place to hold them accountable.

And the beat goes on....

Closed for coho? The mighty Skagit? The Stilly? AREA 10???

We've become accustomed to steelhead and Chinook closures around those parts, but coho???

Sorry you guys are getting shafted, yet again. Granted, this coho shortfall was unexpected, and it's probably a bad idea to leave it open at this point, but given all the opportunity the Puget Sound angling community has lost of late, this must really feel like another punch in the gut. Tragic.

You could wait until NOF or contact Jim Unsworth, Director “now” through this link.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/

The director is looking for suggestions throughout the state at regional meetings or directly through this website for improvements in future years.

Ron Warren, fisheries policy lead for WDFW, promoted before ex director Phil Anderson hasty departure, has turned out to be a very poor choice. I asked Warren last spring at the NOF meeting what is his intention to even out the disparity between tribal and non-tribal fishermen in Puget Sound where the tribes have caught app. 63% of the Chinook and 70% of the Coho over the past 10 year average.

Warren’s answer was that he wasn’t concerned with the disparity as long as there are quality fisheries in Puget Sound.

I don’t know about the rest of you but it is disconcerting to me that the person leading the recreational NOF meetings has a mindset like that. Not only is there a disparity, but the supposedly quality fisheries are disappearing also. Little surprise what went down at NOF with area 10 and 9 and now PS river closures. My trust of the same old leadership at WDFW along with a broken NOF process is gone.

It is time for the new director to start cleaning house!

SSDD....and we lose out again.

Yup. That's the token Ron Warren answer to questions about disparities. The data clearly point to an injustice, but in the mind of WDFW, as long as some fishery is open, we're getting a "meaningful opportunity," which is all we're due, according to the rules. Sounds like the rest of the state is getting a taste of fisheries management, RW style. Those of us in Region 6 have already had our fill.

As others have pointed out, Warren's policies are made above his pay grade, so it's probably misguided for us to assume he's the one driving the bus....

Over the years I have witnessed WDFW manage many fish stocks into oblivion, chum salmon and yellow eye rock fish to name just two, so I'm not attempting to minimize poor management as a factor in this situation. I'm sure degradation of river habitat and pollution are involve also.
What I do wonder about is the effect of the "blob" of warm water in the Gulf of Alaska which is the feeding grounds for PNW salmon. Last year 90% of the Fraser sockeye migrated though Johntson Straits vs the usual split of 50/50 Johnston/outside Vancouver Island. The phenomena was attributed to the sockeye attempting to escape the warm water in the Gulf of Alaska. How much has this warm water effected all the salmon runs that are returning way below forcasts? My observation of runs that I have fished this year is that there has been substantially fewer and much smaller fish than usual. Is this due to poor ocean conditions directly related to the warm water? Another factor that I question is the huge number of hatchery releases into the North Pacific by Alaska and Japan. Here is a link to an article that touches on the subject. It is dated but to my knowledge the number of releases has been the same the last few years.

http://www.cbbulletin.com/399883.aspx

I’m hoping the director’s reach out for input for future changes in the WDFW is genuine and sincere.

Trust has been broken between the WDFW management and the Puget Sound recreational anglers. The NOF process was proven broken this year and needs fixing. There was supposed to be an increase in Chinook harvest by rec. anglers in not only area 9 but area 10 also. Instead, a closure of Area 10 and a major cut in Area 9 harvest. What trust factor there was is depleting quickly.

Regardless who is driving the bus, I have seen the new director rely on Ron W. and Phil A. influences way to much in his near first year learning curve. The sooner the separation-- the better.

I wouldn't put all the blame on mismanagement.

Aren't most fisheries seeing tiny coho? Wouldn't these tiny coho fit through nets and not be as likely to be intercepted? I have seen lots of these small fish and some have empty stomachs. I think the ocean conditions for the last year have not been favorable to these small salmon.

From what I hear about the commercial fisheries around my neck of the woods, they aren't catching many either and are seeing the small coho as well.

It isn't just the Skagit. Is there any place in WA where the coho runs are returning anywhere near the numbers of the preseason forecast? Whatever factor is limiting coho runs this year is pretty clearly not in the formula for making the preseason prediction. Ron Warren might be a douchnozzle, but I don't think you can hang the lousy coho season on him.

I would agree that this has less to do with getting screwed and more to do with a horrible return. From reports and posts, it seems like the season started off reasonably normal except everyone noticed how small all the fish were. I think the expectation was for the fish and numbers to get bigger, which never fully materialized. Did the nets get too many? Maybe, but I'd suspect their numbers were way down too.

What should WDFW do when in-season numbers seem to indicate they should shut the fishery down? They get blasted for allowing "over exploitation" and also for "taking away opportunity".

The one thing that should be tossed is all the time, money, and effort spent to establish run predictions. They are wrong as often as right, and when they over estimate the run, they have the potential to cripple a run in the long term. There are no easy answers. Considering the unpredictability of runs, the ability to effectively "manage" anadromous fish seems limited.

When it comes to Coho harvest in PS the biggest concern like stated before in this thread is the 70%-30% split in favor of the Indians. Regardless of poor or great returns, disparity ignored by various department personal that have decided to stick their heads in the sand and hope things get better should be replaced especially if they are representing the recreational angler at the NOF.

With representatives like that, who needs enemies?

Perhaps solving the puzzle of all the dwindling runs could involve considering the exception, and why/how it's different. Columbia fall chinook anybody?

fb

Very well said, especially the last sentence. Why would we expect something that seems as largely dependent on weather as ocean conditions to be any more predictable than the weather itself?

If the goal is to ensure a future for anadromous salmonids, the management approach needs to get away from the mindset that was developed with maximizing exploitation in mind and shift to one of allowing exploitation only after minimum escapements have been assured. There are a few problems that will prevent this from happening anythime soon. Most notable is that the nature of commercial salmon fisheries requires fishing to take place before we get a chance to see how many fish are actually coming.

Given the demands for more responsive/better management and as Salmo g. points out the status of coho across the State the surprise/disappointed that the Skagit and Stillaguamish were closed to coho would be better directed that the Snohomish and marine areas north 10 were not also closed!

Regarding the unequal sharing of Puget Sound coho and Chinook between the tribes and non-treaty fishers. Remember the WDFW commission and most every anglers that fish Puget Sound support that the priorities be mixed stock marine water and hook and line fisheries. In this age of weak stock/ESA management that assures those priorities assure that the non-treaty fishers will not catch their "full share". That will remain the case until non-treaty fishing reduces the priority for fishing in mixed stock areas and hook and line fishing.

The question are those current priorities worth not catching the full share?

Curt

So the tribes are not fishing over mixed stocks in PS and everybody else is?

Louie -
Not saying that over fishing is not occurring because there are cases where many would say that has or is occurring.

However in the case of tribal fisheries a substantial portion of the tribal catches occur in terminal areas. If the tribes are fishing in a river that is one of the limiting stocks it would be hard to argue that their catch would include any significant numbers of those limiting stocks. The same can not be said about a recreational fishery say in MA 9.

I would be very interested in how you would suggest on current management of the non-treaty fisheries could be modified to more equitably share the harvestable fish. About the only mechanisms that I can come with would be substantially reducing the recreational fishing in mixed stocks areas and shift the focus to terminal areas. Unfortunately those fish don't bit so well so to effectively increase the overall catch would be via some sort of commercial fishery or potentially increased flossing/snagging season in-river.

I'm certain if you or others have practical alternatives on how to increase the effectiveness of the sport fisheries and stay with the constrains of ESA limits and insure that there is some sort of sharing between geographic areas and user types there would be great interest and discussion through the next NOF process.

Curt

Curt,

I would be more incline to agree with you if the models indicate that the tribes can catch 40% more Coho in PS because the tribes fish terminally and not over mixed stocks.

If you would have stated geographic sharing to begin with, I would have been more incline to agree because without looking at a model there is probably mixed stock Coho fisheries by tribal and NT from all the way out in the ocean, through the straits, and into Puget Sound.

Since you brought up PS Chinook fisheries, I have seen the limited stock Lake Washington Chinook model and that is certainly the case.

What seems to piss off the muckleshits is they were watching recreational anglers fishing for Chinook as a direct fishery while the Indians used up their share by killing those Chinook as bycatch in other mixed terminal fisheries, if the posts on the Muckleshaft FB page was any indication. I'm sure all the mixed fisheries in this state before they get to the terminal area is another problem for them.

Solution could be suing the WDFW and tribes for the closure of Area 10 and maybe area 9 after this year, intending to lose the court case but actually winning by maybe getting more fish back to PS to split to reopen those areas.(just typing out loud).

LL

Without looking real hard, I found a great example of how accurate our states preseason estimates often are [img:center]http:// http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/counts/sockeye/[/img]