Managing to the last fish got us where we are. When it comes to projecting run size, there's at least a 10% margin for error. There may not actually be fish available. If we really want to have recovery, we shouldn't even waste the time crafting seasons with this low an impact. Close it all down- for everybody!!

I like the idea about sharing impacts, it was nice of them to offer. We can talk about how we're going to share when the runs are stronger.

Luckydogs -

At least in the case of the North Sound wild coho of the various "S" rivers the management has not been to the last fish. In fact for the last 20 years the pre-season management object for the wild coho of the Snohomish and Sitllaguamish has consistent been well below agreed to exploitation rates (typically at or below the 30% range). The wild populations crashed last year in spite of that conservative management. The driver was the unprecedented ocean condition created by the "blob".

While it is true that the in-season management last season was not what as responsive as one would have hoped (especially the marine recreation fishery) the question now is where does management go.

Curt

and yet............

http://bellingham.craigslist.org/for/5505445949.html

Isn't that the same as saying a fat kid wants cake?

I hope they shut it down completely, FOR EVERYONE! Otherwise the state will pat themselves on the back for giving us the opportunity.

A few ideas that will likely stir the pot:

1. If the Sound experiences limited or restricted fishing opportunities, the article (link) impies the Canal is OK and should not have the same restrictions. That is fine, but I hope enforcement and in-season monitioring are setepped WAY up, as the Canal will see alot more pressure.

2. Alot of talk about the coast and Sound...but what about the rivers. Once a spawner successfully survives out-migration, seals and other predators, ocean blobs we cannot control, nets and sporties in AK and BC, us sporties in the Strait and Sound, then tribal nets in the rivers, only to get nailed in the rivers...what's the point. I we need to be responsible for the whole life cycle, not just the 20 day period when they pass through the Sound.
I've advocated a lottery system for fishing the rivers that supports the guides. I think we have to look upstream too, covering start to finish.

Ned:

This is extracted from the groups' public statement presented in the Times article:

"Any fisheries that are ultimately implemented should be justified by the capability to target healthy and harvestable stocks, or species other than chinook and coho. In addition, because minor impacts on critical stocks can accumulate to significant levels, minimization of impacts from fisheries necessitates defining an upper limit to the total impact. For Puget Sound chinook stocks listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, such upper limits on impacts are defined by the tribal-WDFW agreed Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan. For Puget Sound wild coho stocks, guidance for state and tribal fishery managers for limiting impacts when critical status is forecast comes from the Comprehensive Coho Management Plan (CCMP)."

I believe this pretty well addresses the concerns you have expressed whether fish are being harvested by individual fishers, those being guided, or commercial (tribal and N/T) in salt or rivers it is critical that conservation needs be the number one consideration.

Time to end market hunting! If someone in Wyoming wants fresh wild King they should do what the person that wants venison, elk or Moose has to do.

Elliott Bay 2016!

Might want to get MA 10 first! But I agree with you.

Wanting MA 10 before Elliott Bay is the reasoning that can get us in trouble with weak stocks. Fish where the target species and stocks predominates the most. That may mean the river in some cases. The marine mixed stock fisheries are the source of most of our harvest-based issues.

Only if there is an issue with obtaining sufficient returns for hatchery requirements at which point ALL harvesters should agree to lay off of them.

Could it not be "Fukushima", which has caused the recent declines or even the formation of the blob. If radiation from Fukushima is killing off animals and fish, it could have created the" blob" from all the decomposing dead stuff. Which would necessarily change ocean currents since the blob is so huge.

Not sure I understand your point. The problem is incidental (or intentional in the case of GN) harvest of listed wild fish. The penalty we pay for the destruction of the wild fish, when and if we try to save them, is the inability to harvest co-mingled hatchery fish.

Weak stock management should be based on protection of the weaker stocks, which means you don't fish where they are present. If that is unacceptable, then don't, for example, force landowners and water users to conserve so you can kill those fish.

CM -
A huge for 2016 in the NOF process in Puget Sound is the collapse of coho in the region. That collapse has little to do with mixed stock fisheries and largely due to historically poor marine survivals of coho migrating to the ocean in 2014 and the high probability of similar survivals for the smolts entering the ocean in 2015.

It appears that poor marine survival affected both the hatchery and wild fish equally. To illustrate poor the marine survival was for the coho that did not return in 2015 I will use the Snohomish wild coho as an example. The wild smolt outmigration in 2014 as measure in smolt traps was estimated to have been 3 million. Using some the lowest average marine survivals seen that yield a forecast of approximately 150,000 adults and a wild escapement of approximately 100,000. What actually made it to the spawning grounds was 14,000 and the best guess is that the total return was less than 30,000 or less than a 1% smolt to adult survival.

The 2015 escapement was less than 1/2 of the previous lowest escapement seen in the 50 year data base in spite of the near historical high wild smolt production. The average wild smolt wild escapement for the previous 15 years on the Snohomish (starting in 2000) was better than 120,000 spawners. Similar collapse was seen for other key wild stocks like the Stillaguamish, Skagit and eastern strait populations. In addition to the wild fish problems the hatcheries struggled to meet their egg take goals.

The outlook for 2015 is for similar marine survivals with less than 1/2 as many wild smolts from the north Sound "S' rivers in 2015 as what was seen in 2014.

Curt

The average size of the returning coho was greatly reduced last year.

Current laws require (in most situations) that hatchery fish produced for harvest from facilities using Federal money be clipped so as to be differentiated from wild fish (what really constitutes a wild fish is another discussion). That is supposed to enable managers to approve marked selective fisheries with acceptable impact limits on wild fish (and especially where ESA listed Puget Sound Chinook are involved).

As previously mentioned the current situation is driven by ocean conditions and will be exacerbated in the near future by the extreme low runoffs in 2015. As a result we may see a variety of restrictions to possibly include marked selective on all coho to protect wild returns or even reduced fisheries on hatchery fish to ensure sufficient fish to the hatcheries. Certainly these will be tough pills to swallow but will be in the best interests of the fish as well as fishermen.

I will finish by again saying that if there is a complete closure on coho that needs to include all harvesters; recreational, NT, and tribal.

I'm talking Chinook fisheries. The coho are so bad off they should be left alone.

Absolutely correct, according to my sources (and experience). Re "where does management go now?", how about insisting on some real habitat protection for a change?