Once again, the only ones not affected are the tribes. We catch and release based on the forecast, but no matter what the return, they pick up adult coho at the hatchery...FREE...since those fish are paid for by...US.
This year (especially with the missed forecast), they got thousands of pounds delivered by the hatchery staff who load them into tribal pick-ups. Are those counted against their quota? Sport was near zero, even with mortality, while thousands of pounds went to tribal retention. Shouldn't we get to catch up with that poundage...maybe next year?

My point would be why not leave it open regardless of the pre-season forecast and close it immediately should the in season management dictate it.
Why does have to take so long to run the creel numbers?
They closed both the salt and rivers last year with in season management. They could do it last year but not this year?

We've all seen fisheries get closed. It is easy to close them, not so easy to get them opened back up again.
I for one don't want to see coho fishing opportunities in MA 9 and 10 go down the shitter like we've seen others.

In my opinion, this was a major overreaction based on last years returns. Unless coho have become a one year fish, 2018 should have been the year everyone was concerned about and preached conservation.
We got that sermon this year and now you can retain wild coho on the Skagit and Snohomish systems...WTF????
I think when all is said and done, the numbers will show there were enough coho around this year for us to be fishing even if it was hatchery only retention.
It looks like one user group enjoyed it anyway.
SF

I realize this year was an anomaly, but with literally millions of dollars on the table, is seems that this should be the push to get a good forecasting system going. Some things that would make sense would to be to use creel sampling in Alaska and Canada and gather scale samples to compare to an established DNA base. By using multiple locations through out the range area, I believe we could eventually get a good data base that would show a relationship between the number of fish in a given harvest and the overall expected run numbers. I know they used microchips in marked fish in the past. Could this technology be used in larger numbers if DNA did not work?

The fallacy lies in the notion that accurate forecasting, of just about anything, is attainable.

I'm with Stonefish. WDFW and the Tribes have proven capable of executing emergency closures; neither has proven capable of foreseeing the future.

Because I realize that forecasting, hopelessly ineffective as it is, will continue to be the tool used, I'd also like to give a nod to Krijack's last suggestion about sampling Alaska and BC for insight into how realistic the pre-season forecast is before agreeing to State and Tribal fisheries plans. Whatever it is, something needs to change.

With all of the modeling data out there and Cray capability someone (NOAA under Commerce?) should be able to perform some estimates with an acceptable statistical reliability factor. They might even be able to fund it under Chinook ESA research/management.

Now, as far as the professed lack of in season data where we aren't able to fish and, therefore, there is no data being generated - well, is that totally accurate? Are the WDFW's hook and line test fishers precluded from fishing? Does WDFW have other tools available to them? As much as I try to stay away from "I was told" stories here is one: I was told that WDFW had a purse seiner out of Gig Harbor run some catch and release sets and found huge numbers of silvers in mid-Sound. Maybe something to ask about......

Fact is, the recreational coho season in puget sound should not have been shut down based on one factor "poor ocean conditions"... for God sakes, keep it open in July for a normal coho/chinook season knowing full well the coho element in that fishery is almost exclusively resident Puget Sound fish that are not even affected by said "poor ocean conditions"... If the ocean returning run doesn't materialize in Canada or the Straights by August and September, then shut it the fvck down...

I'm not a fisheries scientist, but I stayed in a holiday inn express...

Piper,
I think the argument would be that if the ocean returns did not materialize, then these resident fish would be needed to make up for that loss. The bigger question I have is why, when some runs started to show a much higher return, that the other runs then did not have their numbers adjusted. It would seem that if the limiting factor, ie. ocean conditions, did not reduce the number of fish in rivers A,B and C then why would we continue to assume that they same limiting factor would still limit rivers D, E and F. Here in Puget Sound we still do not have the south sound open for Coho, though all indications are that the runs materialized at a fair to good return. Minter currently shows a hatchery return of 12,000 coho. This is twice the normal return. If we assume the numbers are high due to a lack of fishing, then at least we could assume the numbers are close to normal. Even though it would be a circus, why not open it up. They do for Chum and the numbers are much lower. The Dewatto and Quilicene are probably worse.
What seems to be limiting opening the sound is the assumption that the Nisqually will have limited numbers. Of course, the nisqually hatchery does not list their numbers, but their 6000 king prediction ended up over 20,000 off. Add in the fact that the pen fish have come back in good numbers, and I am left wondering why we are not fishing. I suppose they will point out that they are protecting next year kings due to low prediction numbers. But, seeing as they came in at much higher than anticipated numbers this year, do these predictions still hold weight?

I wish there was a like button, but since there isn't.give the man.....a gold star!

Those resident fish were around in excellent numbers. We encountered exactly two wild coho before things got shut down.
Over the past years, I've tried to keep tabs on when we start encountering more wild fish. Based on my fishing and the others that I often fish with, that generally starts to occur the last week of August.
Point being, we should have had an opportunity to harvest hatchery coho at least up to the closure dates.
Less then 15 day till MA 9 opens again.

I'll shut up now on this subject now...since I could only afford to stay at a Motel 6.
SF

that is our experience as well. It is mostly all resident coho in July and August with a some nice ocean returning coho showing up in mid August... probably the early returning Quill, Skok, Gamble bay fish

Before the algae problems in hood canal, we would really start to get into the big ocean returning coho in mid September and fish them all the way thru Halloween.

I have mentioned before that there has been developed a really good, statistically robust model that describes Oregon Coastal Coho survival. It won't work as a predictor because the 4 ocean variables are so independent that the fourth (about the time the fish hit the bays) can take a bad year and make it good or a good year and make it bad.

If that is the case in WA then the best we can hope for for accurate numbers is in-bay/river. For the ocean, some very conservative fishery may be possible.

It should be obvious that major ocean fisheries are based on shaky assumptions that won't get any stronger no matter how much computer power is thrown at it. The manager's hope is that there won't be gross failures of return. Blow the fishing and you piss off fisherman this year. Blow the escapement and you screw the future.

6500 Coho back to Voights creek as o last Thursday...


16,224 Coho back to Voights as of today....


amazing what no nets in the river does.....

Yup!

sometimes a rape victim just wants to hear; yes i fvcked you, and I'm sorry, I wont do it again

Withe regards to Voights Creek, back in the 80s the Tribe ran a fishery 24/7 in the river. Still, 10-20-30K coho showed up at the hatchery.

New report posted. They are now showing over 21000 Coho to the Voights creek hatchery ( about 5 times the 2013 number at this time and 8 Times more than 2014). Minter creek is over 17000 (just under 3 times 2013 and 9 times the amount in 2014). These are two highest reported returns in the state so far. I know keeping it closed help keep the numbers up, but they did not know if they had enough to open it until when????? I would love to see the numbers for the Nisqually hatchery, but they don't post them.

Skykomish/Wallace numbers seem to be stronger than they've been since 2011

Just look at the surplus numbers!

Holy hell.

What a goddamn waste.

we got screwed royally in puget sound this year, I cant say I didn't see that coming... hopefully the screwage wont be as bad next year...


at the very least the wdfw should allow the Indians to guide us non-Indians on Puget Sound... they wouldn't even need boats, we could just pay them to ride in our own boats...

the weird thing about Voights, i fished the afternoon/evening Friday through Tuesday for 3 hours about each day...


heard of 2 fish hooked, saw 1 roll, thats it, river has been dead...

i got 1 Bull and that was it...

nothing moving, jumping, biting, nothing....

i honestly dont understand why they would leave the last 3 miles of river going towards the hatchery (Carbon section) closed when they have 16k surplus fish...

and if 5k fish passed by during a week span, why werent anything showing themselves? before the rain yesterday, the river was getting into prime shape, was at around 1500 CFS and about 2 feet of viz on the upper river, Carbon was clear...

they also are getting lower numbers of Kings back, but they have it closed to Kings, even tho they have way more than normal just like with the Coho... they are probably old nasty fish, but keeping it closed after meeting escapement doesnt make any sense whatsoever...

How about the surplus fall kings at George Adams? That's a fun number as well.....

We can't be having 50,000+ fish surpluses to the sound. We're going to lose permitting and BOTH parties will pay. The tribes are shooting themselves in the foot.