Has anybody else been looking at the hatchery reports? Some real interesting things in there. Like the fact that Minter creek has got back almost 8000 coho this year compared with just over 1800 last year. Something not in there is the fact that the Nisqually hatchery has gotten around 26000 kings compared to the 6000 expected.

There has got to be a better way to calculate numbers. I think it is interesting that the lack of fish was completely attributed to ocean conditions, but when some runs starting getting back huge numbers, there was no apparent expectation for other runs to do good.

The more I read the sicker I get about the opportunity we lost.
.

I was looking at Wallace numbers, and it seems to be pretty much in keeping with the last 3-4 years. Of course, that's with very limited saltwater harvest.

coho fishing was off the hook in area 9 during the king season. we caught more and bigger fish than the previous 10 years, and we had to quit fishing before it historically gets good for coho...

the last few years have been extremely productive for resident fish... too bad WDFW thinks they all go to the ocean

If you want to be wrong, make a prediction.

If you want to lose credibility, don't create a back up plan if your prediction is wrong.

Every sportsman that cares equally about conservation and opportunity has been screaming for in-season management for years.

This is examples of "where in-season adjustments", need to be done. Region 5, seems to have "plans in place" to open/close seasons if numbers are higher or lower.

Region 6, get a pat on the back for allowing the change from not allowing "wild jacks" to be kept....to a in-season change to allow. There were many days, it seemed, that wild jacks outnumbered hatchery jacks, 10 to 1. This was a year of lots of "big jacks", many Coho jacks were in the 18" to just under the legal limit of 20", same was true on the Chinook jacks.

Good move Region 6.......Thanks....

To be fair to WDFW, they have made in-season adjustments. It just didn't help the saltwater angler much at all.

Agree with Piper.
Some of the best MA 9 July coho fishing in years. Nice big .... hatchery fish.
Since spring we got preached the gospel of coho conservation and now you can bonk two a day on parts of the Skagit and Snohomish systems, wtf!
We got a whole five weeks in MA 9 to fish this summer with three weeks to retain kings.
If I forecast my sales numbers like WDFW forecast fish returns this year, I'd be looking for a new job.
A major overreaction on their part based on last year's returns. The salt guys got screwed this year and look for a attempted repeat next year.
SF

Very good observation. Nobody can do in-season adjustments while the fish are in the ocean since you can't tell where those fish will eventually be spawning. Only when the fish begin their freshwater migration can WDFW, or anyone else, determine the ultimate run-size. That means only a select group of anglers (those in freshwater) would benefit from the new forecast, if it comes in high.

However, the opposite is also true. If the run-size ends up being smaller than predicted, the freshwater angler will get shut down, but the saltwater angler will have already gotten his/her fish.

So that door swings both ways.....

Give that man a GOLD star!

Unless you actually fish the fishery.
Anyone who fished Puget Sound in July can tell you the forecast was looking way off.
Tons of nice size hatchery coho that had to be released....aren't they all supposed to die?
SF

In a perfect world.... YES!

This surprises me? You would think the WDFW sport sample guys on the water would have been catching those tons of nice size hatchery coho. Then reporting the results that an in season change is warrented. This happened this last Blackmouth season in area 10, when the samplers were catching to many undersized kings. Area 10 did not open until those numbers went down. That's an in season adjustment!

Are you sure samplers were fishing beginning July 1st?
I'm just telling you what I saw. Myself and others caught a bunch of nice hatchery coho we had to release, with some up to 6 lbs before mid July.
That doesn't happen every year. I wasn't fishing out of a boat either.
It sounds like Piper and others I know had similar success.
It wasn't just July either. Both MA 9 & 10 fished well for coho until the August closures.
I've also been seeing lots of silvers moving through the sound since then while cutthroat fishing.

There are also currently a ton of very nice size resident hatchery coho around. Based on the numbers I've been encountering and their size, next July looks really promising as well. The same was true last fall through spring. We were catching nice resident coho, some in places we've never caught them before.
Will we get screwed again next year?

I've fished the sound since the mid 60's and fish it over 100 days annually. I'm not blind and I know what I saw and experienced this summer. I could tell the forecasts were off some.
Perhaps WDFW samplers were the blind ones if they are fishing.
SF

Voights creek has now passed what they had back for the entire season last year...


and i got an email from the Bio out here that said that they will be making an emergency opening for the Puyallup river, starting when it opens for Chum on Sunday....

will have to wait for the river to calm down, should be plenty of fish around tho...

It will be a VERY strong escapement weekend!

My biggest issue this year is that they closed it based on one factor, poor ocean conditions... well guess what, not all Puget Sound salmon go to the ocean, and from what i've witnessed the last couple of years, Puget Sound is home to a huge biomass of bait fish and the resident populations are flourishing in it...


food for thought... even if this was a poor return year and fishing was still open, the fishing pressure takes care of itself in the fact that most weekend warriors wouldn't be catching much if anything at all and would likely quit fishing all together after a couple of skunk outings.

Just so everyone knows….

WDFW cannot develop a creel census program on the “back of an envelope”, and implement it for the purposes of making an in-season adjustment, based on perceived angling success. Or lack thereof.

Creel census programs are designed to be statically valid. The experimental design has to be scientifically validated with specific design criteria such as time, date, location, sample size, and effort. The data collected has to be processed, compiled, and analyzed. Once this is done, management decisions, such as an in-season adjustment, can be considered. Again, this cannot be done quickly or easily. And it cannot be designed, funded, and implemented based on anecdotal reports of really great fishing. Or really bad fishing.

Creel census programs currently in place are the result of considerable thought and preparation, years of implementation, some bouts of trial and error, continual refinement (i.e., adaptive management) and specific funding mechanisms.
Those are already in place at the appropriate locations to make whatever adjustments need to be made. So even though lots of folks are catching lots of fish in some areas, WDFW is not in a position to make in-season adjustments based on this information.

That’s not to say they cannot be agile enough to make changes on-the-fly, but those circumstances are unusual and infrequent.

Thanks for the info but......
Kind of hard to have a creel census program, get good data and make in season management adjustments for saltwater when all coho fishing in the sound is closed.
SF

"Kind of hard to have a creel census program, get good data and make in season management adjustments for saltwater when all coho fishing in the sound is closed."

Absolutely correct. In this case, WDFW would have zero information on which make in-season adjustments, and no possible way to obtain any information. All they have is anecdotal reports of good fishing.

So under these circumstances, there is no way to open a fishery if the pre-season forecast is for a poor adult return, but the number of adults may be quite high. It reiterates the importance of a good pre-season forecast.

But that's sorta obvious......

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.

There's always a different way to look at the data. What I see is that the mixed stock saltwater fishery from both the Commercials (including Indians and charters) and sports fishermen has a pretty significant impact. What makes it tough is that I'm definitely of the belief that hatchery fish must die. Seeing that the hatchery fish came back strongly does not necessarily mean that the wild fish came back strongly. Although just as likely it does mean that they came back in good numbers. If that's the case, I would gladly trade the mixed stock saltwater fishery for more fish on the beds. The fundamental conundrum of Maximum Sustained Harvest versus Maximum Sustained Yield.

not to many folks will disagree with putting fish on the beds. but I think I would rather fish the salt in solitude in July and August than fish the spawning beds in October and November... yuk!

Myself, and I think many others would like to have the opportunity to do both!

What we CAN'T do is have 10's of thousands of surplus hatchery fish coming back to our hatcheries.

"Fish on the beds" is one thing, we would all like wild fish to hit the gravel, but if we do not show an ability to harvest our hatchery fish (surpluses) NMFS will pull our permits to release them. Plain and simple. Then we're ALL fvcked!

Not that simple. You are correct if those surplus fish end up on the spawning grounds, competing with wild salmon. That's not good. But there are a number of management actions that attempt to minimize that risk. If the fish managers can reduce the risk, either in time or space, the impacts to wild salmon can be reduced to acceptable levels.

The number of strays is proportional to the number of returns. If you have a heavy surplus you can assume a higher proportion of straying.

Perhaps but if the hatchery serves as a dead-end where no fish can get upstream of the hatchery, and there is no spawning habitat downstream, there are no impacts to wild fish regardless of the number of surplus adults. Many of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hatcheries in the Columbia Basin are like this (Little White Salmon, Spring Creek, etc). And some of the WDFW hatcheries have a barrier dam upstream, and virtually no habitat downstream. Again, the impact to wild fish from excess spawners is minor .

That's flawed logic. Escapements are only one consideration for our hatchery fish as well... if we send them out they are actively competing with wild fish in estuary/marine/offshore environements. More survivors = more competition, again it's directly related. If we don't show a proficiency in harvesting the fish we are asking to be put out, they will pull the permits to do so. NMFS has made this pretty clear in the past.

The concept that you can harvest hatchery escapements down to their minimum number is misguided. If the hatchery has a weir to stop the returning adults then the hatchery escapement will mirror the natural one. Take GH and it has always been managed for wild ( the Hump being the exception and no weir ) and that results in large hatchery returns. Point is the fish are not wasted they are the in river fishers opportunity. The word surplus is usually used to describe the number above the minimum 5% hatchery return needed by mixed stock fishers in estuary or similar fisheries in the salt and commercial fishers. Surplus is a hatchery term around eggtake requirements that gets hijacked by those trying to propel a harvest expansion not a biological rational.

Does anyone know what the thinking is at the Tumwater falls hatchery? The hatchery shows over 11,000 surplus with only 200 released. The falls themselves are said to be a natural barrier, with no fish being able to get above it. There were rumors that some might make it back during an extreme flood, but the fact that no wild fish make it back to the ladder would seem to point this to being a non-factor. That said, only 200 fish were released above the dam. The state does open it up for harvest, so, again, native fish are not deemed to be an issue. So, what harm could there be in releasing all of the surplus upstream. They are not table fare, but what if they did start to spawn naturally. I have seen these fish before they enter the hatchery and have yet to see one that would be worth eating, so unless they are selling the eggs for a profit, they might as well let them go rather than having to dispose of them elsewhere.

Most revenue from E&C sales go to the volunteer programs to be put to use working on the resource by the local communities. The E&C contract to the buyer is in the round bulk but facilities operated by volunteers can go outside the contract to generate a better $ value but it goes back into the resource also.

There is the risk that if Chinook are passed upstream at Tumwater Falls that they would establish a "wild" run. The Squaxins were (at least a decade or two ago) afraid that if there was a wild run of Chinook in the Deschutes that NOAA would want them listed and this would constrain the fishery for the hatchery Chinook. A few Chinook used to be passed up to provide a sport fishery. I think all the coho, even though they are an exotic invasive in the Deschutes, are passed upstream. For some undetermined reason, that run has crashed along with most deep South Sound fish that have yearling or older smolts.

So, you cant tell me there was no way to determine the large Coho returns returning to Washington based on what was being caught by the Canadians along the outside of Vancouver Island and along the Straights of Juan De Fuca during their Commercial troll fisheries and Sport caught fish with coded wire tags in their heads. It was a shame we got shut down. American sport boats were fishing out of Neah Bay and Sekiu in Canadian waters and returning home with tons of fish and no one was there checking their catch either, because of the current science WDFW was using.

The Canadian fishery would have been sampled and read by them. Obviously, there are agreements in place not to do that kind, or any kind, of in season analysis as we need to have auto-pilot fisheries.

Agreed. IMO, sports angling should not have been shut down. We hope for a better outcome to regulations on the season but will purchase 2017 Canadian licences again and fill our freezer with Washington clipped salmon if need be...
[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTENgSaeIY[/video]

I saw a few poached salmon off the beach this year... only saw one for sure in a boat but a few questionables... if we get shut down again this coming year, there will be some serious poaching going on...

The possibility of listing anything in the deschutes, I think was settled a while back. Somebody threatened to hold up the new fish ladder or some other hatchery upgrade, and the state responded that if it was an issue, they would just remove the ladder and shut down the hatchery. This would effectively stop any wild fish that were returning from getting up stream. If they need the ladder, it can effectively be proven that the run is artificial. They may not even have to shut down the hatchery, just refuse to pass anything through. If they make it good, if not, oh well. If that really is the reason for not putting fish through, then somebody needs to get a brain.

Those fish above Sunset Falls didn't swim there and they (Chinook, steelhead, Bull trout) are all ESA listed.

The fear was that NOAA would consider them listable. There was big pissing match when WDFW tried to see IF those Chinook could successfully spawn in the wild. As I recall, and the study (as almost all are) was cut short, it was not demonstratable that the unmarked adults that did come back were from the wild. The number fit easily under the category "drops"; unmarked hatchery fish.

Regarding the Deschutes, I think NMFS sometimes holds out hope for the improbably, if not the impossible. Last I heard, no returning unmarked Chinook could be said to be an NOR from Deschutes natural spawners. I'm not sure why. WDFW has passed thousands of Chinook upstream over the decades, so if Green River hatchery Chinook, via George Adams, were capable of establishing a natural run in the Deschutes River, they should have done so, but didn't. Maybe it's because there was always a greater infusion of HORs than NORs in every brood year, but I don't think so.

KInda' like the Nisqually, where endemic natural stock Chinook were extirpated by the 1960s, those Green River fish just won't establish natural populations every place they are stocked. Even in the Skok, where a NMFS bio first told me that many of the NF spawners were NORs, it later turned out, they are almost entirely HOR strays.

Getting back to the proposed Deschutes hatchery, the idea is well over 20 years old. It was originally planned to produce Chinook and steelhead. It was a marginal idea then. Based on what we know now, I think it's a complete waste of money. But the money from the Legislature has finally begun to trickle in. If WDFW tells the Legislature that what used to seem like a good idea is now a bad idea, the money goes away.

The number one rule of government bureaucracy is "grow the empire." You never pass up money. So WDFW will accept the money and build a hatchery that will not significantly increase Chinook salmon harvest for any WA fishery. And certainly zero steelhead. How is this a good use of $25 million taxpayer dollars?

The reality appears to be that the Deschutes is a decent resident and sea-run cutthroat fishery, that has existed since time immemorial. Salmon and steelhead just aren't on the menu, and people, especially people in WDFW, look to be having a hard time accepting that.

Sg

The resident cutties existed from time immemorial. The sea-runs from after the ladder was built. With all the hoo-ha about restoring the Deschutes estuary I'd like to see them do it right. Restore the estuary, remove the ladder, and fill in the Black Lake ditch so that Black Lake stays in the Chahalis.

Here's a question for Salmo and the other bios. I remember discussing the possibility that, before hatcheries and development, that PS Chinook were primarily Summers and not Falls. Late summer natural flows in most PS streams get pretty low. And probably warm. Maybe a bad situation for a lower mainstem spawner.

As the Green River fish got spread around, and dams on mainstems at least gave cooler water (and now we regulate the flows for more fall water) we created the PS Fall. They have adapted, survived, and spread.\

A similar thing happened in the Sacramento when stream temps downstream of Shasta and Keswick lowered, making that reach more suitable for salmon spawning.

Carcassman,

I included sea-run cutts with the Deschutes because of Percival Creek, a small tributary downstream of Tumwater Falls. Residents that found themselves downstream of the falls likely became anadromous, resulting in escapements to Percival well above what originated there naturally. Or they also likely strayed to other south sound tributaries.

I wasn't there, so I don't know. I think that historical populations of PS Chinook included springs, summers, and falls, varying according to each river system's hydrograph. Rivers with low and warm summer flows probably didn't have significant runs of summer Chinook, and instead had later returns of true fall Chinook, running a month and a half later than most contemporary GR and descendant summer-falls. I don't understand the reason for PS spring Chinook, except in the SF Nooksack because none of the other places they for sure or likely occurred don't have seasonal migration barriers. Oops - I take that back - the barrier falls that used to separate the upper and lower Cascade River in the Skagit basin, until it was blasted by WDF in the mid-1950s.

The Samish, Lake Washington, and the Green River look like basins that have always had low and warm flows when hatchery GR Chinook return - that return timing being the product of selective hatchery breeding where the first returns were always taken as brood and spawned. Contemporary GR temperatures in Aug. and Sept. and probably not that much warmer than historically, considering watershed elevation, hydrograph, shade, and gradient. Cooler and more water in Aug. and Sept. occurs only in the Skagit upstream of the Cascade, the Baker, Sultan, and Nisqually.

The PS fall Chinook is characterized by the GR hatchery critter, whose timing is totally out of sync with hydrographs due to selective breeding of the earliest returns to the GR hatchery and most of the hatcheries they were shipped off to. So I think the situation is different than that of the Sacramento River.

Sg

Salmo

I agree that we probably had the whole gamut of Chinook and we have really changed things. I was also of the opinion, unfortunately records are incomplete, that the Green River Falls are actually, primarily, Kalama River Falls. They were brought to Soos and succeeded. Some interbreeding with the actual natives. Never looked too deeply into it but I do remember seeing that Soos imported a bunch of Kalama Fish.

I don't have any information about Kalama River falls being the GR donor stock. A lot of fish have been moved around the region. Generally speaking, hatchery successes have been best with local or nearby stocks.

This is a bit out of order, but I just read thru the whole thread and wanted to inject my completely unwarranted 2 cents...

IIRC, WDFW went into NOF proposing a mark-selective fishery for coho in the salt, correct? Which ended up being one of the big sticking points. it was the tribes that demanded no coho fishing.

Remember this?
http://nwtreatytribes.org/treaty-tribes-propose-restricted-fisheries-face-historically-low-coho-year

So if that's true, WDFW actually DID go to bat for the saltwater coho angler.

On the question of in-season management. Let's say there were tools already in place for sampling, the LOAF coming out of NOF did not allow for any saltwater coho fishing (other than in limited areas). So those tools would have been useless. Right?

I dunno if you can really blame WDFW for this mess. Sure, there was some bureaucratic lethargy involved in getting the rivers opened. But once it again it was our co-managers that really put the kabosh on our opportunity.

Furthermore, as sportfishers, do we WANT in-season management, or NOT WANT it? The sportfishing industry hates it because it creates uncertainty in the seasons which directly affects business. Sportfishers have been calling for in-season management to be done away with in the blackmouth fishery for years. Me being one of the biggest whiners in that regard.

I guess, like human beings, we want what suits us at the time. Even if it's the exact opposite of what we wanted just a few months ago.

They opened up MA 13 to coho fishing last month, so it can in fact be done regardless of the NOF agreement.
It wasn't open for coho fishing prior to that.

Having the entire season closed down effects business just a bit......
SF

CM-
The information that I have stumbled across over the years indicate that say a 100 years ago the early time Chinook (spring/summers) dominated the runs. That said on most Puget Sound streams the not sure the divisions between spring/summer/fall Chinook stocks are as clear cut as one would like; at least in terms of river enter timing.

While it is probable that hatchery programs have influenced the return timing across the region I don't think that was the only selective factor in play. A century ago the early timed Chinook were not only more abundant they tended to be larger as well. Given the early availability and high table quality Just like on the Columbia the early commercial fisheries likely target those high value fish and rapidly fished the populations. Just one example records from the early 1900s indicate that early season (May) gill net seasons (non-treaty) took palace on the North Fork Skagit with records of catches in excess of 15,000 just for that month. An indicator of the potential size of those early Skagit fish was the gear of choice was gill nets with a 9 1/2 inch mess. The fishery selectivity continue later in the century moved further into the salt with higher exploitation on both older and early returning fish.

Another factor that have (and continuing to) that has dictated the life strategy that works best for various PS Chinook is habitat changes. Traditionally early Chinook tended to spawn earlier and further upstream in Puget Sound basins. Dam construction has always higher affects on upper basin populations that those spawning further downstream. I have come to believe a major factor determining spawn timing (and indirectly run timing) is stream temperature profiles. While in larger systems traditional spring Chinook were those that had either long migration journeys or had season migration barriers that selected for that early migration. On PS rivers it is rare for Chinook to penetrate PS basins more than a 100 miles or so and SG indicated those Chinook barriers were rare. However that Chinook that did penetrate the upper basins for spawning were typically in time race to have their eggs development to race a high survival stage before stream temperatures drop to lethal levels for the developing eggs. Chinook eggs have to develop at least to the "eye stage" before stream temperatures drop below 4 degree C. At least in the basins of North PS (the ones I'm most familiar with) than means spawning needed to be completed prior to say early September and substantially earlier than those Chinook spawning further down basin.

With climate change that spawn timing of the early stocks appears to be changed. The spring Chinook of the upper Sauk (a wild stock with relatively low hatchery influence) 35 years ago typically spawned from late July to early/mid September. Today the spawn timing has moved later; from mid-August through October. That timing is more typical to once was considered the "norm" for summer populations.

I do remember reading that one or twice fall Kalama Chinook were transferred to more northern basins in the 1950s or laters.

Curt

Yeah, I would really love to know the decisionmaking behind that.

Which further begs the question...why, after most if not all of the regularly-scheduled river fisheries were opened in October, was not all of PS saltwater opened?

My guess would be that WDFW went to the tribes asking for the latter and the tribes said, "No way! But we'll throw you a bone...you can have MA13." Just a guess.



No argument there! Business is also affected when blackmouth closes 1/3 of the way thru *because* we have in-season management. That's my point.

Thanks Curt. Your whole narrative fits what we were talking about.

WDF tried in season management of the recreational salmon fishery in the late 70s, in response to Boldt. It was a complete failure for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons were:

Change on weekly basis (when updates were done) would mean that all anglers would need to be notified and there would be no "hard copy" available. How do you ensure notification for all? Commercials are easy as there were relatively few of them.

The updates would have to calculate allocations each time. A crash for a week or two in Green River Chinook could close the Straits and Ocean.

Sampling would need to extensive (all marine areas, all fw areas) and have a very short turn-around. Again, sampling the nets is a lot easier as there are fewer and you know the buyers.

If you want a marine mixed stock fishery of any modest or larger size you will need to accept fishing on forecasts.