GodLovesUgly-

The critical factors in the test fisheries and the catches is not the numbers of fish they catch or even their catch success (fish/hour) and how that compares to the general angler or the fleet but the ratio of the wild adults and shakers to the legal fish they catch.

Maybe this will help; lets assume that during a month of fishing the test boat catches 20 legal Chinook, 5 wild legal size fish, 10 sub-legal size wild (unclipped) fish and 40 sub-legal size clipped fish. Further for this example we will assume the catch estimate of legal size fish for the fleet for that month was 200 fish.

Using that information we can see that the landed catch was 10 times what the test boat caught. Using the ratio of legal size wild fish to legal Chinook (25%) the creel estimate for encounters of legal size wild fish would be 25% of the estimated number of legal sized fish or 50. Similarly the encounter estimate for the month for the fleet would be 100 wild sub-legal size wild fish and 400 sub-legal clipped fish. That would yield a took encounter estimate for the fleet for that month of fishing of 750 (200 legal fish plus 50 released wild fish plus 100 wild sub-legal fish plus 400 sub-legal clipped fish).

I hope you can see that the how many fish relative to the fleet success the test boat is not critical; only that the ratio of the various groups of fish are representative to the what the fleet does. By attempting to use the same methods (gear) as the fleet and fishing the same area that would be reasonable assumption. One example how the test boat decides comes from the dock side interviews. If the interviews show that 10% of the time checked that anglers were mooching then the test boat would spend 10% of their fishing time mooching.

The fact that the anglers in the test boats are good fishers helps the process by assuring that the sample size is larger than it would otherwise would be if say I was doing the fishing. That larger number of fish sample should improve the quality of the estimates.

Again I encourage those really interested in the details of how these numbers are generated that you looked at the links I provided earlier.

Curt

Yep, you can never account for 'that guy,' or the guy in a sailboat trolling for winter blackmouth with a 4oz sinker weight going 6 knots.

Curt,

As I stated above I was merely kidding. I understand the process by which these numbers are calculated.

Why is it the test fish boats do not CWT wand all fish encountered? I asked this question of Slim Simpson at the Shoreline office and it was not well received. Seems to me if you are already handling all the Chinook and taking fin clips, scales and FKL measurements there is no harm in running the wand for 2 seconds.... that would in the very least eliminate all double index group fish from the unmarked/marked assessment.

"We characterize the overall impacts of the fishery in terms of grand-total estimates of encounters and mortalities and by using estimates specific to each of the four size/mark-status groups (i.e., legal-marked [LM], sublegal-marked [SM], legal-unmarked [LU], and sublegal-unmarked [SU]....

....To understand the potential effects of mark-selective Chinook fisheries on the CWT program, we estimate the total number of unmarked-tagged Chinook mortalities that may have occurred during the course of the mark-selective Chinook season in each Marine Catch Area. To do this, we acquire information for all marked CWT double index tag (DIT) groups present in landed catch from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission‘s Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) and then apply the methods described by the Pacific Salmon Commission‘s Selective Fisheries Evaluation Committee–Analysis Work Group (SFEC-AWG 2002) to estimate the number of unmarked DIT fish encountered6."

They classify the fish by M and UM for Adult and Sub, and then use an estimate to account for potential DIT group fish encountered/morts.... Why not just wand them and have a KNOWN proportion, if nothing else to confirm the RMIS estimate used in the estimates.

My point in asking is I have often wondered how many Puget Sound UMs are truly "Wild" and not DIT or unclipped hatchery.

The science is probably pretty close to correct. In fact, I would argue that it probably paints a rosier picture of angler impacts than what is reality, particularly when fishing in saltwater, where salmon lose scales very easily when handled or even netted. Add to that the fact that the test fishers are probably better than average fish handlers, and they probably do us a favor with the numbers they arrive at in their studies.

In general, I think it's poor form for us to try and bend the science (even when we question it) so it allows us more time on the water. I hate that sport fishers always bear the brunt of the conservation burden, but if we truly care about the future of fishing, we'll continue to do it.

I think we (Tribes and sports) should join forces to end the outrageous intercept of OUR fish by Alaska and BC. That's the best way to instantly improve our fisheries. More fish returning to WA waters, plus appropriate management of those fish, should equal a more sustainable, more productive set of fisheries for all parties, for years to come.

Myassisdragon-

I agree that doing something about that interception to the north seems like the logical way to go. With the US/Canada Salmon treaty up for renewal (for 2019) this may be the time to take that task on.

I also think a potential lever to crack that nut would be under the Endangered Species Act. It has been well established that high priority need for the ESA listed Puget Sound resident orcas is increasing their forage base. With Chinook being their # 1 prey item reducing the interception of southern US Chinook stocks (Puget Sound and Columbia river stocks) may be the most immediate way to get more fish for the orcas. With many of the Chinook stocks as well as the orcas being ESA listed the obvious pressure point is NOAA Fisheries and their upcoming review of the new US/Canada treaty and whether those northern fisheries involve an unacceptable ESA take for listed Orca and/or Chinook stocks.

The tribal and non-treaty fishers as well as those groups concern with the orcas would seem to be obvious allies in a lobbying effort on NOAA fisheries.

Curt

I think, though, that NOAA says the local Killer Whales have enough to eat. Least that is what I was told when I raised the issue at an AFS meeting.

The real problems are drones and non-Indian boats getting too close.

Thanks for this information. I do know those test fisher guys are good to be friends with. They get to spend a lot of time playing with the latest and greatest new tackle. Talk about R & D!

CM-

From a recent NOAA news release regarding Orca protection zone

"Research has identified three primary threats to the south residents: Limited availability of their prey, chinook salmon, accumulation of toxic pollutants in their bodies, and the impacts of vessel traffic and noise."

A recent status review for the southern resident orcas reached the same conclusions.

Curt

Maybe they changed their tune but last March it was "food is not a problem in WA". It may be a problem elsewhere, but we don't need to act in WA.

If they now say food is an issue, specifically Chinook, why are they not acting?

Smalma gave us three factors contributing to orca decline. That means we can completely ignore one or more of those factors and still be taking reasonable conservation measures. Because "food" means kings in this context (which is a food for which humans will pay dearly), it seems the natural factor to ignore for an agency under the Dept. Of Commerce umbrella.

About how many salmon from one spawning pair live from the time they're laid to the time they return as adults?
Each female salmon can have between 1,500 and 10,000 eggs. Only a few (0 to 10) of these eggs will survive to be adult salmon. A population maintaining its size only produces one adult from each parent on average (two adults from each spawning pair), but it will be higher in some years and lower in others.
https://wfrc.usgs.gov/outreach/salmon.html

Lets say 2000 smolt make it to the salt, the survival rate is piss poor.
I would say the impact of sportsmen is minimal compared to a gill net.
If we are talking about ESA listed Salmon and 10 Salmon make it back to the river 5 get caught in a gill net it is 1000 percent more impactful than an encounter with a Smolt.
Encounters in the salt with smolt are given too much value.

Yes this is junk science, not the reality of smolt mortality but the impact of smolt mortality resulting from encounters by the only user group that fishes selectively.

It is quite possible to "give" all the Chinook to the whales and only lose those actually eaten. And, the harvested fish would be larger.

That sounds like a reasonable and plausible mortality rate for shaker encounters - hook placement alone can take that many out with handling the rest well and not dragging them around. I was afraid they were using a much higher mortality. Calculating for AEQ is good to know as well -thanks!

And for historic perspective, AEQ has been applied to coho and Chinook since the 70s.