Talking about AK

The commercial Chinook salmon fishery in Alaska could almost be considered a niche fishery at best considering of the billion pounds of salmon harvested in Alaska in 2015 the Chinook fishery represented less than 1% of AK total harvest of salmon.

Of the 1.1 billion pounds of salmon harvested in the US--- Alaska’s harvest represents almost 98%, WA nearly 2% with OR, CA, and Great Lakes filling in with very little.

Maybe it would be a good time to stop harvesting Chinook in AK to let depleted stocks in AK rebuild, while letting our home bred Chinook return home.

Numbers from NOAA.

Thanks for providing the specifics. I missed his post.

I believe That "moderate living" term was in reference to the economics that the fishery supplies, not some external source of income. In other words, if it takes 1/2 of the fish to provide a moderate living, from fishing, then it takes 1/2 of the fish.

That's just how I read it. Of course, I'm not a lawyer or judge, so...

For this discussion solutions will be directed at the Chinook imbalance. Of the top of my head I can think of 3 possible solutions to the catch inequities between the non-treaty and treaty catches . I believe all three would stay well within the confines of ESA limitations and Boldt.

The first two should greatly increase the non-treaty harvest numbers and are relatively straight forward. The third is more complex and would still likely the non-treaty share on the short side though potentially improve their share.

1) The most simple would be for the recreational fishery to significantly lower the minimum size limit for Chinook (say to 12 or 16 inches -sound familiar to the old timers) and regard mandatory retention of all "legal" size adipose clipped fish. Depending on the year and MA that would likely increase the numbers of landed Chinook during the summer season by 10 to 50%. During the winters seasons the number of kept fish would at least double. While much of the recreational catch would be sub-adult fish the numbers of fish landed by the recreational fishers could actually exceed that by the tribes (even though they may have more adult fish available to their fisheries).

2) While more complex than the first this option would also have a high probability of matching the non--treaty and treaty Chinook catches. It would require WDFW commission action to change two keep NOF policies for Puget Sound.. It cost the recreational fisheries significant numbers of landed fish by the high utilization of mixed stock fisheries and rod and reels over nets for the bulk of Chinook lands. Under this approach the bulk of fishing would be collapsed to terminal areas and the rivers. MA 5, MA 6 (at least until Elwha and Dungeness populations rebound), MA 9 would be closed to Chinook fishing. MA 7, MA 8-1, MA8-2 Chinook fisheries would be collapsed to terminal bays (for example MA 7 fishing would be collapsed to Bellingham and Samish bays) to target hatchery Chinook or abundant wild stocks.

MAs 10, 11, 12 and 13 and most of their associated freshwater would remain open for Chinook for the recreational anglers with the addition of Chinook directed commercial fisheries in terminal areas (Elliot Bay, Commence Bay, lower Hood Canal and Nisqually reach While this option reduced recreational fishing areas and total rod-days it would balance the catch inequities between the treaty and non-treaty fishers with adult fish.

3) This option is much more complex and even at its best will still result in a lower sharing of the either the total ESA impacts or adult equivalent it has the potential to raise the non-treaty share while still maintaining WDFW commission polices of prioritizing the recreational fishery and provide a diversity of angler opportunities across the region. The goal would balance the desire catches and over man-days of effort. For more than a decade PS seasons have been built piece meal and with a new FRAM model and a decade of new information it may be possible to rebuild the recreational fisheries to more optimize the fisheries and the use of the most ESA limiting stocks impacts. Within the confines of the Boldt decision, ESA impacts, and commission policies a reasonable approach would be an Ad Hoc committee representing a diverse cross section of the recreational community and supporting industries to establish high priority fisheries and other priorities upon which to re-set our fishing seasons. The high priority fisheries would establish the baseline fisheries with additional fisheries added within the ESA constrains and other priorities. With hard work and some care it may be possible to increase the total number of Chinook landed while maintaining the economic value of lots of recreational man-days on the water.

I don't expect anyone would agree totally with any of the three options above but they do illustrate the kinds of choices that have to be made and the balancing needed between the desire to maximize the catch and being able to fish were and how we want. Relying on rod and reel fisheries and fishing in mixed stock areas to produce a significant portion of the non-treaty Chinook catch guarantees that the non-treaty will always fall below the tribal terminal area gill net fisheries.

Flame away!

Curt

Curt, that smashes the head of the nail. In order to get the whole NI share there will need to be changes like you outline. If the sporties decide that "we don't want to catch little fish" or "no NI nets" or etc. then understand that means that we give up "share".

I remember Phil A, when answering why WDFW would not go after the NI steelhead share on the Hoh with a longer C&R season was that "We got the season we wanted". So, not only will we, the fishermen, need to be clear, open, and transparent out what is acceptable but WDFW will need to do the same so that well informed decisions can be made.

Curt, thanks.

Your experienced, logical, and realistic assessments are like a cry in the wilderness on this forum.

Since the "Taking a Dump in the Woods" thread currently has more posts than this thread, I wouldn't expect a lot of sincere consideration of the options you laid out...

Just know that many of us do appreciate it.

Reality check questions:

Option 1: Lowering the minimum retention size to increase harvest implies to me that this would primarily play out in the winter blackmouth fisheries. That might be a good thing but will those fishers want to use up a CRC on 12 inch fish?

Also, given the rate of predation (seals and other critters) on resident blackmouth is there a model equating sub-adult (varying sizes as mentioned) harvested Chinook to a returning adult in order to ensure an apples to apples comparison?

Option 2:

Given the current model of co-management (choking as I type) would the tribes agree to NI fisheries being pushed/concentrated into "their" terminal fishing areas?

Would they claim such a move would adversely impact their ability to exercise their Treaty fishing rights? But would be willing to agree for a substantial cash payment for prospective damages? All one needs to do is look at the new boat launch at Point No Point - you know, the one without a ramp - to see how this might play out.

1. The FRAM does convert all mortality from landed catch and release mortality of all sizes to an "adult equivalent" so a dead 12 incher is reduced to the equivalent "adult" fish. At that, even these dead little guys add up; example sub legals in the winter black mouth fishery

2. Since the state is negotiating "govt to govt" with the individual tribes, each tribe is very likely to have discomfort with moving any allowable harvest from the site unseen pre terminal fisheries to their back door in the terminal area that the tribal members can easily see, and are especially problematic when the NIs are fishing and the tribe isn't.

It looks like this went full circle from an idea to what will the tribes think. As long as there is an uneven playing field, there will continue to be a problem as the link on the first post first page addresses. No agreement between state and tribes---tribe’s fish and sport anglers sit the whole season.

There are abundant recommendations/proposed solutions to the problems in our fishery management. Many people, much smarter than me use the latest technology, modeling and forecasting to produce sound management shares and still meet conservation goals.

Unfortunately, once the principles gather and lock the door to start the negotiations they allow ego, emotion, bias and greed to rule the day.

It seems like our Tribal Co-managers have the "right" and the "law" on their side to dictate to us, not only how our fisheries will be managed, who and when non-tribal citizens will be able fish, if they will be able to fish.

By simply declaring any conversation as "Gov't to Gov't" they have very effectively removed any public challenge from their course of action and prevented any objection to any "deals" until after it's all done.

Lucky has a very valid point: We, the non-tribal sportsmen can have no impact on our fisheries any longer. We have been totally cut off at the knees because our fisheries are now no longer a citizen owned resource, but rather a resource managed "Gov't to Gov't" and without any real public input.

We can provide all the suggestions, recommendations and input in the world to WDFW, but unless it benefits the Tribes, they won't agree and they don't have to agree. They risk nothing by walking out...

But we can refuse to participate. We can take out money elsewhere. Perhaps we can "encourage" AK and BC to allow the non-residents to take more salmon in mixed stock fisheries. Get "ours" up there. The argument could be used in the various management forums that WA is not allowing us to access our fish. They (BC and AK) are just letting us catch the fish we paid for.

And, up there, you don't have to share the fish.......WA anglers could take all the WA harvestable.

Negotiations up north need to be improved to protect PS salmon.

I haven’t looked for current BC numbers lately but years ago in a thread on here, the 2010 PS Chinook management plan showed AK/BC interception of PS Chinook at a ridiculous amount, which looked like BC was the worst offender.

The river system that got the worst of AK/BC interception was the Hoko at a rate of 95+ % interception. The river that shocked me the most at that time was the Nooksack River with close to 90% AK/BC interception, with BC contributing most of the impacts if I remember right.

About that same time there was a "rumor" that B.C. Fisheries was performing genetic testing so as to be able to target lower 48 Chinook. But that was just a rumor......

The only hammer BC has, to get the US off of its stocks, is tp hammer WA/OR stocks. AK is in the catbird seat with nobody getting their fish. So, we get hit in hopes that out silver-tongued folks can convince AK to get off of BC fish.

The USA gave millions of fish annually to BC for damning the Columbia.

And then gave 50% to tribes for being meanies.

And since PS went from 2 million to 7.5 million people.

Surprise surprise and here we are.

We are just the first domino to fall .

Perhaps we need to convene the God Squad on the stocks Doc showed. Either ESA and CITIES mean something or they don't. We have to protect habitat, forego catch, and receive nothing in return.

Either recovery of Chinook is important enough to get everyone on board for protection or its not.

Yeah, I remember the link I PM’d you with that information in it.

Can you believe how fast those years went by?

If you mean fish harvested in Canada no, those fsh do not count in either the tribal or non-tribal share.