Rumor or Fact

I have got several "have you heard" phone calls today about the possibility of the ever popular odd year Humpy Hollow not going to be open this year for pinks--- Not substantiated.

I couldn't make it to NOF Millcreek last week so I don't know if that is where this started or not. Anybody go to the meeting that wants to share information?

I did not attend NOF but have received some second hand excerpts of which only one dealt with Humpy Hollow (which actually covers part of MA 8-2 and MA 9). The gist of that comment had to due with projected low expectations for pinks and the possibility that NT commercials would not be allowed to net there in 2017.

Beyond that, there were specific concerns about coho in the Stilly that might impact localized fisheries in MA 8-1 and 8-2.

Now, if any of those have blown up I would suspect something other than just pink closures at only "Humpy Hollow."

All I know. Not exactly rumors but also not exactly hard facts either.

Thank you Larry B,

I was able to pick up the forecasts at the Olympia meeting, but just looking for some glimmer of hope that Humpy Hollow might be open this year since the grandkids are already talking and asking about it.

Very likely closed due to low abundance in North Sound streams and due to the impacts we would see in that fishery on stilly and Skagit coho, also low forecasts.

Thank you, so that would mean if any salt water fishery for pinks close by to the Everett boat launch, would possibly occur in Area 9 south and possibly the Tulalip bubble?

I'm just trying to justify why I would want to buy a salt water license for just a few weeks of summer Chinook fishery like last year. I've turned into a fair weather fisherman and don't pursue blackmouth.

I guess time will tell whether I will still shell out for 5 salt water licenses at the minimum, like usual on previous odd years.

If there are pink concerns that would/should exclude the Tulalip Bubble unless the hatchery there produces marked pinks. Any pinks taken otherwise would be wild.

My guess is that saltwater pink fishing might be close to a non-starter because of Chinook and coho concerns. Unless WDFW has data showing clean fisheries. I think pink fishing will occur, if at all, in areas where there are both lots of pinks and few wild Chinook or coho.

This may be the year when the "odd-year" bump in license sales doesn't occur. I also think that the Tribes will use a combination of pink/Chinook/coho conservation concerns to keep much of PS on a very small schedule.

You would think that the Tulalip fishery would be a likely place to catch Coho and pinks this year to go with the earlier Chinook fishery, but I guess the tale will be told this year if it was oversight or if it was a one-sided negotiation where the Tulalips came out of NOF with a direct Coho fishery without a corresponding sport allocation.

The Tulalip fishery would be to target hatchery-origin fish from the hatchery in the Bay. If there are enough of them available, and the "share" (including by catch) has not been used elsewhere then you can push for a fishery. But if the ocean/strait/blackmouth fisheries chewed through impacts then it would be a no-go.

And, of course, Tulalip would oppose it.

Has anyone heard anything on how the first round of the Tribal NOF went?

And does WDFW continue to provide the Tulalips with eggs from the Wallace hatchery?

Just a reminder of that ongoing agreement as well as the modification a couple of years ago under which the numbers were to be increased AND the State was to increase the number of Chinook releases from the Wallace hatchery - all subject to availability of sufficient brood stock to the hatchery.

The NI catch needs to include the pre-terminals. Salmon sharing is not and never has been area by area.

Much of the bubble area is on-rez. Even though, when the area was formed, Tulalip agreed to allow NI fisheries in 8A, they and WDFW seem to have forgotten the written agreement.

It will come down to, besides simple pissing-politics, do the sporties have available fish to harvest and available impacts to allow that harvest?

The good news is there has been corresponding sport Coho fishery and Chinook fishery with the Tulalips over many years in that area, so nothing really new going on except for last years exception and several other slight changes in the rules.

The bad news would be is last year the new norm.

After corresponding with both sides last year, action over words would suggest it could have been an oversight issue.

This years results will be the deciding factor.

Email sent to the department about the disappointment of humpy hollow possibly being closed this year and reiterating what they already know about more salt water opportunity is needed to be scrapped up this year and in the future in an attempt to keep license sales from plummeting.

Lucky Louie-

While there appears to be some harvestable Snohomish pinks (forecast 171,000 with an escapement goal of 120,000). How do you propose to structure mixed stock pink fisheries without harvesting Stillaguamish and Skagit pinks?

The Stillaguamish forecast was 40,205 with and escapement goal of 155,000 while the Skagit forecast was 85,600 with an escapement goal of 330,000. Pinks from both those systems swim through MA 9 and MA 8-2.

curt

Those numbers certainly do not bode well.

If seasons end up based upon those projections I hope the projections have a high statistical reliability..........and that there are "what if" mechanisms for timely in season management decisions to prevent another debacle as seen last year with coho.

Agree.
What's the forecast again for pinks, 1.5 million or so?
That is still a good number of fish.

We've fished coho on even number years with a lot less fish then that forecast.
It seems pinks weren't much of a concern in years past when the runs weren't huge, but now it looks like they've become another chip to bargain with......
SF

It's all a huge joke. "Mixed stock" fisheries where we catch and release fish STILL ALIVE are taking a back seat to catch and kill net fisheries where "impacts" are in the form of fish dead on the boat floor.

If our "mixed stock" fisheries didn't have such low incidental mortality to wild fish the net fisheries wouldn't even be able to occur as their "impact" levels are vastly too high.


We are able to effectively fish selectively AND keep our ESA impacts at around 30%, but WE are the ones who should be staying home?

Get a fvcking clue WDFW it's time to go to court.

And how does that apply to the Cowboy nets off of Eagle Point? Or will they be shut down too?

I have seen the numbers this year just like I looked at the numbers last year.

I never take the forecasts as gospel, but as an inflection point. My suggestions along with many others I am told, are along the lines of being proactively prepared if the fish come marching in above forecast like last year, and the places some would like to see open. Some tribes were obviously prepared last year in case of an influx that could produce fishery openings. State missing in action with agreements.

Humpy Hollow would obviously be on top of the list considering the easy access and participation level in past odd years.

Regarding license sales, without a sufficient influx of salmon coming back to open salt water access I know of 3 salt water licenses that I will not be purchasing this year to the disappointment of the older grandkids. Unfortunately, that is just the way it goes.

I better start researching the Lake Washington Cutthroat fishery....

The tribes were prepared to fish NO MATTER WHAT the fish did last year, which is exactly what they did. If the "fish came marching in" as it were in 2016, then why are so many of the 2016 redd count/escapement numbers so low or even at critical? They're going to fish no matter what shows up....

Summer comes, nets go out, fish are sold, repeat.

There certainly was no proactive approach last year, at least in regards to saltwater.
Opening up only MA 13 for coho well past prime time isn't what anyboby would classify as quality opportunity.

I still don't get the wild coho retention on the Snohomish system last year as well.
SF

The way most updates work is that you need to do them either where you clearly know the stock (terminal area/bay-river) or invest in genetics or scale reading to separate mixed stocks. With pink there used to be Fraser Panel genetics work that would at least give a heads-up as to what US (read Puget Sound) pinks were doing on the approach routes. It would money and commitment to rapid turn around to get mixed-stock updates for pinks.

Pinks are probably not worth the effort in WDFW's mind. Heck, since they don't many (if any) updates anymore maybe noe of it is worth the effort.

SF
Snohomish system usually has a higher ratio of wild to hatchery Coho. Some ask why there is even hatchery coho released there. This year for example the forecast is 107,000 wild to 9,500 hatchery.

According to LOAF there was zero, zip, nada, proactive agreements for the state in the salt water areas I fish which is the reason for the push this year.

Are the pinks which stage in "Humpy Hollow" truly mixed Snohomish/Stilly/Skagit fish? Or do the Stilly/Skagit fish stage closer to their home rivers? If the latter could there be a recreational fishery along the eastern shore between Edmonds and Mukilteo? Trying to think somewhat outside the current MA configurations; just not sure if LE/WDFW would think it worth their effort to manage.

I don't know but it is not just staging but pass-through. It could/should be answered by tagging studies or possibly genetic studies. WDF did a lot way back that could be consulted if there is nothing more recent.

Besides, with Skagit and Stilly so low why take any when you can get the Snoho fish in the Snoho? Why put additional unnecessary pressure on depressed stocks when better alternatives (stock-wise) exist?

To use the economic argument would probably say that taking WA Chinook and coho in BC and AK is economically a better idea because more money is spent per fish. Gotta maximize the economic return.

Pass-throughs? That is the other side of my questions. Do the Stilly and Skagit bound fish co-mingle with Snohomish fish in "Humpy Hollow" or do they come around Possession and head due north along Whidbey's shoreline to stage in front of their rivers of origin thereby naturally separating themselves from Shohomish fish?

As to why not simply target Snohomish fish in the rivers? Well, I am not quite as cynical about value of fisheries as a motivator but will say that my salt water boat got out twice last summer - both times for shrimp. Are humpies my fish of choice? Certainly not. But with the way things are going one tries to find meaningful opportunities/justifications to get out on the salt.

Oh, and the personal longevity clock is ticking louder and louder as the years fly by.

I agree with you.
They'll claim it is lack of manpower and some folks will defend them.
Look at the current MA 9 chinook guidelines currently posted on their website.
March 19th was the last update. It is now the 27th, so I always wonder how accurate those things are, both for catches and encounters.
It seems it takes a lot of time to get this type of info out, but very little time to close things down.
Being proactive to open fisheries up should more fish show up then forecast just doesn't seem to be WDFW's mode of operation.
SF

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3244474/2016-2017-Fishing-Agreement.pdf

The tribes were prepared to fish alright, did you see how many ISU’s from the straits throughout Puget Sound they had for Coho? The state must have agreed with the findings--- sport fishing opened.

UM, anyone ever fish kayak pt? Also, which system's fish flow through Deception Pass and head inland. For many years, lines of people beach fishing pinks on their way to Skagit and Stilly. There are two ways into 8-1!!

yep, two ways in... in addition to beach caught pinks at deception pass, there are also some nice coho's to be found if you know where to look




Imagine the irony of shutting down area 9 not because of fake low returns of coho and chinook but because of fake low returns of Pinks...

Your question, Larry, is where data is damn necessary.

Conventional wisdom and catch accounting is/was that 9 was composed of Stilly/Snoh, SSound, and Hood Canal. For pinks, Skagit was added to the mix. Once fish got into 8A it was supposed to be all Stilly/Snoh but there is a voice in the back of my head that says Skagit fish were there too and went up the east side of Widbey; all based on tagging.

The big "but", though, is that tagging showed a lot more mixing. For example, Hood Canal fish were found in commercial 10E, the East Kitsap shorelines and inlets rather than pure local fish like run-reconstruction says.

Pinks, by nature, have to stray a lot because that fixed 2-year life cycle would leave lots of streams empty.......

I understand the idea that one likes to out in the salt in their boat and they aren't getting any younger. That is a legitimate concern. Does it trump short-term conservation? I don't know but that is a discussion worth having.

Back in my WDF days we had fixed escapement goals that were, until co-mamnagement, inviolate. That was why, for example, Lake WA sockeye fisheries occurred only when more than 350K returned. The IPSFC, on the other hand, managed Fraser sockeye on more flexible scale. For most stocks, there would be a fishery. At least the most abundant stock that cycle, even if it was below the target optimum goal. They believed that having some annual fishing kept the industry alive. Also meant that rebuilding would take longer. Trade-offs either way.

Carcassman, that was very well put, and easy to understand. Ever thought about becoming a therapist for displaced fisherman? I would imagine some would get more from you than they would from buying a fishin lic.!!!

Interesting history. WDF was funded by GF and had a significantly stronger "conservation ethic" than WDG (license funded). Often, the WDG Director told us we needed to find ways to sell more licenses. It was a product produced for those paying the freight.

Unfortunately, there isn't one right answer. If we don't use the resource, we don't need as many of them. Take LW sockeye. The average urbanite will get positively orgasmic over 100K sockeye at the locks. Wow! In Downtown Seattle. But, to have meaningful fisheries we need lots more. Same with game animals, game birds, etc. Consumptive use requires large numbers AND habitat in big chunks. Society just may not want to do that any more. Rather breed and raise more kids.

I’d be surprised if a US pink fishery on “Canadian” fish did not occur.

They certainly would have a perfect alibi to fill their hulls with mixed PS pinks by using behind closed door rationale who else this year can keep these fish from being wasted, while being able to point at a prior event as an excuse on why the fish didn’t return.

Dear fish managers,

Pink fishing at Humpy Hollow Area 8-2 in Puget Sound is one of the most anticipated and well attended salmon sport fishery in Puget Sound on odd years.

It does appear that because of certain low abundance mixed with others that not only 8-2 is on the chopping block this year but looking at the past 2015 LOAF there are numerous sport and commercial fisheries throughout the straits and San Juan’s that should be in the same boat.

If any of these fisheries open for some reason this year, then humpy hollow wants some of that home cooking. If it takes more tools than available right now --then they are needed. This is a money maker not only for the local economy, but the department in license sales.

Let’s not write off 8-2 Humpy Hollow if possible, by adding this fishery to the stack of other closures in this area of Puget Sound.

Lucky-
Looking at both the pink and coho forecasts for the Stillaguamish and Skagit it would seem that there is little chance for a season in 8-2. There might be an outside chance for a pink season in MA 9 but I would not bet on it.

The Snohomish pink and coho forecasts are such that in-river seasons for both pinks and coho would seem possible. Don't know if that would fit for you to get the grandkids out. The lower river fishery on the in coming tide has the potential for some good fishing.

Curt

Thanks Curt, I’ve heard some staff is cautiously upbeat on that possibility,

Humpy hollow reminds me of being a microcosm of the Straits and San Juan’s, where the same fish as Humpy hollow would be caught while targeting Fraser River fish.

I’m as thrilled as sport and commercials in the Straits and San Juan’s being notified that all Canadian stocks will only be caught in the Fraser this year.

Whether that happens, remains to be seen.

If there is a US fishery on Fraser pinks it would be scheduled to target them. Because of timing differences (WA is a tad earlier) and differences in stock composition in areas I suspect that the fishery would be concentrated in 7 and 7A. Even with that, it might be more constrained for sockeye conservation concerns. Early rumors I heard was that the sockeye are not in great shape either.

There seems to a trend here in local stock "health".

I would love it if they at least opened it up in river down to the navy dock. maybe along the south shore of the bay as well. for a ways.... sort of a Tulalip bubble around the southern river exit. leave the north slough alone. but give us the area inside the jetty at least.

assuming they open the river at all.

We discussed several smaller openings on Thursday with WDFW staff, including South of the muck ferry line, a small Rea around mouth on Snohomish, etc. We'll know by Wednesday if our CO managers will agree that those types of fisheries can be included.

Awesome, just talking about possible options is an improvement over a possible write off several weeks ago.

I second cncfish idea of that inside water between the jetty/main shore to the naval station and beyond. Everett waterfront is slowly becoming a shore/dock fishery for pinks.

In 2013, I saw a family fishing there with the dad helping his son cast. Several weeks later as I was jogging by that son was casting with the best of them. After asking how is the fishing, that was one excited kid telling me every detail on how he caught that salmon/pink---his first---priceless.

You'd think so given this years coho forecast.

Especially after last years less then accurate doom and gloom coho forecast killed our salt fishing. WDFW then opened up the Snohomish late for retention of wild coho?????
SF