There's been alot of talk about crab this year, and questionable forecasts. Are your pots catching keepers. sublegals, what are you noticing id different from the past season? Of course, not needed to disclose your honey hole, just "north 9" or general locations would be great to know.

We did okay in 8-2 on Saturday; Sunday was pretty slow. Virtually all of the legals were under 7 inches. I guess the positive news is that there was a good mix of females and undersized males as throw-backs. That said, the total number of crab in the pots was less than past years and I suspect that the success rate will drop off fairly quickly this month.

Lots of related comments on "Crab pots in area 9 &10 & 11" topic.

Last year at this time in 8-1 we were hi grading our 15 crab limit for three of us out of 30-40 legal sized per run through of 4 pots. This year we are just scratching up limits. IMO this decline is due to the unusually heavy commercial effort that started about the last week of July last season, which put our catch rate into the "scratch fishing mode", and continued until at least Feb 2017.

Not convinced of that Keta. We had a huge effort in A-10 last summer by recreationals, and there we still plenty of keepers left at the end of summer closure, and keepers were also thick, along with short males and females, during the short winter opener.

Something more widespread seems afoot that has caused a drop in populations over the winter. I heard the commercial opener in June was poor from the start in A-10 this year also.

I agree with Chip. The tribes were scheduled to take a fixed portion of their quota prior to Rec season, same as always. They take the remainder in the winter. Usually they get their crab quickly (like over the course of a couple days). This year, not so. As I understand it, they experienced relatively poor crabbing, extended their season by a few days, not sure if they actually caught their entire scheduled allotment. That was obviously a really bad sign for those of us who crab in MA-10 because if the Tribes are struggling, and going first, it's not going to be any better for us. That said, unless the Tribes sensed trouble and exceeded their scheduled take (i.e. trying to take 100% of their quota up front instead of scheduled approx. 50%), which I don't think happened, then they just had a normal season but experienced similar challenges to what we are now experiencing. There are some crab around in MA-10. We had some good dinners. Just much slower than usual.

Wouldn't it be great if we were all on the same page and communicating openly and honestly with each other?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread the tribes consistently "cork" the recs leaving us with fewer legals in the biomass. Okay, if the agreed upon poundage available for harvest is actually there then this is more of an inconvenience making us work harder for our crab. However, if the agreed upon poundage is NOT there the implications are much greater.

Since I work best with simple math......if the total agreed upon poundage available for harvest is 100 pounds the tribes get 50 and State gets 50. But if the actual poundage available is 75 and the tribes by virtue of being first on the water take their agreed upon 50 pounds that leaves only 25 pounds for the State. In that scenario the tribes taking anything over 37.5 pounds eats into the State's 50%. That is why it is so critical to have quality assessments going into negotiations with the tribes rather than simply relying on a 5 year running average which simply does not work when on a serious down trend.

I don't know what is going on in A 10. All I know is that in the many years of crabbing in A 8-1 I have never seen the massive and extended effort by the commercials, both treaty and non-treaty that started last summer season and lasted late into the spring of this year. There possibly could be some other issues effecting the crab numbers but I can't rationally blame the steep decline on some unknown when it's obvious that there was an increase in the commercial effort in area 8-1 in the very recent past.

Larry is correct in noting that pre-season quality assessments are critical. But the way the Rec/Tribe allocations are taken is not flawed/broken, if/when based on proper assessments. Recs should not pine to overlap with the Tribes starting sometime in May or June just for the sake of starting at the same time. Generally speaking, the Tribes have bigger boats, more traps, and financial incentive to actively crab all day long until they get their quota--really not great to try and compete with that out on the water, on the same day. Better to get the Tribes in and out (for 50% or less of their annual allocated share) over a two or three day period a month or two before the Rec season starts. If crab abundance is too low, the Tribes take a hit on the back half of their allocation, which is fair considering they went first. I suspect that, as a result of what's happening this year, the MA-10 assessment will be more conservative next year, and that the Tribe's initial take will be adjusted accordingly. If Tribes truly do try to cork the Rec share (and we've seen that in S. Puget Sound) then WDFW will have to let everyone start at the same time. That's a card that could be played, but not a great outcome.

I guess there could be a definition of terms issue here. My perception of being corked (time wise) is when we have a set season established in the current Commission policy and the other co-managers slide in ahead of us on a consistent basis with the aforementioned impacts.

What has happened in South Sound (MA 13) is simply an unwillingness of one tribe to agree to any harvest poundage and then pound it before and during the rec season. Draw your own conclusions as to how that may have contributed to the virtual elimination of the Dungy fishery there. The WDFW did open the rec season early in that MA for at least the prior two years apparently to give recs some access to harvestable crab. This year they opened MA 11 early.....presumably for the same reason since tribal pots have been going in around Mother's Day. So, basically, that seems to be a deterioration of "co-management" such that we are chasing the last crab.

I think it fair to also point out that in a prior post you mentioned how one or more tribes actually extended their early season (as in, before the rec season) because of low harvest rates. That merely exacerbated the scenario I described. That low harvest rate should have triggered an in-season adjustment to the total harvest poundage.

Now, whether it wise to have recs in direct competition with tribal crabbers is worthy of discussion as it would come with "issues." But maybe that is a potential action to use in negotiations with the tribes over crabbing management and other areas of conflict (hmmmm, would that possibly break loose the tribal objection to the Point No Point ramp??).

If the Tribes offered to change places, let the Recs take half of the Rec share in May-June (when the weather is hit or miss and the kids are in school), then the Tribe takes its entire share during the Summer, then the Recs get to try for the second half of their share during the winter (when the weather sucks and the kids are in school), I wouldn't trade. As long as the assessments are fairly accurate, and co-management is reasonably healthy, the current season system is the most rationale approach.

If co-management worked, both sides fish to rather set number. It really shouldn't matter who goes first as they are only taking half. What happens, though, is that the one who goes first fishes on escapement and the whole harvestable while the one sucking hind [Bleeeeep!] fishes on escapement and their half only. This means more sorting to get the share.

This assumes accurate forecasts. If the forecast is under then the one that follows not only fishes on the crumbs but bears the conservation burden. Unless, of course, if they fish to the share then escapement gets the shaft.

Given the amount of $ the P.S. crab endorsement generates it would seem a reasonable expenditure to use the reported harvest data to compare the average harvest (of successful crabbers) each day of the rec summer season as well as the actual number of those reporting for the years since the CRC implementation. I suspect there is a big drop off in participation as harvest success/crabber decreases.

Now, as to the qualifications of "as long as the assessments are fairly accurate, and co-management is reasonably healthy" the (multi) Million Dollar Question is ......are they?

I am of the opinion that we have been skating along on an increasing biomass in most areas for years so everyone was fairly happy - up until a year or two ago. Given that we are in an apparent downswing (causes undetermined) the warts of the process are beginning to show.

Edit: I should have offered up my further opinion that commercial crabbers like to minimize costs while maximizing production. I don't think they would prefer to operate on a diminished harvestable population any more than do we.

It seems the only logical way to ensure equity is to limit the commercial opener to a set period / number of days or quota, which every comes first. If historically they get a set percentage per day and that number is not present, it should lead to the assumption that the biomass is low. If the commercial numbers come in low, then an initial readjustment of the recs could easily be imposed. If the rec numbers come in strong, then the season length can be restricted to allow the commercials/tribes to pick up the rest of their share later in the season. Given the apparent effectiveness of the commercial fleet, the current situation almost ensures an over harvest on a over estimated abundance.

They could have in-season management, they could look at the relationship between time and effort, and so on.

Seems WDFW and the Tribes want, as much as possible, to run on autopilot. Set a season and forget it. It is cheaper that way as real-time monitoring and assessment takes staff and money that is obviously better spent elsewhere.

It's over harvest in the South Sound.
Does not matter how you split the Pie or when you serve the leftovers.

Is it? I would really like to subscribe to one simple cause like over harvest. But to do that requires that one disagree with the management benchmark that we can have a healthy, regenerating population year in and year out while harvesting every legal male (6 1/4 and bigger).

No, I think there are other factors at play.

I would agree with Jake. Too many crab are being harvested. It may be that paradigm of killing all the big males doesn't work, it may be that there are ecological changes that have altered productivity but at the end of the day more crabs are being killed than the population can sustain.

Constants aren't, variables won't and the environment is not consistenly productive at a fixed level. Harvesting at a fixed level is a recipe for disaster. Autopilot needs to replaced by hands-on pilots.

I'm surprised A10 is open for harvest of crab considering all the millions of gallons of raw sewage dumped in there last winter. I see virtually all the beaches are closed to clam digging.