Salmo,

Thanks for your answer. I am interested to know though, about the specificity of the stocks. Are S fork stilly chinook viewed as a separate stock than N fork stilly chinook, and if so, why? And who is making that distinction?

I've heard alot about the 100 remaining S fork stilly chinook. Which makes me think they ARE viewed as separate. And that apparently it's hard to broodstock a population that small, which hampers hatchery-aided recovery(?)

So why couldn't the stilly be viewed as a single system and the fish in it as genetically similar *enough*. Then we'd have roughly 1000 fish to work with rather than 100.

I'm just asking as a guy who likes to fish for salmon, I obviously have no scientific background. I do want to know more though.

I have been reading all the various threads about NOF, open meetings, the commission, WDFW, and salmon management. I have been waiting for someone to ask your question, “in a nutshell, why can't we get NOAA to be more cooperative considering the current US political climate?”. To find the answer to that question one has to at look what drives salmon management in Washington and on the entire North American coast. All salmon management falls under the Pacific Salmon Treaty and is implemented in the US by Pacific Management Council (lower coastal states) and the North Pacific Management Council (Alaska) on advice from the various technical committees of the Pacific Salmon Commission. There are many steps in the process before decisions are made at our local level. NOAA oversees the process and is subject to political pressure at every stage of the process.

What everyone concerned about salmon management should be looking at is the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Key provisions of the treaty including the chinook section expires at the end of this year. Two years ago negotiations started towards a renewal of the treaty. All negotiations were to be completed at the end of 2017 so that the two countries governments would have a full year to ratify the new treaty. I think agreement has been reached on every thing except the chinook section. I have seen nothing recently about the progress of those negotiations, and yes they are essentially top secret. The four US commissioners are the negotiators for the chinook section, one each from Washington, Alaska, the tribes, and a federal government representative. There are obvious political differences in this group, one can only hope the sustainability of the fish is foremost in their discussions.

It is worth noting that the present treaty states that no management actions can infringe on the treaty rights of the tribes. Equally important is to realize that no matter what the outcome of the negotiations NOAA does not have the final say on approval. It is a treaty and has to be ratified by the US government and that the State Department plays a significant role in that process. Politics is important, trade, immigration, and our relationship with Canada is in flux so that the Pacific salmon treaty can become a part of the game. The State Department, the Commerce Department, and the Congress will all play a big role in determining what happens. I think some of the energy expended on the NOF process, the commission, and the chinook management plan should be directed towards those responsible for getting the treaty renewed.

71.1% of Stillaguamish Chinook are caught north of the border.
How much do you want to ease restrictions? 75%? Go any further and we won’t get any fish back to Washington.