Here we go!

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
March 12, 2019
Contact: Kyle Adicks, 360-902-2664

Public input sought on proposals for Washington’s ocean salmon fisheries

VANCOUVER, Wash. – Fish managers have developed options for Washington’s ocean salmon fisheries that reflect concerns over chinook stocks and optimism about improved returns of coho projected this year.

The three options for ocean salmon fisheries were approved Tuesday for public review by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), which establishes fishing seasons in ocean waters three to 200 miles off the Pacific coast.

The three alternatives are designed to protect the low numbers of chinook expected to return to the Columbia River and Washington’s ocean waters this year, said Kyle Adicks, salmon fisheries policy lead for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

"With these alternatives in hand, we will work with stakeholders to develop a final fishing package for Washington’s coastal and inside waters that meets our conservation objectives for wild salmon," Adicks said. “Anglers can expect improved opportunities to fish for coho salmon compared to recent years while fishing opportunities for chinook likely will be similar to last year.”

Similar to 2018, this year’s forecast for Columbia River fall chinook is down roughly 50 percent from the 10-year average. About 100,500 hatchery chinook are expected to return to the lower Columbia River. Those fish – known as “tules” – are the backbone of the recreational ocean fishery.

Meanwhile, fishery managers estimate 905,800 coho will return to the Columbia River this year, up 619,600 fish from the 2018 forecast. A significant portion of the Columbia River run of coho contributes to the ocean fishery.

State fishery managers are working with tribal co-managers and NOAA Fisheries to take into account the dietary needs of southern resident orcas while developing salmon fishing seasons. The declining availability of salmon – southern resident orcas’ main source of prey – and disruptions from boating traffic have been linked to a downturn in the region's orca population over the past 30 years.

“We will continue to assess the effects of fisheries on southern resident killer whales as we move towards setting our final fishing seasons in April,” Adicks said.

The options include the following quotas for recreational fisheries off the Washington coast:

Option 1: 32,500 chinook and 172,200 coho. Marine areas 3 (La Push) and 4 (Neah Bay) would open June 15 while marine areas 1 (Ilwaco) and 2 (Westport) would open June 22. All four areas would be open daily and La Push would have a late-season fishery under this option.

Option 2: 27,500 chinook and 159,600 coho. Marine areas 1, 3, and 4 would open daily beginning June 22 while Marine Area 2 would open daily beginning June 29. There would be no late-season fishery in Marine Area 3.

Option 3: 22,500 chinook and 94,400 coho. Marine areas 1, 3, and 4 would open daily beginning June 29 while Marine Area 2 would be open five days per week (Sunday through Thursday) beginning June 16. There would be no late-season fishery in Marine Area 3.

Fisheries may close early if quotas have been met. For more details about the options, visit PFMC's webpage at https://www.pcouncil.org/blog/, where information can be found about a March 25 public meeting in Westport on the three alternatives for ocean salmon fisheries.

Last year, the PFMC adopted recreational ocean fishing quotas of 27,500 chinook and 42,000 coho.

Chinook and coho quotas approved by the PFMC will be part of a comprehensive 2019 salmon-fishing package, which includes marine and freshwater fisheries throughout Puget Sound, the Columbia River and Washington's coastal areas. State and tribal co-managers are currently developing those other fisheries.

State and tribal co-managers will complete the final 2019 salmon fisheries package in conjunction with PFMC during its April meeting in Rohnert Park, Calif.

Several additional public meetings are scheduled in March and April to discuss regional fisheries issues. The public will also soon be able to comment on proposed salmon fisheries through WDFW's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/, where a list of scheduled public meetings can be found.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the primary state agency tasked with preserving, protecting and perpetuating fish and wildlife and ecosystems, while providing sustainable fishing and hunting opportunities.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see https://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.

“Meanwhile, fishery managers estimate 905,800 coho will return to the Columbia River this year, up 619,600 fish from the 2018 forecast. A significant portion of the Columbia River run of coho contributes to the ocean fishery.”

Why? Why can’t a significant portion of the Columbia River run of coho contribute to the Columbia River (and it’s trubitaries)? Why do the guys with the big boats ALWAYS get to wack a huge chunk of fish first?

Just asking?

Because they are where the fish are 1st? And more actively feeding? Bob R

I think its called "small boat people, bend over---big boat people, get cream of the crop----1st"

Westport Charters and larger private boats will be targeting those "he,he,he small 5 - 12# silvers".


I'll wait my turn.....like those bigger Coho, 2-3 months more feeding in the ocean, like that rod bent over double in 3 to 6 feet of water, very little weight......light rods, that can be fun!!!!


Oh....I'm guessing option 2......

If I am not mistaken the commission stated a few years ago that ocean fishing was needed to insure the financial benefit of coastal communities such as Westport, Neah Bay, etc. If ocean fishing is curtailed here will it be limited in Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, etc.? What will be the plus in having all quota that is gained eaten up by "foregone opportunity"? The tribes fish ocean,too. Bob R

To shape the conversation a bit around reality one needs to recognize a couple of things. Tribal share is 50% of those entering WA ST waters and tribal ocean troll is charged to their 50%. Foregone opportunity could almost be impossible to argue in the coastal marine fisheries.

Historically WDFW has always placed priority on ocean marine harvest and in many ways even designed the hatcheries around that concept. A example is Humptulips hatchery which the primary function was to rear substantial number of Coho smolt to expand ocean opportunity. That is why it is located where it is vs upstream, which the local folks advocated, that would have created vastly increased angler opportunity.

Another example is Willapa where the production is all about feeding the ocean marine pool , in particular BC intercept , as nobody with the slightest knowledge would design that hatchery production for terminal purposes. For WDFW terminal harvest is about tribal and non treaty share clean up. This is not a great mystery folks, it is what it is.

I understand your frustration. However, here is an explanation (albeit somewhat inadequate).

Coho are only available to recreational and commercial fisheries during the months of July and August, and a few weeks in September. Before July, most sub-adult coho are not big enough to catch (around 16 inches) and after about mid September, they’ve migrated upstream to spawn. Unlike Chinook (or chum salmon), there are not multiple age-classes of coho salmon available to anglers.

As you know, PNW hatcheries produce a huge numbers of coho smolts. And, as those of us who target coho in freshwater will attest, adult coho can be monumentally difficult to catch once they get into freshwater. For the first week or two in freshwater, they can be quite aggressive. But soon after, they develop complete lockjaw. The result can be huge numbers of adult coho entering the hatcheries because relatively few are caught in freshwater.

For example, the average PNW hatchery might need 1000 adult coho to restock the entire hatchery, but they can get 5000 adults coming up the fish ladder (despite the best efforts of anglers like me). That’s 4000 adult hatchery coho who have no place to go, except into a landfill.

This is a huge loss of harvest potential (and taxpayer money). The answer is to provide a saltwater fishery. Coho feed quite aggressively in saltwater, particularly in summer. They can grow a pound a week in July and August, provided the food is available (herring/anchovy). A commercial/recreational fishery in the ocean in the summer can be very productive since coho need to ‘pack on the pounds’ so they can get big enough to migrate and spawn by mid- to late September.

If fish managers were to confine coho fishing to freshwater only, the number of excess adults at the hatchery, and the loss of harvest potential, would be enormous. It might be even higher than my example above. They avoid this by providing a saltwater fishery for coho starting around July 1.

I realize this isn’t a satisfactory explanation, but it’s the best I can do.…….

To add on to what cohoangler said above, back in the 80s the Puyallups fished the bay and river 24/7 during the coho run. Add on the sport fishery in the river and all the previous fisheries and that is a lot of effort. WDF still ended up with way more coho at the hatchery than needed.

It has been talked about a lot here, but eliminating the marine mixed stock fisheries will move harvest to bays and rivers and generally increase net harvest as there is a limited window to harvest.

But, elimination of the hatchery production, and its associated 90+% harvest rates would mean that there would be more fish in the rivers but most would be needed to spawn, so a reduced harvest rate would fit in with wild management in the terminal areas.

I wonder how much more effective recreational anglers could be if we got rid of bag limits and other restrictions? I know some people struggle always, and I know guide friends of mine who limit their clients daily for weeks on end. I'm a decent angler but basically a weekend warrior with a job and family commitments. But, if fishing is good, I can limit the boat with decent frequency. Some days I could kill dozens. Others are much better at it than I am, and those that spend each day on the water really dial things in.

It all makes me wonder how effective we could be if we could take the gloves off and go to work killing hatchery fish (that's the goal afterall, right?)?

Good question but historically bag limits are not very effective at limiting overall catch, particularly with salmon and steelhead in freshwater.

Case in point - I fish for steelhead regularly but I haven’t caught a single fish in three years. So WDFW could set the steelhead bag limit at 100 fish/day, but it won’t mean anything if I can’t catch even one.

Under some circumstances, a daily bag limit will limit overall catch, but it’s not often the average angler has to quit because they’ve hit the daily limit. The regular exception would be those 10% of anglers who catch 90% of the fish. Perhaps you fall into this category, but 90% of anglers don’t (including me).

But your overall point is correct. When hatchery fish are forecast to be plentiful, and could overlap with wild fish, WDFW will set the bag limit quite high. Another example - Kalama River in fall 2014. WDFW forecast a huge return of hatchery coho to the Kalama in 2014. And the run showed up exactly as forecast. The bag limit was set at 6 fish per day. And I was catching six coho per day, without really trying. And I wasn’t alone either. Lots of anglers did the same.

To your point, that same year 4 friends and I fished and killed 30 in a couple hours. If you really want to remove those fish, why have a limit of six? Why any limit if removing hatchery fish is the goal? That’s not to say I’d want to keep 100 coho a day but I bet we could have.

At lest one reason for limits is to get anglers off the river and give others a go.

Back in the 70s, and probably longer, the WDG limit on steelhead and trout (at least) was X. When you caught X, you were done whether you released them or not. You were even required (but many of agents wouldn't cite you for it) to punch a kelt steelhead and count it as one of your two fish. The idea was to get you off the river and give someone else a chance.

The purpose of recreational angling, at least what is SAID, is to offer opportunity to catch a fish. It is not subsistence fishing. There probably does need to be a serious discussion about what a recreational fishery's purpose is. Also, another purpose is to generate economic activity. If one fishery generates $10 per fish caught and another $100 the state will in all likelihood push for the $100 a fish action.

I gave my input in favor of option #3.
The forecast of chinook is down from last year. So the chinook take needs to be limited.
Last year, the PFMC adopted recreational ocean fishing quotas of 27,500 chinook and 42,000 coho.

I also favored the seven days a week option to allow access to the forecast coho abundance.

I agree on the 7 day a week option......sure would help the working private boat owner more of a chance, IMO

For sure 7 Days a week so the working guy gets a shot.

I don't think the chinook quota has been taken the last couple years. The commercials gave up some coho take so guys could keep after the Chinook but more coho problems just reduced opportunity. It was shut down early because of coho incidents.

Don't worry they will shut it down just when it gets good. No different than the sound.

Pretty sure that's how quota's are supposed to work. . .as soon as you catch a bunch of fish they shut it down. If fishing is really good, more fish get caught and they shut it down sooner. Not that I like it, but nobody should be surprised by this pattern,

fb

The question to ask is did the Chinook escapement goals get met? If not, the fisheries weren't closed soon enough.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. In some places there were plenty of Chinook. In other places, not enough. And in some others, not nearly enough.

But if the fish managers cut back on harvest, the places that got enough adults may get waaaay too many, while the places that didn’t get enough might NOT get more.

Many of the Chinook salmon hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin produce those fish so they can be harvested (recreational/commercial/ tribal). If harvest is restricted beyond that needed for escapement, plus some buffering, it defeats the purpose of the program.

Again, another unsatisfactory response from Cohoangler……..

Wonder if the WFC lawsuit filed today will effect this year or just next year?