White River

http://komonews.com/news/local/largest-f...the-white-river

"Over a million fish..."

Hmmmm....

Could have been possible with the big south sound pink runs that occurred starting in about 2007.
Not so much lately.
SF

Yes, it was the pinks which drove those alarming numbers! Now that we are improving White River escapements when will be able to fish those true springers???

Those springers will go to the marine sports first. And tribes. In-river will be last in line.

The tribes have already been taking some. As long as we continue to have a Chinook season in MA 11 that allows harvest of unmarked Chinook and that season happens to overlap their arrival we will have access. Several qualifiers there. We shall see how that plays out.

The problem with PS Springs is that they were/are taken in the black mouth fisheries. PS Springs have been depressed/overhatvested since at least the 70s and a big reason was that fishery. They weren't enough of them, in total, to justify closing the fishery as they made up a teeny, tiny fraction of the catch. It was just most of the run.

It was an oddity, (seemed odd to me) that the tags put in Elwha, Dungeness, White, and Skagit "Springs/early returns) showed up staying around more than Falls. But, they did.

The old White River fishway is older than me, so it's been in need of replacement for years. Unfortunately it took thousands of dead pink salmon and a few dead ESA-listed Chinook salmon to provide the "political" motivation to prioritize a new upstream passage fishway. I don't know if a run of one million pinks will ever return to the White River again, but if they do, at least the fish passage facility will be good enough and efficient enough to handle them. Having worked on the project for a long time, it's nice to see project construction about to begin. It will be even more satisfying to see it completed.

As for White River spring Chinook, I don't know if recovery to harvestable numbers of naturally self-sustaining springers is possible. So far it's proving difficult to get even one NOR per natural spawner, let alone more than one, which is necessary before there can be harvestable fish. I think that the south Sound springers, kinda' like Stillaguamish Chinook, may require very long term (100 years or more) hatchery supplementation to keep them around. If that is the case, then a management protocol should be developed around the productivity that is realistic and not the productivity that is just hoped for. Hope does't produce salmon.

Salmo, it is good to see that there is some stuff older than you; some is even older than me, too.

Fish passage should be designed to pass whatever shows up. I know the pinks came as a surprise as from at least the 70s on the whole Puyallup had about 20-30K as MSY production.

I would like to see all dams required to pass ecosystem levels of adults upstream. All that mitigation, at least up to now, seems to require is mitigation of lost catch. The loss of ecosystem services above the dam(s) is just written off. On the other hand, if you think the Cowlitz Hatchery is big now, try replacing all the ecosystem needs.....

CN -
Not sure that is factually correct to say that Puget Sound blackmouth are the "problem" for Puget Sound spring Chinook.

Information from the 2017 co-manager Puget Sound management plan submitted to NOAA this winter yields the following information for the four stocks you mentioned. The following is based on information from 2009 to 2014.


For the White river springs 29% of the impacts occur in "northern fisheries" (Alaska and BC); 29% in PT SUS fisheries (ocean troll and recreational fisheries) and 42% in terminal fisheries.


For Dungeness springs 75% of the impacts occur in "northern fisheries; 19% in PT SUS fisheries, and 6% in terminal fisheries.


For the Elwha 78% in northern fisheries; 22% in PT SUS fisheries; and zero in terminal fisheries.


For the Skagit springs produced by yearling smolts 36% of the impacts are in northern fisheries; 14% in SUS sport fisheries: and 50% in SUS commercial fisheries. For Skagit springs produced by fingerling smolt only 7% of the impacts occur in SUS recreational fisheries.


To the extend that harvest is a problem for PS springers it is clear that from the available data that recreational fisheries (of which blackmouth fishing is only part of the source of mortality) is not the dominate source of mortality for any of the stocks you mentioned.


For at least the White, Dungeness, and Elwha it is hard to ignore the impacts from habitat loss in the current status of those stocks. The improvement of the fish passage issues on the White is an example of addressing habitat problems that make a difference.

Curt

Back when I involved in managing the PS Springs, and other species, it was recognized that while the springs were over fished that the only fishery we (WDF) had meaningful control over was the sport. Their overall presence was too small to suggest restrictions. Too much loss in catch for gain in stocks that were, even if goals were met, were very minor players. At the time, if memory serves, Skagit was escaping a grand on a good year and the rest were lucky (as are many duffers) to break 100.

If, as seemed to be occurring in the 70s/80s, the springs make an outsize contribution to black mouth fisheries then as they "recover" the issue will come up again. Remember that, at that time, it was a year-around fishery.

CM -

Something for folks to keep in mind is unlike the situation in the 1970s and 80s virtually all the Puget Sound salmon fisheries likely catch spring Chinook are now mark selective for Chinook- fish with an adipose fin must be released. This management response to Chinook concerns in those areas reduces recreational impacts to wild Chinook by more than 80%!


The value from using that mark selective tool in management can not be over stated; produces significant more recreational man-days and hatchery fish harvested for a given allowed impacts on stocks of concerns.

Curt

Major bummer they stopped clipping those white river springers. There was a couple run classes that got clipped. And there just might have been a year or two where there was good fishing over those clipped springers for the couple folks who figured it out. Just might have been. But no more, since the tribes twisted DFW's arm and got them to halt the marking of those springers in the last year or two. Sure is nice paying to raise those fish so that we can't harvest them now.

fb

Curt

....and what data is being used to calculate the Dungeness impacts? Supplemental releases from the Dungeness are not clipped and haven't been clipped for years. The Canadians don't collect snouts unless the fish is clipped. Who is scanning the fish for CWTs to get the impact numbers or are old/historical marking information being used to calculate the impacts?

Bushbear-

The numbers I used were in the 2017 co-manager and reflects the values used in the up dated FRAM. After you question I went back and did a little more reading to find out what information went into the recent FRAM update. Without specific code-wire tag information for the Dungeness a surrogate was. Apparently the analysis found that of the various Salish Sea Chinook stocks the Stillaguamish was the best fit. Have no clue how accurate that representation might be though if you are interested the State should be able to provide with that analysis. I could probably come up with the author(s) if you need that info.

Curt

It was MA 11 Winter Blackmouth 1984-85 spring season when we first had to start releasing Blackmouth to protect the WR strain. Dug up some photo albums to verify. I think they were being raised at the Minter crk Hatchery then to preserve the gene pool because the White/Stuck had little to offer for any recovery success. It's been a long time coming. Nice to see finally some progress. Hope to one day cast the PUY for them before I'm gone.

Is their any public information regarding the Tribal take numbers of lower Puyallup netted White R. Spring Chinook?

I don’t think they are catching many Springers off the couple piers that allow unmarked retention.

There is no reason that can't change.

To WDFW's mind, and probably most anglers who participate in NOF, the marine sport fisheries are holy. River fisheries are best left to knuckle-draggers, Quilbillies, and whatever you call the Skok Party. But, seriously, the mindset has been and still is that a salmon sport fishery is conducted in saltwater because the overall economic value is higher. Adding a few more White Rivers to the marine areas gives a whole lot more days.

When i was looking at the benefit that pink salmon spawners give to coho, and this back in the 90s, each SINGLE adult coho added to the run gave the ocean fishery 100 additional coho to catch. That is why the added WR fish will go to the marine fishery and not sporties in the river.

In river sporties, no benefit but you can bet your last dollar tribal fishermen will be netting the very maximum they can.

Is it a guarantee that these fish will be clipped? I am fairly sure that so far none of the white river fish are. If they are left unclipped it seems to be doubly against our interest as they will be hatchery fish that could be counted as wild in any catch and count against impacts that we are allowed. The more out there, the more will be encountered and counted against the total wild impact allowed.

How long does it take people to understand that the catch is divided by Indians and non-Indians fishing in WA. In most cases, the non-Indians take their fish in marine waters, as juveniles (black mouth). Regardless, most of the NI rec harvest is marine. The Tribes are limited to their Usual and Accustomed areas which is generally on a river but may include the bay and some approach areas. So, for salmon, Indians will take most of their fish in the river. That is where they get their share. We can argue to appropriateness of the total numbers taken but rivers is where they fish.

Sounds like we just need more fish instead of fighting over the last of whats left over...

If you were ever given the opportunity to fish on them. What tactics would you employ?

You can bet when the tribes are directly involved in funding and operations they won't want to clip fish. It is in their best interest not to.They have never liked our clipping programs because it gives the rec a solid argument for more time on the water to catch more fish.

I know it's a pipe dream, BUT.... I would use traditional Kalama drift boat tactics. Back troll divers n bait. No motors allowed, period! Bankies could throw bobbers n bait where access is available. The White/Stuck has very little of that. Especially in it's lower reaches.