Nisqually Chum

Just a heads up for those of you who care. Yesterday I received a notice that the Nisqually tribe is opening up a 2 day a week season starting on the 25th. As of yet we have no opening. I have a email out to the area biologist, but in the past we have been truly ripped off in regards to the splits with the Nisqually tribe. According to the biologist over 90% of the non-treaty take is in river and with a 2 fish limit there is no way we have come close to meeting the 50% take in the past or would be expected to do so in the future. Even if you do not participate in the fishery, there is a principal that the state should be held to. And, to those of you who have never fished for these chum, it should be noted that they are unlike any you have likely caught. The quality is extremely high and the meat is actually good. With the lack of fishing available in the south sound, this opportunity should be available. It is likely we will see an opening, but it should not take more than a day to do. The tribe should be on notice that if they open up we will be doing the same immediately.

Thanks for the "heads-up". Hope they do open a chum season soon; I'd like to try for some. In the meantime, I'll avoid the "salmon" at the Red Wind buffet.

Unless things have changed, PS chum management was to shift the NI share to Fall Chum as the netters are legally prohibited from (in most instances) fishing after 11/30 (Initiative 77). So, the numbers were shifted. Now, with the advent of sport interest in them, some of the NI share is reserved for the sport fishery. But the majority of the harvestable Nisqually chum does go to the tribal in-river fishery but the court-mandated sharing is met.

Depending on the harvestable number there may be no NI share left.

The response I got back from the area biologist is that the state and tribe disagreed on the predictions. The Tribe is going ahead with a fishery, while the state is waiting to see if the numbers materialize. It really is a joke, as the rec side took 368 chum in 2014 and around 250 in 2015, the last 2 years it was open and in which numbers are available. If there was a problem with the run, the rec side could be stopped mid way with probably less than 200 caught, and likely much less. The Tribe however, will likely take many time more than that in the first day. If there State truly believes the fishery can not take the additional take from the rec side, then they should have fought the tribe.
There was no mention of any switching or trading of allocations, though I suppose that could still be a factor.

". . . then they should have fought the tribe. "

Except there isn't anything to fight over with the Tribe. Nearly all, if not all, the treaty tribes are self-regulating. If the state thinks they can prove to a federal judge that there is a conservation issue, then the state can close all non-treaty fishing first to meet conservation needs. Treaty tribes are shut down last. That is the case law.

Salmo,
There is no direct fishery on these fish. According to the biologist 90% of any non-treaty take is conducted in river. With an escapement goal of 27000 and an in-river reported take on years where that is expected to be done of 250-400 fish, then it would be expected that all other fisheries combined have an net take of 30 to 40 fish. This is less than .01% on a good year, which could be argued to be statistically unimportant. So essentially, we are shut down. What really needs to be looked at, is the expected impact that the state could be expected to have. If the fishery is open, and numbers are above escapement, then the non-treaty fishery would take less than .01% of the run
. If numbers are lower, then we would be expected to take much less, before we were shut out with an emergency closure. Statistically speaking, unless each and every fish is expected to be needed, there is no reason for a sports closure. If, though, each and every fish is needed, well then something more drastic is needed.

Krijack, that bio needs to look into history about Nisqually Winter Chum. While it is true that there is no directed NI net fishery at those chum, the "share"-by court orders-is shifted to the Fall chum.

South Sound chum, by court orders, are managed in the aggregate. That means that there is no split on each stream's fish. Plus, South Sound is made up of Summer, Fall, and Winter. The split on all of those, combined, is 50:50.

Winter run chum are like B run steelhead, just added to the harvest opportunity lost.

Rather than inquiring of the area biologist you might consider the Regional Director Larry Phillips.

Larry P used to be the deeply involved in Nisqually management. Very, very knowledgeable.

Any update on how the netting’s going?