What I don't get is why people talk about years with 12,000 to 14,000 trapped as great fishing years, and the last few years with 16,000 to 25,000 trapped as not-so-good. Are we culling the biters? Just too many fisherman? Just nostalgia for the "good ol days?"

I've only fished it the last three years, and it was always hit or miss for me (although this last year was our best year yet, despite the falling numbers).

I don't honestly know what the difference is but the first 2 years the fish were hot to bite. The first season with only about 10k fish in the lake it was double and triple hookups and we ran standard Lake WA bare hooks gear. Early and easy limits were the norm. The next year was equally stupendous but each subsequent year the fish became increasingly finicky despite what seemed to be good catchable numbers, even in excess of those first pilot years.

Edit, thinking about it I think there was actually closer to around 4,000 fish in the lake the first trip I made down there in the first season. It was very very productive fishing.

I agree that initially the Baker sockeye were pretty good biters for sockeye.

A couple things have changed since those first couple years. First the fleet as whole as become much better at catching those sockeye that would bite. As a result the biting fish are removed more quickly but on the plus side the are being spread over a higher portion of the fleet.

The second factor might be more critical. The brood stock is always collected at the Baker trap. The first couple years that meant that all the brood stock was collected before the population was exposed to a hook and line fishery - no selection against that portion of the population that for what ever reason were willing to bite. Now there is an in-river recreational fishery targeting those sockeye before they get to the trap or before brood stock is collected. While the over all in-river recreational catch is pretty small it is unknown whether that is affecting future generations of sockeyes wellness to bite. Do know when that in-river fishery was being first being considered that potential impact was discussed.

Curt

So you are saying that the biters get caught. Then the non biters are the only ones that reproduce so a few generations down the road all you have is non biters?

Only time I have had luck in the river is when the water is up a little. Been really low the last few years.

Curt

I remember those discussions at the time, I think you even brought that up at one of early Baker Lake meetings at Mill Creek when they were discussing opening the river to sportsman.

The second year it was open I used my underwater camera mounted on my downrigger to find fish the day before it opened.

We used several different hookless offerings behind a dodger, we were amazed at how aggressive these fish were, some would follow the hoochie for 10 minutes repeatedly attacking it.

In Lake Washington the sockeye would follow it, then, maybe gently mouth it once, and swim away. And most fish just looked at it.

Just curious,

Has anyone heard any meeting schedules between the Three Skagit Basin tribes, where the pubic (you and I) can see and hear what's being talked about?

Remember, this was one of the emphasized points in Mr. Urabecks request.

"We again are asking that the Commission direct the Department to give Baker sockeye harvest equity a high priority for the 2020 season, engaging the three Skagit Basin tribes on behalf of sport fishing license holders in a transparent manner that allows the public to track the discussions.."

Bay wolf,

WDFW will do whatever the Skagit tribes tell them to do. Because they can. And because WDFW doesn't do anything to change the co-management imbalance. Maybe they like having the tribes tell them how to manage fisheries. That way, they don't have to figure stuff out on their own. OK, that last sentence is just plain cynicism and sarcasm on my part. WDFW has more than enough technical expertise, but the policy wonks either lack expertise or the will to do something about it.

It should be obvious that there are bigger things at play. WDFW is (likely) under direction to accommodate the Tribes. Regardless of the technical issues, they have agreed to "something". I do believe that the plan that WDFW (thanks Phil) has agreed to for PS is that marine fisheries in the ocean are first priority, the Straits second, and the rest can just whither and die.

They have also accepted that ESA listings are entirely the fault of the NI side and that the NI side has taken its share of harvest as development.