So after only 3 days we were closed down, supposedly because we hit quota of 1300 or so fish. However, preseason forecasts showed the hatchery return as one of the highest in 20 years. How can that be, when our quota 3-4 years ago was something around 3500 and 4500 fish?
I emailed 3 salmon managers at wdfw 2 weeks ago, and again last week... no reply.

What reasoning have you heard?

There may have been more take "outside", in the straits and ocean.

This is from 2025 news article and I image this year is similiar.


Why did area 10 in Puget Sound get closed for Salmon this year??-gctid653960
06-01-2015, 11:17 AM

I just received my Tony's Tackle Box newsletter from Tony Floor at the Northwest Marine Trade Association, he has a good explanation as to why Area 10 was closed to Salmon fishing this year. Here is the relevant part explaining the closure.

June 2015

I've received considerable e-mail and phone call traffic since mid-April when the announcement was made by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) regarding the 2015-2016 salmon season setting process (North of Falcon). It makes some level of sense, briefly, to dive into the controversy of the outcome, even though it is history.

As most Washington saltwater anglers know, the controversy stemmed from the elimination of any summer chinook fishery (marked hatchery-produced) in Area 10, which is all marine waters between Kingston and the north tip of Vashon Island. The tragedy of this closure is that the closure was not necessary to protect all wild chinook stocks requiring conservation.

In the 11th hour of final negotiations with Puget Sound treaty Indian tribes, the Puget Sound sport fishing package was complete, which included minor hatchery-Chinook-salmon-only fishing opportunities for all marine waters east of the ocean. This included a one month season for the Seattle region, known as Area 10.

The WDFW team, consisting of technical and policy level biologists, had done a comprehensive job of sculpturing a summer package that met all conservation objectives, including protections for Lake Washington wild chinook salmon. Regardless, the state's assembling of the season for central Puget Sound was not satisfactory to the Muckleshoot tribe.

As a result of the Muckleshoot's disapproval of the state's central Puget Sound regulatory package, the tribe held all further negotiating as hostage and demanded a complete sport fishing closure for hatchery chinook salmon this summer in Area 10. This action, in essence, stopped any further advancement of a comprehensive agreement between the state and the tribes.

Identical tactics by the Muckleshoot tribe have been used in recent years and under the leadership of former WDFW Director Phil Anderson, who agreed to these last minute demands considering the philosophy that a bad deal is better than no deal at all. If the state and tribes, in this process, cannot reach agreement, the no-agreement-option is referred to as the "nuclear option." Legal observers suggest that the nuclear option would result in closure of all salmon fisheries effective May 1: sport, tribal and commercial. It has never been tested.

As new Director of WDFW Jim Unsworth considered these two options, triggered by the Muckleshoot tribe, he agreed to their demands. The tribe celebrated all the way home, victorious with their summer closure of sport fishing for hatchery-produced chinook salmon. Meanwhile, they will continue to kill hundreds of Lake Washington chinook salmon in their catch-and-kill gillnet fishery at the Ship Canal entrance into Lake Washington; some of which will be protected wild chinook salmon, pursuing coho and sockeye salmon.

From this corner, again, the closure was not necessary for Area 10, affecting Seattle area anglers and outdoor related businesses. The package of chinook fishing opportunities for Puget Sound, assembled by WDFW biologists, was the best anglers could hope for. But it wasn't enough as the Muckleshoot tribe continues to use their power play resulting in political management of Puget Sound sport fisheries. In my view, this is a sad outcome for sport salmon fishing in Puget Sound with no solution in sight.

If this kind of salmon management between the state and the tribes makes sense, negotiators should be passing out Sake bombs to help the common folk understand the outcome. Bottom line is that the North of Falcon salmon season setting process is gravely broken.
Tags: None

But, doesn't that restrict the tribal take to 1300 as well, given the 50/50 split of harvest able fish? Does anyone know what the count on thei tribal take this summer?

I don't think outside take figured into it a those seasons seemed long, and area 5 was bumped up to 2 kings.

Thanks for your input, though I can't really hammer Wdfw on hypotheticals (since wdfw isn't responding). I never saw any wdfw reason in print.

The sharing, such as it is, includes ALL WA fisheries. Outside counts and it is WDFW's goal to maximize fisheries outside.

Tribes. And there you go. Flexing season decision power more than ever. Paybacks are always a bitch! Had some Europeans in town and took them out for some coho in MA10. Caught a beauty chinook about 15# and had to release it. They asked why? Took some restraint from tribe bashing, but did say WDFW has no power in season setting any more and the tribes want recs off the water.

I think the Tribes want the recs out in the ocean. The way things are managed now, catches are supposed to be balanced even if it means that escapment is not reached.

So, the recs fish on the forecasts out in the ocean and take X. The tribes, fishing inside, get X based on fixed schedules. And no updates. In the dim past, the updates were used to recalculate harvestable and if the runs went down the inside (read: Tribes) got closed. So, Hoh v. Baldridge switched that and catches are balanced. And the inside recs get hosed.

Seriously, they closed it down just like they pulled the plug in MA 11.

it’s hard to think that there is a sizeable group of fisher folk here in this state, that have watched and noted this deliberate, planned, and expected redistribution of fisheries and fisheries support money to user groups that actually want all non commercial users other than the tribes off the resources. That also includes all non tribal recreational users as well. After all, who should be able to catch fish for fun, and the occasional meal ?

It’s what we get for sleeping at the switch, aided by the single source, non diversification of politics - leading us to this endgame.

BTW, this same politically driven management model is now focused like a laser beam on the big game and recreational hunting access arenas, and is heading for your favorite hunting opportunities.

Tic, tic, Boom...

A few are awake.

This redistribution started in the mid-80s.