Temporary opening of the Skykomish

Salmo_g said:
Quite the transition. Used to be we'd generally see "temporary closures."
Click to expand...
Yeah, dark times. This quote from the press release amazes me:

"Reason for action: As the end of the Chinook spawn timing approaches, enough Chinook encounters remain to allow for a limited salmon fishery targeting coho in this area."

I know the topic has been beaten to death but how can managers/WDFW be so certain in even estimating/projecting encounters to have it as a basis for closing or opening a fishery.
 
Next year the WDFW will be able to advertise they properly managed the opening of the river in 2023 and provided access. A feather in their cap!

Devils in the details but those will not be mentioned.
 
Kashf said:
How on earth does a largely catch and release cutthroat fishery hurt them
Click to expand...
Incidental hooking equals "harm" under the ESA. Deliberately targeting Chinook when the river is open to game fish equals "harm." Poaching Chinook whether the river is open or closed equals "harm." All harm is illegal under the ESA, except that some limited amount of harm is generally acceptable to NMFS provided it doesn't interfere with "recovery," which is the intended outcome of ESA-related restrictions, except on the Columbia, where the intended outcome is prevention of further reductions in populations (otherwise very severe restictions would have to be imposed upon the federally owned and operated dams).

Biologists understand and know that the Stilly closure does nothing to protect Stilly Chinook, but the tribe demands it, and WDFW obliges. I don't know for certain, but I expect that roughly the same is true on the Snohomish system. Smalma is better informed on that than I.
 
Salmo_g said:
Incidental hooking equals "harm" under the ESA. Deliberately targeting Chinook when the river is open to game fish equals "harm." Poaching Chinook whether the river is open or closed equals "harm." All harm is illegal under the ESA, except that some limited amount of harm is generally acceptable to NMFS provided it doesn't interfere with "recovery," which is the intended outcome of ESA-related restrictions, except on the Columbia, where the intended outcome is prevention of further reductions in populations (otherwise very severe restictions would have to be imposed upon the federally owned and operated dams).

Biologists understand and know that the Stilly closure does nothing to protect Stilly Chinook, but the tribe demands it, and WDFW obliges. I don't know for certain, but I expect that roughly the same is true on the Snohomish system. Smalma is better informed on that than I.
Click to expand...
A Stilly closure to protect Chinook at a time the vast majority have already returned to the hatchery or died? I am not questioning you, I am questioning the logic of whoever is demanding this closure
 
Kashf said:
A Stilly closure to protect Chinook at a time the vast majority have already returned to the hatchery or died? I am not questioning you, I am questioning the logic of whoever is demanding this closure
Click to expand...
Just read the smoke signals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top