NOF 2026

Information about tonight’s meeting regarding the Straits and Hood Canal.
SF

wdfw.wa.gov

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca recreational fisheries discussion

WDFW fishery managers host a discussion of management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca recreational fisheries in 2026.This meeting is virtual only from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
 
The presentation materials for tonight’s meeting are on WDFW’s website. You can find them by clicking the link I posted in my previous post.
SF

IMG_6223.jpeg
 
Info on next weeks meeting in Lynnwood (3/31) if you wish to attend in person or participate online.
SF

wdfw.wa.gov

North of Falcon meeting #2

WDFW fishery managers will present information and analysis of preliminary fishery proposals. With public participation, staff will discuss preferred options for Puget Sound sport and commercial fisheries. This meeting has both in-person and virtual attendance options.Meeting location is the...
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
 
Another solid morning on the Sound. Fished with @Kfish out of my boat. I think I snuck into double digit territory based on the pics I took but it could have easily been more. We had lots of shots but the amount of bait in the water and some finicky SRC and rezzies led to some frustrating stretches where the fish just did not want our offerings. There were a handful of times where we threw the kitchen sink at them with no luck. Big, small, flashy dark, bright. Fry, shrimp, even fished an olive bugger, aka…the PS easy worm :) for a bit. Other times they hammered it as soon as it hit the water. I will say some of the rezzies are getting big enough and and fighting hard enough to start giving adult coho vibes. Some nice acrobatics today and runs at the boat that slacked us both up enough to think we lost the fish. July can’t come fast enough!

Most effective fly today.

IMG_2716.jpeg

Only 3 SRC landed today.

IMG_2756.jpeg

IMG_2755.jpeg

IMG_2754.jpeg

Some rezzies

IMG_2757.jpeg

IMG_2753.jpeg

IMG_2752.jpeg

IMG_2751.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder of tomorrow’s meeting in Lynnwood at 9:00.
SF

wdfw.wa.gov

North of Falcon meeting #2

WDFW fishery managers will present information and analysis of preliminary fishery proposals. With public participation, staff will discuss preferred options for Puget Sound sport and commercial fisheries. This meeting has both in-person and virtual attendance options.Meeting location is the...
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
 
All the materials from today’s meeting have been posted. If you click on the link in my previous post, you’ll find them there.
It was good to see some familiar faces today.

I’m still trying to get the voluntary trip report (VTR) form updated to reflect “beach” or “shore” fishing. Things move slowly but hopefully we can get that done.
It sounds like creel checkers will be handing out VTR info. Just curious, has anyone received any information in the past like this business card with a QR code on it from the creel checkers?

IMG_6283.jpeg

If you are curious what VTR’s are, here is a link.
wdfw.wa.gov

Voluntary Trip Report program

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is working to increase angler participation in our Voluntary Trip Report (VTR) program in all
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov

SF
 
This is an additional meeting that was added for Monday, April 6th from 6:00 to 7:00.
This meeting was added because the chinook modeling wasn’t available at the 3/31 meeting.
SF

wdfw.wa.gov

Puget Sound marine area recreational Chinook fishery modeling discussion

Discussion specific to Puget Sound Chinook salmon modeling results that weren't available during the NOF 2 meeting on March 31.Modeling toolsPuget Sound Chinook modeling toolPuget Sound coho modeling tool
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
 
SF -
Thanks for keeping us current on the NOF process!

I saw that Chinook modeling tool yesterday; after a few minutes of trying different scenarios, it was clear that it is reaching those goals in the model will be impossible without near elimination of most of the PS Chinook recreational fisheries. That goal and the current model impacts must include both non-treaty and treaty fisheries with some significant increases in the tribal inputs to the model.

Has WDFW give the advisors any additional guidance towards what the impact goals for those 3 key stocks would be for recreational fisheries?

My takeaway after my yesterday's effort with that Chinook recreational model tool was that the recreational could like meet their Stillaguamish recreational impact goals with changing the Tulalip bubble fishery to mark selective. However, with the Snohomish "problem" a solution will require some significant changes will have to occur in the ocean fisheries while the Nooksack "problem" solution will require in-river changes.

At least for fossil brain user the above is the best that can be done without that additional guidance for WDFW, just another chance of meaningful exchange between interested users and the managers.

Curt
 
Smalma said:
SF -
Thanks for keeping us current on the NOF process!

I saw that Chinook modeling tool yesterday; after a few minutes of trying different scenarios, it was clear that it is reaching those goals in the model will be impossible without near elimination of most of the PS Chinook recreational fisheries. That goal and the current model impacts must include both non-treaty and treaty fisheries with some significant increases in the tribal inputs to the model.

Has WDFW give the advisors any additional guidance towards what the impact goals for those 3 key stocks would be for recreational fisheries?

My takeaway after my yesterday's effort with that Chinook recreational model tool was that the recreational could like meet their Stillaguamish recreational impact goals with changing the Tulalip bubble fishery to mark selective. However, with the Snohomish "problem" a solution will require some significant changes will have to occur in the ocean fisheries while the Nooksack "problem" solution will require in-river changes.

At least for fossil brain user the above is the best that can be done without that additional guidance for WDFW, just another chance of meaningful exchange between interested users and the managers.

Curt
Click to expand...

Curt,
We’ve discussed it but that was prior to the modeling being available.
As you mentioned, the Stilly and Nooksack should be manageable but the elephant in the room is going to be the Snohomish.
It will be interesting to see what is discussed at Monday’s meeting.
SF
 
Here is where things stand as of this mornings meeting. I may be off a bit as this is what I remember off the top of my head. I’ll correct them if any are wrong.
There may be some slight changes but this looks like where we’ll be in these areas this summer. MA 10 took a big hit.
These three areas took hits to address namely Snohomish chinook but also Stilliguamish and Nooksack chinook.
MA 5 3506 quota down to 2506
MA 9 3900 quota down to 2,650
MA 10 3166 quota down to 1,300
Tulalip Bubble 745 quota down to 600 and marked selective / 1 fish limit.
All the other areas are similar to last year as I recall.
Once it’s posted on the WDFW website I’ll add it.
SF
 
Stonedfish said:
Here is where things stand as of this mornings meeting. I may be off a bit as this is what I remember off the top of my head. I’ll correct them if any are wrong.
There may be some slight changes but this looks like where we’ll be in these areas this summer. MA 10 took a big hit.
These three areas took hits to address namely Snohomish chinook but also Stilliguamish and Nooksack chinook.
MA 5 3506 quota down to 2506
MA 9 3900 quota down to 2,650
MA 10 3166 quota down to 1,300
Tulalip Bubble 745 quota down to 600 and marked selective / 1 fish limit.
All the other areas are similar to last year as I recall.
Once it’s posted on the WDFW website I’ll add it.
SF
Click to expand...
It looks like they updated the proposed fisheries section on the site today that reflect these numbers.

I see MA 9 & 10 are tentatively scheduled to open on different weekends (MA 9 on 7/16-7/18 and MA 10 7/23-7/25). Makes sense when it comes to run timing, but wouldn’t help the issue of fishing pressure and maximizing possible days out there for those who partake in this fishery.

Also see the Skykomish might be closed until at least November. Rough…
 
johnnyboy said:
It looks like they updated the proposed fisheries section on the site today that reflect these numbers.

I see MA 9 & 10 are tentatively scheduled to open on different weekends (MA 9 on 7/16-7/18 and MA 10 7/23-7/25). Makes sense when it comes to run timing, but wouldn’t help the issue of fishing pressure and maximizing possible days out there for those who partake in this fishery.

Also see the Skykomish might be closed until at least November. Rough…
Click to expand...

The thought was align 10 more with 11 and 7 with 9.
If I recall correctly, peak chinook numbers through the locks is mid August. 10 always got extra days due to the run timing, but that would be a miracle this year.
SF
 
Last edited:
Any insights into the scant possibility beach fishing is possible on the days closed for retention of kings? Like the old days, of just a couple years ago?
 
Tallguy said:
Any insights into the scant possibility beach fishing is possible on the days closed for retention of kings? Like the old days, of just a couple years ago?
Click to expand...

Not going to happen this year as it would have had a very small impacts on Snohomish chinook. With all the slicing they had to do to the chinook quotas, it wasn’t going to happen. They floated the idea of having the last two weekends in July open for coho fishing but that died as well.
I’ll keep pushing for the July beach fishing on non chinook days.
Having that opportunity back next year would be helpful since it will be a pink year and the south sound pinks show up earlier than the north sound fish. That would give us 17 days of July beach fishing in MA 9 versus likely only 3 if we can only fish on chinook days. That assumes a July 15th opening date for chinook.
SF
 
Next year's NOF may be even more challenging that this year.

With modern day record floods in December on both the Snohomish and Skagit expect the pinks will return at levels well below escapement needs in those basins. Pink fisheries may well be pushed to MA 10 and areas to the south.

The Snohomish Chinook escapements in 2023 were even lower than the 2022 numbers so don't expect to see any improvement in the "Snohomish problem".

Curt
 
I was not able to attend the call in meetings. Did WDFW give an explanation on why Snohomish chinook were such a problem this year? The native component overall was up.
 
SeaRunner said:
I was not able to attend the call in meetings. Did WDFW give an explanation on why Snohomish chinook were such a problem this year? The native component overall was up.
Click to expand...

It had to do with the Southern US exploitation rate (SUS ER) based on the mid ocean option. 1.9% (8.3 vs 10.2) doesn’t seem like a lot of difference percentage wise, but within the Fram modeling tool used it is huge. Cuts needed to be made to get to that 8.3% number. MA 5 and 10 presented the greatest savings based on timestamps of when and where the Snohomish fish were present.
I’m certainly no expert on the modeling so hopefully others will chime in as well.
SF

IMG_0864.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top