PS Chinook fishery in-season management grade

S

Smalma

Life of the Party
As we slide into the fall it is time to look at Puget Sound Chinook fisheries and how the in-season management performance went. Coming out of NOF the main limiting stock was the Snohomish wild Chinook where to meet the harvest guidelines/quotas for the MAs with the largest impacts seeing substantial reductions in those fisheries (MA 5, MA 7, MA 9 and MA 10). As a measure of the in-season management of the various intensively the common parameter is the estimated catch/expected catch percentage. Below are the various MAs and their associated percentage-

MA 5 at 139%
MA 6 at 102%
MA 7 at 99%
Tulalip Bubble at 99%
MA 9 at 131%
MA10 at 121%
MA 11 (June) at 86%
MA 11 (July/Aug) at 128%

For those MAs that were reduced to protect those Snohomish Chinook the average estimated catch/expected catch percentage was 122.5%. For this large of a "miss" is unacceptable and a clear in-season management failure. With 4 of the 8 monitored fisheries going over the 120% not only was the excessive harvest impacts for the Snohomish Chinook placed on the resource it also raises the potential of the fisheries exceeding the planned impacts for Stillaguamish Chinook and triggering a conversation payback in 2027.

Unfortunately, I have to give WDFW's in-season management for the above Chinook fishery an "F"!

It also raises the question of whether the current management paradigm is adequate, and does it need to change?

It appears to me that the failure of PS Chinook recovery efforts, increasing recreational fleet efficiency, and WDFW in-season management failure have undermined the current management paradigm.

My question is that if there were to be a change in that paradigm what changes would folks like to see?

Curt
 
Smalma said:
As we slide into the fall it is time to look at Puget Sound Chinook fisheries and how the in-season management performance went. Coming out of NOF the main limiting stock was the Snohomish wild Chinook where to meet the harvest guidelines/quotas for the MAs with the largest impacts seeing substantial reductions in those fisheries (MA 5, MA 7, MA 9 and MA 10). As a measure of the in-season management of the various intensively the common parameter is the estimated catch/expected catch percentage. Below are the various MAs and their associated percentage-

MA 5 at 139%
MA 6 at 102%
MA 7 at 99%
Tulalip Bubble at 99%
MA 9 at 131%
MA10 at 121%
MA 11 (June) at 86%
MA 11 (July/Aug) at 128%

For those MAs that were reduced to protect those Snohomish Chinook the average estimated catch/expected catch percentage was 122.5%. For this large of a "miss" is unacceptable and a clear in-season management failure. With 4 of the 8 monitored fisheries going over the 120% not only was the excessive harvest impacts for the Snohomish Chinook placed on the resource it also raises the potential of the fisheries exceeding the planned impacts for Stillaguamish Chinook and triggering a conversation payback in 2027.

Unfortunately, I have to give WDFW's in-season management for the above Chinook fishery an "F"!

It also raises the question of whether the current management paradigm is adequate, and does it need to change?

It appears to me that the failure of PS Chinook recovery efforts, increasing recreational fleet efficiency, and WDFW in-season management failure have undermined the current management paradigm.

My question is that if there were to be a change in that paradigm what changes would folks like to see?

Curt
Click to expand...

To start with, I'd recommend WDFW stop the process of reaching net zero chinook fishing. Reset the equations as currently devised. Reevaluate the methodologies of the "test fishery". Adjust legal sport fishing gear to limit juvenile chinook "encounters". Adjust the sport fleet size down by posting WILD ID # or boat registration # based dates eligible to fish. Negotiate with tribal partners as equal parties not as subordinates. Stop leaving 10s of thousands of hatchery origin chinook unharvested.
 
Last edited:
If it could ever happen again, I’d want the first or second weekend of August to be prioritized for MA9/MA10 chinook rather than the third/fourth weekend of July. And then protect all of July for coho/pinks only. Probably wont ever happen though due to the dire situation in which we are in.

From my observation mid-August is when the run historically peaks for the mature, migratory hatchery fish and the quality of the fish is higher. The chinook in which we are given the opportunity to fish for only represent the very front end of the run. I’d also like to know what % of fish caught & retained in the July weekend openers are blackmouth. I’d bet it’s a pretty high percentage based on what I see other people harvest online.

Other ideas I have include an annual limit (like how halibut is), having a boat limit (I.e. if X amount of fish is caught on your vessel on X day you are done, regardless of how many people are on it), mandatory retention of first legal fish caught, list goes on…
 
Don’t want to take away anyone’s opportunity, heck us river fishermen have had to take All the abuse for the sake of marine salt fishing folks but I get it It’s all about money not conserving runs. Easy answer is a broodstock program but as always “we don’t have the money “. Hmm worked for chums in the sky but this is a head up the a… state
Open it for a week at the end of August tally numbers then stick to it . Ya right
 
skyrise said:
Don’t want to take away anyone’s opportunity, heck us river fishermen have had to take All the abuse for the sake of marine salt fishing folks but I get it It’s all about money not conserving runs. Easy answer is a broodstock program but as always “we don’t have the money “. Hmm worked for chums in the sky but this is a head up the a… state
Open it for a week at the end of August tally numbers then stick to it . Ya right
Click to expand...
I must of missed the chum brood stock success on the sky. That run is a shell of what it was even in the early 2000s.
 
With only enough impacts to produce 2 days of Chinook fishing in MA 9 and MA 10 there has to be a way to better utilize those impacts.

Discussion of some actions that might reduce the efficiency of the fleet may include such things as annual or weekly catch limits for Puget Sound, gear changes (large plugs only, eliminating down riggers etc.). have simultaneous openings across Puget Sound, etc.

Rather than using limited Chinook impacts for a couple days of fishing it may be more productive to use those impacts to support fuller access to other salmon species, terminal fisheries, etc. Examples might include expansion of coho access in MA 9, in-river fisheries (including game fish), full terminal fisheries access (Tulalip bubble and something that might be fun is to establish a new bubble in Shilshole bay for a primitive fisheries - human power vessels, no downriggers and depth finders, shore fishing).

Maybe the answer for monitoring fulling for any of the above is to eliminate winter blackmouth seasons converting the cost savings from sampling personal and test fishing to monitor some of the above.

The ideas above are only intended to start discussions of how we the users may want to "spend" those limit Chinook impacts to support our individual or collective interests. I encourage that any readers than have thoughts on any of the above to engage in the NOF process. The more informed we collective are the better our chances of implementing the current management paradigm. Engaging in the NOF has multiple avenues, attending the meetings (either in person or virtually) provide written comments, or engaging in discussions with any of the advisors or agency personnel.

Would love to hear folks thoughts and concerns.

Curt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top