Sky not until Nov 1st.

Porter2

Porter2

Legend
Just got my WDFW email notice that the Sky will not open until Nov 1st.

[td]

Skykomish River fishing will not open until Nov. 1​
​

Action: Skykomish River closed to all fishing until Nov. 1.
Species affected: All species.
Effective dates: Immediately – Oct. 31, 2026.
Location: Skykomish River, from the mouth to the confluence of North and South forks.
Reason for action: Skykomish River fishing season openings are delayed until Nov. 1 to protect returning wild Chinook salmon. The pre-season forecasted return for the Skykomish River system wild Chinook is very low. Protection measures including closing salmon and game fish fisheries are necessary to assist in wild Chinook conservation and recovery during critical migration and spawning periods.
Additional information: This emergency Fishing Rule Change overrides salmon, steelhead, and game fish seasons listed in the 2025-2026 Washington Sport Fishing Rules, including previously planned fisheries for Chinook returning to the Wallace River Hatchery and steelhead returning to the Reiter Ponds Hatchery. Refer to WDFW’s blog post for more information on this fishing closure and conservation measures to protect natural origin Chinook in the Snohomish Basin.
This closure was discussed with anglers, guides, recreational fishing advisors, and co-manager tribes during the 2026 North of Falcon season-setting process and shared through the WDFW website. Refer to WDFW’s The Salmon Fishing Current blog: North of Falcon 2026 edition for more background.
Fishery managers encourage anglers to sign up for Fishing Rule Change email notifications and to check for emergency rules on the WDFW website before fishing. Refer to the 2025–2026 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet for current regulations. Download the Fish Washington® mobile app to stay up to date on the go.
Information contact: North Puget Sound Region, 425-775-1311, TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov.
​
[/td]​
[td]
Fishers must have a current Washington fishing license, appropriate to the fishery. Check the Washington Sport Fishing Rules for details on definitions and regulations. Fishing rules are subject to change. Visit wdfw.wa.gov to find a list of mobile, web, print, or customer service phone options for the latest rule information.
​
[/td]​
[td]
Request this information in an alternative format or language at wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/requests-accommodation, 833-885-1012, TTY (711), or CivilRightsTeam@dfw.wa.gov.
​
[/td]​
 
Lack of pressure will make for some great fishing.....
 
The Snohomish system chinook are also one of the reasons for cuts to some Puget Sound chinook marine fisheries, namely MA 5, 9 and 10.
SF
 
The head bio of our district says that hardly anyone shows up or voices their opinion at NOF…
He was willing to work for anglers on getting more openings in the future if he could prove that there were no Chinook encounters but there’s no way to do that as of now with how they have things set up if they can’t employ creel checkers.

Idk…at this point I think we should start trucking fish up the MF Snoqualmie. I think the Log Lady from Twin Peaks might be able to work her magic and bring back those “native” Chinook
 
jeradjames said:
The head bio of our district says that hardly anyone shows up or voices their opinion at NOF…
He was willing to work for anglers on getting more openings in the future if he could prove that there were no Chinook encounters but there’s no way to do that as of now with how they have things set up if they can’t employ creel checkers.

Idk…at this point I think we should start trucking fish up the MF Snoqualmie. I think the Log Lady from Twin Peaks might be able to work her magic and bring back those “native” Chinook
Click to expand...
I don't live in WA so am a bit disconnected from all of this these days, but we should try to bring this up when meetings/hearings/NoF come up so members here can voice their opinions and experiences. I've been doing that down here in Oregon on certain local issues with ODFW.
 
Evan B said:
I don't live in WA so am a bit disconnected from all of this these days, but we should try to bring this up when meetings/hearings/NoF come up so members here can voice their opinions and experiences. I've been doing that down here in Oregon on certain local issues with ODFW.
Click to expand...
@Stonedfish has diligently reminded us all of opportunities to comment on fishing opportunities and regs. Not everyone can attend mid-week daytime meetings but it isn’t hard to write comments in the portal. I always do. Not that they’ve taken me up on my suggestions that we can fish for gamefish and not harm the threatened Chinook population(s).
 
In over 45yrs, of fishing the Reiter pond area, I have seen only "one" chinook caught. Someone had previously broken off the fish and a fellow angler had hooked the eye of the swivel on the leader. This closure not only affects the summer run fishery but also the in river coho too.
 
Got some interesting info when I fed this prompt into ChatGPT:

"The WDFW has just shut down fishing on the entire river system under the pretext that angling for other, more abundant species will pose too great of a threat to the wild fall chinook spawning in the Skykomish river, but I personally suspect that all of the supposedly wild chinook in that system show evidence of significant hatchery introgression, if not conclusive data that they derive from out-of-basin hatchery stock, and that there are not actually any genuinely wild fall chinook in the Snohomish river system to conserve. Is this a fair conclusion that can be supported by evidence or simply uninformed conjecture on my part?"

"NOAA’s biological opinion for Snohomish-basin hatchery programs is especially relevant. It says the Wallace River Hatchery Chinook stock was founded in the early 1970s from native Skykomish River summer Chinook returning to Sunset Falls, and that current programs were intended to propagate the native Skykomish stock, with hatchery- and natural-origin aggregations described as genetically identical in cited WDFW/PSTRT materials. That phrase — “genetically identical” — does not prove absence of hatchery introgression; it more likely reflects that an integrated local hatchery program and the natural spawners are not distinguishable with the markers/data being used.


The same NOAA document found meaningful hatchery presence on spawning grounds. For 2006–2015, it estimated that 28.7% of spawners in Skykomish natural spawning areas were hatchery-origin, with most of those attributed to Wallace River Hatchery and a smaller out-of-basin component from Soos Creek/Green River; it also cautioned that coded-wire-tag expansions captured only part of the estimate and may have substantial error. For Snoqualmie, NOAA estimated 18.9% hatchery-origin spawners over the same period, with a more diverse hatchery-source pattern and major out-of-basin contributors.


That is a strong basis for saying: these are not pristine, hatchery-free populations. It is not a strong basis for saying: all natural-origin fish are merely hatchery fish, or there are no native/wild genetic lineages left."
 
Haven't fished the Sky much in June, but the couple of times I have gone up to look around on opening day or a few days after it seemed like there were tons of guides hitting the Sky targeting hatchery chinook on the opener from Big-Eddy down, and the usual legions targeting hatchery steelhead at Reiter, but after about a week the guide-fleet had dredged out most of the low-hanging fruit from the hatchery-chinook run and they'd moved onto whatever was next in their rotation.

Outside of that window I've seen a few-people at the usual bank-spots but my impression was that there just isn't all that much fishing pressure anywhere in the Snohomish system in the summer until the salmon start returning in September, and even then the pressure is overwhelmingly in the Snohomish as opposed to the Sky/Snoqualmie.

Based on that, it sure seems like the WDFW could allow an early season Wallace-and-below hatchery Chinook fishery on the Sky and still stay within allowable impacts. Per my dialogue with ChatGPT:

"The strongest critique of a whole-river closure is not “there are no wild Chinook below Wallace.” It is: WDFW should be able to explain, with encounter-rate data and the remaining allowable impact budget, why a selective lower-Skykomish fishery below Wallace could not be run without exceeding the wild-Chinook impact cap."
 
Evan B said:
I don't live in WA so am a bit disconnected from all of this these days, but we should try to bring this up when meetings/hearings/NoF come up so members here can voice their opinions and experiences. I've been doing that down here in Oregon on certain local issues with ODFW.
Click to expand...
Yeah absolutely. Like @Matt B, I’ve left comments the last two years but I’m going to try and show up in person if I can or virtually at least if that’s an option.
 
Seems like a couple years ago there was a thread where it was mentioned that certain treaty tribal representatives expressed an informal objective of ending non-treaty fishing in anadromous waters. It looks like WDFW is trying to help them out in achieving that objective.
 
FWIW I sent the following inquiry to the WDFW:

"I'm writing to inquire about the data the WDFW and co-managers referenced to justify the closure of the Skykomish river until November 1.

Specifically, I would like to know: 1) what the return forecast is for natural-origin Skykomish Chinook this year; and 2) given the encounter-rate data and the remaining allowable impact budget, why a selective lower-Skykomish fishery below the Wallace River—such as the 6/10–7/10 Wallace-to-mouth fishery conducted in 2025—could not be run without exceeding the wild-Chinook impact cap?"

Should have asked the same question about closing Reiter this year. I'd actually be relieved to hear that they simply didn't have the budget to monitor the fishery this year, since budget deficits - in principle at least - can come and go, but if they're using modeling outputs that stipulate that "opening the Reiter-stretch will result in predicted mortality of 0.18 adult spawners which exceeds..." then that means the WDFW has been obliged to adopt impact and monitoring/enforcement standards at NOF that will close the river for all intents and purposes from Feb-November most years, if not forever.

Would be sort of amusing to propose a "Fly-fishing only, no fishing from a boat" standard for the Skykomish at NOF and ask for data/modeling demonstrating that doing so would exceed the impact cap.
 
There are a couple issues that drive the potential freshwater opportunities. The first of course is the low priority WDFW assigns to game fish opportunities. Putting that aside for now the modeling issues that need to be considered

The Snohomish basin Chinook consist of two populations: the Skykomish summer Chinook) fish returning to the river in the late spring/summer period and the Snoqualmie fall Chinook one of the latest spawning populations in the Sound. For some reason (easiest way to go?) WDFW and its co-managers consistently treat the Snohomish Chinook as fall Chinook. Recognizing the differences between the two populations may open up a small window for an early fishery (hatchery Chinook or summer steelhead).

The co-managers have agreed on a sliding scale of allowed impacts: 8,3% Southern US at Lower Bound Threshold (LBT), 9.3% SUS at Lower Abundance Threshold (LAT), and 10.3% at Upper Management Threshold (UMT). It is the Snoqualmie portion of the basin that triggers that LBT/8.3% SUS impacts allowed.

In most of the Puget Sound Basin the ESA Chinook populations are managed on the doctrine that I call any Chinook spawner will do. That is to say meeting escapement needs can be accomplished based on the number of HOR and NOR combined spawner rather than NOR only escapement. It is no accident that the consistent limiting populations (Stillaguamish and Snohomish) have management escapement goals of only NORs while others like the Green or Nisqually allow for some sort of composite escapement. While it may make sense to manage the Skagit Populations and the reasonable intact habitats for NOR escarpments not sure that it does for the Stillaguamish and Snohomish.

Obviously, there is a lot more details and nuances in what is driving the final decisions. While it is not the public's job to understand those nuances, they do need to know enough to ask the pointed questions to force the managers to explain the rationale in their decisions.

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