Snohomish/Skykomish get screwed

And now the SF is shut down!

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
July 17, 2023

South Fork Skykomish, above Sunset Falls added to Snohomish system closure​

Action: Closes all fishing. Adds South Fork Skykomish, above Sunset Falls to other Snohomish system closures.
Species affected: All species
Effective dates: Immediately, until further notice.
Locations closed to all fishing:
  • Snohomish River, from mouth upstream;
  • Snoqualmie River, from mouth to Snoqualmie Falls;
  • Skykomish River, from mouth to Hwy US2 bridge (above Big Eddy);
  • Skykomish River, North Fork;
  • Skykomish River, South Fork, from mouth upstream
  • Cherry Creek, from mouth upstream;
  • Raging River, from mouth upstream;
  • Sultan River;
  • Tolt River, from mouth to confluence of North and South Forks;
  • Wallace River, from mouth to 200’ upstream of water intake of salmon hatchery.
Reason for action: Chinook are being hauled upstream from the Sunset Falls trap and haul facility and are susceptible to fishing pressure. Limited allowable take of wild Chinook in the Snohomish system necessitates strict controls to conserve impacts for pink and coho fisheries this fall.
Additional information: The Snohomish wild Chinook population saw a record low return of 1,023 in 2019 – the year when dominant age class 4-year-old Chinook returning in 2023 would have been hatched – and there is now significant concern for a poor return of wild Chinook to the Snohomish and its tributaries this year. See also, https://wdfw.medium.com/snohomish-basin-salmon-steelhead-fisheries-limited-to-protect-wild-chinook-f0b21fbec6c.
Skykomish River, from U.S. Hwy. 2 upstream to the forks, will open as scheduled, fishing from floating device and bait prohibited.
Information contact: Team Mill Creek, 425-775-1311
 
Whatever happened to regulations of "No fishing for Chinook" or whichever species needed conservation measures while leaving it open for other species? Oh yeah, that was before WDFW caved to treaty tribal management of non-treaty recreational fishing.
 
So the whole North Fork Skomish is closed? There are huge waterfalls near Blanca Lake that would prevent any anadromous fish passage, no?
 
Stonedfish said:
WDFW’s goal is to make bass week a year round event.
SF
Click to expand...
Shhhh… or they might close that too!

I wrote on a similar thread last year that WDFW really doesn’t care about “us” when they closed a certain N Sound river. These closures confirm my belief.

And yes, I’ve written to them on multiple occasions providing some of the sensible ideas that have been provided in this thread that would allow us to continue to fish without impacting Chinook. I’ve never once received a reply.
It is disheartening.
 
This forum is the perfect space for us to start organized, sustained, science based efforts to pressure WDFW to remember the needs of the sport angler. The quality of discussion here is consistently educated, the thinking critical, and the solutions pragmatic. A far cry from the conversations I regularly overhear in gear shops with old heads lamenting not being able to bonk 4 Wild 20lbers per day. We have the means to attempt to create change. I am 21, I have half the opportunities many of the folks had on here. I want to make sure my kids enjoy as many of the opportunities that I am able to enjoy as is reasonably in our control.
 
The entire NF and SF are closed, but all tributaries are open? That's how i read it. It effectively shuts down fishing for resident fish and summer steelhead. If this is the case, might as well permanently close these rivers for good because the Chinook will never return to amount to anything.

I love native fish, they are superior in every way compared to hatchery fish, but this charade of closures and genetics, and high brow bullshit directed towards saving them is 40yrs too late. It's over, time to reap the repercussions of 'progress' in humanity. Want to fish and enjoy nature....? Plant more fish!!! There is a reason we have farms for everything mass produced to support today's human needs, and fish is just like any other crop. We can fuss over who gets the last native cucumber or we can plant and mass produce?

Looks like im a greedy fisherman that is putting his self interest over protecting the last pure fish, shame on me


drop-the-mic-obama-mic-drop.gif
 
Montana is going to get more crowded soon....
 
The reality as I see it is that the pressure to retain PS saltwater salmon opportunities is what drives this whole mess. If WDFW gave up on that and the paper fish incidental take that it represents, I believe that we could have robust in-river fisheries. Because the state utilizes the (possibly bogus) BIA approval to have saltwater angling federally permitted in cooperation with the tribes, they are also beholden to the tribes. The tribes have access to the bogus permit. WDFW does not. For political, practical, and historical reasons, WDFW will likely permit in this fashion for the foreseeable future.

The department could decide to forego having saltwater seasons. They could look at the whol picture and say, "Hey, we'll take our portion in he rivers where we can reduce the incidental take." The whales, Swinomish and Muckleshoot can have the salt, we would have the added benefit of not having to worry about salmon "incidental mortality" by those fishing for trout or summer runs etc. I don't know what the upper Skagit would think but that should not be part of the decision making process.

Here is why I don't see this happening: the tribes like having the power the present permitting paradigm offers. Politically, it also provides a ton of cover for the governor and to some extent the department. Provided that they are cooperating with the tribes, they are protected by the general public's positive feeling towards native harvest. The other factor is that the true financial political elites of the fishing community are the big boat salt water anglers. A set of downriggers costs more that the value of all of my single handed fly rods combined. They cost more than I paid for my drift boat. The average salmon trollers boat costs as much as I will spend on the garage that I am building (although maybe not with the way I mis-estimated the foundation costs!). The saltwater boat anglers have power, even though they feel like the biggest victims. They are wealthy and in this game of paper fish allocation, they are getting the kings allocated to them. It is the kings that count. The state can throw a bone to the tribes by keeping the shore bound river angler of the water with very little political push back.

The permitting paradigm that we are in will always pit; sporty vs. commercial, tribal vs. non-tribal, river vs. salt and even tribe vs. tribe. It's co-management via confrontation.

We tend to think that it's burger king and that we deserve to "Have it your way." In the end it's really that the user groups with the most political clout will get it their way but not really. They'd just get something that they want.

I hit an 18 lb king on Thursday in the salt. It was delicious. I have 9 more portions ready for the grill this summer. I don't have a boat but as long as that is the fishery that is open, I will accept a boat ride. It's my favorite fish in the world to eat, maybe my favorite food all together. I say this just so that people understand that I am a river angler, salt anger, fly angler and gear angler. Many anglers aren't just river anglers or just boat anglers or just fly anglers etc. Most of us like to fish. The way in which we allocate the king salmon take amongst ourselves is what drives the season and makes the whole system so combative. It's a natural outcome of the present system.
 
charles sullivan said:
The reality as I see it is that the pressure to retain PS saltwater salmon opportunities is what drives this whole mess. If WDFW gave up on that and the paper fish incidental take that it represents, I believe that we could have robust in-river fisheries. Because the state utilizes the (possibly bogus) BIA approval to have saltwater angling federally permitted in cooperation with the tribes, they are also beholden to the tribes. The tribes have access to the bogus permit. WDFW does not. For political, practical, and historical reasons, WDFW will likely permit in this fashion for the foreseeable future.

The department could decide to forego having saltwater seasons. They could look at the whol picture and say, "Hey, we'll take our portion in he rivers where we can reduce the incidental take." The whales, Swinomish and Muckleshoot can have the salt, we would have the added benefit of not having to worry about salmon "incidental mortality" by those fishing for trout or summer runs etc. I don't know what the upper Skagit would think but that should not be part of the decision making process.

Here is why I don't see this happening: the tribes like having the power the present permitting paradigm offers. Politically, it also provides a ton of cover for the governor and to some extent the department. Provided that they are cooperating with the tribes, they are protected by the general public's positive feeling towards native harvest. The other factor is that the true financial political elites of the fishing community are the big boat salt water anglers. A set of downriggers costs more that the value of all of my single handed fly rods combined. They cost more than I paid for my drift boat. The average salmon trollers boat costs as much as I will spend on the garage that I am building (although maybe not with the way I mis-estimated the foundation costs!). The saltwater boat anglers have power, even though they feel like the biggest victims. They are wealthy and in this game of paper fish allocation, they are getting the kings allocated to them. It is the kings that count. The state can throw a bone to the tribes by keeping the shore bound river angler of the water with very little political push back.

The permitting paradigm that we are in will always pit; sporty vs. commercial, tribal vs. non-tribal, river vs. salt and even tribe vs. tribe. It's co-management via confrontation.

We tend to think that it's burger king and that we deserve to "Have it your way." In the end it's really that the user groups with the most political clout will get it their way but not really. They'd just get something that they want.

I hit an 18 lb king on Thursday in the salt. It was delicious. I have 9 more portions ready for the grill this summer. I don't have a boat but as long as that is the fishery that is open, I will accept a boat ride. It's my favorite fish in the world to eat, maybe my favorite food all together. I say this just so that people understand that I am a river angler, salt anger, fly angler and gear angler. Many anglers aren't just river anglers or just boat anglers or just fly anglers etc. Most of us like to fish. The way in which we allocate the king salmon take amongst ourselves is what drives the season and makes the whole system so combative. It's a natural outcome of the present system.
Click to expand...

The permitting situation has been an issue since the last management plan expired after 2014 I believe, or somewhere around then. The co-managers submitted a new 10 year management plan in February 2022 which last I heard is still under review by NMFS. If approved my understanding is this would alleviate the need for 1 year BIA authorizations, which in theory would remove the permitting power imbalance of the past decade. Will that change the way WDFW operates at North of Falcon? I guess we will see.

I love to fish the saltwater for salmon. It is my favorite fishing. However, your idea of moving all chinook take to the rivers would be interesting to see in theory. Could the all citizens fishery gets its share via hook and line angling? Or would WDFW authorize things like dip nets? Can you imagine all of the boats and anglers you currently see out on Puget Sound flooding into the rivers to fish and net for chinook? I wonder whether the tribes would go for that?

Finally, the current situation with the Snohomish is laid out in the newest chinook management plan. When the "projected escapement fall below the lower bound of 1745 for the Skykomish or 700 for the Snoqualmie, then additional SUS harvest measures will be taken that season to attempt to prevent further declines in abundance. The comanagers will discuss and implement a contingency set of actions (e.g. closure of in-river mark-selective fisheries, significant reductions or closures to SUS marine fisheries impacting Snohomish chinook)". What confuses me is which system was forecast to be below the lower bound this year. The publicly available forecast numbers are not clear on the Snohomish break down between the two systems and this year's Snohomish wild forecast, 3.4K the highest since 2018, should have put both systems above the lower bound assuming a proportional return to each. The best I can tell from what has been made public is that one of the two had a projected return below the lower bound, there was concern about the reliability of the forecast given that this year's return was the brood of the very low 2019 return, and all of that together was used to shut down the entire system.
 
SeaRunner said:
The permitting situation has been an issue since the last management plan expired after 2014 I believe, or somewhere around then. The co-managers submitted a new 10 year management plan in February 2022 which last I heard is still under review by NMFS. If approved my understanding is this would alleviate the need for 1 year BIA authorizations, which in theory would remove the permitting power imbalance of the past decade. Will that change the way WDFW operates at North of Falcon? I guess we will see.

I love to fish the saltwater for salmon. It is my favorite fishing. However, your idea of moving all chinook take to the rivers would be interesting to see in theory. Could the all citizens fishery gets its share via hook and line angling? Or would WDFW authorize things like dip nets? Can you imagine all of the boats and anglers you currently see out on Puget Sound flooding into the rivers to fish and net for chinook? I wonder whether the tribes would go for that?

Finally, the current situation with the Snohomish is laid out in the newest chinook management plan. When the "projected escapement fall below the lower bound of 1745 for the Skykomish or 700 for the Snoqualmie, then additional SUS harvest measures will be taken that season to attempt to prevent further declines in abundance. The comanagers will discuss and implement a contingency set of actions (e.g. closure of in-river mark-selective fisheries, significant reductions or closures to SUS marine fisheries impacting Snohomish chinook)". What confuses me is which system was forecast to be below the lower bound this year. The publicly available forecast numbers are not clear on the Snohomish break down between the two systems and this year's Snohomish wild forecast, 3.4K the highest since 2018, should have put both systems above the lower bound assuming a proportional return to each. The best I can tell from what has been made public is that one of the two had a projected return below the lower bound, there was concern about the reliability of the forecast given that this year's return was the brood of the very low 2019 return, and all of that together was used to shut down the entire system.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info regarding he 10 yr management plan. That is a potential change for sure. Even if they were able to more easily permit saltwater fisheries, present day politics dictates that he tribes have a hand in what our seasons look like as long as there are so few paper fish to kill in the fresh water.

If the state no longer attempted to have saltwater PS chinook fisheries, their would be available impacts for other fisheries. I don't se why they would have to allow in-river directed chinook harvest. It is about time that we figure out if the foregone opportunity is a real thing. If it is, then salmon management is exactly as assed backwards as western water law.
 
This Snohomish/Skykomish mess to my understanding is the result of two issues.

First and foremost with the 2022 draft co-manager PS management plan which for 2023 was agreed to be the management guidelines for the Snohomish basin represent a major change. Prior to the 2022 plan the management standards for fisheries impacts for Snohomish basin Chinook was a total coast wide total of 21% with a 15% impact to be allowed in Southern United States (SUS) of 15%. The 2022 plan with the two three periods of low escapements (2013 - 2015 and 2019 - 2021) with historic lows in 2019 for the Snohomish reflects growing concern about the status of the Snohomish Chinook.

That 2022 plan establishes some new management standards. It set the following -
A Lower Bound Threshold (LBT) for the Skykomish of 1,745 and the Snoqualmie 700
A lower abundance Threshold (LAT) for the Skykomish of 2,015 and the Snoqualmie of 1,132
Upper Management thresholds (UMT) for the Skykomish of 3,600 and the Snoqualmie of 1,300.

With these standards the total allowable exploitation rate was reduced to 20% but more importantly if either the Skykomish or Snoqualmie stocks SUS rates were reduced with a stock at LBT limited to no more than 8.3%, If the stock was at LAT limited to 9.3% and if at UMT limited to 10.3%.

The Snoqualmie portion was determined to be below LAT levels thus calling for a SUS rate of 9.3%. Clearly it would be very painful to reduce the SUS rate from 15% to 9.3%. Failure of the ESA recovery efforts?

In the non-treaty negotiations during the NOF process those involved (advisors and the public) pushed to share those reductions but the freshwater fisheries (including the game fish seasons) took the hardest hit. I feel strongly that ultimate decision the hard hit to the freshwater fisheries was driven by the lack of freshwater anglers in the process and the lack of clear commission policy on how to allocate limited fisheries impacts and more specifically whether even if some of those limited impacts should be used for non-salmon fisheries.

Ultimately, until freshwater anglers educate themselves, engage in the NOF public process, and advocate for policies that are more inclusive of fisheries that are limited by the use of those limited impacts they will find themselves without significant freshwater fisheries. Unfortunately attempting to change the use of those impacts maybe a decade late and changes will be difficult if not impossible.

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