WDFW Advertising for the WA Chinook Troll fishery?

doublespey

doublespey

Let.It.Swing
Forum Supporter
Just watched King5 news @ 6:30 and there's a very nice ad where a lady from WDFW advocates for supporting the WA Troll fishery.

Paraphrased, she basically says that these are families who have troll licenses have done this for generations, their fishery runs from May to August, the quality of fish is excellent and it's environmentally sustainable so the customer can feel good about it.

WTF??? All I see, salt or freshwater, regarding our sports Chinook fisheries are closures. Hell, the endangered Stilly Chinook are the primary reason we don't have much of a Summer Steelhead sport fishery left.

I'm not big on bashing the WDFW - they have a difficult job to do. But the blatantly preferential treatment they seem to give to the commercial fisheries really pisses me off.

Seems like they'd like to reserve the salmon for the commercial fisheries and tribes and stock hatchery trout in lakes for the sports fisher.

OK, rant mode off. :(
 
doublespey said:
Just watched King5 news @ 6:30 and there's a very nice ad where a lady from WDFW advocates for supporting the WA Troll fishery.

Paraphrased, she basically says that these are families who have troll licenses have done this for generations, their fishery runs from May to August, the quality of fish is excellent and it's environmentally sustainable so the customer can feel good about it.

WTF??? All I see, salt or freshwater, regarding our sports Chinook fisheries are closures. Hell, the endangered Stilly Chinook are the primary reason we don't have much of a Summer Steelhead sport fishery left.

I'm not big on bashing the WDFW - they have a difficult job to do. But the blatantly preferential treatment they seem to give to the commercial fisheries really pisses me off.

Seems like they'd like to reserve the salmon for the commercial fisheries and tribes and stock hatchery trout in lakes for the sports fisher.

OK, rant mode off. :(
Click to expand...
All I'm gonna add is you're not wrong....
Well one part is wrong. Their job is actually easy.. they just refuse to do it.
 
For those ocean troll fisheries (regardless whether tribal or non-treaty) is modeled to account for all the various stock impacts, including the Stillaguamish Chinook. While those impacts are accounted for it does mean that some are used to support those fisheries rather than some other fisheries (say recreational in-river).

The issue is less about what fisheries WDFW is promoting (in the last week saw promotion of the low-land trout opener) but potential the WDFW Commission's polices that provide agency direction. The relevant policy is C-3608 North of Falcon

In the policy for the Pacific Ocean it states "...harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fisheries Management's Council Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers."

Contrast this for Puget Sound "The Puget sound harvest management objective for Chinook and coho stocks in priority order are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest."

In those policies there is no specific mention (other than the Columbia) of providing freshwater recreational opportunities.

I believe it is past time that those policies be expanded to state that a portion of the allowable impacts for a specific stock to side aside to assure that freshwater opportunities are provided for both salmon and game fish species.

Curt
 
I assume this occurs in the straits
Smalma said:
For those ocean troll fisheries (regardless whether tribal or non-treaty) is modeled to account for all the various stock impacts, including the Stillaguamish Chinook. While those impacts are accounted for it does mean that some are used to support those fisheries rather than some other fisheries (say recreational in-river).

The issue is less about what fisheries WDFW is promoting (in the last week saw promotion of the low-land trout opener) but potential the WDFW Commission's polices that provide agency direction. The relevant policy is C-3608 North of Falcon

In the policy for the Pacific Ocean it states "...harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fisheries Management's Council Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers."

Contrast this for Puget Sound "The Puget sound harvest management objective for Chinook and coho stocks in priority order are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest."

In those policies there is no specific mention (other than the Columbia) of providing freshwater recreational opportunities.

I believe it is past time that those policies be expanded to state that a portion of the allowable impacts for a specific stock to side aside to assure that freshwater opportunities are provided for both salmon and game fish species.

Curt
Click to expand...

Curt,
Those ocean fisheries fish on a quota. Do they factor in encounters in the troll fishery as well like they do in Puget Sound?
The only reason I ask is I wonder how many sub legal fish below 27" get encountered in that fishery.
In other words, is hitting the quota or the end date of the season the only way the season ends, or does it ever end early with quota on the table due to encounters like Puget Sound?
SF
 
SF -
Yes the release mortality on the sub-legals and legal wild is included in the modeling. The biggest difference between the ocean troll fisheries and the PS recreation fishery is in the release mortality. In Puget Sound it is 10% to a 5% "drop-off" for the legal sized fish and 20% plus 5 % "drop-off" for sub-legals. In the troll fishery it is a straight 26% plus 5% "drop-off". That release mortality is the same for the treaty and non-treaty fisheries. (should not have to clarify that!).

I have not looked in the ocean modeling to see what portion of the expect troll encounters by am sure that is modeled.

Curt
 
If I remember correctly WDFW has a mandate by the state to prioritize commercial fishing.

It goes back to timber and fish built this state.

I know that was then and this is now but a lot is still done by the terms and agreements of then. That's how it is until a different bunch of elected officials are put into office.

Dave
 
I do not want this to be a political discussion but fish and game management is highly political in this state.

Mods if this is offensive then dump it.

Dave
 
doublespey said:
I'm not big on bashing the WDFW - they have a difficult job to do. But the blatantly preferential treatment they seem to give to the commercial fisheries really pisses me off.
Click to expand...
Smalma said:
I believe it is past time that those policies be expanded to state that a portion of the allowable impacts for a specific stock to side aside to assure that freshwater opportunities are provided for both salmon and game fish species.
Click to expand...
If these are indeed policies, and not law, can they be advocated for at commissioner's meetings?
 
WW-
Not only can they be advocated for at the commissioner's meetings as you know I believe that they should be!

Important to note that the current C-3608 policy was agreed to in 2019 and expires December 31, 2023 so the window to do that advocating is now!

However time and again we collectively shown it is much more satisfying to have a good rant on the world wide web than rolling up one's sleeves to do that advocating.

Curt
 
Smalma said:
Not only can they be advocated for at the commissioner's meetings as you know I believe that they should be!

Important to note that the current C-3608 policy was agreed to in 2019 and expires December 31, 2023 so the window to do that advocating is now!

However time and again we collectively shown it is much more satisfying to have a good rant on the world wide web than rolling up one's sleeves to do that advocating.

Curt
Click to expand...
Thanks Curt!

For anyone interested here is the link to a copy of that policy.

Here is a link to the commissioner's scheduled meetings.
wdfw.wa.gov

2023 WDFW Commission meeting minutes and agendas

Links to the meeting agenda, approved minutes, and audio/video can be found by clicking the meeting dates listed below. Dates that are not linked do
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
 
_WW_ said:
Thanks Curt!

For anyone interested here is the link to a copy of that policy.

Here is a link to the commissioner's scheduled meetings.
wdfw.wa.gov

2023 WDFW Commission meeting minutes and agendas

Links to the meeting agenda, approved minutes, and audio/video can be found by clicking the meeting dates listed below. Dates that are not linked do
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
Click to expand...
* SLAM!*
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS
_WW_ said:
Thanks Curt!

For anyone interested here is the link to a copy of that policy.

Here is a link to the commissioner's scheduled meetings.
wdfw.wa.gov

2023 WDFW Commission meeting minutes and agendas

Links to the meeting agenda, approved minutes, and audio/video can be found by clicking the meeting dates listed below. Dates that are not linked do
wdfw.wa.gov wdfw.wa.gov
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Looks like I have some homework to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top