#962770 - 08/13/16 04:53 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7587
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
NOAA does the same thing. They will set "recovery" harvest rates with or without BC/AK depending on the optics of the harvest up there. Few folks care about much more than when it is open for them. Throw them a bone and they're quiet, if not happy.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#962772 - 08/13/16 06:52 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
NOAA does the same thing. They will set "recovery" harvest rates with or without BC/AK depending on the optics of the harvest up there. Few folks care about much more than when it is open for them. Throw them a bone and they're quiet, if not happy. Explain what you mean? As far as I can tell this is exactly wrong...
Edited by rojoband (08/13/16 06:52 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#962773 - 08/13/16 07:04 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7587
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
They set recovery rates for all harvests of South of BC, so they can ignore BC/AK.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#962775 - 08/13/16 07:31 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
They set recovery rates for all harvests of South of BC, so they can ignore BC/AK. No they don't. The rates they set are for all fisheries. Example, LCR Chinook, LCR coho, Snake River Fall Chinook....these are rates that all (meaning AK, BC, WA, OR, and freshwater have to adhere to...) Want to give an example of something you are describing? Reason I'm questioning your interpretation of the situation is RiverGuy was simply posting information about how they are analyzing things and you seem to want to say they are doing something that is only dealing with things south of the border....and that is incorrect, especially when it comes to stocks that are being caught off the coast, which are the stocks RiverGuy is bringing up here. While you are often Puget Sound focused Carcassman, that may be what you're referring to, but blanket statements that are wrong, are well that, wrong.
Edited by rojoband (08/13/16 07:42 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#962776 - 08/13/16 07:49 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7587
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I know some of the PS stocks were "recovered" with only southern fisheries considered. I forget specifically which ones but is probably some of the southern PS stocks. They (NOAA) were also allowing total harvests on some PS stocks (Nisqually, Puyallup I think) where the recovery rate exceeded calculated MSY, as has been discussed here before.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#962943 - 08/17/16 11:30 AM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
This CCA flyer came in so I thought I would post for you guys inland
WDFW will be hosting a meeting next Tuesday, August 23, from 5:30-7:00PM in Room 110 of the Walton Science Center at the Centralia College campus. This will be an opportunity to share your views on WDFW’s 2017-2019 budget and proposed license fee increase. As currently proposed, the fee increase would result in a doubling of fees for most salmon and steelhead anglers. We are encouraging the angling public to weigh in on the proposal and provide specific feedback to WDFW regarding opportunities to improve sport fisheries and key fishery management policies. CCA supports funding for our fisheries and hatcheries but we must also ensure that any fee increase is equitable and that WDFW’s policies and management decisions are consistent with the conservation and economic benefits of recreational fisheries. Earlier this week CCA sent a letter to WDFW Director Jim Unsworth outlining our concerns and making recommendations for modifying the proposal.
Edited by Rivrguy (08/17/16 11:30 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#963464 - 08/27/16 11:30 AM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
The link is to a WDF&W presentation on the cost and potential for mayhem in the Willapa Hatchery Complex. Interesting read and as I do not have the verbal that went with it it helps to know a little about the issues surrounding them. That said remember the Commission adopted the resolution that the user pays as in Rec covers their part of the pie but ( that but thing ) now look at the future cost and ask yourself how does WDF&W plan on doing that? http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/08/aug0516_05_presentation.pdf
Edited by Rivrguy (08/27/16 11:42 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#963466 - 08/27/16 12:17 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 510
|
I know some of the PS stocks were "recovered" with only southern fisheries considered. I forget specifically which ones but is probably some of the southern PS stocks. They (NOAA) were also allowing total harvests on some PS stocks (Nisqually, Puyallup I think) where the recovery rate exceeded calculated MSY, as has been discussed here before. Initially the Co-managers proposed exploitation rates for some populations that only considered Southern US (SUS) fisheries. (See the "Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook, Harvest Management Component, written by Puget Sound Indian Tribes and WDFW.) Those populations included Mid-Hood Canal, Skokomish, Green R., and Lake Washington. There may have been others, but these definitely only considered SUS fisheries. Initially I believe that NOAA accepted the Co-managers' approach, but I'm pretty sure that there are now Recovery (or Rebuilding, depending whose terminology you use) exploitation rates that include all harvesters for every population.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#963715 - 09/01/16 03:18 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7587
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Just a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Plus, remember that the adults (?) will be voting in November.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#963836 - 09/06/16 06:19 AM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: jgreen]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Very poorly. Nobody is sure why but the river literally has stunk a bit lately especially after that little rain we had and water temp in tidewater was 70 for a bit but is down to 66 now. So we wait to see what happens.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#964022 - 09/07/16 02:05 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Well it is that time, you know the crystal ball thing. So what I see so far on GH Rec fisheries. The Summer Chinook are late and likely no shows as forecast. The Summers are really strange as they just do not perform as the Falls do and so far not much but we have ugly water right now with the summer crud getting in with the showers and water temp was at 70 but is down to 65 here in tidewater so hard to tell. That said just with what I know and have seen before I say Chinook run will be at or above escapement prior to commercial impacts but it will ramp up late. Also the Chinook jacks have been head down running hard right through tidewater.
Coho jacks the same all sea liced up and no hanging in tidewater either but moving right up also. Other places have Coho in good condition not starved so that part is good. So it is hard to get a feel for it but I have seen this pattern before and usually the run ramps up differently than normal.
So first bet is the Summer Chinook will under perform a lot, as will the falls but not as badly so runsize before harvest somewhat above escapement. Coho I think will out perform expectations and be in good condition but as to numbers I do not want throw that much BS out yet.
QIN are doing poorly but 8 1/8 mesh pretty much passes smaller fish. Also some Coho in cooler water if you know where to look and they are small. That is good as at 5 or 6 lbs this early it is about right as they came in 4 to 6 weeks early and lack the 4 to 5 lbs they would have picked up had they stayed put in the ocean.
One last thing for whatever the reason the weather skipped September and went right to October so when one looks outside it says fishing time. Ah nope. The fish could care less unless it rains so don't let your eyes rule your brain or you will loose. It is simply a early fall and things on the fish side are late / or / or / ...............
Edited by Rivrguy (09/07/16 02:09 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#964244 - 09/13/16 10:28 AM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Lost track of the thread that was about license fees but a spread sheet with 09 to 2015 the WDF&W revenue generated was sent to me. If anyone would like it just PM me.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#964419 - 09/15/16 05:46 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
As always questions are out and about on this falls season. This time up we have wild retention in 2-2 with a weak forecast. So I asked the question which got this response:
Morning Dave,
The reason for the Oct 1 opener and not Sept 16 was the lengthy conversation about the one-and-done concept. Although we aren’t enforcing “one-and-done” the idea was that with the higher release mortality in marine waters verses freshwater, allowing the retention of a wild Coho would possibly reduce the encounter rate of those fish, not having to sort through several to get to a hatchery fish. I remember the conversation about this in freshwater also, but there was importance in the longer season to access the later returning Coho.
Does this help?
Now inriver we are full blown catch and release on unclipped Chinook & Coho. Why? Because in order to insure the November & December Coho fisheries we had to stretch our impacts out. If not likely no November or December which are rather important Rec months inriver. The GHMP 3/5 prevented a Chinook fishery which as it worked out was OK as the QIN took em on paper and came up with a goose egg. So inriver we will accept the hooking mortality just as in Steelhead to insure the late salmon season is not taken away ...... again as in last year.
Edited by Rivrguy (09/15/16 05:47 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#964420 - 09/15/16 06:26 PM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12616
|
The GHMP 3/5 prevented a Chinook fishery which as it worked out was OK as the QIN took em on paper and came up with a goose egg.
Not quite but pretty DAM close. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.htmlWk 36: Three days, 31 kings Wk 37: Five days, 13 kings 4 coho Wk 38: Two days, nothing reported to date While I wouldn't doubt those harvest numbers might bump up a bit as they finalize fish tickets from the buyer, the preliminary catch numbers bode POORLY for the chinook run. Another year in the penalty box.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#964480 - 09/17/16 07:11 AM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
This came in last night and it is a question to WDF&W from a Rec.
Washington Sport Fishing Rules…….Confusion…..Page 26 under Chehalis River…..SALMON Sept. 16 to Jan. 31 Daily limit 6 Only 1 adult may be retained. Release wild CHINOOK and wild COHO.
During the September 16th fishery, the “Daily limit 6 Only, RELEASE WILD CHINOOK AND WILD COHO, was mentioned by sportfishermen…….many Coho and Chinook jacks were released because the fish were not clipped.
Was the intent “of the printed regulation, to release unclipped jack salmon, both Coho and Chinook?????????”
This confusion needs to be corrected, quickly, as there is an active jack fishery going on.
Answer to the question is no you do not have to release jacks within the 6 fish limit. The words " release wild Chinook and wild Coho" is the normal identification for adults. Jacks are a subset in salmon referred to differently and it would say release all unclipped salmon and jacks if you could not retain. Oh correcting the confusion with another press release that most do not read would do little.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#964481 - 09/17/16 08:49 AM
Re: FISHINGTHECHEHALIS.NET
[Re: Rivrguy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4497
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
LH buzzed my e mail with this bit below.
I was reading your message on Piscatorial Pursuits this morning about retaining jacks. For the Satsop, the pamphlet says for salmon "Daily limit 6. Only 1 adult may be retained. Release wild ADULT Chinook and Wild coho". I interpret this to mean (On the Satsop) that you can keep wild jack Chinook. But for coho, You cannot keep any wild coho whether they are adults or jacks. It says release "wild coho". Not "wild adult coho". That is how I read it. It would be nice to get a clarification from WDFW. Thanks.
My response: Mike is out until the 29th. Now you got me but unless it was a outlier year I have not seen release jacks. In all the conversation on seasons NEVER did release jacks come up in the discussion that I recall. I think we are all reading things in.
Now with all that I guess I am warming to the conclusion it was not written clearly for all. For me it is easy but I was at all the meeting which makes a big difference to be sure. Bottom line it was all modeled for the traditional jack fishery in East County. Springers were the main concern so the start backed up a bit and was was built around getting the Springers up past. That's all I got folks!
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (Salmo g., 1 invisible),
996
Guests and
0
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
17 Forums
72911 Topics
824653 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|