I'm fishing my favorite zipper lip river in Ferndale, no you can't guess which one.
I'm fishing for Ho's, coho or silvers for you non-rednecks, because it's closed for kings.
The WDFW wants to protect that run.
Low and behold I catch a nice king, 17 lbs, and it's CLIPPED!
Yes, I released it, because my boat isn't worth a fish, but why?
This ain't right!
Am I missing something here? I thought the reason for hatchery fish was for us to eat them? Why then have a hatchery program if it doesn't benifit us sportsmen?
The inidains are netting alot of kings, and throwing them back, back in their boat!
How can a river be closed to the retention of Hatchery fish?
I'm really, really confused here!!!

Any answers...anyone, anyone?

In my opinion the problem with salmon has been inflated and has been made into a tool, if there was realy a problem they would quit dancing around a big source and admit that nets have a impact on salmon runs, they even go as far as to blame sealions befor thay will mention the indians.where els can you comertialy net a endangerd species. i agree with you but there are alot more idiots than the WDFW.

G-Man,
If said river was open for the retention of Hatchery Chinook, then A) there would be more snaggers up there and a snagger does not know the difference between a hatchery fish and un-clipped fish under water anyway. B) Even a great angler, over the course of a season, will kill a few wild Kings, in the process of trying to catch hatchery fish. If you've seen a cracker try to bring in a king look at it for 5 minutes while it flops on the rocky bar, just to realize that it has an adipose and then kick it back in the river, you could imagine what kind of chance it has to survive.
If we had all honest and educated anglers, we would have year round seasons and just release wild fish all the time. Imagine Sekiu open all summer and you would just have to release wild Kings and Ho's.
Any way I'll wake up from my wet dream know.

NEN

In a nutsack... The answer to your questions about why they are required to be released is...

The chinook in that river are not nearly as plentiful as they should be and the naturally spawned ones have done poorly as of late. The numbers of returning "native stock fish" are enough to sustain genetic diversity only because most of them, like the one you released, are born in hatcheries.

Without the hatchery native stock breeding program the summer chinook in that river would possibly be extinct.

also these fish from that river add to the total # that can be caught in the salt.the river its self does no support a river fishery.

G-man, First of all yes WDFW does have lots of screws loose! Can you justify why they closed the Nooksack down at the end of February for fishing Steelhead when over the last many years it just get better and better each year for catch and release? Anyway, I’ve talked to the Lummi biologist and also WDFW biologist Curt Kramer and his boss about this. In fact a couple of years ago when the regs came out that sportsman could not retain Chinook in the Nooksack the tribe had a targeted net fishery in the Nooksack for them. According to both the tribe and the state these fish are completely hatchery brood stock which I find hard to believe. How could all the wild fall Chinook run be gone? Anyway, the real reason why sportsman can’t keep Chinook according to WDFW, is the North of Falcon agreement where the state and tribes decide who gets what each year. By the time the Chinook get back to the Nooksack, the white mans portion of the Chinook allocation has been taken and any Chinook available for harvest needs to be taken by the tribe to fill their allocation that has been agreed too. So by releasing the Chinook you caught your giving the tribe the opportunity of catching it again and fulfilling their allocation that has been agreed to by the fish managers. My argument back to WDFW was that it only seemed fair that if a river is open to commercial fishing it should be open for that same species for sportman but that argument is severely incorrect when you put the state and tribal allocations rules back into the picture.

G-man,
last year i caught several of those clipped kings during silver season and asked the same question as you did. i eventually talked to one of the hatchery guys and asked them why or if we would ever be able to keep any of those fish and i was told that if they opened it up to sportfishermen then they would have to allow a season for the natives also. my response was, what's the difference they're throwing them into to there boat weather it's legal to do so or not! He agreed with me on that point, but that is what the state told him. so besides the king you caught, did you manage to catch any silvers? i'm planning on going a day this weekend to test the waters. just curious as to your success?
chumsalmon

fishbreath,
just read your post, interesting. little different than what i'd heard but, doesn't surprise me. so you are saying they actually can net for those kings? Now what about the spring/summer run can they net for those too? sounds like you've got a little more information that i did. Hey, also how do you like your boat? i talked to you over the phone last year when you were going to buy it. I never did hear the outcome, but i think i did see your old one for sale (when you were selling it) was it the one parked there at the corner of alabama and james st.? just curious and good luck fishin.
chumslamon

Fishbreath hit the nail on the head. We had a similar situation on the Skykomish with a reasonably healthy run of summer chinook, many of which are marked hatchery fish. Until we started making noise at the North of Falcon meetings there was no recreational fishery. Our local TU group sent a representative (Sam Ingram) to all the NOF meetings with the specific agenda of getting a recreational fishery on these Skykomish fish. Sam, along with some people from other groups, made enough noise that it finally happened and we had a reasonable fishery this year. Point is when you have a terminal fishery your fish will be allocated to other interest groups "downstream" of you long before your fish even get close to your river. Unless you attend the NOF meetings and stand up for your interests your slice of the pie is going to be on someone else's plate.

Beezer

Hey Chumsalmon,

Answers to your questions. Yes, the tribe can and does catch and keep the Fall Chinooks they get and with the state's blessings. No, spring Chinook are not included and are a hands off species, although last year the run was amazing. One more reason why I think the state has "its head up its $#@". Don't get me wrong I'm not that interested in keeping any of them anyway but when you can go down to the river and catch ten fish or more in a few hours in different holes it make you wonder how endangered they really are. Yes you did see my old sled on the corner of Alabama and James. Funny thing happened on that boat. I got a call the night before I picked up my new boat from a guy who wanted to see it. So I told him I was picking up a new boat tommorrow and could show it to him in the afternoon. So I went and got my new boat in the morning and SOLD my old one to this guy in the afternoon on the same day. Was it meant to be or what? The new boat is lots of fun and has been a super fishing machine. The only complaint I have is I wish I had a bigger motor. In the Nooksack it's fine but you get on the bigger rivers like the Skagit and Fraser and I tend to run it full throttle which probably isn't that good for it. Next motor will be a bigger one, care to buy a used Merc 90 HP?

fishbreath,
i had to chuckle about the motor comment. i wish i could have bought your old boat. it looked great! but, at that time we had just bought a house and purchased a new car shortly before that. i still don't have a boat, now i need a new rig and a boat will come shortly after that (i hope!!!!) Anyway, glad you like the boat.
in regards to the fish in the river, i gues i kind of had the two mixed up. it's been awhile since i had the conversation, but what i was talking to the hatchery guy about was the spring run of fish (and yes it was impressive) and that is what i thought (hands off to everyone) but i didn't realize that they could take the fall fish. That is pretty upsetting! well, good luck fishing and hope to see you on the river sometime.
chumsalmon

I was on the river today. Certainly some fish in the river. Personally, I have no problem releasing big kings, especially in the Nooksack. I do agree that there is a disconnect when commercial fisherman are in Bellingham Bay and the Lummi tribe is netting in the bay and the river. After spending weeks in the Nooksack last August and September I know that there are far more kings (wild and hatchery) than the state is aware of. I saw a man doing a "spawn count" as he briskly walked along the bank of the North Fork last year. I am certain that he saw very few, if any, fish. That very day, however, while doing field work in the river, I saw dozens of fins and tails of big kings. The visibilty was less than a foot and there were certainly far more fish in the river than I was able to see. Anyway... my point is NOT that sportsmen should be keeping kings, but rather that 1) the numbers are not acurate (due to visibility and unreliable counting techniques) and 2) many kings are getting VERY close to spawning but are taken out near the mouth and within the lower mile of the river.

p.s. chumsalmon=mark?
Kaiser D. =AP

BEEZER- When and where are these NOF meetings?
It ain't right that the indians get to keep Hatchery kings and we sportsmen can not!

Wish I had a scanner, I got some beautiful pictures of a net I pulled, during net closure, with 5 rotten kings, 1 silver and a steelhead about 12 lbs!
This kind of CRAP really pisses me off!
What a WASTE!
I suppose the next hatchery king I catch was caught at the mouth of the river huh?

CHUM- Me and Shane fished it hard Sat. morn... Notta, nothing. Alot of Jacks jumping. Not worth getting excited about yet. There are a few in there though.

A friend of mine comm fishes the bay, said he got a 18 lb silver friday! 300 fish total

Alot of fish milling around. We need alittle rain to bring them in. I don't get real excited until Oct. Then I miss alot of work!

Kiser D.,
yes it = Mark, had to think about AP for a bit till i figured it out. Sorry i didn't hook up with you last friday about fishing. got really busy and some family came into town. i'll stop by the store this week, maybe we can figure something out for this comming weekend.
G-man,
thanks for the update, your right about the rain. i did a little scouting this weeknd (with what time i had) and the water was very low. I hope it keeps raining, then those fish should push up the river.
Chumsalmon

G-man,

Why is it that because you don't understand the fishing regulation you assume WDFW are idiots? Having just read the thread that contained a post that members here get lots of exercise "jumping to conclusions", it looks like it applies here as well. You might want to consider this phrase; I find it works pretty well: Seek first to understand.

Fortunately, several members posted replies that supply some understanding regarding the NOF process that sets some salmon fishing regulations in advance of the season and the possibility that even some marked hatchery runs are estimated as not large enough to support a terminal area recreational fishery, even if the reason is that those fish have been allocated to the treaty fishery.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo-G, I didn't assume they were idiots, it was a question not a statement.

I understand now why, but still don't see the 50/50 split part?
Did we as sports fishermen loose our share to the commercial fleet?
Why even waste the time to clip hatchery fish if we can't keep them?
Why should we support a hatchery program for Chinook on rivers that don't allow retention?
It's just real frustrating

G-Man,

Here's a quick, simplified, hypothetical rundown of how the North of Falcon allocation process works...I wrote this in a thread a few months ago, but couldn't find it with the search function, so here goes again...

Assume there are 10,000 hatchery kings returning to the Nooksack, and that the hatchery needs 6,000. That leaves 4,000 for harvest, 2,000 for treaty fishers and 2,000 for non-treaty fishers (that's sportsmen and commercials).

Those kings are all over the Pacific Ocean during their rearing, and the fish managers actually have a pretty good idea of where they go and are at specific times.

So......there's a king fishery at Buoy 10. Of the thousands of kings there this summer, a very small percentage of them are Nooksack River fish that are passing through as the fishery takes place. Say it's 0.1%. If 25,000 fish are caught at B10, then mathematically that means that 25 of them are Nooksack River fish.

At the Westport fishery, 0.25% of the chinooks there are Nooksack fish. If another 15,000 kings are caught there, then 38 of them are Nooksack fish.

In Sekiu, another 78 Nooksack fish are caught in the sport fishery, and another 265 of them are caught incidentally by commercial fishers.

Throughout the Straits another 150 are caught by sporties, and another 375 are caught in commercial nets.

As the fish pass through the San Juans, another 165 are caught by sporties, and another 295 are caught by commercials.

When the fish hit Bellingham Bay, 69 more are caught by sportfishers, and 485 are caught by commercial fishermen.

When the fish enter the river, there are now 8055 fish left in the run.

Six thousand go to the hatchery, 2,000 go to the treaty fishermen.

That leaves 55. And 55 fish is not enough to open a season for.

As I mentioned, this is very simplified, not to mention that all the numbers I used are completely made up. However, it is how fish are allocated.

During the North of Falcon negotiations (check WDFW web page for dates and places; they're all over the west coast), everyone wants to have a season where they want to fish, and whoever makes the biggest stink gets the most fish.

Not participating to some extent in the NoF meetings and then complaining about the allocation is a lot like complaining about the government when you don't vote.

If you have allocation issues...then they're definitely not with the tribes. They get their half, and they get it right there where they fish on the Nooksack, or out at Lummi Rocks. "Your" share has been caught by other sport fishermen all over the state, and by commercial fishermen throughout Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

I hope this clears it up some.

Fish on...

Todd.

BTW, as Gary pointed out above, participation in the meetings does work. It might take a couple of years to get with the swing of how it works, but the Sky Valley Chapter of TU, through local guide and chapter member Sam Ingram, singlehandedly secured a sport fishery for clipped summer chinook on the Skykomish River this summer by going and holding their hands up every time they asked "who wants to fish?".