They're probly some of those $5 fish the uninformed by while passing through the res.

Sinker, that was my second thought. Yummy!

Yeah, that's where they got the models for the "some fish pics..." post <img border="0" alt="[eat]" title="" src="graemlins/eat.gif" />

Easy,

I stopped to look at the 'zone' on Tues, Wed, and Thurs mainly to see how the area would replenish what could only be described as a phenomenal # of fish in front of the hatchery. It did not look to be recovering very well from what I saw and from what you describe. Does it routinely fill back up with #'s like we saw before the netting? I can not say for sure but my guess is they killed close to 10,000 fish or more. In fact, a single netting in front looked to capture 1,000 at a time. Any thoughts on this? My dad has been ill and I had hoped to put him and my 7 yr. old son on the other side of the nasty dog, but am hopeful they can fish in a high volume of fish for a kick like we have.

150 years ago the white man killed the buffalo for only it's tongue and hide, letting the rest go to waste. Now the Indians are killing the chum for only it's eggs, letting the meat go to waste. Kind of a role reversal, don't you think???

What was done 150 years ago was wrong and the white man was eventually forced to admit it. What the Indians are presently doing with the chums is also wrong and they need to admit it also. That is what equality is all about, right??

Nutnbutlip they are projecting a run of 800,000 chums to the canal .....most of these will be returning to either Hoodsport or the Skok. Hoodsport has so far gotten an escapement of around 55,000 chums and have all and more eggs than they need. I'd expect you will have no problem casting into mass doggies this weekend at Hoodsport! Have fun and wear eye protection....serious!

Personally I'm headen for where there are no crowds and plenty of nice chrome fresh winter steel .

I am with you on that, you burn out on the chums after awhile, but there are a lot of people that I know that would love an escort to the dog. A change to metalheads sounds very nice right now. I would fish more for blackmouth now, but I am getting a little worn out with all the work required to get my Tiderunner out of storage, on the water, cleaned up, etc.... Hitting some smaller streams for steelhead woud be a nice shift.

Here's another perspective to consider. Hoodsport hatchery is supported with state funds. It would be a stretch to say it is operated to mitigate for the loss of natural chum runs in the canal. Heck, it has contributed to overfishing natural chum runs with the mixed stock fishing formerly allowed.

The state has a budget crisis of sorts. WDFW and other agencies have been forced to identify steep budget reductions. Just a thought, but why support a hatchery operation to produce a glut of chum, only to have them wasted in violation of state law? (Not intending to be anti-Indian fishing, but state law does not permit non-treaty commercial or recreational fishermen to waste salmon - like by taking only the eggs and not the carcass. This law does not apply to treaty Indians.)

Maybe it would be wiser to spend state funds on a reduced Hoodsport program, commensurate with the benefits actually received. The recreational fishery is probably the biggest return on investment, since the measure is angler days rather than the value of the salmon caught. Whatever the chum contribution is to the non-treaty commercial fishery can't be much, as described by the ex-vessel prices described in other posts. Although non-treaty commercials are required to sell the entire salmon, the buyers are likely only to be wanting the eggs, same as from the Indians.

If the mass wastage is not in the public interest, violates state law, then why not scale back the production to a level that better meets the actual benefits realized? Why produce for a non-treaty commercial fishery at all? Produce for the recreational fishery times two, to include a necessary treaty fishery share.

My random thought.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

To Salmo,

That is a very good thought, but the natural variations in returning numbers make it hard to implement. They probably run that hatchery full throttle all the time, if you know what I mean.

To Salmo,

That is a very good thought, but the natural variations in returning numbers make it hard to implement. They probably run that hatchery full throttle all the time, if you know what I mean.

That was my thought yesterday as i was catching my firsy winter run of the season.We take away the chum and what do they get in return?

That is actually a very good point (grandpa). When I started this thread initially I wanted to avoid the debate over netting (tribal/comm'l v. sportsmen) because there is so much in the archives already. I see waste it is - waste! But, there are a couple of things that I take away from this dicsussion. One, that the Indians are hammering a fishery that may keep them off of other 'more atttractive' fisheries (as sad as conceded that is) and two, the inevitable dicussion about whether netting (tribal/comm'l/whatever) should or should not be allowed at all is perhaps where this kind of thread ends up. That is because, in my opinion, this kind of waste and the waste of any bycatch in general can/should be avoided. The days of using nets for profit/sustinence are largely gone. Give the Indians their 'fair share' but force all netting groups to keep their nets at home and require them to use hook/line like the rest of us. My .02.

I bet the guys at Hoodsport would rather have the rest of the fish die before they get into the hatchery...less fish to surplus. It's no fun throwing 10k fish in a totes.

I apologize if I seem argumentative; I had hoped to provoke thoughtful consideration. It doesn't seem like intelligent fiscal or natural resource policy to expend public funds to create waste, which is what the present level of Hoodsport chum production appears to be. The level of production could be scaled back appreciably and still maintain a large enough return to meet broodstock requirements and a valuable recreational fishery plus some level of treaty fishery. That's why I said the recreational fishery times two. The treaty Indian fishery legally is 50% of the harvestable surplus. The state has no obligation to maintain that surplus at any specific level, particularly if it serves mainly to create and perpetuate a "waste" fishery. There ought to be room for common sense and law somewhere in this equation.

Scaling back chum production at Hoodsport does not increase the treaty allocation in any other fishery as compensation. The treaty fishing right is what it is: 50% of the harvestable surplus, unless specifically adjudicated otherwise (like Quillayute, I believe). If Hoodsport chum production were lower, the treaty allocation would also be lower. I would have to see compelling evidence that the state is obligated by law to fund a fishery that is noted primarily for the waste it generates.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

It seems to me that the fishing in the canal and its tribs is soley a hatchery fishery any more.If you were to do away with the hatcheries and the smolt plants in the tribs there would be no fishing.The rivers are catch and release exept hatchery steelhead.Catch and release with no controls on methods,a treble hook and a worm is just fine but release it.The salmon seasons are planned around the hatchery returns on either end exept for a limited blackmouth season which I believe are for the most part are penn raised.I am not as sure about the blackmouth but with the chinook salmon being listed by the feds I cannot imagine that they would allow a fishery targeting the imature endangered fish?

This makes no sense to me and never has.This is why I get a little uppitty about the snagfest that the canal has turned into.I know and love the canal with all my heart and hate to see it turned into what it is being turned into.Every fall I get to hear about the Quill,Skoke and finch creek atrosities.If you were to take these away none of you guys would even bother with the canal because the state has alowwed the sportsmen,comercial,and tribal fishermen to take so many fish that they are coming close to becoming a thing of the past.I asked Bill Herzog what he thought was wrong with our favorite rivers.He got to fish them in all there glory.His answer in a nut shell was the they allowed way to many fish to be taken out of the systems.I know this because while everybody has been having there fun at "the zone" I have been hiking the rivers counting fish.I have done this for up to ten years now.Instead of admitting this the state is covering it up with these snag shows.The east side of the Olympic mountains has alot more to offer than that and it would seem that the state does not want you to know about it.

This leads me to wonder why?Why is the state afraid to tell the truth about the condition of the Hood canal?I have often wondered what recoarse the Skokomish tribal nation would have if they could put the blame on the state.It was the state that sets the rules controlling logging.It was the state that alowed tacoma power to dam the north fork and continues to liscinse it.It was the state that established the numbers that decide the 50/50 split between the two interests.And those number,in short order decimated the fish stocks in the hood canal.It is the states fault.

I am done ranting.I hope this gives everybody a little bit to think about.I know you guys are ethical fishermen that are just having fun and am sorry for sounding like a jerk,but honestly I have hiked the canyons of the canal since I was a little boy and has brought tears to my eyes as I watch all this happen.

peace

Salmo I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the treaty rights issue. The original treaty language said that the tribes should be allowed to fish "in kind" with the rest of the people. That was interpretted to mean 50% by Judge Boldt. Now a recent ruling has also given them 50% of shellfish. That is all federal law. The fact is , however, in Washington the tribes are also "co-managers" and have an equal say in setting of seasons and other regulations. The North of Falcon process is an allocation process where all user groups have a say and decisions are made as to allocations and seasons.. The tribes absolutely make up what they claim is lost ground. This is happening right now with crabbing. If the tribes don't feel they got their share they can close down other fisheries while they continue to harvest. This is supposed to be a give and take process...not necessarily a straight 50% across the board. Check out the figures for Elliott bay...That fishery was very lopsided towards the tribes...So they may get 50% overall but on an individual fishery like the Hoodsport Chum fishery they might get 80%. In fact they are ahead of the curve on most fisheries...This is a complex issue for the average working guy to spend the time to understand...Keep reading up on this because we are continually losing ground to the tribes. Don't kid yourself on the 50% deal...Join the RFA today and help stop the tide.