There are alot of potential fisheries that could be available to sportfishermen this year!

Help show support by attending these meetings.

If we raise our collective voice these fisheries could be ours!!!!!!!!

If you have any questions about these meetings or possible fisheries please call Scott at 425-415-1575


REMINDER-- Every year, spring and fall fisheries are negotiated. Every, single year, hard working members of NSIA and our allies in the fishing community work to provide seasons that are of maximum benefit to the sportfishing community. (Some of the fruits of the years of work are: A potential new selective fishery on chinook in Puget Sound and the nearly 20 million dollar spring chinook fishery in the Columbia.) These meetings are important, and the outcome will be better if you can help out.

I have pasted below the KEY meetings where the fall fisheries in Oregon and Washington (N. of Falcon) will be set.

March 11 Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Regional Meeting, Montesano High School Commons, 303 North Church St., Montesano, 7-9 pm:
The Department will review 2003 expected abundances and management objectives and solicit public ideas about possible fisheries for these two coastal areas.

March 13 Puget Sound Regional Meeting, WDFW North Puget Sound Regional Office, Mill Creek, Washington, 7-9 pm:
The Department will review 2003 expected abundances and management objectives and solicit public ideas about possible salmon fisheries in Puget Sound.

March 18 Columbia River Fisheries Discussion, Columbia Double Tree Inn

The Department will review 2003 expected abundances and management objectives and solicit public ideas about possible salmon fisheries in Columbia River.

March 20 First Public North of Falcon Meeting, Natural Resource Building, Olympia, begins 9 am:
Statewide and regional fishery work sessions will occur to review and discuss "starting options" for 2003 salmon fisheries, comparing the results with conservation objectives and treaty allocation requirements. The Department will solicit ideas from participants on potential modifications to these initial ideas and review results of state-tribal manager-to-manager discussions.

April 2 Second Public North of Falcon Meeting,
Holiday Inn, SeaTac, Washington, begins 9 am:
Statewide and regional fishery work sessions will occur to review and refine regulations for 2003 salmon fisheries. The Department will discuss modifications made to initial proposals developed in March meetings.
Note: The Department may make final decisions for some Puget Sound and coastal salmon fisheries at this meeting, or shortly thereafter, upon reaching agreements with treaty Indian fishery managers.

April 7-11 Final PFMC Meeting, Red Lion at the Quay, Vancouver, Washington:
The Council adopts a final package of 2003 ocean salmon fishery regulations.
The Department and treaty fishery managers complete agreements on the final 2003 North of Falcon management package.

Good post, Kent.

It's kind of like my opinion of political discussions. If you didn't vote, then quit your b!tchin'.

If you don't participate in the process that allocates fish, don't complain when you don't get yours.

Fish on...

Todd.

For all of you who are intersested in participating, the Mill Creek N.O.F meeting on Thursday (3/13) is the one we need to be at to have our voices heard about Salmon fishing in the Puget Sound this year. Please do your best to show up and speak up!!!

Taken form the WDFW website on NOF meetings:


The North-of-Falcon public planning forum in which federal, state and tribal fish managers meet in tandem with PFMC deliberations on ocean seasons, to set recreational and commercial salmon fisheries for waters within three miles of the coast of Washington and northern Oregon, as well as Puget Sound. The North of Falcon season setting process occurs in a series of public meetings each spring, attended by federal, state, tribal and commercial fishing industry representatives, as well as other concerned citizens.

It is important for all those interested to voice their opinions. However, I think it's a funny way to manage fish--who screams loudest. Seems that management strategy led to the decline in chinook populations in the first place.

Based on what we've seen for selective coho fisheries, I do not support selective fisheries for chinook. Until anglers learn to not net fish before determining if it is to be retained, and treat those being released with utmost care, we will just be killing fish to feed the seals. I've seen appalling treatment of fish at Sekui and Neah Bay. Sadly, I don't think that we are ready for selective chinook fisheries.

We salmon fishermen could learn a lot from C & R steelheaders.

Sea Claire,

You may or may not be right about management being the culprit for chinook, I'm not really up to date on all the current "scoops" for kings...

That being said, they are going to assign harvestable numbers to the runs, whether we're there to participate or not. If sporties don't argue for their share, then their share will be allocated to a different sport fishery or to a commercial fishery.

Ugly, but true.

Fish on...

Todd.

sea_claire,

I also saw the Sekui fiasco this last fall. The state would heve been better to have let fishermen kill the first two fish they caught and quit fishing after that because the hooking mortality rate had to have been extreme. It got to where you could tell if the fish had and adipose long before you saw the fin because of how beat up they were from being previously caught.

A very simple way to remedy this is to mandate the use of a SINGLE barbless hook and to not allow anglers to remove fish with an adipose fin from the water, PERIOD!

It is amazing how effective a dowel with a hook on the end can remove a single barbless hook from a fish without touching the fish or bringing it into the boat.

The Skykomish King fishery is a great example of sportsmen standing up for themselves to get a fishery thats does not impact wild fish.

For years thousands of hatchery Kings were returning to the Sky but no one got to fish for them because no one stood up to ask for it.

Thanks to those who did because that is just one of the fisheries that sportsmen are entitled to and finally asked for and got it!

This just goes to show that we can be heard and fish without impacting the resource!

I'm all for a hatchery-targeted fishery. It's the by-catch issue that troubles me.

I agree that there would be less overall impact from allowing fishermen to keep the first two silvers instead of hooking and maiming 7 and killing half of those, before getting a hatchery fish. I know that attitude runs counter to a lot of the C&R arguments I see on this board. I think it's a different argument for silvers vs. steelhead, though.

My concern is that WDFW is estimating about 4 or 5 unclipped fish for each clipped fish for the king fishery. I see it as revisiting Sekui conditions everywhere in the strait.

I'd rather see them extend blackmouth fishing into May, where there might be some incidental mortality of early kings. The ratios are better (clipped vs. unclipped) that time of year, as there really aren't kings in great numbers.

Can people write in comments as well as attend those meetings? I can't get away from family obligations so easily.

I went to the meeting in Mill Creek last night and was disappointed in the showing of fresh water salmon fishermen. The meeting started at 7 and salt water opportunities were discussed until 8:45 and then Curt Kreamer talked about the fresh water preproposals and only had maybe 3 questions from people at the meeting!! His part lasted about 10 minutes. These meetings are where the fish "pie" gets cut up into pieces so I have to assume that the fresh water salmon fishermen are happy with their piece!! For those of you that fish the beach over in area 9 there is a move by charter and private boat fisherman to trade(close) the July opener (coho and pinks) for an April season for blackmouth. I spoke for retaining the July fishery, but you know, if your not there to voice an opinion, those that do go to these meetings help set the seasons and policy. There was a large showing by 5 or 6 PSA clubs.

I'm just curious as to the effects of a selective summer fishery for chinook on rehab efforts. I still question why we allow chinook retention near anderson island when the nisqually stocks are so depressed that a river fishery cannot be supported. And what of the Skagit river stocks? It makes completely no sense to me that we should allow a saltwater fishery for chinook and yet once those lucky salmon make it to puget sound rivers they receive varying degrees of protection ranging from no take to catch and keep on the Sky. I would argue that this is a dilemma for the whole entire puget sound region and parts of the oly pen.

sea_claire ... as perhaps one of the most vocal supporters of C&R, I hear what you're saying.

Effective C&R must have an acceptibly low mortalility rate. While that "magic" number is open to discussion, I don't think anyone wants to see a fishery in which 15-20% or more of the released fish die.

High wastage C&R fisheries are detrimental to the creation / continuation of those fisheries in which 90-95% of the fish do fare well after release.

I too often have my concerns over intercept fisheries ... whether localized like the Anderson Island fishery mentioned or perhaps on a larger scale such as both sport and commerical fisheries in SE Alaska that involve a high percentage of OR and WA fish ...