NEWS RELEASE


WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091

Internet Address: http://wdfw.wa.gov


March 12, 2004


Contact: Pat Pattillo, (360) 902-2705;

Or: Doug Williams, (360) 902-2256


Federal panel adopts summer

ocean salmon fishing options


OLYMPIA – Despite preseason forecasts for strong runs of chinook and coho salmon to many Washington rivers, catch quotas for this summer’s coastal salmon fisheries will likely be lower than those established last year.


Fishing options adopted today by the federal Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) reflect a continuing need to limit pressure on weak stocks of Columbia River and Puget Sound chinook salmon.


All three options for recreational fisheries are lower than the final quotas for chinook and coho salmon last year. A final decision on this year’s ocean fishing seasons will be made by the PFMC during its April 5-9 meeting in Sacramento.


“The options adopted under this federal fisheries process give us a management framework that ensures weak salmon stocks get the conservation protection they need as we shape biologically sound fishing opportunities on healthy stocks,” said Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Jeff Koenings.


The council’s proposed ocean recreational fishing options for 2004 are:


58,000 chinook and 206,250 coho;
45,000 chinook and 168,750 coho; and
30,000 chinook and 131,250 coho.

In 2003, the PFMC adopted recreational ocean fishing quotas of 59,600 chinook and 225,000 coho salmon. The actual recreational ocean catch in 2003 was 36,500 chinook and 168,800 coho.


While overall salmon abundances appear to be healthy in many portions of the state this year, a few critically low salmon stocks – including Puget Sound chinook – will require extra protection, said Phil Anderson, WDFW special assistant to the director.


These stocks are protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and mix with more abundant wild and hatchery salmon stocks in coastal and pre-terminal marine areas, Anderson said.


In conjunction with the federal PFMC process, state and tribal co-managers are developing fishing seasons for “inside” waters, including Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal.


The state and tribes are scheduled to meet March 17 at 9 a.m. at the Lynnwood Embassy Suites, and again on March 30 at the SeaTac Holiday Inn, to continue development of this year’s comprehensive salmon-fishing plan.


Both ocean and Puget Sound fishing plans should be completed by the end of the PFMC’s meeting in Sacramento.


More information on the preseason salmon planning process is available on WDFW’s “North of Falcon” webpage, at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/northfalcon/ on the Internet.

Steve,

Many thanks for all the great data you present here. I don't (yet) understand it all...but it's nice to know the state has some good watchdogs keeping an eye on them.

"The state and tribes are scheduled to meet March 17 at 9 a.m. at the Lynnwood Embassy Suites, and again on March 30 at the SeaTac Holiday Inn, to continue development of this year’s comprehensive salmon-fishing plan."

Is this meeting closed to all but the tribes? Might not hurt to have a lurker in the crowd to take note of any good/bad that takes place?

Mike

Mike...that's funny...closedx to everyone but the tribes....hahaha...Almost seems like that. In years gone by the tribes would not even participate until the final meeting when they would swoop in and put the kibosh on everything that didn't drectly benefit them. Now they participate throughout the process and THEN put the kibosh on anything that does not have a "payback" of bonus to them. The meetings are open to the public but the real decisions are already setting themselves in stone. If you want to make a difference you have to be prepared this year for next year. The meeting in Lynnwood this coming week is an all day affair with lots of deal making in small groups with very little input from the public. Remember those backroom deals we talk about....

I am sitting here stalling from getting started on all the house work and paperwork staring me in the face...better suck it up and get busy

If all of these options are "biologically sound", why is there such a BIG discrepancy between options 1) and 3)? Does it make any sense that we get to kill twice as many in one scenario and yet they can say weak stocks are still "protected"? Or is presenting the available options in this manner just one more way of sticking it to the sports if the fish czars choose option 3)?

FishingDoc -
Remember that the ocean fisheries are mixed stock areas. The differences between the options are how much of the allowable impacts are being allocated to ocean fisheries versus a more terminal fishery.

In theory it would be possible to catch all the allowable impacts on say an upper Columbia/Sanke river chinook stock in the ocean fishery. Therefore there would not be any fishing that might catch those stocks anywhere else (say mouth of Columbia or up river). To put it simply option 3 would have 1/2 the chinook imapcts of option 1 thus "reserving" those impacts for other "inside" fisheries.

Whether that is a good deal or not really depends on where you fish - which is what the North of Falcon and PFMC processes are all about.

Tight lines
S malma

S malma

As always, you supply this board with excellent information. Thanks for clearing that up.

Smalma has it correct....The whole process is about allocation. Since the Canadians over fished last year and plan on doing it again this year in the mixed stock areas in the ocean we probably will cut back seasons in the ocean so we have some allocation left inside. Say the Skykomish Chinook fishery? That is what the process boils down to. The pie doesn't get bigger it just gets cut up different every season. Unfortunately in the big picture when we stop fishing in the ocean the tribes will not.

Grandpa -
While the Canadians caught more chinook that anticpated their catch was within the guidelines established in the US/Canada treaty. So it probably isn't correct to say that they over fished. What is true is that the expected impacts from their fishing means that there is less room in Washington fisheries in regard to ESA chinook impact. This will no doubt to a source for some wrestling matches at NOF.

Believe that the ocean allocations include the tribal fisheries. Tribal, sport and commerical impacts all count.

Tight lines
S malma

What I meant was that Canada caught a huge amount of fish beyond what we were lead to believe ahead of time. Since we plan seasons ahead this is what I meant. Canada will not go over the agreed treaty limits but did go well beyond what the planners expected last year. So this year Canada says they will do it again. We will need to plan accordingly which means cutbacks....

One never likes to see cutbacks but it could be worse. If you notice, the 2003 final catch (a full season of opportunity) was only slightly higher than the worst of the 3 scenarios proposed.

The only thing I worry about is certain sections of ocean being open where another is closed.