All the chinook 10-percenters on this board might be a bit disappointed to find out just how small a dent they really make with rod/reel in-river.

What the latest Hump data shows is that for the 3 most recent brood years with a complete run reconstruction (2003-2005) the stock is being exploited at 72% of total adult production, leaving 28% for the gravel.

Within that 72% exploitation piece, 70% of it occurs in SE-AK and BC, 24% occurs thru in-basin netting, and only 6% thru in-basin sport harvest.

The AK/BC piece accounts for a pre-terminal (northern intercept) exploitation of 50% of total adult production. Half the fish are taken before a single king crosses bar. Within that AK/BC piece, the exploitation is split overwhelmingly commercial by a factor of 4:1 (80/20).

As for the in-basin piece, the commercial exploitation once again dominates by a factor of 4:1 (80/20).

Love to see one year with 0 commercial interception, fishing would be like whats that guys name........OFFDAHOOK

"

We are not gonna control Alaskan waters, that's for sure....So back to the Boldt ruling which guarantees an equal split harvestable fish, I wonder what the percentage of commercial take is between tribal vs. non-tribal? Supposed to be 50/50, including the 6% sport harvest, is that right?

Whenever I see a commercial haul, it always seems MORE than the 80:20 quoted above. I'd guess it's more like 95%/ 5%.

Thats fuzzy math Ned. Alaska, BC, Wa coastal are white technically 50% I doubt the Indians get 50% of the Hump King harvest if Docs harvest data is acurate.

No math from me! Just wondering how these numbers actually fall into the Boldt allocations from a management perspective.

Doc's numbers are correct. They are off the 03/04/05 CWT data that was extrapolated and provided by R-6 District 17 staff. If you want the entire spread sheet PM me and I will send it to you. Otherwise on the question " are Doc's numbers correct " ..... yup.

As to Boldt 50 / 50 there is a history on how the tribes got to be co managers. Maybe CM will run it around for us.

I was going to say in the Humptulip but apparently I'd be wrong.

My first trip to Sitka I was calling the fish. "That's a PS king. That's a CR king." Skipper called bs until one was found to be tagged from Icecycle Crk. Ever since I've been able to just make it up out of thin air and they beleave me.

And they make us use barbless hooks.....

Excluding all other sources of adult mortality (i.e. none for the orcas, sea lions or bears) in order to support a 75% exploitation rate, the stock must be able to produce a pre-harvest adult recruit ratio of at least FOUR adult recruits per spawner. Three of those recruits would be expended as harvest, leaving one recruit for the gravel to sustain the original spawning population.

So let's throw the predators a bone…

Now you need production of FIVE pre-harvest recruits per spawner to support that level of exploitation. One for all the predators, three for all the nets and hooks, leaving one lonely fish for the gravel.

Those are some really interesting numbers. I didn't realize the Alaskan/BC commies were that numerous or effective (or both),

fb

Yeah, pretty astounding that 94% of the take has already happened before the first bobber goes down in the Hump itself.

They need to start serving farmed fish in all those fancy restaurants that buy up all those fish. I bet NYC alone consumes more springer & wild steelhead then we all do here in the NW.

Pick yer poison!

fb

Historically a large number of Washington bound kings and silvers have been traded to the BC/Vancouver Island sport and commercial fisheries for allowing Alaskan netters to catch Skeena sockeye under the Canada-US Pacific Salmon Treaty.

How about a re-write of the Canada-US Pacific Salmon Treaty that requires our neighbors up north to financially compensate these programs that they are almost entirely catching? How can we not ask for this?…. 94% is mind boggling and a huge waste of state resources.

The better solution, of course, would be to eliminate all ocean commercial fisheries thus allowing the fish to reach maximum size and return to their rightful river and country. The country/regions doing the tough work through enhancement and habitat work would get to (rightfully) reap the rewards of that work. The regions doing squat would have to look in the mirror and get their $hit together on their own rivers.

We all know the odds of that happening though, don't we?

Yes,terminal fisheries are the best solution but there are to many entrenched interests for that to happen any time soon.

The Skeena sockeye are having problems and the Canadians are trying to get the Alaskan interception reduced. If there was any justice in this world the SE Alaska and Canadian commercial and sport fisheries should see large cuts in intercepting Washington bound salmon in return for cuts in Alaskan interception of Skeena sockeye. The trade for WA bound salmon in favor for the SE AK netters was a semi back room/under the table deal so it will probably be ignored in the negotiations to get the AK netters off the Skeena sockeye.

i am curious if steelhead suffer the same sort of mortality % by contributing parties.

From what I've seen, harvest is NOT the main culprit for PS stocks. Most of the production is lost before juveniles make their way out of the sound.

Have seen nothing on coastal stocks, but I would guess tribal netting is a bigger factor than anything

FWIW,

I would be willing to bet the loss of habitat in the estuary is primary for loss of smolts.

and you would loose.

Compared to different points in time from say 1920 on, the GH estuary is in better shape than it has been since early last century.