Another "deal" that I cannot fathom is the agreement between WDFW and the Tulalips to increase production of Chinook at the Wallace River hatchery by 250K apparently to increase returns so that more eggs can be made available to the Tulalip hatchery program.

The Tulalips get more eggs, sporty dollars pay for the additional production from the hatchery, and what do WE get in return? So far all I have heard back is that those fish (both tribal and state releases) ultimately become available and dilute the potential for hooking and having to release wild fish. Supposedly that will improve the marked selective fishery in MA9/10 but not expand that opportunity into MA 8-2.

If someone can explain this in a manner that makes me feel better about my money going into this agreement I would very much appreciate it.

You get more opportunity (time on the water) in MA 9/10. To WDFW that is a win.

WDFW needs to clearly lay out their vision for a salmon fishing future. They have an idea of how much they can produce in the hatcheries, they have recovery goals, they have models into which they can put those numbers and then craft fisheries. What would that give the sporties?

It would also help the sport fishing community to know what the vision for the future is and if they want to be part of it.

Well, sure, more time on the water is clearly the selling point but is it reality or urban legend? That carrot on the one hand yet go to NOF and the battle is on for maintenance of that fishery let alone any expansion either time wise or into 8-2. Did that agreement come with advanced buy in from the several tribes who will benefit? Hard to understand entering into the agreement without having concurrently ensured constituents will benefit without having to fight over it at NOF each and every year.

Oh, and the two tribes opposing the PNP ramp development claiming, in part, that users will somehow adversely impact their ability to exercise their treaty rights will be direct beneficiaries of that increased production in part paid for by sportsmen who would use a new PNP ramp.

And WDFW has a plan????

Ya get time on the water here but if you want good fishing for WA salmon you need to go to S.E. AK or Canada.

The situation with the Tulalip Chinook is a classic illustration of how are sport seasons are limited and constructed.

The amount of time on the marine waters for the Puget Sound recreational fleet is limited by impacts on the weakest ESA listed stocks encountered in the fishery; not the amount of the available hatchery fish. However having more hatchery fish available means that each of those critical ESA listed fish killed more hatchery fish will be harvested.

Because the many of the recreational anglers but a high value on being about to fish in the salt; which by their very nature are mixed stock areas they potential harvest will always be limited those impacts on the weakest stocks. For most tribal fisheries which take place in terminal areas the amount of allowable impacts available is determined by the local stocks; not the weakest Puget Sound stock (except for those terminal fisheries for those weakest stocks).

The State could easily more fairly balance the harvest ledger for Puget Sound Chinook any time it desired. All that is need is to shift the harvest effort from mixed stock areas (less marine water fishing) to the terminal areas and allocate more of the harvest to gill nets and less for the recreational fishery. Currently Commission policy calls for the recreational fishery be given first priority at the non-treaty share for Puget Sound Chinook and it is clear at NOF that much of the angler community puts a high priority on being able to fish those mixed stock areas like MAs 7, 9, 10, 11, 5 etc.

I can understand those decisions but anglers must be prepared to answer the question of what is more important to them. Is having a more equitable 50/50 sharing of harvest (and what it takes to get there) or having those mixed stock fisheries (even though that means giving up some harvest) the most important? The harsh reality in today's world of ESA listed fish we can not have it both ways.

For sure something to think about. For those that have considered that above question and developed a strong opinion on how that decision is made I encourage you to find a way to get involved in the NOF season setting process. Yes I realize that whole process is a colossal pain in the rear, far too complex, can be unfair and frustrating but it is the venue we have to influence our seasons.

Curt

So with the mixed stock reality being what it is and apparently the driving force for reduced impacts in MA9 and 10 wouldn't increased plants in MA 8-2 tributaries lead to a conclusion that shifting recreational pressure into 8-2 (a more terminal fishery) would be a positive management action?

Or is there an ESA listed run of Chinook that is in worse shape than the Lake WA fish which, as I understand it, are the driving force for at least this year's reductions?