For 2023, Sacramento, Klamath Chinook are forecasted to be in the dumpster. This closure was in recognition of that as this early spring season was set at last year's PFMC meeting. The PFMC ocean alternatives for the rest of the year are for no troll or sport fisheries (except a little starting Sept 1) for Chinook and only coho fisheries for sport south of Cape Falcon. The final ocean season package for WA, OR, CA will be decided in April PFMC meeting.

03/12/2023


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia, WA 98501

wdfw.wa.gov


March 10, 2023
Contact: Kyle Adicks, 360-902-2664
Media contact: Mark Yuasa, 360-902-2262

WDFW seeks public input on 2023 proposals for Washington's ocean salmon fisheries


The options for 2023 include the following quotas for state recreational fisheries off the Washington coast:


Option 1 42,500 Chinook and 168,000 marked coho.


• La Push and Neah Bay (Marine Areas 3 and 4): June 17-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery. No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1. A tentative La Push Chinook-only bubble fishery opens Oct. 3-7 in the La Push Late Season Salmon Area.

• Westport (Marine Area 2): June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.

• Columbia River area (Marine Areas 1): June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.


Option 2 37,500 Chinook and 155,400 marked coho.


• La Push and Neah Bay (Marine Areas 3 and 4): June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery. No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.

• Westport (Marine Area 2): July 1-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.

• Columbia River area (Marine Area 1): June 24-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery.


Option 3 32,500 Chinook and 142,800 marked coho.


• La Push and Neah Bay (Marine Areas 3 and 4): July 1-Sept. 24 Chinook and marked coho fishery. No Chinook retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line beginning Aug. 1.

• Westport (Marine Area 2): July 2-Sept. 30 Chinook and marked coho fishery. This area would be open five days per week (Sunday-Thursday) under this alternative.

• Columbia River Area (Marine Area 1): June 26-Sept. 24 Chinook and marked coho fishery.


The Email from WDFW was much to long to post in 1 posting. There was nothing about "conservation" or the impacts on the release of "Wild Coho".






[size:17pt][/size]

So the proposal, as written above, allows harvest of any Chinook. Shouldn't the give us a Stilly Sea Run fishery.

Sure would be nice to get any type of fishery on the Stilly these days!

It is always dumbfounding to me that you can keep a wild chinook in the ocean off Westport but no chinook retention(wild or hatchery) whatsoever in the Chehalis system. I guess money talks.

03/13/2023



I agree....what's even more amazing to me. Oregon and California cut way back on commercial and sports because "they see a major problem", but not WDFW. off the coast.

WDFW managers only see their areas of assignment, I will give them credit on the hatchery only Coho. IMO, Chinook should be a "hatchery only" until the Chinook numbers, in the Chehalis system make escapement numbers, X numbers of years in a row.

The ocean season, needs to have the seasons shortened, more on the backend so more fish can cross the bar.

It's called "siloing". You work in a silo (military surplus nuclear-proof silos) and have no contact outside the walls. Showing an interest outside your silo can be career shortening. I was ordered, one time, to be concerned only with what was happening within my Area.

I was looking that run estimates for 2023, and I am a bit confused about how the numbers work. Looking at the Skokomish, it appears that only 350 native kings are expected to return (Skokomish Total, 25540 Natural 350). with numbers like this, it seems that the run would be on its last leg. Yet there is a massive tribal fishery. The Stillaguamish shows a return with a total of only 1210, but 710 natural.

The Nisqually, with all its pressure, is only expected to get back 739 naturals.

These are terminal run sizes, so from definition they would include escapement, freshwater fishery mortalities, and fishery mortalities in terminal fisheries. I take this to mean the numbers are before the terminal fishery takes place. Am I missing something, even if they are escapement, can 350 be a sufficient number for a river the size of the Skok.

It's called Bullchit!!

Yeah, the terminal run size is supposed to be the number of fish that enter the "terminal" area which is generally the bay the river feeds into. That number is, again, "supposed" to include all the mortalities accounted for in the bay and river. This would be escapement, catch, release mortalities, and (at least back in the day) net drop-out. Back in time there was a piece added for pinniped predation on fish in nets. can't speak for what is included now but it tis obvious from the Skok example and maybe even the Nosqually that recovery of wild Chinook is not a value shared amongst the managers.

Staff has sent out to its mailing list the first harvest model with Grays Harbor 2023 forecast with all 2022 seasons. For those who did not get it PM myself or R6 staff a request for it.

What the model shows is that the QIN 2022 seasons do not meet 2023 escapement requirements. Also as to the NT Commercials as you can see below the 1% this model has does not meet the 0.8 as the Rec impacts are modeled at 3.36. In other word the NT Comm need to give up impacts. In 2022 the last model showed an 2% NT nets impact which screwed us over, in particular with that low flows rec shut down that was total BS. With ZOOM as used last year a real look at the numbers was simply limited by not be able to access information.

Hopefully this year is different ........... I would not recommend doing that as your likely to expire.

3) The following guidelines describe the anticipated sharing of fishery impacts in the Grays Harbor Basin between WDFW-managed commercial, marine recreational, and freshwater recreational fisheries. Variation from these guidelines may occur if it will result in fisheries that more closely achieve the stated purpose of this policy.

a) WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:

Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery.

I like the weasel words. Impact "may" be less than 0.8%.

Grays Harbor is so far beyond its "use by" date, the state of Chinook is pitiful. WDFW should discontinue raising hatchery Chinook in the basin. That would end having any excuse for scheduling NT gillnet fishing in the harbor. Time to stick a fork in GH gillnetting and call it done.

We have to keep NI gill netting so the Tribes won't be the only ones using them. That was the argument that apparently persuaded the House to kill the anti-NI gill net bill for the Columbia.

There are no hatchey chinook planted in the Nooch and only a small plant in the Satsop. Maybe a small chinook plant at lake Aberdeen. Not sure of the numbers of hatchery chinook in the Humptulips.

The egg take numbers for hatchery chinook I saw on the WDFW website for this last fall were :
Humptulips 280,000 eggs
Lake Aberdeen 68,500 eggs
Satsop Springs 104,000 eggs
Pathetic numbers.

wdfw is figuring only 1,196 hatchery chinook for the chehalis.. now thats pathetic!!!!!

With the small number of hatchery chinook planted in the Chehalis system I have to wonder if this somehow justifies having a NI gillnet fishery on the Chehalis. With those numbers it sure isn't benefitting the rec fishery much.

With about 1200 hatchery Chinook, that's a pathetic justification for a NT gillnet fishery. WDFW is pissing taxpayer's money down a rathole to maintain a "fishery" that defies justification.

We don't need a NT gillnet fishery. It hurts taxpayers. It hurts wild Chinook. It doesn't provide enough recreational fishing to justify the cost. So what if the Indians are the only ones using gillnets? The tribes are gonna' do their thing no matter what, and they have had the court of public opinion on their side for years, so it's not like they'd be risking anything.

If WDFW was interested in ecosystem management of the Grays Harbor basin, they would manage it for what it is best suited for under contemporary environmental conditions. I think that would be wild coho, chum salmon, cutthroat trout, and some steelhead. A few wild Chinook will likely persist because it's difficult to wipe out a fish species entirely. But if WDFW continues with NT gillnet fishing in the Harbor, they just might succeed.

WDFW sucks Butt.
They are a pathetic government agency sucking the life out of "Our" resources.
Netting fish in this day and age is ridiculous.