+2 here too!

Been looking for a large clothespin for my nose at Lowes and Home Depot recently as all this smells to high heaven!

I just don't get his they can blatantly lie about it and no-one bats an eye....

+3........No Deal!

And this, following a year of increased meetings between the tribes and last years NOF. One of the requests from the advisor panel was to meet sooner to prevent this from occurring again. All the meetings in the world help no one when one party attempts to sabotage the process for their own benefit.

Maybe someone can clarify something for me. I've heard that the biggest sticking point right now is getting Puyallup harvest of Chinook from 58% to 50%. Is that including modeled incidental impacts? Is that referring to hatchery or wild Chinook? It seems to me that we should be going for much more than 50% harvest of hatchery Chinook.

I just don't understand what that number is really referring to.

I believe that's tribal harvest, they are taking 58 percent and the WDFW wants to drop that to 50 percent and the tribes are saying no way, they don't want us fishing for them at all....

Boldt decision working flawlessly....

The 50% exploitation rate that was mentioned is for naturally produced Chinook. That would include catch in directed Chinook fisheries as well as incidental catch in other fisheries. I guess I also should edit this for Evo. These are total exploitation rates from all fisheries.

OncyT ia correct.

The 50% exploitation is for the wild ESA listed Chinook and comes from the Co-managers Puget Sound Chinook management plan (latest edition is from 2010) and federally approved. The 50% exploitation includes all fishing mortality - directed and incidental. Those allowable impacts were determined after detailed modeling such that fishing at or below those levels would not significantly increase the likelihood of extinct over the next century. A couple assumptions were used; one that habitat would not become worst and two that recent low marine survivals would continue.

The rub is what fisheries will be constrained to reduce the over all impacts down to 50%. The tribes want a sharing of those reduction even though account for the majority of the total impacts.

Yes you are correct Curt, but it very likely that this population is simply being sustained by spawning of strays from the hatchery program, so it is also likely that a 58% (or higher) harvest rate would not significantly increase the likelihood of extinction over the next century as the population is being maintained by the hatchery program. Should it happen to become extinct during that time, the managers could simply go back to the hatchery population and let them spawn wherever they want, and pretty much end up with the same population. That is what is so infuriating about the fact that limitations of harvest on this particular population is what is driving the near term existence of Puget Sound fisheries.

Without a doubt most of the south Sound Chinook are being supported by natural spawning hatchery fish (integrated program). The Puyallup Chinook normally do not constrain mixed stock fisheries and only do so this year is the tribal position of not sharing the impacts equitably.

Curt

Then you understand that it is not very likely for a composite population made up of 90% hatchery fish being fished at a rate that can't be sustained by the natural population to actually show any increase in productivity. Abundance, of course, can be increased by the contribution of the hatchery component of the population. What is being accomplished by managing overall PS fisheries based on exploitation rate limitations on this particular population? I suggest again, that this entire approach is a sham.

Reading what Curt wrote about the plan is disturbing. The "goal" of the supposed recovery plan is simply the prevention of extinction. Not recovery. So, if they are successful we keep those stocks listed in perpetuity.

At the same time, everybody else (habitat, hydro, hatcheries) have to actually make things better.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/enviro...emate/184772520

A lot of people still being affected and don't know....

It's amazing that with salmon nowhere near those lakes, a guy can't even toss out a bobber and worm. Meanwhile, the tribes never missed a day.

At least enforcement appears to be understanding by just handing out warnings.

Lake Washington and Sammamish have Salmon in them year round....

Sprouts maybe, it would be interesting to see what the impact calculations are for the perch fisherman. The fact that's some huge concern is unbelievable. Removing a perch( or a trout or bass for that matter) from the lake prevents them eating the smolts! Its likely a positive impact but those common sense thoughts have no place in the states management. They only seem to be interested in figures that are negative.

I would be absolutely gobsmacked if there have been any actual tickets written

Yawn> Business as usual IMHO Waiting for "answers" from these closed meetings is similar to waiting for a new Pope to be elected

Salmon in Lake Cushman? Heck of a leap over that dam.... stuff like that makes it clear the Tribes are just trying to piss us off. Seems to be working.