FleaFlicker-

There will be game fish closures in freshwater areas not because the salmon returns are such that impacts would be excessive but rather because with no agreement the State doesn't have the paper work to cover those ESA encounters and will not have that coverage until such time as they get the permits to go alone (assuming they don't allow the game fish coverage to fall through the cracks).

BrainM-
You are correct the game fish coverage was achieved under a section of the co-manager's Puget Sound Chinook management plan which without an agreement doesn't provide that coverage (I think because of the tribal connection it was under a section 6 permit). It was just easier for the Feds and the State to short cut the process to do it under.

Not familiar enough with the entire permitting process to know which way is the best way to go to get that ESA take coverage. However have a real concern about the potential time it may take to achieve that coverage. Need to look no further than the various hatchery genetic management plans and the length of time it took to review and approve those. Which is clearly why folks are advocating for encouraging the decision makers to increase the pressure on the feds to move quickly.

Curt

Here is a link to a letter from Chad Magendanz Representative of 5th Legislative District to NOAA Fisheries regarding his thoughts of “the dysfunctional North of Falcon season setting process while asking for NOAA-F to provide leadership, resources, and staff to respond to this crisis with rapidity and concern.”

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/CCAconnect/19592_201604-27RepMagendanzLtr.pdf

Chasin' Baitman -
You are correct in that the poor coho returns have been largely driven by ocean conditions; namely that infamous "warm blob" of the coast. Thankful that appears to broken down. However the coho situation may persist for awhile; in the past poor coho returns to Puget Sound has been associated with severe droughts or a strong "el Niño. Unfortunately the coho smolt head to the sea this spring experienced a historic drought and will final a strong "el Niño" when they get the ocean.

A potential future concern exists for PS Chinook; the fish returning in 2017 and 2018 enter the ocean the same time that last year and this year coho did. Hopefully they will not be as adversely affect as the coho but any additional drop in ocean survival will be concerning.

Yes this winter "blackmouth" season was excellent but there remains some uncertainty whether all those shakers are indicators of a strong upcoming year class of fish or just that many of those young fish moved into the sound from the ocean to find food.

Curt

More explanation of the current situation:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/f...-work-together/

LL,
Thanks for posting that.
Hopefully more of our representatives do the same.
SF

cohoangler, I don't think I'm mixing up incidental take and allocated harvest, just pointing out that if incidental take of a species (while fishing for another species) pushes one party over their take allotment for the incidental species (treaty language just uses "take"), due solely to a choice of fishing method, I think it's fair to ding them for going over their allocated share.

This is what I'm getting at, and I think there may be a basis in the Treaty and associated law for this result. Basically, if there are so few wild fish that there is no harvestable surplus, then any incidental take (while fishing for their share of harvestable hatchery fish) is going beyond that they are entitled to under the treaty w/r/t unharvestable wild fish.

Or, alternatively, if the harvestable surplus of wild fish is so low that they would need to take more than 50% of the harvestable surplus of wild fish to get their 50% allocation of non-wild fish (due to their choice of fishing methods), then I think the 50% of harvestable wild fish should act as a limiting factor on take of harvestable non-wild fish. If they can't get to 50% of the hatchery allocation without going over their 50% of the wild allocation, tough cookies.

I'm using "harvestable surplus" because I think you can get to this result without applying the ESA. It gets trickier if you say there is no harvestable surplus of wild fish *BUT* we are going to allow a certain amount of impacts on the wild fish.

After reading Mr. Turner's comment to the editors blog, this whole thing becomes even more ridiculous. According to Turner, everything would be OK if there is agreement to reduce the harvest on the Puyallup Chinook population from 58% to 50%. Are you f'ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks that an appropriate rebuilding (or recovery) exploitation rate is 50% for a population that is adapted to the hatchery environment (90% of the returns are hatchery fish) that return to a river with its lower 26 miles diked and an estuary that has multiple Superfund clean-up sites, has their head in very dark places. How can a population made up primarily of hatchery returns and crap habitat sustain more or less the same exploitation rate as Skagit Chinook, a population with little hatchery influence and some of the best habitat in Puget Sound.

I'm sorry, but Turner's details on this make this whole situation a joke. I would guess that if people were actually trying to recover Puyallup Chinook and were honest about its productivity, the RER for this population would be something that is half, or less, of this proposed exploitation rate. Good god! Either side (along with the feds) arguing for either of these arbitrary numbers is a total sham. If we're going to risk everybody's fisheries, let's at least do it for a defensible reason, i.e. to actually make a difference for the Puget Sound ESU as a whole.

I'm just trolling for Flounder with my downrigger.

That's all.

I'm trying to figure out how to frame my letters/emails to NWFS and reps...

Perusing the comments on WDFW, Salmon University and NW Sportsman facebook pages, a common response by anglers to all this is something like "tribes are taking more than their fair share and are destroying salmon with their nets"

I'm no fan of tribal nets, but from a macro perspective I think this argument going to be counterintuitive. I worry that if the masses of anglers are mobilized to petition decisionmakers, and they use this argument, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

a) It's a misunderstanding of the facts: the stock that broke the camel's back this year (coho) is having a hard time because of cyclical variations in ocean conditions...not tribal fishing.

b) if all of our salmon stocks are *truly* declining as many anglers are claiming with this "tribal nets" argument, then the answer would be that NOBODY should fish, anglers included.

I guess my point is, despite all the BS with the tribes, in recent years the salmon fishing has largely been pretty good. If we claim that it's bad, we're basically supporting an argument that it should be shut down permanently.

Interesting take ... but correct me if I'm wrong, what you are really saying then is a lower ESA take limit should be in place for fisheries (likely for a lot of the individual populations), which would almost guarantee no nonIndian fisheries at all (maybe annually for a while) ... but that's because you are saying that the habitat is even further trashed than we are willing to admit and what is being allowed for wild rates of harvest seems out of whack or questionably defensible from a scientific standpoint. Very interesting take indeed...

If one were actually serious about having this population contribute to recovery of the ESU, yes. I suspect that applies to a few other populations that will remain nameless as well.

Spot on OncyT. There are, or were, a number of PS Chinook stocks where NOAA set/accepted a recovery rate that was way above calculated needs. Also, NOAA picks and chooses recovery rates. Some are overall, all fisheries. Some exclude BC and AK.

So you are backing a play that also closes down these (this list is hot off the press from here: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/some-puget-sound-waters-to-close-over-salmon-season-impasse/

... this morning, it appears that a wider range of fisheries where anglers might encounter listed Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead will also be affected.

sea-run cutthroat along Puget Sound beaches, which are open now, the Skykomish and upper Skagit, which are slated to open June 1 for summer steelhead and spring Chinook, respectively;

the North Fork Stillaguamish for summer steelhead and numerous streams scheduled to open the first Saturday in June for trout;

the Skagit on June 16 for sockeye.

and Lakes Washington and Sammamish would be included as well, as would the Baker River and Lake.

... I'm starting to wonder if WDFW was upfront that this ESA coverage issue over the salt salmon folks not agreeing would affect all the steelhead fisheries and some others that folks who fish aren't represented at NOF.

Let them all shut down, maybe then the rest of the anglers will get off their collective asses and maybe participate instead of the same 25 people that have been carrying the load for the last 20 years with regard to fishery issues.

Rojoband, The scope of this closure was and has been widely understood by all those involved at WDFW & on the Advisory group. It's an unfortunate reality that gamefish are wrapped up in the ESA permits for salmon, and that anywhere a potential impact to an ESA listed species is present, the permit must be in place for fisheries on other species to occur. Hopefully as part of an overhaul to the NOF process, this issue can be decoupled and parsed out in some way.

I stood on the banks of the Sky yesterday evening and gazed at the river for a while. I saw a few fish roll while lots of emotions stirred.

So, could this affect the Puget Sound ling season?

I didn't know that steelhead fisheries and sea-run cut fisheries were negotiated at NOF....I always thought it was salmon only...guess I missed the memo on that if our interest was these fisheries we should show up at NOF. Point taken, if true and that's now the case.




That would have been nice to disseminate this information much sooner, as all of WDFW's press releases up to now this is the 1st I've heard of it and it didn't actually come from WDFW...or from the advisory group, but a news article from a reporter who was asking good questions. Thanks for sharing though.

Yeah, the sheer preposterousness of species like largemouth bass being affected because a deal couldn't be made at NOF adds credence to the argument that the system be broke. And will hopefully spur more average anglers to call for some common sense to be applied to policy.

I am quite surprised by this development. I am still behind WDFW, but I understand rojoband's position. It would have been good to know the full stakes earlier in the process. It probably wouldn't have changed my support for WDFW, it would just have been good to know.

On the other hand, things have been unfolding quite quickly and we're encountering new situations seemingly every day, so I guess we gotta roll with it.

I get that poor ocean conditions led to the poor forecast. I also get that ocean conditions affect relative abundance each year more than any other factor. What I don't get is how maximizing impacts in the ocean fisheries (where we don't know what we're catching and everything dies) is sound management of a dangerously low forecast. Reduced impacts in the ocean would leave a much-needed cushion for Puget Sound, the rivers, AND THE GRAVEL. Seems to me the Tribes would be on board with that kind of change, but I'm probably wrong.

I was wrong to suggest that NMFS was directly responsible for the potential closures (thanks for reminding me of the rules that are the real driver, Smalma). That said, I do believe that the open ocean quotas they set, year in and year out, are what undermines every attempt we make at improving habitat, hatcheries, etc. from being successful (in terms of salmonid recovery).

My favorite example these days is habitat. It's the Tribes' favorite argument for exonerating themselves of any responsibility for declining stocks, so it seems apropos for this thread. I'll start by saying the Tribes are absolutely correct in placing emphasis on habitat. Where they lose credibility as concerned stewards is in their refusal to accept that their harvest practices are part of the problem with the habitat (a river with gillnets at the mouth is far less hospitable to migrating salmon than one without). Furthermore, the habitat work that is being done has very nearly zero chance to result in recovery, because no fish are left to seed the recovered habitat by the time the run reaches it. Why? Because escapement goals never increase. If the forecast is good, the quota for every fishery is increased to scoop up the "surplus" fish. Those "surplus" fish represent the opportunity for salmon to take advantage of habitat improvements. Seems dead fish do a poor job of spawning.

Our friend eyeFISH once stood up at a NOF meeting and said to Ron Warren that the only times Chinook have recently met escapement goals in Grays Harbor have been in years where the salmon forecast turned out to be far less than the actual returns. Makes the case that in order for salmon to exceed their planned escapements, they need to overwhelm us with numbers we weren't anticipating. Fortunately, they did just that in 2014. Unfortunately, the ocean conditions went south in 2015. Because the Co-Managers were anticipating a repeat of 2014, they planned fisheries with liberal limits. By the time they figured out the fish weren't coming, the damage was done.

My point is that if salmon are to have a future, yes, we will have to stop destroying their habitat. Yes, we will have to figure out better ways to run hatcheries. Until we stop managing to the last fish, however, no amount of work we do will make any difference.

One last thought. "Cultural" differences are often cited as reasons why the State and the Tribes can't get together on these issues. I would argue that may be true, but I believe the only cultural difference that really matters is that the Tribal interest in fishing is commercial, while ours is recreational. Pretty simple. A guy who makes money off dead fish is gonna want more dead fish. A guy who just wants to catch a fish for fun wants to see more of them alive.

We need to dispense with the lies surrounding these issues and focus our efforts on getting ocean quotas reduced, not so we can fish more, but so there can be more fish. Even a small reduction percentage-wise could make a big difference, especially in times of great uncertainty (like these).