Rumor or Fact

I have got several "have you heard" phone calls today about the possibility of the ever popular odd year Humpy Hollow not going to be open this year for pinks--- Not substantiated.

I couldn't make it to NOF Millcreek last week so I don't know if that is where this started or not. Anybody go to the meeting that wants to share information?

I did not attend NOF but have received some second hand excerpts of which only one dealt with Humpy Hollow (which actually covers part of MA 8-2 and MA 9). The gist of that comment had to due with projected low expectations for pinks and the possibility that NT commercials would not be allowed to net there in 2017.

Beyond that, there were specific concerns about coho in the Stilly that might impact localized fisheries in MA 8-1 and 8-2.

Now, if any of those have blown up I would suspect something other than just pink closures at only "Humpy Hollow."

All I know. Not exactly rumors but also not exactly hard facts either.

Thank you Larry B,

I was able to pick up the forecasts at the Olympia meeting, but just looking for some glimmer of hope that Humpy Hollow might be open this year since the grandkids are already talking and asking about it.

Very likely closed due to low abundance in North Sound streams and due to the impacts we would see in that fishery on stilly and Skagit coho, also low forecasts.

Thank you, so that would mean if any salt water fishery for pinks close by to the Everett boat launch, would possibly occur in Area 9 south and possibly the Tulalip bubble?

I'm just trying to justify why I would want to buy a salt water license for just a few weeks of summer Chinook fishery like last year. I've turned into a fair weather fisherman and don't pursue blackmouth.

I guess time will tell whether I will still shell out for 5 salt water licenses at the minimum, like usual on previous odd years.

If there are pink concerns that would/should exclude the Tulalip Bubble unless the hatchery there produces marked pinks. Any pinks taken otherwise would be wild.

My guess is that saltwater pink fishing might be close to a non-starter because of Chinook and coho concerns. Unless WDFW has data showing clean fisheries. I think pink fishing will occur, if at all, in areas where there are both lots of pinks and few wild Chinook or coho.

This may be the year when the "odd-year" bump in license sales doesn't occur. I also think that the Tribes will use a combination of pink/Chinook/coho conservation concerns to keep much of PS on a very small schedule.

You would think that the Tulalip fishery would be a likely place to catch Coho and pinks this year to go with the earlier Chinook fishery, but I guess the tale will be told this year if it was oversight or if it was a one-sided negotiation where the Tulalips came out of NOF with a direct Coho fishery without a corresponding sport allocation.

The Tulalip fishery would be to target hatchery-origin fish from the hatchery in the Bay. If there are enough of them available, and the "share" (including by catch) has not been used elsewhere then you can push for a fishery. But if the ocean/strait/blackmouth fisheries chewed through impacts then it would be a no-go.

And, of course, Tulalip would oppose it.

Has anyone heard anything on how the first round of the Tribal NOF went?

And does WDFW continue to provide the Tulalips with eggs from the Wallace hatchery?

Just a reminder of that ongoing agreement as well as the modification a couple of years ago under which the numbers were to be increased AND the State was to increase the number of Chinook releases from the Wallace hatchery - all subject to availability of sufficient brood stock to the hatchery.

The NI catch needs to include the pre-terminals. Salmon sharing is not and never has been area by area.

Much of the bubble area is on-rez. Even though, when the area was formed, Tulalip agreed to allow NI fisheries in 8A, they and WDFW seem to have forgotten the written agreement.

It will come down to, besides simple pissing-politics, do the sporties have available fish to harvest and available impacts to allow that harvest?

The good news is there has been corresponding sport Coho fishery and Chinook fishery with the Tulalips over many years in that area, so nothing really new going on except for last years exception and several other slight changes in the rules.

The bad news would be is last year the new norm.

After corresponding with both sides last year, action over words would suggest it could have been an oversight issue.

This years results will be the deciding factor.

Email sent to the department about the disappointment of humpy hollow possibly being closed this year and reiterating what they already know about more salt water opportunity is needed to be scrapped up this year and in the future in an attempt to keep license sales from plummeting.

Lucky Louie-

While there appears to be some harvestable Snohomish pinks (forecast 171,000 with an escapement goal of 120,000). How do you propose to structure mixed stock pink fisheries without harvesting Stillaguamish and Skagit pinks?

The Stillaguamish forecast was 40,205 with and escapement goal of 155,000 while the Skagit forecast was 85,600 with an escapement goal of 330,000. Pinks from both those systems swim through MA 9 and MA 8-2.

curt

Those numbers certainly do not bode well.

If seasons end up based upon those projections I hope the projections have a high statistical reliability..........and that there are "what if" mechanisms for timely in season management decisions to prevent another debacle as seen last year with coho.

Agree.
What's the forecast again for pinks, 1.5 million or so?
That is still a good number of fish.

We've fished coho on even number years with a lot less fish then that forecast.
It seems pinks weren't much of a concern in years past when the runs weren't huge, but now it looks like they've become another chip to bargain with......
SF

It's all a huge joke. "Mixed stock" fisheries where we catch and release fish STILL ALIVE are taking a back seat to catch and kill net fisheries where "impacts" are in the form of fish dead on the boat floor.

If our "mixed stock" fisheries didn't have such low incidental mortality to wild fish the net fisheries wouldn't even be able to occur as their "impact" levels are vastly too high.


We are able to effectively fish selectively AND keep our ESA impacts at around 30%, but WE are the ones who should be staying home?

Get a fvcking clue WDFW it's time to go to court.

And how does that apply to the Cowboy nets off of Eagle Point? Or will they be shut down too?

I have seen the numbers this year just like I looked at the numbers last year.

I never take the forecasts as gospel, but as an inflection point. My suggestions along with many others I am told, are along the lines of being proactively prepared if the fish come marching in above forecast like last year, and the places some would like to see open. Some tribes were obviously prepared last year in case of an influx that could produce fishery openings. State missing in action with agreements.

Humpy Hollow would obviously be on top of the list considering the easy access and participation level in past odd years.

Regarding license sales, without a sufficient influx of salmon coming back to open salt water access I know of 3 salt water licenses that I will not be purchasing this year to the disappointment of the older grandkids. Unfortunately, that is just the way it goes.

I better start researching the Lake Washington Cutthroat fishery....