So we are talking about native fish spawning right, good because we don't target those fish, we only get to fish for hatchery fish!

If I was a manager I would put the pressure on those users that target and kill native fish!

Why the need to group all 3 user groups together?
There is no comparison, they don't get to ride for free, until they
want to share their profits from the sale of ESA listed fish.
We fish selectively. We get priority!

So yes work on the habitat but until then prioritize the user groups!

Can we all stop claiming we want to "put the fish first?" As Carcassman points out, to put the fish first would mean an end to development, the end of all fishing, and tremendous social and economic sacrifices to restore as much habitat as possible. If we're being honest, we need to face the fact that there simply isn't any appetite for the level of changes required to "recover" salmon. Too much money to be made and fun to be had doing things the way we've been doing them.

If you want to argue that selective, recreational fishing is easier on wild fish than what the other guys are doing, I'll agree, 100%. That said, fishing, no matter how it's done, is not in the best interests of the fish, and while it's clear that some stakeholders account for the lion's share of the exploitation, it's the sum of all exploitation that leaves the SRKW and the spawning gravel wanting for more. Thanks largely to open ocean fisheries, recreational fishing accounts for a large percentage of harvest overall. It's those fisheries that are intended to be our "equal opportunity." Heck, the commercial guys travel from Seattle up north every season; why shouldn't we? (I'm being facetious, but ultimately, recs do get our fair share... As long as we have the money to travel to Alaska and pay guides every summer or buy our own ocean boat).

It's easy for us to point fingers at the Tribes, because their take is very visible, right in our faces. What we tend to forget is that 80% of the harvestable salmon have been caught (almost entirely by non-tribals) before their gillnets go in. Frankly, I'd rather see them getting 50% of what's really coming back, because that would leave a whole lot more for the whales, the gravel, and inland sport fishers to share with them.

Ha. Yeah if we want honesty the "put fish first" almost passes muster, but I'll be honest, I want to kill some of them and eat them. . .just a few select fat ones because my family really enjoys it and so do I, and it's part of my family's heritage.

This year there'll be a lot less impact on the pass through from up north. Fisheries are going to get really skinny in SEAK and BC when it comes to chinook impact due to the gloomy forecast. We should get a much larger percentage returning this year as a result of the forthcoming season restrictions. Unfortunately it'll be a bigger slice of a much smaller forecasted pie, but still, it'll be interesting.

fb

Just to be clear, our point at Washington Citizen Sportsmen, is not Tribal Nets, or harvest or finger pointing over who is "the most responsible" for our current situation. Our message and our fight has been and continues to be over HOW the management decisions are made.

Clearly, the business as usual method has proven to be a dismal failure. And yes, there needs to be some drastic changes made. However, no real progress can happen as long as decision, agreements and deals are being done void of any honest conversations.

We have singled out the corrupt North of Falcon Process, as it is glaringly wrong! Not who is involved, but rather HOW it is done. It just happens that, according to the leadership of WDFW, it is the Tribes that are preventing transparency, and that is why we point to the tribes to fix this. The truth be told, outside the North of Falcon, the tribes are doing a lot of good things, and as we have always advocated, IF they would come out from behind their wall, (like they did at the Plenary meeting) and fully engage with the recreational community as an equal partner, we (collectively) have the power and numbers to do some truly good things.

The question again is WHY? Given all that is at stake, why are the tribes so opposed to having our fishery management as open and transparent as possible. Why do they say "cooperation" and "trust building" yet do things that cause frustration and dis-trust? Can it be just because they can? Because they are in a position to dictate HOW things are done, so they choose to do things that are contrary to trust building? Clearly, they could open the doors by simply saying so. At least, that's what WDFW Leadership says. So WHY?

The North of Falcon is NOT the only issue of secrets in our fishery management. Hell, there is a culture of secrets within WDFW. The fish mafia routinely cuts deals without any input from the public. It's a mess. We have a Department that is fraught with leadership problems, who have built a culture of corruption, a Commission who is supposed to be in charge, but is neutered by the AG, Governor and to some degree by the Department. Then there is various groups in which you have people with long histories in fisheries who are more concerned about their prestige and position then about solutions. They are "working on stuff" and "making a deal" outside of any oversight by even the Commission, which of course, blind sides everyone. The Skokomish River mess is a prime example.

So, it is secrets in our fisheries that we are fighting against, not nets, or race or harvest. By saying put the fish first, for us it mean's, put all the ego's, personalities and hidden agendas in the trash, and come to the table to do everything possible to protect the fish and enhance the fisheries. Not everyone will get everything they want, those days are long gone. But, nothing is exactly what everyone will get if we continue to manage like we have been.

If we are talking WA fish, compared to BC & SEAK, what goes on in this state whether it be the NOF process or whatever, is nothing by comparison. Check out this picture made from data provided by the Chinook Technical Committee; part of the Pacific Salmon Commission:

http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pre...ition-1999-2010

Most Puget Sound Chinook are not "far north migrating" going perhaps as far as mid Vancouver Island on both coasts.

You can find the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) yearly catch reports here:
http://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical-committee-reports/chinook/

and see that about 100,000 Chinook are caught yearly off WCVI (West Coast Vancouver Island) alone. Data is sparse for ECVI as that is not an AABM (Aggregate Abundance Based Management) fishery, but the sport catch for WCVI is about 50K, so ECVI is at least that. The canadian Strait of Juan De Fuca would be in addition to the above, probably at least another 50K fish. The big question is, how many of those are Puget Sound fish? I recently saw Canada DFO (Department of Fisheries) DNA data showing that outside of the summer months 100% of the catch was Puget Sound in the strait, while during the summer when the Fraser fish are swimming by the percentage of PS fish drops to 50%.
FYI Canada does not clip their Chinook, but during the May-Sept perdiod on the Strait only fin clipped Chinook or smaller wild fish can be retained.

Of further interest, the CTC has published some good Incidental mortality studies. Our mortality on the releaseds mall fish is really bad; probably 30%. Many will swim away but die days later. That caught the fish on a commie troller with revival tanks, then out the fish in net pens to see how many die.
Our friends in BC still insist on treble hooks BTW.

On putting fish first, we as sport fishers need to follow the regs, be careful when releasing, & support the processes that are in place. Secret negotiations are not an easy process to support, but i believe the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations are private as well, so I view the tribes as a separate entity/nation. I am 67 y/o now & it has taken time for me to see things this way.

IMO the REAL failure is AABM, where a yearly Chinook Abundance Index is calculated by looking at 20-something "indicator stocks" as to what their projected number of returns might be (dam counts of previous years jacks/ocean netting of smolts/plankton counts/etc) then letting SEAK & BC catch 600K - 800K Chinook irregardless to whether there are mixtures of health and endangered stocks within that catch. The Chinook treaty is up for renewal this year & word is that the PSC managers have now realized that AABM fisheries have been a failure as far as conservation is concerned.

Looks like we ain't the only ones having to suck it up....

http://juneauempire.com/local/news/2018-04-05/commercial-fishermen-hit-hard-king-cuts