"Nisqually fishermen fish for winter chum for first time in seven years

Despite the brisk temperatures on a recent December morning, Nisqually Tribe fishers and families were nothing but smiles on the Nisqually River as they fished for winter chum for the first time in seven years, reaping the rewards of difficult management decisions to not fish when returns were bleak.

The annual projections for fisheries created each spring did not predict the momentous return of chum that the Nisqually Tribe is seeing this year.

“Based on our counts so far in Yelm Creek and other areas we survey, the returns are on track to be one of the biggest runs we have ever seen,” Craig Smith, salmon harvest manager for the Nisqually Tribe, said in a news release.

The last time the area experienced a similar run was in 2001. At the time, it was considered to be the biggest winter chum run of all time.

“We think this is possibly going to be even bigger,” Smith said in the release.

Not only were ocean conditions favorable, allowing many fish to return, the rains have come to bring the river up, creating many good side channels and sloughs that chum enjoy. More rain is needed to charge Muck Creek, as, even after the recent deluge, it remains dry.

Otherwise, counts were so favorable that a second fishery opened Dec. 22 that will end at noon on Christmas Day. Estimates indicate that more than 80,000 fish will be on the spawning grounds by the time the run is over... "

http://www.chronline.com/stories/nisqual...en-years,372487

Pretty sweet that the tribal fishermen get to fish on these while the river is closed for nontribal and the east side of MA13 was closed to Chum retention to protect these fish. What happened to our 50%? So we have one the biggest runs we have ever seen yet zero opportunity to fish on them. Great opportunity there WDFW!

Didn't you get the memo? 50% means nothing any longer so long as WDFW gets the "season we want." Perhaps you thought that WDFW still works for you? Wake up call: it doesn't.

Ok so why didn't we want a season on these fish then? I remember back when this was open it was a pretty popular fishery in the winter when little else was open. Even as many people fished chum as kings in the fall.

The "we" in "We want" is WDFW leadership. Has nothing to do with what the angling community desires.

Also, in the past the entire harvest of Nisqually chum was given to the Tribe. The NI share of the winter chum was shifted to the Fall Chum fishery. That doesn't mean that WDFW couldn't make some fish available. If the wanted to, which they don't.

WDFW is probably also concerned, at least on paper, for incidental catch of steelhead by the recs.

Remember, any state allocation could not have been taken prior, as there was not expected to be enough fish. The Nisqually opening was an emergency opening. While it is reasonable to allow the tribe to conduct testing and to take some for ceremonial and subsistence reasons, once they get that number taken, the exact amount should be allocated next to non-treaty fisheries. That is how 50-50 should work. But what I has happened in the past, when I inquired, is that the tribe simply stated they were expecting a certain return and were expecting to take a around 5800. The state felt that this would go into escapement, so rather than fight for us, they just kept it closed. They informed me later that it was a good thing, as the tribe just barely kept from going into escapement and not a fish was available to spare.

They probably will use the same justification, stating that if the tribe conducts its fishery as expected, there will be no room for any wild steelhead incidental catch left for the sports fisherman, so we can't fish.

We should all be worried, as if this is the way the state conducts openings and negotiations, we can just forget about fishing.
The truth is, if we got a full fishery, we would probably take about 3 to 5% or the catch at most, and likely much less. In that 2001 run they are taking about, the sports catch was a little over 2300. I can not find the tribes take, but did see an escapement report that seemed to indicate it was around 30,0000.

Can't really disagree. The fishery should operate in an equitable manner but won't. Unless the Nisqually chum run gets huge, I am rather sure it will mostly go to the folks that run the fisheries in WA.

Back in the late Eighties my grandpa, retired out of Ft Lewis, would talk about those darn chum. They would hit his cut herring as it was spinning down to fish for chinook near Lyle Point.

I thought this site may have taken a hit, when politics weighed so heavily.
I'm happy to see you still posting FP.
Is Bob retired?
Lol
Godspeed killers

Recall the Oct 2020 lawsuit in U.S. District Court that requested respecting Boldt's 50/50 allocation judgement after Pat Patillo's sworn testimony that 2020’s state-tribal agreement forecasts a catch of 111,615 Chinook by treaty fishermen and 69,622 by nontreaty fishermen, a 62%-38% split, which follows on 58-42, 57-43 and 59-41 predicted shares during the 2019, 2018 and 2017 seasons, respectively.
Court documents also say the disparity amounts to 124,696 fewer Chinook for nontreaty fishermen over those years, and 40,000 coho in 2020.

Why would chum, steelhead, or crab be any different? Seems only right for WDFW to be consistent, even if it means ignoring Boldt's allocation decree. Perhaps AI will help them understand the concept of 50/50.

The State and Tribe's can agree to do whatever they want. In the absence of agreement, the Tribes have a right to 50%. Maybe folks want to fund a court challenge with the Supremes.

(Here we go...again. It always winds up here, don't it?)

if the non-treaty take is 40% out of 50% allocated, then we need another 10%. 10/40 means chinook season should be 25% longer, right? But then, consider WDFW has managed to lowered the harvest bar so low over the last 25 years to a point where the Area 10 nontreaty chinook season in Puget Sound was 9 days last year, and 4 days in Area 9.

So 25% more season would add 2.25 days in A-10, and add 1 day in Area 9.

Hardly worth a suit. 125,000 fish over 4 years seems like a worthy battle to pursue, but is another 10 days to fish over 4 years worth it?

It is what it is...sometimes I think about learning to play tennis instead.

First off, the state and tribes can and do agree to whatever they want. Or, p[erhaps more honestly, what even just one tribe wants as they do hang together well as opposed to the NT side who would rather cut each others' throats.

The other aspect which applies primarily to salmon because they are most successfully fished in salt, is that the 50:50 is supposed to count from the WA part of the Pacific on in. You could have lots more time in A10, but the coast would the ocean and the Straits.

At some point it would be nice if WDFW would very publically describe the tradeoffs they make. From the perspective of maximizing the quality of management (getting the number right) fishing just in the rivers on updated run sizes works best. For the fish. As we move out further from the river the "unknowns" in terms of run size, stock composition, daily catch, and so on are greater. If the escapement is important you have to adding buffers in case your estimates are off. Which they always are.

We are well past the point where there are few enough people trying to catch fish (on all sides) that risk is a real concern. Or should be.


There used to be, as part of Boldt, equitable adjustment which meant that the side that under harvested was paid back in fish. Perhaps, as in your example, imbalances resulting from A10 closures could be Pais back every 3 years, or 5, or some such.