The Outdoor Line Forum

I attended the meeting for the North of Falcon on Monday. That issue of dropping the size limit for 22" to 20" was discussed and they had a hand vote that was 19 to 15 for dropping the size limit!

Personally I can't imagine the local area charters/guides and the WDFW advertisements proudly displaying 20" salmon as a big fish to get people to go fishing in the state.

Good point Rich!
So far the arguments for the minimum size limit seem to be "business" reasons.

The discussion against are definitely biological in nature.

I've caught herring bigger.

I try to give WDFW the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard to believe that harvesting juveniles is actually good for the fishery.





.

How many 20"-22" fish are you guys releasing now? It's not mandatory to keep a 20" fish and I'd rather catch and keep a 20" bleeder that would die regardless, rather than turn it lose and keep fishing. I can't comment on how it affects overall fish numbers in the long run, I'd leave that to the pros.
Guys like me who have to spend a couple hundred dollars to fish for a day once or twice a month I could see how it could make or break a season as crappy as that sounds.

I agree with the 20" bleeder, but I may have a serious issue with the minimum size. I somewhat have an issue with a 22" size limit. Nelly can you shed a little light on this one? From what I understand those small individuals are essentially blackmouth being kept in the summer time and those small juveniles are what attributes to healthy population. With more smaller fish being kept, could that endanger numbers for the future?

rrenick65 wrote:I agree with the 20" bleeder, but I may have a serious issue with the minimum size. I somewhat have an issue with a 22" size limit. Nelly can you shed a little light on this one? From what I understand those small individuals are essentially blackmouth being kept in the summer time and those small juveniles are what attributes to healthy population. With more smaller fish being kept, could that endanger numbers for the future?

That's the million dollar question right there... Could a smaller minimum size adversely affect future catches?

In my mind the answer is a quite concerning "yes" and here's why:

By keeping 20" chinook (100% mortality) and not releasing them (10% mortality) those fish never get an opportunity to grow up to something approaching adulthood. Remember that the resource is shared by the tribal co-managers and is done so on a numerical basis. In other words, a sport caught 20" counts the same as a tribal 20 pounder. I would rather the sport fishery use It's chinook impacts on larger fish.

Finally and most importantly, we are seeing an average size reduction trend in Puget Sound chinook and harvesting smaller fish is partially to blame for this trend. One answer to this issue is a move to a 24" or larger minimum size limit.

Again, the rational for a reduction of the minimum size seem to be business reasons and the reasons against are biological in nature.

So I ask you: what is the better basis for making fisheries management decisions?

Nelly wrote:

rrenick65 wrote:I agree with the 20" bleeder, but I may have a serious issue with the minimum size. I somewhat have an issue with a 22" size limit. Nelly can you shed a little light on this one? From what I understand those small individuals are essentially blackmouth being kept in the summer time and those small juveniles are what attributes to healthy population. With more smaller fish being kept, could that endanger numbers for the future?

I agree w/ the 24" minimum size, but release mortality for sublegal fish is modeled at 20%, 15% for legal fish...and much higher when fish are handled in similar fashion to what is depicted on certain outdoor shows. We should all practice what we preach.

I am not committed either way on the min. fish size I just want a debate where both sides are discussed to get to the right answer not the easy one. We're all wanting more and bigger fish for all of us so what about this, whatever hatchery chinook no matter the size you must keep it. It would limit the handling of fish. How would that effect the fishery?

If you have guys keeping the 20" fish under this new rule, that might leave the 22" fish they would of caught later that day still alive and swimming.

It's good to see this conversation expanding into what best serves the fishery, especially when it is right in our back yard. The scientific evaluation is usually the best bet and any short term business influx due to accepting the proposed 20" minimum might backfire in the long run. Is there any realistic data showing the estimated number of sub legal Chinook released by sportsmen and what the actual spawning return of those fish is? I'm sure that the answer is much more complex than the question. Sure, other factors also can contribute to the well being of our sports fisheries but if we make good decisions regarding each one when we have the opportunity the fish have that much better chance to survive.