Puget Sound Adult Chinook Salmon Fishermen Face Extinction

[Sandlance]

Letter to Tom Nelson (The Outdoor Line) from an old fisherman:

I thought I might drop you a line about the current Puget Sound issues, particularly with the Area 10 Chinook situation. Most of the following is information and comments that Puget Sound anglers are already aware of, I’m sure.

(As background, I have fished Puget Sound (and other Northwest areas) for the past 55 years, with the last 45 years focused on Puget Sound.)

Let’s look at some general history, particularly for Chinook, but sometimes for other salmonids:
- Boldt Decision followed by a “Salmon Recovery Plan”
- Less and less fishing opportunities in and around Puget Sound for Chinook salmon or other salmonids (for example):
- No more catch and release late steelhead fishery on Skagit/no winter steelhead fisheries in most Puget Sound rivers in the future (except maybe Skykomish – mostly at Reiter Ponds)
- No adult Chinook fishing in Areas 8-1 and 8-2 (except Tulalip Bubble)
- No more year-round fishing for Chinook in Puget Sound/limits reduced
- Area 9 adult Chinook salmon season squeezed to practically nothing
- Elimination of South Sound winter blackmouth enhancement
- Etc[/list]. etc. etc.

In summary, any salmon recovery plans (at least for Puget Sound Chinook) seem to have failed miserably.

The mark/selective fishery for Puget Sound Chinook looked promising at first, but it also is failing to meet one of its objectives (i.e., continued sport fishing, but only retention of marked fish). Best example is Area 10 current regulations for 2015 where even though marked fish would be available to fishermen, the season is entirely closed. The logic for this closure does not appear to be based on biology nor on Chinook salmon recovery in Lake Washington (even though there may be some merit to protecting low escapement numbers, depending on how they are estimated).

First, when the tribal members claim they want to maintain an adequate escapement of “wild” Chinook salmon, the term “wild” appears to be misleading for the following reasons: 1) the genetic structure of Lake Washington Chinook has probably been diluted by stocking of Green River hatchery fish (they used to put these just about everywhere, I believe); 2) if not from dilution by Green River stock, the UW hatchery (and one at NOAA’s Montlake lab plus the Sammamish Hatchery) probably had strays. (For example, either Dr. DeLacy or Dr. Donaldson of the UW put plugs in the olfactory receptors of UW adult Chinook salmon and found that those ended up straying more than those that did not have plugs); and 3) although it would be great to have a lot of “wild” Chinook spawning in Lake Washington streams, the habitat loss resulting from urban development, sedimentation, streamside and instream habitat disturbance, and people just messing around, such as swimming, rafting, dogs in the river (e.g., Cedar river), introduced species such as bass, etc. doesn’t help Chinook escapement in this system, particularly under low water conditions. As a result of the above, the term “wild” is appears to be misused and should be termed “naturally spawning fish” – there are likely no truly pure “wild” Chinook salmon left in the Lake Washington system. This doesn’t include past system changes that resulted from rechanneling of the Lake Washington system (i.e., the former outlet to Lake Washington, the Black River, no longer exists and development of the Montlake Cut/Chittenden Locks).

Second, the way the new 2015-2016 regulations are set up seems totally illogical. The intent of the mark/selective fishery approach was to allow a viable sport fishery to continue that was targeting hatchery fish with releases of “wild” or unmarked fish (Puget Sound anglers are, of course, well aware of this). The illogical part is allowing any fishery (either coho or pinks) in Area 10. (Unfortunately, this would argue for even tighter restrictions). The reason for this statement is that I have fished in Area 10 for resident coho in July and have hooked Chinook salmon (both marked and unmarked), particularly early in the morning when they are nearer the surface. Under the mark/selective fishery, it would seem that marked fish would be retainable – but they are not. Yet, if the same fish were taken in Area 9 (during open season and regs), they could be kept.

Third, I tend to believe that any “wild” or “native” (whatever they should be called) adult Chinook salmon that are released do not have a very high mortality rate. I’ve hooked and successfully released many of them and strongly believe that the only mortality that might occur is from either seals or sea lions which either damage the fish during the hook up or sit next to your boat and chomp on them as soon as they are released. It appears that the intent of the tribes, WDFW, and the Feds is to squeeze as many fishermen (after adult Chinook salmon in Puget Sound) as possible into smaller areas and shorter seasons until they give up. History shows that this is the recent and foreseeable trend. In addition, the mark/selective fishery for adult Chinook salmon in Puget Sound is failing in one of it’s objectives (i.e., allow a fishery to continue on marked fish).

Are there solutions to the problem that will bring back Puget Sound Chinook salmon fisheries for the sportsman? Highly popular and intense fisheries on the Cowlitz and Columbia might indicate that this could occur. However, this occurs with parties that (although having opposing positions) have been able to work sports fishermen into the equation – not try to ignore or eliminate them. Both of these river systems have major hatchery systems that support a viable mark/selective fishery – sometimes in record numbers.

What we need are leaders in the regulatory agencies that will support the sport fishermen’s position, not leaders that will give in to situations like the loss of any steelhead fishing (winter) in Puget Sound streams (likely forever) and situations like the Area 10 issue and further restrictions on Puget Sound adult Chinook fisheries. We pay for their positions through our licenses. If they don’t provide this support, they should be strongly challenged.

Specific steps for turning the current situation around might be:

• Make tribes mark all of their hatchery fish (this is an additional side issue). Same for non-tribal hatcheries (they should have enough data by now to draw comparisons between marked/unmarked fish) that do not mark all fish so that they can make data comparisons.
• Develop a Chinook salmon recovery plan that actually looks at recovery, not the current political decisions that are often established in backrooms with no input from the sports fishermen. This may be impossible given the complex issues involved among the various diverse interests. However, look to an even more complex situation on the Columbia River and it appears to be possible.
• (It is recognized that many biologists do not support the following) – Support enhancement through expansion of hatcheries, not elimination – the current habitat improvements for Chinook salmon in many areas of Puget Sound appear to have failed as the runs continue to decrease. Positive examples are the Cowlitz and Columbia River situations. (Many biologists believe that hatchery Chinooks are not viable – are they really that stupid if they can swim out of Puget Sound, into the Pacific Ocean, feed out there for several years, and return to their point of origin?).
• Recognize the huge demand for Chinook salmon (which puts extreme pressure on these populations) and plan for further expansion of the runs rather than hope for the best with what we have – it hasn’t worked so far. Develop specific plans that will lead to expanded adult Chinook salmon fishing in Puget Sound rather than contraction. The mark/selective approach was going in a positive direction, but that seems to be going in reverse, as noted above. It took a long time and many hours of work to implement this approach, and now it appears that this effort is rapidly fading away.
• Recognize that there is a huge population growth in the Puget Sound region and that habitat (at least for Chinook salmon) will continue to deteriorate. Although pinks/chum/coho seem to be doing OK or real positive, the niche that Chinook salmon have is not doing very well, particularly with the high demand for this prized species. When is the last time you heard (in the past) the terms “let’s rebuild the Puget Sound Chinook populations – it’s now more like “let’s eliminate hatcheries, enhance habitat (nice, but basically impossible in most of the highly populated areas of Puget Sound), and let’s eliminate harvest to protect the runs”.

Bottomline:

It’s really sad to see the demise of the Puget Sound adult Chinook fishery (and the likely extinction of fishing for adult Chinook salmon in Puget Sound). Under the current status, this adult Chinook salmon sport fishery will likely totally disappear (likely in the next few years). The trend is already established and is in a downward spiral. The WDFW should have pushed back on the Area 10 issue, even if it would have gone to court. What they essentially did was to negate the mark/selective approach for Puget Sound. (They also gave in on the winter steelhead fishery, which is another bad situation). In addition, the rule makers appear to have no real future plans to improve the Puget Sound Chinook fishery – they appear to want the status quo or less (i.e., reduce hatchery input, give in to other parties demands, provide minimal support for enhancement). It is noted that if the overall escapement (particularly of hatchery fish) is low, restrictions may be needed.

[Eddy C]

Excellent post.

[dwardlow]

It was an excellent post Sandlance. My experience in fishing Puget Sound is nearly the same as yours.

The more I think about this whole deal the more upsetting it is. Director Unsworth's interview gave me the impression that he was almost apologetic for what happened but upon reflecting he was setting us up for the lie that WDFW was about to tell to the general public. The lie being that this decision was made for conservation purposes because of "the blob" of warm water off our coast and a weak run is expected to return. Director Unsworth offered that we can still catch pinks and coho and catch and release hatchery Chinook. He sounded like a kid being caught doing something he shouldn't have been doing so he stammered out whatever was conveniently handy for excuses as to why he didn't do the right thing.

One of the reasons that was given as to why the Puget Sound season was cut was because we could lose fishing opportunities. Well this NOF decision sealed the deal with losing fishing opportunities now and probably for the future. I think the fact that WDFW negotiates for sport fishermen is a fallacy. They cave in to commercial and tribal interests and have long before this decision. The seasons are often open by the calendar not necessarily by when the fishing is good and they close early when the fishing gets good. This gives the perception that decisions are made for conservation purposes when I believe that many of the decisions are political in nature. WDFW offers days on the water so that they can say we had opportunity but when it gets about the time fishing gets good they shut it down. I have a commercial fishing background in Ak and WA and I can say that when fishing is good the in-season adjustment is usually to give the commercials more openings to take advantage of the run size not less time on the water.

Many have blamed the tribes for what happened at NOF when in fact the WDFW decision maker, Director Unworth, failed to be the adult when dealing with the unreasonable demands of the Muckleshoot tribal representative. It was easier for Director Unsworth to go the way he did than stand up to them. The blames lies with WDFW and their lack of leadership. Having former director Anderson in on the negotiations to help Director Unsworth was a monumentally stupid idea given Anderson's history with NOF. I have to hand it to the tribal negotiators as they played the game to get what they wanted. It worked in the past and I think they thought with a new director in WDFW they would set the tone for what they would want now and in future negotiations. Well played Mukleshoots.

I can't offer any solutions to this mess because it seems that we are going to take whatever WDFW gives us until enough of us lose interest in buying saltwater licenses in this state and either go back to trout fishing, take up golfing or seek our fix elsewhere like in Canada, Oregon or Alaska. The rest of us will pay increased license fees for declining opportunity. Our ultimate power lies with where we spend our dollars. Sport fishing is an individual endeavor and not all of us have the same goals,investment or background. These are the main reasons we are divided as a group. Many guys are happy to catch pinks and look forward to pink fishing. For them this NOF outcome wasn't so bad. For me, like Sandlance posted, this is another in a long line of declining opportunities at the hands of our fisheries management.

Don Wardlow

[olympic]

Sandlance, I really appreciated your post; really hit the nail on the head. I am a lifetime Washingtonian and I caught my first blackmouth back in the early 70's as a kid with my Dad. I mainly fished for Cod during the 80's until the WDFW let the draggers in and wiped them out! This downward spiral really stinks. A couple of other good places to copy and paste and post your letter so more can read it would be on facebook on the pages of Northwest Wild Country and Outdoor GPS. Your letter is very well written and needs to be seen by as many sportfishers as possible. I hope you will consider sharing this. I hope finally gets us sportfishers to unite and can stop this decline and get this thing turned around. I believe if it gets much worse, plus the WDFW wants to raise license fees next year, fewer people will want to pay more to fish for less, get discouraged, then the tribes will take it all. That will hurt us all.

[Sandlance]

Thanks to Eddy C, dwardlow, and Olympic for the comments. I certainly agree that the management agencies (including the tribes) appear to want to close down Puget Sound adult Chinook fisheries as soon as the fish begin to show up.
Unfortunately, with the current politics, trashing of the mark/selective approach, and the recent trends in adult Chinook salmon harvest management for sports fishermen in Puget Sound, I doubt if there will be any fishery for this species within the next 5 years (or less). This is particularly true if the WDFW gives in on Puget Sound hatcheries like it did with steelhead. Sorry, wish I were more positive.