You Don't Get to Fish Elliott Bay but the Tribes Do

[Todd]

You guys are missing my point...

Yes, the mortality rate from a purse seine or a fishing line is lower per encounter than a gillnet...that's so obvious as to not even need stating.

However, if you kill 100 fish with a purse seine, or kill 100 fish with fishing lines, or kill 100 fish with gillnets, then it's still 100 fish dead...like I said, the method is irrelevant, it's the amount you kill that matters.

If a purse seiner does 50 sets and kills two per set, that's 100 dead...if 1000 wild fish are caught and released by sportfishermen, then that's about 100 dead fish...if a gillnetter does three sets and catches 100 wild Chinook, then that's 100 dead fish...it matters not how they died.

Ffej, a fish caught on a barbless hook and properly released, in the salt, has a great chance to survive...somewhere between 80 and 90 percent for Chinook...but that still means than somewheres between ten and twenty percent of them become crab bait or lunch for a sea lion...and the chances of catching a Green River ESA king outside of Elliott Bay is much better than "1 in a bizzillion"...as a matter of fact, if you went to the North of Falcon meetings you'd see a pretty fair approximation of how many of them are caught at Westport, at Neah Bay, at Sekiu, in the San Juans, and in Puget Sound...not to mention in Alaska and B.C. fisheries.

Ocean fish aren't spawning in the ocean, obviously...they're all on their way to some river, some where.

Fish on...

Todd

[Smalma]

In discussion such as this one the details of the fisheries and management objectives for stocks of concern are critically important!

In the case of the Green River you guys are missing the key point and this concern over wild Chinook is nearly meaningless. Yes there is an escapement goal of 5,800 fish. However that goal is for all natural spawning Chinook - not naturally producied (wild) Chinook. From a management prespecitive or NMFS guidelines for that matter it really does not make much difference what portion of that escapement are naturally produced and what portion are hatchery produced fish. The only thing that is important to meeting the escapement goal is to insure that enough hatchery strays spawn in the wild to push the natural spawning numbers above 5,800.

The general discussion of selective versus non-selective commercial fishing methods probably is best saved for another thread. If any one develops I would be happy to contribute my thoughts/observations.

Tight lines
Curt

[Nelly]

In discussion such as this one the details of the fisheries and management objectives for stocks of concern are critically important!

In the case of the Green River you guys are missing the key point and this concern over wild Chinook is nearly meaningless. Yes there is an escapement goal of 5,800 fish. However that goal is for all natural spawning Chinook - not naturally producied (wild) Chinook. From a management prespecitive or NMFS guidelines for that matter it really does not make much difference what portion of that escapement are naturally produced and what portion are hatchery produced fish. The only thing that is important to meeting the escapement goal is to insure that enough hatchery strays spawn in the wild to push the natural spawning numbers above 5,800.

Tight lines
Curt

That is a great point and a key issue in the State's stance on this fishery/issue. Unfortunately, it still does not make any sense!

If we are going to count hatchery fish in the "naturally spawning chinook" population in the Green River then why are we so concerned about selective harvest in our sport fisheries in the rest of the state? Yes, I understand the importance of genetic variability but I also believe a consistent approach to managing our fisheries is crucial.

Here is an excerpt from Pat Patillo's "Notes on 2011 Elliot Bay / Green River Chinook In-season Management" letter issued Friday August 12
.
"-Meeting the escapement goal of 5,800 was not the agreed objective for 2011 fisheries. The co-managers adopted fisheries that would result in a spawning escapement less than the goal (5,343), so WDFW could not argue that fishing must be constrained to meet the goal while conducting fisheries that have an impact on wild Green River Chinook."

"-Although the Plan defines a spawning goal of 5,800, recent information from mass marking of hatchery production has provided estimates of straying hatchery fish on the natural spawning grounds that exceed 60% annually. For this reason, WDFW does not believe that the current goal adequately reflects the objective for recovering a self-sustaining, natural origin population. WDFW is currently negotiating with the tribes to modify recovery objectives for the natural population in the Green River to conform with policies related to hatchery reform and selective fisheries. Given WDFW’s position that the current spawning escapement goal is inadequate, it would be inconsistent to argue that the tribes’ fishery must be prohibited in order to ensure the conservation of this population. "

In my opinion, when we get to the point that we can, -straight faced- make a statement that "Meeting the escapement goal was not the agreed objective", we have lost basic sensibility in this process. Every stock of salmon has a minimum number of spawners required to maintain it's viability and we should always manage to reach escapement goals. We cannot just keep lowering the bar.

If you don't like your destination you don't blame the road, you should have taken a different turn along the way.

[Smalma]

Nelly -
I agree the situation on the Green currently makes little sense. However allowing our debates to focus on the fishing methods rather than striving to achieve more natural orign spawners and a much lower portion of hatchery strays in the natural spawning population only severes to divert the discussion from the critical issue.

Yes selective fishing can be a tool to change those wild/hatcheryspawning ratio but until goals are established for those natural origin spawners it is largely an empty effort.

Regarding the issue of selective fishing throughout Puget Sound (especially in the recreational fishery) it is good to remember that the Green River is one of the more egregious examples of management where a spawning fish's origin is of little importance (a fish is fish approach). Howerver there are other populations in the sound where the co-managers and NMFS have agree that escapement and management objectives are established for entirely natural origin Chinook. The Snohomish and Skagit come to mind.

These kinds of issues are hugely complex and I'm not sure how much more detail to go into at this point. Though it occurs to me that this might be a great topic for radio segment in the off-season. Having someone from the State or even NMFS talk about what is needed for ESA recovery, the various approaches and pro and cons of each, how and where does fishing fit into the over all scheme, etc might be helpful in increasing our collective understand of the overall management of Puget Sound Chinook (and elsewhere in the State).

Tight lines
Curt