Emergency Chinook Closure in A9, Change in A10.

[House]

A conference call with WDFW and the Puget Sound recreational advisors today revealed that the recreational fleet may indeed fall victim to their own angling success.

The Marine Area 9 marked chinook harvest in particular was over pre-season WDFW modeled projections but the real concern for fisheries managers are the wild fish impacts.

As of August 12th, the legal-sized unmarked chinook encountered during the season beginning July 16th were calculated at 120% of pre-season estimates and sub-legal unmarked chinook not far behind at 115%.

There will be an additional conference call tomorrow (Friday 8/17) afternoon but the best that area anglers can hope for now is a coho only fishery in Area 9 and a one-fish chinook limit in Area 10.

We'll keep you updated on this site after Friday's conference call
Also, tune in to The Outdoor Line on 710 ESPN Saturday morning for further developments.

[ReiterRat]

It's all Nelly's fault for single hand idly wiping out the run!
It wonder if the WDFW has bothered to look at their own creel surveys?
Starting with the Tulalip Bubble!

[t_dub]

you mean practicing actual evidence-based management???? talk about a pie-in-the-sky concept.

[Smalma]

I think if you take the time to look at this issue that WDFW is attempting to make their decision based on the very MA 9 & 10 creel survey information you asking for. Pre-season in the full 6 week selective season in 9 & 10 it was expected that 7,900 hatchery fish would be caught, 2,221 legal size unclipped fish caught and 3,610 sub-legal unclipped. Through the first month of this season (August 12) based on creel info the esitmate catches had all ready exceeded the expected from the full season - 10,000 legal hatchery fish caught, 2,657 legal size upclipped fish and 4,153 sub-legal unclipped fish.

Typically when catches are above expectations one of two factors are in play - better than expected survival or atypical behavior of the returning adults (different migration/feeding behaviors). I'm sure we all would love to think that survivals are improving and things now and the future are looking up. However if as suggested we look at the Tulalip bubble returns (or there terminal area returns) we would gain insight into whether survival is above expections. As we know the Tulalip bubble (both for the recreational fishers and as the advisors learned yesterday the tribe) returns have been well below expectations. That would seem to argue that the higher than expected catches in 9 and 10 may not be due to higher than expected survivals.

Sometimes demanding data supported management yields results that are unexpected or inconvenient. In this case it looks to me that the prudent thing for the Chinook resource would be early closure; even though such an action maybe distasteful.

Tight lines
Curt

[LndShrk]

I think if you take the time to look at this issue that WDFW is attempting to make their decision based on the very MA 9 & 10 creel survey information you asking for. Pre-season in the full 6 week selective season in 9 & 10 it was expected that 7,900 hatchery fish would be caught, 2,221 legal size unclipped fish caught and 3,610 sub-legal unclipped. Through the first month of this season (August 12) based on creel info the esitmate catches had all ready exceeded the expected from the full season - 10,000 legal hatchery fish caught, 2,657 legal size upclipped fish and 4,153 sub-legal unclipped fish.

Typically when catches are above expectations one of two factors are in play - better than expected survival or atypical behavior of the returning adults (different migration/feeding behaviors). I'm sure we all would love to think that survivals are improving and things now and the future are looking up. However if as suggested we look at the Tulalip bubble returns (or there terminal area returns) we would gain insight into whether survival is above expectations. As we know the Tulalip bubble (both for the recreational fishers and as the advisers learned yesterday the tribe) returns have been well below expectations. That would seem to argue that the higher than expected catches in 9 and 10 may not be due to higher than expected survivals.

Sometimes demanding data supported management yields results that are unexpected or inconvenient. In this case it looks to me that the prudent thing for the Chinook resource would be early closure; even though such an action maybe distasteful.

Tight lines
Curt

I am curious as to where those numbers are coming from? The published creel reports do not even come close to those numbers.

[Smalma]

lndshrk -
You might try -

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01357/wdfw01357.pdf

While that report is through 2010 the methods section will explain how those raw creel reports are converted to the final estimates of effort, catch, etc. The numbers from this year to date are preliminary but that is what is used in season. The final numbers will be available in a year or so.

BTW -
The varous tribal folks have had questions about those estimates and have had there number gurus go over the methods finding that the arppoach is sound.

Tight lines
Curt

[LndShrk]

Thanks Smalma,

I will read through that for sure.

[Nelly]

I'm on the WDFW Conference call right now and the direction right now is a coho-only fishery in A 9 & 10!
With the vast majority of the wild chinook impacts in A9, this seems a draconian measure by WDFW.
Stay tuned... we're arguing with WDFW to keep the one chinook bag in A10!

[Nelly]

WDFW's Pat Patillo is now pointing out that we are over our wild fish calculated impacts and to fish longer into the month of August would be characterized as a North of Falcon "process foul" and is likely to be used against the sportfishing community in the upcoming 2013 salmon season setting process!

[Nelly]

It's now sounding like the decision has already been made by Pat Patillo and Director Anderson and that delaying the decision to close A 9 & 10 will result in decreased opportunity in the future.
Still a lot to discuss...