Reduced retention size for Puget Sound chinook?

[Fin Chaser]

On The Outdoor Line broadcast last Saturday I tuned in just as Tom was commenting on the proposed change in minimum retention size from 22" to 20". I'm curious what the pros and cons are. I'm not as informed as I would like to be on the topic so I thought I would throw it out there for some feedback. Thanks everyone.

Scott

[Nelly]

Hey 'chaser,
Welcome aboard and thanks for your question!
My position on the proposed Puget Sound chinook size limit reduction is "NO" and here's why:

1. My first introduction to this topic was on a Feb 2013 WDFW conference call with Salmon Policy Lead Pat Patillo among others. Patillo's first reaction was: "A reduction in the minimum size for chinook will lead to marginally increased wild fish impacts." Keeping in mind that last year's Marine Area 9 & 10 closed in part due to wild fish encounters and the current limit reduction in Marine Area 9 has been put in place for some of the same reasons, the ability to keep a winter 20-incher may decrease your opportunity to catch a summer 20-pounder...

2. The position of some anglers is the assertion that there is a "large population of 20 and 21 inchers and we should be allowed to harvest these hatchery fish."
This is the proverbial self-fufilling prophecy in that HARVESTING fish over 22" will result in more fish just under the size limit since you're taking fish over that size out of the population.
If we move the minumum size to 20 inches and there appears to be a bunch of fish in the 18-19 inch range, then what? Lower the minumum size again?

Finally, there are plenty of area fisheries that allow the taking of smaller fish. There are year-round lakes, kokanee fisheries and of course the stocker trout "Opening Day" lakes that many of us grew up upon.

If one wishes to catch trout, then I would respectfully suggest that the angler that wishes to, has ample opportunity to do so.

Again, thanks for the question!

[Robbo]

The huge downside that I see is that it will cut into summer fishing quotas. We either take them as 20 inchers or get them back later as adult Chinook. I'd much rather see them return in a year or two with some pounds on them. It's not worth it in my opinion

[Smalma]

Fin Chaser -
The minimum size limit on Chinook has been all over the board the last 50 years or so. I can recall there being minimum size limits of 12, 16 18, 20 and now 22 inches. The most recent change was approximately 20 years ago when the limit was raised from 20 to 22 inches (to deal with a potential allocation issue).

The recent push for a reduction in the size limit has been discussed among some folks off and on fro the last 3 years or so. The rationale for such a change has been mostly focused on two issues. The first as Nelly mentioned was to access those fish just below the current 22 inch size limit. The thinking is that it would result in increased catch numbers and provide an opportunity for the casual angler a better change to take home a fish.

The other argument in favor of a size limit reduction would be that it would allow the removing of additional hatchery fish before they could potentially spawning in the wild.

On the other side of the discussion some folks have little desire to harvest a smaller Chinook (with some considering them to be inferior table fare) preferring to take their fish near the adult size/age. They often argue for a large size limit.

Another concern about lower the size limit would be an increase in the selective pressure against the faster growing and later maturing fish. Such selection pressure on feeding immature fish is suspected as a major force in the continuing reduction in the size and age of maturing Chinook returning to our rivers and entering fisheries.

Finally as Nelly and Robbo mentioned some early model indicated that there would be a slight increased in wild fish impacts. That generally equates to reduced opportunities somewhere. How much and where depends what the modeled impacts are and angler preferences.

That hits the major high points in the argument and as you can see they are all over the board with no clear dominate position. Individuals will likely fall on one side of the issue or the other depending of their personal priorities.

The potential increase in catches, removal of additional hatchery adults, wild fish impacts, etc will depend on modeling exercises. I suspect they may not be as great as some would expect (though to fair I don't know for sure and am waiting to see some more modeling results). Remember it may not take very for a Chinook to grow from 20 to 22 inches.

Hope that over view helps - if desired probably could go into more detail on individual arguments.

Curt

[Fin Chaser]

This is great information guys. Thanks.

[Brandon]

I was thinkin the exact same thing as Robbo. To me droppin the min size would just suck up the quota faster. Im not for it.

[Dan Carney]

What I would like is to have an adult Salmon be the same size in fresh and salt water, currently it is 22" in salt water and 24" in fresh. Does a 23" adult suddenly become a juvenile (Jack) when it enters fresh water???? I'd be good with 24" for both.
L8R
Dan

[Fin Chaser]

Good stuff guys, just a few more questions. Can you explain what you mean by "wild fish impacts". I'm not understanding what that means and how decreasing the retention size increases wild fish impact. Is that simply due to the fact that more anglers will be out there so there will just be more encounters with wild fish?

Also, Curt (or someone) can you please help me better understand this part:
Another concern about lower the size limit would be an increase in the selective pressure against the faster growing and later maturing fish.

Thanks again everyone. There are so many nuances to most of these issues that it's difficult tie it all together. I appreciate your help with that.

Scott

[Robbo]

It means that more fish will be handled and thus a higher theoretical impact on juvenile wild salmon.

I think what Curt means by his statement is that some Chinook mature faster and grow bigger than others and we would be selecting against those fish. These fish would reach 20 inches quicker than others and we would be weeding those out of the pool of potential 30 pounders that could be caught in a few years. Or...whatever the weight of a "big salmon" is nowadays. This has already happened with our salmon stocks, which is why salmon seem to get smaller and smaller over time

[Fin Chaser]

Thanks Rob! My main reason for bringing this topic up is that I saw a discussion online about it and almost all of those responding were in favor of the reduction. That seemed very odd to me so I wanted to find a good resource to get the whole picture. I'm glad I did.
I may be wrong, but it seems that far too many of our sport fishing issues in Washington are a result of short-sighted decisions and people acting on emotion, with little regard for the long term implications. It's too easy to get caught up in doing what feels good, instead of what does good. Yes, it would be fun for all of us to catch more fish by reducing the retention size, but that does not seem to be the wisest course of action. Thanks again for your insight guys. It was very helpful.

Scott