salmon season regs

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Skeena88, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. Milt Roe

    Milt Roe Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Taco Ma
    Interesting discussion. I guess it all boils down to whether it is currently illegal or unethical to target coho for C&R when an area is closed to rentention of salmon. As I read the regs, it doesn't appear to be illegal as long as you don't retain fish. Whether or not it is ethical isn't something as easily determined. I don't see a need to judge those who have concluded that this falls within the range acceptable angling behavior. That's a slippery slope. It is also legal to intentionally kill 2 wild chinook caught from public fishing piers during the closure. Is that ethical?
     
  2. SeaRun1

    SeaRun1 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    It is my understanding that the closure takes place to protect from over harvest of Kings/Blackmouth that congregate in QMH for the herring spawn. Lots of herring gather up in there and its too easy to target Chinook at that time. Thats what I was told just to answer the question that was prompted before the argument broke out.

    SeaRun1
     
  3. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,813
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Searun1 -
    Until not a few years ago those fisheries were year-round. However with the listing of Puget Sound Chinook the needed to limit the fishing impacts on those fish arose which in turn resulted reduced seasons/opportunities. To date the regulations have not differentiate between shore and boat base anglers (with the exception of some listed fishing piers). So the regulations that effect say those blackmouth angler using downriggers to target Chinook also affect those beach anglers targeting salmon. While it would be possible to craft different regulations for say shore base fly anglers there hasn't been of a push for that type of management but frankly I not sure it would be worth further confusing the pamphlet and it would not do anything for those wanting to target CnR salmon from a boat.

    Milt Roe -
    You appear to feel that they areas closed to salmon fishing are only closed to the retention of salmon -"is currently illegal or unethical to target coho for C&R when an area is closed to rentention of salmon".

    My read of RCW 77.08.010
    section #11 - ""Closed season" means all times, manners of taking, and places or waters other than those established by rule of the commission as an open season. "Closed season" also means all hunting, fishing, taking, or possession of game animals, game birds, game fish, food fish, or shellfish that do not conform to the special restrictions or physical descriptions established by rule of the commission as an open season or that have not otherwise been deemed legal to hunt, fish, take, harvest, or possess by rule of the commission as an open season."

    Please note it talks about fishing - not retention of fish. As I read the regs the open salmon seasons are listed under the special restrictions for each marine area meaning that outside of those seasons it is closed which includes fishing for salmon. Whenever an area is closed for harvest - no retention - the pamphlet says so - see Orchard Rocks Conservation Area: on the bottom of page 114.

    Of course if you remember to say you are targeting flounders instead of salmon I guess it doesn't make any difference; however that is your ethical deliema to wrestle with.

    BTW -
    If anyone is interested in changing the regulations the avenue would be through the North of Falcon (NOF) process which deals with the salmon regulations and not WDFW's reg change proposals which deals with game fish and the non-salmon and halibut food fish.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  4. Milt Roe

    Milt Roe Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Taco Ma
    Well then, it seems that WDFW has a problem. Within your interpretation, the waters in question are both open and closed to fishing depending on the particular fish anglers intend to catch. Both open and closed fisheries can be conducted using the exact same gear. I agree that is an impossible regulatory solution. So lets blame the anglers?

    And given that regulatory snafu, what is the answer? As I said, I don't fish for coho during the closed season. So I don't lose any sleep at night. But the solution some apparently advocate of eliminating opportunity for both SRC and coho to address concerns about the anglers who do C&R coho, an activity which is legal 11 months out of the year, which is called into question now due to vague regulatory definition and ethical concerns, but not out of legitimate concern for either resource, all for a rule intended to ensure allocation (not protection) of an entirely different Federally listed species, which is only rarely impacted by either fishery, pretty much speaks for itself.

    Over and out. I've turned this discussion sour. I'll just shut up and listen.
     
  5. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    seems pretty clear to me that we have competing regulations, left hand doing one thing right hand another. if the ESA determined that chinook needed protection, salmon angling/retention is closed, it would seem that the enforcement issue would be crystal clear by simply closing an area to ALL fishing, case closed no excuse for being there with rod in hand.
     
  6. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,813
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Now we are really thinking -
    Folks seem to be saying - if a water needs to be closed for one species close it for all - end all this "nonsense" of having a water open for one species and closed for another at the same time.

    Let's see the Sound is open for ling cod from May 1 to June 15 therefore to avoid the problem of having the water open for only some species and closed for others the whole Sound should be closed to all fishing the other 10 1/2 months of the year.

    With only a couple exceptions all freshwater areas are closed to bull trout so virtual every river in the State should be closed at all times.

    Yeah this is going to work!

    We can manage each water/marine area based on the most conservative needs of the most limiting fishery found there. OR we could manage each water based on the needs of each fishery having potential different seasons for each thus providing the maximum amount of recreational opportunity. That of course would rely on anglers to have the common sense and ethics to differentiate between the fisheries - if that is asking too much then we should get use to having more limited opportunities in the future.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  7. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    so how's a specie specific season workin'???
     
  8. Milt Roe

    Milt Roe Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Taco Ma
    Just fine for the specie it was intended to protect.
     
  9. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    must mean the sport angler is now allowed a 'by catch' along with the NAs and commercial folks. nothing like evening out the playing field.
     
  10. Canoe Rider

    Canoe Rider Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Hey, catch the wrong species, do everything in your power to release it unharmed. We did that this past weekend after catching a rock fish while going for blackmouth in the San Juans.

    Can't do that with a net, or with the fish loss due to loss of habitat, or due to pollution, or due to dams, or, or...
     
  11. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    I hear reports from boat fishers trolling with down riggers, bait, spoons, hoochies, etc where they hook 30 - 40 'shakers' in one outing. Considering these guys are tageting the bigger fish using lures and bait rigged with very large hooks known to take out the eyes, gills, tongues, brains, etc of the 'shakers', I really don't mind a few beach fly fishers hooking these same 'shakers' off the beaches. Oh, and many times I hear stories about the 'shaker' that must have been hooked for 20 minutes before anyone even realized it. Anyway, I guess I'm not a fan of loop holes, but I'm also not loosing any sleep over a few fly fisherman catching a handful of these 'shakers' with their smaller hooks, careful handling, etc. I think shutting down certain areas for boat fishing makes much more sense.
     
  12. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,813
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    GT -
    Perhaps the fact that we are having this discussion/debate is the best indication that this species by species approach to management is working. After all would not be having this discussion about the good cutthroat fishing in the south Sound without the tailoring of the cutthroat regs to fit the biologicl and status needs of the fish. I shudder to think what the fishing might be today if the management of the sea-runs had continued as one of the trout - that is one size fits all management that you seem to be pushing.

    Yes there continues to be problems with many of our fish populations and their managemetn but it would remain my opinion that managing each species based on its needs is a much sounder approach that attempting to find some general season, bag limit or size limits that fits all. Many of our management problems are more related to social, political, and economic concerns rather than biological.

    Chadk -
    I understand exactly what you are saying about the "shaker: mortality in the blackmouth fisheries. However it is important to remember that estimates of those fishing related impacts from release mortality is included in the assessment of the various fisheries and whether the over-all impacts stay at or below the federally approved co-managers FMP impacts caps. Those caps were established for each stock and based some risk assessments. Now we can debate (and likely agrue whether those risks are excessive or not) but the fact remains that any of those handling imapcts from salmon fishing during "closed season" are not included. If you think that current impacts are excessive why would anyone support adding any additional impacts no matter how small to those existing impacts?

    Something to keep in mind in this discussion is that IMHO there is probably no more fragile salmonid that a fly angler is likely to encounter in their fishing than those juvenile Chinook. Any fish that loose their scales as easily as Chinook do are very vulnerable to handling. Some good news on the handling front is that many of those in the blackmouth fisheries use "de-hookers" to release the fish rather than handling the fish. If the fish are handled like anglers typcially do for sea-runs (either for release or photos) one could expect mortalities that would several times higher than that seen with the cutts.


    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  13. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    to clarify, i am not 'pushing' any specific idea, only exploring why we are where we are.
     
  14. hendersonbaylocal

    hendersonbaylocal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Seattle WA
    Chad: There were a few days this fall when we were catching 5+ "shakers" per hour trolling spoons for silvers. Your stories of fish hooked for 20 minutes before anybody knew are true. You just can't tell when your fishing a downrigger and such heavy gear.

    Is there any reason we can't just make it catch and release/fly fishing only during the closure? Seriously, very few people are actually catching kings on the fly and if they do are hopefully releasing them without harm. This is probably a stretch, but they could take a few days off the gear seasons to even out the "increased impact" of the "fly only" seasons.
     
  15. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    a part of my problem with the regulations are the inconsistencies.

    for example, the saltwater handling rule states that you can't take a fish you don't intend or are allowed to keep out of the water. however, in fresh water, you can pull natives out of the water, take your time posing, and then pretend to release your native fish unharmed. wouldn't the 'handling rule' make more sense applying to any fish that is to be released irrespective of where it was caught?

    second example, you must use a knotless net in fresh water. why not a knotless net everywhere???

    the attempt to set species specific seasons is commendable. however, we are dealing with the human species here and many folks either don't care or are intent on beating the game. with fishing allowed for SRCs anytime, anywhere, enforcement can't happen, even if there were sufficient enforcement folks to go around. so just what is the point of these specific seasons if, as we have seen posted here, there are folks out there breaking the rules and having a good time.

    over a hundred pages of if, ands and buts seems pretty excessive to this old guy. simple is always harder to achieve, but it certainly seems to me that the time has come to make the seasons simple and consistent.