Notice: Effective March 16, 2020, all in-person public meetings have moved to an online or phone-based platform due to concerns about COVID-19/coronavirus. WDFW will provide updated information on scheduling, along with ways to observe these meetings and provide public comment, as it becomes...
The expand a bit on SF's post - those proposed seasons are very much aspirational and without a doubt we will see significant changes (reductions) in some of those seasons. There will have to be major changes to significantly reduce Stillaguamish Chinook (mainly marked fish) and Snohomish wild coho impacts.
Suggest you join the public web cast for more information and take advantage of the opportunity to express your thought or provide them via the public input function.
Listened in to the meeting for a good bit today.
Didn’t comment as I asked most of my questions during the previous meeting.
After the meeting, I did wish I had asked about the impacts on late wild coho with the intense netting of chum on Hood Canal.
Not really a fan of the meeting format versus the in person meeting but it worked with all that is going on.
Stilly chinook, Snohomish wild coho and mid canal chinook will again shape our summer fisheries.
It will be interesting to see if an agreement can be reached in a timely manner and what WDFW folds on in regards to the seasons they’ve proposed.
While the proposed regs may look fair good they don't come close to what will reflect reality. Those proposed seasons run into direct conflict with achieving the required impact levels for those limiting stocks. Over-all for the Chinook package the most likely limiting stock will be the marked Stillaguamish Chinook. The information presented yesterday shows that those over-all impacts on that stock will have to be reduced at least by 35%. Achieving that sort of reduction will see significant reductions in some fisheries. Various winter blackmouth seasons and MA 7 fisheries summer and winter seasons sources of significant of impacts on that limiting stock.
How big of changes are needed? As I said some of the winter blackmouth seasons are sources of a lot impacts. The modeling presented yesterday indicated that even a complete closures of all the winter seasons in the MA5, MA 6, MA 7, MA 8 and MA 9 will not be enough. With those drastic closures only 85% of the needed impact reductions would be achieved. Much of the discussion yesterday indicate that many of us users still do not get how big of an issue this really is.
Again I encourage you and others whose fishing will be impacted to provide what opportunities are the highest priority for you to the state.
BK is correct however the situation with the Snohomish wild coho has changed dramatically in recent years its status has changed dramatically. In recent years that status has slipped to one of being classed as chronically "overfished". To escape that status the average escapement needs to increase to at least 50,000 spawners; current modelling indicate that expected this year will be less than 30,000. Since 2014 that level has only been reached once. Prior to that time the case could have been made that the Snohomish wild coho were the largest/healthiest stock in the lower 48 states; a number of years there were more wild coho spawning in the Snohomish than in the entire state of Oregon. Twice in the early 2000s (2001 and 2004) the Snohomish wild coho escapements exceeded 1/4 million!
Given the current status and what has been seen recently on the Stillaguamish and once on the Skagit it is not our of the realm of possibility see freshwater game closures for impacts to assure some continued marine fisheries. Stay tune.