Area 9 Summer Fishery

[TomD]

Question for the Group...

In the last couple of years, the summer Mark Selective fishery (MSF) for chinook in Area 9 has been smoking hot from the get go, mainly up at Port Townsend... This has burned through the guideline or quota of chinook encounters faster than planned and forced the Department to take in-season action to limit the chinook impacts. Closing the fishery earlier than planned has impacted people's vacation and also impacted those folks like charters and tackle shops who lose business.

Anybody got some ideas on how to reduce the pace at which fish are caught up front and give us a chance to complete the planned season before we hit the chinook impacts???

Tom Drews
WDFW Puget Sound Sportfishing Advisory Group

[rcthepirate]

The solution is simple: curtail the C&R fishery between July 1 and July 16, and start the season off with a one fish limit. Not very many people get out and fish for resident coho during that initial early season. I would say the vast majority of fishing that goes on during that period is C&R for chinook, and even though those fish are released, a certain percentage are counted as fatalities and it eats up our sport catch quota. Also, considering we've had to drop the limit to one fish less than two weeks into the season for two years in a row now, and we get shut down right after that anyways, why don't we just start with a one fish limit? It'll piss some people off, but at least we'll be able to have a full season.

[Matt]

I have heard quite a bit of talk about having Area 9 divided into sub areas. If, as you say, the fair majority of the A9 catch is coming out of the Port Townsend area it might make sense to divide into an A9-1 and -2, or North and South. N A9 is fishing on all stocks of fish for the Sound, with the exception of those that enter VIA Deception Pass. They are fishing on a much larger total stock than many of the other areas. Also, decreasing the daily bag limit to 1 fish in that area may be wise to limit impacts on all other marine areas.

Now, I know that the catch quotas have been met quickly in the marine waters, but what can be said to the escapement needs of hatcheries. Specifically are they being met? and more-so are we seeing a surplus? If we are surplussing fish at the hatchery, I would say the problem lies in the regulation, forecasting, and quota allocation, rather than the catch itself.

WDFW test fishing data should be used to an extent to understand the pre-season forecasting, and help aid in the implementation of limits, and seasons. Presently I believe the test fishing data is used solely for in-season monitoring and observation. Get the test fishers out first, and in earnest, and let them have a go at it and see what is actually available to catch. If the fish aren't in thick, don't worry about dropping to a 1 fish per day bag; if they are nailing them all over, consider it.

[Bay wolf]

Tom, first, thank you for bringing this to the forum and using this media to solicit sports fishermen.

I have fished MA11 and 13 for many, many years. And I have seen first hand the decrease in not only migratory fish, but in the resident black mouth fishery in these areas. I have heard about the efforts to diagnose the problem and understand that it is probably not a single issue.

More to the point...

As more and more sport fishermen realize that Area 9 is enjoying a much better catch ratio than other Marine areas, you are going to see increases in numbers fishing A9. That, and the early open contribute to the rapid fulfillment of the Chinook quota. I agree that a one fish limit would extend the season, but the real root of the issue is the limited fisheries else where.

I understand that the issue of declining survival rates for lower sound are a major reason for the reduced numbers, but as long as the fish can be found in A9 with some abundance, the pressure on that fishery will only increase.

[TomD]

Thanks everybody! keep the ideas coming. We will probably discuss this a little bit at the Forecast meeting on March 3rd and I would expect much more at the first NOF meeting March 19th or the Mill Creek Meeting, which I think is the evening of March 22nd.

Bay Wolf - I agree with your point, but also wanted to give you some additional data... Last year the Department showed us some numbers that show there are actually more fish reaching Area 11 and 13 than in previous years, but the catch rate is way down in the South Sound... so something has changed where they aren't biting down there or are travelling a different way than people are used to... I'm not sure how to crack that code. I can try to scan the charts and post them if folks would like to see them.

Thanks everybody!

[fear_no_fish]

If we really want to reduce impacts on stocks of fish then all the nets destroying runs of fish must be stopped. Sorry someone had to say it.
But with that said the 1 fish limit and removing those 2 weeks were c&r of kings is going on. There are different charters selling trips for c&r on kings and they encounter more then a couple fish in that time. It not like there aren't coho around until November anyways so there is more then enough time for coho fishing.
I think the PT area could be put in its own zone for management instead of a North/South Area 9. For me and for plenty of other people getting a boat to PT just isn't going to fly for a day of fishing. There is enough fish to not even need to go that far anyways. So to loose out on about the only legit shot at Chinook is a MAJOR bummer.

[natetreat]

Thanks everybody! keep the ideas coming. We will probably discuss this a little bit at the Forecast meeting on March 3rd and I would expect much more at the first NOF meeting March 19th or the Mill Creek Meeting, which I think is the evening of March 22nd.

Bay Wolf - I agree with your point, but also wanted to give you some additional data... Last year the Department showed us some numbers that show there are actually more fish reaching Area 11 and 13 than in previous years, but the catch rate is way down in the South Sound... so something has changed where they aren't biting down there or are travelling a different way than people are used to... I'm not sure how to crack that code. I can try to scan the charts and post them if folks would like to see them.

Thanks everybody!

I love charts! The more information I can get the better. I like the idea of reducing the bag to 1 fish, if the quota doesn't get met, then extend the season or raise the bag limit. An early closure is no fun, it puts a damper on plans.

[Matt]

Not only does it put a damper on plans, it closes seasons that have been paid for by the fisherman when they purchased there license with no just compensation for such a taking.

If you close my season by 2 months, give me a refund on my license.

lol

[kodacachers]

Sounds like we have a consensus on starting out with a 1 fish limit instead of 2 then 1 then none! Anyone know how we can go about making it happen?

I'm no biologist, but am with Matt that it seems to me that we should also seriously consider breaking area 9 apart. From the map, i'd expect that every Chinook bound for Hood Canal and all the south sound areas and rivers pass through Midchannel Bank. If we had "Area 9-1" run north and west from the Foul Weather Bluff--Double Bluff line then the manages of "area 9-2" at least wouldn't have to worry about Hood Canal escapement issues.

[BARCHASER10]

I agree with Matt on this one. The summer run really does stack up at Mid Channel Bank and dividing MA 9 into two sub areas makes sense.

I have heard quite a bit of talk about having Area 9 divided into sub areas. If, as you say, the fair majority of the A9 catch is coming out of the Port Townsend area it might make sense to divide into an A9-1 and -2, or North and South. N A9 is fishing on all stocks of fish for the Sound, with the exception of those that enter VIA Deception Pass. They are fishing on a much larger total stock than many of the other areas. Also, decreasing the daily bag limit to 1 fish in that area may be wise to limit impacts on all other marine areas.

Now, I know that the catch quotas have been met quickly in the marine waters, but what can be said to the escapement needs of hatcheries. Specifically are they being met? and more-so are we seeing a surplus? If we are surplussing fish at the hatchery, I would say the problem lies in the regulation, forecasting, and quota allocation, rather than the catch itself.

WDFW test fishing data should be used to an extent to understand the pre-season forecasting, and help aid in the implementation of limits, and seasons. Presently I believe the test fishing data is used solely for in-season monitoring and observation. Get the test fishers out first, and in earnest, and let them have a go at it and see what is actually available to catch. If the fish aren't in thick, don't worry about dropping to a 1 fish per day bag; if they are nailing them all over, consider it.

[Bay wolf]

I'd sure like to see those charts!

[Toni]

One way of getting your ideas out there is to go to the WDFW North of Falcon meetings and let them know.

[TomD]

That's my main reason for asking here, is so I can represent folks when I go to the NOF meetings as a Salmon Advisor. Thanks for the input!

I'll scan the south sound charts and post them when I get a chance.