An interesting find about the nooksack river---

[dj2loud]

Evening all, was sitting here tying up some yarn balls tonite, thinking about how many steelhead I was gonna ponder about catching tomorrow, came across an interesting article while looking online about knot tying and I thought I would share the article....

http://westseattleblog.com/2014/12/when ... r-anglers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to me that the wild runs of pink and chum salmon is so abundant why is the Kings, coho and steelhead declining so fast? Could it be that wild fish are spawning with the hatchery fish and causing the decline?

Your thoughts and comments ?

[rseas]

I struggle with this type of article/propaganda. The author and hosting organization misleads the audience through misrepresentation and omissions. Sure there have been sucessfull hatchery removal programs but there have been just as many that were dismal failures. This reply is not intended to address the facts and data that was presented but to address a key omission.

The presentation did not address tribal netting unique to Washington State fisheries. Currently via the 1974 Judge Bolt decision (United States versus the State of Washington); the law allows tribal harvest of 50% of all fish returning to Washington State waters. That is 50% of all fish; including wild fish and fish produced by both tribal and Washington State hatcheries. The presentation omitted this fact and in doing so did not address the impact the current lawfull tribal fisheries has on wild fish recovery.

If we truly want change we will need to better manage the remaining 50% of returning fish while looking at fishing methods other than gillnetting. Fish weirs, traps and other descriminate means of harvest must be implemented.

I ran a gill netter through high school and as I look back on the experience the "bi-catch" was appalling. In any given set there could be a variety of shark, hake, true cod, lingcod, rockfish and both hatchery or wild nontarget salmonoids. One night I sunk a net with thousands of true cod as bi-catch. From the moment I realized that there was a problem I reattached the set to the spool and worked the net back in as fast as possible but the damage was done. I was able to pick some fish and release them alive but thousands of now endangered true cod perished and were wasted.

The intent of this post is not to further polarise the differnt opinions (wild versus hatchery). My intent is to get people thinking about the "big picture". The solution will be in all organizations working together to develop a selective fisheries management plan and realignment of harvest methods with the conservation goals.

[KING KONG COHO]

Thank You rseas! Could not have said it better myself! An incredibly complex issue to say the least! Nets, climate change, habitat, population growth, pollution to name just a few unfortunately! Propaganda? Indeed as I was formulating a reply (not as kind as yours) and you beat me to the punch! Love the comparison to Montana rivers in this "hit piece" as I've fished them all since the late 70's and they truly are remarkable fisheries but I can't recall seeing any or many dams in them nor nets in those pristine rivers either...

[spokey9]

I've read plenty of articles that go either way (either hatchery fish spawning are bad or that they don't affect the recruitment rates when spawning with wild). unfortunately none of them mention that we lose about half of the fish returning to Washington to Alaskan & Canadian fishing (both rec & commercial). Until I actually see a study that uses the various catch rates of both in and out of state for many user groups and techniques have on fish hitting the gravel (and recruitment rates) I tend to view most studies as incomplete work with bad info as a result.

[dj2loud]

I would have to agree with all of the replys so far, without an accurate fish count by the natives there will never be a truly accurate count of any species of salmon or trout in the nooksack. The current regulations set back in 74 by bolt is absurd in 2015 times. I can say that haven't been fishing in Washington state long (2010) --2011 on the samish 0- fish kept, 2012,13,14 -0 as I was out of state working, 2015- maybe 11 total fish bonked, 8 pinks, 2 coho and one chum) (I'm from the east coast - Maryland where we fish for stripers and largemouth bass on the Potomac river) and the regulations there are nothing like Washington. The regulations need to be changed, that's 41 years of tribal netting with no reguards for the fisheries, even though they say managers are working to make it 50/50, it's obviously not the sports fisherman that's loading up daily--- I saw 1st hand the gill netters throwing away dead fish they didn't want to keep below the bridge at deming and even talked to the one boater about just how close to the shore one can get( obviously we as sport fisherman we have to give right of way to them and I was in his way--- F off! Not only did he proceed to motor over my line and back his ass on the shore to get every fish he could, I got a 1/2 full 20oz bottle of Sunkist thrown my way---- lucky for him I wasn't packing--- the netting is also pretty bad down by the highway 9 bridge at times and we have even removed derelict nets 1/2 on shore and the other half either buried in sand or flopping in the current adrift... I know folks would like to say they would just cut the nets and let them drift or take them out but that's not the legal approach to the issues---- thank you guys for the replys

[Bay wolf]

With the current political system of money=favors, nothing will change. The sportsmen are nothing more than a nuisance to a state sponsored, subsidized commercial fishery. (Yes, tribal fishermen ARE commercial) The truly sad thing is. In this state, one elite section of the commercial industry has a federal court ruling entitling them to a guaranteed 50%, are able to manage harvest regulations, and are accountable to only themselves for adherence to the rules.

[megacabcummins]

What I find interesting is we have groups trying to shut down hatcheries for all the "harm" they do. But those same groups are doing nothing about gill nets in the rivers which do far more harm, especially when the nets are just left in the river. There's one under the HWY 9 bridge on the Nooksack right now I got a picture of it last Tuesday.

[TyeeMatt]

If you come to my work and get in my way I may also throw a 1/2 full 20oz bottle of Sunkist at you.

[Matt]

This was written BY an author ABOUT an author.

I still believe there is little to no scientific backing to many of these claims.

I don't know where any of you stand with Wild Fish Conservancy, but Dylan Tomine is a Patagonia FLY FISHING representative.... I am 100% positive he has spent plenty of time with the WFC boys soaking up their crazy like a sponge.

[strider43]

I've read plenty of articles that go either way (either hatchery fish spawning are bad or that they don't affect the recruitment rates when spawning with wild). unfortunately none of them mention that we lose about half of the fish returning to Washington to Alaskan & Canadian fishing (both rec & commercial). Until I actually see a study that uses the various catch rates of both in and out of state for many user groups and techniques have on fish hitting the gravel (and recruitment rates) I tend to view most studies as incomplete work with bad info as a result.

This is very true, we live in new information world in which most of it is "junk" science or data. Anytime there is any study results presented we have to ask: who did the study and what is their motivation(who is paying the bills)

[Bodofish]

This was written BY an author ABOUT an author.

I still believe there is little to no scientific backing to many of these claims.

I don't know where any of you stand with Wild Fish Conservancy, but Dylan Tomine is a Patagonia FLY FISHING representative.... I am 100% positive he has spent plenty of time with the WFC boys soaking up their crazy like a sponge.

No doubt in my mind.

[dj2loud]

I was just talking to a co-worker about this same issue... He is 61 and still on his hands and knees roofing daily, he was telling me that he used to fish the Nooksack in the early 70's before Bolts decision changed things for the worst...
He stated the rivers were chocked full of fish, including one 7 to 8 foot sturgeon just off the old pump road... ( I am assuming he meant harksell but he wouldn't say exactly ) Even brought in a photo of him and his father with the monster in the foreground... Its pretty sad to see that a bad decision in 74 is today still continuing to destroy the fisheries. Im not the sharpest tool in the shed if you catch my drift, but why hasn't anyone been able to push for a change? ( and I'd like to be a part of taking the system to the ground if need be... But where and with whom?

If you come to my work and get in my way I may also throw a 1/2 full 20oz bottle of Sunkist at you.

OUCHIE!

[spokey9]

first it's not all on the tribal gillnets, if you do some poking around you can find catch data for Alaska & Canada fisheries. The biggest issue facing our fish, imo, is mixed stock fisheries (especially in the ocean). As I stated before, we do lose about half of our fish outside (in certain watersheds that percentage is well over half on typical year) Washington waters before we can even get a line wet. That said, there are a lot of abuses in the tribal fisheries that magnify the mixed stock fisheries impact. Since we see the gillnets in the river it becomes a our focus for the lack of fish. I felt the tribes were killing our runs for a long time as well.

The boldt decision itself gave the treaty tribes up to half of the harvestable fish, so the tribal members could make a modest living. That decision while unpopular isn't that bad if held to the true context of the decision. The problems are from the subsequent court rulings that have essentially given the tribes free reign. Especially since the state has no real authority over treaty rights. Until the Feds get involved there's not a whole that can be done. Treaties are consider on par "legally" with our constitution. So congress would need to gather information and create legislation to fix or enforce more equitable sharing. Since politicians are usually well lobbied by tribal groups and wouldn't want to deal with the "racist" accusations, I don't see that in the near future.

We can petition congress to do away with the mixed stock ocean fisheries (both commercial & rec) to move towards terminal areas. That would help minimize the ESA impacts that limit our seasons. We can also elect people into office at a state & federal level that are willing to go to bat for Washington, finding a better solution so we don't lose so many fish to other fisheries before they ever show in our waters.

[spokey9]

Also if Mr. Gordon wasn't protecting his personal interest while in office and negotiated with the tribes their share would be much lower. He played hardball and lost. He deserves more blame for the boldt decision than Judge Boldt, imo

[KING KONG COHO]

This was written BY an author ABOUT an author.

I still believe there is little to no scientific backing to many of these claims.

I don't know where any of you stand with Wild Fish Conservancy, but Dylan Tomine is a Patagonia FLY FISHING representative.... I am 100% positive he has spent plenty of time with the WFC boys soaking up their crazy like a sponge.

Really I never would have guessed any of this...